1960-06-30

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the house is aware the Belgian Congo is to become a sovereign state today, and all members of the house will wish to join in extending best wishes to this new country on joining the family of independent nations. In keeping with the Congo's new status I wish to announce that the Canadian trade commissioner's office, which has been for some years maintained at Leopoldville, is to become a full consulate general. The change in status will constitute tangible evidence to the Congolese of Canada's interest in the future of their new state, and it will lend additional importance to commercial contacts with the new government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister seen the statement on unemployment made in Vancouver by the governor of the Bank of Canada, in which he states that it seems to be a symptom of specific economic problems in particular localities and activities? Has the minister any comment to make on this statement, and does the government propose any special program to deal with these specific problems referred to by the governor of the Bank of Canada?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article referred to; consequently I have no comment to make. However, I wish to assure the hon. member that the government is at all times looking into every aspect of the economy and endeavouring to bring about solutions to the ills.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister look at the statement made by the governor of the Bank of Canada, and will he comment on it tomorrow?


An hon. Member:: Yes, if necessary.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he has now seen the request made by the association of mayors and reeves of Ontario of the federal government asking for a full investigation by the government into the cause of and cure for unemployment. If so, what action does his department or the government intend to take?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have received no communication on that matter.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker, that was not my question. My question was whether the minister had seen in the press the request made by the association of mayors and reeves for a full probe into the question of unemployment.


Michael Starr: I have seen many requests written by other people expressing their views on this subject.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question. Did the minister not formerly belong to this association?


Michael Starr: I was mayor of the city of Oshawa.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REPORTED STATEMENT BY QUEBEC LIBERAL LEADER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that during the last provincial election campaign the premier-designate of Quebec made it absolutely clear that the responsibility for unemployment rests on the provincial administration. In view of the fact that I have seen no such statement as the one the Prime Minister attributed to Mr. Lesage-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Graffley:: Take off your blinkers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: -would the right hon. gentleman be kind enough to give the source of his statement, the exact location, date and place on which it was used?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going into the particulars, but I am very happy to provide at least a portion of the information that the hon. gentleman has requested. I have here a copy of Le Devoir for May 10 showing a picture of unemployed persons. A translation of the words appearing there-providing my translation is correct-would be: "Let us get rid of Quebec's unemployment-" and there is a picture of a crowd waiting. Then it says, "The Liberal solution: consider unemployment a family problem and a provincial responsibility."


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege affecting every hon. member in this house. The Prime Minister made a very precise statement yesterday in which he attributed to a privy councillor of Canada a statement for which he has offered no substantiation whatever. He said that Mr. Lesage had made a statement, and he has produced no evidence whatever to that effect. He has produced his own translation of some words in an advertisement, and anyone who has seen some of the advertisements for which the right hon. gentleman was responsible-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member implies that there is a question of privilege in the exchange which has just taken place. I do not see how it affects any hon. member in the house. I think perhaps the privileges of this house are not involved.


Lionel Chevrier: I do with respect think it does involve a question of privilege, particularly in view of what the Prime Minister himself said at page 5535 of Hansard:
I am also aware of something which I am very happy to have learned, that the premier-designate of Quebec has stated that the responsibility for unemployment rests on the provinces.
The premier-designate of the province of Quebec has made no such statement.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think I should entertain argument about questions of fact. The question of privilege, I suppose, although it has not been stated, would arise out of misinformation. The right hon. Prime Minister has given a statement which he has read to the house, and it is for the members of the house to draw their conclusions as to whether or not it substantiates his earlier statement. It is not a question of privilege.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It rises out of the fact that at least technically this is the end of world refugee year. Can the minister bring the house up to date on the success of the Canadian plan to bring tubercular refugees and their families to Canada? Can the minister also say whether or not, in keeping I am sure with the desire of the Canadian people, even with the end of the year we could continue this humanitarian move?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The world refugee year ends today, but I would hope that all over the world there would be a continuation of the efforts which have been made to settle the refugee problem. I am not in a position today to make a statement with regard to the plan to bring tuberculous refugees to Canada. However, I shall try to get that material and give it to the house. The scheme is proceeding very well. The first of the second group will be coming to Canada within the next few weeks.
I had quite an important announcement to make with regard to world refugee year, but unfortunately it has not reached my desk. I may be obliged later to ask for leave to revert to motions. In substance it is to the effect that the government has decided to grant to UNRWA an additional amount of flour to the value of $1 million. This flour is being given as a special gift for world refugee year. We have already provided for $1J million worth of flour and for a cash payment of $500,000. This will be an additional gift. It will be very beneficial, because it will mean that other sums will be available to UNRWA from the United States. It will also mean that the savings resulting from the gift of this flour will be used for the opening of two vocational schools in the areas where the refugees are now living. I am sure the whole house will approve of this action which is to be taken.
If I get my material before the orders of the day are over I will ask leave to revert to motions in order to make a proper speech about this question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. gentleman has already made what apparently is an improper speech on this subject, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he would permit a brief comment.
I think everyone in the house would agree that what he has suggested the government

should do for these Arab refugees is a very helpful step in meeting a problem which is of utmost complexity and difficulty, as we all know. When the minister does make his formal statement 1 wonder if he or the Prime Minister would tell us whether the government has yet completed its conversations with the provincial governments about the representations of the welfare council with respect to the continuing welfare and health care of privately sponsored refugees. Surely by this time that question could have been settled.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think the kind of announcement the minister has just made is a very proper one, whether or not it is technically according to our rules. We in the C.C.F. are very happy to support any program of this kind, because we believe that out of our abundance we should make at least part of it available to people who are suffering in various parts of the world.
I would just add this, Mr. Speaker. I hope that when the minister makes his comprehensive review of the government's experience in handling refugees coming into this country he will be able at that time to inform the house how this program can be carried forward.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question on this appropriate day and occasion. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report in today's Gazette to the effect that a Toronto doctor and his wife say that their efforts to adopt a refugee Korean orphan had been blocked by Canadian immigration laws? In view of the objectives and purposes of world refugee year, which has the government's whole hearted support, as indicated again this morning by the minister, would the minister inform the house why this couple are denied the opportunity to respond to the appeals of the government and of the world refugee organization?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that that question was directed to me; I thought it was a supplementary question. In any event, the adoption of children from other countries is a matter for the consideration of provincial authorities. The adoption laws of the various provinces must be observed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Where the department is informed that the provincial authorities in charge of adoption have sanctioned the adoption of a specific child, no barrier is raised by my department to the
Inquiries of the Ministry admission of that child, but we cannot admit children for adoption if the provincial authorities will not sanction the adoption once the child is here.


Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Was the government represented the other day at the meeting held in Toronto concerning refugee year, and can the minister make any observation with regard to the suggestion that further attention be given to extending the term?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have not received any report from that meeting as yet, but I refer the hon. member to statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs some time ago and, I believe, by the Prime Minister, with reference to the extension of the provisions of world refugee year in so far as Canadian participation is concerned.


Leon David Crestohl: My question was really to inquire whether the government was represented at that meeting.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not remember specifically. It seems to me there was a meeting recently at which we were represented, and there is a meeting today at which the department is represented. If the department was invited to the meeting we would have been represented.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the unusually large number of vacancies existing in almost every department of the government, which would suggest lack of co-ordination-


An hon. Member:: Speak up.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question, please.


Hubert Badanai: Can the minister indicate to the house what steps are being made to correct this situation in view of the seemingly widespread unemployment?


Michael Starr: do not know to what situation the hon. member is referring. I missed the first part of his question, the preamble.


Hubert Badanai: I am referring to the number of vacancies which exist in the civil service, according to reports in the newspapers and also to the civil service reports. What efforts

Inquiries of the Ministry is the minister making to co-ordinate these vacancies with the unemployment situation?


Michael Starr: The civil service does its own hiring.



INQUIRY AS TO U.S. INTERFERENCE IN DISPOSAL OF CANADIAN GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce relating to unemployment and industrial activity, and I expect a Churchillian reply.
Can the minister inform the house whether any Canadian-owned or controlled companies or Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies have been prevented from selling any of their products within or outside Canada as the result of instructions or interference by United States companies, acting in compliance with United States law, within the last 12 months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say that the question is a proper one for the order paper; perhaps the minister is prepared to answer it.
lhater: 1


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I apologize for the violation of the rules in presenting my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but it was occasioned by mental fatigue caused by the circumstances under which we are working. Would I be correct in asking the minister the same question, only instead of saying "12 months" saying "recently"?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I was quite prepared to answer the question, although I agree with the ruling that it would be more appropriate for the order paper. We have no knowledge in the department, and none has been brought to my attention, of any restrictions such as those suggested by the hon. member's question.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ellen Louks Fairclough: In reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I am now informed that during the month of May 1,145 employable persons received financial assistance from immigration officials. This figure represents the total who received assistance, and is not to be considered as meaning that

those persons were all receiving assistance at the same time. Most of them were assisted for very short periods. Of the group, only 287 had been on subsistence for a period in excess of two weeks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister whether her department has any evidence that a considerable number of these people seeking assistance are also seeking to return to their country of origin, as was suggested in Der Courier according to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The answer is no. Most of these people who received assistance did so in periods between employment or just after their arrival. The amounts expended were very small.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister think this article, which is obviously very harmful to our whole immigration policy, is completely unfounded?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would hesitate to comment on all the articles on immigration which appear in the newspapers.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Could the minister tell me whether any of these people who want to go back receive any help from the government?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid I cannot give a short answer to that question. It would depend on the circumstances.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that this morning the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mc-Uraith) had to go successively to two committees of this house in order to establish quorums.


An hon. Member:: Quite a change for him.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that it is the administrative responsibility of the Prime Minister to establish quorums in committees.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, sir, it seems to me that the Prime Minister yesterday proclaimed his administrative responsibility in this field in which he is an acknowledged expert.


John George Diefenbaker: Irresponsible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's comment might have been appropriate yesterday.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Recently the hon. member for Laurier asked me a question about a telegram which he claimed had been sent to me on June 9. He asked whether I had seen it and what my reaction was to it. At that time I had no information on it except that I had not seen it.
I should like to inform him that I have received confirmation in writing from both telegraph companies in Canada that no such message was sent on June 9; and since the so-called copy of the message the hon. member sent me was on the letterhead of a local provincial Liberal organization and a provincial election was in progress, I can understand why he asked the question.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, when the Postmaster General came across the floor of the house the other day to ask me for information in connection with this matter I gave him what information I had, and I also gave him the additional information that I personally had had no contact with the person who is alleged to have sent the telegram but that our chief whip had communicated with that person. To this day that person insists that this telegram was taken to the office of the local telegraph company in the area involved, and that it was sent. If it did not go it was through no fault of his; otherwise I would have said so to the house, so that in the circumstances I think I was perfectly in order in putting the question as I did. I have no confirmation other than the word of the chief whip, which I take and accept because I have confidence in his integrity.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: admit all the facts immediately which the hon. member for Laurier has introduced. I am sure that he would not under any circumstances have attempted to introduce this as an item in the provincial election.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is true that he has sent a message of congratulations to the winner of the deferred provincial election in his part of Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation) :



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (SI. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
According to the press, and in particular the June 29 issue of La Presse, as a result of talks between Dr. Jean Gregoire, Quebec deputy minister of health, Dr. Benoit Bundock, director of health services in the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Hon. Jean Lesage, there is no serious obstacle to the implementation of a hospital insurance plan.
Could' the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the house whether he has been officially advised in this respect by provincial authorities? If so, is the minister in a position to say if the plan in question is to be drawn up by his department or by the member for Quebec West at the Quebec legislature, the Hon. Jean Lesage?
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, of course, no formal request has been received from the province of Quebec as yet. However, I would point out that so long as the provincial plan comes within the overall context of the federal act, of course the federal government will be very pleased to participate in the hospital insurance scheme with the province of Quebec.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, based on several newspaper stories aannouncing cutbacks by lumber operators. In view of the fact that several lumber companies are cutting back production, and this is especially true in British Columbia; and since housing is the lumber industry's best customer, is the government planning any action to get the house building industry back on its feet this year?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public Works):: In reply to the hon. member, we have these matters under constant consideration; but just to give the house an idea of

Supply-Fisheries
the different points of view, Mr. Campbell Holmes, president of the national house builders association has suggested, according to the Ottawa Journal of June 28, that the government should get out of the housing loan picture altogether. Therefore my hon. friend can appreciate that while we do give all these matters consideration it is not possible each day to answer inquiries from my hon. friend about something he reads in the newspapers.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: May I
ask the Minister of Transport whether he would have a very careful look at the progress being made on the airport at Sault Ste. Marie, with the view of hurrying up or expediting the work so that it may be ready for use this year rather than 1961?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I shall be very glad to look into the progress being made, Mr. Speaker.

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



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
129. Information and educational service, including grant of $3,000 to Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition, $202,000.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The house in committee of supply, Department of Fisheries, item 129; this item will be found on page 29 of the blue book and the details on page 196. Shall the item carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just a minute; perhaps you could wait a second until we can hear what is going on. Will the minister tell us whether there have been any new developments since last year in the information and educational service?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, there is not any great change in policy or expenditures as far as the information service is concerned. It is no different this year from the past.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I wonder whether hon. members would please quieten down so the committee can hear what the minister is saying.


John Angus MacLean: There is an increase in the appropriation for advertising, one purpose of which is to promote the consumption of fish by Canadians. Yesterday

I mentioned the fact that the information service has published a cook book which is being very well received. The preparation of that cook book was in progress for some time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. I had the pleasure on one occasion of attending the Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition, and I cannot commend it too highly. It is an excellent exhibition, one of the finest of any trade or industry exhibition I have ever seen. In the last few years there has been a general industrial and economic exhibition, so to speak, in the new arena at St. John's, Newfoundland, in which there is a fisheries section. Would the minister's department have someone visit that exhibition this year to see if there is any way in which the department can help to expand its activities a little in what after all is the oldest fishing province and, as far as the Atlantic is concerned, still the most important one?


John Angus MacLean: I will make certain that a representative of the department will be there to look over the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
131. Industrial development service, $942,185.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before this vote carries I should like to ask the minister if he could tell us very briefly what new projects that were not under way when we last considered the estimates are now being undertaken under the industrial development service vote.


John Angus MacLean: It is a bit difficult to be absolutely accurate as to what might have been under way a year ago, but a number of very useful activities have been carried on, most of them in co-operation with the pro-vincal governments and their departments of fisheries or the equivalents. I should like to say at this point that in all cases the cooperation of the provincial governments has been of a very high order in every field having to do with fisheries, and co-operation has been especially close with regard to industrial development.
I believe I have mentioned already that a multipurpose vessel has been constructed in co-operation with the government of Nova Scotia. I believe I have also mentioned various methods of fishing with gear that is not commonly used in a particular area. For instance, we have carried on demonstrations of trawling for smelt in lake Erie. We have experimented with gill netting for herring and cod on the Atlantic coast. Many other programs have been under way, such as the use of a midwater trawl which was carried on to quite an extent in the gulf of St. Lawrence



I960

[Stage Direction]
and in which program, as I recall, the government of New Brunswick co-operated. There have been demonstrations of mechanical clam digging machinery which has been developed by the fisheries research board in co-operation with the industrial development branch. These are some of the examples.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
minister about the trawling in lake Erie. As the minister knows, I was born practically on the shore of lake Erie. Is this experiment being carried on out of Port Dover?


Mr. MacLean (Oueens):: Yes, partially, and also out of Wheatley.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Out of Wheatley in Kent county?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does it look promising? As the minister knows, there have been great difficulties in lake Erie recently.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, the ecology of the whole of lake Erie has changed considerably. The relative population of various species has changed very greatly over the last few years. This experimental work is proving to be very successful.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister to consider looking into the matter of improving the shipping of lobsters from Newfoundland. As the minister knows, there is a considerable lobster fishery in Notre Dame and Bonavista bays. There has always been a certain amount of difficulty in holding the lobsters so they could be shipped to the markets as needed. The lobster season is fairly short. They are caught in considerable quantity and sometimes have to be shipped too soon and in too great quantity, which has a tendency to reduce the price. If lobsters could be held for a longer period at Lewisporte, the central point for Notre Dame bay, and Gander, the central point for the other area, in a properly designed lobster pound-I think that is what it is called- with adequate cooling facilities, they could then be distributed as demand required. Consequently there would be a tendency for the price to be more favourable and as a result the fishermen would receive better prices.
This matter has been discussed locally for some time by lobster producers and distributors, and recently there has been quite a demand for a better system of holding lobsters for shipment to market. In that connection I might add that there seems to be some difficulty in getting refrigerated railway cars at Lewisporte when they are needed. Possibly this is not the time to speak about railway cars, but as they are needed for the 79951-0-352
Supply-Fisheries
shipping of lobsters perhaps I might be permitted to make that observation. There is some difficulty in getting refrigerated cars there when the lobsters are ready for shipment. I would appreciate it very much if the minister would look into the matter of lobster shipment and particularly the holding of lobsters for later shipment.


John Angus MacLean: Many methods are already in use in various areas for holding lobsters in pounds for a period of time and supplying the market when the demand is there. I think it is a question for the industry to deal with. If the circumstances in an area are suitable for a pound, or if any segment of the industry wishes to embark on such a program, the department will be delighted to furnish any technical information and advice that may be necessary.
With regard to refrigerator cars, may I say that this is a matter for the C.N.R., but I will see that it is brought to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Transport so that he in turn can bring it to their attention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word in support of what the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has said, because at one or two places in my constituency, notably at Burnside and Comfort Cove, some efforts have been made to hold lobsters, and I know it would be appreciated very much if the department would give all the assistance possible with respect to this matter. There is no question but that if lobsters could be kept for a while after the end of the season and distributed to the market in a more even fashion there would be a bigger return to the fishermen.


Mr. Carter:: I should like to ask two questions of the minister. The first is, what is the actual position with respect to the mechanical drying of fight salted codfish? Has the cost yet been reduced to a point where this is an economically profitable operation?
The second question is, can the minister say whether any further progress has been made with respect to the use of antibiotics for the preservation of fish? I forget the trade name, but there is a trade name for it.


John Angus MacLean: The matter of the preservation of fish by the use of antibiotics such as aureomycin and other modern drugs has been under experimentation, and considerable success has been achieved. However, the question of the purity of the food is involved, and research is still being conducted.
The second question the hon. member asks concerns the mechanical drying of fight salted fish, and whether or not that is

Supply-Fisheries
economical. We have done a considerable amount of work in this connection, especially with regard to continuous operation. In the opinion of the department the operation appears to be economic, at least under certain circumstances. Certain segments of the industry have become interested in this matter and are using this process to some extent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before this item passes, in the light of the question asked by my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo perhaps the committee would permit me to repeat an observation I have made once or twice before in connection with this whole problem of light salted fish. I know something about what is going on at Valleyfield and I think, as the minister says, what is being done there is very helpful indeed. At Bonavista they originally produced an excellent light salted fish, but it was not economic. It seems evident that these experiments have reached the point where this process is really going to work. However, it is going to take some years before a light salted fish is produced which will be acceptable in Italy and Spain. There is going to be a gap there which needs to be filled if we are to hold these markets.
I am sure the minister is worried, as I am, about what the effect of the establishment of the European common market may be on our market for fish in Italy. On the other hand, I believe that in Spain the prospects are brighter than they were if we have a product to take advantage of this market.
I do urge the minister to consider very carefully, first with his officials and with others in Newfoundland as well, whether or not a premium could be paid on light salted fish for a limited period as an experiment only. I do not mean mechanically cured fish but sun cured, and this would provide the fisherman with sufficient incentive to keep producing this product until it can be produced mechanically. The minister will recall that this is what was done with bacon before the war in order to fill the British market. I do urge the department, as I have been urging them for several years, to do something to meet what is really a crisis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
132. Field services administration, $862,940.
Field services-
Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, if I am on the right item, conservation, I should like to take a minute to ask the minister whether he could answer the question I put to him yesterday concerning a revision of the Fisheries Act which would bring the penalties for violation of the pollution sections more into line with the actual damage which has been done. I

suggested to him that instead of having a set fine, which is a nominal fine, the matter should be covered by regulation so that penalties could be set which would deter this practice. These penalties would also apply to vessels in harbours and offshore which discharge debris, oil and so on into the waters.
I believe this matter is important and is becoming more important all the time, and that a major modification of the Fisheries Act would not be needed to take care of it. I think action is required, and I should like to hear the minister's comments.


John Angus MacLean: The Fisheries Act and all other acts which are administered by the Department of Fisheries are, of course, reviewed continuously to determine just how efficiently the responsibilities of the department are being carried out. The legislation in question quite naturally contains anomalies and weaknesses that come to light as time goes by. This provision has been in the Fisheries Act for a long time and, perhaps as a result of changed conditions which were not envisaged when the act was last amended, there are indications that there should be much greater flexibility with regard to penalties.
This is one of the many matters that are constantly being reviewed. We are fully aware of this situation, and when an opportunity arises to amend the Fisheries Act this will be one of the matters that will be definitely considered.


Mr. Howard:: I do not have a copy of the Fisheries Act before me to which I can make specific reference, but I understand that a fisheries officer or patrolman finding a fisherman who is violating a boundary, let us say, or fishing during a closed season or in a closed area, can immediately confiscate the fish, the vessel and the gear or property of the fisherman. I am wondering if the minister could indicate under what authority the fisheries officer can confiscate the equipment and gear of a fisherman.


John Angus MacLean: The act provides that in the case of an infraction the fisheries officer can confiscate on view, on the spot, the fisherman's gear. In so far as the fish themselves are concerned, the fish can be delivered to a plant or to an ordinary place of marketing so they will not go to waste, and the returns from the fish held until the case is dealt with.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Then my assumption is correct, that a fisheries officer can confiscate the gear on sight if he thinks an infraction of the regulations or the act has taken place. That is my understanding from what the

minister has just said. I wonder if the minister could indicate to me how this particular provision in the act-and this is only one instance; I understand there are other authorities who can also take arbitrary action of that nature-and the activities of the fishery officers in this regard will square with the proposed Canadian bill of rights, if it is introduced and passed by this parliament, the provision there being that people have certain fundamental freedoms, namely the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and that things of the sort referred to will not take place. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether this provision of the Fisheries Act will not be in effect any longer, whether the bill of rights will supersede it, or whether this question has even been thought about.


John Angus MacLean: When the Fisheries Act was passed the fishery officers were given fairly wide powers, it is true, or fairly arbitrary powers, because it was envisaged that in many cases they would be operating in isolated areas and that sort of thing, and they still do so. As to the effect of the bill of rights when and if it becomes law, just at this stage that is-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hypothetical.


John Angus MacLean: -a hypothetical question, technically, in any case. I am not in a position to say, because I think this is a request for a legal opinion which I am not in a position to give. All I can say is that we endeavour constantly to make sure that there are as few anomalies and conflicts as possible between the various acts that we administer.


Chesley William Carter: Is the minister's department carrying out any studies to determine what effects oil pollution around the coast of Newfoundland may have on the fisheries? The minister is quite aware of the fact that we have had a great problem here in recent years, and one which is getting worse. These large areas of water covered with oil may have some effect on bait which are surface fish, particularly capelin and squid. There is some question as to whether there might not be some adverse effect on the fisheries. Can the minister say whether anything has been done to determine what the effect is and what the findings are?


John Angus MacLean: With regard to oil pollution-and this is, of course, a general statement-I may say it is not so detrimental to fish life as it is to bird life and that sort of thing, because it floats, and does not actually contaminate the water, the medium in which fish live, to any great extent. In a 79951-0-352J
Supply-Fisheries
concentrated condition it might have an effect on the oxygen supply in the water, or something of that sort, but it does not directly affect fish life to any great extent. The scientists of the fisheries research board and of the department are quite aware of the effects that various types of pollution may have on fish life in any particular area.


Chesley William Carter: I was thinking more of the indirect effect it might have in connection with the movement of bait fish like squid and capelin. The fishery on the south coast is very good this year and has been very good, but I understand that on the north coast it is not so good. That condition could very well be attributed to the fact that the bait does not come to land on account of this oil pollution problem.


