1961-05-27

RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING PERSONNEL OF SESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
Thart the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping appointed May 15, 1961, be composed of Messrs. Badanai, Brassard (Lapointe), Broome, Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway), Campeau, Carter, Chevrier, Chown, Creaghan, Granger. Grills, Howe, Horner (Jasper-Edson), Kennedy, McDonald (Hamilton South), McFarlane, McPhillips, McWilliams, Mitchell, Monteith (Verdun), Pascoe, Robinson, Rowe, Smallwood, Smith (Simcoe North) and Winch.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the unusual situation involved, will the minister give the house a report in respect to the rearraignment of Mr. Tomasz Biernacki after his release by a Montreal judge?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: This matter is before the courts and I do not think there is anything I can properly say with regard to it. A preferred indictment was authorized by the attorney general of Quebec, and the matter is now before the courts. Perhaps I should and could properly say, in supplement of my answer that the issues involved in the case referred to are in our view far too important and, in some respects, new, not to take every proper step to have them determined by at least a superior court.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Notwithstanding the grave implications in the answer the minister has just given us, can he assure the house that the procedure being followed is in accordance with the law of the land?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes sir; absolutely. While I do not think there is any precedent for this actual case, there is a clear precedent for the same situation in the United Kingdom.
The law of Canada provides for the bringing in of a preferred indictment as has been done here.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister inform the house whether during his recent visit to Trail he had discussions with senior officials of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company, or with senior officials of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, or with Mr. Douglas McMynn, president of the association of chambers of commerce of eastern British Columbia, who is also a senior official of the West Kootenay Light and Power Company, with respect to the export of power?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I had no such discussions, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if I could address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he has any information with respect to the number of Canadians who will be out of work as a result of the impending action on June 5, when the Ottawa Citizen, belonging to the Southam newspaper chain, begins a contract for all its photography with a foreign press service, namely United Press International.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the hon. member has given notice of the question, but it relates to some event in private business which is not the responsibility of the administration, although the hon. member appeared to relate it to ministerial responsibility by asking the minister if he knew how many men would be out of work. I think if this does come within the responsibility of the administration in any way the question ought to go on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry
INDUSTRY	HEALTH AND WELFARE



AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he and the government will reconsider the decision not to meet representatives of the united automobile workers who have been in touch with the Prime Minister's office regarding representations which they wish to make concerning the agricultural implement industry?
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): I will take the question as notice.



REPORTED PROTEST AS TO TRANSPORTATION COST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Perhaps I might take this opportunity to reply to a question which was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Labelle. His question, as reported on page 5405 of Hansard, was as follows:
Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from the Saguenay catholic union of farmers seeking to remedy the situation whereby farmers in the Saguenay district have to pay $10 to $20 more than western farmers for the transportation of grain in their area? Is any action by the government contemplated in order to correct this situation?
I did receive the telegram in question, which was referred to the office of the Minister of Agriculture. Representations were also received from the hon. member for Lake St. John in this connection. A brief prepared by the organization in question was brought to the attention of the government.
My information is that an active study is being made in regard to the whole question of the movement of feed grains into British Columbia, the central provinces and the Atlantic provinces. When policy is decided upon in this regard it will be announced in the usual manner.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, having regard to statements made earlier this week, whether he has yet received the report of the royal commission headed by Mr. Grattan O'Leary.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have received a copy of that report.



ROYAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister another question arising out of an answer he gave to a question I asked some weeks ago, in which he stated that he hoped very, very, very soon to appoint the remaining members of the royal commission inquiring into the matter of medical care insurance.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the answer I gave was well justified, and that the appointments will be made very shortly. I hope to be in a position to inform this house of those appointments within a few days.



INQUIRY AS TO MILLING CAPACITY TO FILL CHINESE CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister say whether Canadian owned flour milling companies have sufficient excess capacity to mill the grain for the Chinese government in respect of which he has made commitments in recent contracts?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should say the answer to that question is yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether Canadian companies which are subsidiaries of United States owned companies require permits from the United States government to do this work for the Chinese government, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of last night?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is no concern of ours. We have simply provided this market to the flour mill companies, and they must take the necessary action. I am not quite clear about what the hon. member is referring to, as I have not seen a copy of the Toronto Daily Star.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Vincent Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport or, in his absence,

the acting minister. Could the minister tell me how many instructors among the six recently appointed to train the operating personnel of the C.N.R. passenger service in the province of Quebec are able to speak both English and French?
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice and the Minister of Transport will answer it Monday.


Vincent Brassard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister were told that five of the six instructors are unable to speak French, would he take up the matter with the Canadian National Railways to correct such a situation?
(Text):

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



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
165. Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada and $167,500 as grants to recognized private aftercare agencies as may be approved by treasury board, $1,194,583.
(Translation):
Mr. Meunier:: Mr. Chairman, at this stage in the study of the estimates of the Department of Justice, I should like to direct a few remarks to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) with regard to an act which is of concern to his department. I refer to the Bankruptcy Act.
Much is being said in the newspapers about the administration of that act, which has been in force since July 1, 1950, a period of 11 years.
Much is made of fraudulent bankruptcies. Representations have been made by all kinds of organizations, including the Canadian lumber association, with the support of the national retail lumbermen and the provincial wholesale association, in May 1961.
Those businessmen complain about various provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. They claim that transfers which are made within three months before a bankruptcy, and which are valid, should be extended over a period of two years. Others feel that no one should be allowed to go into bankruptcy unless indebted to an amount of at least $3,000.
Mr. Chairman, I feel the act should be improved. In fact, the time has come to
Supply-Justice
refer it to a committee of the house for consideration and for necessary admendments. However, if some amendments cannot be submitted to a committee before some time, it would certainly be possible to improve it in the meantime.
The situation is this. There are many complaints about fraudulent bankruptcies. There is no doubt some bankruptcies are fraudulent, and in that regard, the Canadian Bar Association, at a meeting held last winter in Quebec city, made certain recommendations to the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to protect the people who resort to fraudulent bankruptcies, and I suggest that to prevent such things, we should apply tighter controls in such cases.
What happens today is that some trustees go into remote districts where they consult credit agencies and suggest to the debtors that they file a petition for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy is not, in such cases, registered in the place of domicile of the bankrupt, but in the larger centres such as Montreal and Quebec, with the result that the creditors are not interested. If they are appointed as inspectors, they do not attend meetings because they live too far away from the place where the bankruptcy was registered. Then the goods described in the bankruptcy are carried away and sold elsewhere at ridiculous prices. The result is that the creditors get very little out of such sales.
I feel that if the act were amended in such a way as to force the bankrupt to register his assignment of property at his place of domicile, a great deal of fraud would be avoided.
Now, the Canadian Bar Association has also made a very useful suggestion, namely that:
An assistant superintendent of bankruptcy be appointed for each province to follow the procedures more closely and to ensure that assets be converted to the advantage of the creditors.
We must admit that the superintendent of bankruptcy, whose office is in Ottawa, is much too far from the places where bankruptcy petitions are filed.
The appointment of an assistant superintendent for the province of Quebec would already be an improvement.
But we should not mention only the person who is bankrupt; there are also voracious creditors who are always in a hurry and who could just "eat up" the debtor.
I have here a brief submitted by the credit granters' association of Canada where it is requested that the chapter of the Bankruptcy

Supply-Justice
Act dealing with small debtors whose debts do not amount to much, be amended especially as far as summary administration is concerned.
I would not state this categorically, but I am quite sure that unscrupulous finance companies are sponsoring the amendment proposed by the association.
Recently creditors have sold all kinds of furniture to businessmen in the Montreal district. They are in a hurry to file a bankruptcy petition.
Now, we know that under the Bankruptcy Act no petition may be withdrawn without leave of the court.
As I was saying, there are at present in the Montreal district a certain number of bankruptcy petitions. Every week someone comes before the court to ask that a petition be withdrawn. In other words, the Bankruptcy Act is being used to collect debts.
Now, before we scratch out the chapter on summary administration, I feel we should get rid of that epidemic of salesmen.
I will give you a few examples, for instance, that of the knitting machine salesmen. The Minister of Justice must certainly be aware of the case since the knitting machine industry has moved from Montreal to Vancouver to continue its highly suspicious work.
Here is how those people operated. They would sell a knitting machine for $400, give knitting lessons to the purchaser and undertake to buy any article the latter knitted. One fine day, the purchaser would find out that the salesmen had disappeared into thin air.
Before they left, however, they had been very careful to sell their sale contract to finance companies which undertook to collect any balance owing.
What could those unfortunate debtors do except file a petition in bankruptcy triggered by unscrupulous people?
There has been another racket involving salesmen of machines to manufacture milk powder. It was being carried on mostly in the province of Quebec. After they had made a sale the salesmen undertook to buy the milk powder. In the meantime they transferred the note to a finance company to look after the collection, and they dropped out of sight.
Finance companies are frantic. Most of them are loan shark outfits fattening on refunds paid out weekly by labourers. If 200 or 300 labourers have contracted to make those weekly payments, just multiply that figure by $5, and you will see that these companies are doing pretty well.
I am not prepared to admit, like the granter's association, that the whole chapter
[Mr. Meunier.l
on summary administration should be removed from the Bankruptcy Act, because we must get rid of those unscrupulous and greedy creditors.
Those are the only remarks I wanted to make. I hope that the minister will take them into consideration.
I hope too that he will not be content to listen to the grievances of large companies but will also heed representations of low wage earners, who are fairly often the victims of unscrupulous operators.
I should like now to deal with another matter, this one of current interest which was raised yesterday in Montreal. It is about the right of a defendant to be tried and heard in his own language.
Of course, I should not make a plea in favour of the individual in question, Pierre Biernacki, who is now before the court.
However, it seems to me that the R.C.M.P. did behave in a despicable way towards the accused. They knew that he could speak and understand French better than English. Yet he was charged and examined in English and directed to make confessions in that language.
Justice Lazure, whose efficiency and integrity are well known, admonished the R.C.M.P. yesterday, stating that it is the right of an accused to be tried by his fellow-men in the language of his choice.
I hope the minister will make a few comments on the matter after having seen this morning's papers.
I feel I must add that there are many French speaking R.C.M.P. officers in Montreal, as there are no doubt in the rest of the country.
We should see to it that such a situation does not happen again, even though the accused is a national of another country.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member to what case he is referring?


