1959-02-13

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Stanton.

Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the chairman of the committee on external affairs, the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White), by unanimous consent I move, seconded by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton):
That the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, presented on February 12, 1959, be now concurred in.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, I understood yesterday from the leader of the house that he was going to make a motion dealing with other matters. I would like to address myself to the motion and perhaps discuss it at the same time, if I am allowed to.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, once these motions are dealt with I intend to move that certain estimates be referred to certain committees.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be allowed to present the position of the opposition with respect to the matter that is now before the house?


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member after I put the motion. It has been moved by Mr. Dinsdale for Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Hamilton (York West), by unanimous consent:
That the first report of the standing committee on external affairs presented on February 12, 1959, be now concurred in.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Middlesex East for allowing this motion to stand over until today. What I intend to say now is that this motion, if it is passed, will create a serious hardship for those of us who sit in the opposition on this side of the house. I refer particularly to that part of the report which seeks the authority of the house to sit while the house is sitting.
There are many things I could say on the subject matter in general, but I know it is not the intention to have a general debate on it and I shall be brief. I shall say this
only. If the government wished it could, as it did at one period last year, have a number of those committees sitting at the same time. For instance, I am informed that at one stage last year there were as many as six committees sitting while the house was sitting. On the six committees which reported yesterday there are 66 members from the Liberal side of the house. That in effect means this, that if all of us were to attend to our duties in the committees there would be no one, or practically no one, left in the house to look after the business of the house. That is why I say this is taking undue advantage of the position in which the opposition finds itself. I should also like to point out to the government that this is the first time in the last 20 or 25 years at least that the opposition has found itself in such a position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, let me give the figures and we will see. I am informed that from 1936 to 1940 there were 74 members in the opposition, from 1940 to 1945 there were 67, from 1949 to 1953 there were 75 and from 1953 to 1957 there were 95.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: You mean in all parties.


Lionel Chevrier: All parties. Today in all parties there are 57, I believe, which is a considerably smaller number than obtained in those years. The result is that we are being asked to do now a far greater amount of work than was required at that time, and I think it is unfortunate that the government is giving no consideration to that position.
May I remind the house that the Prime Minister on more than one occasion-I think at least twice-gave some indication to the house that he intended to come to the assistance of those of us who sit in the opposition by providing us with additional help of some kind. That was not forthcoming, and I am not complaining; but what I am complaining about is that we who sit on this side of the house are not in a position to fulfil adequately the three responsibilities we have to fulfil, namely to sit as members of these committees while the house is sitting if the government so decides, to attend to office work involving correspondence and the like which must of necessity be handled in the forenoon, and to sit in the house to attend to our parliamentary duties.

External Affairs Committee
So I ask the government to give consideration to the position in which we find ourselves. It is a condition that perhaps I should not be complaining unduly about from the point of view of representation, but I am complaining about it from the point of view of work. This is simply asking too much of us. I believe I know what the house leader is going to say. He is going to say that they are taking this power now and may not use it, or may not use it until near the end of the session. My reply is that the power should not be taken unless it is intended to use it. It is quite easy for a committee to take this power in the dying days of the session when it is perhaps necessary to do so, but I do want to insist on the fact that if the government desires to have four or five or six committees sit and we have to attend to our duties on those committees, it will be next to impossible to attend to those duties and be in the house at the same time. I ask the government if it will not reconsider the untenable position in which we are placed at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, my good friend the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has made one very significant statement today which should not be overlooked. He has made it official that there has been a marriage between the Liberal and C.C.F. parties. He says they are blood brothers, that they are all one now, and that when it is a question of how the work of the opposition is to be done they are all working together and have not got as many in this brand new party as they would like.


Mr. Winch:: The marriage has not been consummated.


Howard Charles Green: What I am very anxious to hear is the reaction of the leader of the C.C.F. party to this very interesting proposal.


Mr. Argue:: A plague on both your houses.


Howard Charles Green: I know that while we were in opposition, although we got along splendidly with our friends of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties we certainly were never in the position in which the Liberals find themselves today, of trying to take the C.C.F. in and make one party.


Mr. Pickersgill:: They took you over.


Howard Charles Green: May I give them a warning right from the heart. The big danger they face today is that the C.C.F. will take them over in the next few years. Yet every-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I dislike interrupting the minister when he is in this vein, but I must warn him that he is straying far from the subject.


Howard Charles Green: I submit that this is very material, because the hon. member for Laurier argued that there were only 57 members to do all the work of the opposition. He treated them as one big lump. Surely I am in order in talking in this vein. I am very serious about what I say. This C.C.F. party, throughout its history in the House of Commons, has stood on its own feet and not tried to combine with any other party. Sometimes it will support one party or the other, and the next day it will be against them. I am sure that is their position today.
This attempt, just for the purpose of making an argument, to lump the C.C.F. with the Liberal party in a request that they not be made to work too hard and to try to get sympathy, is just a lot of poppycock. The actual fact is that these Liberals do not want to work too hard, and they are never here to work in the first place. Here you have eight members of the C.C.F. taking their full part in the debates in the house, and going into a committee where they may have only half a member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: -yet that half member makes more noise than all the rest of the committee put together.
Now, the sad and harrowing tale we are told today, that the poor Liberals are so tired they cannot possibly do their duty in the committees, is just too bad. What was our position when we were in opposition? For 18 long years we had fewer members than there are in the Liberal opposition today. It may be that from 1953 to 1957 we had about the same number as there are in the official opposition today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about from 1945 to 1949?


Howard Charles Green: For the whole time, except from 1945 to 1949, we were in the same position or a worse position than they are today. Did we come whimpering to the house?


Mr. Pearson:: You certainly did.


Howard Charles Green: We used the small numbers we had, and three or four men on the front benches did not try to do all the work. This is one of the reasons that we are over here on the government side today. Today the Leader of the Opposition is just like the little boy at the dike, only he is running from one dike to the other all the time the house is sitting trying to stop all the holes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The water is certainly coming through.


Lionel Chevrier: The government is going in all directions.


Howard Charles Green: These Liberals were in power so long, sitting in their seats and letting other people do the work, that they do not know how to take their coats off and get to work. They have able men on the back benches. For example, there is the hon. member for Nipissing. Why not let him lead one of their teams in the committees? No; these four horsemen of the Apocalypse have to be on every committee, and naturally they get out of breath sometimes.
What is the position, Mr. Speaker? The motion, in its present terms, has been the customary motion for many years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it has not.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Prove that.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Not at this time of the session.


Howard Charles Green: Ever since I came here in 1935. The hon. member for Essex East I understand agreed in the committee on external affairs that this report was the correct report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I said no such thing. What I said to the chairman was that we would agree to it on the understanding that it would not interfere with our obligations in this house; and that is the tenor of the submission made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and now being ignored by my genial friend the master of irrelevancy.


Howard Charles Green: I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Essex East should be a good judge of irrelevancy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is.


Howard Charles Green: Let us consider, for example, this motion in connection with the report of the external affairs committee which is under consideration. This committee will be hearing General McNaughton one of these days. General McNaughton has many other things to do. He is out of the country a good deal. It has been the custom to hear him right through when he is called. Perhaps only as a matter of courtesy he will be heard in the afternoon when the house is sitting. It is perfectly proper that this committee should ask for that power. I do not think my hon. friends can bring out one instance in the last session when they were not given reasonable treatment in every committee of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I can give an example. While the committee on public accounts was sitting we were asked to sit both morning and afternoon while the house was sitting, and we
External Affairs Committee protested. Not only did we protest but we said that we would not attend the meetings of the committee, because we felt that the business of the house was more important than that of the committee. That is what I am pointing to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee was hardly a good example to give to the house for the conduct of other committees.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree with that statement.


Lionel Chevrier: That is quite right.


Howard Charles Green: That statement applies, of
course, not only to our side of the house but also to the hon. member for Laurier in so far as he took part in the deliberations of the committee, and to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). I can assure the hon. member for Laurier and his brothers over here in the C.C.F., if they need assuring, that every consideration will be given to them. We have a clear recollection of the difficulties of being in opposition.


Lionel Chevrier: But my hon. friends did not give that consideration previously.


Howard Charles Green: My hon. friend is rather hard to please on occasion.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not hard to please; on the contrary.


Howard Charles Green: We will give them every consideration, Mr. Speaker. I was going to quote what the hon. member said about what a fair house leader I was last year, but I will spare him that experience.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was last year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member is slipping.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Essex East said "last year". I assure him that this year I am a year older and, I am afraid, a great deal more mellow than I was last year. This attempt to create sympathy across the country for the poor, hardworking Liberals is just a phony, Mr. Speaker, and we believe the motion should be carried.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the serious business of the House of Commons deserves the type of speech to which we have just been subjected.


An hon. Member:: You feel sorry for yourself, too.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it is most inappropriate for the leader of the government in the house to take this attitude toward this important business that comes before us. It seems to me
988	HOUSE OF
External Affairs Committee that it is a growing attitude on the part of this government, and that the government does not consider seriously the things that are being discussed. Instead of giving us some sound argument, and instead of trying to co-operate with all members of the house in dealing with the business of the house, we are subjected to a type of soapbox oratory which only the Minister of Public Works can attain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not at all offended by the things he said about the Liberals and the C.C.F. party. I know that when the Liberals were on the government benches we had a couple of Tory parties in this house, and now that the Liberals are in opposition they can, of course, change their attitude in certain ways. But we have demonstrated at all times that we are prepared to take a clear stand on our own. I think a vote which demonstrated this most aptly this session was a vote which might not have been necessary except that the government thought it might put the opposition on the spot by calling a vote on the main motion with regard to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. But on that occasion we found these two old Tory parties, one calling itself Liberal and the other Progressive Conservative, in the same bag voting together.
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for members of this house to act effectively on committees when the government follows the policy of having a great many committees meet while the house is sitting. There is no member of this house who does not wish to expedite the work of the house and the work of the committees; but this is a method, from the experience we had last session, which the government is using to make it virtually impossible for members of parliament to carry on in an effective way the business that is their responsibility.
We have heard about important people coming to appear before committees, and the difficulty of keeping them here for a number of days if the committees do not sit when the house is sitting. There is something in that argument, but only something. I do not know of any instance in the past when opposition members have objected to necessary sittings in order to hear important witnesses. In years gone by I can remember when we have had important witnesses appearing before the agriculture committee, such as members of the board of grain commissioners, members of the wheat board, some of the veterinarians concerning the great controversy over foot-and-mouth disease, but we always got the same story: "We have to


have extra sittings because these people have to get back to Winnipeg". We have had the extra sittings, have missed work in the house, and some of these important witnesses have been seen walking around the corridors for another day.
Therefore I think the members of this house should not support this measure at this time, a measure designed by the government to make it impossible for members of the opposition to do the kind of work that is their responsibility. How often have we heard the Prime Minister when in opposition say to the government that they should not use their big majority to override the opposition in such a way as to undermine the effectiveness of the House of Commons. I suggest that at this time, when this session is barely under way, this is no day to ask for the blanket approval of one motion after another to give all these committees the right to sit when the house is sitting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would not have been necessary for me to take part in this discussion if it had not been for the amusing but meaningless irrelevancies of my hon. friend the leader of the house, who tried to tell us on this side, with that amiable arrogance which at times is characteristic of him, how we should do our job. We appreciate his advice-


Howard Charles Green: If you followed it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we followed it we would probably be following very bad advice indeed; because surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not really the objective of the leader of the house to help us do our job. He might well lure us into a position where he would not be able to do it as effectively as otherwise we would. Therefore his advice is suspect on this matter, as is also his impassioned defence of the rights of the C.C.F. against the effort on our part, Mr. Speaker, to link ourselves with the C.C.F., as we shall do on all matters which affect the rights of the opposition in this house.
We remember, Mr. Speaker, the emotional and impassioned utterances of the present Prime Minister about the rights of the opposition against what he used to call an arrogant majority trying to dictate and determine how business in this house should be conducted. We remember even in the last session the assurance he gave us that not only would everything be done that could be done to give the opposition their rights in this house, but that no step would be taken to prevent the opposition discharging its primary duty, which is in the House of Commons and not primarily in committees.

We object to this move on the part of the government to divert-and it is more than a 15 per cent diversion-more and more of the business of this house to committees at the beginning of the session in accordance with the United States style of congressional government, which inevitably will prevent the opposition from doing its main job in the House of Commons where the work of government should be primarily conducted.
The minister said this kind of motion has been made for 20 or 25 years. I would ask him to point to any motion in 25 years which at the very beginning of the session, shortly after the debate on the speech from the throne concluded, sought to set up so many committees or give so many of them the right to sit while the house is in session. It has been done in respect of isolated committees on rare occasions, but we are being asked to agree to this step with respect to six committees. I suggest it is unprecedented, and if it is not unprecedented it is surely highly irregular.
We in the opposition are not alone in objecting to this motion. In the agriculture committee yesterday when this question came up, 10 of the Conservative members of that committee voted against the proposal to give the committee this power. I am quite sure that these 10 hon. gentlemen, being independent Conservative members, will undoubtedly support the stand we are taking on their behalf as well as on our own behalf at this time.
We base our case on the fact that it is reasonable. We are not whining or asking for sympathy. I believe we will be able to do our job without the help of the leader of the house. We are simply asking that this matter be postponed until it becomes clear that it is necessary for these committees to sit while the house is in session. Surely that is a reasonable position. When the time comes, as it undoubtedly will, when these committees have to sit while the house is in session we will co-operate in any motion to that effect; but to ask us to do so at the beginning of the session is unnecessary and unwarranted.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into the apparent controversy between the two groups in the opposition, except to note that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) certainly disavowed at the earliest possible opportunity the marriage of inconvenience that was suggested by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). He was not taking any chances on that, and he made it very clear.
I for one am always most anxious to see
that the house operates in a way that allows
External Affairs Committee the opposition to place its views properly and fairly before the house. I know something of what it is to be a member of a small opposition, and I realize that the responsibilities resting upon an opposition are very great. When an opposition endeavours to place before the house and the country its ideas and suggestions, that is after all its duty, objective, purpose and responsibility.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) speaks about this horrible innovation of having committees sit while the house is sitting and tells what a shock it has been to him that we should ever suggest that committees sit while the house is sitting, but I would point out to him that I have before me the Journals of 1956. I find recorded there that the house opened on January 11 in that year. The committee on banking and commerce presented its first report on March 6 and requested that the quorum be reduced and that permission be granted to sit while the house was sitting, to which unanimous concurrence was given. On March 8 there was a further motion that the committee on public accounts be given permission to sit while the house was sitting, and by unanimous consent the report was concurred in. On March 13 the standing committee on external affairs presented its first report and recommended that it be authorized to sit while the house was sitting, and again by unanimous consent the report was concurred in.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the Prime Minister a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely.


Lionel Chevrier: Was there any occasion in Votes and Proceedings or Journals from which the hon. member is reading when six committees asked for this power in February?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all that is being done at the moment is that the committees are being set up and given this power. This is an act on the part of this house to give this power at this time, and I shall make it very clear that whenever the hon. members of this house fairly and responsibly find themselves in a position in which an injustice is being done in any way and the matter is brought to my attention, I shall do everything I can to rectify it.
All we are asking is that power be given to these committees to sit while the house is sitting, as has been done in the past and as has been recommended in the first report of committees on previous occasions. Certainly there is nothing out of the ordinary in such a move. The position taken by those in opposition is purely a smokescreen designed to lead the Canadian people to think that because we
990	HOUSE OF
External Affairs Committee have a majority we on this side of the house are trying to use it unfairly over the opposition. We have done everything to ensure that every opportunity will be given to the opposition to discharge its responsibilities in a proper manner. I for one will say unequivocally that if at any time there is any action taken that would deny members of the opposition a fair opportunity of discharging their responsibility, I shall immediately see to it that a change is made in order to assure justice and fairness.
All this talk this morning is simply designed to create the impression that we are seeking to prevent discussion. I only hope that hon. gentlemen opposite continue to discuss this question in the manner they have, because having regard to some of the contributions made and as long as the discussion is of the nature of that which has occurred here today -a nature that has characterized their contributions in this house on more than one occasion-there will be nothing in particular to be concerned about on our part.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to that portion of his remarks that was in the nature of an undertaking on his part. Does he consider that the conduct of the banking and commerce committee last year, when it was dealing with the estate tax legislation, is the type of abuse that he would seek to prevent?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think that committee did an exceptionally good piece of work, and there was nothing to indicate abuse in any sense of the word.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, while I like to have a kindly man advising me at all times, I think it is hardly in keeping with the traditions of this House of Commons that one man should rise in his place and advise his little family that they can rest assured; father knows best, and if at any time there may be any little bit of hardship or any little bit of inconvenience or difficulty, they can all come running back to father and papa will look after their needs and assure them that they will be well looked after. I think that attitude, Mr. Speaker, is most disrespectful of the functions this House of Commons ought to perform.
After all, if these committees will not be needing this power for some time yet I see no reason why the age-old practice, which is well established by precedents, should not be adhered to. If and when the time arrives that these committees must meet


while the house is sitting, a separate motion can then be brought before the house. This has happened over and over again, except in the odd instance. However, exceptions are not the rule, even though in the opinion of some they may make the rule.
Who decides whether committees of this house shall sit while the house is sitting? I maintain it should be the members of this House of Commons, and not any one individual. We used to complain about parliament being run by the cabinet. I believe, Mr. Speaker, a dangerous situation is now arising because we now have not only parliament but the cabinet being ruled by one single individual. The members of the House of Commons are supposed to rest content; they are supposed to waive their rights and prerogatives in favour of a blanket assurance that all their wishes are going to be respected. I am realistic enough to know that kind father cannot keep those promises, because no parliament would be able to function efficiently if the members were always assured that all the wishes and conveniences of individual members were going to be attended to.
No, Mr. Speaker; after listening to a television broadcast the other evening I fully realized that there were many members in this House of Commons who may be-and for various reasons-unable to participate as effectively as they might like to in the work of the House of Commons, and that therefore there may be political hay to be made outside the House of Commons by making newspaper headlines through the speeches they make somewhere outside this house.
I have many reasons to believe that one of the urgent reasons for this motion is to give some of the backbench supporters of this government a chance to make a little bit of political hay which they otherwise would be unable to make. I hear there are many independent Conservatives who agree that there is no need for this motion, and I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) that the motion now before us be amended by deleting therefrom recommendation No. 1 and renumbering the present recommendation No. 2 as No. 1.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I refer the hon. member who has proposed a motion by way of amendment to citation 323 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, the second paragraph, which states:
A report from a committee cannot be amended by the house, but it must be referred back to the committee.