John Angus MacLean: We have no specific evidence to prove or disprove any direct relationship between the two conditions. All I can say is that oil pollution is undesirable on many grounds. There is no question with regard to how undesirable oil pollution is anywhere. The question is to prevent it, to prevent the dumping of oil by shipping or from any other cause.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have been able to obtain a copy of the Fisheries Act in the revised statutes. I think it would be well to question at this stage whether fishery officers should have the authority and power they now have, and whether this is not in fact an abrogation of the rights of the individual, whether or not we have the so-called bill of rights introduced and passed by this parliament at some time in the future.
I should like to point out to the committee where I think some thought should perhaps be given to changing this authority. There are a number of sections in the act. I do not intend to read them in their entirety, but perhaps just a few words from them will give to the committee an indication of the sort of arbitrary authority that is given to fishery officers. Section 35 provides:
35.	Any fishery officer or justice of the peace may, on view, convict any person committing any of the offences punishable under the provisions, of this act-
And so on. We went into this matter previously. Another section provides as follows:
36.	Any fishery officer or justice of the peace may search, break open and search, or grant a warrant to search, any house, vessel or place where he has reason to believe that any fish taken in violation of this act, or of any regulation, or anything used in violation thereof, is concealed.
Authority is given to search houses or vessels or to break into them and search or

Supply-Fisheries
to give somebody a warrant to search a particular place. Again we find this provision:
37.	Any fishery officer, fishery guardian or peace officer may arrest without warrant a person whom he, on reasonable and probable grounds, believes to have committed an offence-
40. -the fishery officer, may enter upon and pass through or over private property without being liable for trespass.
45. Any fishery officer ... have and exercise the powers of a justice of the peace, without property qualification, and without taking any oath of office, in all the waters-
And so on. I do not know whether this means that any fishery officer may perform a marriage in any of these waters if he has the authority of a justice of the peace. This would probably be stretching it a bit; but from a quick and cursory reading, if a fishery officer is exercising the powers of a justice of the peace in all the waters, perhaps he has the authority to perform a marriage ceremony or to arrange for that at sea where people may be fishing.
But that is another matter. I merely read those three or four parts of the sections in order to point out that fishery officers and fishery guardians have all sorts of arbitrary authority and power to search places, to break into them, to arrest people, to convict people, to detain them and to confiscate gear and property without due process of law; whereas in the bill of rights it is provided that perhaps these things should not occur. While the minister has said that this is a legal question as to which one supersedes the other, if either does, I think it is a question that should be studied very carefully within the fisheries department, if and when this so-called bill of rights is passed by parliament, at least to determine first whether or not this authority should be maintained within the hands of fishery officers; and second, if the bill of rights is passed to determine which supersedes the other and whether it is necessary to make changes in the Fisheries Act in this regard.
There is just one other point I want to raise and, as the minister has indicated, it is something upon which he cannot give an opinion because it is perhaps asking a legal opinion as to whether one law supersedes the other. But there certainly appears to be a great deal of inconsistency between what the government on the one hand decides should be done as to giving arbitrary rights to individuals to arrest, detain and confiscate property and, on the other hand, to put in terms of a bill of rights which would protect an individual from just such actions as might be and have been taken by fishery officers under this act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the minister replies perhaps he could reply to an observation I would like to make, too. The minister has

perhaps had his attention called to representations made by the attorney general of Newfoundland in his capacity as member for one of the provincial constituencies in my federal constituency about an incident at Campbell-ton. I wonder if that was satisfactorily cleared up.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In reply to the observations made by the hon. member for Skeena, I must say that the Fisheries Act and the sections to which he referred have been on the statute books for a considerable length of time now. It has been my endeavour to administer the act in such a way that there would not be abuse of the power which parliament in the past has seen fit to place in the hands of fishery officers. I think the comments the hon. member has made are very much to the point, and as I said in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver South this is a matter which will be carefully reviewed when the Fisheries Act is next amended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
135. Inspection and consumer service, $2,139,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister in his opening statement said something about this inspection service which was now being given in order to provide standards on which customers could rely. Could the minister say precisely what proportion of the industry is now taking advantage of this federal service?


John Angus MacLean: There is a total of 32 plants at the present time, and they represent a high percentage of the actual production. I have not got the exact figure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
137.	Canadian share of expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates, $895,210.
Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, part of this vote allows for a payment of $30,000 to the international north Pacific fisheries commission, in which Canada, the United States and Japan participate jointly in high seas fisheries. There has been a considerable amount of discussion in years past as to the effect of this commission and whether or not immature salmon of Canadian origin are being caught in certain areas of the north Pacific.
I am not as concerned at the moment with this particular conflict of opinion as to whether, conservationwise, the fisheries are being properly protected as I am with a matter which arose last year to which reference was made in this house and elsewhere. This matter concerned fishing boats of Russian origin which had been fishing in

the same area. As I understand it they were fishing primarily for flatfish or bottom fish and were not engaged in salmon fishing, but I wonder whether since that time any additional surveys or investigations have been conducted or whether any additional knowledge is in the possession of the minister about other countries on the other side of the Pacific, notably China and Russia, engaging in any sort of fisheries themselves or any scientific survey work in that area so far as salmon are concerned?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, we have no evidence that as far as the Russians are concerned they have been engaging or even attempting to engage in the catching of salmon on the high seas on this side of the Pacific; their activities have been restricted to other types of fishing. As far as the Chinese are concerned, there is no activity which we know of on this side of the Pacific.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I wonder if the minister could indicate, following the same line of reasoning, whether salmon of Russian origin from streams in Russia are in the same intermingling grounds as are Canadian, United States and Japanese salmon. I do not know exactly how big the area is, but it is a pretty broad area in the Pacific where they all intermingle, and I would like to know whether Russian salmon are also in this particular area.


John Angus MacLean: At roughly 175 degrees west longitude, and on each side of that line, there is a wide area where salmon from both continents intermingle. But there is no evidence that any salmon which originate in British Columbia travel that far west, and the Japanese do not fish east of that area. As far as Canadians are concerned, we do not fish for salmon on the high seas. Therefore as the matter stands now there is the very minimum, if any at all, of the catching by one nation of salmon has its origin in the other continent.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister has had no communication from the Soviet union as to the desirability of participating in the north Pacific salmon commission?


John Angus MacLean: None at all.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Would there be any bar to
it if they so desired to participate?


John Angus MacLean: This would have to be considered and would depend on the terms of any proposal which might be made.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the great lakes fisheries commission, which was set up principally to combat lamprey eels in the great lakes, I notice that
Supply-Fisheries
Canada's share is down about $91,000 this year. I wonder if the minister could give us a resume of the progress which has been made and why this cut in the estimates has been made. Is it because we are making a certain amount of progress in combating this problem with less expensive materials? I would appreciate some information from the minister at this stage as to the elimination of lamprey eels, for example in lake Superior, in lake Huron and in Georgian bay.


John Angus MacLean: With regard to the international great lakes fishery commission, the main activity of which at the present time is the control of lamprey, I might say that one reason there is a reduction in the vote is that it is now no longer necessary to install the very expensive electrical barriers on streams in which we can now poison lamprey with the fairly recently discovered lampreycide, a selective chemical which will destroy the lamprey in the larvae stage in streams without harming to any measurable extent any other form of life in the stream. This has resulted in a considerable saving, in the sense that the cost of controlling the lamprey in a given stream is considerably reduced.
I may say that good progress is being made with the use of lampreycides. Tests made in the pilot stage have produced extremely encouraging results and this year, in particular, there will be very greatly increased activity in the program of lamprey destruction.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Has any extensive work been carried on in lake Huron this year?


John Angus MacLean: Surveys are being made of the streams flowing into lake Huron on the Canadian side to determine which of them are lamprey hatching streams. Not all streams are suitable to the lamprey, and with a view to a further program next year this study has been undertaken. The commission has taken the attitude that the main attack on the lamprey should first of all be at the point of advance, so that the spread can be headed off. As the work progresses, the problem of exterminating lamprey in the areas where they have been present for some time will be pressed forward.


George Ewart Nixon: Reference has been made to lake Huron. Can the minister say what progress has been made in lake Superior with regard to lamprey control, and whether there is any indication of the fish coming back? Is this work done in co-operation with the provincial government?


John Angus MacLean: Lamprey control is carried out by an international commission, and the Canadian share of the work is



S588 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries
done by the fisheries research board acting in this case as an agent of the commission. The province is represented on the commission by one of its senior officials.
Lake Superior has been one of the major scenes of activity by the international commission on the Canadian side in an effort to contain the spread of lamprey, and very considerable success is being achieved, or at least there is every appearance of success. A period of time will, of course, be required even after an area is clear of lamprey before a new cycle of life can either expand naturally or be rehabilitated by other means; I am referring, of course, to lake trout. But this will be done as quickly as possible. With regard to lake Superior, it would seem that if our success is as great as we hope, there are sufficient stocks of lake trout to re-establish themselves.
George Ewart Nixon: Is there any indication now of that taking place.


John Angus MacLean: It is too early yet to say.


Mr. Noble:: I should like to ask the minister whether the international great lakes fisheries commission is giving consideration to doing anything about stopping continuing infestation from the ocean. I see we have been spending about a million and a half dollars a year on controlling the lamprey, yet nothing has been done to stop the lamprey coming in.


John Angus MacLean: The lamprey problem originated because the lamprey eels migrated into the great lakes after the building of the canals. In the lakes there are apparently no natural enemies to keep them under control as there are, for example, in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Under these conditions they multiply very rapidly.
The additional introduction of the odd lamprey through the canal system from the ocean is of relatively little significance once the place is infested with them. Nevertheless a study has been made of the question which the hon. member raised, and the canals are being watched. We hope that when the lakes can be cleaned up and controlled there will be no danger of reinfestation from that source. If we can succeed in controlling this situation, a new, small infestation would not be a catastrophe by any means.


Percy Verner Noble: In those circumstances it looks as though this program would have to be continued each year, becoming an annual affair. I do not think treating the streams and then leaving them alone will mean the end of the lamprey. I think they will continue to enter the great lakes and become a menace.

Further, I should like to ask the minister whether the commission has given any consideration to the destruction of fish other than lamprey, because they too are becoming a menace.


John Angus MacLean: Under the present treaty the commission is responsible only as far as the lamprey problem is concerned. It is not concerned with this other problem, although it is an important one.


Chesley William Carter: Before we leave this item I wonder if the minister could give us a brief progress report on the north Atlantic fisheries conference.


John Angus MacLean: As hon. members know, the annual meeting of ICNAF was held in Bergen, Norway. It was one of the most successful conferences yet held, and fine progress was made in reaching international agreement among the 12 nations concerned with regard to net sizes and other conservation measures which will tend to conserve resources generally on the high seas. Each member nation takes responsibility for the application of these regulations to its own nationals.


Percy Verner Noble: Owing to the fact that the great lakes fisheries commission has been set up for one purpose only, I should like to suggest to the minister that he take some initiative about these rough fish which are a menace in the great lakes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
138.	Acquisition of land for the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission as required by article VIII of the convention, $6,000.
Charles Benjamin Howard: I wonder if the minister could explain what land is to be acquired and where it is.


John Angus MacLean: This refers to some land which was acquired a number of years ago, I believe, for the purpose of building a fishway. The land lies in an Indian reserve, and negotiations were carried on with the Indian band involved. They were agreeable to giving up this land, which is situated at Bridge River. It is only now that negotiations have been completed, and this item is to pay the Indian band for the land involved.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Did I understand the minister to say that the land was actually acquired some years ago but that we are just now getting around to paying for it?


John Angus MacLean: This was a long process that was carried on through the Indian Affairs branch. The actual fishway was built before I became minister. Through some delay or neglect on the part of someone the actual payment was not made. I

think it was something that was not neglect as such; it was a matter of slow legal procedures as far as title and transfer of title were concerned.


Charles Benjamin Howard: My question has not so much to do with delay; many other cases have come to our attention in which Indian bands, it seems to me, are put in a position where it takes an inordinately long time to get the money from the purchaser to the band itself.
I ask about the time element, because this makes reference to the acquisition of land for the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission as required by article VIII of the convention, which is chapter 11 of the statutes of 1957, which is only a couple of years ago. Did the commission have any authority to make this purchase before 1957, or was this just a carryover from the original convention, or was there a slight alteration in it, or what?


John Angus MacLean: That is when the statute was amended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
139.	Newfoundland bait service, $429,400.
Chesley William Carter: I have two questions on this item, Mr. Chairman. First, can the minister say whether there are any funds in this item for the provision of those portable bait depots? Second, what plans are being made to replace the motor vessel Arctica, which is a bait carrier; how soon will provision be made for that?


John Angus MacLean: As far as the replacement of the Arctica is concerned, which I think is what the hon. member has in mind, this is in the plans of the vessel construction interdepartmental committee. It is under consideration to that extent, but we are not in the process of starting any definite plans, or construction plans, for replacement or for anything of that sort. It is not being neglected; it is being phased into the program for the future. There is nothing in this particular item to cover that matter.
As to the portable bait storage depots, we are making provision for eight additional ones in this item.


Mr. Batten:: What sites are being selected for the eight which are being provided this year?


John Angus MacLean: The locations for this year have not been as yet determined. As the hon. member knows, we get a far larger number of requests than we can possibly accommodate in any particular year, or probably ever will be able to accommodate, almost, because these are a very useful and acceptable solution to the bait problem in
Supply-Fisheries
certain areas. But all applications coming either from members of parliament or directly from fishermen's associations or other groups will be carefully considered on their merits, with a view to placing the units where they will do the most good in each particular case.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the minister able to give any indication of how soon these units will be provided?


John Angus MacLean: Well, the short
answer would be that we will get started on them as soon as the item is passed, but it takes some time before the equipment is available. We got started during the course of the summer on some of them. I cannot recall offhand-I have been trying to do it -when we actually had the ones provided last year finally in operation. We will do it as expeditiously as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think we can let
the minister get away with that short answer. He knows that the house with great dispatch and enthusiasm had voted interim supply so the minister can get on with those bait depots.


John Angus MacLean: Let us not get into this argument, Mr. Chairman, but we feel much more confident in ordering these things and having them supplied if we have the whole item passed.


Chesley William Carter: Can the minister be a little more definite with respect to the replacement of the motor vessel Arctica'! I understand that she is rapidly approaching the stage where she will not be able to pass steamship inspection.


John Angus MacLean: I think I can say that within the next two years progress will be made on the replacement of the Arctica. As far as I can see into the future an item will be provided for that purpose, but there is no money in this particular item for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
141. Fisheries Prices Support Act administration, $60,000.
Charles Benjamin Howard: I have mentioned before that the Fisheries Prices Support Act and any operations thereunder have been confined by the statute itself or by practice to fisheries in the maritimes. Can the minister indicate what the circumstances are in that regard?


John Angus MacLean: In actual fact the act does apply over the whole country, and in the past it has applied to the inland fisheries of the prairies, for example. There is no limitation on the geographical application of the act.

Supply-Fisheries


Charles Benjamin Howard: Can the minister indicate the possibilities of the herring industry on the west coast coming under this act?


John Angus MacLean: The fisheries prices support board have, I think, had this question under review. Many difficulties are involved. One is, as I said yesterday, that there is the very grave danger of countervailing duties on subsidized products. The position is such that Canada exports a very high percentage of her production of fish meal and fish oil. Our markets are found in countries which also produce fish meal, although not enough for their own purposes; therefore they import some. The result is that the situation is very sensitive to anything that might be considered to be undercutting home production as far as those chief markets of ours are concerned, namely European countries and the United States.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Because herring are used primarily for the production of meal and oil, has any thought been given to the reconstitution of the industry to the point where it may be able to engage in the production of herring for food consumption purposes? What snags have we run into in that regard?


John Angus MacLean: There is no technical problem involved with respect to the production of herring for food. Here again it is a matter of costs versus the prices that can be obtained in the possible markets. In other words it is a question of an economic market for the product. Certain types of herring are produced in small quantities as a luxury food, but this is only a relatively small percentage of the total potential supply and would only support a very small segment of the herring fishing industry. In order to have any real impact on the industry you would have to have a very large market for herring to be used as food, and there appears to be none in sight that would allow the industry to operate on an appreciably large scale in an economic way.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am sorry I was not here during the full time this matter was discussed yesterday. Do soybeans have any detrimental competitive effect upon the herring meal and oil industry?


John Angus MacLean: Yes. As a matter of fact all fish meals are used chiefly as a supplement for animal feeds because of their high protein content. There are many alternative sources for various types of proteins, and there are only a few types of animal feeds in which fish meal is desirable at a relatively high price. I am not an authority on this matter, but I understand that such feeds as chick starter would be an example where there is a greater desire to use fish

meal than is the case with other types of animal feeds. With respect to most types of animal feeds, if fish meal is at a high price the mixer of the animal feed can substitute other protein sources.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Does the federal government subsidize the soybean industry?


John Angus MacLean: I am afraid this is not covered in my estimates, but there is price support of soybeans.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It seems very strange that one department of government should be subsidizing one industry, thus placing in a less competitive position another industry with respect to which there is no move to provide equal support. It seems a little odd. Perhaps the minister should consult with the Minister of Agriculture on this as well as on other matters.


John Angus MacLean: I am afraid that as one accepts responsibility one finds that life can be very complicated as far as the administration of a country is concerned, where you have such a divergent group of interests. The situation with regard to soybeans is different because of the fact that they are largely marketed in Canada and we do not export them to any extent. Their use as a substitute for fish meal is not their only use. As a matter of fact, soybean oil is used for many commercial purposes as well as food purposes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister has just indicated the great necessity in this country of applying a little socialist philosophy and planning so that we would not get into these difficulties.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
144. Assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the regulations established by the governor in council, $30,000.
Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I should like the minister to explain briefly what form assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities takes. I am more interested in storage facilities. I have in mind that in northern Labrador in the Nain area there is quite a nice sea trout fishery. The sea trout are caught commercially and smoked, and they are delicious. Not too far south is Goose Bay airport, quite a populous area with a reasonably high level of income, which should provide a natural market for smoked sea trout. I am probably wandering beyond the scope of the department, but a motor vessel operated by the C.N.R. plies between Nain and Goose airport, and if a very small cold storage space were provided it would probably mean that the sea trout would bring a much higher price in Goose Bay than they do in their

present market. I wonder whether that is possible under this bait storage vote.


John Angus MacLean: I am afraid this vote would have no application whatsoever to that problem. It applies to commercial bait storages provided by commercial firms. We give them a grant provided they fulfil certain commitments over a period of time to work off the grant. These bait storages are used in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and other provinces to quite an extent. Newfoundland is also involved, but the grants are not made use of as extensively there because of the Newfoundland bait service, which is directly competitive.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
146. Operation and maintenance including an amount of $53,000 for contributions towards fisheries research and for scholarships, and authority to make recoverable advances of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the international great lakes fishery commission of the cost of work on lamprey control and lamprey research, $4,199,125.
Chesley William Carter: I should like to ask the minister whether the fisheries research board is continuing its research into the herring schools of the north Atlantic. When the minister's estimates were before the committee last year we asked that question of Dr. Kask, and he said it was a long term program and that the main schools of herring had not yet been located. Is that work still continuing, and in what way?


John Angus MacLean: As the hon. member knows, over the last number of years the industrial development branch of the department, in co-operation with the fisheries research board, has done a great deal of work in trying to map the routes of migration of herring in the general area off the coast of the Atlantic provinces. This has been found a very difficult and unpredictable matter, but considerable knowledge has been gained. The programs still going on but not at quite as high a level as in the past. I do not mean that its importance has been reduced but that the expenditure required to carry on the program in its present phase is not quite as large as it was in the past.


Chesley William Carter: The reason I asked the question was that the herring fishery has been of tremendous importance to my own riding. In recent years the herring fishery has been a failure when compared with former years, that is in relation to the catch of herring that comes to land and is caught in seines. There is a feeling, and certainly I am of the opinion, that a successful herring fishery could be the salvation of the south coast of Newfoundland 79951-0-353
Supply-Fisheries
providing we could locate the schools and catch them in deep water, as they do in other countries. That cannot be done until this experiment is completed. I would urge the minister to utilize more ships and more men on this project to try to complete it in a shorter space of time.


John Angus MacLean: I want to assure the hon. member that the program is being pressed forward as rapidly as possible. In so far as new ships are concerned, this item includes provision-no, it is the next item- for a new vessel for the research board for pelagic fish research in the Atlantic, and that includes the problem of the location of herring.


Percy Verner Noble: Would the minister state the actual amount spent on scholarships?


John Angus MacLean: It was $25,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
147. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $552,100.
Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I should like to ask the minister if he would keep in mind, in connection with the erection of the new fisheries building at St. John's, which I understand has been considered for some time, the possibility of having it constructed in close proximity to the new university. I believe this would be beneficial to both.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, I have this very much in mind, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
521. Destruction of dogfish and other predators, $150,000.
Charles Benjamin Howard: I might require a few minutes on this item. The subject was mentioned on the administrative item, but it is rather a sore problem on the west coast and I suppose in other areas as well. This problem has plagued the fishing industry for some time and is becoming worse. These dogfish destroy quite a number of other fish.
I wonder if the minister would indicate what the plan is for this year. What is the formula for payment and the time when this program will be put into effect? What are the expectations for the success of the program this year as compared with the success or lack of success that was experienced during the last couple of years? Perhaps at the same time-this is something that should have been dealt with under the vote relating to the fisheries research board-the minister would indicate the progress being made in research on the use of dogfish.


John Angus MacLean: Last year, Mr. Chairman, we had some success in connection with the destruction of dogfish but we

Supply-Fisheries
hope more interest will be stimulated in the program on the part of the fishermen. We are increasing the rate for livers from 10 cents to 12 cents per pound, and we are hopeful that this will make it worth while.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the view I have heard expressed on the coast a number of times, that the program has been started too late in the season to be of much value. It is suggested that we start it earlier in the year, and then this system might have more effect and more attraction for the fishermen who engage in it.


John Angus MacLean: This may be true in certain areas, but the fact of the matter is that this activity of destroying dogfish is only of interest to fishermen when they are not engaged in the salmon or other fishery. We have continually appealed to fishermen's organizations and to everyone involved in the industry to try to come up with the most effective plan. This is not a criticism of anyone, but we have not met with as much success as we would have liked. However, this is not the result of a lack of consultation with the people involved. We hope these difficulties can be overcome and that we will have in the future a program that really works.


Chesley William Carter: I should like a little more information on this program. We have a dogfish problem in our province as well. Is this amount specified for a particular region or is it applicable to any province? On what basis is it paid; on the pound of fish caught or the pound of livers, or what?


John Angus MacLean: It is a subsidy on the liver of the dogfish at the rate of 12 cents per pound. It is true that there are dogfish on the east coast, around Newfoundland and in other areas, but not in anything like the concentration in which they occur on the west coast. The difficulty on the west coast is that in certain types of fishing the dogfish attack the fish as soon as they are in the nets, causing a great deal of destruction both to the catch and the equipment. They are a real menace to the fisherman's gear, to a much greater extent than on the east coast.


Chesley William Carter: This item is only for the west coast?


John Angus MacLean: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Depuiy Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman,
before you rise I should like to express my

appreciation to the members of the committee for their interest in the items and the contribution they have made in the way of constructive criticism.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
151. Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, $872,484.
Charles Edward Rea: This item will be found on page 33 of the blue book, the details at page 217.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I think it has not been customary for ministers of justice to make any statement on the first item, departmental administration, but rather to answer any questions that might be raised with regard to the administration of the department. I propose to follow that course. However, if it will be of assistance to hon. members who wish to discuss specific matters I propose to make a short statement when we reach item 161, having to do with the administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries. I expect to be making a sort of brief progress report on correctional reform.