Adrien Meunier: The case referred to this morning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, with respect to this case I would say immediately that the case is now before the courts and therefore comment must be restricted. With respect to the matter of interpreters, my recollection is that I have been advised that Mr. Biernacki was asked several times if he wished to have an interpreter or the services of an interpreter and he indicated that he did not desire an interpreter, that he understood fully what he was being asked and did not wish to have the whole thing done through an interpreter. That is my recollection of the situation, but I will have more

information on that when we come to the R.C.M.P. estimates if my friend wishes to pursue the subject then.
(Translation):


Adrien Meunier: Even if Mr. Biernacki was provided with an interpreter, I was told that he is more fluent in French than in English, having started learning English only after he came to Canada.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that at least the bills of indictment could have been made out in French and that his admissions could have been taken down in French, since that is the language he talks best. I feel it would have been the natural thing to do.


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Papineau a question based on his remarks.
He raised the matter of summary administration, suggesting that this procedure too often favoured the activities of loan sharks at the detriment of low wage earners.
Would the hon. member tell us if he is in favour of abolishing assignment and summary administration in so far as it brings us back to assignment of property as contained in the civil code of the province of Quebec?
At the same time, could he tell me whether, in his opinion, judges are not overly given to the practice which consists in letting debtors go free after six months when they have sought protection under the procedure known as summary administration or assignment of property, in cases where trustees take the initiative of preparing such summary administration or such assignment and ask that the debtor be allowed his freedom at the end of six months, where the sums involved are not very large and where creditors dare not oppose the move because the expense would be too high?


Adrien Meunier: The hon. member's question is quite long. I take it he does not favour deletion of the chapter on summary administration from the Bankruptcy Act.
My remarks had to do with the Bankruptcy Act in general and the chapter on summary administration in particular.
I also said that we should not always listen to grievances put forward by large finance companies, associations and societies, but also take into consideration the poor and the lowly.
(Text):


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of problems to raise with the minister, but before doing so let me say this. I am not a lawyer and have no legal training. I did, however, check with the constitutional lawyer concerning the responsibilities of the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney
Supply-Justice
General of Canada to give legal advice to all departments of government in relation to changes in legislation. The minister's responsibilities include some of the duties which I thought were his, and his role as Attorney General of Canada is not as barren of responsibility as some hon. members may believe. I refer, of course, to the dual role of the minister and the degree of dexterity that is demanded of him in performing two separate functions simultaneously.
I wish to refer to the case of a Riceville farmer, Gerald Rowe, against whom action was taken some time ago under the provisions of the Live Stock Pedigree Act. On a number of occasions the minister has been asked to grant a new trial or to take other action in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada.
I will quote briefly from an editorial published in the Glengarry News. The first portion of the editorial refers to the bill of rights and may not be relevant to this case. The editorial reads in part as follows:
Equality before the law and the protection of the law were the chief aims of Magna Carta back in 1215 when men who felt oppressed struck for freedom of the individual, no matter his station in society.
These individual rights must be guarded by each of us, we were thinking last week end after a talk with a Riceville farmer who for six years has been fighting to have what he considers an injustice against his person redressed. Periodically through those years Gerald Rowe, of Riceville, has been in to tell us of his troubles and his efforts to have what he considers a wrongful court conviction corrected.
I think all hon. members of the committee are familiar with the details of this case, which are set out in the editorial. A later paragraph reads:
He has spent thousands of dollars since seeking evidence that would refute the testimony offered against him at the trial. He has had a lengthy brief prepared by a lawyer and it purports to show evidence against him was not well founded. Mr. Rowe has approached Prime Minister Diefen-baker, Premier Frost, justice Minister Fulton, Ontario chief justice Dana Porter and many other public figures in an endeavour to have his case reopened. All his efforts have proved fertile-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: I am sorry; the word is "futile". I continue:
Mr. Rowe is convinced that the legal profession in Ontario has closed ranks against him. His lawyer was paid a retainer to appeal the conviction, he declares, and let the time for appeal elapse without taking necessary action. According to Mr. Rowe he has since contacted a number of solicitors who, for reasons unknown, failed to take proper steps in the case. The law society of upper Canada promised him an inquiry, he says; but nothing has come of it.
This is the feature of the Rowe case we like least. Here is a man who must be convinced he

Supply-Justice
has been treated unjustly by the law, else why would he be still striving six years later to clear his name. And in his efforts-


The Chairman:: Order. I do not see how
the hon. member can relate the case he is talking about to the estimates of the Department of Justice. As I indicated yesterday, the administration of justice is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.


William Arnold Peters: This is the point; what Your Honour has said is not quite true. The administration of justice does fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice, I am advised by constitutional lawyers. On the point of order Your Honour has raised I wish to read a letter written to the minister by my leader's executive assistant under date of November 15, 1960, the relevant portions of which are as follows:
Mr. Rowe's case appears to be unusual since his desire to appeal his case seems to have been subverted by the action or lack of action of his own solicitors. Now, as you have pointed out, your power under section 596 of the Criminal Code is insufficient to allow you to order a new trial in this case.
Could you not, therefore, consider bringing in an amendment to the Criminal Code which would allow you to grant a new trial to Mr. Rowe and to others like him who have been convicted on summary conviction?
The reply of the minister written in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada under date of November 29, 1960, is as follows:
Thank you for your letter of the 15th instant recommending an amendment to section 596 of the Criminal Code to include convictions in proceedings by way of summary conviction as well as by way of indictment.
The last paragraph reads:
While I am not satisfied that Mr. Rowe's case would, in itself, warrant such an amendment you may be assured that your suggestion will receive most serious consideration.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I would permit the hon. member to discuss the proposed amendment, but certainly not to bring in a case that has nothing to do with the proposed amendment. That is the view I take of the situation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of discussing the case. It is quite a lengthy case, and I had no intention of discussing it. I was only reading this editorial, which does not discuss the case itself but only the legal aspects of it and the fact that this gentleman cannot obtain a retrial. I should like to read the last portion of this editorial in the Glengarry News:
This is the feature of the Rowe case we like least. Here is a man who must be convinced he has been treated unjustly by the law, else why would he be still striving six years later to clear his name. And in his efforts for a new hearing over the years he has come to feel the legal profession has closed ranks to prevent any chance of a retrial. His feeling is that those involved

now know they erred in convicting him, but that the legal profession and the courts prefer to cover up, rather than admit a mistake was made.
That is not a healthy belief for even one individual to hold in a society which proclaims the equality of all before the law.
We hold no brief for Mr. Rowe. We know nothing of the complexities of this case, but we have read his brief and we think the attorney general should study it again. Much better that the province incur the expense of a new trial rather than that one citizen be left with the conviction the law and the courts are set against justice being done.
What I am curious about, Mr. Chairman, is why the minister will not make this change which would allow an appeal to be heard. An appeal would be possible if this case had been proceeded with in any court other than a court of summary jurisdiction. I am told that if the case had been tried in any other court there would have been a much greater possibility of this man appealing his case.
The request has been made of the government within the last few weeks that there be a retrial in this case because new evidence can be produced and presented to the court. It seems to me all people should be given the opportunity to proceed through the due process of law in a manner which will obtain justice for them, and it seems to me the fact that a lawyer himself may have made a mistake should not prevent justice being given in any particular case.
Is it not within the power of the minister to allow this to be done? I have been told by those who are conversant with the law that the reason this course is followed is that otherwise litigation would be carried on over a period of years; you would never know when you had settled a case or whether you were ever going to settle it, if it could be reopened at any time. I have been told that there must be limits upon the time for appeal. However, in this particular case the crown was involved, and I should think even a person convicted of murder, or an offence which carried a sentence of life imprisonment should at any time during the course of that sentence be able to appeal for a new trial because new evidence had been produced.
The lawyer who prepared the brief is of the opinion that sufficient new evidence is available to warrant a reopening of the case, but under section 596 of the Criminal Code, which is the section covering this matter, at the present time the minister has not the right to reopen this case. It seems to me that some consideration could be given to changing the law itself, or this section of the Criminal Code, to allow those persons convicted in a court of summary jurisdiction, particularly in a case which affects the crown directly and where the crown is the only party involved, to proceed and either be proven guilty or have the case dismissed.

This case has also been taken to the remission branch. I have considerable correspondence that has taken place over the years where the remission branch has been involved. The farmer has been asked to go to the remission branch where he can appeal for a pardon. This is not satisfactory to the farmer, who does not want to be pardoned for something he feels he has not done. All he wants is what he considers to be justice. Farmers, like myself, not understanding the finer points of law, see no reason why they should not have the opportunity to prove their innocence. It should be noted in this case-as in many others, I presume-that the farmer knew he was not guilty and did not believe he had to prove that he was not guilty. He thought someone had to prove that he was guilty. It seems to me that he is now willing to prove he was not guilty because he found that he would be convicted if he was not willing to prove that in the first place.
I think the minister could give some consideration to at least clemency in those cases which he reviews himself and decides have some merit. I know the minister is not too sympathetic in this case. I know he had the R.C.M.P. throw this farmer out when he came to ask him to intervene in his case.