The motion is out of order and must be rejected.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that this report be referred back to the committee.
Surely the Prime Minister does not expect the members of the opposition to have the same confidence in his assurances that he has himself or that the members of his party may have. Yesterday we attended three of those committee meetings, and we were surprised at several aspects of those meetings. I assumed that these were meetings of the members of the committees as they were brought in by the striking committee. I assumed that the members were going to decide on the things that were to take place in those committees, but that is just not true. In one particular instance, when the clerk of the committee asked for nominations I moved a nomination and the nomination was completely ignored, although there was a seconder available. The committee went on to accept the motion that had been prepared previously on a party basis, and that is what was expected. The parliamentary procedure that normally prevails in a committee, as it is understood on this side of the house, was not observed in this instance.
As I understand the procedure, the clerk calls for the nomination. An hon. member moves the nomination, and as a rule in committee it does not need to be seconded. The nominee has not the right to withdraw until the nominations are closed. He can then choose to withdraw or accept the nomination. Those elementary rules were not followed. Several other motions were moved. Those motions were moved and the names of those who were moving and seconding them were written down on a piece of paper. These names were not proposed by the committee but came from some other source as a matter of policy. I suggest that this is not my understanding of how committees should be constituted and how their work should be carried out.
I was also very surprised to learn that a motion such as this should be introduced at this time in the three committees that I attended. After all, it was only the first day that the committees sat. This is no longer an emergency session. This is not a session that was called with an election anticipated very shortly.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege or a point of order, I was a member of the
External Affairs Committee external affairs committee which sat yesterday, and I do not recall any of the situations developing about which the hon. member is speaking. It has no reference to what took place in the external affairs committee.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the remarks that were made previously have been of a general nature. It is true that the hon. member and I did not attend the same committees. Since general remarks have been made, I thought I could make those remarks on this matter of asking committees to sit while the house is sitting. I do not think there is any emergency; and certainly in the years when the house was changing the rules if there had been any desire to have the committees act in this way, it would have been placed in the rules of the house.
Second, as time goes by and the end of the session draws near there may be some justification in reducing the quorums of committees for the reasons that have been given, those reasons in many cases being quite bona fide. Nevertheless I do not think there was any justification for certain members, who had no recollection of past abuses because they were attending their first committee meeting, coming to those meetings and asking for a reduction in the quorums. These things may be necessary at a certain time, and I think our group will agree to them when the necessity is such as to indicate that it would be advantageous to do something about the matter; but I think we are working considerable hardship on the members of this house so far as the discharge of their duties is concerned when both these requests are made at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry the hon. member has not yet complied with the rules if he wishes to refer the report of the committee back to the committee, because a reference back would accomplish nothing unless the house instructed the committee what to do. The committee is not able to change its own decision. That is clearly pointed out in citations 322 and 323 of Beauchesne, fourth edition. In the absence of a motion which is acceptable, is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


Mr. C. A. Calhers (York North):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move: That the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce presented on February 12, 1959, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I am not inclined to give my consent and to make it unanimous, lest advantage might be taken of the situation in order to railroad something else. I am opposing the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Failing unanimous consent, notice of this motion must be given in the usual way.



MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS    MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move: That the first report of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters presented on February 12, 1959, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to proceed with this motion?


Alexis Pierre Caron: For the same reason,
Mr. Speaker, I oppose it.



ESTIMATES-FIRST AND SECOND REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE    CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT

Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move: That the first and second reports of the standing committee on estimates presented on February 12, 1959, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to proceed with this motion?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am opposed to it, Mr. Speaker, for the same reason.


Arthur Smith: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move:
That the second report of the estimates committee presented on February 12, 1959, be now concurred in.


An hon. Member:: You did that the first
time.


Arthur Smith: I might point
out that this is the report which contains a recommendation to refer the estimates of a department to this committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to move concurrence in the second report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The second report, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move:
That the first report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills presented on February 12, 1959, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the answer the same?


Alexis Pierre Caron: The answer is the same.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Hayden Slanton (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move:
That the first report of the standing committee on agriculture presented this day be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Alexis Pierre Caron: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move:
That items numbered 254 to 260 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates of 1959-60, relating to the Department of National Revenue, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on estimates, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of the public moneys.
National Revenue


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member for Laurier-if he wishes to speak on this motion-that it is not a debatable motion and that it must be accepted or rejected without discussion.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that the house leader, in giving the business of the house on Tuesday, indicated that he was going to move the next day-and at my request held up his motion-that the estimates of two other departments be referred to certain committees. This is a department of which no notice was given. I should like to have permission-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not protesting this particular part but what I should like, with the unanimous consent of the house, is permission to be allowed to express an opinion with reference to what is being done as compared with what was done in the last session. I will not pursue the matter any further unless I have permission to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the house leader for his courtesy.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to do what he has requested permission of the house to do?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: What I should like to bring to the attention of the house leader and the government is this. It was my experience during the sittings of committees last year that this practice has not worked out satisfactorily. I had hoped that the government would not see fit to refer these estimates of various departments to separate committees, save and except, to the committee on estimates which was established for that purpose; the reason being that my experience in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines dealing with the Department of Transport estimates was such that I thought-and I am sure it was the thought of most of the members who were there-that it was a complete waste of time to have the departmental officials go before the committee, particularly in a department like the Department of Transport which is so huge and takes in so many branches of transportation and communications, and for the committee to take up the time of those officials with a repetition of matters that would unquestionably come up for discussion again in the house on the estimates in general.
9S4

National Revenue
It had seemed to us that perhaps that practice could have been stopped this year. I am happy to say that one thing the government has decided to do is discontinue the practice of study groups; because that, as the house saw last year, was a complete loss of time. While it might have been of assistance to certain members on the other side of the house, there are ways and means of assisting new members, and it seemed to me that that should not be done at the expense of those of us who are so few in number on this side.
There was one other point, if I may be permitted to make it, and I shall do my best not to trespass on the time of the house. These committees will be sitting in the morning, and as the house leader knows there are 17 standing committees to which will be added the special committees, so I think they may run to as many as 20 or more. Those committees may sit during the morning; and if the estimates are sent to these various committees then it becomes impossible to carry on the work of the house. It becomes impossible to carry on the work which has to be done in each office and to prepare for the work of the house during the course of the afternoon or the morning, according to the time the house sits.
Therefore I appeal to the house leader and to the government and ask them if it would not be much better to allow these estimates to go to the estimates committee rather than send them to the separate committees requiring the attendance of members of the house. I ask that with all respect, because it seems to me to be a duplication of our work. I realize that the government has its difficulties, and we had the same difficulties when we were on that side of the house, with reference to the large number of new members and so forth; but as I said earlier, there are ways and means of dealing with that situation.
The Prime Minister, in speaking to one of these motions last year, indicated the manner in which that could be done. He also indicated that perhaps some assistance could be given, but there was no sequel to that indication. The Prime Minister further indicated that he hoped that one of these committees would deal with certain matters in the same way the war expenditures committee had dealt with them when he and I had the privilege of sitting on such a committee at one time.
I do not want to get into an argument, because I have received unanimous consent to speak, but unfortunately that committee did not operate in the method and in the manner expected by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says now, "Well, if there is any difficulty, come to me and I will see that

it is straightened out." It seems to me that while that is a nice gesture on the part of the Prime Minister, that is not the way in which the business of the house should be conducted; and I appeal, with deference, to the house leader and the government that these estimates in particular should not go to separate committees so the whole business will have to be repeated when the estimates are before the house.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may be permitted to say a few words.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister unanimous consent to reply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: The estimates which are dealt with in the motion now before this house are to be referred to the standing committee on estimates. The hon. member for Laurier will realize that just a few moments earlier the house concurred in the second report of the standing committee on estimates, which was a recommendation that the estimates of the Department of National Revenue be sent to them. This committee, of course, can only function if the estimates are so referred.
It would be quite impossible for that committee to deal with all estimates. We shall try to keep it busy by sending as many different departmental estimates as possible to it for consideration. But there are other committees; for example the committee on external affairs and the committee on veterans affairs. In the case of the former it has always been the practice to refer the estimates of the department to that committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt the house leader to say that with respect to those two departments, there is no doubt but that they should be sent to their respective committees. I was dealing with the others.


Howard Charles Green: The practice has been to have a debate on external affairs on a motion to refer the estimates of that department to the standing committee on external affairs, and I think this has worked out very well. The standing committee on veterans affairs was set up for the first time last session and we propose to follow a similar practice with that committee, and I believe this has the approval of all parties in the house. I am proposing to move that the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs be so referred once this present motion is out of the way. I am also proposing to move that the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys be referred to the committee on mines, forests and waters.


Lionel Chevrier: When?


Howard Charles Green: This morning, as I told the hon. member for Laurier last week. In this case there are various problems which can best be considered by that committee. The same is true of the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I think a similar practice is wise in the case of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
In view of the representations made by the hon. member for Laurier concerning the estimates of the Department of Transport, we do not propose to move that those estimates be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Our main purpose in adopting this system last year was to try to work out a more efficient method of dealing with the estimates. Mind you, we were also attracted to this course by the desire to allow new members of the house to obtain quickly an understanding of the way business is done; and I think, by and large, the work done by the various committees which dealt with estimates last year was good.
We are not trying to deceive the opposition parties in taking this position. We are simply trying to work out a more efficient way of handling the business of the house, and in this connection we have had very good co-operation from the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). But today, as I say, I propose to refer these estimates of the Department of National Revenue and the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to the respective committees.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Howard Charles Green: With the unanimous consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That items numbered 448 to 473 inclusive, and items Nos. 487 and 488, as listed in the main estimates for 1959-60, relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that this motion is properly made under rule 57 without unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
66968-9-63J
Arctic Oil Development Activities MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS

Howard Charles Green: That items numbered 186 to 213 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates for 1959-60, relating to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this is the motion to which I was addressing my objections earlier. I presume the house leader will be making similar motions from time to time to send other estimates to various committees. It was to this motion and not to the first two that I was addressing my objections, and again I appeal to him to give consideration to proceeding in this fashion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



ARCTIC ISLANDS AND UNDERWATER LANDS


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minisier of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the intense interest by news sources in the last few days in the search for oil in the Arctic islands, I thought I owed it to the house to make a statement as to what is actually transpiring.
Since the middle of January, 1959 there have been 10 oil companies and individuals who have made application for oil and gas lands in the northern islands of Canada and on lands underlying the coastal waters bordering Canada. I should like to emphasize to the house that this is in addition to the 76 million acres now under permit in the mainland of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
In the Arctic islands the oil and gas regulations are being revised, and until such time as the revision is complete no permits are being issued. However, applications are being received and filed on a priority of application basis so that when the revised regulations come into effect, those who have made application, upon payment of the required deposits and fees, will be issued permits to explore for oil and gas in accordance with the priority list.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Up to 11 a.m. this morning approximately 50 million acres had been applied for in the Arctic archipelago covering geological structures and gypsum domes, extending from Banks island on the southwest and easterly to the northerly portion of Baffin island, north to the north-central part of Ellesmere island and southwesterly through the Sverdrup islands to Banks island. The geological survey of Canada have completed a study of this area, and are presently preparing a full report on the Queen Elizabeth islands. It is expected that the westerly portion will be available for distribution by March 1, 1959.
I have here a list of the companies and the acreage taken out, but I shall reserve that for a later announcement, probably in committee.
Along the west coast of Canada, Pdchfield Corporation have applied for acreage underlying the waters in the vicinity of Graham island in British Columbia, and Canadian Homestead Oils Limited have applied for acreage under the Fraser river delta. There is approximately 500,000 acres in the two areas applied for by these companies. Underlying the waters of Hudson bay and James bay, along the southwesterly coast, one company has asked for an oil concession of approximately 25 million acres. However, until the regulations for the disposal of mineral rights underlying the waters of Canada are promulgated, no permits can be issued.



PRESENTATION OF GIFT FROM GOVERNMENT OF URUGUAY

Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house that immediately after the mid-day adjournment at one o'clock there will be a presentation ceremony in the hall of honour immediately in front of the entrance to the parliamentary library at which the charge d'affaires of Uruguay, Mr. Ernesto Benavides, will present to the parliament of Canada, represented by the Speaker of the senate and myself, a special edition of the complete works of the great Uruguayan humanist and philosopher, Carlos Vaz Ferreira. The chamber of deputies of Uruguay have offered this gift to our parliament and to other parliaments in the western hemisphere as a gesture of friendship and good will, and I hope many hon. members will be able to attend the brief ceremony at 1 p.m.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask

the Prime Minister whether he would arrange a meeting between representatives of the federal government, the government of British Columbia and the municipalities most concerned, first in an effort to prevent the interruption of sea communication between Victoria and Vancouver and, second, to set up a joint committee of experts of the federal and provincial governments to make a survey and report on the whole transportation system between Vancouver island and the mainland.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did not give any notice of this question; therefore I can do no more than say this. While I fully realize the desirability of assuring to the people of Vancouver island adequate transportation facilities, I do not at the moment know of any responsibility that rests upon the federal government in connection with this matter. Naturally we are concerned over this question, and we realize the difficulties attendant upon the projected action to be taken by the C.P.R. While saying that we realize that the consensus is that the problem is not within the field of jurisdiction of the dominion government or the dominion parliament. Nevertheless we are reviewing the situation to ascertain the facts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the reply just given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition I should like to know if the attention of the Minister of Justice has been directed to the statement of Attorney General Bonner of British Columbia, when he advised the legislature there that the province did not have any jurisdiction in the matter. I should like to know if in view of this statement the Minister of Justice has inquired of the law officers of the crown as to whether or not the federal government has constitutional authority and responsibility in this matter.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to meet with the attorney general of British Columbia this afternoon, and the whole matter to which the hon. member refers is under consideration and will be discussed at that time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's

well-known position on former occasions with respect to the undesirability of high Bank of Canada rediscount rates, would the minister care to comment on yesterday's announced increase in the Bank of Canada rediscount rate to 3.81 per cent, and would he say whether in his opinion this very high rate has an adverse effect on recovery from the present recession?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members must be aware that this rate fluctuates from week to week in connection with the weekly offerings. In some recent weeks it has been down and in some it has been up. It has been a matter of fluctuation within a not very wide range. The hon. member should not attempt to read too great significance into these fluctuations from week to week.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the government's policy is in conformity with this very high rediscount rate and what the minister used to call tight money?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the tight money policy that my hon. friend speaks of and which we who now sit to the right of Mr. Speaker denounced when we were in opposition was a policy imposed from above that denied opportunity to people to obtain loans simply by reason of the policy imposed, and that had the effect as we quite properly said of strangling development. One of the results of that policy was high interest rates at that time, but no one can accuse the present government of doing anything to create an increase in the interest rates.


Mr. Habel:: What about conversion loans?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They held them down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The house will appreciate that this is a question of policy.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice a question. Because of public interest, would the minister be kind enough to tell the house whether legislation pertaining to obscene literature and the humane slaughtering of animals will be coming down shortly in this house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to speak to me earlier about this matter. The
Inquiries of the Ministry speech from the throne forecasts that at this session there will be legislation to amend the Criminal Code and it is still the intention of the government, as indicated there, to submit a proposal with regard to obscene literature.
The speech from the throne also states that the question of the humane slaughtering of animals will be referred to one of the committees of the house, and I can tell the hon. gentleman that arrangements are being made now to refer that matter to the appropriate standing committee.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister any progress report to make on the negotiations between the C.B.C. representatives and the producers of the Montreal French network? If not, can the minister inform the house whether his new parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers), is expecting an agreement in the near future?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is not the parliamentary assistant of any minister, but I will say that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George did more to achieve a settlement of this strike than any other hon. member in this House of Commons, and deserves the compliments of all.
I think the house has been brought up to date as to what transpired during my enforced absence. Negotiations were carried on last week between the producers and the corporation with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George present for part of the time. As a result of the prolonged discussions running over the whole week, and sometimes for many hours each day, an agreement, as I am told, was reached with respect to practically every issue outstanding between the producers and the corporation.
One matter which was in abeyance was as to when they would go back to work. Having reached an agreement, or virtually an agreement, on all those matters, with perhaps a little difference as to the wording here and there, when they came to paragraph 1 that could not be initialled because the producers said they would not be able to go back to work until arrangements were made for settlement of the matter as to what treat-

Inquiries of the Ministry ment the other union members would receive who had honoured the picket lines or had absented themselves from work; and that issue, as I understand it, is still outstanding between the corporation and whether it is the producers or the other unions I am not in a position to say; I think it was the other unions rather than the producers. The producers are sort of caught. One can appreciate their sense of loyalty to the friends who stood by them, but they are caught between the two. The other unions say, "Don't go back to work until we are looked after", and there the situation remains at the moment. I am told that all those other employees other than the producers, are members of unions which have contracts with the corporation, and that included in those contracts is a grievance procedure whereby this or any other grievance can be settled in the ordinary way.
The corporation has suggested to the other unions involved that the picket lines be withdrawn and the producers go back to work and these grievances, if they see fit, together with any others which they wish to raise, should be dealt with in the usual manner of grievance procedure which is set out in the contracts existing at the present time between the corporation and the unions. The unions have not wanted to adopt that procedure and have come up with alternative suggestions. I understand that last night another suggestion was made on behalf of those other unions to the corporation, and that the corporation either now or later on this week will be giving it consideration and will probably be asking the executive committee of the board to consider it.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Does the minister intend to issue a postage stamp on the occasion of the inauguration of the St. Lawrence seaway at Montreal? If so, what will be its design?