Mr. Roberge:: First of all, in opening the discussion on the estimates of the Department of Justice, I should like to pay our respects and to offer our compliments to both Mr. Jackett and Mr. Favreau who we know are to leave the department. As far as I know, while they were there they did a magnificent job and discharged their duties in an able manner. We on this side of the chamber want to wish them well as they enter upon their new activities. We are sure they will have in their private practice of law as much success as they had when they were senior officials of the Department of Justice.
There is one matter to which I should now like to come, and my remarks are prompted by a discussion that was held in this chamber on Monday. I refer to a question that was asked by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East of the Minister of Justice, namely whether the necessity to increase the number of judges in the superior court in the province of Quebec was owing to the increase in criminality in that province. I am now referring to page 5654 of the French

text of Hansard of Monday last, and I quote the Minister of Justice in French:
(Translation):
In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East, I regret that even with the best will in the world I cannot give a categorical answer as to why there is this fairly steady pressure for an increase in the number of judges; whether it is simply because of the increase in population or because of the increase in population accompanied by an increase in criminality.
A little further on, the minister added this:
With respect to the question, or that aspect of it dealing with criminality, the best assessment that I have been able to make is that there is not an absolute increase in criminality but that there is a proportionate increase, an increase in keeping with the increase in population, yes, and also with the increased trend toward urbanization. (Text):
Inasmuch as the population of Canada is increasing, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that criminality is increasing; but that surely was not the factor accounting for the increase in the number of judges in the province of Quebec. I want to say right away that I do not think for one moment that my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East was of the opinion that criminality was worse in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada, and I am sure that thought did not enter the mind of the Minister of Justice. However, I should like to make a few remarks on that matter and show that the increase in the number of judges in Quebec was necessitated by several other factors.
It might be useful to explain generally how the courts function in Quebec, inasmuch as possibly they are not functioning in the same way as are courts in some other provinces, because the judges do not have the same functions or the same jurisdiction. First the accused are brought before a justice of the peace, a magistrate or a justice of the court of sessions of the peace. There, of course, they have a preliminary inquiry when such an inquiry is indicated, or they have their trial before the judge sitting in what we usually call the court below. The main criminal cases in the province of Quebec are tried and decided before those courts. As is the situation anywhere else in Canada, only the major crimes come before the assizes. I know for a fact that in the district of Montreal the criminal assizes are presided over by a justice of the superior court, and more often than not it is Mr. Justice Lazure, who sits in assize four times a year. Every sitting extends for a month or a month and a half. So there is only one judge in Montreal occupied by criminal courts.
In Quebec city there are normally two terms of assizes, and even there they occupy only one judge. In what I might call the 79951-0-353J
Supply-Justice
rural districts around Montreal and Quebec city there is only one term of assizes every year, normally in October. I know the old district of which I was a member, the district of Arthabaska, had two years in a row when there was no assize at all. In my own district, which was formed in 1956, there has not been one since that time, which perhaps speaks well for the honesty of the people in my riding.
The main reason for this recommendation for an increase in the number of judges is not due to criminality at all. If my memory serves me well, in 1867 there were 33 judges of the superior court in the province of Quebec. Now, as the result of legislation which was passed last Monday, there are 55, not quite twice as many. The population in 1867 was less than one million but now it is over five million. So there is no doubt that the more population there is in any province or in the whole country the more court sittings there are.
The judges of the superior court in Quebec deal mostly with civil litigation. The number of cases has increased tremendously. In my own district in 1956 there were over 160 cases on the roll at the beginning of the term and the judge sits only once a month over nine months. So there is no doubt that there cases are dragging on, and it takes at least two years to have a case heard by the court after inscription on the roll.
Those cases are not necessarily dealing with property or personal damages; it is mostly litigation concerning automobile accidents. According to statistics, although I have not the figures before me, at least half the cases tried before the superior courts in the province of Quebec arose from automobile accidents, and this might be the case in some of the other provinces too. Those cases take up half the time of the judges. The rest of the cases are the ordinary sort arising from the increase in population, the increase in business and especially the increase in book debts. The more we grow the more we have to sue people because they do not pay their debts. One or other of the opposing lawyers often seeks a delay, but these cases are apt to come before the courts and they do occupy the time of the judges.
Mr. Chairman, those are the preliminary remarks I wanted to make on this first item. I might have something more to say and some questions to ask as we go along. Before I resume my seat I would like to make a request of the Minister of Justice. One of my colleagues in the official opposition wanted to speak on this first item but is now engaged on some other business. Perhaps this item might stand until he returns, and perhaps we might carry on and return to it later.

Supply-Justice


Mr. Winch:: I was very pleased to hear the statement by the Minister of Justice that it is his intention when we reach the penitentiary item to make a statement in regard to the penitentiaries. I presume it will relate mostly to the corrective procedures and policies which have been adopted under the new set up of the parole board. I hope when the minister speaks he will not necessarily make his remarks brief; I hope he will take time to go into some detail and outline the situation Canada is facing in the realm of criminology.
In the most recent report of the commissioner of penitentiaries there is some very disturbing and alarming information. According to the report, which covers a period of 12 months, of those who were committed to the penitentiaries in that period of time 82.88 per cent were guilty of general recidivism. So that of the penitentiary committals in the past 12 months, 82.88 per cent had previously been either in a reformatory, in a provincial jail or in a penitentiary.
That in itself gives evidence of a very serious situation, but it is even more alarming because we note from the report that of the committals to the penitentiaries in that 12-month period-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to suggest that it would be more convenient, I believe to him as well as to me, if his discussion of this problem and of penal problems generally could be deferred till we reach item 161, which is the general item referring to penitentiaries and correctional measures. The staff of the penitentiaries branch are not here; therefore I would not be able to reply to the hon. member as fully as I would want. I expect we will have a discussion of penitentiaries and correctional problems on that item, so I wonder if it would not suit the hon. member's purpose if he deferred his remarks on that aspect of my responsibility until that item is reached.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand the statement of the minister in this regard and I quite agree with him, but unfortunately with the meetings of committees and certain other matters there is a possibility that at that particular moment I might not be able to be here. It is for that reason that I make these few remarks on the first item of the minister's estimates in an effort to indicate some of the phases upon which I know many of us would like to hear the minister when we reach the item dealing with penitentiaries.
As I was saying, of the committals to the penitentiaries in this 12-month period, 46.41 per cent have been in the penitentiary before. So they are recidivists with penitentiary experience. I would like to draw the attention of

the committee to this fact, that of the 2,922 persons who were committed as recidivists with penitentiary experience, 1,423 were in the penitentiary for the second time, 760 were in the penitentiary for the third time, 366 for the fourth time, and 373 were back in the penitentiary for the fifth time or more.
Those figures as given to us in the report of the commissioner of penitentiaries indicates the very serious nature of the problem, and I would most certainly like to have as full a statement as possible from the Minister of Justice as to how this problem is being tackled and what is the policy for dealing with it which he has in mind. It is quite obvious that we have a group who are strictly of criminal tendency and who will not learn.
I must admit that I cannot understand why a person who has been in a penitentiary should decide to go back. I am one of the fortunate few who can go to a penitentiary and get out again. I often visit penitentiaries and jails, and I cannot understand why a person who has won his freedom should, by committing some criminal act, render himself liable to go back to that kind of life.
I do want to say how much I appreciate the action of the minister in attempting something new as far as British Columbia is concerned, namely the inauguration of an institution which is to some extent an open prison. I refer to the installation at William Head, and I should like to place on record two quotations from the report of the commissioner dealing with that institution because I think they give an indication that the policy which has commended itself to the minister, and which he is endeavouring to extend, may be at least a partial answer to the problem I have outlined. I note that on page 130 of the report the commissioner has this to say:
The William Head installation is an innovation, and the consensus of opinion to date is that it has been an unqualified success. The open type installation tends to release the tension in the better type of inmate, and the ones selected for transfer to William Head have the feeling that they are trusted, and up to the present time this trust has not been misplaced. The fact that there are no walls or bars on the windows adds to the inmate's feeling of confidence and feeling that the administration have confidence in him makes him more confident in himself when he is released.
Again, on page 131, we find the following statement still in relation to the William Head installation:
Many such transfers have taken place without untoward incident. These achievements indicate that inmates do respond to humane, considerate treatment on the part of the authorities, and it is possible to maintain firm discipline without arousing the animosity of the individual, thus taking a long step towards successful reformation and rehabilitation.

We are very pleased to note that this has been the experience and that this is the view of the authorities in charge of this experiment, if such it is. Should this be the consensus we hope there may be a statement forthcoming from the Minister of Justice as to the extension of this system, not only on the basis of the present installation at William Head but also-I think there is one at Collins Bay-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Valleyiield and Springhill.


Harold Edward Winch: Oh, yes; that is the one that is going to be opened this fall, at Springhill. We do hope such institutions as these may help to provide a solution to this very serious problem of recidivism.
May I add that one of the reasons we have this general recidivism is in my opinion because we have failed so far to pay sufficient attention to after-care services. It is significant, I think, that so far this year the money we have expended on such organizations as are named in the report has amounted to only $60,000. That, it seems to me, is a remarkably small sum in the light of the seriousness of this problem.
It will not do to anticipate that as soon as a person is discharged from prison he will, as a result of the work done by the training instructors, the ministers, the doctors, the psychiatrists and the psychologists, be able to walk out of a penitentiary having the desired social conscience. Society must follow up the effort which has been made. It must take an interest in where these people go, whom they resort with and whether or not they can find employment. It is difficult enough at the present time for people who possess a social conscience and who live by the law to obtain employment. It is far more difficult for a person who has broken the law to do so.
I have found out in discussions with many who have come out of prison, and many who have gone back, that because of their weakness they gave way to temptation when after a few weeks, or a month or so, they were unable to obtain employment. The very small amount, the picayune amount, of help which they are able to get from organizations which assist prisoners after their discharge is certainly not adequate. This is particularly true with regard to the problem of those who have been incarcerated as a result of drug addiction. Greater emphasis must be placed on after care service and the following up of cases in the period after discharge.
I hope the minister will devote great attention to following up the cases of those who are discharged from our penitentiaries and seeing that they are given every assistance
Supply-Justice
possible in rehabilitating themselves. In my opinion it is foolish to spend the large sums of money which are required to maintain people in our jails and penitentiaries, not only to punish them but also to try to rehabilitate them, and then, for a matter of dollars, leave them on their own with the result that we are faced with these figures demonstrating such a high degree of recidivism. If no other plan is forthcoming I hope the minister will seriously consider a system under which they could at least draw unemployment insurance so as to help them keep on the straight and narrow path. Any money spent after sentence has been completed to keep these people in line as socially conscious individuals is money well invested and will undoubtedly save a great deal more to the taxpayers of the country in the long run.
That is all I have to say on this subject at the moment. I do hope the minister will also take note of one or two other questions, and perhaps comment on them when he replies. I understand that the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Welfare have been working sincerely and conscientiously to evolve some approach to this problem of drug addiction. It is my understanding that these studies have practically reached a conclusion, and that the minister himself regrets it is not possible for him to introduce at this session certain changes he may have in mind, because of the necessity of receiving the complete co-operation of the provincial authorities. However, I hope the minister can at least give us some indication of the nature of his new approach to the question of drug addiction, both in terms of care and of punishment should that be necessary.
There can be no question at all but that we are going to continue to be faced with this problem in Canada until we do recognize drug addiction as an illness, as something that has to be treated; and we are not going to solve it by treating drug addicts strictly as criminals. I know the minister appreciates the problem we have in Canada and particularly in British Columbia. All the reports that I have received seem to indicate that we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of between 1,500 and 2,000 drug addicts in the city of Vancouver alone. The minimum figure I have ever noticed is 1,500.
From my study of this and from the reports of those who have made a lifetime study of it -and their recent conclusions indicate this- a drug addict has to have at least three capsules of heroin a day. According to the latest figures I have received from unofficial sources, a capsule of heroin costs $5 on the Vancouver market, and sometimes $7 or $9. Therefore a drug addict requires a minimum of $15 a day
55S6

Supply-Justice
for three capsules. If we have 1,500 addicts in Vancouver we have some indication of the money being spent. Since the majority of those who are drug addicts are not of the wealthy class, it is almost axiomatic that they must resort to criminal activity to obtain the money necessary to buy the drugs.
Therefore we have the problem of the addicts resorting to crime, since they must obtain a great deal of money if they are to get sufficient to buy the necessary capsules. So the question of treatment is most important. I have ideas on this, and I have mentioned them almost every time I have spoken on this subject in the house. I am not going to repeat them now, because the minister is well aware of them and because representations on this subject were made to the Senate committee when they held their meetings in the city of Vancouver. I do hope the minister has been successful in evolving a plan of such a nature that he feels fairly confident it is one in which he can get the necessary co-operation from the provincial governments in order that as soon as possible a great step forward can be made in handling this problem of drug addiction.
There is another point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister before I sit down and ask him whether it is possible to do anything about it. Over the recent weeks in particular I have been receiving complaints about the operations of so-called collection agencies. These agencies are companies that buy up the bills that are owing to business concerns for anywhere from 10 cents to 50 cents on the dollar; then they go after those who owe them money and, in my opinion, they do it in a most vicious manner and under circumstances which, because the average person is honest and wants to pay his bills, cause a great deal of hardship to those concerned. As a matter of fact they resort to practices in trying to bleed those who have not the money to pay that it almost looks to me as though they are in contempt of the law. Because of the way in which they put out their dunning letters a person who is easily frightened or does not know very much about the law would almost think he was being served with a subpoena. If it is not a subpoena, they certainly think it is some sort of legal paper and that they had better find some way of paying up or they are in real trouble.
I have one file on them. Here is the type of communication that is sent out by the credit bureau of Vancouver. If you look at the paper you will see that it looks like a subpoena right off the bat. If you look at the wording you will realize that it scares people. This is how it reads:

We have now decided to give our solicitor instruction to go ahead with court action against you, but before doing so we write you this final letter to inform you:
"That a judgment is good for 20 years and a warrant of execution may be directed to the sheriff at any time thereafter requiring him to make a seizure to satisfy the claim and all costs. A judgment debtor can be made to appear before the court for examination, and garnisheeing proceedings can be taken either before or after judgment attaching moneys in the bank, salary or wages, and moneys due from other source."
We are allowing you another three days to think it over. Please bear in mind we do not want to have this summons served. We would much rather give you a receipt.
I think after all these years I know a little bit about law and procedure, but I did not know before that a judgment is good for 20 years and that a warrant of execution may be directed to the sheriff at any time thereafter requiring him to make a seizure, garnisheeing wages, taking goods and everything else. I say this is going too far and that some kind of control should be exercised over collection agencies. I am not certain whether this comes within the legislative jurisdiction of the federal government or whether it is something that has to be handled wholly and solely on the basis of provincial jurisdiction.
I did want to draw this to the attention of the minister. It is a most serious matter right today for many thousands of people in Canada, and I know it has affected a great many people in British Columbia and particularly in the city of Vancouver. I hope the Minister of Justice can make some comment on this and state whether it is possible for federal legislative action to be taken to control these people, or whether his department can exercise any sort of inspection over their actions.
These are three of the matters that I wanted to draw to the attention of the minister under the first item. I hope my duties on committees will not make it necessary for me to be absent when the minister gives details on other items. I know the interest of the minister in penitentiaries and in the problems of my colleagues. It will mean a great deal to this country and to all of us in this committee if at this time, when his estimates are going through, the minister can give us information that will mark a real advance forward in the handling of those problems.


Mr. Jung:: Mr. Chairman, I also wish to say a few words about the problem of drug addiction. I do so for two reasons. First, out of some 3,400 addicts in Canada, half are found in British Columbia and more particularly in the city of Vancouver, and most of their activities appear to centre around a certain area in my riding of Vancouver Centre.

Second, Mr. Chairman, there appears to be a growing number of juvenile addicts. In 1957, for example, there were 25 teenagers in Canada who were drug addicts. In 1958 there were 47, and in 1959 the number had increased to 55. Of the 55, 17 were males and 38 were females. British Columbia has the dubious distinction of having the majority of those teenagers, because of the figure of 17 males and 38 females, 15 of the males and 31 of the females are to be found in that province.
While I am concerned with the drug problem as it affects all addicts, I feel a special sense of responsibility toward those teenagers who are addicts. The over-all number of addicts in Canada does not show any marked increase, whereas the number of addicts who are teenagers has indicated a rise. The over-all figures show the following numbers in the years 1954 to 1959 inclusive:
Year	Number
1954		 3,212
1955		 3,425
1956		 3,421
1957		 3,315
1958		 3,412
1959		 3,408
It would therefore appear that apart from teenage addicts there is some tendency toward stabilization in the number of addicts.
Prior to speaking on this subject I was faced with the problem of trying to justify in my own mind whatever sums of money the government intends to spend in advancing and implementing a program of treatment for addicts. I also had to learn something about the narcotic problem. Therefore during the Easter recess this year I visited Oakalla prison farm at Vancouver where I interviewed male and female drug addicts who were serving their sentences there. I spoke to the senior prison officials at Oakalla. I had discussions with the director of the narcotic foundation in Vancouver. I spoke to a number of addicts outside of Oakalla, and when I returned to Ottawa I discussed the problem with senior officials of the R.C.M.P. and the Department of National Health and Welfare. I have read the speech on the narcotic problem which the Minister of Justice delivered to the Canadian club in Vancouver on April 20, 1960, and I have also read a number of reports and papers on this subject.
I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that prior to my research I felt that if the government were to spend large sums of money on a comprehensive program to help some 3,000 to 4,000 people, that money might well be spent on a segment of the population which was more numerous and more deserving such as, for example, our old age pensioners. After
Supply-Justice
all, addicts are only a very small part of our population and, far from contributing to society, society instead has to pay for their misdeeds. None the less, after seeing and speaking to addicts I realized that most of them were people in an age group who under normal circumstances would be wage earners engaged in bringing up families and who would therefore be making a useful contribution to society. I accordingly came to the conclusion that we would justify any measure which would help to restore these people to a useful role, because in so helping to rehabilitate these people we would have to come to grips with the more basic problem of crime, namely the reasons for delinquency.
If we do not do anything about the problem of drug addiction we lose not only the contribution which these addicts might have made to society; we also have to bear the loss to the community in terms of actual dollars and cents. As an example of the financial loss to the community, which was mentioned by the previous speaker, let me illustrate the case of an addict who is faced with the problem of gratifying his craving for drugs. Heroin, which is the most popular drug for Canadian addicts, sells for approximately $5 a capsule. It might cost more or less depending on market conditions. The Vancouver Sun on March 26 of this year reported a Vancouver drug squad detective as saying that as the result of a police seizure of 91 ounces of heroin worth $1 million, smalltime peddlers were afraid to go into Vancouver streets for fear of being hijacked by addicts desperate for illegal narcotics. The same detective was quoted as saying that the price of a capsule would go up from $5 when supplies started to flow again, and that as a result of the seizure known addicts were seen wandering the streets and in cafes in a certain area of Vancouver suffering withdrawal symptoms. Incidentally, the person who was found to possess the 91 ounces of heroin was sentenced to serve 14 years.
The usual daily consumption of an addict using heroin runs between five and ten capsules. Female addicts appear to get by on the minimum dosage but male addicts seem to want more and to take all they can get. But basing my calculation on the minimum figures of five capsules, this would cost the addict $25 a day. Very few people can afford this kind of money. Multiplying $25 per day by 1,797, the number of known addicts in Vancouver, we have a figure of $44,925 per day. Addicts do not have steady employment, and even if they did their wages would not be sufficient to fulfil their craving for drugs. So where does the money come from? It comes from petty thievery, from prostitution and other forms of crime.

Supply-Justice
The sum of approximately $45,000 paid out each day for illegal drugs would be bad enough, but it is a known fact that stolen goods which are disposed of through a "fence" generally bring in only a third of their true worth. In order to get $25 an addict would therefore have to steal approximately $75 worth of goods. Multiply $75 by 1,797 again, we get the figure of $134,775 per day.
I would be the first to admit, Mr. Chairman, that these are hypothetical figures. The sums I have mentioned are probably overestimated for a number of reasons, but I did want to impress upon hon. members the potential loss in terms of money. To the figures which I have given must be added the cost of keeping addicts in a penal institution. There is another loss which in my opinion is even greater and which cannot be calculated in terms of dollars and cents. I refer to the break-up of homes and the resulting unhappiness and delinquency which invariably follow such disruption.
What are we going to do about this problem? I know there have been many reports and suggestions, but I was interested to hear from the addicts themselves that they wished to be treated as medical cases and as persons in need of psychiatric treatment rather than to be treated as criminals. After all, they argue, we do not treat alcoholics as criminals unless, of course, they commit a crime while their faculties are impaired, so why should addicts be considered criminals?
Here I wish to clear up a popular misconception, namely that all drug addicts while under the influence of drugs are bent on murder, mayhem or rape. Studies indicate that the users of heroin desire only to enjoy the pleasant effects of their favourite drug in a quiet relaxed and private way. The user is so relaxed while under the influence of heroin that he probably could not punch his way out of a paper bag, and in committing theft in order to get enough money to buy drugs the addict is doing so only because stealing has been a behaviour pattern even before he started to take drugs.
In stating that they wished to be treated as medical cases rather than as criminals, the addicts themselves have expressed to me the desire to be confined in an institution which would enable them to be apart from the usual criminals and where they could aiso receive psychiatric help. Many of the addicts do not themselves understand the true reasons for their addiction, and I was baffled in the beginning by some of the answers 1 received when I asked them why they took drugs. I remember asking one girl if there was anything in her family background which might have contributed to her

desire for drugs, and she replied that she came from a wealthy family; that she had all the material things she wanted, and that she had been one of the debutantes who had been introduced to society at one of the balls held in the hotel Vancouver. She could give no reason except that she liked taking heroin. I asked one of the boys why he took drugs, and he replied that he did so because he found himself the centre of interest for the girls at his school; that by being known as a drug addict he could get a girl any time he wanted.
These answers, among others, indicated to me that drug addiction might be a result and not a cause of delinquency. Most of the reports I have read and the discussions I have had support this view, and that is why I can reconcile the spending of money to help solve this basic aspect of delinquency.
It may be an oversimplification of the situation, but I do think that if we were able to assist in preventing the break-up of families; if we were able to provide more recreational facilities for our young people, and if we were able to help those who are in great financial need, we would be going a long way toward solving the whole crime problem. Granted that every person is responsible for his own behaviour, we still cannot escape the final responsibility of society to those who need help, particularly in our own communities, whether such help be financial, spiritual or moral.
Having made some study of this problem, I was delighted to read the speech which the Minister of Justice delivered on April 20, 1960 to the Canadian club in Vancouver, and in which he presented the attitude of the government toward this problem. Not only is there a sympathetic attitude but there is also in that speech the announcement of a comprehensive plan to deal with this problem. From my reading of the statement of the Minister of Justice dated May 16, 1960 I am gratified to learn that the government is taking active steps to implement, in conjunction with the provincial authorities, a program of prevention and correction.
The plan as outlined by the minister contains many of the suggestions which I received from the addicts with whom I spoke. However, I would urge that both the federal government and the provincial governments give serious thought to providing even more comprehensive psychiatric treatment. This form of treatment is very expensive, but I think it is the key to the whole program of prevention and correction. In Ontario and British Columbia, where most of the addicts are found, it might be possible, notwithstanding the division between

federal and provincial responsibilities, to establish some institutions administered jointly by the two levels of government to achieve this objective of providing treatment centres. Addicts could be sent to these two major centres of treatment, and the pressure on provincial and federal institutions for accommodation might be relieved.
Finally I should like to say a few words about the maximum sentence of 14 years which can be imposed on the trafficker. I know that it is extremely difficult to arrest and convict a key person in an organization formed to distribute illegal drugs but I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the form of treatment which was used in China at one time for opium addicts might not help to stamp out or at least drastically reduce the number of pushers and traffickers. This treatment consisted of extending clemency on the first and second occasions on which an addict was arrested. He would even be offered free medical treatment on these two occasions, but if he were caught a third time he was simply taken to Peking and placed against the wall of the temple of heaven and shot. I have no direct knowledge of the effectiveness either of the treatment or the mode of treatment, but I think until such a drastic punishment is provided to deter those who would traffic in drugs purely for monetary gain, we shall always have a problem on our hands.
Once again I should like to congratulate the Minister of Justice upon his announced intention of introducing a comprehensive plan to deal with the problem of drug addiction in Canada. With the federal government showing the way, I hope the provincial governments will find it possible to enter into an early agreement with the federal government on those matters which fall under provincial jurisdiction, so that we may get started on a program which has been long overdue.