Mr. Fulion:: That is a falsehood.


William Arnold Peters: He had the gentleman taken to police headquarters and questioned for a considerable length of time. I know the minister may not be sympathetic. These people who visit members of parliament or ministers can become nuisances, there is no question about that; but I think we should be able to agree-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, do I understand the hon. member to be alleging that I had somebody thrown out who came to see me? Is that the allegation the hon. member has made?


An hon. Member:: That is what he said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it is, sir, I give him the lie, complete and absolute.


Mr.   Mc@: Shameful.


William Arnold Peters: The minister says he did not and I have been told that he did-


Mr.   Mc@: Withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Smith (Simcoe North):: You made that allegation.


William Arnold Peters: I am only saying what I was told.


Mr.   Mc@: Withdraw.
Supply-Justice


William Arnold Peters: I have no intention of withdrawing something I was told.


Heber Edgar Smith: Then don't say it.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member took the proper stand in the first instance, because he was asked to accept something that is within the personal knowledge of the minister. I think the hon. member should not change his mind because of some interjections.


William Arnold Peters: I did not change my mind, Mr. Chairman. I have said this is what I was told, and that is a fact. The minister says it is not true. I accept his word for it, and therefore it is not true. But I still have been told it is, and I do not think I have to withdraw that.
There is another matter I should like to raise. It is something the same as the previous matter. I think it comes within the jurisdiction of the minister in that he administers the legal aspects of the act, chapter 15 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1952. This matter relates to negotiable instruments. In this case I ask the minister whether he will give consideration to changing the right of people to transfer negotiable instruments from one company to another, and the difficulties that arise from this practice.
I have a case in mind which happened in my own riding. A woman had bought one of these knitting machines. The machine was unsatisfactory; it was not as represented. Accordingly she sent the knitting machine back, but shortly afterwards she received a letter from a collection agency. It is headed "Without Prejudice" and reads as follows:
Ee: Sentinel Credits-$330.00.
We enclose for your perusal a mimeographed copy of an article published in the Toronto Daily Star, February 2, 1961. Your position seems to be exactly the same as the defendant's in that case.
We have been assigned your promissory note. What you did with the merchandise after signing this promissory note is of no consequence to us.
We will accept weekly payments on the complete balance or a cash settlement on a reduced balance.
If you wish to prevent a costly court action (followed, after judgment, by a garnishee of your wages and/or bailiff action), contact this office immediately with your offer of settlement. We would like to help you save court costs and interest.
This letter is put out by the Sentinel collection agency, described as a division of the Sentinel Credit Corporation Limited, Toronto.
There are many things wrong with this letter. In particular it seems to imply that were the case to come before a court the decision could only be in favour of the collection agency, the defendant having to pay

Supply-Justice
costs and other legal expenses. The letter refers to an article which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star on February 2, 1961, and I should like to put this article on record. It is headed: "Knitting Machines-It Wouldn't Work, Must Pay Anyway."
A couple who claimed they didn't pay for a knitting machine they bought because "it was rusty, the needle was bent and it wouldn't work" has to pay for it anyway.
Judge H. W. Timmins ordered Mr. and Mrs. Dymitro Haluk of Windermere Ave., to pay $380 owing on the knitting machine to the Diamond Discount Corp. Ltd.
The finance company was suing the Haluks for that amount, claiming on February 10, 1957, the defendants had signed a promissory note in favour of the now defunct Trans-World Machine Co., Spadina Ave. for $360. The defendants never paid the note, now held by the finance company, the plaintiffs claimed.
The plaintiff company were asking the court for the $360 principal of the note, plus interest at 1 per cent a month from April 10, 1959.
Mrs. Jeannie Haluk told Judge Timmins she and her husband bought the machine after the Trans-World Machine Co. salesman told them they could knit socks and sweaters on it and the company would buy back the knitted products at 25 cents an ounce. She said when the machine arrived, it wasn't the one they ordered, that it never worked and even a teacher from the company couldn't make it work.
Mrs. Haluk said she and her husband finally returned the machine to the company.
I suggest to the Minister of Justice that we should take some action in Canada to protect people who buy merchandise and then find that the promissory note they signed has been transferred as a negotiable instrument to a second party which has no obligation to cover the warranty or extend any of the protection which would have been given, or should be given, if the note had remained in the hands of the first party. In other words, the sale of this note eliminated the rights of the buyer. I think some consideration should be given to changing the provisions which govern instruments of this type.


Mr. Baldwin:: It may be late to raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman, but we have been listening to the hon. member discuss this question for some time, and surely it is essentially provincial in nature. It deals entirely with the rights of a holder of a negotiable instrument or a conditional sale agreement. This whole field is under provincial jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with the functions of this committee and, surely, nothing to do with the estimates of the Minister of Justice. It has no place in a discussion of these estimates.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, I would think the Minister of Justice does have a responsibility in this field. I suggest it comes within the field covered by the Bills of Exchange Act-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Finance.


William Arnold Peters: That is a statement with which I would agree-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not relevant to my estimates.


William Arnold Peters: If the minister say he has no administrative responsibility I must accept that, and I appreciate his position; but I would think that in his advice to his colleague the Minister of Finance-and giving advice of this kind must be part of his duties as attorney general-he might be able to suggest certain changes in legal terminology which would prevent practices of this kind being employed as a result of anomalies in the Bills of Exchange Act. All I am asking is that in his capacity as attorney general the hon. gentleman should offer advice to the Minister of Finance which would lead to the elimination of this abuse which is widespread and which, in my opinion, is making a mockery of justice as it is received by many people in relation to promissory notes handed over by companies with very little sense of responsibility.
(Translation):


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay unduly the passing of the first item of the estimates of the Department of Justice, but before the committee does pass that item, I should like to point out an individual case referred to me by a Toronto correspondent. While it is an individual case, it might concern everyone, since it has to do with an amendment to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that a person prosecuted on an indictable offence may, under section 508 of the Criminal Code, appeal to the presiding judge of the court for what is known as a change of venue. In fact, that section provides that a change of venue can be granted by the presiding judge, if he decides that it is to the best interest of justice. And we realize that the interest of justice means, not only the interest of society, but also the interest of the accused who is entitled to a complete and thorough defence.
As I said a moment ago, section 508 applies to cases of indictable or criminal offences which can be submitted to a jury. But it is entirely different, as far as I know, in the case of a trial before a judge only, either before or after the preliminary hearing, or when proceedings are taken under part 24 of the Criminal Code concerning summary convictions.

Now, the case submitted to me may be summarized as follows: if an accused, say from Montreal, is charged with an offence committed in Vancouver, after which he has returned to Montreal, he must necessarily appear in court in Vancouver. Is it possible, at present, for that accused to apply for a change of venue, that is to say, can he request to stand trial at the place of his domicile? I do not think so. This might be advisable in less serious cases, especially in cases of summary conviction.
At present, it is easy for an accused from Montreal to avoid being at a hearing in Vancouver; in such a case the crown would submit ex parte evidence, in the absence of the accused who would obviously be convicted on some charge and sentenced to pay court fees.
Now, if this accused has an excellent defence and is unable to go to Vancouver because he cannot afford the railway fare between Montreal and Vancouver, how can he submit a defence under the present system? I do not think anything provides for that case in the Criminal Code. I would like to make a few suggestions in this connection.
The officials of the department might perhaps look into this matter of distance, in the administration of the act.
Besides, they might consider the possibility when the crown proceeds according to part 24 of the Criminal Code; that the crown states its case in Vancouver and the record, including the reporter's transcript, could be transmitted in some way to Montreal where the accused could present his defence before a magistrate. Later on, the record could be returned to the place where the charge originated, and the judge who heard the first part of the evidence could then pass judgment.
This procedure might not be too satisfactory in the case of an accused who decides to enter a plea of not guilty. But I believe it would be wise to amend the Criminal Code to provide for the acceptance of a written plea of guilt in cases of summary conviction, as they are commonly called.
I do not know what is the traditional procedure in other provinces. Nor do I know whether in such cases, judges in Quebec city and in Montreal accept written pleas of guilt, but I know that in the rural areas of my province, the judges often accept such pleas.
Supply-Justice
In order that an individual, who is indicted and brought to court, may be saved considerable expense for the only purpose of personally recording a plea of guilty, a clerk of the court and the judges accept written pleas of guilty, and the presiding magistrate or judge returns his judgment in the absence of the accused, thus saving the cost of an enquiry.
Therefore, I would ask the minister to submit these few remarks to his legal advisers in order to determine the advisability of amending the Criminal Code to that effect, and more particularly part 24 of the Criminal Code.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to say a word or two about a point which was raised yesterday by my hon. friend for Skeena (Mr. Howard) concerning a judgment passed recently in Montreal in relation with the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Income Tax Act. I am referring here to the judgment by Mr. Justice Brassard on February 17, 1961, in the case of Lafleur v. Guay and the Department of National Revenue, in which the judge states that it is contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights-
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. gentleman does not know, but I think in the interests of the committee's consideration I should point out to him, that this case is now under appeal.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I did not know this case was under appeal. I should like to ask who has appealed; whether it is the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Justice, or the employee of the department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the case is, of course, between the individual and the Minister of National Revenue, but it is the crown that has appealed.


Gabriel Roberge: Would it be in order to ask the minister what the grounds for appeal were?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in so far as that is a matter of record, I feel I can give that information. However, before being in a position to do so I shall have to get in touch with counsel who prepared the notice of appeal. I know of no reason why these documents, which have been filed with the court and are matters of record, should not be placed before this house. The merits of the grounds given in the notice of appeal would not, of course, be open to discussion.