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Minister, I should like to second that question.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, there will be such a stamp. As was announced a few months ago, Canada and the United States will jointly issue a commemorative postage stamp of the same design to mark the opening of this great
[Mr. Nowlan.l
undertaking. I am not as yet in a position to give all particulars of the design, as the United States and Canada will be making a joint announcement later on. However, I can say that the stamp will carry both the maple leaf and the American eagle.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to complete the question directed to the Postmaster General by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. The minister said earlier that a commemorative postage stamp is to be issued at the inauguration of the St. Lawrence seaway. Could he tell us whether the minister has considered issuing this stamp with the effigy of the hon. member for Laurier as mainly responsible for the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Ridiculous!


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, we do not issue stamps bearing the effigy of living persons, and I find that the hon. member for Laurier is very much alive.
(Text):



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: 
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I had to make it clear, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. W. Monieilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice just as I came into the house that the hon. member intended to ask this question today. As a matter of fact, since I have come into the house 1 have read the article to which he refers, but I would prefer to take this question as notice.



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I regret that I have not had the opportunity of giving him notice. The question is based on a press dispatch in the Vancouver Sun of January 29, 1959 to the effect that Canada is blocking a world conference on lead and zinc. Will the minister advise the house as to what stand Canada is taking on such a conference, and whether such a conference or meeting will be convened within a reasonable time?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have just been reading the article which the hon. member passed over to me a few minutes ago. It is a report originating in New York and republished in the Vancouver Sun. The substance of it is in the second paragraph and reads as follows:
And in Washington, scepticism greeted a report that undersecretary of state Douglas Dillon had found Canadian opposition to the proposed conference weakening during his visit to Ottawa early this month.
The subject of lead and zinc was under discussion at the meeting of the joint United States-Canadian committee on trade and economic affairs on the 5th and 6th of January, 1959, and in the communique issued on January 6, which expressed our view on this matter, these words are found:
The Canadian ministers expressed their continuing concern over the quota restrictions imposed by the United States last September on imports of lead and zinc and outlined the effects they are having on the Canadian mining industry. The United States representatives hoped these restrictions could be withdrawn as soon as more satisfactory international solutions on a broader basis are found. In the meantime, it was agreed that both governments would explore further the possibility of developing such equitable solutions.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Our stand remains the same with regard to this matter, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: May I ask a supplementary question. My question was directed to a world conference. Can the minister tell us whether or not Canada has taken any part or is taking any part in arrangements for a world conference to deal with this subject?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The suggestion of a world conference is contained in this statement where it uses the words, "more satisfactory international solutions on a broader basis are found." The intention there was to join in a conference with all the producers of lead and zinc, and we expressed our agreement with that proposal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister not aware that the Hays-Coffin report which was printed a few weeks ago also states that the Canadian government has been opposed to an international conference respecting these materials?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we have expressed our point of view to the Americans with regard to this matter. We expressed the hope that these restrictions on lead and zinc entering the United States could be removed without going into further consultation in a broader held, but the Americans suggested that they would like to do it in this other way. Our position has been made very clear to them.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transpori):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for St. John's East concerning the Portugal Cove-Bell Island ferry service, which is disrupted at the present time due to ice conditions, I wish to advise that the departmental icebreaker Cornwallis has been dispatched to the area. It is expected that it will arrive early tomorrow morning, and that the service will be resumed shortly.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should
like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister's attention been drawn to recent newspaper

Inquiries of the Ministry stories to the effect that India plans to seek $700 million in aid from her five chief creditor countries and the world bank to fill the foreign exchange gap in her five year development plan? Has India asked Canada for a loan? If so, what action has been taken?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have
seen the article in question and I do know that India is seeking further assistance under its five year plan. I can state that representatives of the Department of Finance will attend a meeting in Washington in the near future.



INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT OF ADDICTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, all I have to say in this regard is that Mr. Leger, who was then undersecretary of state for external affairs, speaking specifically on behalf of the then secretary of state for external affairs in the external affairs committee on June 21, 1956, reported that following thorough discussion between all interested departments it had been decided that there was no need for Canadian corridors across the panhandle to the sea. I can assure the hon. member that there has been no change since that time in this regard.']
Harold Edward Winch: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister noted the report in yesterday's Toronto Star stating that Judge Samuel Factor has said that drug addiction should be treated as a disease but that his hands are tied by the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act in the sentencing of addicts, and that he had written several letters to Ottawa urging that hospitals be established but to no avail. Can the minister inform the house what consideration is being given to this most important matter as outlined by Judge Factor, and can he say whether legislation will be introduced at the present session?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article in question, and speaking from recollection I do not think Judge Factor has written to me. He may have written to my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or his department, under whose jurisdiction the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act comes at the present time. As I informed the house some time ago, studies have been instituted and are now under way between my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his officials and myself and officials of my department, including officials of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with regard to the whole question of narcotics.
While I do not wish to minimize the importance of the problem or the desirability of action, I am not able to say whether it is going to be possible to recommend legislation at this session, because it is an extremely complicated question on which there are wide divergences of very deeply and strongly held opinions.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will comment on a statement made by Senator Gruen-ing of Alaska as reported in yesterday's Toronto Star to the effect that he would try to speed action giving Canada a corridor through the Alaskan panhandle to the Pacific ocean.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say in this regard is that Mr. Leger, who was then undersecretary of state for external affairs, speaking specifically on behalf of the then secretary of state for external affairs in the external affairs committee on June 21, 1956, reported that following thorough discussion between all interested departments it had been decided that there was no need for Canadian corridors across the panhandle to the sea. I can assure the hon. member that there has been no change since that time in this regard.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucesier):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house whether any regulation had been passed by the federal government requiring grade A large eggs for export to be packed in cardboard, thereby eliminating wooden crates for that purpose?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: In some areas we lay down that eggs must be packed in cardboard cartons for export to certain destinations because that is the only way in which those destinations will accept the eggs.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Does this apply to all provinces?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker; it is not a matter of provinces at all. It is a question of where we happen to have eggs which are in surplus supply and can be moved most expeditiously and cheaply to these markets.


George James McIlraith: Can the
minister advise us if eggs are being sold to other countries at a price below that being paid for them?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In some cases, yes, at certain periods of the year.


Mr. Speaker:: I see that the hon. member for Port Arthur is on his feet. If no other hon. members desire to ask questions perhaps the house would deal with his question now so we can get into committee of supply. If there are other questions I will call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: It is a
pleasure to ask a question in this quiet atmosphere, and I direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has his department given any consideration to action which would protect trading and shipping interests of Canadians in view of the United States decision, announced two days ago, to subsidize Grace Lines on operations into the great lakes, which operations specifically include the requirement that ships call at Canadian lake ports?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me rather short notice of this question. I have some familiarity with the problem he raises, but I should like a little more information and I would prefer perhaps to discuss this with him later on or give him a more complete answer on a future occasion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. Since the minister is, in effect, going to take this question as notice, will he inform me later whether the government has received any request from Canadian shipping interests or other bodies interested in shipping, such as the seamen's international union, for direct subsidies to enable Canadian ships to compete on a fair basis with such subsidized United States ships in the great lakes?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall take both questions as notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour the following question. In view of the inflammatory 66968-9-64
Inquiries of the Ministry statements made by Premier Smallwood, namely his reference to the I.W.A. strike as a civil war and his threat to drive the I.W.A. out of Newfoundland, as reported in the Globe and Mail of today, will the Minister of Labour offer his services to bring the paries together to restore normal industrial relations, thus preventing any further deterioration subsequent upon the unfortunate statement of Premier Smallwood?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question the propriety of raising in the house a question of this kind, which relates to the conduct of the premier of a province, which is certainly not a matter under the jurisdiction or responsibility of any of the ministers who might be asked it.


William Arnold Peters: My reason for asking the
question is that normal industrial relations procedures have broken down. Will the minister, therefore, allow his department to intervene to re-establish these normal industrial relations, in view of the fact that there has been a board established under provincial government sponsorship and there has been certification, and in view of the statement-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Arnold Peters: -which would tend to eliminate normal industrial relations procedures.


Mr. Speaker:: While I have no objection to the hon. member asking whether or not the minister would allow the federal machinery to operate, if it is applicable, it seems to me to be rather a pointless question. Does the minister wish to answer the question?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: All I can say is that this matter comes entirely under the jurisdiction of the province of Newfoundland. There is no way in which I could intervene.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since I understand C.B.C. radio facilities were made available to Premier Smallwood for his attack on the union, will the minister say whether-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -the same C.B.C. facilities are available to the union for reply?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have no knowledge of this matter whatever. Programming comes solely within the jurisdiction of the C.B.C. I am quite confident, from my experience with that organization, that any facilities which have been supplied to one would be offered to the other. There can be no question on that score whatever.

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



USE OP SYNTHETIC HORMONES IN STOCK FEEDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct another question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, wSich will be quite brief. In view of there being a danger to the health of human beings, according to many medical authorities, is the use of synthetic hormones in poultry and stock feeds prohibited by law in Canada? If so, what procedures are used by the minister's department to assure compliance with the law?


Jay Waldo Monteith: My reply, I hope, will be comparatively brief as well. Commercial products of the type referred to that are now allowed sale in Canada have been thoroughly investigated and offer no danger to the health of the public because no residue of hormones remains in the meat when consumed.
There is a specific prohibition in the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act against the sale of poultry for use as food if it contains: any residue of hormones added to the feeds, and the sale of any food containing harmful and poisonous substances is prohibited by the Food and Drugs Act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a supplementary question on this matter because of its interest to a number of people. A considerable quantity of these items is used in the United States quite lawfully, to a much greater extent than in Canada. What is done to make certain that this imported poultry complies with our law?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I might say that samples are taken from both the domestic market and from import shipments from time to time or when there is any particular reason to suspect the presence of added hormones. The samples are then tested in the food and drug laboratories. If hormones are found the food is removed from the market.



USE OP EASTERN ELEVATORS FOR U.S. STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received the report of the eight-man study group sponsored by the Canadian wheat board and the Winnipeg grain exchange, dealing with policies regarding the storage of United States grain in ^eastern Canadian elevators? If so, has the minister considered the statement of the committee that United States
grain should be prohibited from eastern elevators for the period from November 15 to the end of March? Will the minister say what action is being taken?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have received a copy of the extremely interesting and useful report of the St. Lawrence seaway joint study committee sponsored by the Canadian wheat board and the grain shippers and exporters association of the Winnipeg grain exchange. The entire question of the handling of U.S. grain through eastern terminal facilities is under study, and in this connection the reference by the committee to the prohibition of the storage of U.S. grain during the period beginning November 15 and ending in March of the following year has been noted and will receive due consideration.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Will the Minister of Justice give any assurance that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Newfoundland will continue to be used for the maintenance of law and order and not as government troops in the civil war announced by the premier of Newfoundland?


Edmund Davie Fulton: do not know to what the hon. member's question refers, but I can assure him I do not require any such assurance as that which he contemplates because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would not, in any circumstances, be used in the capacity he has indicated.


William Arnold Peters: May I
inquire from the Minister of Justice if any additional R.C.M.P. are being flown into Newfoundland at the present time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have received no word of any such movement, Mr. Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacEwan in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Fish culture and development branch-
704. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $55,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister say a word about what is involved here?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Fisheries proposes to construct a spawning channel in Robertson creek

in the great central lake area of British Columbia. This project will help to replace spawning areas lost due to dam construction, and will afford an opportunity of investigating a means of supplementing natural spawning beds. The total estimated cost of the project is $115,000, and the department expects to be able to proceed with the project this winter as part of the government's winter employment program. It is estimated that $55,000 will be spent before the end of the fiscal year if it is now approved.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister is in a position to inform the house who was responsible for the building of the dam that ruined these spawning grounds.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: I do not admit the premise to which the hon. member refers. However, two dams have been built by the firm of MacMillan and Bloedel in Great Central lake, one of which is at the top of Robertson creek where the water flows out of Great Central lake. There the company put in the required fishways and facilities at their own expense. With regard to this and other dams, damage to the fish runs on this stream has been held to a minimum. There are still small runs of both spring and cohoe salmon in this stream. In the area, years ago, there were also runs of pink salmon. Owing to the fact that this stream is now controlled by the dam, there is created a situation which is favourable to the building of an artificial spawning ground and to increasing the natural spawning ground that exists there. The scientists of my department are optimistic that at relatively small expense a large increase can be made in the run of both spring and cohoe salmon and that a sizeable run of pink salmon can be established in this stream. These artificial spawning beds will also give scientists an opportunity to make certain studies which otherwise would be impossible except under more difficult conditions. The lumber companies have co-operated fully in the building of fishways in the dam.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
705. Departmental administration-further amount required, $15,200.
Mr. Howard:: As I understand it, this item relates to the committee which will be studying the things to be done to institute a parole commission. I wonder whether the minister could give us some indication of what work has been done, what this item relates to, and so on.
66968-9-64i
Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: This item 705 relates to departmental administration. The special supplementary estimate is designed to provide for operating expenses during the balance of this fiscal year of the parole board. The board was provided for in the national Parole Act which was passed at the last session of parliament and, as hon. members know, the board, consisting of four members, has now been appointed. It is expected that the Parole Act will be brought into force on February 15, just two days from now. At that time, of course, it will also be necessary to transfer to the administration-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are we not on
item 705? Is the minister not dealing with item 706? We have not passed item 705 vet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I had better ask the hon. gentleman if he would repeat his question. Perhaps I did not understand the import of it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, as I look in the details, I find that two items are given. The first one is the one with which we are dealing in connection with the correctional planning committee. However, I believe my question would more properly have fitted in under the administration of the new Parole Act or the operation of it. I think probably what I did was to ask my question under the wrong vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will my hon.
friend put his question on the next item, namely item 706?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes.


The Chairman:: Shall item 705 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Chairman. Item 705, which concerns departmental administration, gives me the opportunity to bring up for the consideration of the minister a matter on which he made a statement in the House of Commons on January 29, namely the possible effect of the operation of certain United States anti-trust legislation on legitimate Canadian business activities. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to say a few words on this question which is of both legal and political importance. The minister himself in New York a few weeks ago made a strong statement with regard to United States policy and United States attitudes on this matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to minimize for a moment the importance of the topic the Leader of the Opposition wishes to discuss. However, I point out that the item relates to departmental administration; and if you will look at the details at page 6, you will see that it relates to the expenses of the correctional planning committee.

Supply-Justice
This is a supplementary estimate brought in for the specific purpose of enabling the department to meet the expenses of this committee which was appointed to advise as to the implementation of the Fauteux report in certain aspects. It is therefore, I submit, not a general item under departmental administration of such a nature as to make it possible for the general discussion of all matters coming within the administration of my department. The main estimates for the ensuing fiscal year will, of course, contain an administration item under which all aspects of my department can be debated, including the one which the Leader of the Opposition now wants to raise. However, on supplementary estimates, where items are brought forward for a specific purpose and not merely to expand the general vote under departmental administration, it has always been the practice of this house that the discussion of these items should relate to the specific purpose for which they are brought forward.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. Surely it has been the practice of this house in discussions of the main estimates, the supplementary estimates and the final supplementary estimates, to permit on an item entitled "departmental administration", a wide-ranging discussion on the work of the department concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not on supplementary estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a submission I am making to the chairman. This is a supplementary estimate but it is a supplementary estimate under the title "departmental administration". I would recall my statement in the house the other day when the minister made quite a long statement on the matter to which I referred. I said the other day that I would have an opportunity, I thought, to deal with this matter when the supplementary estimates were up for discussion. I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that I was perfectly in order in dealing with this matter on an item under "departmental administration".