Lionel Chevrier: I intend to make my remarks brief, but before mentioning the two matters I should like to discuss this afternoon I may say that the committee listened with interest to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre as well as the hon. member for Vancouver East. These are problems which are complex and difficult, and I know that all of us sympathize with the minister and his department in their efforts to find a solution for a matter of this kind.
I rose to deal briefly, as I said, not with a specific matter such as the one to which reference has been made but a matter which is general in its nature. I remember that not so very long ago Bishop Fulton Sheen, in opening one of his telecasts which unfor-
Supply-Justice
tunately are not seen any longer on the C.B.C., had this to say, that crime in the United States has attained alarming proportions. Did you know that every 40 minutes in that country there was a murder; that the crime of rape took place every 30 minutes; that a theft took place every 7 minutes; that armed robbery took place every 1 minute and that at every 2.4 seconds of the day an automobile was stolen? These are indeed revealing statistics. While I do not know what the statistics are for our own country, I presume that on a proportional basis there would be some resemblance to them.
What prompts me to rise now is this. What is there that can be done by those of us who sit in this house, by the Department of Justice and the officers of the department, to remedy a situation which is attaining alarming proportions in the country, particularly in the areas in which there is a concentration of population? Of course the main answer lies in education and in the development and building of character. For that I am sure the minister and this house have no responsibility.
What else can be done? It may be that the minister will be able to enlighten the committee in this respect, and knowing him as I do I am sure he will not deal with this subject other than in an objective way, which is the manner in which I propose to deal with it now. I have no answer to the problem which seems to be aggravating itself and which is not the sole responsibility of a department, let alone a minister. It is the result of a set of circumstances, of the world in which we live and of so many reasons that I would not be living up to the statement I made earlier that I intended to speak briefly if I were to go into all of those reasons.
I think now of the great metropolitan area of Montreal, and I come quickly to what I have in mind.
I wonder whether any consideration has been given by the department to removing to outlying areas a penitentiary which lies in that city. From the information that I have been able to obtain and from conversations I have had with members of the bar and of the judiciary, that factor seems to be perhaps one of the many reasons for the increase in crime. That consideration may apply elsewhere; I do not know. I do not even know that it applies in the city of Montreal. But from judges who sit on cases in the city of Montreal I have been told that when parole is granted to hardened criminals who have been in these institutions they find themselves coming out in the same environment as that in which they found themselves when they were convicted of a former crime; and the

Supply-Justice
temptation is so great that they go on and commit similar offences again. Would it not be advisable and profitable for the state to build these institutions-about which I will have more to say on another vote-outside of these great centres? Perhaps the minister might deem it advisable to say something on that score later on.
The other matter I wanted to bring to his attention was this; and again I am sure he will take it, inasmuch as it is critical, with the good grace with which he generally takes other comments. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police of late have been making statements which in my opinion were not of a police or judicial nature.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder whether I could suggest to my hon. friend that I think it would be more to his interest and to mine if his discussion could be deferred until we reach the first item under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, at which time I will have the officers of the police here and will be able to reply more fully and directly to what the hon. member may say.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to doing that, Mr. Chairman. However, I was just going to make one statement and resume my seat. As the minister knows, I have the right to deal with this matter on the first item and I am not going to be lengthy. The only point I was raising was this. I need not tell the minister that I have the greatest respect for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. However, in the matter of the Chinese immigration cases it seemed to me that perhaps the public statements which were made, particularly those on television, were not the kind that should be made by an independent body such as the R.C.M.P. I wonder whether, either on this general vote or when we come to the more particular vote, the minister would not give his comments on this matter and on the earlier matter which I raised. (Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, last year the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) introduced a resolution in this house for the purpose of defining section 150 of the Criminal Code, dealing with obscene publications. That bill had long been awaited by a great number of Canadians. The Minister of Justice is well acquainted with this problem, since he played an important part in the Senate investigation of 1952-53.
At this stage of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, allow me to quote an excerpt from the August 1959 issue of the publication Relations:
Let us not assume that the new legislation will be a cure-all. It will prove an effective instrument for those judges who are anxious to improve

social environment. This means a great deal. It will be left to them to decide whether the dominant characteristic of an incriminated publication is obscene, whether the author is unduly exploiting violence and sex. Obviously, their education and turn of mind will affect their judgments. So will the general attitude of the people. In this field, more than in any other perhaps, legislation no matter how well conceived, can be effective only with the courageous and continued support of high-minded people. Mr. Fulton is to be commended for his new legislation, and the firm and straightforward support he is getting from all the people.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) rightly said a moment ago that a wave of crime is now sweeping over the whole North American continent. This increase is probably due in great part to filthy publications. Therefore, I wish to denounce publicly and strongly certain most objectionable material that is being published, printed, and then distributed by a great many newsstands in the province of Quebec, and surely in some parts of Ontario too. The following list was issued by the national federation of the Holy Name society:
1.	For the peace of their conscience, Christians must not sell, buy or read the following weeklies.
2.	Municipalities must prohibit their sale within their jurisdiction.
3.	Organizations must caution their members against them.
4.	Those weeklies are objectionable because
of their pictures and writings on sex, S;
of their crime stories, C;
of their gossip, G.
As the case may be, they are marked by the signs: *'S" or "C" or "G".
Mr. Chairman, here is the list of those obscene publications, harmful to the morals of young people and of the population:
Alio Police; Bouffon; Chameau; L'Echo; Flash; Le Fou-rire; Hush; lei Montreal; Jackie; Joker; Jour et Nuit; Midnight; Nouvelles et police judi-ciaire; La Pie; Rigolade; Le Trou de la serrure.
I denounce the publishers, printers and distributors who are responsible in great part for juvenile delinquency.
In the first list, issued in February 1958, there were 30 papers, nine of which no longer exist. In the second list, issued on May 23, 1958, there were 25 papers, thirteen of which are no longer published. The third list contains the 16 papers that I have just named, and I hope that all of them will cease publication. I strongly urge municipal authorities and police, Catholic and Protestant organizations, to join in denouncing those publications and in alerting the authorities concerned so that people responsible for this situation may be brought before the courts.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to papers of May 12, 1960 and especially to Le Devoir-



I960

[Stage Direction]
I know that La Presse mentioned it also- where Cardinal Leger is reported to have said to Holy Name societies:
The fight against obscene publications must go on unremittingly.
It must be waged by all social classes, by all those who want morality to be respected and who want to eradicate obscene publications. And, after the hon. member for Laurier, I would remind you that a wave of criminality is now sweeping the North American continent, and I repeat, perhaps the main cause of it is that bad literature.
I wanted to take this opportunity to denounce bad literature and ask all honest and responsible people to see that people responsible for such a tragic situation are brought before the courts.
Mr. Paul:: I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I were to delay unduly the business of the house, but I believe this is the right opportunity to congratulate, first of all, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) for the excellent news he gave the Canadian people on or about June 15 of last year, when he informed us that his department would introduce a bill to modify the Bankruptcy Act which was enacted as far back as 1949.
The present Bankruptcy Act has become a disgrace for every businessman and the people in general. It is surprising to note the growing number of bankruptcies, but we may not stop to find out the main reasons for those business failures or why debtors are led to defraud-and I stress that word-to defraud their creditors.
Unfortunately, there are too many public trustees-and when I say that, I would like to exclude the public trustees of the judicial districts of Three Rivers or Joliette, with whom I have had many transactions with regard to the administration of the Bankruptcy Act-but unfortunately too many public trustees are seeking insolvent debtors, or people struggling with their creditors- and urging them to assign their property or chattels, often demanding up to a thousand dollars to free those debtors of all liability towards their creditors under the present provisions of the Bankruptcy Act.
I know, sir, that particular attention will be brought to the various recommendations that will be submitted to you by the various organizations, by the Canadian Bar Association, and by the various rural bar associations. However, may I suggest or, at least, call
Supply-Justice
the attention of relevant officials in your department to the fact that there should be, first of all, a change in the definition now found in section 2, paragraph (n) of the Bankruptcy Act, where the legislator defines the expression: "insolvent person" as meaning someone who owes a thousand dollars or more. That provision, which was applicable and appropriate in 1949, has now become entirely unjustified, and I think that it would be much more fitting to impose more costly terms on those who, through dishonesty, fraud or otherwise, too often hide behind the provisions of the legislation now in effect to cheat with impunity creditors who had trusted them in their capacity of business or professional men.
I also would be remiss not to commend the minister for his attitude with regard to the numerous public trustees who lack honesty in the exercise of their profession. I know the appropriate officers of your department are continuing their investigation to halt this bankruptcy threat, this tremendous surge of debtors who today assign their property not in the interest of their creditors but to protect the possessions they have accumulated, and make use of the act to gratify their greed and demands.
I think an excellent suggestion might be to amend section 20 and require any debtor wishing to assign his property to appear before a proper judge, perhaps of the superior court, and state the reasons forcing him to assign his property. After an investigation which might be conducted by the judge, the judge alone would decide when and under what conditions the debtor could file a petition in bankruptcy. At that time, the judge, on the basis of his investigation and of the facts as ascertained by him, would be in a position either to refuse or grant to the debtor authorization to file a petition in bankruptcy.
Unfortunately, under the present provisions of the act-I would not want to appear in any way to be casting aspersions on the decisions our judges have rendered so far -judges are too generous, that is to say, they tend to be too soft in discharging debtors of their debts.
I think the provisions of section 130 should be amended to provide that no debtor can be discharged unless he has paid at least 50 per cent of what he owes his creditors.
Moreover, the Bankruptcy Act should contain a provision barring any debtor from

Supply-Justice
being discharged of a debt arising out of a misdemeanour or a technical offence. Too often today-in the province of Quebec, for instance, and probably elsewhere-a debtor having to meet obligations arising out of a rather costly judgment for liability in an automobile accident, easily avoids his liability by filing a petition in bankruptcy and then obtaining his release, thus being dispensed from the necessity of abiding by the provisions of the judgment, and, too often, unfortunately, to the detriment of a widow or orphans.
I know, Mr. Minister, that in due course, you will introduce a bill to remedy such a situation, one which has lasted too long, so that honest people who, in the pursuit of their business, meet with difficulties that prevent them from honouring their obligations, may avail themselves of the provisions of that new bankruptcy act, but also in order that dishonest debtors who are taking advantage of the provisions of the present act to defraud their creditors, may not find an easy refuge to satisfy their greed and hang on to their property.
Furthermore, I think it would benefit the Canadian economy if the provisions of that act were amended so as to provide more rigorous restrictions designed to put an end to present abuses.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have three matters to raise briefly on this first item but I shall rise on three different occasions so that the subjects will not become merged in the minister's mind. First of all I want to express my appreciation at the courtesy and attention the minister has given to any question I have brought to his notice and for his promptness on all occasions.
Before proceeding with my few brief remarks I want to express my support for the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East and my admiration for the way he has carried on over a period of 25 years his work and interest, and his attention particularly to those unfortunate persons who use narcotics and those who require rehabilitation after imprisonment. In British Columbia the work he has done in that respect is recognized by members of all parties and I think it is only right to bring that to the attention of the committee now.
I am now bringing to the attention of the minister a question which has been brought to my attention by a number of persons, one person in particular through correspondence and others who have discussed the matter

with me in my office who are concerned with the administration of justice. They charge that there is illegal confinement and treatment of prisoners in Bordeaux jail. I raise this on the minister's estimates because I understand that according to the revised statutes of 1952 the Governor General is held responsible for any injustice suffered by any person in Canada, and if that is correct then I presume there is a degree of responsibility on the part of the minister.
The great philosopher Justinian said that justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render to every man his due. Because I am fully confident that the minister agrees with that statement wholeheartedly I also raise a matter which has been discussed over the radio of Quebec, in television programs and elsewhere. On October 30 last there was a very interesting article in La Presse entitled: "The Minister of Health Promises to Correct the Abnormal Situation in One Year." That has to do with what is termed the scandal at Bordeaux. I just wish to quote briefly a paragraph or two from correspondence which I have received in order to bring the matter to the attention of the committee. This is from a letter which I received from a gentleman on November 10, 1959 of this year. He says:
I am enclosing a clipping from La Presse of Friday, October 30. This is a story of another person whom they had incarcerated without a hearing in Bordeaux jail for a mental examination, and for three years certain persons who have become interested have been trying to get him out since he has never been properly examined by a psychiatrist, and no evidence has ever been given that he was unbalanced.
Then on May 30, the same person wrote to me as follows:
About a month ago you wrote you were going to question the minister regarding this case of the man who had been in Bordeaux for five years without ever appearing in court. I was wondering what the result of the questioning was. Nothing has been done here since I last wrote.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister and would like his comment with respect to the case. I have quite a voluminous correspondence in connection with this subject. Two or three other persons from Montreal have sent me letters in connection with it, and they feel very disturbed about it.
Finally, I have another case I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and to explain it I will just quote from a newspaper cutting dated January 15 which appeared in the Montreal Star. It is headed: "Court Frees Girl Held Three Weeks", and reads:
A 16-year old girl was liberated yesterday by a sessions court judge of a charge of obstructing

the course of justice, stemming from a shooting last October in a St. Antoine street rooming house.
Said Judge M. A. Blain in freeing the slight, pale-faced girl: "I have looked into the evidence carefully and I feel certain that no jury would convict on the evidence produced. You are liberated ..."
When the preliminary hearing started Tuesday, defence lawyer Clair Barrette claimed the girl had been kept in jail since her arrest more than three weeks ago and had not been arraigned within the 24-hour delay prescribed by law.
Judge Blain ordered police prosecutors present to see to it that the law was observed to the letter in such matters. This was promised.
I simply put this on record so that the minister may be in possession of this information with respect to this girl who apparently did not receive justice according to the criminal law of this country. Then again there is the case of the incarceration in Bordeaux of the person I mentioned, and I may add that another person who spoke to me told me there were nine or ten similar cases.
That is all I have to say at this time, though I may rise again to deal with other matters in the course of the discussion.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of speaking on this matter, since it has already been dealt with, but in so doing, I think I shall be in order.
It seems that the minister has been informed of some happenings in one or many cases, at Bordeaux jail, not far from Montreal. Those cases were set out in detail in a book written by Jacques Hebert, in the bill of rights series, and entitled: "Scandal at Bordeaux".
In his book, the author has a word of approval for the minister.
I do not intend to speak at great length on this matter. However-


Georges-J. Valade: Ours is a sound policy.


Lionel Chevrier: However, I think it is in the common interest to know that an injustice was done to one individual, and perhaps to many others.
At the beginning of that book, which came out in 1959, appears the following:
A teenager has been rotting in prison for 924 days.
And the author repeats:
924 days,-924 days, without knowing why.
He is not serving a sentence, has never been sentenced, and has not even been brought before a judge.
The author goes on, describing conditions prevailing there.
He got in touch with the person concerned, whom I shall not name, and obtained the data for his book.
Supply-J ustice
It therefore appears that, in Canada, an individual may spend a certain time in prison without his case being brought to court and without preliminary inquiry, and, moreover, without knowing why he is imprisoned.
Mr. Chairman, that is a rather unique situation, you will admit. I am not blaming the minister, for it was the author's design to draw his attention to that situation without reproaching him for it. Besides, I shall be reading, in a minute, his opinion of the minister.
On page 12 we find the following:
Even if that scandal were the only one-"But it is not the only one" . ..
... there are hundreds of them in the prisons and mental institutions of the province of Quebec. Human beings, sons of the Catholic Church, British subjects, Canadian citizens, they are brothers to all men who are being mocked, humiliated, persecuted and unjustly detained in the dungeons of Budapest, Madrid, Ciudad Trujillo or Vladivostok. And they are our own brothers, those who suffer most, those whom abbe Pierre insists must be served first.
The book goes on to recite facts which, astonishingly, are taking place here in Canada.
On page 142, there is a reference to the minister. I quote:
However, it seems obvious to me that one of the most acute problems, one which lies at the basis of several others, is the overcrowded condition of our penitentiaries in general and of Bordeaux jail in particular.
At the federal level, Hon. Davie Fulton himself has denounced the scandal and announced a rigorous program which, within two years, should put an end to it. At the provincial level the scandal is infinitely more spectacular, but government authorities remain inactive and consider the matter as taboo. And yet, a newspaper generally in sympathy with the present regime dared write, only a few months ago:
Then follows a description of a situation I would not like to record in Hansard, because it refers to the appalling conditions that exist there:	Overcrowding, unsatisfactory
hygienic conditions.
Those two points deserve the attention of the authorities. The minister has probably received a copy of the book and, on reading parts of it, must have realized what inhuman conditions are imposed upon the prisoners.
We know that the minister is sympathetic and is aware of the basic nature of the problem.
He is frequently in touch with the various attorneys general. We know that as Minister of Justice, he wants to heed the conclusions of the Fauteux report. In fact, so far he has followed many of its recommendations.
However, because of present conditions, may I be allowed to urge the minister and his officials not only to read the book again

Supply-Justice
but especially to fully grasp the nature of the conditions to which prisoners are subjected at Bordeaux jail.
While it is true that since the book came out, and even before that, the governor of the jail introduced certain improvements, the fact remains that, in spite of those improvements, the situation is serious indeed, and to the extent where the minister can and must remedy that shocking situation, I urge him to do so.


Rémi Paul: Would the hon. member allow me-
(Text):


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Stormont.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Laurier allow me a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly.


Rémi Paul: Since the book in question refers to convictions and prison terms meted out without any trial, is any mention made by the author of the imprisonment in 1941, of the former mayor of Montreal, Camillien Houde, and of Adrien Arcand, and of a number of other Quebec citizens who were jailed without being brought to trial?


Georges-J. Valade: Under the Liberal administration.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I am being asked a question and subjected to a speech at the same time, I hope you will not mind my answering along the same lines.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You cannot do it.


Lionel Chevrier: As to conditions prevailing in time of war, legislation had been enacted for the protection of the country-


An hon. Member:: Apologize.


Georges-J. Valade: Democracy.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I have no apologies to offer, especially not to the members who are questioning me at this time.
As to offences against laws adopted during the war, those laws were in force, and surely anyone who transgressed them must have expected to take the consequences.
But what I am referring to at this time is that for 924 days, a man has been kept in jail without any charge being laid, without knowing what it was all about, and without being allowed to have the services of a lawyer to take his defence. Therefore, I feel the circumstances are such that they should at least be drawn to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), so that he may launch an investigation.

(Text):


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, sir; the hon. gentleman has just made an accusation. (Translation):
I shall now use French in addressing the hon. member who stated that this shocking situation existed in the province of Quebec.
Would the hon. member deny, or does he not know, that the attorney general of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Antoine Rivard-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not see
a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: I want to make it clear because the solicitor general of the province of Quebec has denied in the newspapers the charges made by the hon. member for Laurier.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Stormont.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to raise a point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair will hear the point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: What my hon. friend has been bringing to the attention of the committee is not a point of order, and he has entirely misunderstood what I have been saying. I have been bringing to the attention of the minister what is contained in this document. I have not made these words mine and therefore the point of order raised by the hon. gentleman is entirely irregular. He is accusing me of making these statements. I am putting on the record what is contained in this volume and I am asking the Minister of Justice to take cognizance of it. That is what I am doing. If the facts are true and in accordance with what is contained here, certainly an investigation should be made.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a brief plea on behalf of judges' salaries but prior to doing that may I congratulate and commend the minister and his department on the improvements in the penal system which he has initiated and which will be of great benefit to this country and long remembered after he and every member in this house will have left for that country from which no man has ever returned.
I think it is very interesting that in England about 100 years ago, the country from which our common law is derived, at a time when doctors were in the same economic position and were considered to be in the class of barbers, judges, as soon as they were appointed, were immediately made law lords with all the prerogatives and privileges that were involved in that status. I think it is indisputable that since then both the doctors and the barbers have tended to inhabit the earth while the comparative status of judges,

economically and socially, has progressively tended to decline. I think their condition has been deteriorating over a period of say 50 years and I think it is notoriously difficult today to get lawyers of the first order, leading lawyers, to become judges despite the honour involved, because there is a tremendous financial sacrifice connected with the position. In many instances they would be obliged to accept about one quarter, perhaps, of what they had been accustomed to in the way of income. It is obvious that the administration of law and order is the basis of any society; it is the whole basis of any civilized society and it is of the utmost importance that we have the finest and most able men available in the country on the bench. There is no job of greater importance than that of our judges.
When the ordinary citizen goes before the courts his respect and attitude toward law and order and toward government is largely determined by the fairness and the objectivity of the hearing that he gets from the judges at various levels. It is also commonplace that judges daily are called upon to adjudicate matters involving millions of dollars. If those same judges are preoccupied with maintaining their livelihood they cannot give the detachment that is required to their onerous duties.
There is also one other aspect which I mentioned at another time in the house. We tend to be living in a materialistic age where there appears to be a price tag on everything. Often a man's worth tends, unfortunately, inevitably, to be judged more on his income than on anything else. If that is so, and I think it is substantially true, it puts our judges in an unfair and untenable position.
I reiterate, it is essential that we have the best men available on the bench and we must offer sufficient inducement so they can be attracted to this most honourable position and, having attained this position, they should be relieved of the mundane cares and there should be nothing to deprive them of their integrity and objectivity.
As I have mentioned before, I think the same thing applies to members of parliament and members of government as to judges. Neither those on the bench nor those in this house, because of inadequacy of income, should ever degenerate into the position where the bench or this house would be a rich man's club or the refuge of the destitute.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to make a few brief remarks on a number of subject matters in which I have interest, one of which, of course, is being discussed in the banking and commerce committee at the moment. Perhaps this will be to a degree restricted to the things that may be engaged in by the combines investigation branch.
Supply-Justice
I should like to make reference to the question of penal institutions, the attitude of the minister with respect to penitentiaries and penology, and to express appreciation of the forward looking view that the minister has on these questions. At one time not too many years ago the view held was that incarceration in a penitentiary was purely a method or form of punishment and nothing else. The view was that if a person committed a crime and was convicted what would accrue to him would be punishment and that was all, that punishment was an end in itself.
But there has been a change in this attitude over the years, a change that is still under way. I think more people are coming to the point of view that we should concern ourselves more with the after-effects of a penitentiary sentence rather than just thinking in terms of getting someone out of the way because he or she has committed a particular crime. The changing of our thinking toward rehabilitating people who have been convicted of crimes and the bending of our efforts toward reformation need to be strengthened from time to time, and I think we continually have to work toward that goal.
The reformation and rehabilitation process takes place in two fields. One is while the inmate is in the penitentiary and the other is after the inmate is released on parole or under some other arrangement. In the latter case after-care agencies are involved whose aim is to ensure that the person gets back into the social structure and remains outside of the penitentiary for the rest of his life. However, there is an obstacle in the way of dealing effectively with the rehabilitative or reformative process and that obstacle lies in the penitentiaries themselves.
The minister has made the comment a number of times that he is thoroughly conversant and familiar with the overcrowding in our penitentiaries. He has visited them and seen the situation, as have other members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. member whether he does not consider that discussion would be better served if matters having to do with penitentiaries and correctional reform were deferred until we reach item 161? I intend to make a general statement on our penal reform program and on the present situation in the penitentiaries on that item. I had hoped that we could confine the present item to a general discussion of the Department of Justice itself and have a general discussion of penitentiaries on item 161 and a general discussion of the R.C.M.P., if desired, on the first item under that heading.

Supply-Justice


Charles Benjamin Howard: Certainly I do not mind. The minister will appreciate that I was absent when discussion of these estimates started because the banking and commerce committee was meeting. I do not mind doing so at all. In fact, I think it would perhaps be a better way to approach the matter. We always look upon the administration item as one affording an opportunity for a far-ranging debate on all phases of the work of the department. I would be glad to defer my remarks about penitentiaries until we reach that item. In the light of past practice I had come to the conclusion that the minister, as other ministers are wont to do, had made general opening remarks covering the subject matter but if that is not the case perhaps it would be better for me to delay my remarks until I can relate them to what the minister has to say on the subject.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It might be interesting to give the reason why I have suggested two or three times this afternoon that this pattern of discussion should be followed, namely that penitentiaries should be dealt with under item 161 and the R.C.M.P. under item 372. The position actually is that the department constituted under the Department of Justice Act has a deputy minister as the senior administrative officer and when the first item we are now on, 151, is called, the deputy minister and the departmental officials attend. The penitentiaries branch has as its senior administrative officer the commissioner of penitentiaries who actually has the status of a deputy minister, and when that item is reached it is the practice for the commissioner of penitentiaries to come here with other officials to assist me in the discussion. The senior official of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the commissioner whose position is created by statute and therefore the commissioner attends here with his officers when that item is reached.
In my recollection that has been the general pattern of discussion and it seems to me that the best way of enabling me to deal with the questions and comments made by hon. members is if they will raise them in that order. The hon. member for Vancouver East did point out that he wanted to make some remarks about penitentiaries because he had to leave the house and might not be back, but I think I will defer replying to his comments until we reach the penitentiaries item.
May I attempt to deal briefly with what has been said by hon. members who have spoken on this item. I can assure the hon. member for Megantic that I appreciate, as do the deputy minister and one of the assistant deputies who are leaving the department,

his comments, with which I fully agree, our views and our regrets having already been expressed by the Prime Minister when he announced the resignations. Although I know he is going to be embarrassed and that one does not usually mention civil servants individually, I think under these circumstances I may be permitted to indulge in an exception which proves the rule and point out that it is perhaps appropriate that the last official act of my deputy minister is to be here on the floor of the house when the estimates of the Department of Justice are under consideration. I think it is appropriate and fitting somehow that on his last day of service with the department he should be in the House of Commons with the minister dealing with matters with which he is so familiar and in the shaping of which he has played such a large and valuable part.
The hon. member next dealt with the question of the reason for the increase in the number of judges in the Montreal district. I think he will agree with me that since there was a reasonably full discussion of that matter when the Judges Act amendments were before us it is not appropriate for me to go into any detail on that subject. I think the discussion has been full indeed. I appreciate the interest of the hon. member in raising the matter at this time, his concern being mainly to make the point that the increase in criminality in the province of Quebec is certainly no greater than anywhere else. That, of course, was recognized although I did point out that the increase in a certain type of crime, crimes of violence, is causing the greatest concern to the authorities in Montreal and properly so.
The hon. member for Vancouver East dealt with a number of items that mainly concern the penitentiaries branch but he did discuss the question of narcotics. He raised the question of what should be the general approach to the narcotic problem and asked me to outline the point we have reached in the shaping of a new policy, to which I have myself referred on a number of occasions. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre also discussed narcotics in a constructive and obviously well informed and thoughtful manner. Perhaps I could say a word or two about that subject at this time.
As I announced recently, we have now been able to advance our studies to the point where a new government policy for dealing with the problem of the criminal narcotic addict has been worked out. This policy has been approved by the cabinet and inasmuch as it involves, necessarily if it is to be fully implemented and serve the useful purpose which we hope it will serve, the co-operation of the

provinces, the authority was also given to have the officials of my department communicate with the provincial officials for preliminary discussions. This has been done in the case of British Columbia recently when informal discussions were held with the deputy attorney general of that province. An outline of the approach and of the policy was left with him, and we expect and hope shortly to be hearing from British Columbia about arrangements for further positive and constructive discussions.
I expect shortly to be making arrangements for the initial approach to the other provinces mainly concerned, that is the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I outlined in a release accompanying the announcement of policy the broad terms of our approach. I think perhaps it would be appropriate for me to mention them here also.
It is our conclusion that although the number of criminal addicts in Canada is not in itself large, about 3,500, and although the number has been constant as was indicated by the figures put on the record by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, nevertheless this is one of the greatest single instances of social waste that one could imagine. My information is that of this number of addicts, at any one time about one third of them are in the process of going through our penal institutions, and although the number does not increase it is a sort of constantly revolving flow. This seems to prove two things, at least: first, that there is this situation, an unsupportable social waste, the details of which will be too obvious to need elaboration; second, and perhaps more important, that the methods we are now following in dealing with the problem, by punishing addicts and then releasing them at the end of their sentence to re-enter the stream, is completely useless when looked at from the point of view of whether we are curing the evil. Obviously, we are not even beginning to deal with it.
We came to the conclusion, therefore, that a new approach was necessary. Instructions were given to the officials of my department, together with those of welfare, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the penitentiaries branch, to work out a new approach which might have more hope of providing a constructive answer to this problem. The approach which they have now worked out, and which we have approved in principle in so far as the federal responsibility is concerned, is based on two main principles; first, on treatment while in custody and, second, on supervision after release.
In the past there has been, at least in federal institutions, no real attempt to treat the narcotic addict in so far as what
Supply-Justice
might be described as his medical situation is concerned; no attempt to cure him of his addiction. There is, of course, withdrawal and complete separation from narcotics while in the penitentiary, but no real program of attempting to find the medical causes and cures, if any, for that tendency to addiction from which he suffers. This, therefore, will be one of the changed elements in the federal program for the treatment of narcotic offenders when that program is worked out.
First, there will be provision made for treatment while in custody and, second,- although this is perhaps not a startlingly new approach-there should be segregation in special type institutions while undergoing the treatment. This segregation of narcotic addicts from other types of criminals will have more than one advantage. It minimizes at least, indeed should end, the danger of contamination of non-addicts by criminal addicts, while at the same time providing a scientifically designed centre for the treatment of addicts in so far as they are capable of treatment in the medical and psychological sense.
I come then to the question of what should be done with the addicts after they have served their sentences. This brings me to the second main division of the new approach. It is my understanding that the weight of medical evidence shows that it is never safe to regard a narcotic addict as completely cured. This fact will of course not minimize the efforts we are going to make to treat him effectively while in custody.
It seems to us that one of the great weaknesses of the present method of handling this problem is that the criminal narcotic addict, sometimes a man with a long history of addiction, is discharged from the penitentiary and apart from the ordinary efforts that may be made by after-care agencies to assist him in finding employment, and so on, there is no special post-release supervision. It is our view that this is a definite lack, and as long as it continues there will be a gap in the program. If it is a fact that a narcotic addict can never be safely regarded as completely cured; he is always going to have a tendency to yield to temptation and return to his addiction. If we could, by a program of post-discharge supervision, both encourage the addict to go straight as well as supervise his habits, we could help him to keep away from narcotics.
It is our view, accordingly, that the law should make provision for a lengthy period of supervision after the termination of his sentence. This will have two effects. First,