Supply-Justice


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member for Skeena made reference the day before yesterday to a conference which the minister held with the provincial attorneys general regarding the procedure to be devised for amending our constitution in Canada. I was not here at the time, I have made a hurried examination of Hansard but do not find any reply by the minister in regard to that question. Perhaps the minister could indicate to me by a nod whether it has been dealt with.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not replied in respect of that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has held very important conferences with the provinces regarding this matter and, outside of the answers to one or two questions addressed to him during the course of this session, one asked by myself, there has not been, to my knowledge, any discussion in this house of this matter. Before the minister concludes his statement I think he should give us a report regarding the situation as it is at the present time.
As I understand it, there was a disposition on the part of most of the provinces, if not all, to try and find some modus operandi to provide for unanimous agreement between the provinces and the federal government in the matter of amendments to our constitution, and the placing of the power to amend with the proper legislative authority, or the proper legislative and executive authority, or authorities, here in Canada.
There are, of course, matters which concern the federal government and the provincial governments together in respect of constitutional amendments. There are matters which concern the provincial governments alone, and other matters which concern the federal government alone. We are not concerned with respect to those latter matters, but with those matters that concern both provincial and federal governments. I am sure there is an almost universal desire in our country that Canada should have the power to amend the Canadian constitution without resorting to another legislative body outside Canada. All that stands in the way of this is agreement between the two senior levels of government. It would be appreciated if, some time before this first item is concluded, the minister could give us indication as to what the situation is. As I understand it there was put forward by the spokesman for the province of Quebec, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, a formula which seemed to be satisfactory to most of the provincial governments and the federal government. It would be interesting to hear from the minister in this connection.
I should also like to bring the minister's attention to another matter regarding the first item of his estimates. What progress has been made by the Minister of Justice particularly in the examination of all existing statutes which are thought by the law officers of the crown to be in any way inconsistent with the provisions of the bill of rights? During the discussion in the house prior to the enactment of the legislation it was argued that the bill of rights did not in any way add to our substantive law; that it was no more than declaratory of the existing law and that, in any event, some of its provisions would be found to be inconsistent with some of the existing statute law of Canada. It was further argued in this context, notwithstanding the contention made, notably by the Prime Minister, that the bill of rights would not supersede any inconsistent measure. It was pointed out by the Canadian Bar Association in the committee on the bill of rights that the bill would be inconsistent with certain legislation, notably the Immigration Act, and that the bill of rights itself would not remove that inconsistency notwithstanding the provision declaring that certain legislation inconsistent with the bill of rights would have the effect of causing those inconsistent enactments to be inoperative.
It is my feeling that this matter is still not clearly settled juridically, and the minister ought to give us some report. What steps have been taken by the administration to remove any anomalies or inconsistencies between the existing statute law and the bill of rights? Certainly nothing has been done by the administration thus far to indicate that it is prepared to bring forward amendments to any existing statutes to bring those statutes into conformity with the bill of rights.
We were told last session, for instance, that the War Measures Act would be amended in a manner to make it consistent with the bill of rights. It was strongly argued by the Minister of Justice last year that the amendments to the War Measures Act should not be made part of the bill of rights; that hon. members could be assured that that was in a sense a separate matter, and that it would be dealt with by the administration separately at the next session of parliament. The next session of parliament referred to at that time is this session, the end of which we are looking forward to and anticipating, but no measure has been brought forward by the government to amend the War Measures Act.
Indeed, there stands in my name now a private bill to amend the War Measures Act, which would make that act consistent with
(Mr. Fulton.]

the concepts and provisions of the bill of rights. If the government proposes to allow a measure introduced by a private member to do what it said itself it woul do, of course I have no objection. The important thing is to make sure that the War Measures Act and all other enactments do in fact conform with the spirit, the legal implications and directions of the bill of rights.
The third matter I should like to mention has to do with an announcement made by the minister during the course of the present session. It involves both his own administration and that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and has to do with the treatment of drug addicts. The minister might indicate whether he proposes to bring down any legislation in that regard. I do not know whether the legislation to which he referred the day before yesterday in regard to barbiturates is to be regarded as more of an omnibus measure than the mere announcement vould indicate.
In any event, it would be interesting to know what progress has been made by the government in its discussions with the provinces with regard to the treatment centres contemplated. What does the government propose by way of additional legislation? Does it propose to increase the penalties for illicit drug addiction? Does it propose to take powers that would enable the crown to keep in confinement users of drugs who have violated the Criminal Code or the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, thereby taking advantage of the confinement to give those individuals the opportunity to be rehabilitated in a government institution? Is the institution the government has in mind something along the lines of that in Lexington? This is the only major institution of its kind where those administering the criminal law and those administering the health services in the United States combine in providing for detention and rehabilitation.
This is a matter of the greatest importance. What progress has been made in this regard? Since the greatest concentration of drug addicts is in the province of British Columbia, has some arrangement been made with that province, or does that province wish to pursue this course all by itself? What is the situation with regard to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec? I mention these three provinces particularly because, second only to British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec represent the areas where the greatest amount of drug addiction is found.
Before this item is passed, perhaps the minister will give us some indication of his reaction to what I have said.
Supply-Justice


Gabriel Roberge: I should like to refer to the last answer given by the minister. Did I understand the minister correctly to say that he would be agreeable to giving the committee the reasons why the crown is supporting the appeal referred to?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the position I took there was that when a notice of appeal has been filed, then it seems to me this is a matter of record in the court and is available to anyone who wishes to examine it, normally, of course, on payment of a fee-there would be no objection as I see it under the sub judice rule to my producing it here for the information of parliament. I would be prepared to do that if I am correct in my assessment of the situation, although, of course, I could not do it today because the offices are closed. I would be glad to do it just as soon as possible, subject only to one final check to make sure that I am right in my appreciation of the law that there is no objection to producing the formal notice of appeal.


Gabriel Roberge: Is the minister going to table the document?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will table it if that is the desire, but I cannot table it today.


Frank Howard: Before the item carries, will the minister give a sort of progress report, as it were, on the events with respect to the so-called Eccles divorce case which was referred to him by the chairman of the private bills committee last year and, as I understand it, subsequently referred back to the Attorney General of Ontario?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I will deal with the remarks of all those who have spoken this morning. The hon. member for Papineau brought to my attention some views with respect to the Bankruptcy Act. Those views have been noted accordingly. As the committee knows, we are in the course of a study of the Bankruptcy Act, and I am grateful to the hon. member for the expression of his opinion, which we will note carefully and consider in the course of that study.
The remarks of the hon. member for Timis-kaming will be given the consideration they deserve.
The hon. member for Megantic brought to my attention his views with respect to section 508 of the Criminal Code as to the desirability of making some provision for those situations where it is not possible, or at best extremely difficult and expensive, for an accused to get to the place where the trial is set, and also with regard to the question of entering a written plea of guilty. We will

Supply-Justice
consider both these matters. We had not included them in the Criminal Code amendment bill tor this year but we will certainly consider them for the future.
The hon. member for Essex East asked me for a progress report with respect to the conference of attorneys general for the purpose of devising a recommendation as to an acceptable method of amending the constitution in Canada. In answer to that inquiry, which was also made by the hon. member for Port Arthur two days ago, I should say that the last meeting of the attorneys general was held here in Ottawa in January of this year- our third meeting. A good deal of progress had been made toward arriving at an agreement among the attorneys general on a formula that we would feel we could recommend to our respective governments for consideration by them and, if approved, for submission by them to their respective legislatures and the parliament of Canada.
May I emphasize again, because I think it is important, that we are not a plenary body. We were instructed by our governments at our suggestion to meet in order to see if we could devise a formula which we would be prepared to recommend to those governments. I say that because there has been some suggestion that we are rushing things, and that the country will suddenly be confronted with a proposal emerging from our conference which will become the law. I know my hon. friend has not made that suggestion, but it has been made in other quarters and I wanted to lay it at rest.
I certainly hope that a proposal will emerge from our conference that will be acceptable to all governments and to the legislatures and parliament. That is our objective; but it is only after, first, the governments have studied our proposal and, second, the legislatures and parliament have approved any proposal we may make, that it would become effective. As I say, up to January a good deal of progress had been made. Unfortunately I cannot say that there was unanimity, but there was a very close approach to unanimity in so far as views could be ascertained at that time on a formula which had been worked out, amended and approved and worked up, as it were, as a result of the meetings and exchanges of views that we had had.
In January the suggestion was made and accepted by the attorneys general that we had now come about as close to agreement as we could usefully come at the conference and that what should happen was that the government of Canada, accepting the responsibility of putting into draft form what appeared to be the concensus emerging from the discussions, should undertake to prepare

a further draft on that basis and circulate it to all governments. It was then hoped that without the necessity of a further meeting the governments could consider that draft and indicate their views; and, as I say, it was hoped that the indication would be that it was acceptable. For what reason I am not certain, but this did not prove to be the case.
A draft was prepared accordingly and circulated by me but we heard from only a very few provinces as to their reactions to that proposal. I was in touch with them or with various of them on at least two occasions, I believe, but it appeared that, while none of them expressed any fundamental disagreement with the draft, they had become so engaged with their legislative sessions the matter was not dealt with as we had hoped it would be.
I came to the conclusion recently, therefore, that in order to ensure finality and, I trust, agreement it was desirable to reconvene another session of the conference of attorneys general. We had hoped to be able to conclude our work by correspondence, but in my view it has become evident that this will not be possible and that a little further impetus must be given. Therefore, within the last two weeks I have written again to each attorney general reminding him of the situation and saying that, since in my view it would be unfortunate if the impetus that had been gained and the results that were, we felt, so imminent of realization should be lost by lack of follow through, I was therefore suggesting that we meet again in the month of June or, if that were found not to be convenient, in the month of September, and I asked them to indicate their views as to a suitable date. Whenever we meet I hope we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion to report back to our governments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister feel that he can indicate which provinces did not concur in the general formula, or does he feel that he should not do so?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I feel that I should not at the moment. As I say, I have not had definite replies from any of them. Indeed, I had answers from only one or two provinces. One in particular, which will be as well known to my hon. friend as it is to me, made public its attitude toward the proposal being discussed. There is no secret about it; it was the province of Saskatchewan. They have not rejected it, but apart from their views the views of the others were very close to complete agreement. I might say that a number of provinces made proposals and put forward drafts, and we also put forward drafts