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I add a word on this subject, Mr. Chairman. The Leader of the Opposition has made the statement that it has been the practice of the house to have a wide-ranging discussion of departmental affairs on an item pertaining to any particular department both on the main estimates and on the supplementary estimates. May 1 say, Mr. Chairman, that has been the practice with regard to "departmental administration" only on the main estimates. But where supplementary estimates have been introduced late in the fiscal year, as is the present case, the practice of the house has

been-and it is completely in accord with the rule in this respect-that the discussion is confined to the item before the house. While the particular item comes under the heading of departmental administration, nevertheless this is an item for a particular purpose, and that particular purpose has been set out in the details on page 6. This relates to the correctional planning committee, which has nothing whatever to do with the matter that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing to discuss. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned several days ago that he intended to raise this matter on this item does not give it any validity; it does not make it in order. There was no undertaking given to him at that time by the house, or by anybody in it, that that privilege would be extended to him. It was not ruled to be a matter in order.
Mr. Chairman, I therefore ask, as we have been discussing the supplementary estimates a long time, and still have a number of them to deal with, that you rule that the only discussion admissible on this item is discussion pertaining to the expenses of the correctional planning committee, as indicated on page 6 of the details.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if I may say a word, as a former member of the treasury board, about the point raised by the minister. The minister is, of course, aware that the treasury is not bound by the details. Once the money is voted for departmental administration it may be used for any aspect of departmental administration, notwithstanding the fact that it is the intention of the government at the time the estimates are submitted to use it-and I am not questioning the intention at the moment-for a particular purpose. I would admit at once that the Minister of Finance would be perfectly right in his contention if this were a specific item having to do only with correctional institutions. But this is an amount voted for the administration of the department, and it is within my recollection, and I am sure it must be within the recollection of the Minister of Finance also, that on many occasions on supplementary estimates, when the department has had to come back to ask for more money for departmental administration, some new question has arisen which did not exist at the time the main estimates were discussed. There has never been any objection taken in the house, in my experience, to a discussion of a matter of that kind, and therefore I submit that the Leader of the Opposition is in order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: We are discussing the item of $15,200 which comes under the supplementary estimates. According to standing

order No. 59 (2) speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration. This order will serve as the basis for what I shall now read, which appears in May's 16th edition at page 738 as follows:
On supplementary and excess grants.-Debate on supplementary and excess grants Is restricted to the particulars contained in the estimates on which those grants are sought, and to the application of the items which compose those grants; and the debate cannot touch the policy or the expenditure sanctioned, on other heads, by the estimate on which the original grant was obtained, except so far as such policy or expenditure is brought before the committee by the items contained in the supplementary or excess estimates.
Furthermore, I would like to read an observation made in 1954 by Mr. Abbott, as reported at page 3429 of Hansard for March 29:
I indicated that the main line of inquiry in the consideration of these estimates should be directed to why we require this extra money, because almost any major item involves the whole policy of that particular section, and perhaps we should have half a dozen debates on that during the year. I do not know. But it does not make for very orderly debate.
In conclusion, it is my impression that at the present time we must confine this debate to supplementary estimate No. 705 for a sum of $15,200 without entering into the general aspects of the Department of Justice. I therefore would like to ask hon. members to please confine the debate and their remarks to the assessment under discussion at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would you hear me on the point which you have so ably dealt with?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Yes, indeed.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: I have just been reading May which Your Honour has also quoted to the committee. Your Honour read the first paragraph which, on first reading, seemed to support the interpretation Your Honour has given to it. However, in small print it goes on to say:
This practice has been consistently upheld in committee of supply by the chairman, and in answer to a question put to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3 March 1893, the Speaker ruled as follows . . . Undoubtedly, of late years a certain limitation has been enforced upon the discussion of supplementary estimates. As a general rule, on the supplementary estimates it is in order to discuss only the particular items which constitute the supplementary estimates and the subheads of the original estimates can only be referred to so far as they are involved in the fair discussion of the points contained in the items asked for in the supplementary estimates.
Then it goes on:
Of course, it is quite obvious that it should be improper, as a general rule, to raise on a supplementary estimate the whole question of policy
Supply-Justice
involved in the original estimate; and, as I have stated, the discussion is properly confined to the items of the supplementary estimate. I think however, that I ought to state that items of supplementary estimates may raise in themselves questions of policy-
That is the very point that I think is before us now, because the policy of the department is determined by the administrative item. I am sure Your Honour, even in the short experience you have had in this house, has had an opportunity of seeing how the departmental estimates are devised. There is the administrative item and then the various subdivisions which relate to particular items. But the question of policy is one which is determined by the main item, the administrative item, which itself is not divisible, and it could not be argued that what I have read, and what Your Honour has read, except for the last matter, really touches the point at all. Otherwise we should be precluded from dealing with it. As it says here, "items of supplementary estimates may raise in themselves questions of policy." It goes on:
-but the interpretation whether they do raise questions of policy or not, must clearly be left to the chairman of committees.
We are on the only item that does involve a question of policy, and that is the administrative item itself. This $15,200 which is covered by this item need not be expended for this particular purpose. As the member for Bonavista-Twillingate said, it could be transferred at ministerial discretion for some other purpose under the administrative item. I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination could it be interpreted that our practice here at any time under supplementary or under main estimates has been that when we reach the administrative item any member is precluded from general discussion. What Your Honour has read does clearly apply to every other item of the further supplementary estimate sheet that is before us. There is no administrative item under agriculture or under the C.B.C. When we came to the C.B.C. item which was a grant toward the anticipated deficit of a particular service of the C.B.C. we permitted the widest discussion.


An hon. Member:: You were out of order.


Murdo William Martin: Someone said we were out of order. Having taken that position on that item it would be very difficult for us I submit with great respect to deny an hon. member the opportunity of discussing under departmental administration policies that do come under what we mean by departmental administration in so far as it concerns the Department of Justice. The item for $15,200 is a variable item. It may be used for any particular purpose in the department

Supply-Justice
including, for instance, whatever expenses were involved in the necessary visit made by the Minister of Justice to Washington, although admittedly these expenses would not have been as high.
It would seem to me that the ruling Your Honour has given in this matter is understandable when one first looks at the language of May. The reason I asked Your Honour to allow me to look at the book which he so generously did was that I felt that it did refer not to departmental items so much as to specific items such as those which have been before us in these other items. For this reason I think Your Honour would want to give careful consideration to a ruling that would have such a restrictive effect.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East and I should like to make a few comments in this regard. It is true that the quotation from May's 16th edition mentions that as a general rule the supplementary estimates do not permit a debate on a variety of subjects. Actually most of the rules of this house are based on precedents which do become more or less the laws which govern this chamber. In the case of supplementary estimates, although possibly it is not clearly defined that debate must be restricted only to the item under discussion and perhaps discussion may take place on a number of other matters relating to the supplementary estimates, hon. members must agree that it is preferable for orderly debate if the discussion be limited to the item under consideration.
For instance, the hon. member for Essex East referred to the wide discussion which took place on the item relating to the C.B.C. True enough, there was a wide debate on this matter which was in fact completely out of order. As everyone knows the debate became somewhat heated at one point and the Chair had to rule out of order all of the debate that was not relevant to the item under discussion. From now on it will be absolutely necessary to rule in the same fashion and that is to limit all debate to the relevancy of the subject.
In this case I have read in my ruling the statement that was made by the deputy chairman in 1954. I shall not read it again but I shall mention to the committee that there are other occasions when the chairman ruled in the same fashion. Hon. members may refer to page 2393 of Hansard for March 25, 1955, to pages 2467 and 2503 of Hansard for March 21 and 22, 1956, and also to page 2432 of Hansard for March 18, 1957. For all these reasons I must adhere to my

original ruling that the debate be entirely relevant to the item under discussion.
However, if the Minister of Justice is agreeable to answering some of the questions of the Leader of the Opposition and if it is the pleasure of the committee to permit him to do so, I am quite agreeable to letting the hon. member ask these questions. I must, however, inform hon. gentlemen that if the debate gets out of hand, hon. members will be called back to order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think you have pretty well put the Minister of Justice on the spot and the only answer I may make, if I may put it that way, to your suggestion is that as Minister of Justice I should be the last person to suggest a breach of the rules of this committee. I must say that to try to have a debate now on a matter such as that which the Leader of the Opposition seeks to raise on an item of $15,200 relating to the correctional planning committee is in my view, and in accordance with your ruling, so far out of order that I would not take it on myself to ask the other hon. members of the committee to countenance such a wide and sweeping breach of the rules.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, of course we accept without reservation your ruling in this matter. Perhaps I go a little too far when I say without reservation, but we do accept it. I know you were inspired by fairness in making it. I could not, however, accept the suggestion which you made in good faith to restrict myself to a few questions directed to the minister because the matter is of such importance that I think it requires more than a few questions. I can only say that I regret I will not have an opportunity at this time to deal to the best of my ability with the long statement the minister made on this important matter the other day in the house under motions which did not provide an opportunity for reply and which contained what I thought were some remarks which should be answered at the earliest possible opportunity.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the same position as the Leader of the Opposition. I have to forgo certain remarks I was going to make on this subject, too. However, dealing specifically with this item, I shall be absolutely in order, as I always am, in asking the Minister of Justice to give us some information on the operations of the correctional planning committee and the reason for the requirement of additional funds.
I take it that this is the committee which is to function in implementing and studying

the recommendations of various royal commission reports that have had to do with institutions of correction and probation and as to the division of jurisdiction in care as between the provincial and federal governments. I know that for a long time a great many hon. members and many individuals and organizations outside of this chamber have been anxiously awaiting the time when they could learn what action is to be taken on the recommendations made by various commissions or whether the reports of those bodies were just going to gather dust on the bookshelf.
In view of the fact that this committee has been appointed we will all be most anxious to learn just how far the negotiations have gone with the provinces with respect to agreement concerning the bringing in of necessary legislation at the provincial and federal level required for the implementation of these recommendations. We would also be interested in knowing the opinion of the Minister of Justice as to how long it will require before decisions can be reached concerning changes in legislation and the planning of new institutions or the remodelling of existing institutions in order to take care of the overcrowded situation that obtains all across Canada at the present time.
In the same connection, I know that we from British Columbia would appreciate hearing from the minister as to whether this planning committee had anything to do, or has anything to do now with the opening of the new institution, if I can put it in these terms, on Vancouver island where we have what I think is an endeavour to establish something new in this country in the way of an open institution,-I believe that is the proper word-as compared with a completely walled-in and large institution. I should also like to know whether or not consideration is being given by the correctional committee, not to the temporary use of that location on Vancouver island, which has been unused although in federal hands for many years, but to carry on on an extended basis and in line with modern penology throughout the world.
In asking for this $15,200 for departmental administration, and for this purpose I think the minister has opened up a most interesting and informative field, and one which until now both the house and the country has been kept a great deal in the dark about. In asking for this supplementary vote the minister has opened up the opportunity to give us the fullest possible information as to what has been going on and what is going on at the present time in planning for the future.
Supply-Justice


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the minister could give us a statement now about what this particular vote is for so that we can determine whether or not he is any more in order than was the Leader of the Opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate always the interest taken by all hon. members in this house in the matter of correctional planning, as it has come to be called. This arises largely out of the report of the Fauteux commission and the plans that have to be made and are being made to implement certain of those recommendations. We have had expressions of interest and concern and, indeed, very constructive suggestions in this field, from a large number of members of the house in all parties.
I regret that the hon. member for Vancouver East has said that the house is being kept in the dark. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I have never failed to answer any questions to the best of my ability. It is true that I did have to say for some months that our plans were entirely in the formative stage and therefore I could not give very many concrete answers. Now, however, the time has arrived when for the first time our plans have advanced to the point where we have this correctional planning committee appointed hard at work and I am able to give the committee a progress report on the work that has been done to get things ready to carry into effect some of the very important recommendations made by the Fauteux commission.
I should say also that at every stage when any step was taken when the house was not in session, that was felt by myself and my colleagues to be important enough to warrant a special statement, we released statements to the press so that as far as possible the country was kept fully informed as to what was being done.
I shall now try as briefly as possible to summarize the present position. The committee will recall that the recommendations of the Fauteux commission in their entirety involved a large measure of agreement between the dominion and the provinces because in order to implement them in so far as they related to matters which were in the provincial field we can only, of course, proceed if we do have the agreement of the provinces.
I found in June, 1957, that no steps had been taken to convene a meeting with provincial authorities to discuss all the ramifications of the implementation of the Fauteux recommendations. We had ourselves as a new government to assess the situation with which we were confronted. We found that

Supply-Justice
not only were we confronted with the problems arising out of those very important recommendations, with respect to which no consultations had been initiated with the provinces, but we were also confronted with the problems arising from the fact that in the field for which the dominion government is already responsible, let alone any enlarged field for which it might assume responsibility, things had reached almost emergency proportions.
The hon. gentleman who last spoke referred to the fact that we have a situation of overcrowding in our federal penal institutions. That is correct. The situation has reached almost emergency proportions. We were able-and this was an incidental fact-to take care of the overcrowding situation initially by the fact that at about the time we took office, or shortly thereafter, it was arranged that Her Majesty the Queen would visit Canada and the government decided at that time to give an amnesty-


Harold Edward Winch: Is that why she is coming back?


Edmund Davie Fulton: -to prisoners in penitentiary. These are interesting sidelights that flow from some of these other activities. That relieved the overcrowding situation. That, of course, was not the reason why the amnesty was given but it was one indirect result. But ever since October of 1957, we have been faced with a continuation of the problem in respect of the overcrowding of the penal institutions under the jurisdiction of the federal government, until now it has reached proportions where we have had to take emergency action with respect to the situation in St. Vincent de Paul in Montreal and the British Columbia penitentiary. In both those institutions the overcrowding had reached the point where considerations of prudent administration from the point of view of preserving order in the institutions themselves, as well as regard for the proper conditions under which inmates should be housed, would not permit any longer the deferment of measures to deal with the situation. Perhaps I should not go into any further details here because this is covered under two items of the penitentiary supplementary estimates which will come up later. But for St. Vincent de Paul and British Columbia we have set up temporary institutions to relieve the overcrowding.
Now I mention that subject only to bring the committee into the picture of the extent of the problem with which we were confronted. Not only, did we have this problem of what to do with regard to the increased jurisdiction that the Fauteux commission recommended we should assume, and all the problems of agreement with the provinces

on that, and the new institutions that would have to be constructed or taken over if we did agree with the provinces and assumed this responsibility, but in addition we had the current and increasing problem of the tremendous growth in penitentiary population within the categories-that is, those serving sentences of two years and over-for which in any event we have responsibility.
I think we have moved as rapidly as could be expected to deal with both of these problems. Penal institutions are enormously expensive to construct. I feel that the time has arrived in Canada when we should examine seriously the design of the institutions we are building, although here again perhaps I shold defer the detailed discussion until we reach the penitentiary item. But this is only one of the aspects of the problems that we have had. We have had to take a completely new look at the type of institutions we are providing for those now under federal authority.
In addition, we have had to look at the types of reform programs that we should institute in connection with the added number of inmates for whom we would be assuming responsibility if the Fauteux recommendations are to be implemented, and all the related problems of parole services, integration of the parole service with the probation services of the provinces and co-ordination of our efforts in parole with the efforts of the voluntary after-care agencies, bearing in mind that the work both of the parole service and of the voluntary agencies will be greatly increased when in fact we take over the additional number of prisoners which will be the result of adopting the recommendations of the Fauteux committee.
The first thing we had to do was to arrive at a decision in principle on the part of the dominion government. Would we accept the recommendations of the Fauteux committee? If we accepted them, what would that involve in the way of financial expenditure on new institutions? What would it involve in the way of expenditure in connection with the new staff that we would have to recruit? What would it involve in the way of the training of the new staff that we would have to recruit in order to administer the physical problem presented by the number of inmates and the reform problem presented by the new program that we wanted to institute?
It would have been completely foolish, I think, for us to have rushed ahead and entered into discussions with the provinces on the Fauteux report before we had assessed for ourselves those steps which we would have to take in order to implement that report if agreement should be arrived at. We had to make that assessment first of all. Some

time ago my colleagues arrived at agreement and authorized me to communicate with the provinces to the effect that the government was prepared to accept in principle the recommendations of the Fauteux committee. We had made a preliminary study of what was involved physically and financially and had decided that we would accept it, that it was in the interests of the country to do so and in the interests of modern penal reform and modern penal methods.
So an invitation was extended to the attorneys general of all the provinces and other provincial ministers interested in or responsible for prison matters, and a conference was held in Ottawa in October of last year. A full statement was issued at the conclusion of the conference so I will not go into too great detail here beyond reminding the committee that I am extremely happy to be able to report that unanimous agreement was arrived at in that conference on the general principle of the implementation of the Fauteux committee recommendations in so far as those proposals related to the assumption by the dominion government of responsibility for persons sentenced to terms of over six months. There were some details in that connection which can be found if hon. members care to consult the communique issued at the close of the conference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has my hon. friend given the names of the members of the committee?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not yet. The conference I am discussing at the moment is the conference between myself and my officials on the one hand and the provincial attorneys general and other provincial ministers on the other hand.
It is true that some reservations were expressed by some of the provinces, notably my own province of British Columbia, but in general it is correct to say that there was unanimous agreement within the areas I have described. Having obtained the approval of the provinces, it was necessary immediately after that to set up a planning group within our own staff to work out the details of the arrangements that will have to be carried out in order to make this agreement in principle a reality in fact. As I announced through the medium of a press release some time ago a correctional planning committee was appointed consisting of Mr. A. J. MacLeod, Q.C., director of the criminal law section of the Department of Justice and previously director of the remission service in my department; Colonel J. R. Stone, ex-provost marshal of the Canadian army; and Mr. J. A. McLaughlin, assistant commissioner of penitentiaries.
Supply-Justice
That committee has been instructed to carry out its planning in accordance with fairly lengthy and full terms of reference. I have the terms of reference before me. If they are of interest to the committee I could read them but it is a fairly lengthy document and if the committee wishes I can table it so that the terms of reference can be studied at leisure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Paraphrase it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In general the instructions to the committee are divided into a number of sections: institutional, narcotic drugs, correctional workers, after-care of inmates, research and public education. In connection with the institutional aspect of planning the committee is instructed to plan a program for the custody, treatment and training of adult offenders with the object of achieving the reform and ultimate rehabilitation of as large a number of inmates as possible on the basis that the dominion will assume responsibility for persons sentenced under federal laws to terms of one year or more and that sentences under federal laws of more than six months but less than one year will be eliminated.
Second, the committee is instructed to plan a system of diversified institutions by means of which, in accordance with generally accepted modern correctional principles the program can be carried out effectively and efficiently, including recommendations for the design and location of such new institutions as may be necessary and the phasing of a building program.
Third, the committee is to formulate suitable proposals whereby effect may be given to the agreement reached at the dominion-provincial conference of October 13 and 14, 1958, relating to the custody of convicted persons who are mentally ill, the custody of convicted persons who are under the age of: 16 years and the custody of female prisoners.. Perhaps I should pause there to say that it. was agreed in principle at the dominion-provincial conference that new arrangements should be made for the custody of the three categories of persons whom I have mentioned.
Next-this is still under "institutional"- commencing immediately and in consultation with the commissioner of penitentiaries the committee is to make recommendations concerning the location, design and function of any new or enlarged institutions or projects that are necessary or desirable to relieve existing overcrowded conditions in Canadian penitentiaries, bearing in mind the necessity of integrating any new or expanded institutions into the over-all program and building plans envisaged in the earlier parts of their instruction.