Supply-Justice
it will, I hope, give the man a sense that he is not alone; that he has not been discharged and left to his own resources to resist the temptation to return to addiction. There is somebody there to whom he can turn for help in resisting this tendency. Second, it will serve the obviously useful purpose of providing somebody to counsel and assist the man in finding suitable employment and also assist him in meeting some of the problems to which perhaps the narcotic addict is especially exposed, problems of a psychological as well as a physical nature.
These are the two main principles of the new approach, the new emphasis on treatment and segregation while in the institution and on supervision after release into society. There are a number of other minor and consequential changes which will follow. For instance, in line with the same sort of thinking as was expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, namely, that the drug trafficker should also have his sentence suit the circumstances of his crime, it would be our proposal to amend the act so that a life sentence might be imposed even for the first offence; I refer not to a mandatory life sentence but to a provision that there could be a sentence of imprisonment for life even on the first offence. That will depend, of course, on the circumstances and the nature of the crime.
I have mentioned our feeling that for the complete success of our narcotic program it is essential to have the full co-operation of the provinces. The reason for that is this. We can deal with the narcotic addict only when he is a criminal and after he has been convicted of a criminal offence. That is the only circumstance in which the federal authority has jurisdiction. We may be successful -and I certainly hope and believe that we shall be-in the new program when we have it implemented. Again I must caution that these things cannot be done over night. It is going to take time. We must provide new institutions or new types of institutions, for one thing. However, when we get it going it is our belief that we will be successful in dealing with the problem of the addict after he has become a criminal and with the problem of treating him and then giving him a chance to return and live a useful life in society.
But that will be dealing with only half the problem because it does not touch the problem of the person who is an addict without being a criminal; nor does it touch the problem of the person who is of that physical or psychological nature which makes him likely to be an addict; and it does not touch the problem of helping him not to become an addict. This problem can, in fact, be

tackled only by the provincial authorities because they are the ones who have jurisdiction in cases of that type. We would therefore be dealing as a nation with only half of the problem if it is dealt with only on the basis of the approach to the criminal narcotic addict.
While the problem of the criminal narcotic addict is a grave one and, in so far as the individual is concerned, a terrible one, it is in a sense if not a part, perhaps an outgrowth of another and perhaps even larger problem, namely the problem of delinquency. Studies that have been made over the years have convinced my officials that it can safely be said of the generality of the criminal narcotic addicts that they are delinquents first and addicts second because in the vast majority of cases there is a history of delinquency, and usually juvenile delinquency, before there is a history of criminal narcotic addiction; that is to say, the history of one man shows that he was first a juvenile delinquent before he became a criminal narcotic addict.
This matter relates to the problem of increasing criminality mentioned by the hon. member for Laurier and upon which I might say a word or two in a moment. But we are now dealing with the special aspect of that problem related to delinquency. Again, the federal government does not acquire jurisdiction until some crime is committed. The authorities having the most immediate approach and opportunity are, of course, the home, the school and the church-they are the ones who first come into contact with young people-supplemented as they should be by the efforts of municipal and provincial governments to create moral and ethical training and physical environment which will go a long way toward preventing delinquency and, where it does not prevent it, then toward dealing with the problem of delinquency.
There is also the question of how to deal with the person who becomes an addict but has not yet been convicted of it and therefore is not what I call a criminal addict. As I have said, we do not get jurisdiction until he is convicted and is a criminal addict or a criminal and an addict. The only people who can deal with this problem again are the provinces. It is our view that there should be centres to which persons who are addicts but are not criminals may be committed for treatment. Again, only the provinces have the jurisdiction and the authority to provide these centres and to provide, by legislation or otherwise, the circumstances under which a person may be committed to those centres for treatment or assistance.

In summary, then, our approach is that we believe there should be a program in the federal jurisdiction of treatment in segregation and treatment in custody and supervision and care after release from custody. We believe that within the provincial field there should be a program of institutions to which a man may be committed for treatment even before he becomes a criminal and where he may be encouraged to end his addiction in order that he may have a better chance of leading a non-criminal life. Indeed, over and above that concrete type of program-I refer to the institutional types of programs-we believe there should be greater emphasis on those measures necessary to prevent and to deal with the problem of delinquency so as to prevent criminality before it is too late.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 151 carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I really had just concluded my statement dealing with narcotics. There were a number of other matters that were dealt with and I think I would be discourteous if I did not refer to them.
The hon. member for Laurier mentioned the problem of growing criminality generally. What I have said in connection with the problem of narcotics I think covers that field at least as fully as I am capable of covering it. It is partly a moral problem. It involves the ethics of all levels of society including the parent, the home, the school, the church, the educational institutions, the provincial institutions and what we can do by way of treatment, et cetera in criminal institutions. But federal jurisdiction arises only after the crime has been committed. In connection with the comment of the hon. member for Laurier that there was some concern lest the growing criminality in points like Montreal was owing to the fact that the penitentiary was in close proximity to the city, I must say that it does not seem to me to be well taken. Discharged criminals just like free persons will inevitably tend to go back to those places where they feel most at home; and even if we removed the penitentiary from Montreal, we are obliged to return a prisoner to the place from which he came, the place at which he was convicted or in special cases to some other place if he says that he wants to go some other place. I therefore do not think the removal of a penitentiary physically from Montreal would make any difference in that regard.
Then the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere dealt with the problem of bankruptcy administration generally and with one or two particular features of it. I should like to assure him at the outset that I appreciate greatly what he said and I
Supply-Justice
think he put his finger squarely on the problem when he described the evil represented by the type of unethical trustee who will solicit estates, say, on this basis; you pay me $500 or $1,000 and I can get you discharged from all your debts; you will be scot-free from then on, and you can go back into business again. This, of course, is the root of the problem. I regret that we have a number of trustees who carry on in that way. It has taken us some time to isolate them. We were obliged to institute an inquiry within a reasonable time after 1957. This inquiry brought to light a number of very disturbing circumstances in connection with the administration of certain trustees.
We have now taken steps which I think represent an approach to dealing with the problem. First, we have a number of prosecutions under way. I am not able to say very much specifically because the cases have not yet been disposed of and it would be improper for me to make any comment or to draw any conclusions before the courts have said whether our charges are properly founded or not. But we have a number of prosecutions under way which I think is an indication of our intention to clear up this question.
Second, in addition to the prosecutions which are actually before the courts in which charges have been laid we have a really quite wide scale investigation under way into the activities of trustees generally.
Third, we have recently introduced a tightening up, if you like, of the investigation into the circumstances under which we appoint trustees and as to the qualifications of trustees.
Fourth, as I indicated in a speech I made in Winnipeg recently, we do intend at the first convenient time possible to undertake a general review of the Bankruptcy Act. Whilst at Winnipeg I took the advantage, when addressing the Canadian credit men's trust association, to ask for their recommendations as to how a number of these problems might be dealt with and as to how we might improve the administration of the Bankruptcy Act, as well as how we might possibly amend or revise the act itself.
I should say in conclusion here that we can only undertake so many reforms at one time, and while these are our intentions and while we have made some preliminary approaches which I have outlined, I want to sound a note of caution that I am not suggesting that the Bankruptcy Act is going to be revised tomorrow, because as I say these matters require a great deal of careful study before one is in a position to suggest complete revisions to parliament. But I think I may

Supply-Justice
say that rather more than the preliminary steps have been taken and are under way leading toward an improvement in the situation.
One final matter in this field. I could not agree more than I do with the hon. member when he said, in effect, that he felt the judges should be more careful, more strict if you like, in dealing with applications for the discharge of bankrupts. I know the judges are very busy and that only certain judges perhaps are specialists in this field and therefore the burden on them is very great; but I can do no more than express the hope that our judges will also realize there have been abuses by unethical trustees and that they will do all they can to ensure when an application for discharge is made before them that not only all that can be done to satisfy the just claims of creditors has been done, but that the administration by the trustees has been proper and ethical in accordance with the terms of the Bankruptcy Act.
The hon. member for Kootenay West, whose comments I always appreciate and for which I wish to thank him, brought to my attention the case of a man who it was alleged had been committed to Bordeaux jail having, as I understood it, been charged with a criminal offence, who had then been committed to that jail as an insane person, and as a result had never been able to obtain a hearing either with respect to his insanity or to obtain a trial to deal with the criminal offence with which he was originally charged.
The hon. member also referred to the case of a girl, in I believe that same jail, with respect to whom there had been a very great delay in bringing her up for preliminary hearing in connection with the criminal charge against her.
I regret that all I can say with regard to both these cases is that the responsibility there is entirely provincial. I can do nothing more than bring the cases and these complaints to the attention of the provincial attorney general if I am provided with the details, and I will ask him or suggest to him that he might feel it proper to make an investigation.
This is because the administration of criminal law is the responsibility of provincial officials. It is true that our Criminal Code provides that no person can be held in custody for more than 24 hours, if my recollection is right, without a charge being laid or a remand being asked for which gives an opportunity for the person to be brought before the magistrate. There are various other provisions designed to safeguard the person, but the administration of all those provisions

is the responsibility of provincial officials, as is also the administration of provincial jails such as Bordeaux. Indeed, by the constitution the management of provincial jails is specifically vested in the provincial governments, and again the provisions with regard to the circumstances under which people may be committed to institutions on grounds of mental illness are all controlled by provincial statute. We have no jurisdiction in that field.
Therefore I am necessarily confined to answering by saying that the investigation of the complaints made here would lie within the field of provincial responsibility, and all 1 can do is to bring such complaints as may be brought to my attention in turn to the attention of the attorney general of that province with the suggestion that he might feel it appropriate to investigate.
I am afraid the same general remarks must be made in reply to the hon. member for Laurier when he intervened the second time in the discussion this afternoon with specific reference to a book, which I believe was written by a Mr. Hebert, regarding the conditions in Bordeaux jail. I have had this book drawn to my attention, but again I can only say that the conditions in Bordeaux jail are exclusively the responsibility of the provincial government. Paragraph 6 of section 92 of the British North America Act is the provision in question here, and it provides that amongst those things coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province are the establishment, maintenance and management of public and reformatory prisons in and for the province.
So that while I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier and accept them in the spirit in which he made them, with regard to his suggestion that, so far as it lay within my power, I might look into this matter and the allegations made in the book, I am nevertheless compelled to answer and must answer that it does not lie in any sense within my power. Indeed it lies completely outside my power except again that I can draw the attention of the provincial officials to the fact that the book has been written, the allegations have been made and that they might care to investigate.
1 think it is also proper for me to suggest to the hon. member for Laurier that if, indeed, he feels it is incumbent upon somebody to make an investigation, then since it is not within my power may I remind him that those who I believe are much more friendly to him than was the former government of Quebec will, if I read the indications properly, or shortly will have responsibility

in that province and he can bring his representations and his request for an investigation forward to them with much greater effect and with much more practicality than he would be showing when he suggests that I make an investigation into a provincial jail.
I think that covers pretty well all of that which was said by hon. members in this discussion so far, with the exception of the hon. member for Stormont whose comments on judges' salaries I must say in general I agree with.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the outline given by the minister of the problem of narcotic addiction and his views relative to it. I cannot agree more with the minister that as far as the federal jurisdiction is concerned, even if the federal authority does go ahead as the minister outlined with special institutions for treatment of narcotic addicts, it only touches half the problem and that the other half lies completely within the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities.
What I would like to ask and to get clear in my mind is this. Has the minister made representations to the provincial authorities asking for the introduction of a policy that there should be the use of the same institutions, or similar institutions, in which narcotic addicts of a non-criminal nature could be handled in two ways? In other words, I should like to know if in the mind of the minister there is a policy that provincially the addict who is not a criminal can voluntarily submit himself for treatment. Does the minister feel, as I certainly do, that if a noncriminal addict declines to submit himself voluntarily he can be picked up and given the necessary treatment under provincial legislation to that end.
I am very serious in holding this view, because hon. members will remember that a few years ago in British Columbia tuberculosis was getting completely out of hand. Then a law was brought down that if a person who had active tuberculosis did not voluntarily submit himself for treatment he could be picked up and given the treatment. Today, as is well known, they are closing the tuberculosis hospitals in Vancouver and only about one-third of the available beds are being used in the one hospital that remains open. Some might take the view and, indeed, they would be right, that in legislation of this kind we are moving into the realm of civil rights. But in my opinion there is no infringing of the civil rights of an individual when it is being done not only for his own benefit but for the protection of the majority.
Supply-Justice
I confidently hope that the provincial authorities will move in this direction and that treatment of addicts may proceed upon these dual lines.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to be able to say that in general the approach outlined by the hon. member coincides with that recommended by my officials to me and in turn to the cabinet and approved in principle by the cabinet. He will appreciate that what is done at the provincial level is entirely for their decision but it has been recommended to us that we discuss with them the possibility of working out together and implementing in our respective spheres an approach along those lines. It would be our thought that if we get agreement with the provinces along these lines then since we are bound to provide for a number of addicts in any event in our institution, we would hope, as soon as we can physically do it, to provide these special institutions, as I said earlier, and since we have to provide them in any event we would make them available under proper safeguards and on proper terms for the committal of addicts, if the provinces agree. Thus we would only need the one institution to treat addicts.
It is also our thought that if the legislation, federal, provincial or both, could be so framed as to provide for voluntary admission, or the admission of persons to come voluntarily for treatment in these institutions, it is certainly our hope that there will be provincial legislation complementary to the legislation which we shall ultimately introduce here to provide for the treatment of addicts who do not volunteer and who are, after proper inquiry, committed to these institutions.
It seems to me that in general the approach is somewhat similar to that with respect to mental illness. If it is believed that somebody is suffering from mental illness which may make him dangerous, most provincial legislatures have provided that after a proper inquiry, certification by properly qualified medical men, he may be committed for treatment in an institution. It seems to us that the same approach forms the basis of what we have in the narcotics field as well.


Mr. Jones:: The question which I have in mind to address to the minister is one which could, perhaps, wait until the next item is reached, but if I raise it now the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to answer it in his introductory remarks.
It comes to me from the John Howard society in Saskatoon which, as the minister knows, is a society which has been in existence there for a number of years as well as in other parts of the country. They have

Supply-Justice
been very pleased with the selections that have been made in connection with the national parole board and their representatives express the view that progress is being made as a result of the establishment of the national parole board. They say it is true that parole is a privilege and not a right. It is based not on any form of clemency or forgiveness, nor is it designed as a reward for good conduct in the institution. The emphasis is on rehabilitation. These people are told to serve the rest of their sentences in the community under the guidance of counsellors.
The society goes on to point out the savings to the taxpayer which can be made by using the provisions which have been set up. An example is given from the state of Pennsylvania where it was found that by the extension of a similar type of parole the net saving in 1958 amounted to $137,865 in respect to 137 prisoners, or a gain of over $1,000 per person.
I say this to state the basis for the societies concerned that the program should be properly understood by the public at large. The society feels it is necessary to do an educational job so that the public may understand that this is not a soft policy which is being introduced but a scheme which in the long run will give them greater protection and enable a larger number of those discharged from prison to come back to society and become self-supporting.
The society concerned with an educational program is, I think, one that will present itself to the minister. 1 hope that in dealing with the item he will be able to tell us what steps are being taken to provide information along these lines to the general public and also to the various societies such as the John Howard society in order that they may carry on educational programs on their own in this connection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
Mr. Spencer:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee and again to the attention of the minister a matter concerning which I have spoken to him. I do so with the hope and expectation that it will receive serious consideration and that at the first opportunity a remedy will be provided. I have reference to what I consider to be a needed amendment to the present section 170 of the Criminal Code. I think I should put the section on the record as it now reads:
(1)	For the purpose of proceedings under this part, a place that is found to be equipped with a slot machine shall be conclusively presumed to be a common gaming house.
(2)	In this section "slot machine" means any automatic machine or slot machine
(a)	that is used or intended to be used for any purpose other than vending merchandise or services; or
(b)	that is used or intended to be used for the purpose of vending merchandise or services if
(i)	the result of one of any number of operations of the machine is a matter of chance or uncertainty to the operator,
(ii)	as a result of a given number of successive operations by the operator the machine produces different results, or
(iii)	on any operation of the machine it discharges or emits a slug or token.
I think I should also refer to section 176 of the code. I do so because I want to point out that what may be considered to be a somewhat minor or trivial matter does carry severe consequences. Section 176 reads:
(1) Every one who keeps a common gaming house or common betting house is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the first point I want to make very clearly is that I hold no brief whatsoever for gambling. That is not at all the object of my comments. In that connection I think I cannot better express my own views in so far as gambling is concerned than to quote the opinion of a justice in the United States who had this to say in his closing remarks on a case of this kind, after stating that he too was opposed to gambling:
However, the condemnation of gambling, or any other evil for that matter, should not be so loosely applied that it strikes down perfectly legitimate and innocuous pastimes. Many bridge players play for money but this would not justify the outlawing of bridge. Golf players sometimes make their game a little more dramatic by betting on the score but who would outlaw this healthful diversion because of a dollar or two which might change hands at the 18th hole? There is never a world series but that baseball enthusiasts wager on the results, but to condemn and outlaw the world series because fans bet on the scores, runs, hits, strike-outs and home runs emerging from any particular game or all of them would provoke millions of Americans to their feet crying injustice.
We know, of course, that the Criminal Code received consideration by a committee some few years ago, but in so far as this section is concerned I am satisfied that there
Suqply-Justice
was no intention and no belief on the part of those who introduced the codification of the Criminal Code at that time that there should be any change in the law in respect of slot machines. My view in that respect is borne out by a reference to Bill No. 7 as it was presented in the House of Commons at that time. Opposite section 170 there is merely the notation "Section 986 (4)", indicating that the new section was precisely the same as the old section but differently numbered.
If my view needs to be further strengthened may I refer to the debates of the House of Commons. I refer to page 2410 of Hansard of February 24, 1954, where the minister of justice at that time, Mr. Garson, had this to say:
But I would not admit for a moment that the law we are now considering is inadequate, because in substance it is a re-enactment of an existing section which had been in the code for a great many years.
Later, at page 2411, Mr. Brown, the hon. member for Brantford, asked this question of the minister:
Would the minister indicate whether there has been a change in the existing law?
The reply of the minister of justice of that time was:
Has my hon. friend read section 986 (4) of the Criminal Code?
Mr. Brown answered yes and Mr. Garson then replied:
I think if my friend will examine that-
Referring to section 986 (4).
-he will find that the substance is substantially the same as that of the present clause. I think it is put in a more intelligible form and in somewhat shorter compass.
I think that anyone who examines the two sections will agree, without reference to any judicial decisions which have been applied to the sections, that there has been a substantial change made in the law and that change relates to the application of those provisions of the old code which at that time were applicable only to machines which vended merchandise. The change made those provisions not only to those machines but also to machines vending only services which at that time and since have been held to include machines for amusement. That view was expressed in the recent judgment of Mr. Justice Ford. I will revert to that judgment a little later, but I wish to quote this portion of it to point out that there has been a change judicially established by this codification of the Criminal Code. After quoting section 170 he said:
I do not think it is necessary to quote the former subsection 986 (4). It is enough to point out that