from time to time. Then we had the draftsmen work up what appeared to be the nearest concensus of the views expressed at which we could arrive.
The hon. member raised a question as to the extent to which my department has proceeded to study all the statutes of Canada with a view to bringing them into conformity with the bill of rights. I have to remind the hon. member that at the time of the discussion of the bill of rights last year I made it clear it was not our intention to embark on any such study. I outlined at that time the difficulties, physical and otherwise, that such a study would raise. I said we did not consider it appropriate to embark on that sort of study, but that what we proposed was that we would be on the alert for anything that might bring to our attention a case of conflict, particularly, of course, anything emerging from a judgment of the courts. If any court judgment were to say "We consider this to be in conflict with the bill of rights", that of course would have our immediate attention in so far as the matter was one within federal jurisdiction. I also said that as various acts come up for revision from time to time or for scrutiny in any way, we would certainly look at them from the particular point of view of the bill of rights, but that we did not intend to undertake a general survey of all the statute law of Canada from that point of view.
I must disagree with my hon. friend when he says that nothing has been done to bring existing statutes into conformity with the bill of rights. I would remind him of a discussion we had in this chamber not long ago in connection with the Fisheries Act, when my colleague the Minister of Fisheries presented a revision of that act. We were careful to point out, as I think was our duty, that certain of its provisions had been opened for the express purpose of revising them in order to bring them into line with the bill of rights. Those were the provisions relating to seizure and confiscation.
In legislation very shortly to be introduced in the house my hon. friend will see a case of another act certain provisions of which, now that it is up for revision, have been revised to bring them into conformity with the bill of rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the minister leaves the subject of the bill of rights, may I be permitted to ask another question. My recollection is that the Prime Minister said, I think at this session, there would be amendments brought in to the War Measures Act. The government has not given any indication of its intention in that regard. I have pointed out that I have prepared amendments that are incorporated in a private
Supply-Justice
bill that has not yet reached this house but notice of which exists. Is it the government's intention to proceed with amendments to the War Measures Act during this session?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My department has been working on amendments to the War Measures Act. We are not at the moment in a position to recommend legislation. I therefore regret that I am unable to assure the hon. member that an amending measure will be proceeded with at this session.
It is also my recollection that the Prime Minister indicated that some action would be taken, but I am not quite sure whether the intended action referred to was legislation or a committee study. However, whichever it was, my recollection is that reference was made to action being taken at this session.
At the moment, so far as my responsibility goes, I am not in a position to state definitely that we will be in a position to take action at this session. If we should find ourselves in that position, and if there should be an immediate demand for action, we would then do our best to proceed; but I must say that in view of the stage the session has reached, and the state of the order paper, I think probably we all might wish to have another look at that situation.
The final question the hon. member raised concerned the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. The hon. member asked me what was the position with regard to new legislation in that field. I am very glad to be able to advise my hon. friend that if he will refer to my policy statement made on January 24 in this house on behalf of myself and my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, he will see there a fairly complete outline of the policy which we have developed with respect to these matters, particularly with respect to those aspects which come under my responsibility, namely the custody and treatment of addicts. If my hon. friend will look at Votes and Proceedings of yesterday he will see there notice of a motion in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in these words:
-On Monday next-Bill intituled: "An act to provide for the control of narcotic drugs".
That legislation will be introduced, if the house gives leave, on Monday. The bill is printed and will be available for distribution at first reading.
I am pleased to be able to say that we have developed what we believe to be a sound and forward looking policy-and I am glad to be able to have some part in this-after so many years during which the Canadian people have been hoping for a forward step in connection with the treatment of drug

Supply-Justice
addicts. We believe we have developed a sound policy. I do not wish to be too optimistic, because it is an extremely difficult field, but I can assure the committee that the legislation, when introduced, will, I believe, come up to the expectations of the Canadian people and their desire to see, after all these years, a real effort made to come to grips with the drug problem.
The hon. member for Skeena asked me what is the situation with regard to the Eccles divorce case. I find that in reporting to the committee two days ago as to how I am dealing with allegations of irregularities in those divorce cases that are referred to me, I omitted one stage in the process that we have worked out. I believe I said that when these cases are referred to me I make certain inquiries including, for instance, an inquiry from the chairman of the Senate divorce committee, and gather all the material that seems to be relevant, and then transmit it to the appropriate provincial attorney general. I omitted to state that one of the stages in this process is to refer the material to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation so that the facts can be established. Then, when that is completed, all the documents including the R.C.M.P. report, are referred to the appropriate attorney general. The Eccles case is now under investigation but I have not made a report to the provincial attorney general, although we have had some preliminary correspondence with Toronto about this case.
In addition to the Eccles case there are three others which were referred to me and which are undergoing the same process, the Isenberg, Leduc and Godard cases. One other, the Radakovitz case, has been directed to my attention and I have referred it to Senator Roebuck for such information as he may be able to let me have from the records of the Senate committee. This case has not yet been referred to the police for investigation, but the other four have been referred.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether this action arises from the activities of the R.C.M.P. or from those of the attorney general himself, but it has been brought to my attention that the activities of the R.C.M.P. in the Eccles case have placed one of the parties to the case in an unfortunate position. I am informed that Mr. Eccles attempted to obtain a transcript of the evidence heard before the miscellaneous private bills committee last year when the case was reheard by that committee, but has been refused it because it is considered a private document. In his words that is what happened. If any two people should be entitled to obtain that transcript surely they

would be Mr. and Mrs. Eccles. The transcript should be made available to them.
I understand also that recently an R.C.M.P. officer of unknown rank whose name is Webster phoned Mr. Eccles in Toronto and requested an appointment the following day, to which request Mr. Eccles acceded. The following morning at 9:30 two R.C.M.P. officers visited Mr. Eccles and sought to obtain information which Mr. Eccles refused to give on the ground that he was alone and there were two officers present. Perhaps Mr. Eccles is sceptical about the police in this regard. The questions related to times and dates and other information given in evidence in the committee. The police officers indicated that they had read, reviewed and studied the transcript of evidence given before the committee.
Mr. Eccles was placed in an unfair position. Before any additional inquiries are made of any of the parties to or witnesses in the Eccles case, they should be given an opportunity to examine the transcript of evidence to refresh their memories, which may be hazy concerning some of the evidence given before that committee. I wonder whether somehow or other, perhaps through the minister in consultation with the R.C.M.P. or the attorney general, we could ensure that no further inquiries are made by the R.C.M.P. of individuals who have given evidence before the committee unless those individuals have had an opportunity to be in possession of the transcript of evidence.
I wish to point out one other thing here. On the morning the two R.C.M.P. officers went to see Mr. Eccles-when there were two of them and one of him, as it were-he was rather busy and asked if they could come back, which they did. In the meantime I understand Mr. Eccles got in touch with two other gentlemen-as witnesses, if anything, I suppose-who were reporters for the Toronto Star. When the two R.C.M.P. officers returned they found these two gentlemen there and refused to go any further into the inquiry or questioning they had originally intended to make.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think the reason for that is quite obvious, and the course taken was very proper. It is not the habit of R.C.M.P. officers to interview witnesses in the presence of newspaper reporters, especially when an inquiry of this nature is under way. I think we would be open to very severe criticism if we conducted any such inquiry in the presence of newspaper reporters. As far as I know there is no objection to Mr. Eccles or anybody else having somebody else there, but hardly a newspaper reporter, let alone two of them.

In connection with the availability of the transcript, I can only say that this is not something under my control or that of my department. As I understand my hon. friend, this document would be part of the record of the proceedings before the miscellaneous private bills committee and would be under the control of that committee. I am not aware of any reason why anyone should not secure a copy of the transcript. There may be a fee to pay for a transcript; I believe there is a scale of parliamentary fees laid down. However, the question of whether or not it is available is entirely one for the committee to determine; it is certainly not for the minister or the Department of Justice.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister is not saying that newspaper reporters are not in the same class as other people who may be present at discussions or inquiries. Regardless of that, I gather that the R.C.M.P. have obtained a copy of this particular transcript of evidence, and surely the same courtesy should be afforded Mr. Eccles. I understand he has a letter from some official which says he cannot have it because it is a private matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure he did not get it from me. I can only suggest again, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member take up that matter with the committee. I have no custody or control over documents that are in the possession of a committee of this house. My hon. friend is a member of that committee-


Frank Howard: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry; I understood him to be a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee.


Frank Howard: I was at one time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is in that committee and with the officials and chairman of that committee that this question should be taken up.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Shall vote 165 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Frank Howard: No, not yet, Mr. Chairman.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, vote 165 reads as follows:
Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada and $167,500 as grants to recognized private after-care agencies as may be approved by treasury board.
My first question is this. Would the minister care to give a progress report on the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation? Second, I refer the minister to 90205-6-345
Supply-Justice
pages 240 and 241 of the blue book. On page 240 there is the following item:
Grants to recognized private after-care agencies $167,500.
This pertains to the vote I just read. Then this item is found on page 241:
Grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies. $60,000.
My question is, are these votes the same? Why was it transferred from one to another, and what is the reason for the increase?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In answer to those questions, Mr. Chairman, first the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada meets once a year. It comprises representatives of the attorneys general of the provinces and the Attorney General of Canada. It always meets immediately prior to the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association. Its primary task is to consider all those suggestions that are from time to time brought forward with respect to amendments to the Criminal Code.
The reason for this conference, as will be appreciated, is that the criminal law is enforced through the medium of provincial attorneys general although it is enacted here in parliament. Therefore many years ago it was thought desirable to set up some regular machinery through which representatives of the provincial attorneys general could meet with representatives of the Attorney General of Canada to discuss the implications of various suggested amendments to the Criminal Code that are made from time to time. We make a small grant to that body.