Supply-Justice
The question of narcotic drugs is perhaps not immediately relevant to the discussion so I will skip that part. Perhaps the committee may agree to my tabling these terms of reference later because, although I think I could say that this is technically an interdepartmental document which would normally be privileged, in view of the interest that there is in this program I would be quite prepared to table the instructions in full if hon. members so desire.
Under the heading of "correctional workers" the committee is instructed to survey the present and future needs for trained correctional workers in the federal correctional field and to compile information received from the provincial governments concerning their needs for correctional workers and the available resources for their training. The committee is also to plan a co-operative program with the provincial governments and, where appropriate, with the voluntary after-care agencies under which we may provide facilities for advanced training in correctional work. Also, in consultation with the commissioner of penitentiaries the committee is to plan an improved program of in-service training for custodial officers employed in the penitentiary service.
Under the heading of "after-care of inmates" the committee is instructed to survey -the work done in this field by the after-care agencies, to consult with the new national parole board and with all others concerned and to make recommendations for expanding the work in that field. They are instructed also to make recommendations whereby the operations of the federal parole service and provincial probation service may be better co-ordinated to promote efficiency and economy in the after care of released inmates.
Then, there are instructions with regard to research, and with regard to public education or information concerning the program we (have under way. The committee has further been instructed, in the course of its planning, fo visit each of the provinces of Canada to determine the nature of the existing operations of our own penitentiaries branch there, and the views of the local penitentiary officials *concerning possible future operations and locations for those operations. They have been instructed also to discuss the type of institutional program now being carried on by the provinces and the location and possible suitability for federal purposes of existing provincial institutions because we may well have -to take over, if the provinces agree, some of their existing institutions, as and when we assume responsibility for some of the inmates *who are under provincial responsibility.

The committee has been instructed also to ascertain the views of local authorities concerning future programs and types, location and suitability of future institutions. They have been instructed to make certain travels abroad, particularly in the United States and in the United Kingdom to examine the nature of the penal institutions in those countries and the principles upon which those institutions are administered, having in mind of course the emphasis in the United Kingdom is on probation, the Borstal system and so on.
I recognize that this is a lengthy summary, and I am sorry. However, this is a huge field. It is lengthy, and yet it is still only a summary of the instructions we have given to the committee. Finally, the committee has been instructed that, if it is at all possible, that they must complete their program of travel and investigation by June 30 of this year, and that they will be expected to submit their report and recommendations, if possible by December 30 of this year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the travelling all in Canada?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, as I explained just a moment ago, most of their travelling will be within Canada, but they are instructed to go particularly to the United States and the United Kingdom as well.
This then, Mr. Chairman, is a summary of the scope of the work of the correctional planning committee. I have been asked also whether the committee is to give any consideration to the problem which we now face with respect to the overcrowding in our present institutions. Yes, they are. In the course of their travels they will be expected to visit Canadian penitentiaries in order to assess the situation there. We did refer to them, as a special matter, the situation in British Columbia and at St. Vincent de Paul where, as I have said, the greatest degree of overcrowding exists. It is due to the committee, in large part, that the suggestion for the use of William Head was put forward.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the old
immigration building?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The William Head institution is the old immigration and health centre, and it was under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In connection with St. Vincent de Paul, we have arranged with the Department of National Defence to take over temporarily the army camp at Valleyfield. I can give more details on both William Head and Valleyfield under the supplementary item of penitentiaries which will be reached in a few moments.

The final question is whether or not it is intended to carry on the use of the William Head type of institution which is now being established there. I should say in answer to that question, that it is essential to make clear that in so far as William Head and Valley field are concerned, those are only temporary measures to relieve overcrowding. They are not to be regarded in any sense as the beginning of the new institutions. It may be that we will find, when the committee completes its study, that William Head or Valleyfield may fit into the over-all plans that they then recommend. However, I have made clear to all those with whom I have corresponded, and it is certainly clear in the minds of the departmental officials, that William Head and Valleyfield are not the commencement of any new plan. They are temporary measures to relieve emergency overcrowding which we had inherited. I would not want at this stage, before the committee has had time to make a sensible over-all plan, to commit ourselves to William Head or Valleyfield, and perhaps later on find that they did not fit in with the over-all plan and yet, by reason of committing ourselves, we had perhaps distorted the program we would eventually like to carry out. These two moves, then, are entirely of a temporary and emergency nature. Of course, we hope to get a good deal of benefit from the experience of the decentralized operation of two of the main penitentiaries in Canada.
I believe I have answered the questions so far. I think the committee will agree with me when I say there was throughout the country a great deal of approbation of the appointments made to the correctional planning committee, and the country expects a great deal from the work of this committee. From my knowledge of the gentlemen concerned and of the way in which they are going about their planning work, the vigour and enthusiasm with which they are approaching their task, I think I can safely say the government and the country will not be disappointed by the results that the committee produces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister
speaks of the overcrowding of these institutions as one of the considerations before the planning committee. I presume that the committee will have in mind finding some place, not merely to house the bodies of prisoners who are of a certain age, but the provision of additional facilities which will take into account the segregation of certain classes of prisoners, particularly young people, many of whom find themselves lodged in penitentiaries. The minister did not make
Supply-J ustice
clear in the statement I heard whether or not that is an objective which the committee will bear in mind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I did make it clear,
but I think the hon. gentleman was called out of the house for a few minutes. I pointed out that it was one of the instructions of the committee to formulate in the planning suitable proposals whereby effect may be given to the agreement reached at the dominion-provincial conference of October 13 and 14, 1958, relating to the custody of convicted persons who are mentally ill, the custody of convicted persons who are under 16 years of age and the custody of female prisoners.


Mr. Woolliams:: I should like to ask the
Minister of Justice a few questions with reference to his remarks, particularly since I am interested in and have worked with young people in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan who have from time to time broken the rules of society and become incarcerated in our institutions. If I understood the minister correctly, his department is now endeavouring to work out arrangements with the provinces to assume responsibility for those prisoners who have been given sentences greater than six months. I take it that the federal government would then become financially responsible for those institutions in which a person was incarcerated for a length of time greater than six months?


Mr. Fulion:: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Of course, the details and the terms under which we will assume that responsibility is amongst those matters which have been referred to the correctional planning committee. They will be entering into negotiations with the provinces as to the basis upon which we will assume this responsibility.
Perhaps I should say it is our plan, when this over-all program goes into effect, that sentences under federal statutes for terms of less than 12 months will be eliminated because it is our feeling that inasmuch as federal institutions will become in large part, not exclusively but in large part, reform institutions, sentences of less than 12 months would not warrant committal to a federal reform institution.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is another question I should like to ask. The minister mentioned overcrowded conditions at Montreal and Winnipeg. I wonder whether he could give us some information as to the conditions at the penitentiary at Prince Albert in Saskatchewan. Conditions in the penitentiary in Alberta are not overcrowded because we have not a penitentiary. About 65 per cent of the inmates in Saskatchewan come from

Supply-Justice
the province of Alberta. I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to tell us today what the situation is in the Prince Albert penitentiary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he might defer detailed questions until we get to items 707 and 708 under the heading "Penitentiaries". In general, however, in response to his question, I can say that all our federal penitentiaries are overcrowded and the matter is one of real concern. The two worst were at Montreal and British Columbia. Speaking from recollection I would say that Dorchester and Prince Albert are about next in order. As I recall it, the situation in Manitoba is about the best. There is overcrowding at Kingston, but that overcrowding will be relieved shortly by the coming into operation of the new institution at Joyceville, 11 miles from Kingston, which institution will be completed and will come into full operation during the current year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank the minister. I have one other question I should like to ask. This matter is often raised and we are asked about it by our constituents and sometimes in our practice of law. Under the new system that is being implemented under the committee just how long would a person be obliged to serve in a penitentiary a sentence he has been given before he can make application for parole? This matter may come under the next item, but while I was on my feet, as the minister covered part of that field, I felt that I might ask it here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the present time there is a rule of thumb that an inmate must have served half his sentence before his file is closely examined for parole. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Streets, the chairman of the new parole board, and have asked him to take a look at this rule of thumb and to keep it in mind. I am not satisfied that a rule of thumb is the kind of rule you want when you are dealing with human factors. I have asked him to keep that in mind and I find that, in general terms, he agrees with my approach and will bear it in mind when he is drafting the new regulations under which the national parole board will operate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In reference to that matter, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. I do not know how exact these figures would be but in discussing this problem with the John Howard Society in Calgary I found they went so far as to say that we are facing a situation of parole where 80 per cent of those who have been given an opportunity of parole do not return to the penitentiary whereas it is in

reverse when they have not had the opportunity of parole. That is why I was interested as to when they could make application for parole.


Charles Benjamin Howard: There is one small matter I think we might deal with under this item. It was occasioned by the comment the minister made when he was informing us of the provisions with reference to this committee. It has reference to drug addiction and drug addicts and the large field covered. I wonder whether the minister under this item would be in a position to relate what additional steps have been taken since the last time this matter was discussed toward the idea of setting up a hospital or clinic or separate institution in which to deal with or to house drug addicts and to assist them in becoming non-addicts upon their release?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I answered a somewhat similar question dealing with this subject asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East on the orders of the day and I am not able to add much to what I said then. The subject is being studied now and when I say "studied" I do not mean I am putting it off. I mean it is being studied by the officials of my department and those of the Department of National Health and Welfare; and with the knowledge and consent of the Minister of National Health and Welfare it has also been referred as a specific item to the correctional planning committee for study and report. As I said this morning, it is a field in which it is important that we make progress, and yet a field in which it is difficult to obtain agreement as to the direction in which that progress should be made, because there are wide and strongly held differences of opinion in this field.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
706. Remission service-further amount required for Parole Act administration and to authorize the expenditure, for the purposes of the said act, of moneys provided for the remission service by the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1958, $28,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Under this item I should like to raise questions with regard to the practice of commuting death sentences to life imprisonment, one which has grown up in recent years. The committee will recall that the other day, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Hochelaga-and I am quoting from page 852 of Hansard-the minister gave the answer that 21 capital sentences were considered by the governor in council since June, 1957, and that 17 of those 21 were commuted to life imprisonment. I believe that only in the case of four of these 21 sentences was a recommendation for mercy received by the cabinet. Mr. Chairman, the question is not one of whether or not to

-abolish the death penalty. The question is whether, if action is to be taken in that direction, it should be taken by means of executive action.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry to interrupt; that is why I have allowed this much of the speech to go by. I hesitated to rise on a point of order again but the Leader of the Opposition is now discussing the question of commutation of death sentences. That is something which is done in cabinet and not by the remission service. And especially if, as I now sense, the direction of the hon. gentleman's question is going to lead us into a discussion of the principle on which the death sentence should be confirmed or commuted or anything related to capital punishment, I reluctantly draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that such discussion would be out of order under the present item.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The reason I raise this matter under this item is a clear and indeed an obvious one. We are dealing with the remission service. It is the function of the remission service to consider applications for remission of sentences. If death sentences are going to be commuted to life imprisonment, as has been done recently, this action will undoubtedly add to the work of the remission service for which an appropriation is being requested under this vote. Under the Parole Act, as the minister, of course, knows-I refer to section 7 (a) of the Parole Act- there are periodic reviews of sentences.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order may I say this. There are not periodic views of death sentences. Death sentences automatically come before council or the cabinet and the decision whether to confirm or to commute is made there. That decision is not made by the remission service.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course that statement is correct, Mr. Chairman. But a sentence which is commuted to life imprisonment brings the prisoner within the ambit of the action of the remission service. Surely that fact permits us to talk about the commutation of death sentences which adds, in this case, 17 prisoners who will, in due course-perhaps after 15 years-be eligible for parole and whose sentences will at that time be reviewed by those who are administering this particular act.
All I want to say, and it will only take me a minute to say it, is that if this additional work is to be given to the remission service by the commutation of sentences, then that step should be taken by parliamentary discussion and decision and the necessary amendment of our present legislation, and not by
Supply-Justice
executive action of the government. That is the point I want to make.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know whether what the hon. gentleman suggests is that we should not commute sentences because it might cost the country something. I hope that is not the suggestion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it is not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the suggestion is not as I have suggested, then it must be that the matter should be dealt with by way of statute, which amounts also to a suggestion that the governor in council should not continue to exercise the prerogative of mercy. The hon. gentleman and the committee will realize, this being a prerogative, that each individual case is dealt with on its merits, as I have had occasion to say recently when questioned on a television broadcast.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, under this particular item I would like to make a suggestion, and I hope I shall receive an answer of some sort from the minister, although he may not be in a position to be definite about it. The old act, as I recall, allows for a maximum membership on the parole board of five.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, a membership of five; that is correct.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It allows for a maximum membership of five on the board and there are presently four members. In view of the comments which were made earlier under the preceding item that the department or the federal government will be extending its jurisdiction over sentences to a point where they will be reduced from the present two years to one year, and so on, it would bring far more women prisoners under the jurisdiction of the commissioners and the department than there are at the present time. I believe at the moment there are some 98 or 100 women in the women's penitentiary at Kingston. Now what an addition of one year would mean I do not know, but I am sure that it will mean that there will be far more women considered by the parole board for parole. In view of that, I wonder whether the minister will reserve, if he has not already done so, that additional space on the parole board for a woman? Would he consider the appointment of a woman to fill that position so that the woman's point of view may be present on the parole board?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the remarks that the hon. gentleman has made, and I share with him the feeling that this is a place where the point of view of women should be increasingly recognized, and through the parole board it should be given effect. I

Supply-J ustice
cannot, as I stand here today, give a firm commitment that if and when an appointment is made to the fifth vacancy it will be a woman, but I can tell the hon. gentleman that I have received many representations to the effect that the vacancy should be filled by a woman, and those representations will be borne in mind if and when the appointment comes to be made.


Charles Benjamin Howard: One further point. Could the minister indicate whether it will not be a man?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will be a Canadian.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, without having been sentenced I make periodic visits to the penitentiary, and I am one of the fortunate ones who can get in and out. As a matter of fact only three days before I left British Columbia for the opening of this House of Commons I visited the penitentiary of British Columbia, and there I met one of the old friends of the Minister of Justice. I do not mean a personal friend, but a friend who has very often come to his notice, especially in the last session.


An hon. Member:: Liberal?


Harold Edward Winch: I did not ask him how he voted. At the present moment he has not a vote. My point has to do with the question of parole and revocation. In other words, I am referring to the Minister of Justice's old friend, Mr. Munavish, who had his ticket of leave cancelled last year. I promised that I would draw to the minister's attention at the earliest opportunity the fact that this man still maintains that he was wrongfully picked up and was not guilty of the breaking of his ticket parole as charged. He maintains that he has never had a proper opportunity of giving an explanation, shall I say, or answer the accusation made against him, and therefore that he was unjustly recommitted to an indefinite term to the penitentiary. As I think the hon. minister knows, I have quite a few remission cases, and when I meet these prisoners in the penitentiary, or communicate with them in correspondence, I am pretty blunt with them. If I think they are trying to lead me astray I let them know point blank where they get off. I can assure the minister that I did the same thing when I met Mr. Munavish, and the warder who was present with me can confirm what I say. At that time I was not satisfied with the answers I got.
Since arriving back here in Ottawa I have heard from Mr. Munavish, who admitted that perhaps he was wrong in trying to evade the questions I asked. If the answers he now gives and which I did not receive when I

first saw him are correct, then I think it might be in the interests of justice to give that man once again an opportunity of answering the questions which were put to him. In view of the very kind offer made by the minister last year, would he send in an official to personally interview this man? I would like to ask whether consideration could be given to that matter. In addition, can the minister state with regard to this new consideration of parole, of remission or ticket of leave, that there is going to be very considerable thought given as to the basis on which prisoners can have their ticket of leave completely cancelled without there being a sense that full justice has not been done, or that injustice has been done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, as to the specific case the hon. gentleman refers to, I will be glad to refer it, in my turn, to the chairman of the parole board. The board is now set up and will commence to function under the new act which comes into force on the 15th of this month. I will ask the chairman of the parole board to look at the remarks of the hon. gentleman, look at the past record, and in the light of what has been said to have another look at the Munavish case.
With respect to the general problem of the recommittal of parolees, this is an area where it is difficult always to expect complete agreement. The general principle is that a person out on parole is not a free person who is deprived of a right when he is recommitted. The fact is that he is a man still under sentence, who has been given a licence to spend the rest of his sentence at liberty so long as he complies with certain conditions which may be laid down, and so long as the parole authorities are satisfied that there is no danger to society in his continuing to be at large. It is on that basis that I think it would be impossible to say that a parolee who is ordered for recommittal is entitled, as it were, to a full trial in the full implication of those words, because he is not charged with anything. He is not charged with a new offence.
It is a matter of judgment.
The parole authorities may come to the conclusion that-perhaps because he may have taken up again with his former associates with whom he fell into a life of crime originally, or because of other indications- that if they leave him at large any longer he will in fact commit another crime, that in his best interests and those of society the wisest thing that could be done is to put him back into prison for the time being. These are matters of judgment, as I say, and I do not think we will always get agreement. Here again, I do not like the

idea of committing or recommitting a man without giving him the fullest possible information as to the basis on which he is committed or recommitted. I have asked the chairman of the parole board to look at the problem also and when he comes to draft his regulations to see what can be done and what latitude can be allowed with respect to the circumstances under which, and the information which will be made available to a prisoner or a parolee who is ordered to be recommitted.


William Limburg Houck: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice has mentioned the chairman of the parole board and I would be very remiss if I did not say a word of congratulation to the minister on the appointment of Magistrate George Streets of Welland as chairman of that board. Coming from Welland county I have known this gentleman for many years. Although we differed politically we were always the best of friends and I wish to tell the minister that he has made a splendid choice in this appointment. Magistrate Streets was always held in high respect in Welland county and did a fine job as a young magistrate. I know he will win commendation as chairman of the board and fill that office not only with honour and respect to himself but to the minister and the government as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
B-Penitentiaries
707. Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries -further amount required, $151,394.
Mr. Graffley:: Mr. Chairman, we have just passed an item in relation to the parole legislation recently approved by the house. I think it is fair to say that item 707 and the previous items are inter-related in a very real way. I think it is also fair to say, as the minister said a few moments ago, that all the items under the supplementary estimates of the Department of Justice are inter-related. As recommendations with respect to parole legislation are implemented we hope to see the prison population falling within federal competence diminish and yet as the federal authorities take over a field previously held by provincial authorities this population might possibly increase.
I do not intend to open up a full discussion on modern penology or criminology methods under this item but I do feel a few brief remarks are definitely in order. The Minister of Justice has already stated that when he assumed his portfolio he found an unbelievable state of overcrowdedness in federal penitentiaries. I hope I am not introducing a partisan note when I voice a certain
Supply-Justice
degree of surprise that the past administration should have let the building aspect of Canadian penitentiaries deteriorate to such a great extent. No apparent attempt was made to keep up with modern methods of criminology in terms of the physical buildings. I am thinking particularly of the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul which I have personally visited. The conditions I found there not very long ago smacked of a bygone age.
I should like to introduce this general note into the discussion at this time. There are many important fields of governmental activity requiring public co-operation and understanding and this is also very true with respect to this aspect of the work of the Department of Justice. What we have to convey to the public is knowledge of the fact that any improvement in penology does not-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):: Order. I would ask hon. members to please follow the items as numbered in the supplementary estimates. We are presently discussing item No. 707 respecting the operation and maintenance of penitentiaries.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to stress the fact that any improvement in the operation of the physical plant of our penitentiaries is most certainly related to modern methods of criminology. Many private organizations have approached me personally, as I know they have approached other hon. gentlemen, commending the present Minister of Justice for the new look that is obviously in vogue in his department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now you definitely are out of order.