Supply-Justice
170 (2) (a) of the present code . .. renders machines used or intended to be used for any purpose other than vending merchandise or services unlawful, as did subsection 986 (4), but in other respects the present subsection 170 (2) does not differ from the former subsection 986 (4) except that the re-enacted provisions are extended to apply also to a machine that is used or intended to be used for the purpose of vending services as well as one used or intended to be used for vending merchandise to which type of machine only the former subsection 986 (4) applied.
It strikes me it is a shocking situation that legislation should be enacted in the belief that no change is being made in the law when in reality a substantial change has been made. Just as an indication of the change that has been made in the law I should like to refer to a leading case on the subject, the case of Isseman v. the Queen, with which I am sure the Minister of Justice is quite familiar. This was a case that was carried up to the Supreme Court of Canada by the crown. The judgment to which I wish to refer is that of Mr. Justice Rand and the portion to which I wish to direct the attention of the committee is found on page 353 of Criminal Reports, volume 24. That portion reads as follows:
But the machine comes also within the language of paragraph (ii).
That is the paragraph that reads as follows:
(ii) as a result of any given number of successive operations by the operator the machine produces different results.
The judgment continues:
The results are the scores and different results are different scores. The contention faintly advanced was that "different results" are in relation to their nature and not mere dimensions in the same nature; that, for example, different results must exhibit, say, scores, prizes and goods as against differences in scores and that the paragraph does not apply. But I see nothing to support that contention. The scores are the objects aimed at and accomplished and in ordinary parlance they are as fully capable of exhibiting differences as other results provided by these or similar machines.
May I say that I only have reference to those machines which are generally known as amusement machines. I have no brief for and I am not making any argument on behalf of those machines which are used for gambling. I am only speaking of the innocent, innocuous machines such as those which you and I have played many times and which are not, in any sense, gambling machines. Perhaps I should refer to some significant words in this provision and they are that a place equipped with this type of machine shall be conclusively presumed to be a common gaming house.
I have always thought that under our British system of criminal jurisprudence a man was always presumed to be innocent

until he was proven guilty. There may be some exceptions which have crept into our law because of the apparent wickedness of certain commodities, per se, such as narcotics. Perhaps I should say that I cannot see the resemblance but we also put liquor in that category. In those cases, where possession of these things are considered to have some element of wickedness, the onus shifts, but it is always open to the accused to prove his innocence. There is no irrebuttable presumption against him.
Here we have a statute dealing with such innocuous things as amusement machines, such as those with which you and I have played many times, and we find that even though the machines are not used for gambling in any sense whatever-it may even be admitted by the crown that the machines are not used for gambling-nevertheless, because this statute says so, a magistrate has no option in the matter but to find the person guilty of something of which he is obviously not guilty. I say that any law on the statute books that convicts a person of an offence of which he is admittedly not guilty is a law that has no place in a British country, and certainly has no place in our Criminal Code.
We should not place those people who are found to be in possession of these innocuous machines under the stigma of being in the same category as the keeper of a disorderly house or a common bawdy house, which terms, of course, are analogous to a common gaming house. Such a person should not be subjected to a penalty as severe as two years in prison. I certainly do not want to keep the committee any longer than necessary, but I should like to make one further point.
The law, as it stands at the present time, I am informed, is not being enforced uniformly across this country. It does receive the approval, as I understand it, of certain attorneys general, but it does not receive the approval of others. I recognize that the Minister of Justice should have regard for the views of attorneys general, but I do not believe we should keep on our statute books, regardless of the views of attorneys general, a law which we in our wisdom believe should not be there. I strongly urge that this is a law in that category; that there should be amendments introduced which would exclude from its operation the machines to which I have made reference. I presume that those attorneys general who favour the retention of this law are naturally thinking of the enforcement problem in so far as gambling is concerned.
However, the fact that this law is not being uniformly enforced across the country does place in the hands of chiefs of police the right to put their finger upon one of these

operators and possibly have him sent to prison. I am not going to refer to any particular community, but I can say that there are communities in which the chiefs of police have taken action against the owners and keepers of these amusement machines, and they have been convicted of keeping a common gaming house. However, one of these chiefs of police has this kind of thing being displayed right in his own community: "Win $1,000 on home bingo". Can you think of anything that is more indicative of gambling than that kind of advertisement? Yet in that same community some individual keeping a game for amusement-a machine which could not be used for gambling and the most that could be won would be a free game-that person could be classed as a common criminal carrying on a common gaming house.
I say it is time that the hypocrisy ended. Either the law is good and serves a useful purpose or it should not be on the statute books. It should not be left to the whims and fancies of individuals to enforce it or not to enforce it, as they see fit. If we are opposed to gambling, let us be opposed to it in all its aspects. Let us not condone it in one situation and condemn it in another. There may be some who say, well it was not just because of gambling, I took this action because children may have been involved. This statute does not distinguish between adults and children. I did' not read the other section which deals with those who play the games, but under that section you or I may be convicted of being frequenters of a common gaming house merely because we were playing a game of amusement.
There is a great deal more I could say and a great deal more I should like to say. I am not one who is in favour of any machines that are used for gambling. Perhaps I should mention this further point. Despite this decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, I think there is considerable doubt as to whether or not that judgment applies to all these types of machines. I have read the judgment of Mr. Justice Rand and I believe it is so extensive that it covers all types of automatic machines. Certainly there have been convictions on the basis of its covering all types of machines and not all the convictions have been appealed.
I am happy to note that there is one case that went to the supreme court of Alberta. The judgment of Mr. Justice Ford to which I made reference a moment ago was a dissenting judgment. I believe in that case the course divided two and two and, as a result, the dismissal of the case by the magistrate stood. The magistrate perhaps looked at the case a little bit less from the standpoint of the law and more from the standpoint of 79951-0-354
Supply-Justice
common justice and dismissed it; but strictly on the basis of law he may be wrong. Nevertheless he did acquit. There has been a decision by the crown to appeal. I understand that the crown-that is to say, the attorney general-is not satisfied and that the case is coming to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Naturally the courts must determine the intention of parliament on the basis of the language that is used in the statute. It is not open to the court to look at what was said in the House of Commons. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, it is perfectly clear that the House of Commons never intended to change the law. That is something that has been made completely manifest. However, the court cannot look at that. They can look at the language we have used and the language we have used does not carry out the obvious intention of parliament. I think that is one matter that should receive the attention of the Minister of Justice and that some amendment should be made of this section. I believe the amendment which I have supplied to the minister eliminates only those machines that are not gambling machines and, in my opinion, are not capable of being used as gambling machines. It is those machines that I feel should be taken out of this category completely by an amendment, and I think that should be done at the earliest possible time.
(Translation):


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks with regard to firearms.
The Minister of Justice is certainly aware that, very often, even every week, it is reported in our newspapers that our judges in criminal courts, and police court magistrates are protesting against the fact that today practically anybody, even teenagers, can secure firearms. This country's press, English or French speaking, has often stressed such complaints by our judges, and I think that public opinion also wants something to be done to restrict the possession of firearms and make the delivery of permits much more difficult.
Even if delivery of those permits is under the jurisdiction of the attorney general in each province, since the offence is provided for in the Criminal Code, and is therefore under federal jurisdiction, I think that the Minister of Justice might, on the occasion of some discussion with the various provincial attorneys general come to an agreement, so that, throughout the country, permits for the possession of firearms be delivered only in extreme cases, and that permits now valid which are given out to practically everybody, be cancelled, and thus heavily reduce the number of firearms in circulation today.

Supply-Justice
Moreover, I believe that the article in the Criminal Code regulating the carrying of arms should be amended. I know from experience that our police courts impose a minimum penalty on individuals found to be in possession of firearms without a permit. I submit that in such cases, we should amend the law so as to provide that anyone with a police record, and found in possession of a firearm, should be sentenced to prison without the alternative of a fine. Thus, we would, as I said, meet the wishes of our trial judges and of our police court magistrates.
Public opinion is aroused because today people carry weapons on the street, either with a permit or without one-which makes it even worse-because it is known that if you are caught, all you have to do is pay a few dollars, but there is no jail term. If public opinion demands that the law be made more strict in that respect-I think we should be guided by public opinion and should not ignore it-I would ask the Minister of Justice, who surely is aware of the problem, whether he expects to place before the house, in the near future, an amendment to the Criminal Code with a view to providing stiffer penalties in such cases. Moreover, I submit that the present penalty is not heavy enough, and that the situation should be looked into as soon as possible.
The Minister of Justice surely knows that on certain election days, hundreds of armed individuals walk our streets without permits.
This is a situation that must be brought to an end. When such abuse takes place, it is our duty to make the required changes in the legislation.
Therefore, I would ask the minister to tell us whether he intends to introduce amendments of this kind in the house, and if it is not his intention, I should like to know why.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to bring to the attention of the minister the third and last matter that I have been asked to bring to his attention. This is a question that concerns three groups of people, namely those that are interested in civil rights and fundamental freedoms, those that are interested in the tourist trade and those that are interested in health and comfort as far as clothing is concerned.
My question is: What legal authority have civic authorities to make bylaws to determine the style or length of Canadians' clothing? I mention this because the body of opinion which is protesting the action of town coun-

cils and village councils is a substantial body of opinion in Canada. I want to make quite clear that I am raising this complaint as a member of parliament who has promised to bring it to the attention of the minister and as one who is quite neutral whether shorts should be two inches below the knees or two inches above.
There have been several articles in newspapers throughout Canada as well as letters in papers across this country, and I should like to quote an article from the Montreal Gazette of June 24 in which I see the question is of some concern to eastern townships. The article is entitled "Magog agog over 'short' rule", and I want to quote one or two paragraphs to indicate to the minister the concern over this matter, similar to the sort of concern which has been expressed in other places. The article says:
Visitors to this eastern township vacation centre are warned: The city fathers have passed what has been described as ai "shortsighted" bylaw.
If any female resident or tourist is seen wearing "short shorts" in the streets, she is liable to a severe lecture from a passing policeman. The definition of "short," according to the lawmakers, is shorter than two inches above the knees.
Then the article goes on to deal with the various penalties and concludes:
But the bylaw remains in effect and Police Chief Telesphore Lavoie's men have their orders. No tape measures have been issued to the constables, so they will have to make up their own minds.
The worst offenders? According to past police experience, they're the elderly visitors.
I have been asked to ask the minister these two questions. Under what legal authority are these bylaws passed by town councils and village councils and other civic authorities with respect to the length of clothing; and are they in transgression of civil rights and fundamental freedoms? People want to know whether they should direct their complaints to the provincial authorities or to the municipal or civic authorities in question. They want to know what basic right civic authorities have to determine the length of Canadian ladies' leg coverings.
I hope that when the minister replies his reply will contain the information that various people are seeking. They will know the facts so far as the legal position is concerned, and after the minister has given his answer they will know where to direct their representations, whether to the province or to the municipalities. Mind you, some persons may think this is a trivial matter, but it is of some concern to persons operating tourist resorts, persons who cater to tourists and that sort of thing in various parts of Canada

It is on behalf of these three groups particularly interested, namely those interested in civil rights and fundamental freedoms, those interested in the various industries and those interested in health and comfort, that I raise this matter this afternoon.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you recognized me directly following the hon. member for Kootenay West, because if you had not I intended getting the floor on a question of privilege. This is something Which I have some interest in, not from the point of view of the subject matter itself but because the hon. member for Kootenay West on another occasion dealt with a subject matter which came under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Welfare and referred to lipstick. He went on to mention that he was too old to engage in osculatory exercises and was not immediately concerned.
Unfortunately from my point of view, on that occasion a newspaper reporter, I think in one of the columns of an Ottawa newspaper, attributed that remark to me, that is to say the remark about osculatory exercises, and of course such was not the case for even in my wildest moments I would not make such a comment. However, in this case I hope that the same newspaper man or other newspaper men will not attribute those comments just made by the hon. member for Kootenay West to myself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I deal with the matters raised in the order in which hon. members spoke.
The hon. member for Kootenay West raised the matter of dominion Q.C.'s and suggested, in effect, that the federal right to recommend the appointment of dominion Q.C.'s should be used to fill in gaps left in the provinces because of the fact that sometimes, as he put it-I did not make the charge-governments tend to appoint as Q.C.'s only those who are persona grata to that government.
I	am not going to enter into any particular defence or criticism of any provincial government, but while what the hon. member said may have some foundation in fact and perhaps be a subject of criticism of provincial governments, it is also a fact that a study of the situation shows that provincial governments, at least in recent years, while they have perhaps not been as broadminded in this field as the hon. member would like to see them, or perhaps even as I would like to see them, have nevertheless been in the habit of appointing as Q.C.'s members of political persuasions other than that of the government of the day.
79951-0-3541
Supply-Justice
I know that to be the case in British Columbia where I am happy to say they are now following a policy of a very limited number of appointments to Q.C. Indeed I think this is much to be encouraged because most members of the bar, when they think about the matter seriously, agree that to some extent Q.C.'s are handed out altogether too freely and frequently to members who are not really qualified. I do not mean they are not qualified politically but members of the bar who do not go into courts and whose work really is not opinion work, and that sort of thing. So I think British Columbia is following an admirable course in very severely restricting the number of
Q.C.'s which annually are appointed.


Mr. Hellyer:: Is that the case in the province of Ontario?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a matter which the hon. member might take up with the appropriate provincial authorities. I do not know what the situation is in other provinces but I had a quick chance to discuss it with members from New Brunswick and Ontario, and certainly in those provinces, and also I am told in others, the award is not confined to those of the political persuasion of the government of the day. 1 mention that because it is a reason why I should not appoint as dominion Q.C. persons who are simply not appointed by the provinces.
There is another and I think better reason, and that is that it is my view that the appointment of a dominion Q.C. should be confined to those persons whose work at the bar is of a nature where the dominion government has some proper interest in making the recommendation. That is, generally speaking, to persons in the civil service. Obviously in the past persons in the government itself have been recommended and received this appointment, and also perhaps members of boards and commissions constituted under the authority of the dominion parliament may be appointed.
I am very definitely of the view that appointment as dominion Q.C. should be confined to persons in those categories, and I think there is a very good reason for it. These persons would not normally be recommended for appointment by a provincial government because their work is not primarily in provincial courts or their service does not bring them to the attention of the provincial authorities. Therefore 1 think we should confine our appointments to those whose service is of a dominion or national nature or significance. I think it would be very dangerous for us to single out people in provinces who have not that sort of

Supply-Justice
qualification I have mentioned and make them dominion Q.C.'s. That of course, as the hon. member realizes, carries the precedence and honour in all the provinces of the country, whereas the appointment of a provincial Q.C. applies only to the province in which it is made. So I regret I cannot accept the hon. member's recommendation in that field.
Coming to his last remarks about the legislative authority under which municipalities make bylaws with regard to women's dress, I can go a certain distance but no further in giving an answer. I am, of course, bound by the principle that the Minister of Justice does not give legal opinions on the floor of the House of Commons, especially on matters that are not within the administrative responsibility of the dominion government or the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. Subject to that, I can say that the authority for the municipality to pass a bylaw would, of course, be found in the provincial statute which sets up the municipality within the province and defines the areas within which it has the power to pass bylaws. Thus I think the hon. member and those who have consulted him should examine the municipal act of the province and seek to obtain their answer by an advice or opinion with respect to that act and the particular bylaw in question.
I do not think I can go further than that for the reason I have given, and also for the good reason that I am not aware of the particular problem in that particular area that may or may not be created by the length of women's dresses or by the habits of the ladies of that area with respect to their dresses or to the height of the seams from the ground. The hon. gentleman will have a much better knowledge than I as to whether that represents a danger to the peace and welfare of that particular community. I have not that knowledge, and therefore I cannot express an opinion as to whether it is desirable, let alone legal, that the length of women's dresses and shorts should be regulated.
With regard to what was said by the hon. member for Essex West on section 170 of the Criminal Code, I appreciate very fully the position taken by the hon. member in this regard and his deep convictions on the subject. Indeed, he has discussed it with me on more than one occasion and on each occasion when we have discussed it I have felt that to him it is improper that this provision should remain on the statute books, for the reasons he gave this afternoon.
My hon. friend advanced two main reasons, I think. First of all, he said that the change in the statute which brought about the present

position was inadvertent and unintended. More than that, parliament was told at the time this change was made that the change was not, in fact, being made. Second, my hon. friend objects because persons who are not, as he puts it, actually gambling, may be convicted of being in a common gaming house. I regret that at least as the situation stands at the present time I am not able to recommend any change in the law.
I have pointed out to the hon. gentleman, and would like to point out to the committee, that this matter has been discussed with all the provincial attorneys general and that with one exception they have expressedly or by implication indicated that they were happy with the law as it now is and wanted it to remain that way. One area in which it has been indicated clearly that they would accept the change to the former position is the province of Ontario. In these circumstances I think it would be dangerous, if not improper for me to suggest amending the law as I am asked to do by the hon. member for Essex West. I think my position is that I must examine and take responsibility for the law as I found it when I assumed my appointment as Minister of Justice.
I think the position would have been different, and I would have been in a different and indeed, difficult position, had I been Minister of Justice at the time the change was made and had I given the assurance which was given then that no change was going to be made. I know

and I know also that the hon. member agrees with this-that the assurance which was given by the minister of justice at the time was made in good faith; it was only when the Supreme Court of Canada passed on the act that it was realized a change had been made. If I was in the position that I had given that assurance and then found that my assurance had not been correct and that, in fact, parliament had changed the law on my recommendation, I would be in a difficult position and I might then be under an obligation to recommend to parliament that the law should be changed back.
However, I am not in that position. I am assured by the majority of the provinces that this law as now passed enables them to do what they had on a number of occasions desired to do by provincial statute only to find that those statutes had been declared ultra vires. After consideration by the provincial attorneys general and by the commissioners on the uniformity of laws on at least two occasions, it has been the clear desire of the majority that there should be no change from the section as it presently stands. In considering whether or not I should recommend

a change in the law I have to consider the public interest, and in doing that I have to be guided to a considerable extent by the views of those responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code. In these circumstances, where all the provinces but one clearly want the law to remain as it is, I think it is my responsibility to accept their views, which I do, and I accordingly regret that I am not able to recommend a change.
If, however, on reconsideration, and in the light of the arguments made by the hon. member or of any other considerations which may occur to them, either the provincial attorneys general or their representatives at the conference should wish to examine the matter again and come to a different conclusion I should be fully prepared to give immediate consideration to any different recommendation which they might make.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Could I ask the minister a question? My information is that the act is not being enforced in all the provinces, including some where the attorneys general seem to want the act to remain as it is now. Will some inquiry be made as to whether this act is being enforced in all those provinces by the departments of the attorney general concerned and, if not, why not?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is a question which can be inquired into through the uniformity commissioners at which time they can re-examine the question of whether in fact the provincial authorities do really like the law as it is or whether they want to change it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Could the minister not answer the question which I asked him some time ago?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I could deal with the hon. member's question in the minutes which remain before it is six o'clock. The hon. gentleman asked that I should use my influence with the provincial authorities to restrict the issuance of permits for small arms and further suggested that the Criminal Code should be amended so as to impose a mandatory jail sentence rather than a fine for the offence of carrying firearms illegally. This raises the whole question of that portion of the Criminal Code dealing with firearms. We are introducing this session an amendment to the code to deal with the Hornet rifle. That is the specific problem which we are dealing with now.
The problem of firearms generally is a large, important, urgent but very difficult problem, and I have given instructions to my department and to the R.C.M. Police to review this matter, to prepare papers on what amendments might be made to the Criminal Code that would be of assistance in dealing with the sort of situation about which
Supply-Justice
people are concerned in Montreal, and to give me those papers, at which time I will study them and hope to make a reference to the conference of commissioners on uniformity, and have their consideration this fall, and after consideration report back to the house again at the next session.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gabriel Roberge: Before item 151 carries, I think this is the appropriate time for me to ask one question about the royal prerogative. Can the minister advise the committee how many inmates or prisoners were freed under the royal prerogative?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, but I do not have that figure. I will have it for the penitentiary item, if not before. My hon. friend means the last amnesty that was granted on the occasion of the royal visit?


Gabriel Roberge: No, I mean the royal prerogative recommended by the Solicitor General to the cabinet.
(Translation) :
How many pardons have been granted by the Solicitor General?
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it the hon. member wishes to know how many pardons, conditional or absolute, were granted in the last fiscal year. I will get that figure and supply it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
152. Parole Act administration including $60,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by treasury board, $553,287.
Gabriel Roberge: I have a similar question on this item. How many cases were reviewed by the Parole Act administration, how many paroles were granted and how many were not granted?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The information I have is that the total number of cases considered during the period for which I am reporting was 4,828. I should perhaps remind the committee that the parole board commenced its operations under the authority of the Parole Act which came into force on February 15, 1959. The figures I am giving, therefore, are on the basis of a calendar year from January 1, 1959 to December 31, 1959, and they include a period of six weeks under which paroles were granted under authority of the former remission service. For the full calendar year 1959, the total number of cases considered were 4,828; paroles denied or deferred were 2,790; paroles granted, 2,038.

Supply-Justice
The figures up to the last week for which We have figures, June 24 of this year, that is from January 1, are paroles denied-this is not quite on the same basis as the figures I have just given-3,877; paroles granted, 3,044; and failures, by failures I mean the number of cases in which the persons out on parole had their parole revoked or forfeited, were 107; or a rate of failure of 7 per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if there is any difference in the principles that are applied by the parole board as compared with the principles applied by the former remission service?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not very great differences in the principles, Mr. Chairman, except that in the operation of the parole board we are endeavouring to avoid what used to be called a rule of thumb, namely that persons had to have served one half of their sentence before they were considered for parole. The Parole Act itself requires that the board review immediately the case of every person who enters the penitentiary and make an assessment of his or her situation with respect to the time at which a definitive review should be made with regard to parole, whether or not the man or woman has served half of his or her sentence.
In addition, the board is required to review the cases of all those who were presently serving penitentiary terms at the time the board began its operations. This review has been practically concluded, and will be concluded within a few weeks. Within those limits, the principles on which parole will be granted are, I am informed, much the same.
The present board has visited every penitentiary in Canada and interviewed a large number of inmates. The board has endeavoured to make it clear that the governing consideration on the basis of which parole will be granted is the attitude of the inmate; that there is no completely hard and fast rule. What the board wants to find out is whether the inmate's attitude toward his rehabilitation in society is constructive or otherwise; if he shows himself or she shows herself as being worthy of parole, then the board will consider that case for parole.


Lionel Chevrier: What is required by the board for the initiation of a case?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The terms of the act, as I say, require on commitment an immediate review of every file. Then the files must be reviewed within six months, and then they are reviewed again within a year and every two years thereafter. There is, therefore, an automatic process for bringing files forward for review

which commences immediately upon admittance of the inmate to the penitentiary.


Lionel Chevrier: Assuming there is a case where a person desires review within the two year period, how does he proceed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The inmate may submit an application form directly to the board requesting a review for parole.


Lionel Chevrier: How does the board proceed once the case is before it? Are the files only reviewed or are witnesses heard by the board?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The penitentiary file is reviewed upon the basis of which committal was made. In addition, reviews are requested from the magistrate or judge who heard the case, from the welfare agency and in some cases from the John Howard or Elizabeth Fry society. A most complete review of that nature is conducted. The inmate is interviewed personally by the regional representative, but there is no rule that requires the hearing of witnesses.


Lionel Chevrier: If someone wants to be heard on behalf of an inmate, can he be heard by the board?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The act says that the board is not obliged to hear witnesses, but I am advised that the board hears everyone who applies and in no case have they refused to hear a witness who has applied to be heard on behalf of an inmate.


Mr. Benidickson:: What jurisdiction or discretion has the minister apart from or above and beyond the board?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has no discretion, Mr. Chairman. One of the important recommendations in this field of the Fauteux committee was that the discretion should be removed from the minister on the basis, as I recall the report, not that the minister had intervened or that politics had intervened, but that they might. The committee's recommendation was that there should be set up a national parole board which should have absolute and final authority to decide whether or not an inmate should be paroled. The act was passed on that basis and the authority of the board is final.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a question, but I must
admit it is a most difficult one for me to ask. If a person is on good behaviour, then the parole board can come in. In a case where the parole board cannot move in, can the minister say what the situation is with regard to his powers? I know of some cases which disturb me a great deal, I admit. Two persons were sentenced to the penitentiary for long periods and their behaviour has been

such that for years they have been kept in solitary confinement. I agree that this must be done because one is an absolutely uncontrollable sex pervert and the other is completely uncontrollable in connection with violence. In normal cases they might be allowed out on parole because of good behaviour, but they have to be kept in solitary confinement, and, as I say, I agree that this has to be done. Is there any basis at all- I do not know how to put it-on release for care or with some provision or do you as minister have to release them on the public?
I have put the question rather confusedly but this is a most important matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think there is a mixture here. There is a question here that involves both the matter of the expiration of the sentence and the question of release on parole before the sentence has expired. In a case such as those which the hon. member has mentioned, taking the matter of parole first, the parole board would examine the file and interview persons to establish whether or not there has been a change of attitude on the part of the inmate; in other words, to establish whether this inmate's attitude now is such that he indicates he would make a good adjustment if he were released before his sentence had been completed. Even in these cases, if there were sufficient evidence that the attitude of the inmate had changed so that it would be a proper case for parole and the board were satisfied that it was a proper case where the safety of society would not be prejudiced, they might grant parole even before the expiration of the sentence.
Let us be realistic, however. I am not suggesting that this would be a likely eventuality in the case of the two inmates to which the hon. member has referred; but it is possible that if they themselves showed a change in their attitude they would then be considered for parole.
The other aspect or element of the question relates to the matter of their release at the expiration of their sentences. Suppose an inmate were sentenced to a 20-year term. Even suppose that by his behaviour he had not earned any automatic time off for good behaviour, or that his behaviour had been bad, still at the end of the 20-year sentence there is no authority for his further detention and the penitentiary authorities would have no alternative but to release him because he had served the sentence which the court had imposed. Therefore unless his conduct in the penitentiary itself had made him subject to another criminal charge upon which he had been convicted and sentenced to an additional term-as I say unless that had happened-
Supply-Justice
he would have to be released at the end of the sentence for the offence for which the court had convicted him.


Harold Edward Winch: It is quite obvious that I have not got my point over yet, although I appreciate what the minister has said. The minister knows, as do all hon. members, of my interest in criminology and in getting men out on parole.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: I think this is the first time I have ever spoken in the House of Commons when I raised the question of individual cases. I am saying "two men" without naming them or the penitentiary. Under their terms of sentence, for years the warden has had to keep them completely in solitary, one because he is completely uncontrollable as a homosexual and the other because he is completely uncontrollable as to violence. As a matter of fact, he almost killed a guard. They have been in solitary all this time. Are these men insane? They must be insane. Otherwise why have they been kept completely segregated from everyone else for years? I am now asking the minister this question. When their penitentiary sentence is up are these two men I have in mind going to be turned out of the penitentiary when the experience over the years is that they are insane, uncontrollable, one a homosexual and one having a record of violence? Why have they been kept in solitary-and I know it for a fact-all these years and not being declared insane and put under the proper supervision? Owing to the fact that they have not been so dealt with, although they have been in solitary for these years I understand, from what the minister has now said as soon as their penitentiary term is over they can be released on society. That is the point I am after.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. member takes my answer a bit beyond the terms in which I gave it. What I said was that at the end of their sentence the penitentiary would have no authority to keep them in custody in the penitentiary any longer. I agree with the hon. member that it is not desirable to identify particular cases but I know perfectly well the cases of which he is speaking. In that connection all I can say is this. It is true that these particular inmates have been kept under the circumstances which he has outlined, in general for the reasons he has given. Under the terms of the Penitentiary Act, if an inmate is found to be suffering from mental disease or, in other words, is found to be insane we apply to have him committed to a provincial mental institution. There have been cases in which the provincial authorities have refused to accept

Supply-Justice
our finding that the man is insane, that he is a mental case rather than a penitentiary case. We have therefore kept those inmates during the period of their sentences and for the full extent of their sentences.
In a case such as that which is mentioned, all that could happen, and what would inevitably and undoubtedly happen, is that when the inmate reaches the end of his sentence a further examination of him will be held and subject of course to medical opinion at the time a finding as to his mental condition will be made; and, granted the circumstances which we have been discussing, my assumption is that he will again be certified as a mentally sick person or as an insane person. It will then be the responsibility of the provincial authorities to decide whether or not that finding is accepted and the inmate is committed to a mental institution or whether he should be released to society. But we will have no authority under which to detain him. Our recommendation will be clear but it will be the responsibility of the provincial authority to decide whether he is committed to a mental institution or released to society.