Gabriel Roberge: Before the minister continues, Mr. Chairman, could we be informed of the reason for the contribution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am informed that every government contributes. I am told that other governments contribute the same amount. The purpose of the contribution is to meet the cost of printing, correspondence and stationery-printing reports and so on-because there is a good deal of work carried on by the secretary of the conference during the year while suggested amendments are accumulating. These all have to be processed and distributed. Then, as I said, the commissioners meet every year during the week prior to the Canadian Bar Association meeting and go through the material that has been prepared for their consideration.
The answer to the question with regard to grants to the recognized private after-care agencies is this. Until this year the grants were made from two sources, one the Department of Justice itself and the other the penitentiaries branch. When the parole board came into being two years ago, that portion

Supply-Justice
of the grant which had formerly been administered by the department was put under the parole board item. That is why last year there was an item, as is shown here, of $60,000.
This year, however, we decided there was not much point in haying two different items for grants to the same agencies, so we decided to consolidate them into one sum. We have placed it under the item for departmental administration. Last year the total provided was $150,000, of which $60,000 was paid by the parole board and $90,000 by the penitentiaries branch. This year there is an increase of $17,500 in the over-all amount, making a total of $167,500.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the Eccles case because it is the only case we have had of that nature which we have been able to follow. As reported on page 581 of Hansard for December 7, 1960, the hon. member for Skeena asked a question about the position of the Eccles case at that time. In answering that question the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice had this to say:
I am informed that the law officers of the crown, after a careful review of this case and all the facts as presented by the committee, have referred it to the department of the attorney general of Ontario for consideration as to possible action under the Criminal Code, particularly referring to perjury.
It has been referred to the provincial authorities because it is a matter concerning the administration of justice within a province.
My question is, how did the R.C.M.P. get back into this case? I realize that the minister, replying to another question addressed to him by myself on March 2, 1961, as reported at page 2575 of Hansard, said:
As the hon. member has pointed out, this matter was referred by us to the attorney general of Ontario, and since the initial reference certain further investigations into some aspects of the case are being conducted. The results of those investigations will in turn be brought to the attention of the department of the attorney general of Ontario. As my parliamentary secretary indicated to the house on December 7, 1960, this matter relates to the administration of justice in the province.
How did the R.C.M.P. get back into this case if the investigation was being conducted by the province of Ontario? I am told by Mr. Eccles that nobody has been to see him about this matter, apart from this investigation which took place very recently when, first of all, an R.C.M.P. plainclothes man identified himself as such and then wanted to discuss the case. Then followed the incident which the hon! member for Skeena has outlined. This would appear to indicate that either the minister has reopened the case himself, going

further than he indicated on March 2, or that the R.C.M.P. are acting on behalf of the Ontario attorney general.


James Ross Fulton: As I explained a few moments ago in answer to the last inquiry from the hon. member for Skeena, there is a stage at which the R.C.M.P. conducts an investigation into the facts as alleged and as they appear from the documents. The R.C.M.P. report on their investigation is referred to the appropriate attorney general. I told the committee a few moments ago this was the procedure we had worked out. The Eccles case was the first of these which came to us, so we thought we had better work out a suitable procedure. Early this year we wrote to the attorney general of Ontario advising him we had received these complaints. Then, in accord with the answer I have already given, there were preliminary discussions with the attorney general of Ontario. Later my deputy went to Toronto to interview the officials of the attorney general's department there in order to work out a completely satisfactory procedure.
It was pointed out by the attorney general of Ontario or by officials of his department that it was felt they should have the responsibility for any prosecutions for perjury or other ordinary offences under the Criminal Code which might take place in Ontario. However, in this case, and it might well be in other cases, the offences were alleged to have taken place in more than one province. In that particular case some of the offences and irregularities alleged were said to have taken place in Quebec. So the attorney general of Ontario suggested that since the records were initially all available here, and since in many of these cases there was activity going on in more than one province, it might be appropriate for the R.C.M.P. to conduct the investigation into whatever it was alleged had been improper and then, when we had concluded that investigation, to convey the files, the police report and all the other documents to the Attorney General of Ontario who would look at them from the point of view of whether prosecution is called for. This was the arrangement worked out, and it is the arrangement being followed in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
166.	Parole Act administration, $654,790.
Gabriel Roberge: May I ask the minister how many cases were reviewed last year under the Parole Act administration, how many reprieves were granted and how many conditional releases were given?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The total number of releases last year was 2,459.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

167.	Supreme Court of Canada-administration, $242,715.
Frank Howard: This item deals with the administration of the Exchequer Court of Canada. This high speed automation in the calling of the items is a bit too quick for me, because in the last couple of days we have been used to proceeding in a somewhat leisurely manner. I should like to make a few comments, if that is in order, about the Exchequer Court of Canada and its jurisdiction. I know there is on the order paper a notice of motion, or a resolution preceding a money bill, in the name of the Minister of Justice to appoint, I think, one additional puisne judge, if that is the proper expression, to the exchequer court; and without attempting to discuss the appointment of this additional judge and the use which might be made of his services I think it might be in order to deal with the present jurisdiction of the court and some of the subject matters which that jurisdiction covers.
This subject has been dealt with in parliament on a number of different occasions in the past both by way of bills moved, some of them in the name of the former hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and by way of debate and questions put to the Minister of Justice from time to time relating to the jurisdiction of the exchequer court and whether or not that jurisdiction was broad enough to cover a particular problem which has arisen from time to time. Members of the house have discussed whether or not it would be advantageous to overcome in an immediate way some of the problems confronting this house and the Senate with respect to another matter, namely the granting of divorces; and it is with regard to this field that I should like to make a few comments.
I wonder if I may call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 167 carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, before the luncheon recess I made a few preliminary remarks in respect of the Exchequer Court of Canada and its jurisdiction. I was suggesting that perhaps the jurisdiction of that court be extended to embrace the matter of divorce proceedings from the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland.


Jacques Flynn: Is the hon. member speaking in respect of the exchequer court, or the 90205-6-345i
Supply*-Justice
supreme court, because we are now on item 167 which has to do with the administration of the Supreme Court of Canada?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I understood this item covered the administration of the Exchequer Court of Canada.


Jacques Flynn: Item 167 has regard to the Supreme Court of Canada. The administration of the exchequer court is covered under item 168.


Frank Howard: That is not shown in the book of estimates which I possess. It appears here that item 167 covers the administration of the Exchequer Court of Canada, and shows the details at page 241. If this item, which we are presently considering, covers the administration of the Supreme Court of Canada, perhaps I should defer my remarks until we reach the next item.


Jacques Flynn: Perhaps there is some error here.


Mr. Macdonnell:: No, there is no error.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I have misread or misinterpreted that which the item covers. If so, perhaps I may be allowed to make my remarks in reference to the Exchequer Court of Canada during the discussion of item 168


Jacques Flynn: Shall item 167 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
168.	Exchequer Court of Canada-Administration, $151,110.
Frank Howard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for straightening me out in regard to this item. I assume that the remarks I made before the luncheon recess, during our consideration of vote 167, will apply here, and that it will be unnecessary for me to repeat them.
At the present time there are courts with jurisdiction to handle divorce cases in each province of Canada with the exception of Quebec and Newfoundland. As is well known, divorces from these provinces are brought to the House of Commons, handled by a committee of the other place, and then finally granted by an act of this parliament. The handling of divorces from those two provinces in this way was the subject of considerable discussion in this house last session. Undoubtedly the same sort of discussion will take place this session if the divorce bills presently before parliament are proceeded with. In any event, I feel sure that each member of this house, as well as each member of that other place and, of course, a considerable portion of the general public of Canada, feels that the present system in this regard is a cumbersome and inefficient one, and that

Supply-Justice
parliament should not be the arena or court dealing with these particular matters.
I realize, ol course, there is some objection in the province of Quebec to the setting up of courts with jurisdiction to handle divorce cases from that province. I am not aware that a similarly strong objection is taken to this procedure in the province of Newfoundland, perhaps because there are relatively few divorce cases arising in that province.
There have been alternative methods of proceeding with divorce cases from those two provinces suggested from time to time. Without going into detail in respect of those alternatives, I wish to deal with the jurisdiction of the exchequer court in this regard.
The suggestion that the exchequer court deal with divorce cases from those provinces is perhaps not completely acceptable as an alternative providing a complete solution to the problem. However, should the jurisdiction of the exchequer court be enlarged to cover divorce cases from Quebec and Newfoundland, I suggest they would be more expeditiously dealt with than they presently are, under the petition and private bill system, and perhaps at a lower cost. I also suggest that under this alternative system there should be a more careful consideration and review of the evidence presented in support of the individual divorce cases than is received under the present system.
While this alternative method is perhaps not completely acceptable, I feel the government should take cognizance of that suggestion, with a view to making a decision in respect of amending the Exchequer Court Act, increasing that court's jurisdiction to cover petitions for divorce originating in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. Even though this sort of approach would perhaps deal only with divorces on the grounds which exist at the present time, it would not be wise to extend the grounds as well as the jurisdiction at this time. This is a finality we must look toward. I do not think that further legislative action should be taken unilaterally by the federal government but only after consultation with the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland because certainly they have an interest in this particular matter. It may well be that after consultation with these two provinces it might be decided that this sort of action would be an acceptable alternative to that which exists at the moment. Perhaps it might be found desirable to have the cases heard by the exchequer court in the city of Ottawa if another course is found to be objectionable by the province of Quebec itself.