William Heward Grafftey: I may be out of order but I would like to say this. When I saw the state of affairs existing with respect to Canadian penitentiaries at the end of the Liberal regime I could not help but think that the famous 19th century Liberals would have been rather surprised at the so-called party of reform in the mid-twentieth century. I cannot understand why the previous Liberal administration did not implement more of the recommendations contained in the Ar-chambault and Fauteux reports. I can say that the present administration intends to carry out the main recommendations of the Fauteux report and one can already see this in the supplementary estimates before us today. Expenditures are being made along these lines and this should win the wholehearted approval of this committee and the people of Canada.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, if I were a Liberal-heaven forbid-I might have some

Supply-Justice
cause to make a few comments concerning what the speaker who preceded me had to say. I wonder if we would be stretching a point in asking permission to consider the provisions of items Nos. 707 and 708 together because they are related. Item No. 707 refers to the operation and maintenance of penitentiaries and item No. 708 refers to construction, improvements and equipment. I imagine item 708 is the reason for the additional amount required in 707. If it could be viewed in that light we might discuss it more intelligently.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Hon.
members of the committee have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena. Is the committee agreeable to discussing the two items together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. There are just one or two matters that require clarification. The minister was kind enough to make a brief reference to the additional expenditures required. In examining the details listed on page 7 I observe that they refer to St. Vincent de Paul and British Columbia. Doubtless these institutions were more over-crowded than others. I take it from the minister's remarks that the additional buildings that were constructed were of a temporary nature and were not necessarily to be the pattern for any future operation of penitentiaries or any security program. Can the minister tell us what type of accommodation has been provided at these two institutions as a result of this vote?
The next item listed refers to the construction of additional buildings at penitentiaries. Can the minister say if this refers to the New Westminster penitentiary or simply the one at William Head to which he referred?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the last part of the question first, so far as the item referring to British Columbia is concerned it is exclusively restricted to British Columbia. We may not find it possible to spend any more money on old buildings because you can only renovate, rehabilitate and modernize old buildings up to a certain point and after that you do not get a return for what you are spending. We do not want to spend money on old buildings because we know we are going to have to build a number of new institutions.
With regard to the type of building required at William Head and Valleyfield, at William Head we have taken over a portion of the quarantine station operated by the Department of National Health and Welfare

which is estimated to be able to accommodate up to 100 prisoners. The buildings themselves are not being extensively altered. We were fortunate in finding something that, for the type of inmate which will be sent there, is almost immediately suitable and, as the hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out, it forms what you might call an open type of institution. Those who will be sent there to relieve the overcrowding are those who are nearing the end of their sentences or, alternatively, those on short sentences and who do not require any great security measures to be taken with respect to them. We have not had to make too many alterations at William Head. We have had to do some cleaning up, modernizing and minor adjustments.
I would also like to make clear again that we are not committing ourselves here to William Head but because of the type of institution that we happen to be running there, because of the type of inmate we will be sending there, we expect to get a very great deal of benefit from that experience in moving toward a more open type of institution.


Harold Edward Winch: On this most interesting point that has been raised by the Minister of Justice, may we ask him to rise and expatiate a little bit more. According to the information given to us a few minutes ago, he does not expect any reports until at least September of this year on the type of construction, place of construction and so forth. After that is received the government will have to give consideration to it. After that is done there will be the drafting of plans and after that there will be construction. I am afraid it is going to be quite a long time, even with the minister hurrying up as much as he possibly can, before very much can be done in the way of alleviating the new scale of overcrowding of the penitentiaries.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, I was in a British Columbia penitentiary a few days before coming down to Ottawa. Not only have they had to open up new dormitories, or expand new dormitories, but they have actually had to place the beds in the corridors in front of the cells. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that that does not make for a happy situation and if eastern Canada continues to send their criminals to British Columbia, where we have to sentence them to our penitentiaries, we are going to need more accommodation. There is no question about that, and we are going to need it in the near future.
Therefore, I would like to suggest-I hope it is in the minister's mind-that if anything additional at all is to be done in the existing

penitentiaries, as far as British Columbia is concerned,-I think it applies everywhere else-they try to do it on a dormitory basis, not only because it is cheaper but also because they only put in there those who have a good record and the aid to morale is terrific. The difference between those in the dormitories under very close supervision, of course,-and there are from 24 to 30 in the dormitories in the evening-and those who are locked up so many hours by themselves in a cell is startling.
In addition to this there is one other little point that I should like to mention. I will not take more than a couple of minutes to do it. I find I can only do it in one way and that is by making reference to the detail having to do with remuneration paid to inmates. I see that the vote amounts to $1,100. I want to use it as the basis for what I wish to say. Can consideration be given to perhaps making a policy change in the basis of paying remuneration to inmates? I should like to suggest that a change be made and I hope that my suggestions will be taken very seriously. I mentioned it once before. I should like the payment of remuneration to inmates to include as an entitlement a holdback, and the holdback could be used for the payment of unemployment insurance. I think it is of the utmost importance as a part of the remuneration to which the inmate himself must make a contribution, that there be the payment of unemployment insurance.
I can assure you that one of the biggest problems that this country faces is the fact that the government spends a great deal of money first of all on incarcerating these people because they have broken the laws of society. Then, after we have them in custody we try to rehabilitate them by training so that they will become useful members of society. Then, when their term of imprisonment is up and they are released they come up against the situation which we have had for far too long, namely the serious unemployment situation where the socially responsible unemployed cannot get jobs.
A man coming out of prison is really up against it and what happens? The very few dollars he has are gone. There is no job; there is no unemployment insurance; there is the utmost difficulty in getting welfare. I can assure the Minister of Justice that time after time during this winter, because of my interest in these matters, I have had telephone calls. People have said to me that they were released four weeks ago, six weeks ago, two months ago, and have no jobs and no unemployment insurance and they cannot get welfare. After the first handout from the John
Supply-Labour
Howard Society of British Columbia a person does not get any more as a general rule.
These people ask me, "What am I going to do; what am I expected to do?" I see it personally. The government has spent all this money in trying to rehabilitate these men and these women and it is going right down the drain because they are driven to the point where they say, "I cannot get a job; I have no subsistence; I will try to get away with it again." I think we would be making a far better investment if we were to work out some plan whereby when those people came out, because of their contributions as well as assistance from the government, perhaps not under unemployment insurance itself but in some form along that line that might tie in with it, they could use that money to tide themselves over a difficult time. We would get a better return on the money we spend and there would be a vast number who are now recidivists who would not again commit crimes.
As I say, I can only bring this up under "remuneration" and I most sincerely, from my own personal experience, knowledge and study of this matter, ask the minister to try to work out some plan whereby in desperation those men do not return to crime because they cannot get a job.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I realize that the question I am about to ask is something which may be too involved to answer at this time and that it might be better to deal with it at a later stage, but are there any restrictions placed on the type of books and publications which are available to inmates?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is supervision exercised by the warden and chaplain service, yes. As I recall it, I do not think there is any set of regulations in detail laid down on what type of books may be brought in but the warden on the advice to some extent of the chaplain, as I recall it, is responsible for determining whether a book may or may not be brought in.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR A-Department Special Services-
709. Payments to a province during 1958-59 and 1959-60 fiscal years in accordance with an agreement entered into by the government of Canada and the province, with the approval of the governor in council, that provides for contributions by the government of Canada of amounts not exceeding one half of the cost of labour incurred in the period from the 1st day of December, 1958, to the 30th day of April, 1959, on winter work projects in municipalities as contemplated by the agreement, $15,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
Erhart Regier: Would the minister not like to supply us with a little information before we begin to discuss this item.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the municipal incentive program, to which this item allocates $15 million, resulted from a winter employment conference held in Ottawa in July of last year. Participating in the conference were representatives of provincial and municipal governments, national organizations such as labour organizations, chambers of commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and many others.
The purpose in calling the conference at that time was to ascertain the views of these people as to how winter unemployment could be best combated. The conference lasted two days and those participating in the conference made a report which, I might say, was made without any direction from the federal government. The result was that suggestions were made as to incentives in order to provide more winter activity.
In October of last year the government also had a conference with representatives of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. The mayors attending the *conference came from large and small communities across the country. During that conference it was suggested by those representing the municipalities that the maximum amount of work, or at least more than in any other way, could be supplied through the efforts of the municipalities on the municipal level. In other words, they felt they could proceed with some of their municipal projects in the winter time provided the additional cost was offset by a contribution from the federal government.
In view of this suggestion the government offered a program to the provinces and through the provinces to the municipalities. This program involved participation by the federal government to the extent of 50 per cent of the total payroll costs in such projects as would not ordinarily be undertaken during the winter. I might say that the plan was accepted enthusiastically by all the provinces and they are participating to quite a large extent in the winter program. The four provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Prince Edward Island added an additional incentive by agreeing to pay 25 per cent which meant that municipalities in those provinces would have 75 per cent of the payroll cost borne by the federal and provincial governments. The province of Manitoba offered 30 per cent as their contribution toward the program.
During the first two months the program was in effect, in fact, up to February 6, 1959, 1,395 municipal projects were accepted. They
IMr. Fulton.]
were processed and approved by the provinces and the federal government and most of them are under way at the moment. According to the figures submitted to us by the municipalities in their applications, these 1,395 projects have provided 22,712 additional on-site jobs this winter across Canada. That figure is broken down in this way. In the Atlantic provinces these projects have provided 4,013 jobs, in Quebec 1,763, in Ontario 8,633, in the prairie provinces 6,328, and in British Columbia 1,975, making a total of 22,712.
Projects are still being submitted and processed. There has been no delay. In addition to the on-site jobs, employment has been provided for many more people engaged in the manufacture of materials and supplies and working in other trades and transportation and other services that are involved. It is estimated by those interested in these projects that the figure of 22,712 workers can be tripled in order to arrive at the number who are participating in the program.
The total cost of the projects accepted to date is $57,272,000, of which amount $46,694,000 will be spent during the five months that the program is in effect, that is, from December 1 to April 30. Direct payroll expenditure on projects accepted to date is estimated to be $15,656,000 and the federal share, being 50 per cent, will be approximately $7,751,000.
I am very pleased with the labour content of these projects. For all of the 1,395 projects approved to date the labour content is 38 per cent. We had hoped that it would be close to 30 per cent but it has gone beyond our expectations. I believe this is because the municipalities made a careful survey of projects in order to submit those where the labour content was the highest and I think they should be commended in this respect. It is estimated that the men employed on these projects will work a total of 1,228,358 man days.
Clearly this program has stimulated work and provided jobs during this period of time and will provide jobs in the next two and a half months for this number and I hope many more as projects are submitted for approval. There is no indication at the moment that the municipalities have no more projects to submit because they are coming in at almost the same rate as they did when the plan was announced.
There has been criticism, of course, that the program was late in starting. It is true that the program was not announced until late in October but the fact is that by December 19 over 500 projects had been processed and approved. I do not know whether

there is anything else I can add at the moment except to say that this is a field in which the federal government has never before participated. Its participation is an indication that the government is concerned about unemployment and that we are trying to do something. The program is the result of suggestions made at the conference where industry, labour, the provinces and the municipalities were represented and the result of direct suggestions made by the mayors representing the municipalities at their conference with us in October of last year.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take part in the discussion of this item because I have a very close acquaintance with the problems confronting the municipalities, the major one, of course, being unemployment. When the government announced the federal-provincial plan to assist municipalities to create employment we in Fort William were very happy about it. Accordingly our municipal council instructed our engineering department to prepare a list of projects which we hoped would come under the scheme, and which included bridges, sewers, roads and parks. These programs would have put several hundred people to work. Accordingly, we sent this list to the department for approval. But, lo and behold, when we received the list back from the department it was so blue-pencilled that the only thing left on the list was the clearing and brushing of park areas and street rights-of-way. Instead of putting hundreds of people to work, as we expected, only 48 men are now actually employed under the scheme.
During the throne speech debate, I made the following observations in connection with this announced program, as recorded on page 88 of Hansard for January 20, 1959:
Having served as mayor of the city of Fort William for eight years, I was delighted to hear that parliament will be asked to assist the municipalities of Canada in financing construction projects. I hope this aid will not be limited to the recently announced winter work program in conjunction with provincial governments. In this connection it may interest you to know that this project has only benefited 120 unemployed in the city of Fort William. I express the hope that the assistance will go beyond the presently prescribed limitations.
I find I was wrongly informed by the municipality, and that the figures were conveyed to me in the hope that the number would reach 120. A few days later, I was informed by letter from the city administrator, and I quote:
For your information, projects involving a total of $73,989.92 were approved by the provincial and federal governments and to date 48 men are being employed clearing and brushing park areas and street right-of-ways. It is likely that they will
Supply-Labour
be employed until April 30, 1959. The work is all straight labour and does not involve the purchase of materials, etc.
I want to assure the Minister of Labour, whom I count as one of my friends, that I do not minimize for one moment the importance of any scheme that will create jobs. We are grateful for any action that will give work to even a few, but I must confess that this program does not begin to meet the seriousness of the unemployment situation in Fort William where, as of January 21, we had 3,010 unemployed, which figure is higher than it was on the same date in 1957.
My views on the matter are more or less embodied in a resolution which I had prepared, but because I might be ruled out of order I am not going to move it at this time. However, I should like to read it:
Whereas, the impact of unemployment falls heavily on municipal governments and
Whereas the present federal-provincial winter work program will not take care of the immediate needs,
Be it resolved that the government give immediate consideration to the extension of the program beyond the present prescribed limitations.
Mr. Chairman, this winter work program, to be really effective, should include construction projects which, because of difficulties in financing, would otherwise be deferred until the municipalities found themselves in a better financial position. I would include new arterial highways bypassing business sections thus relieving traffic in the downtown area; the elimination of railway grade crossings; the widening of arterial highways within city limits; the construction of technical and vocational schools; and the construction of bridges over navigable waters.
The necessity for new bridges in Fort William is real. At the moment there is one bridge connecting the mainland with island No. 2 and a second bridge connecting island No. 2 with island No. 1. Incidentally, these islands are designated by numbers for want of names. We never got around to naming them, but we would be only too happy to do so whenever the government will render additional assistance to enable us to build bridges so that they will not be cut off. If something should happen to the bridge connecting island No. 2, this would have the effect of separating the two islands completely from the mainland. These two islands are suitable for heavy industry and a large industrial development is presently taking place there. On island No. 1 we have the Husky Oil and Refining Company, McColl-Frontenac Oil Co. Ltd., Canada Steamships Lines, Canadian Oil Co. Ltd., and the Canadian Pacific railway. On island No. 2 we have

Supply-Labour
located the British-American Oil Company, K. A. Powell Canada Ltd., Dryden Paper Company, Thunder bay yacht club, Kam boating club, hydro power commission of Ontario, which is now building a $26 million steam generating plant, and the Northern Engineering and Supply Company.
Other firms presently proceeding with large developments include the Canada Cement Company, Huron Chemicals Ltd., and in addition to these two a number of other firms are negotiating with the city for acreage on island No. 2. The size and location of the desired bridges will have to be defined by consulting engineers, but the immediate need is a bridge to provide an alternative to the Canadian Pacific railway bridge presently crossing the Kaministikwia river.
I did not intend to elaborate on the bridge situation in Fort William, but I feel that it provides an illustration which may have parallels in other parts of the country. These are the types of projects which would provide work for a considerable number of men and I therefore urge the government to take another look at the present winter work program and give the municipalities a break which will enable them to undertake worthwhile projects which will be of lasting benefit to the community. In this young, dynamic Canada of ours, there should be no room for widespread unemployment. Leaving all the recriminations of party politics aside, including the statements often made by members on the government side, "What would you do"-well, I offer a proposition here. I offer the suggestion that in addition to an expanded program of assistance to municipalities, assistance to private enterprise to encourage the establishment of new industries in a similar way as is being done in the promotion and stimulation of house construction, would be the answer to one of the major problems confronting Canada today.
You have already heard in this house about the possibility of the closing of the Canada Car plant in the city of Fort William. If that should happen-I am not suggesting it will because I am hoping that the government will soon decide-


Howard Russell MacEwan: Order. I would ask hon. members please to make presentations and suggestions under item 709.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman was trying to point out that this particular works program in his constituency is inadequate because of a serious layoff. With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest
fMr. Badanai.]
that he is entitled to mention the circumstances of this layoff in order to point out either the adequacy or the inadequacy of the program.


Hazen Robert Argue: Carry on. It is a good speech.


Howard Russell MacEwan: On
this matter I should just like to suggest that this is a winter works program and should be dealt with as such. The layoff to which I believe the hon. member is referring is one in a plant in his constituency. I would ask the hon. member to continue.