Harold Edward Winch: That is my very point. The Minister of Justice knows the cases that I am discussing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: He knows that they have been kept in solitary now for a great length of time for the reasons I have outlined. Although they are in the penitentiary under charges and are admittedly insane, why is it that they have not been committed to an institution for the criminally insane?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are now discussing the penitentiary administration very clearly. I would prefer to answer this question under the penitentiary items. I think I know the answer but I want to give factually and legally correct answers and, if my hon. friend does not mind, I would prefer to continue this discussion under the penitentiaries items.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not want these men released on the general public. .


Edmund Davie Fulton: As far as parole is concerned, which is the item we are considering now, I think I am perfectly safe in saying that if they applied they would not be considered for parole unless they showed a change in attitude, and since it appears they have not done or are not likely to do so, they would not be seriously considered for parole.


Ernest James Broome: There is one question I should like to ask the minister. It is with regard to the degree to which the parole board

remits sentences or extends parole. There has been a sort of unwritten rule that every inmate must serve at least half of his sentence and that parole is not considered until after that period has elapsed. It is my understanding that there is nothing in the regulations governing the parole board in this regard and that parole can be considered at any time the parole board believes the inmate is ready to take his place again in society. I wonder whether the minister might comment on that matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; and at the same time I should like to deal with a question which was raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon at an earlier stage this afternoon. The regulations made under the Parole Act which came into effect recently-


William Moore Benidickson: On what date?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will give the date shortly. The regulations give effect to the policy of the parole board which has been evolved after lengthy discussions between the chairman of the board, myself, officers of the penitentiary branch and of the department as to the general principles which govern the board in granting parole. I should like to emphasize to this committee that these regulations give effect to the policy of the board which has been settled, amongst which are the following basic principles:
That the policy of the board is as far as possible to encourage inmates to become law abiding citizens and to assist them to do so by granting parole;
To treat the offender rather than the offence;
To deal with offenders as individuals not as members of a group;
To judge each case objectively according to its merits and circumstances;
To avoid the use of rigid arbitrary rules of practice;
To be practical, realistic and businesslike in dealing with offenders and to avoid any suggestion that parole involves mollycoddling of the inmates or the use of leniency or clemency;
To consider each case from the point of view of what the inmate is apt to do in the future as more significant than what he has done in the past and to provide adequate supervision;
To ensure protection of the public and assistance for parolees; and finally,
To emphasize correction and reform as the purposes of punishment rather than vengeance or retribution.
Within the ambit of that policy and under the authority of the regulations the board approaches each case on the basis of the attitude

of the inmate and the likelihood of his profiting by his parole, and his ambition and intention to re-enter society as a law abiding and useful member thereof rather than giving effect to any lenient or clement or special circumstance which the inmate puts up on his own behalf.
As I said earlier, the case of every inmate is automatically reviewed within six months of his admission, and from that time on it comes up for further review within a year and every two years thereafter. But the policy of the board is that the qualifications of an inmate to be granted parole are looked at on the basis of his attitude and the likelihood of his living as a law abiding member of society rather than on any arbitrary assessment or report that may be made about him.


Harold Edward Winch: Or his length of service?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have indicated already the occasions on which his case is reviewed and I have made it quite clear that there is no arbitrary rule of thumb that he must have served a certain portion of his sentence, although the hon. member will appreciate, as will all hon. members of the committee, that there must be some general principles to guide the board with respect to matters of this kind. But the reviews are made at the periods I have indicated.
The hon. member for Saskatoon asked about the steps which are being taken to, I think he used the phrase, educate the public as to the purposes and advantages of parole, and I would like to draw his attention to the activities of the board members which have been carried on since they assumed their functions on February 15 last year.
There have been 26 television and radio interviews, four magazine articles and numerous press releases. Members of the board also had 35 meetings with prison inmate committees and made 37 speeches to magistrates' associations, to after-care agencies, university students, service clubs, and general public meetings in Canada. That was up till December 31 of last year. Since January 1 of this year addresses have been made on 26 separate occasions. There have been 15 television appearances, ten radio talks and further numerous press releases. Certainly I would judge, on the basis of the press comments which I have seen, that the efforts of the board, guided by its chairman in this respect, have been very successful indeed in creating a public acceptance of the work and objectives of the board, and also a public acceptance of the results of that work which, as I pointed out earlier, have had the effect that there were last year 2,038 paroles 79951-0-355
Supply-Justice
granted; that there have been up to the present day, June 24 this year, 3,044 paroles granted and a total of only 214 paroles forfeited or revoked. That is a total rate of failure of 7 per cent, which compares extremely favourably with the record of experience in other countries.
When hon. members stop to think that that means there were 3,044 paroles granted less 214 failures, or in other words 2,830 inmates would otherwise still be incarcerated who are now out on parole and successfully observing the conditions of their parole, thus better enabled to return to society as useful and law abiding members thereof-that is 2,830 people now in society as the result of these paroles within one year-then I think the decision of the government supported by parliament to set up a national parole board under the national parole act has been entirely vindicated.


Henry Frank Jones: I thank the minister for that information.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the minister's reply. The minister read from a red covered book. He did not say he was enunciating regulations because we have not yet got the date of the statute which might govern these matters. But I was interested as to what kind of unorthodoxy perhaps is practised by the board in exceptional cases, or do they have a standard practice, a principle, or whatever you call it, even apart from a regulation or a law?
I think that was the point the hon. member for Vancouver East was pursuing. In how many cases has the board ever deviated under a special circumstance, relating to an individual for whom special representations had been made, from orthodoxy, principle, law, or anything else? To what extent does it use discretion, humanity and other considerations with respect to an isolated individual? Or irrespective of regulations, irrespective of law, do they have some kind of a routine thing which says that under no circumstances have they ever reduced a sentence of a person lower than, say, 50 per cent of what was awarded by the court?
I think perhaps that is what the hon. member for Vancouver East was pursuing and this concerns me. I am concerned as to what humanity, what discretion, what personal judgment is used by this board in these matters.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the extent to which the board exercises its prerogatives of discretion and mercy may be gathered from the

Supply-Justice
fact that in 1958, the last year before the board commenced its operations, the total number of paroles granted amounted to 974. Again I can only repeat that for the calendar year in which the board became operative the number granted was 2,038. I hope that will impress the hon. member as being a complete answer to the question the hon. member asked as to whether the board is exercising the authority and discretion vested in it.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not think the minister has completely answered my question or, perhaps, that which was in the mind of the hon. member for Vancouver South. We are, of course, all impressed by any statement of the minister as to the number of people which have been dealt with by the board. Our concern was, I think, with regard to the extent such cases might indicate that the discretion was courageously used, that it deviated from the pattern which might say for instance: no one is to be allowed to serve less than 50 per cent of their sentences. I was interested not so much in the total number of paroles granted but in the extent to which the board has shown some individual discretion. Has the board deviated from a standard pattern or is it the prisoner of a standard pattern?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The board is flexible, not rigid; the board is guided by the questions which it itself asks as to whether an inmate has shown by his attitude that he is ready for parole. However, the board is also guided by practical considerations-the good of society and the attitude and conduct of the inmate rather than any special compassionate feature. In other words, this board seeks to return to society on its own discretion and authority the greatest possible number of inmates who are ready to resume their places in society as constructive and useful members thereof.
These are the principles that guide the board. I have given the house figures to show that within these principles the board has been constructive and has rendered great service in the application of these principles to the cases that came before it. I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to go into details of individual cases nor do I intend to do so. What I have tried to do is to indicate, first of all statistically, the practical results of the board's operations, the encouraging results in terms of the low rate of failure, and then, in general to outline the policies by which the board is guided and which have brought about these satisfactory results.


William Moore Benidickson: I was more concerned about the percentage of paroles that might

have been granted by the board which involved reducing a sentence to below one third, or below one half rather than in statistics of the kind the minister has mentioned. I was thinking of evidence to show that the parole board really looks at individuals and takes initiative, showing what I might call guts in cases of this kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. member could gather information of that kind from the figures I gave as to the number of applications denied and the number granted, but if he wants to assess the results on the basis of a comparison with the old half-time rule, I can give him these figures: of the number paroled, the percentage who served less than 35 per cent of their time was less than 2 per cent; the number who served between 35 per cent and 50 per cent was less than 13 per cent; the number who served between 50 per cent and 70 per cent was 67 per cent, and the number who served more than 70 per cent of their term was 18 per cent. So that the exceptions to the old half-time rule amount to 14.75 per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: I thank the minister. That was the answer I wanted.


Gabriel Roberge: I notice that the minister referred to inmates of penitentiaries when answering the hon. member for Laurier and that when he replied to the hon. member for Vancouver East he said cases were reviewed after 6 months, 12 months and 18 months. Are we to understand that the same rules apply in the case of inmates in common jails.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. The authority of the board under the act does not extend to the automatic review of the cases of inmates sentenced to terms in provincial jails. There has to be an application, and the rule the board has set itself is that these cases should be reviewed not later than four months of the time of receipt of the application.


Gabriel Roberge: Is the board considering terms of sentence less than six months in length?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. The case of any inmate sentenced to whatever term who submits an application for review is then reviewed.


Gabriel Roberge: Within four months?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, at the most.


Harold Edward Winch: I think this is one of the most interesting discussions on this subject we have had in the time I have been here, and I want to thank the minister and his aides for the information they have given. In view of what has been said about the success, or apparent success, of this system since the change was made; in view of the

number who have been released from parole and the comparatively small percentage who have had to go back because they broke the law, may I ask the minister whether he has any intention of initiating a policy whereby the judge or the jury continues to find a person guilty, but a body outside the court, such as we now have, will determine the length of sentence? I think the minister is familiar with the principle upon which I am asking him to comment, and I should like him to give us an indication whether he is moving in that direction. The judge or the jury cannot have all the reports and all the background which are so helpful and necessary if a man is to be justly sentenced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must say frankly that we do not contemplate such a system, certainly not at the present time. The hon. member will, I am sure, recall that the Fauteux committee did consider such a system but recommended against it. We do, however, have in mind taking all the steps we can to encourage judges, who have responsibility and will continue to have responsibility for sentencing, to visit institutions-and particularly when we have our new correctional reform program under way-in which sentences are served so that they may be-if I may put it this way without disrespect to the bench-better informed as to the type of training and rehabilitation program which is available for inmates and can determine the sentence, the length of sentence and perhaps the type of sentence, accordingly, on the basis of what this accused and guilty person needs. Does he need a long sentence to enable him to have a lengthy period of training reformation? Does he need only quick, exemplary punishment and quick results? Is that what he needs? Where is the institution where he can get what he needs? Therefore, what sentence should I impose accordingly?
This is a long term program and it will depend upon whether the judges are prepared to accept our invitation, which will be extended, to visit our institutions. I may say there are already some judges who take a personal as well as a judicial interest in the welfare and the history of persons whom they have sentenced and who do already follow up by visits to institutions. What we really hope to do is to extend that so that the sentence will come into the minds of the judges as a scientific and social matter. When I say "social" I mean in terms of what measure of reform, or training or rehabilitation or punishment the person before him requires.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it still the regulation and definite policy under the new system of 79951-0-3554
Supply-Justice
parole that a person must serve half a sentence? If the board believes that a person is rehabilitated does it have authority to release him on parole before half the sentence has been served?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Unequivocally, I say the board is not bound by any rule of thumb to half time.


William Moore Benidickson: That was the point of my question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I had answered it three times already.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry to be taking up so much time but I have one more point. What is the relationship now between the new change which came in last year and the remission services in the provinces? I am not supposed to mention names but I am going to. I have had something to do with a number of cases and I am very proud to see Mr. MacLeod before the minister. I have felt that in certain circumstances remission should have been granted but it was impossible because it did not come under federal jurisdiction; it came under provincial jurisdiction. What is the situation now under the new relationship? Just how far do the federal board's powers extend? I think the federal board is more sympathetic toward the parole system than some of the provinces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The powers of the national parole board are set out in the Parole Act. The relationship between the national parole board and the provincial probation services is very good. The functions of the two are different and the authority is different. Probation services, as will be realized, are largely provincial and they relate to persons who may not be sentenced. A judge may put a man out on probation. We do not have any extensive probation services under the federal authority. These are provincial. They are officers of the court; but the parole board makes extensive use of the information, the knowledge and the skills of provincial probation services and their officers in obtaining assessments, reports and recommendations as to cases which come before our board for parole. The relationship between the two is very close. If we let a man out on parole we may in turn ask a provincial probation officer to be the supervisory officer with respect to that inmate's parole. In every way the relationship is very close but the statutory authority of the two, the parole board on the one hand and the provincial probation service on the other, is, of course, governed by the respective statutes under which they operate.

Supply-Justice


Harold Edward Winch: Does the parole system apply to persons who have been sentenced to jail for fewer than three years?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I beg your pardon, I did not catch the question.


Harold Edward Winch: Does the parole system which is operated under federal legislation apply to provincial jails? I do not think so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The national parole board has jurisdiction over all persons who are serving sentences under the Criminal Code, whether they are serving those sentences in a federal penitentiary or in a provincial jail. They have that jurisdiction with respect to parole; they do not have jurisdiction with respect to persons who are serving sentences in provincial jails for offences against provincial statutes.
In addition, in Ontario and British Columbia there are provincial parole boards which do have jurisdiction over persons who are serving indeterminate sentences in provincial jails. The provincial parole board has jurisdiction over those.


Harold Edward Winch: That is one of the very points I had in mind. I am grateful to the minister for that answer. I think he will agree with me that this has caused a great deal of confusion. There is a conflict there in that the federal parole board has jurisdiction over those who are serving sentences in provincial jails if the sentence is one day under two years and if they have been convicted of a charge under the Criminal Code. If it is a charge under the provincial act, although the sentence may be exactly the same, the federal parole system cannot operate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Harold Edward Winch: To my way of thinking this has caused a great deal of confusion in the past. As the minister knows, I have tried to handle a great number of cases, and sometimes I have been able to operate with success and in other times I have not. I have consulted with wardens-I am speaking now of the present situation-and I have been told at times that it did not come under our jurisdiction. Is this not a matter that should be clarified? Should not the matter of jurisdiction be made clear? I have always received complete co-operation and have been successful at the federal level, but I have not yet got an answer to a letter from the provincial parole board.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I agree with the hon. member that there is here a separation of jurisdiction that I think follows necessarily from the provision of the constitution under which Canada operates.

The Fauteux commission made certain recommendations in this field with respect to certain changes which the provinces might make in the jurisdiction and operation of their boards. But, of course, we are not in any position to dictate what they should do. All I can say, therefore, is that there are limitations on our authority and jurisdiction and there are areas in which the provinces are entitled to operate under their own exclusive authority and jurisdiction. We are endeavouring, both at the departmental level and through direct contacts between the board and its officers and provincial parole and probation boards, to work out a satisfactory method of co-operation so as to avoid overlapping and particularly so as to avoid differences in policy and differences in approach to these problems.


Harold Edward Winch: Provincial jails are completely under provincial jurisdiction but if inmates are sentenced under the Criminal Code then the federal government does have jurisdiction with respect to parole?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is quite clear. The operation of the jail and the circumstances and conditions under which inmates serve their sentences in the jail, if it is a provincial jail, are, of course, within the authority of the provincial legislature and officials, but that relates to the operation of the jail. The authority of the parole board does not extend to the conditions under which a man will serve his sentence in a jail. Their authority only extends to the question of whether he shall be paroled before he has served his sentence. Our board does not have authority and does not attempt to assert any authority as to the conditions under which a man will serve his sentence while he is in the provincial jail. All they say is whether or not he should be released from custody prior to the expiration of his sentence, which is an entirely separate jurisdiction from that of actually running the institution itself.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, but I want to get it clear. The federal parole board has jurisdiction with respect to parole in the case of a person sentenced under the Criminal Code but has no jurisdiction if he is sentenced under an act of the legislature?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Harold Edward Winch: How does that differentiation come about? It is a matter of parole, not administration of the jail.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It comes about because under the constitution we have no jurisdiction to set up a parole board with authority over sentences which are imposed by courts under provincial statutes. Our authority in this

field is confined to the Criminal Code which by the constitution is entrusted to the federal parliament, and since we have the authority to make criminal law we also have the authority to set up a parole board or the authority to parole persons who are convicted of criminal offences. But we have no authority to parole persons who are convicted of offences against provincial statutes and who are serving their sentences in provincial jails.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, following the interpretation just given by the Minister of Justice, which is probably right although it is a surprise to me, would it be possible to have the number of requests to the parole board for the parole of any inmate at the Bordeaux jail in Montreal in the past year?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I were asked a general question as to the number of files we have reviewed I could, I suppose, give an answer in total, but to ascertain how many applications for parole have been received from a particular prison would entail a review of a vast number of files. If I were asked a question with respect to a particular inmate and asked how many representations were made on his behalf, we might be able to isolate it but I would hesitate to give such an answer on the floor of the House of Commons.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If the minister will permit me, I will be satisfied if he can tell me that the parole board has received one request in the past year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am given these figures for what is described here as the Montreal jail, which is Bordeaux. We denied 95 applications and granted 112.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
159. Bankruptcy Act administration, $55,780.
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, some remarks were made this afternoon with respect to the administration of the Bankruptcy Act by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere and I should like to make a few additional remarks with respect to this legislation. It has come to my knowledge that debtors may go from one place in a province to another place in the same province in order to make an assignment. For instance, a man from Gaspe may go to Montreal to make an assignment in the hands of a trustee. If I am right, each province constitutes a district and within a province the chief justice may make several divisions. Again if I am right, the act is not obligatory so that a debtor is obliged to make an assignment in his division. He may go to another division.
Supply-Justice
Since there possibly will be a new codification of the act I should like the government to introduce an amendment to provide that a debtor will be obliged to make the assignment in his division so that creditors will not have to go from one part of a province to another in order to look after their interests. As the situation is now, a debtor from Gaspe may make an assignment in Hull and if all the creditors are from Gaspe they and the inspectors have to travel a long distance to meetings. It may be that the act is not administered well in the several divisions but in any event I should like this matter to be cleared up by the introduction of a specific provision in the act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the point raised by the hon. member is one of those that we must take into careful consideration in the course of the review of the act that we will be making. I am told that at the moment the interpretation of the locality of a debtor, which means the principal place where the debtor has carried on business during the year immediately preceding his bankruptcy, etc., is a decision to be made by the official receiver in the case of an assignment. It may be that the act is not clear enough or that the safeguards against the practice to which my hon. friend has referred are not sufficient. That is one of the questions that we shall be looking at when we review the act because one of the things we are concerned about is whether the provisions of the act are sufficiently careful in their protection of the creditor or whether possibly they are not too lenient in the sense of looking after the debtor. That is one of the things we have to look at.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, since the minister has indicated that a review is to be made of the Bankruptcy Act there is one point I should like to draw to his attention for consideration. Following the decision of the supreme court to disallow bill No. 45 of the province of Alberta in 1959, which was a bill to provide for the orderly payment of debts and the consolidation of judgments and other debts and was patterned on legislation in force in Manitoba for 25 years and in Ontario for some 10 years, there now exists a certain void in the handling of debts for people who are really of very limited means. They are not corporations. Previously they had been dealt with in the province of Alberta by the debtors' assistance board. But this procedure is entirely voluntary. Unfortunately it has become the practice that certain creditors will attend a meeting where a debtor makes a composition or voluntary

Supply-Justice
proposal. Then one of the creditors will find out where this man is working and garnishee his wages.
Under the Alberta legislation, for example, a married man is exempt from garnishee up to $120 per month. However, by becoming completely destitute and going on relief, a man can receive sums ranging from $130 to $150 per month and so is better off than he is under his statutory exemption. There are, unfortunately, large numbers of men who are driven to this procedure because they are being hounded by their creditors. I would suggest to the minister that consideration should be given, under the summary administration provisions, on application by a province under section 5, subsection 1 of the act, that a debtors' assistance board or some public board or commission be authorized to act as trustee for summary administration of these very small estates.
I think hon. members will realize that under the normal procedures of bankruptcy a trustee cannot work for nothing, and unless there is something in the estate he is somewhat reluctant to accept the estate. In addition, these small estates entail a good deal of administration and, frankly, for what there is in it it is not worth while for the trustee to take on these matters. These debtors' assistance boards, if you want to call them that, could be appointed trustees to handle summary administrations only, with a view to formulating proposals rather than simply discharging the estate. They could do all the work by reason of the fact they are paid by the provincial authorities.
My point is simply that through the provision of the summary administration section of the act relief can be given to the small salaried worker who is in difficulty with his creditors.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the comments of the hon. member, and I am aware of the difficulties created in Alberta as a result of the supreme court decision. Beyond saying what I have said about that, I would not like to comment. I am aware of the difficulties, and one of the particular features of the Bankruptcy Act which will come under review will be this part of it which provides for summary administration. We are concerned about that section and some of the abuses to which I think it is open at the moment. The intention is good, but there are some abuses to which it seems to be exposed, and although I would not care to comment as to what direction we will make changes, if and when we make changes, certainly the point that my hon. friend has in mind will be one that will be under review.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Penitentiaries-
161. Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries including $90,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the treasury board, $641,516.
Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: I should like to ask the minister a question on item 161. Reference is made to $90,000 for recognized prisoners' aid societies as may be approved by the treasury board. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to set out the criteria upon which the treasury board makes an examination of these applications for aid to the different societies?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would be difficult for me to answer for the treasury board because the members of the treasury board alone could properly answer that. What I can answer for are the criteria which we observe in making our recommendations to the treasury board for what will be included in our estimates.
As the hon. member will appreciate, there are two headings under which we make grants to prisoners' aid societies or aftercare agencies, as they are variously called, that is under the national parole board, formerly the remission service, under which the sum of $60,000 is provided this year, and under the penitentiaries branch for which $90,000 is provided this year, making a total of $150,000.
The measure of the assistance they receive is, generally speaking, the number of cases in which they undertook assistance. The parole board calls upon them for assistance with respect to persons who are out on parole, and then they make a calculation of the number of cases in which this supervision or assistance has been given. The assistance to be given during the current year is based on the experience of the past year.
In the same way, under the penitentiary authority when a man is approaching his discharge date notification may be given to one of the agencies which would be asked to come in and interview the inmate, and do what they can to assist him after his discharge with respect to finding a job or in connection with the other problems with which he will be confronted. Again, the number of cases thus handled by the agency is kept, tabulated and the grant for the following year is based in general on the record of assistance in the preceding year.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I thought the minister had indicated earlier that he would have an extensive submission or statement to make under this item with respect to penitentiaries. Perhaps we could start the item off with that statement by the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is quite right. I am sorry, but possibly we made such progress that I did not keep up with the items. I did intend, and do intend, to make a statement on the progress to date in connection with our correctional and reform program, what has been done up to the moment, and a brief outline of what is planned for the future.
The various committees and other groups that over the years have made recommendations for improvement of the federal correctional system have invariably stressed the need for positive efforts to reform the offender through appropriate treatment and training in penal institutions and on parole. Since confederation the penitentiary system has usually lacked emphasis on reformative treatment. Some efforts in this latter direction have been made since world war II but they have been largely frustrated by continuing overcrowding in federal penitentiaries, lack of employment for inmates, an atmosphere of tension in the institution and, until last year, a lack of emphasis on parole as a rehabilitative measure for offenders.
As hon. members are aware, the responsibility of the government of Canada in so far as the operation of a prison system is concerned is to provide custody and reformative treatment for all persons who are sentenced under federal laws to imprisonment for two years or more. In 1952 the federal penitentiary inmate population was about 4,600. In the eight years since that time the inmate population has increased to over 6,300, an increase of almost 40 per cent. It is sobering to reflect that during that short period the number of young inmates-those under 21 years of age-increased from just short of 500 to slightly more than 900, an increase of about 80 per cent. In 1952 about 1,800 inmates were serving their second or subsequent penitentiary sentence. That number has now risen to about 3,000, an increase of 35 per cent or more.
These figures would seem to indicate that there is an increase in crime-at least in serious crime-in Canada and that the traditional methods of dealing with offenders by locking them up in prison and forgetting about them does not aid in solving the problem. Ninety-nine per cent of persons who are sentenced to penitentiaries sooner or later return to the community. Indeed over the last ten years some 23,000 inmates of federal penitentiaries have been released from custody, and their numbers alone indicate the necessity of ensuring that the prison experience should have a reformative effect upon the prisoner. Only thus can the public be protected when he is again at large.
Supply-Justice
Over the last year and a half the Department of Justice has made a substantial effort in the direction of reducing overcrowding in federal penitentiaries and also in providing more effective training for inmates confined in the penitentiaries. A new medium security institution designed to hold 450 inmates has been opened at Kingston, Ontario. A similar type of prison called the Leclerc Institution will be opened at St. Vincent de Paul near Montreal toward the end of this year.
A minimum security institution-that is a prison without walls, bars or guns-has been opened at William Head near Victoria, British Columbia. Another one has been opened at Valleyfield, Quebec and a third will be opened within a few months at Springhill, Nova Scotia. Each of these institutions is an example of the economical use of existing governmental facilities that can be adapted for prison purposes. The William Head installation was a Department of National Health and Welfare quarantine hospital that was surplus to the department's requirements. The Valleyfield installation was originally a small military camp. The Springhill institution has been developed for the most part by using available huts that were acquired from the Department of National Defence.
The result of these developments during the past year and a half is that whereas formerly federal penitentiary facilities consisted of maximum security institutions only, there are now to be found in the system examples of medium security institutions and minimum security institutions. In addition the department is now proceeding with plans for the development of correctional work camps. These will be camps for the custody, treatment and training of penitentiary inmates for whom maximum or medium security conditions of confinement are not necessary or appropriate. They will be designed to carry out improvement programs upon dominion or provincial crown lands such as the development of public parking areas or picnic grounds, reforestation programs, forest fire prevention programs, restoration of historical sites and reclamation of unused lands. The projects will be of a type that the governments concerned are not prepared to undertake with privately employed labour for say a period of approximately 10 years. Initially we would hope that this new type of camp, which will provide work and steady employment for about 75 inmates in each case, would be located in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Exploratory conversations are now being carried on in the province of Manitoba.