I say that the granting of such jurisdiction to the exchequer court would bring about a more expeditious dispatch of the cases because when one proceeds by way of a petition to parliament one must comply with the rules of the Senate in so far as petitions are concerned. There is a time limit within which those petitions may be presented. It is only during the early days after the opening of the session that such petitions can be accepted. It is only by consent that petitions which are presented later are accepted by the Senate and by the house. The system used at present prohibits an individual from proceeding with a divorce action when parliament is not in session. During recesses of parliament and in the time between the dissolution and the calling of a new parliament the present system prohibits people in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland from taking action for divorce. Then, the time limit established by the rules of this house and by the Senate with respect to the presentation of petitions confines this period to a relatively few days during the year.
For argument's sake, if one of the parties to a marriage discovered that his or her spouse had committed adultery in any province other than Quebec or Newfoundland action would be instituted in the courts almost immediately and, depending on the business before the court, the case could be heard within a relatively short period of time, and the court would come to a decision. If the same set of circumstances were to occur in Quebec or Newfoundland it would mean that the aggrieved party would have to wait until the opening of the next session of parliament, whenever that might be, before a petition could be presented and the machinery set in motion to deal with the particular case.
At the moment, under the present system of petitioning parliament for divorce-and this has been authenticated by lawyers who have been active in these particular cases and by petitioners and respondents as well -the costs amount to a minimum of some $1,500. This is for the open and shut case, without any extensive work being performed by private detectives and without any contestation on the part of the respondent, or the corespondent, that adultery did not take place. If there is protestation, if a case requires extensive, or any degree of investigation on the part of a private detective or detectives, the fees and costs range upwards from $1,500. I have heard figures cited ranging from $10,000 to $15,000 as the total cost

to the petitioner in obtaining evidence, providing witnesses, paying private bill fees, lawyers' fees and the like, in order to get the case before parliament.
I have heard figures cited by lawyers in other provinces with respect to an open and shut case, as they are referred to in provincial courts, and they run somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400 to $500. If we compare $400 to $500 with a minimum of $1,500 as the cost for parliamentary divorces we shall see that our present system is imposing a pretty heavy burden upon residents in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland when it comes to divorce actions. The saying has been bruited about to some extent that this system allows divorces for the rich and just misery and continued misery for the poor.
If the exchequer court were given this jurisdiction it would not be the complete answer to what exists at the moment because I doubt very much whether we could give to the exchequer court any jurisdiction in the field of alimony payments or any jurisdiction over the custody or welfare of children, since this is a matter which comes within provincial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, if we were to give this sort of jurisdiction to the Exchequer Court of Canada to deal with divorce actions arising in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland on the grounds that exist at the present time in the other provinces except Nova Scotia, where cruelty is also a ground for divorce, I think we would alleviate a great deal of the suffering, misery, and financial burdens which rest upon the shoulders of people in Quebec and Newfoundland who feel aggrieved and wish to take action for divorce. It would help somewhat in this regard and it would certainly remove from parliament what I consider to be a debasing task, namely the handling of divorce actions arising in those two provinces.
On a previous occasion the minister made some comments as to what might be done in this regard and I should certainly like to have his comments as to what studies have been made by his department and by the government with respect to this particular situation which has been advanced before in this parliament and in previous parliaments by members who are not here now. I know it is something that previous governments have considered. I think it would be well if the minister could indicate to the committee what progress is being made, if any, and what steps are being taken, if any, to deal with the divorce problem and specifically to deal with the suggestion which I have just made and which has been advanced in another form on other occasions by my friend from Timiskaming.
Supply-Justice


William Arnold Peters: I should also like the Minister of Justice to reply and tell us whether changes are contemplated. We have an indication from the resolution which has been presented that changes are contemplated in the Exchequer Court Act. Does this mean that there will be additions to that court? We have made the suggestion before, and I certainly do not want to go into it in detail now, that if there were one or two more judges appointed to the exchequer court they would be able to deal with this problem without any change in the set-up of the court. It should also be pointed out that we have suggested in our presentations that the clause in the Exchequer Court Act making provision for judges of that court to travel and hold sittings in various regions should not apply so far as divorce is concerned and that judges dealing with divorce would sit only in Ottawa.
We feel that there is merit in this suggestion. We seem to have run into a blank wall in relation to this very knotty problem and inasmuch as the government agreed to consider the question of divorce it seems to me they must have taken a look at this suggestion. I would ask the minister whether he has given consideration to this suggestion as a solution of a problem that we all want settled one way or another. I should like to know whether the resolution on the order paper making provision for an additional judge of the exchequer court has any relation to the matter of divorce.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, as the committee will appreciate, I am sure, from time to time consideration has been given to the matter of the transfer of jurisdiction over divorce to the exchequer court or other methods of dealing with the problem of granting divorces to those applicants who may apply from the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. I replied to a question on the matter some four years ago and in the course of my reply I said I would look into the matter and discuss it. I am not able to hold out much encouragement to the hon. member who has asked this question. I think the hon. member for Skeena has put his finger on the very difficulty.
Quite apart from the consideration of whether there is a constitutional or jurisdictional obstacle in the way of transferring jurisdiction to the exchequer court, such a course would involve the enactment of a divorce law, and the parliament of Canada would then be in the position of having to enact a divorce law for a province. My hon. friend can readily appreciate just what sort of problems that would create.

Supply-Justice
I do not think I really need to go much further. That sums up the whole of the problem. So far as the particular proposal is concerned, that is, the transferring of jurisdiction to the exchequer court, there are methods by which parliament itself may alter its own routine in the handling of these petitions for private bills dissolving marriage, but that is a matter for parliament to determine. Some hon. members have given study to this matter and, as is known, a private member introduced a bill in this chamber. The disposition of that bill is within the knowledge of the hon. member. It seems to me this does establish that parliament itself has the power to make what alterations it wishes in the method by which it deals with this matter, but there would have to be agreement, of course, upon the course to be followed.


William Arnold Peters: Has the minister considered the simple expedient of changing the one clause with respect to domicile and making provision in matters of divorce for Canadian domicile only rather than provincial domicile as at present? If provision were made for Canadian domicile in matters of divorce, would that not eliminate the problem that the minister has raised? The dominion of Canada divorce act of 1930 would then apply if that one change were made with respect to domicile. The only problem that would then face the government would be to make the necessary minor changes to provide for the addition of one or two judges to the exchequer court to deal with this specific matter solely. These judges would not travel but would sit here in the city of Ottawa to hear divorce petitions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, I do not think that the matter is quite as straightforward as has been suggested in the remarks just made. My understanding is that the act of 1930 is not a substantive law of divorce. It deals primarily with the right of a wife to petition notwithstanding that her husband is not domiciled in one of the provinces of Canada. It seems to me that the implication of what is being suggested, however it was carried out, is that we would then have in the exchequer court an alternative court of divorce for all of Canada. There is no substantive law of divorce enacted by way of a federal statute. The law on this matter is the law that happens to be applicable in the various provinces by virtue of the sources, mainly in the United Kingdom, that were applicable at the time when the province entered confederation. So you actually have different laws of divorce applicable to the different provinces of Canada and, as I understand the legal situation, there is no single federal substantive divorce law in effect.


William Arnold Peters: It is true that in the case of provinces like Nova Scotia, British Columbia, I believe, and one or two others, there was a law respecting divorce in their constitution at the time of confederation. Is it not true, however, that the Dominion of Canada did pass a law and that law is the only one that can be made applicable by any province that did not have such a provision at the time of confederation? The 1930 act is in effect the only law that can be made applicable in such a province. All we are suggesting is that the exchequer court is an alternative for those provinces that do not wish to do this.
I am suggesting that the only change that would be necessary would be to alter the requirement respecting domicile that is now in the act. As the situation is now, the domicile is that of the husband unless the wife has been deserted by the husband for a certain period of time. In that case the domicile of the wife applies. It seems to me that the act of 1930 applies to those provinces that have entered confederation since 1867. If, for example, the Northwest Territories becomes a province, the only act that can apply is the dominion act as it exists now and which is now being applied to that territory. We suggest that if provision were made for Canadian domicile in matters of divorce only it would be possible to bring a divorce action in many provinces and in those in which it was not possible such actions could be brought before the federal court. I would think that legally the government already has this right if they wish to apply it. I do not want to belabour the point but it seems to me that this is a very easy way of solving the problem.
I should like to refer in passing to what the minister said about the private member's bill that we passed. I believe this action was taken by all members of the house in their desire to find a solution to the problem but the other place has not seen fit to endorse the action. The minister will recall that the bill only applies to this year in any event. I think it has been the desire of the house that this problem be solved and that this solution should not be considered to be permanent, but only temporary in order to eliminate what many of us think is a moral problem. I refer to ruling upon situations about which we are not aware and about which we are not in a position to do anything. I am not a lawyer and I do not know all the legal implications, but from a study of this matter I would think it warrants new and immediate consideration because this suggestion would seem to me to be a solution of the problem.
I should like to add this. The provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland are in the position where they do not want to or are not able,