Hubert Badanai: I am referring to the whole program as an example which would benefit our municipality in the matter of a winter works program. I would just say that if the Canada Car Company fails to receive an order for this vehicle which I have mentioned, if the government had a provision to establish, to finance or to help or assist in financing the establishment of a new industry, I dare say there would be a number of our citizens, including some of those who are presently working at this plant, who would be able and willing to form such a company and with the government's assistance it could be successful and capable of retaining a large skilled labour force employed. If the government persists in belittling or ignoring constructive suggestions such as those I have endeavoured to make, then the members of the government need not feel annoyed if they are reminded by the opposition of the seriousness of the unemployment situation. I submit that the road out of unemployment is not a road paved with platitudes and good intentions. It is a road that can be found only with courage and imagination, as well as the means which the government possesses.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman-


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit me to make an observation with respect to what has been said by the hon. member for Fort William?


Erhart Regier: Yes.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Fort William mentioned that sewers, bridges and other underpasses were not included. It is set out clearly that sewers are included. We have passed a large number of large sewer projects. Bridges are included for the major reconstruction of roads as well as underpasses and culverts. All these things are included.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Provided the municipality pays for the supplies and everything.


Michael Starr: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All the federal government does is pay a percentage of the cost of the actual labour involved.


Michael Starr: That is exactly our plan. We pay a percentage of the payroll.


Hubert Badanai: In reply to the minister's question, I must say that we have proposed the construction of a new bridge and it was turned down by the department. That is the information I have.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, just before this session began-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I recognize the
hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Erhart Regier: I wish, Mr. Chairman, that the unemployed in Canada were as well organized as-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to stop the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Hubert Badanai: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam rose previously.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister opened with his statement.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Does the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam wish to ask a question about the minister's statement? Was it just a question that he wished to ask?


Erhart Regier: No, Mr. Chairman. Before the opposition should be presenting its case we invited the minister to make a statement and I extended that invitation. However, out of respect to the Liberals I allowed the hon. member for Fort William to go ahead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think everybody in the house will agree that that is the situation. The hon. member asked a question whether the Minister of Labour was making an opening statement. I think that in all fairness, you would want to allow him to speak.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I understand the situation. I therefore give the floor to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Erhart Regier: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As I was beginning to say, I wish the unemployed in Canada were as well organized as are other groups in Canada. If that were the case, this item appearing in the estimates at this time would become one of the major subjects for a debate in this house at the current session of parliament. I
Supply[DOT]-Labour
believe it is rather odd that a major item of this kind appears, as it were, after the event and comes before us as one of the items in the supplementary estimates. What I have in mind is this. A matter as important as this item should in my opinion have been presented to the House of Commons at the last session and should have been presented in the form of legislation so that there might have ensued a debate on, first, the need for action along that line and, second, the methods that might be adopted for the successful implementation of that legislation. However, we are obliged to satisfy ourselves now with merely conducting a debate on a matter that appears in the estimates.
I realize that the government at the end of the last session was keenly aware of the fact that a measure of this kind would be necessary in the winter of 1958-59. Unemployment was not receding, as it had so often done, over the summer months or in the course of the summer months and anyone in Canada with any modicum of intelligence at all could foresee the situation that we would be having on our hands in the forthcoming winter. Yet this government would not take parliament into its confidence as to what its plans were.
I am hoping the Minister of Labour is not going to consider that what I have to say is an attack on either himself or the administration of his department. He has certain responsibilities as a minister. However, they are extremely limited. They are limited in the main to administration efforts. However, this item in the estimates involves much more than matters which concern only our Minister of Labour. I feel that when this item in the estimates is being discussed leading members of the government ought to be in their places and ought to be prepared to show how this item meets their commitment to the people of Canada that as long as they are in office no one would suffer because of unemployment. I am going to vote for this program. I am going to vote for this $15 million because I know how necessary it is. Nevertheless it is a pittance. It is a weak program in the light of the need and in the light of the type of program the people of Canada expected this government to produce. After all, Mr. Chairman, this government has now been in office for 20 months, since the election of June 10, 1957, and yet in all of those 20 months we find that their major project to relieve unemployment in Canada consists of their so-called winter works plan that is now before us.


Howard Charles Green: What about housing?


Hazen Robert Argue: What about the unemployed?


Erhart Regier: The minister says, "What about housing?", I am quite prepared to give the

Supply-Labour
minister lull marks on that matter so far as it incidentally relieved to a certain extent the unemployment situation. However, the Minister of Public Works knows full well that housing was coming to a halt in Canada. Private enterprise was deserting the field, and something had to be done. That was the basic reason why the government came forward with its housing program. It was not for the purpose of supplying employment. It just happened to suit the argument of the government of Canada. If the minister remembers what I warned him about last year, I said he would find that as rapidly as he poured money into housing, private enterprise would leave the housing field and devote its funds to more lucrative enterprises in Canada, such as gas pipe lines and the like. However, I do realize that we are getting a little off the estimate now before us. This is the one major item which has been presented by this government to solve the question of unemployment in Canada. This sum of $15 million even by itself, when looked at in money terms, will do very little indeed to restore prosperity and confidence in the economic and business field.
I would like to say a few words on the statement given to us by the Minister of Labour. I appreciate that the minister and his department are not responsible. They are given the unpleasant task of making the best show of a very badly conceived enterprise in the first place. The minister said that this estimate appears before us partly as a result of the report of the conference on winter unemployment. I was in Ottawa at the time this conference was held. I believe almost all of us were in Ottawa; at any rate, we were supposed to be here at that time. Parliament was sitting at the time, yet after the conference we repeatedly asked the minister whether he could advise us whether any action might be forthcoming as a result of the recommendations emanating from this conference. I applaud the calling of the conference but, however, parliament was left to go home on September 6 without being offered any concrete proposals which had emanated from the conference for our consideration.
The minister also indicated that this program may possibly be the result of the conference that the Prime Minister held with the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. I believe the minister there engaged in some really wishful thinking, because if my observations of that meeting of the mayors and municipalities are correct, first of all it took place on October 6 and 7 of last year, which is well on into the winter
[Mr. Regier.l
in many parts of Canada. The wire that the Prime Minister sent to the premiers of the provinces or to the provincial governments was not sent until October 27, which was fully three weeks later. However, be that as it may, at the conference of October 6 and 7 to which the minister referred the mayors and reeves of municipalities were told, in effect, to go home and look at their assessment rolls to see whether assessments could not be raised a bit. They were told to look at their tax rate and see whether the mill rate could not be raised a little bit, and if they had any difficulty in borrowing money for major municipal works projects, perhaps it was because they were not offering a high enough rate of interest on the market to attract investors.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree that this was as a result of the report of the conference on winter unemployment, because if it had been, parliament, which was meeting at the time, had the right to expect the government to make some announcement to parliament-


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman on a question of privilege, the hon. member is questioning my statement that this matter was not discussed with the mayors and as a result this plan was put into effect. I wish to inform the hon. member that he will have to take my word for it: I was present and discussed it with them.


Erhart Regier: I thank the minister for his interruption, and I am very sorry if I created a wrong impression in his mind. However, I do not believe that I said that this project was not discussed. I only doubted that it really emanated as a result of those discussions, because it took three full weeks after that meeting until the provincial governments were advised. Major projects like this, cannot be undertaken by municipalities on almost no notice whatsoever. I cannot think of any major project requiring employment in my municipality of Burnaby or Port Moody which can be undertaken without first having to prepare plans and to submit those plans by way of money by-laws to the rate payers. Then after that they have to go to the money markets and sell their bonds and their debentures. I notice that it was not until some time after October 26 that the municipalities actually received the details, which made it useless for the purpose of providing employment.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson) moved: the second reading of Bill S-5 respecting the Canadian Medical Association.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour for me to sponsor this bill on behalf of the Canadian Medical Association. This association was founded in Quebec in 1867 and was incorporated by act of federal parliament in 1909. The first president of the association was Sir Charles Tupper.
The association represents 80 to 85 per cent of the practising members of the medical profession in Canada. Throughout the years it has done everything possible to promote the health and well-being of Canadian citizens. As all hon. members are aware the practice and scope of medicine and its impact upon our citizens have changed tremendously since 1909. The purpose of this bill is simply to modernize the constitution of the association and bring it up to date. It seeks to repeal sections 2 and 7 of chapter 62 of the statutes of 1909. The important additions provided by this bill are contained in paragraphs (f) and (g) of clause 2 of the present bill which reads as follows:
2. (f) to promote the interests of the members of the association and to act on their behalf in the promotion thereof;
(g) to grant sums of money out of the funds of the association for the furtherance of these projects;
In January of 1957 provisions came into effect to set up a pension and retirement scheme on a voluntary basis for members of the association. These changes were made possible because of provisions in the Income Tax Act introduced in that year. The alterations in the constitution of the association are required so that the Canadian Medical Association can look after its members. The other changes are related to the wider fields that are now within the realm of the members of the association. Some examples of these, of course, are the fields of industrial medicine, public health and cancer control.
The changes in section 7 merely represent a request to remove the limitations presently imposed on the value of real estate which the association may own. Naturally the costs and values of 1909 are unrealistic today. Again these changes are merely designed to bring the constitution up to date. As the association has always taken the lead in medical health and care of Canadians and in making sure that new advances in medical knowledge and care were made available to the people, it is now
Private Bills
seeking to take the lead in the management of its own affairs in having its constitution brought up to date. It gives me great pleasure to recommend to the house the passage of this bill altering the constitution of the Canadian Medical Association.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of this bill. As the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has said, this association is one with a long and creditable history of public service, the first president being a former distinguished member of the Canadian parliament, Sir Charles Tupper, who at one time was prime minister of Canada and who was an outstanding physician.


Robert Jardine McCleave: And a distinguished Nova Scotian.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. gentleman has just said, Sir Charles Tupper came from Nova Scotia. He was not the only person from Nova Scotia to have made a contribution to the Canadian Medical Association but he will long be remembered for the outstanding contributions he has made.
As one who was minister of national health and welfare of this country for some years I feel I may speak with some authority about the contribution which the Canadian Medical Association makes to the profession of medicine and generally to the work of improving the health services of our country. I have in mind particularly men like Dr. Clarence Routley who, as secretary of this association for such a long time and as president of the association at a time when he was also president of a much wider body comprised of physicians of the commonwealth and other countries as well, has won the gratitude of the Canadian Medical Association, the people of Canada and the government of Canada. His leadership and co-operation in the association during the time I served as minister of national health and welfare deserve profound gratitude. He represented Canada as indeed have other officers of this association at meetings of the World Health Organization on several occasions.
The present vice-president of the association, Dr. Kirk Lyon, who would be president but for the fact that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh occupies that post at the present time, is also a man who has made a great contribution both to the Ontario Medical Association and to the Canadian Medical Association. I am very pleased about the services that Dr. Lyon has made because he comes from my own county of Essex. Dr. Murray Douglas the president of the-Ontario Medical Association also comes frorr

Private Bills
this county and both these distinguished gentlemen have made extremely worthwhile contributions.
At a time when there was much criticism of the proposal for hospital insurance introduced and placed on the statute books by the previous administration the Canadian Medical Association gave its support to the proposal and through such personalities as Dr. Routley greatly facilitated the public understanding of a measure that is now widely accepted in most parts of Canada.
I believe this bill is one that deserves our support and I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying these few words about some of the contemporary members of this great body. I conclude what I have to say by noting that the work these men have done is now being carried out in the same outstanding manner by its present officers and particularly by Dr. A. D. Kelly, secretary of the association.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Weichel for the second reading of Bill S-4, to incorporate the Waterloo Mutual Insurance Company.
Mr. A. R. Webster (St. Antoine-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill now before us is to change the basis of the charter of the Waterloo Mutual Insurance Company From a provincial charter to a federal charter; in other words, to bring it under the jurisdiction of the federal superintendent of insurance.
The Waterloo Mutual Fire Insurance Company, which is referred to as a provincial company, was incorporated under the provincial laws of Ontario in 1863. As one of the early incorporated mutual insurance companies of Ontario it has been doing business for about 96 years and now seeks federal incorporation to place itself in a position to benefit from the good will created by its past performance. Under the act of incorporation the new company will continue the business of the former company and assume its assets and liabilities.
The Waterloo Mutual is the last of the mutual companies which were formed years ago in Ontario such as the Gore District Mutual, the Perth Mutual and the Economical Mutual, all of which have obtained federal incorporations and are now operating on the basis of federal charters. This Waterloo company seeks to join those which are now

operating as dominion companies. Dominion registration facilitates the extension of its business beyond Ontario. Fire, automobile and other casualty business in Ontario is limited. This company would like to extend its activities to the other provinces of the dominion. Also, in this country about 80 per cent of the life insurance business is in the hands of Canadian insurance companies; whereas casualty, fire and other casualty insurance is in the hands of Canadian companies only to the extent of about 20 per cent. The remainder is in the hands of British, United States and foreign-owned insurance companies. Therefore, the premium income is diverted out of this country to other foreign countries.
The number of life insurance companies in the United States and Canada which are placing mortgages on real estate insist that the fire insurance policies on this real estate must be policies issued by dominion incorporated companies and this Waterloo company finds that it is losing quite a number of its better risks, and naturally they would like to retain them.
Another reason is that when they come to seek reinsurance with the other dominion incorporated companies the provincial companies are treated as more or less unlicensed re-insurers by the dominion department of insurance and they have to deposit insurance to cover their insurance risk with a chartered trust company, which is an inconvenience and an added expense to the provincial companies. Also, the federal insurance companies come under the inspection of the dominion insurance laws, which are a great deal stricter than the provincial laws.
I believe this, in a general way, pretty well covers the reasons for this bill which contains all the provisions required to protect the policy holders as well as the public.
In the event that this incorporation goes through, I may say that there is no intention to change the board of directors or the shareholders or to interfere in any way whatsoever with the capital stock of the company. This bill has the support and the recommendation of the superintendent of insurance who piloted it through the other place and recommended its passage.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, may I make one brief comment in support of this bill? With respect to the action of the company in increasing its jurisdiction and its ability to compete in the field of insurance I should like to make this comment. I agree with the remarks made here by the sponsor and I believe in the other place. The excuse given that certain

mortgage and insurance companies today insist and require that they place insurance elsewhere rather than with this provincial company is an excuse which was put forward by some of those companies without legal or ethical right in order to give certain advantages to a preferred group of insurance companies. I hope that this company will not be disappointed in increasing its jurisdiction or status by becoming a dominion company by finding that perhaps some other excuses have been given by some of those other companies. I feel at times that some of the mortgage and insurance companies change the insurance, although the mortgage says only that the property should be insured up to the value of the mortgage.
I also note that the applicants are of Canadian origin and seem to be in the constituency of the sponsors of the bill. I was wondering whether the shareholders come primarily from the province of Ontario or the area of the sponsors. I would also like to know whether the sponsor is going to have representatives of the company present when it goes to the committee?


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. gentleman speaks now he will close the debate.


Oscar William Weichel: I would like to say to the hon. member that we will have representatives of the company at the meeting of the banking and commerce committee. The sponsors of this bill are seeking to have the Waterloo Mutual Insurance Company incorporated as a dominion company. I would like to express my thanks to the hon. members who have spoken in support of this bill. The city of Waterloo has made a fine contribution in matters pertaining to insurance. This company was incorporated under the laws of Ontario in the year 1863, and has been in business for about 96 years. They are seeking federal incorporation to benefit their position. It is purely a Canadian company and the company feels that it should be incorporated under dominion laws to extend its activities to meet all situations.
The assistance which we have received is appreciated very much by this company, Mr. Speaker, and myself.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCleave for the second reading of the following bills: 66968-9-65
Private Bills
Bill SD-1, for the relief of Lise Nolet Lunghi.
Bill SD-2, for the relief of Margaret Stewart Cairns Bamber.
Bill SD-3, for the relief of Gertrude Czerny Thomschitz, otherwise known as Gertrude Czerny Thomas.
Bill SD-4, for the relief of Miriam Hirsh Leff.
Bill SD-5, for the relief of Phyllida Fair-bairn Smith Draper.
Bill SD-6, for the relief of Janos Sztecsinics, otherwise known as Jean Sztecsinics.
Bill SD-7, for the relief of Margaret Craig Murdoch.
Bill SD-8, for the relief of Nita Stella Pollock Adams.
Bill SD-9, for the relief of Enis (Ines) Vit Desnoyers.
Bill SD-10, for the relief of Helen Elizabeth MacDonald Downey.
Bill SD-11, for the relief of Silvia Frederike Diethilde Beate Angela Buchsel Fatter.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, when the house was giving consideration last Friday to private members' bills we had an interesting debate on the practice of divorce in the Canadian parliament. A number of interesting contributions were made in that debate. I think every speaker had some new thought to offer on this subject. Perhaps at this time I can make a few comments on some of the more important points that were made. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones) raised two questions that I think should be answered. As you and the house will recall, Mr. Speaker, I said then that as the sponsor of the bills I would not move bills in the house when there was lobbying in support of the bills outside of the House of Commons but inside the parliament buildings. I felt that this was a good stand to take for the protection of members of parliament who frequently, at the request of their constituents, have to do something to help in divorce cases. Judging from the reaction to this statement, I can only conclude that it was a very happy and fortuitous one because I have heard of no disagreement. However, one hon. member did point out that there might be a danger that the person on the losing side of the case would do some lobbying and if I then refused to move the bill the person in the wrong would have achieved a miscarriage of justice and the person in the right would not obtain the divorce. There is certainly no intention of that happening. I am glad the hon. member did point out that possibility.