Supply-Justice
The development of these camps will enable the department to avoid the heavy expenditures by way of capital and maintenance costs that are involved in building maximum or medium security institutions and also the delay that is involved in planning and building institutions of that type.
Another significant development during the past year and a half has been the coming into force of the new Parole Act and the commencement of operations of the new parole board. We had a discussion on this matter on the item under which the parole board estimate is contained and therefore I think I need do no more than remind the committee that the work of the parole board is an essential part of the over-all approach to the new correctional program.
There have also been developments in connection with the problem of narcotic drug addiction which also were discussed in detail and at some length on an earlier occasion. I will therefore do no more here than mention them and ask the committee to keep it in proper perspective in assessing the full extent of the correctional program which we have envisaged and upon which we are embarking.
In addition to the review I have just made of what has been done with respect to new types of institutions and the new approach in the field of parole and narcotics we have also been concerned to make changes within existing institutions. Here, as I have said, we are confronted with the problem created by overcrowding and the difficulties which that situation imposes upon us with respect to instituting or maintaining in those institutions proper work programs, rehabilitation programs, vocational training and other programs for the inmates that are there. I am quite sure that hon. members will realize without my enlarging upon it the difficulty with which we are confronted when space which should be used and is essential if you are going to carry out a proper training program has instead to be devoted to the mere physical accommodation of the number of inmates that we have because of this overcrowding situation.
Notwithstanding the difficulties that overcrowding has caused in penitentiaries it has been possible, in the existing maximum security institutions, to introduce certain improvements in the fields of classification and segregation and to expand the types of vocational and other reformative training for inmates. For example, new dormitories have been established outside the wall of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary for 225 inmates. This action permits the segregation of this group of offenders from more hardened 
criminal elements who must be kept in custody behind the wall. It has been possible in Kingston penitentiary, which has a population of some 950 inmates, to provide accommodation and suitable reception and classification procedures for 50 inmates on a continuing basis. Similar reception facilities have been established at Saskatchewan penitentiary. At Manitoba penitentiary dormitory facilities have been established outside the wall to provide pre-release training for selected inmates who are approaching their day of discharge from custody.
New types of vocational training which involves the use of classroom techniques and on the job training, where the inmate learns a trade or occupation by actually working at it, have been introduced at most federal institutions. For example, training in electronics is now given at the federal training centre in Quebec and at British Columbia penitentiary. At several institutions new training courses in the welding and sheet metal trades have been started and the number of inmates receiving training in such trades as plumbing, carpentry and masonry has been increased. A commercial class in typing, shorthand and bookkeeping has been started at Dorchester penitentiary.
With regard to these work programs generally may I say that one of our programs has been to provide a useful day's work for an inmate so that he would have a feeling of self-respect, a feeling that he was doing something in which he could take some pride and also so that he might be accustomed or acclimatized, if you wifi, to the conditions which he would have to meet when he leaves the institution where he will be expected to do a full day's work for a full day's pay.
With this overcrowding condition with which we have been faced, with the concurrent problems I have outlined, we have found that the traditional prison day for a penitentiary inmate up to the present has generally found him locked in his cell before five o'clock in the afternoon and not released again until seven o'clock the following morning. It would seem that such an extended period of closed custody for an inmate every day, without an opportunity to associate with other human beings or to receive the benefit of training and counselling from staff members, is not calculated to prepare an inmate for the many problems that he has to face upon his return to free society.
Accordingly for the past half year an experiment has been conducted at Kingston penitentiary whereby substantial numbers of inmates, sometimes numbering as many as 200 or 250, are released from their cells during the early evening hours for educational

and recreational purposes. These inmates play organized sports in the auditorium, watch educational movies and television programs or browse in the prison library. Thus far this experiment has demonstrated that it aids in the socialization of the inmate who in so many respects must live such an unnatural type of life in the institution and greatly promotes the lessening of tension which, if permitted to build up unduly, tends to lead to disturbances in the institution. It is certainly to be hoped that this form of evening training can be extended to other penitentiaries.
A program designed to help the inmate become aware of his responsibilities to the free community when he is released and also to help him achieve a better understanding of himself and his fundamental problems is carried on at Collin's Bay penitentiary in Ontario and also at British Columbia penitentiary. This program is proving to be successful and the intention is to extend it to all institutions.
In concluding my remarks in connection with this brief review of plans for the future and progress to date, I want to emphasize one thing, and that is that while my emphasis is, and I think must properly be, upon the changes we expect to make for the future, I would not want it to be overlooked that although we stress the shortcomings and the changes which should be made and ask parliament to support us in this expenditure we are asking for in order to make those changes, nevertheless credit must be given and never overlooked to the penitentiaries staff which have carried on so admirably in the past under the limited and difficult circumstances with which they have been faced. I think it is to the credit of the Canadian penitentiary system that our institutions have been run so free of trouble and by and large have done what could be done to turn an inmate out a better man than when he went in, and it has done that notwithstanding the limited resources with which it has had to work.
So I hope that the committee, in turning its face to the future and supporting us with respect to our program for the future, will not allow its concentration on future reforms -challenging and stimulating as they are- will not allow that emphasis on that aspect to overshadow altogether the debt of gratitude we owe to the staff who have served very faithfully in the past and at present.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that the program outlined by the minister is already bringing good results, but what worries me is what happens when an inmate gets his freedom.
As the minister knows, because of the present situation with regard to unemployment it is very hard for a man who gets his
Supply-Justice
freedom and enters civil life to find work. In this connection I should like to know whether we are making any efforts in this respect. Have we got rehabilitation officers assisting the inmate who has just got his freedom to find work? To what extent are we successful in this regard?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a special placement section in the national employment service which, on notification that an inmate is within three months of his discharge date, sends a representative to interview him in the institution in order to analyse his past record of employment, assess his capabilities, and then the official returns and tries to find a job opportunity for him upon the inmate's discharge.
In addition to that, our parole officers across the country are available to serve not only inmates on parole but discharged inmates who may have problems in connection with employment. I should of course pay special tribute here to the work done by the voluntary after-care agencies such as the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies which do tremendous work in obtaining employment opportunities for inmates.
Although it will take a long time to develop, I am sure, we have in mind for the future an individual sponsorship program through the agencies of the voluntary organizations as well as through our own staff with the objective-this is an objective only; I am not giving a blueprint-that ultimately it might be possible for individual inmates to be sponsored by individuals or organizations even before they leave the penitentiary with a view to personal assistance in replacing them in society and particularly in placing them in jobs. We cannot place the onus exclusively on the individual or voluntary agency; we must accept a large part of the responsibility ourselves as the penitentiary branch, the parole service, and so on, but the objective is that every inmate who requires help in finding employment opportunities will receive personal assistance in doing so.


Ernest James Broome: I should like to bring a couple of minor points to the attention of the minister. I spent a day with Warden Cummins in Westminster and I must say Mr. Cummins is one of the finest men I have ever met and I believe he must be of very great assistance to the department. But there are several rules which seem to be necessarily restrictive. For instance, when writing letters a prisoner is allowed one sheet of paper and he is limited to how many letters he can write. One particular prisoner wrote on both sides and wrote so finely that they said, "You can have two or three sheets of paper to write letters on".

Supply-Justice
Another point is with regard to visitors. This warden told me the regulations say that particularly female visitors have to be women of good repute and relatives; so he has more aunts of prisoners than really the prisoners have. As they say, they have to come in under the guise of being a relative. These prisoners need that contact with the outside world. He told me the story of one prisoner who said, "Warden, you know the sort of man I am and the life I have led; what decent self-respecting woman do you think would ever associate with me?"
In this effort of rehabilitation I think of these two considerations. I would think the penitentiary officials would want these men to do all the writing they possibly could. I was there last fall and maybe the regulations have been changed since then, but if they have not they certainly should be changed. In regard to visitors there should be a certain amount of reason exercised. I think there may be other regulations which have the same effect, but these two particular regulations I am talking about certainly are not conducive to helping a man keep in touch with the outside world and keeping him semi-prepared anyway for his re-entry into outside life.
As I said, I spent a day out there. I thought the penitentiary was exceedingly well run; the food was good. I do not suppose you could say the inmates looked happy, but they certainly looked contented, and I would like to pay tribute to Warden Cummins and the staff of British Columbia penitentiary.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support what has just been said by previous speakers. I know that we cannot under any circumstances mollycoddle those who have broken the law. If they break the law they have to accept the punishment for it. But I feel that the view of the Minister of Justice is that although there must be punishment and retribution, if you want to put it that way, the main aspect of the question is rehabilitation.
When one enters a penitentiary he goes into an entirely different world. I think it is about four weeks that you are in one section of the prison where you are questioned, where you are told the rules, where they try to understand you and then decide what you should do. After that, you are committed to the prison routine.
As I said this afternoon, I cannot understand a man wanting to go back to a life of that kind. Nor can I understand how a man can be placed in a position to rehabilitate himself when he is strictly limited in his contacts with the outside world. I agree with those who have said that there should be

humanity with discipline and with punishment. To cut a person off from contact with those he knows and loves in the outside world is bad. Few things could be worse than the suppression of facilities for writing and receiving letters. Every letter, both in and out, is censored, so that the prison authorities know exactly what both the man and his correspondents are writing. Surely it is a good' idea to keep these persons in contact with those they love and trust.
Mr. Chairman-or I should say, Madam Chairman. I am sorry; I was so interested in talking that I did not notice who had taken the chair-I believe the increase of these contacts is good, first because it helps toward rehabilitation and increases contact with the outside world and, second, because it provides a far better method of discipline than reliance on restriction and corporal punishment.
I am opposed to corporal punishment. I am opposed to severe discipline. I agree there has to be discipline, but this I know from years of visiting jails and penitentiaries; I have not met more than three inmates who would not prefer to take the lash or the paddle than to lose the privileges which they receive, whether they take the form of cigarettes, or reading matter, or radio, or the writing and receiving of letters. It is in the control over these privileges that the penitentiary authorities have the greatest power. That is the way in which the authorities can exercise discipline, by cutting out visitors and by cutting out the writing and the receiving of letters. I was very proud that one of my colleagues spoke earlier on this subject. I want to support what he said and ask that greater consideration be given to this phase of our subject.
There is one other matter that I wish to discuss, and the minister may perhaps be somewhat amazed that I should raise the question at the moment. The hon. gentleman spoke about the training which takes place at penitentiaries, training in masonry, carpentry and so forth. I know that in British Columbia at the present time we have a very serious unemployment problem, and there may be some who will misunderstand the proposal I am about to make. Over the years I have read with a great deal of interest what is being done in some of the states in the United States and what is being done in other countries in Europe where the authorities in charge of prisoners have sought to obtain the co-operation of employers and trade unions in this training work. I should like to ask the minister whether any approach along these lines has ever been made through the trade unions of Canada. I should like to know whether the trade unions have ever been asked to interest themselves in this

problem of the rehabilitation of those who have broken the law. Have we ever asked the unions to co-operate and send into the institutions their experts in the fields of electronics, inside and outside wiring, carpentry, plumbing and so on as part of the educational process? It may be that when the inmates are released after completing their sentences they could continue in the work which they have learned as apprentices, improvers or journeymen. A certain number might be accepted in the trade union of the particular craft they have chosen and be sponsored by that particular trade union which would assist in their efforts to become rehabilitated.
I have read that in countries where this has been attempted it has proved very successful, and that co-operation between the trade unions, the employers and the prison authorities has worked out extremely well. I should like to ask the minister whether this approach has ever been tried in Canada and whether he thinks this is worth attempting.
I raise this question now at a time when a great many trade unionists are themselves out of work, but I am speaking on the principle, and I believe it would be well worth while to approach employers and trade unions on this matter of helping to instruct the inmates of our penitentiaries by means of lectures and so on and then invite them to co-operate to an extent as the prisoners come out and try to rehabilitate themselves. I think such an effort would be well worth while.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To deal with the last mentioned subject first, I can assure the hon. member that we have had over the years extensive contacts and consultations with trade union organizations. I think particularly of Collin's Bay where trade union representatives came down and assisted us in setting up the training programs. They also attended the training graduation ceremonies of the inmates and took part in those celebrations. I am told they also donated a number of prizes for efficiency in the training programs that were carried on. We have close contacts with trade union organizations. I am not saying it could not be improved; probably indeed it could, as we bring more and more moves to bear and have more and more facilities for programs of vocational training. But we do have close relations with the trade union organizations.


Harold Edward Winch: Can the minister tell me of one trade union sponsored individual? I want it carried on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot give the name at the moment but I am advised that certain trade
Supply-Justice
unions have arranged for examinations of our inmates who have had their vocational training courses, and as a result of that examination they are given credit for their journeyman certificates which they complete when they go outside. That arrangement is not an unusual one to be made with respect to inmates and with respect to the relations with trade unions.
My hon. friend asked me about the contacts with the outside world. I am informed there are numerous channels of contact with the outside world for our inmates. There are, for instance, such associations as Alcoholics Anonymous for one. I am told that in some instances there are meetings of as large a number as 50 to 75 which take place through that organization. There are many other group visits and group discussions which are arranged between inmates and outside organizations.
In regard to mailing privileges, I can only say that the penitentiary regulations generally are being reviewed. But when my hon. friend refers to British Columbia he must realize that at the moment there we are running a maximum security institution, a non-segregated institution, where unfortunately we do have to apply the maximum security regulations with regard to censorship and so on. We do have some staff limitations, and it is those conditions that necessitate that institution having quite severe restrictions with regard to mailing privileges; but they do not necessarily have to be applied in other institutions across the country. The regulations are being reviewed to see whether and to what extent relaxation can be allowed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: When the minister was making his remarks I thought he would give us some indication with respect to the minimum security personnel at Joyceville, which has a population of 450. I did not get the name of the other institution to which the minister made reference.


Edmund Davie Fulton: l'lnstitut Leclerc.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This is in the offing; this is something for the future?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; it will be opened this fall; construction is practically completed now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Is it different from Joyceville?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is of the same general design as Joyceville; it will house approximately 450.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Can the minister give us some information on William Head, Valleyfield and Springhill?

Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: William Head, 100; Valley-field, 100; Springhill, approximately 100.


Mr, Howard:: Eleven hundred or 1,200,
something of that nature?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think 1,200.


Charles Benjamin Howard: With respect to William Head, is it not possible to establish additional facilities there to take in more inmates? I understand this can be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, physically, we
could expand; probably we could increase the number of inmates but I think we would have to look very carefully at whether it is desirable in a minimum security institution to have many more than 100 inmates because you might destroy the atmosphere. There is a limitation on the number you can have without increasing your staff, and perhaps we would increase the staff more than one would want to. We are trying to establish an atmosphere almost next door to discharge. It is a progression that the inmates make and I question whether any more than 100 would be desirable in that type of institution.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Very well. The rough estimate which was given by the minister earlier was to the effect that in 1952 we had an inmate population of 4,600. As I recall it, this was very close to the total number of available cells in the institutions at that time, so that probably in 1952 or 1953 we were close to having the penitentiaries completely filled, if not to some degree overcrowded. Since that time up to today we have added another 1,700 to the present penitentiaries, not counting the Joyceville institution and the other ones. Conditions are such today that even when you get such places as William Head, Valleyfield and Springhill into operation fully and completely you will be no better off than you were eight or 10 years ago. We will still not be able to tackle the question of rehabilitation and reformation to any extent within the institutions themselves.
We need a much more expanded and accelerated program, and additional institutions must be opened. In addition to the number in our penitentiaries there are 1,000 inmates who are convicted under the narcotics act. As I understood the minister, he said at any one time about one third the total number of addicts were being processed through the institutions. We need additional institutions to deal with the narcotic addicts and perhaps this would remove some of the overcrowding; but this is something for the future. It is not something that is going to occur tomorrow. As the minister said, there are certain limitations on the funds available, and so on.
In all probability, if the trends of the past are any indication of the future, with an

increasing population in Canada, there is a possibility that we will continue to be in somewhat the same static position. The increasing facilities will not take care of the larger inmate population so that these institutions will be kept filled to the limit unless we can work effectively within the institutions on a program of reformation and rehabilitation.
I do not think it is possible to do this under the present program regardless of the highmindedness of the people interested in this country. I asked the minister a number of questions about this last session and he was kind enough to give me a great deal of statistical information which appears on page 4984 of Hansard of June 19 of last year. I should like to make reference to this overcrowding in so far as it affects shop space or other space that is used within the institutions themselves for sleeping purposes.
The minister indicated here that shop space and corridors were being used for dormitory purposes in some institutions. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver South noticed that in the institution that he visited some time ago. In Kingston shops that could be used for training and everything else are now used for dormitories. In Dorchester, for instance, in shop space and corridors there were facilities for 13 inmates. In St. Vincent de Paul there were temporary dormitories either in shop space or corridors for 122; in Kingston, 184; in Saskatchewan, 60; in British Columbia, 94; and at Collin's Bay, 80. Incidentally, Collin's Bay is not a penitentiary in the old maximum security sense; it is a training centre: there are shops there, and even in the Collin's Bay penitentiary they have shop space and corridors taken up for inmates. This is indicative of the overcrowding which existed last year, and this is going to continue and continue. Will you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member go on beyond ten o'clock? We could have called it ten o'clock before he finished what he was saying but did not do so. Can we not finish this department tonight? There are only two items left.


Harold Edward Winch: I also have something I want to raise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We could perhaps finish in ten minutes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think we should call it ten o'clock and follow the rules.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have only a few remarks to make in reply, but my hon. friends have

made such a useful contribution already that I would have thought we could agree to conclude tonight.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that we got into this same hassle last year at the same stage of the session. I can appreciate that at times there are circumstances in which it may be necessary to go on for a minute or two but I believe we establish an improper precedent by doing so. I have some further comments to make, the hon. member for Vancouver East has other comments and the minister himself indicated he has something he wishes to say. I am not trying to be difficult but I think we should stick to the rules unless they are altered by notice as they will be next week.


Lionel Chevrier: May I make a suggestion, that we allow the items on page 34 to pass and then allow the hon. member and any other hon. member who wants to discuss a matter concerning the minister's department to do so on the R.C.M.P. item which will be coming up later.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There will be supplementary items too with respect to penitentiaries.


Lionel Chevrier: That is my suggestion for what it is worth.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I understand that there is perhaps also a desire to continue past ten o'clock so that the officials of the department can conclude their activities but if we are going to do what has been suggested by the hon. member for Laurier it will mean they will have to come back in any event.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business is for tomorrow and next week as well?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow it is the intention to suggest to the house that it rise at one o'clock in order that members may participate in the ceremonies on Dominion day. During the course of the two hours that the house is in session we will take up the bill of rights. With respect to next week and dealing with Monday first, following consultation with the parties on the other side of the house I am suggesting for consideration that in order to call the remaining three departments, privy council, Secretary of State and legislation, we commence with a motion to go into committee of supply but that we go into committee of supply without debate, call these items, that the committee then rise and report, and that
Business of the House
with the Speaker back in the chair we continue the debate on the bill of rights. If that is agreeable to hon. members opposite they might so indicate now and then I will give the business for the rest of the week.


Lionel Chevrier: So far as we on this side of the house are concerned we are agreeable to waive our right to move an amendment of non-confidence on the motion to go into supply in accordance with the suggestion made by the house leader.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think we are agreed as to this procedure but I wonder whether the leader of the house would care to have an order of the house made at this time that we rise at 1 p.m. tomorrow. I am wondering whether it is agreed by the three parties that we will rise at that time because I can say quite frankly that I have heard members of the opposition say that this is not going to be the case. I think we should have it clear tonight that we are in fact rising tomorrow at one o'clock, and if there is unanimous consent at this time an order should be made tonight changing the hours of sitting tomorrow so that in fact we will sit from eleven to one o'clock and will not get into a hassle with respect to whether we are coming back at 2.30.


Lionel Chevrier: That was not an answer to the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps we could postpone that matter for a minute. I was wondering about the order of business for Monday which I suggested.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is agreeable to us with respect to Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then we can revert to the other matter with respect to whether or not the house will rise at 1 p.m. on Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: May we deal first with the arrangement for Monday so that it will be definite? As I understand the proposal which hon. members are prepared to accept, it is that a supply motion will be moved on Monday but not debated.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we then have a decision with respect to the hours of sitting tomorrow, Dominion day?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to order that tomorrow's sitting be adjourned at one o'clock?

Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: With respect to the business for the other days of next week, Tuesday will be available for continuation of the debate on the bill of rights if so desired. If that should be completed, we have the department of forestry item on the order paper and there may be one or two other legislative
items which will appear by that time. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday will be given over to the discussion of estimates in the following order: completion of the Department of Justice and the R.C.M.P., national revenue, transport, external affairs, northern affairs, labour and public works.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Tardif: 1.	What was the original contract price of the triservice hospital now being built at Ottawa for the Department of National Defence?
2.	Have there been any extras to date? If so, in what amount?
3.	What is the number of beds?
4 What are the revised department estimates of ultimate cost per bed?
Answer by: Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):
1.	$7,971,136.
2.	Yes. $504,100.43.
3.	350.
4.	$25,094.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OP FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
129.	Information and educational service, including grant of $3,000 to Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition, $202,000.
130.	Economics service, $328,100.
131.	Industrial development service, $942,185.
Field services-
132.	Field services administration, $862,940. Conservation and development service-
133.	Operation and maintenance, $5,770,620.
134.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,464,250.
135.	Inspection and consumer service, $2,139,000.
136.	Fishermen's indemnity plan administration, $243,850.
Special-
137.	Canadian share of expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates, $895,210.
138.	Acquisition of land for the international pacific salmon fisheries commission as required by article VIII of the convention (chap. 11, statutes of 1957), $6,000.
139.	Newfoundland bait service, $429,400.
140.	Educational work in fisheries techniques and co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, $90,000.
141.	Fisheries Prices Support Act administration, $60,000.
142.	Payment, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, of
Supply-Items Passed
assistance to producers of salted fish on products designated by the governor in council, in the amount of 50 per cent of the laid down costs of salt purchased for their production, including authority to charge administrative costs to the vote in these estimates which provides for administration of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, $600,000.
143.	Assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger or long-liner type, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $350,000.
144.	Assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the regulations established by the governor in council, $30,000.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
145.	Headquarters administration, $186,310.
146.	Operation and maintenance including an amount of $53,000 for contributions towards fisheries research and for scholarships, and authority to make recoverable advances of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the international great lakes fishery commission of the cost of work on lamprey control and lamprey research, $4,199,125.
147. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $552,100.
Special-
521.	Destruction of dogfish and other predators, $150,000.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
522. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and	equipment-further amount required, $194,500.