Private Bills
This policy, of course, would only be used to thwart attempts by people to put undue pressure on members of parliament. Certainly it would not be a policy designed to help the guilty.
In the course of my remarks I dealt somewhat with the hotel and motel cases and the law that pertains to the decisions in the provincial courts on the balance of probability. I said that whereas it has been assumed for a long time that if two people were found under suspicious circumstances in a hotel or motel it could be inferred they had gone there for the purpose of committing adultery it might now appear that they had gone for the purpose of acquiring evidence for a divorce. I merely raised the point to indicate the great reliance on the hotel and motel type of evidence that is prevalent all across Canada today. I certainly did not want to indicate that there was any such inference drawn in the provincial courts. However, it would be useful to point out that parliament, in dealing with divorce, does not act upon whimsy, upon whether it likes the colour of one person's eyes or dislikes the colour of another person's eyes.
It is true that we do have the power to be whimsical in our decisions if we so choose. However, it has been the practice for years, in the other place and in the House of Commons, to determine these cases upon legal principles and to follow the reasoning that is applied in courts of justice. In that way we give citizens who come here petitioning for relief no more rights than they would have if they had gone to provincial courts. On the other hand, we give them no less rights.
It has been the practice in our committee, for example, to have the services of Dr. Maurice Ollivier and Mr. Eobert J. Batt. They are in attendance at our meetings so that we may be properly instructed on the law whenever the need for instruction arises. I made my point that the law could sometimes take a different view of what went on in hotels and motels not to indicate that any such inferences were now being made from these hotel and motel cases. However, at some future time some court might very well consider the whole matter, and consider modern times and modern trends as compared to what went on 100 years ago, and might lay down some judicial principle that hotel and motel evidence could not be regarded as qualifying for the granting of a divorce. That day has not come but I believe that some day a court will have to encounter it. If the law is changed in that regard, then I would point out that we will be so advised, both here and in the other
[Mr. McCleave.l
place, and we will have to act accordingly. We shall be guided by any new legal principles that come along.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) made strong pleas to get these cases out of parliament and out of the House of Commons. I make only a very brief comment on that. Under the British North America Act divorce jurisdiction became a matter for parliament, something that the fathers of confederation conceived in their wisdom. Over the years arrangements have been made so that in eight provinces these cases are heard in the courts, but this is not so in the province of Quebec or the province of Newfoundland. I think the people who make suggestions about removing divorce jurisdiction from parliament in these two cases are perhaps blinding themselves to reality.
We are dealing with matters belonging to two particular provinces. If we had before us suggestions from members of those particular provinces that they would like the cases so removed, perhaps we would be farther along the road to the day when parliament would not have to deal with divorce. It seems to me that to make these suggestions now is rather dangerous. I know that as a member from Nova Scotia I would be rather wrathy if someone from British Columbia were to come along and suggest how we should run affairs in Nova Scotia. I am sure the same reasoning would apply to a gentleman from one of these provinces if such suggestions were made by someone from another province. I think that this matter of parliament divesting itself from divorce jurisdiction, if it is ever to be dealt with properly, the suggestion and initiative for that sort of action must come from the responsible people in the two provinces concerned.
Several of the speakers in the debate last week, Mr. Speaker, mentioned some of the problems in connection with the work of the committee itself. I do not intend to deal with them before the house. There will be changes suggested in the committee and hon. members will have an opportunity there to discuss them.
There is one final point. One of the speakers last week made a suggestion that contentious divorce cases were being decided last session along party lines in the House of Commons when they came to a vote. As I recall those two cases, that was certainly not what happened. Except for the two members of the C.C.F. who tended to stick closely together on one side of the case or another,

the members of other parties were split in opinion as between one side of the case or the other.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill SD-12, an act for the relief of Marie Cordelia Marie-Ange Pigeon Gaboriau dit Lapalme.
Mr, Speaker:: As there are a number of divorce bills standing on the order paper for second reading, is it the pleasure of the house that the bills be taken in one motion?


Ernest James Broome: With the exception of Bills SD-19 and SD-20, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the remaining bills be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-12, for the relief of Marie Cordelia Marie-Ange Pigeon Gaboriau dit Lapalme.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-13, for the relief of Jeannine Genevieve Jagelavicus Kusleika.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-14, for the relief of Viola Bleier Josephovits.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-15, for the relief of James John Thompson Keay.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-16, for the relief of Constandina Alimanisteanu Butas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-17, for the relief of Viola Gertrude Elizabeth Boyd Theroux.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-18, for the relief of Sydney Arthur Powell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-21, for the relief of Geraldine Joy Conway Cook.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-22, for the relief of Joan Natalie Miller Martin.-Mr. McCleave.


Robert Jardine McCleave: that the following bills be read the second time.
Bill SD-19, for the relief of Ruth Georgina Potts Dobie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-20, for the relief of Patricia Burnell Fraser Rosensweig.-Mr. McCleave.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill No. SD-19, there are certain elements that appear in the evidence which I think should be considered by the house. I might say first of all that I have no objection whatsoever to the applicant in this case being successful in her 66968-9-65i
Private Bills
petition for a divorce. The evidence, particularly that with regard to the treatment of the child, leads one to believe that she should have had a divorce long ago. I have here the evidence taken before the divorce committee of the other place, and it would appear that the applicant applied for and received a separation order from the superior court of Quebec in the spring of 1954. That order made it mandatory that she be paid the sum of $25 a month for the support of the child. This money was paid for almost one year and then no further payments were made. The applicant did not press for further payments, being content to look after the child with the money that she herself earned as a saleslady. The startling point in the evidence is to be found halfway down page 12 where I find the following:
Q. I understand your daughter is at school, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Has he-
Meaning the husband
-ever made any inquiries about his daughter at all?
A. Nothing at all.
In other words, for three years he has paid nothing for the support of the child and has made no attempt to maintain any normal contact with the child whatsoever. However, in spite of these circumstances and the background of the case it is still true that when you read the evidence you see that it is strictly circumstantial. As I am not a lawyer like the chairman of the private bills committee, the taller member from Halifax, I am not sufficiently versed in the law to know whether the circumstantial evidence offered is good or not good. Having read it myself, I consider it to be satisfactory but nevertheless it is still circumstantial evidence.
This case has one advantage. Instead of being the stereotyped motel or hotel type of case such as come before the unfortunate members of the private bills committee in great numbers, this case happens to have authenticity and a ring of truth about it because the events took place in the gentleman's apartment. I listened to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) when he spoke a few days ago on the occasion of the first series of divorce bills coming before the house. He said then that he thought that the people of Newfoundland and Quebec would resent any change in the present method of handling these cases. I wonder whether that is quite true. After all, divorces are being granted to residents of Newfoundland and Quebec. It is a fact. These divorce cases come here, are reviewed very thoroughly in the other place, are given as much consideration as we can

Private Bills
possibly give them and are processed rather quickly considering the amount of work involved, but this is still not the right way to deal with the matter.
The two provinces concerned have said that parliament should handle this type of business because they do not want anything to do with it. However, since other provinces have established a procedure for the handling of divorce cases, is it not within the power of parliament to set up a special divorce court?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not quite sure what relevance there is in what the hon. member is saying to the case of Ruth Georgina Potts Dobie.


Ernest James Broome: I was just coming to that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will come to it very quickly.


Ernest James Broome: The present procedure must be an extremely costly process for the applicants and I would think that any other method of dealing with these cases would result in their being dealt with more expeditiously and efficiently and at much less cost to the applicants than under the present system. I suggest that the private bills committee should give consideration to what remedy can be proposed for dealing with such cases as this one and the hundreds of others which will come before us during this session. I think that is all I wish to say on this subject, Mr. Speaker, except that I am forced to be a member of the private bills committee and I wish the committee did not have to consider these cases. Necessary and essential as it is that these people shall receive relief, I also think it is about time that we took another look at our divorce laws in general-this is where I may be irrelevant-to see whether we are really in tune with the times.


Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to make a few comments on this particular divorce bill. The unfortunate aspect of divorce bills is perhaps the suffering involved, the sympathy that goes to the individuals concerned and the fact that in having to come before parliament as they do they are engaged in a sort of parliamentary Russian roulette in the sense that when petitioning for a divorce these people never know which particular bill is going to be picked on by members of parliament.
I have occasion to disagree with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) in a sense when he said that only the members from Newfoundland and Quebec were interested in divorce matters before parliament. I feel that this is a matter of interest to all members of parliament because it is the entire

parliamentary time that is being taken up and not just that of the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec.
As the particular divorce before us, the facts indicate that the petitioner was married on November 5, 1940, separated from her husband in September, 1953, and there was a separation judgment in the spring of 1954. I think perhaps the most justifiable item in all the evidence dealing with the divorce is succinctly expressed in the statement found at page 12. It was a question by Senator Barbour to the petitioner which went as follows:
Q. Would you take your husband back now?
A. No, I wouldn't.
In reviewing the evidence contained in this report I think that is perhaps the most valid grounds for granting the divorce. The hon. member for Vancouver South who preceded me said he did not wish to speak on the matter of the evidence. However, I feel that that is a matter of a great deal of importance since, as the hon. member for Halifax pointed out to us, we in parliament are sitting in a sense in a judicial capacity and all we have before us in most instances is the evidence presented by the Senate. From that we go through a feat of logic and try to ascertain whether or not we would be justified logically, and perhaps morally, in granting the specific divorce.
In the present situation, the investigation went on over a period from July 4, 1958, to September 14, 1958. The only relevant dates seem to be September 12, which was a Friday, and September 13 and September 14 which, of course, were Saturday and Sunday consecutively. The first investigator said that he had received a call, I believe it was, about two o'clock in the morning-this is on the morning of September 12-from his coinvestigator to the effect that there was somebody in the respondent's apartment. The evidence stated that a woman had been seen in Mr. Dobie's apartment since late in the evening and it seemed that she was still there. He had not seen her leave. That is the first evidence that we had as to the woman named being in the particular apartment. They renewed their vigilance on Saturday, September 13, at nine o'clock in the morning and apparently the only evidence there was that they saw the lady go into a supermarket, returning with some groceries and then go into the apartment.
One of the difficulties in the feat of logic that we are asked to perform in the present case is that it is not indicated as to how many entrances there are to the apartment. Only one entrance is mentioned and apparently the apartment is located on the ground floor. It also apparently goes into some two

or three other apartments. But the vigilant private investigators have not mentioned in the evidence whether or not there was a back door and whether the woman named might have been leaving and coming in by another exit. They spent apparently most of Saturday carefully watching the apartment and they stayed watching it until 2.15 a.m. in the morning. Then one of the investigators apparently at 2.15 in the morning, decided that there was no point in remaining further, that there would be no further developments. Apparently this shrewd investigator decided -evidently it was an apartment where I imagine the blinds are pulled

that eight o'clock in the morning was perhaps the time to come back. But then on Saturday, apparently being rather early risers, the first and second investigator met at 8.05 in the morning and in the words of the evidence of one investigator:
After discussing the situation we decided to risk a contact, so we knocked on the door of Mr. Dobie's basement apartment. At first there was no response. We could hear somebody moving around very quietly inside, and I called through the door and asked for Mr. Dobie, and a minute or two later he came and said, "Who is it?"-
And so on. So from the time there was a knock on the door there was an interval, according to the investigators, of one or two minutes. Then the investigators, being rather ingenious individuals, managed to think of an excuse to get into the bedroom to make a telephone call and, arriving in the bedroom, of course found the lady in bed. It was a double bed and she was apparently alone at the time. The interesting thing about the evidence which I think would be fairly important is that the investigator said:
From what we could see she didn't seem to have any clothes on at all.
Although it is stated that she had a blanket surrounding her. They went on to mention that there were several articles of underclothing distributed around the room and that there was a pair of trousers on the dresser. But from the evidence presented, I am unable to ascertain whether Mr. Dobie answered the door without his trousers or whether in fact he had a suit with two pairs of pants. The investigator never thought to clarify the situation as to Mr. Dobie's apparent state of dress or undress. If the circumstances of adultery are as alleged, then Mr. Dobie must have dressed very quickly from the time they knocked in order to arrive at the door in a habitable state. This, Mr. Chairman, is the only indication and the only evidence that we have that there was adultery. There was a knock on the door. The gentleman answered very promptly.
Private Bills
There was a lady in the other room in bed who may or may not have been undressed. This is presented to us on the basis, of course, that there was adultery involved.
I worry a great deal about our responsibility because in a sense we are a judicial body. If I may, I should like to turn briefly to what the legal situation is on the evidence of adultery. I should like first of all to refer to the "Canadian Encyclopedic Digest", the Ontario edition, at page 194, where we find the following:
Even though the charges of adultery are not denied they must be proved to the satisfaction of the court. The burden of establishing adultery always rests on petitioner.
Then Power, in his excellent book on divorce, disagrees to a slight extent on the onus of proof required as suggested by the hon. member for Halifax. It is with respect that I quote this authority. Power, in "The Law of Divorce in Canada", at page 310 states as follows:
Even though the charges of adultery are not denied they must be proved to the satisfaction of the court.
Then there is a quotation from the judgment in the case of Sandler v. Sandler, Davies and Johnstone (1934), Probate 149. This is by Sir Boyd Merriman:
In matrimonial causes there is a third party who is even more vitally concerned, perhaps, than the two parties themselves, the state. It is regarded as a matter of public importance that the marriage tie should be maintained and that dissolution of the marriage should only be decreed on grounds allowed by the law.
Then in Russell v. Russell (1924) Appeal Cases 687, Lord Summer states as follows:
They-
That is the judges.
-watch the admissibility of the evidence tendered in undefended divorce cases as vigilantly as if they were protecting the interests of a prisoner undefended by counsel.
Perhaps on the point I referred to as to the burden of proof I may refer to the "Canadian Encyclopedic Digest" at page 196:
The standard of proof in Ontario is not that imposed on the crown in a criminal prosecution, but Is the standard required in a civil action only. The judicial mind must be "satisfied" that the act of adultery was in fact committed, but it need not be satisfied to the extent of a moral certainty as in a criminal case. Evidence that creates only suspicion, surmise or conjecture is of course insufficient. It is necessary that the quality and quantity of the evidence be such as to lead the tribunal, whether judge or jury, acting with care and caution, to the fair and reasonable conclusion that the act was committed.
Reference was made on the same page to a case where the plaintiff's husband deliberately brought a strange woman into the house and got her to undress and get into bed with

Private Bills
him at a time and place when they were sure to be discovered by the plaintiff, and it was held that the inference that adultery had been committed was so weak and improbable that it could not be found as a fact to have been committed. In those circumstances we have both people in bed together at the same time.
May I refer again to page 197 to another case where the court did not infer adultery from the mere fact that the respondent wife, who had separated from her husband, visited the co-respondent several times at his home to do washing and cooking for him, and occasionally stayed overnight, which is a case somewhat parallel with the one before us.
One of the most important aspects is the question of the professional investigator, which is the only evidence before us here. Again in the "Canadian Encyclopedic Digest" at page 198 it is stated:
The evidence of a professional investigator, who is engaged in the business of seeking out acts of misconduct on the part of persons against whom it is desired to institute action for divorce, if uncorroborated by evidence other than that of his own employee, will be scrutinized very carefully; and where such evidence is not conclusive of adultery, but at best shows imprudent conduct on the part of those implicated and an opportunity to commit a matrimonial offence, the action will be dismissed.
So I feel that on the basis of the evidence that we have before us as parliamentarians, if we were acting as judges in the instant case, we would not grant the divorce. I feel, with the difficulties of the case before us, it would be sufficient for us, as parliamentarians, to grant the divorce on the mere fact that the parties are separated and obviously cannot get along together, without going through the rather unusual manoeuvres, shall we say, to obtain the evidence necessary to try and satisfy parliament. I feel, it is indicative of the fact, as mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome), that either we should stop having divorces from Quebec or Newfoundland, or in the alternative there should be a separate court which will be in the position adequately to investigate and ascertain that the divorces were granted. Because, as 1 mentioned earlier, there is an obligation not only to the individuals concerned but also to the state to see that justice is done.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) who has just taken his seat, and the hon. member who preceded him, have both made reference to Newfoundland and Quebec so far as divorce cases coming before parliament are concerned. As a member from Newfoundland,

and also as one of the Newfoundland members on the miscellaneous private bills committee, I feel that I should say a few words in reply to the statements that have already been made.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds, I took some exception to the broader discussion which the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) was embarking upon. The hon. member who has just taken his seat stuck pretty closely to Bill No. SD-19. I am not sure whether the hon. member who now has the floor was in the house when we first had divorce bills before us this session. There was a debate on procedural matters which went some distance, but I think went as far as it could usefully go having regard to the fact that we are considering individual divorce cases. It is almost six o'clock, but I thought I had better warn the hon. member that I would not look with favour on a discussion of the general procedure in divorce matters when we are dealing with these two specific bills.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I of course bow to your ruling without any reservation whatsoever, but since the statement was made that the time of the house was being taken up with divorces coming from Newfoundland -I think the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) said that it only concerned members from Newfoundland, and the member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) said it concerned everybody because our time is taken up unnecessarily-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member must be talking about other bills, because Bill SD-19 comes from Quebec and Bill SD-20 seems to come from Quebec also. So his province is quite clear of any blame with respect to these two bills.


Chesley William Carter: I do not know what bill the hon. member who has just taken his seat was speaking to, Mr. Speaker, but I am speaking to the same one and I was dealing with statements he made at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member would like to call it six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what the business is for Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall have private members' day, and on Tuesday commence with the supplementary estimates. Then follows item No. 5, the resolution concerning the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act; item No. 6, the resolution concerning the Northwest Territories Act;

item No. 3, the resolution concerning the National Defence Act; and item No. 1, the resolution concerning the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Then item No. 8, the resolution concerning the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act. Then there is a resolution on Votes and Proceedings for the day dealing with parliamentary secretaries.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure that will be of interest to the house.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. This I expect to be the program for Tuesday and Wednesday, and on Thursday we will take the resolutions concerning the National Housing Act and the Trans-Canada Highway Act; and if there are current estimates under consideration next week, they will probably be those of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Supply-Items Passed [The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Field Services-
Fish culture and development branch-
704.	Construction or acquisition of buildings,
works, land and	equipment-further amount
required, $55,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department
705.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $15,200.
706.	Remission service-further amount required for Parole Act administration and to authorize the expenditure, for the purposes of the said Act, of moneys provided for the remission service by the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1958, $28,000.
B-Penitentiaries
707.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries -further amount required, $151,394.
708.	Construction, improvements and equipment- further amount required $67,520.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, February 16, 1959