for various reasons, to establish courts of their own in this field. It seems to me that the objection which citizens of those provinces have should be removed and they should have the opportunity of bringing their cases to a federal court, if that is the only way open to them.
I think this objection will be met as long as we do not ask the province of Quebec, for example, to have exchequer court judges hearing these cases in that province. I think this would be the least offensive method of handling what is considered to be, and probably rightly so, a major social problem in that province. I do not want to belabour this question, but I think the minister would be well advised to give consideration to this matter because I see less objection to this method than to any other which I have examined, and I have examined seven or eight methods that could be used to solve this problem.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member may well have a point there and we will be glad to give further consideration to it. However, I think I am right in saying that if there is to be jurisdiction established in the exchequer court, to make it effective we would have to enact a substantive law of divorce applicable to the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. It might be done with reference to the old English matrimonial causes act, which happens to be in force in British Columbia, but it would have to be an act of this parliament which brought into force a substantive law of divorce for those provinces.
I need only refer to that fact for my hon. friends to see the extent to which it bristles with problems. I am sure we are all interested in finding some solution that will be satisfactory to all concerned and we will be glad to give further consideration to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I had initially understood the minister's remarks to be a delightful way of saying no, but I see he has revised that somewhat and the suggestion is now going to be considered. I do not know whether the minister has the same sort of file as his colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources-I think his colleague calls it an active consideration file -but I think this is something that should be put into that file for consideration.
I should like to deal with the minister's point that parliament, by following this course, would be enacting a substantive law of divorce for two provinces. If we followed the course advanced, that of giving jurisdiction to the exchequer court for these two
Supply-Justice
provinces, I think this is what we would be doing. But this course is not unprecedented in Canada.
The four western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have some pre-confederation, United Kingdom law that is applicable. This has something to do with the original jurisdiction of those courts. As anyone who has read about this will recall, at one time in the 1920's and before, people resident in Ontario used to petition parliament for divorce in the same manner as do residents of Quebec and Newfoundland. In the 1920's-1927, 1928 or in that general period-the founder of the C.C.F., the late J. S. Woodsworth, raised this question of divorce in parliament on grounds somewhat similar to those advanced last session by the hon. member for Timis-kaming, myself and other hon. members.
As a result of that the parliament of Canada -I think this was some time in the late 1920's -enacted a substantive law for the province of Ontario. That substantive law was the law of the United Kingdom as of a particular date. I forget the date; I think it was somewhere around 1857, but I am not certain about that. In any event, the parliament of Canada took action some 30 years ago to enact a substantive law of divorce for one of the provinces of Canada, namely Ontario.
There were difficulties to overcome at that time in connection with the relationship of the province of Ontario to the federal government. I do not know how the government of Canada and the government of Ontario reached agreement on this question or whether they even discussed the possibility of reaching agreement, but certainly it is not beyond the realm of possibility that parliament, having enacted a substantive law of divorce for a province in the past, can do so again. I do not think this raises any insurmountable problem with regard to taking a similar course of action in connection with two other provinces of Canada.
I think it does require, in addition to study or consideration by the minister and the government, perhaps direct consultation in a private way, if that is desirable, with the attorneys general or the governments of the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland to see whether or not some mutually agreeable arrangement could be worked out that would be acceptable to the residents and the governments of those provinces and the government of Canada. I suggest this course be followed by the minister.
I presume that the minister is in contact with the Attorney General of the province of Quebec about other matters concerned with divorce, namely allegations of perjury, collusion, condonation or the like. Surely it

Supply-Justice
would not be beyond the bounds of reason to ask that some preliminary, if only preliminary, discussions take place-if they have not taken place already-with the governments of these two provinces to see whether or not some mutual agreement can be reached on this matter.
I think that parliament, having enacted a substantive law of divorce for the province of Ontario some 30 years ago could do so again. No great difficulties have arisen since that time, and no constitutional problem arose then. Apparently it was perfectly constitutional for the parliament of Canada to do this in the 1920's, and it would appear to be perfectly constitutional to do it in 1961, 1962 or some time in the 1960's with respect to the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, one thing that has always struck me as I read the estimates of the Department of Justice from year to year has been the salary provided for the registrars of the two most important courts in this country, namely the exchequer court and the Supreme Court of Canada. I note that the salary of the registrar in this item is $9,000 which is less than that which is paid to a junior counsel in the justice department. The justice department have a number of counsel who are paid from $17,500 or more, downwards. Here is a man who has a rank I think of a deputy minister and who is handling very important duties in one of our highest courts in the land, who is taxing bills running into tens of thousands of dollars, travelling between or from Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland handling both admiralty cases and other cases coming under federal jurisdiction. Whatever has happened-and this is not the fault of this administration only-in the justice department over so many years cannot be understood, namely why the registrars of the Supreme Court of Canada should be paid only $11,500 when the counsel of the justice department are paid up to $17,500 or $20,000, and why the registrar of the exchequer court should receive less than the amount received by the registrar of the supreme court in local jurisdictions in the province of Ontario.
I should like to have the opinion of the Minister of Justice on this matter. I would rather be assured by him that something is going to be done. As a matter of fact if he will look back at the salary provided for this year in the previous item for the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada he will find that it is shown at $11,500 and that of the deputy registrar at only $10,500. As far as the registrar of the Exchequer Court of Canada is concerned, his salary is $9,000,

but the range of deputy registrar runs up to $9,800. I feel that the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada should receive the salary of a junior deputy minister in the government and certainly the same comment applies with respect to the registrar of the Exchequer Court of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not too happy about the salary levels in the courts, I must say. However, my hon. friend knows that it is not always the easiest thing in the world to get salaries revised. There has been some change in the position to which he last referred. I am trying to see if I can get the details in this regard from my officials. There has been a change, I believe, since the book was printed. The information I have now as to the registrar of the Exchequer Court of Canada is that his salary is authorized at $11,000. It is true that the deputy registrar's salary still ranges between $8,120 and $9,800. For the Supreme Court of Canada the registrar's salary is $13,000. Therefore, it will be seen that there have been increases of $2,000 in each case.


Jean-Thomas Richard: While that is something a little bit better I think the minister will agree with me that owing to the fact-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry to interrupt in order to correct myself. In the case of the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada the increase was $1,500, from $11,500 to $13,000.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The minister realizes that this is his department and that this matter is not subject to the civil service commission. As a man of law and one who has had contact with the courts, I think he realizes that having regard to the duties of these two officials, these increases are hardly in keeping with the dignity of the office which these men occupy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This item includes not only exchequer court judges salaries and, I take it, also their travelling expenses or travelling allowances, but also includes the salaries of district judges in admiralty and their travelling allowances. Can the minister give us an indication, just to show the extent of the work of these two judicial divisions, what the travelling allowances of the district judges in admiralty are and what has been the travelling allowances of the judges of the exchequer court?


James Ross Fulton: The salaries of the district judges in admiralty are as follows: Four at $1,000; one at $800; one at $600; three at $333.33. With regard to their travelling allowances may I say this. The travelling allowance of the president and the puisne

judges of the exchequer court are included this year in the estimates at $7,500. The last figure I have-that is the actual expenses for 1959-60-is $7,649. The travelling allowance for the admiralty judges is $500. The actual expenditures in 1959-60 was $148.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
169. Administration of justice in the Northwest Territories including the Northwest Territories territorial court, $154,794.
William Arnold Peters: On this vote, I am interested in obtaining some information. I notice that on the order paper today we have a resolution in the name of the minister. Its purpose is to provide for two additional puisne judges of the superior court of Quebec and one additional judge for the court of appeal of British Columbia. I should like to ask the minister this question. Are these judges allowed to take work outside of their own field, particularly in matters pertaining to provincial jurisdiction, and are they allowed to receive remuneration for so doing? The reason I ask these questions is that I have heard a number of complaints about superior court judges who, on being asked to sit on such and such a case, have said, "no, I am not available". They have said they were writing something in connection with arbitration,-


Paul Joseph James Martin: A conciliation report.


William Arnold Peters: -a report on either arbitration cases or conciliation cases for boards on which they sat. There are numbers, I understand, who normally would be available to travel from one part to another to fill in and take cases not directly in their own area but they are unable to do this in many instances. They say, "I cannot go today because I have an arbitration board report to write", or "I have a conciliation board report to write" or "I am sitting on such and such a board". We are not referring to those judges who come to the minister and ask him for permission to undertake a certain job for the provincial government, such as the two judges in Quebec who, I understand, have asked for and received permission to make an inquiry into the whole judicial set-up in that province. That is not what we are referring to. We refer to the other jobs that superior court judges are doing. The questions I wish to ask are these. Do they have the right to do this? Do they have to get permission from the minister? Are they allowed to receive remuneration while they are doing work in a provincial jurisdiction?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As to whether judges can sit outside the territorial limits of the province in which they are appointed, the answer is 90205-6-346
Supply-Justice
yes with regard to the judges of the court of appeal of British Columbia. By an amendment last year we provided for a change in the constitution of the appeal court in the Yukon territory. Formerly, it had been the appeal court of British Columbia and an appellant from the Yukon had to go down to Vancouver or Victoria to have his appeal heard. Last year we changed that, so it is possible now to constitute a court of appeal and have it sit in the Yukon territory. A judge of the court of appeal of British Columbia may go up and sit with other judges designated to constitute that court of appeal. He would receive no extra remuneration for that work but would, of course, be entitled to his travelling expenses. This is one of the reasons why provision is made for the salary of an extra judge of the court of appeal of British Columbia.


William Arnold Peters: I take it the arrangement which the minister has described has proved to be a satisfactory one. Has any consideration been given to making a similar arrangement in the northern areas of Alberta, Saskatchewan and, possibly, Manitoba to extend the scope of the court of appeal so that it might hear whatever appeals arise in the Northwest Territories?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My recollection is that we did the same thing with respect to the Northwest Territories last year by the use of the court of appeal of Alberta, Yellowknife being the administrative capital as it were. That is not strictly accurate, but it is the main centre and it is the place where the judge of the Northwest Territories presides. It is most conveniently reached from Edmonton. That is why we avail ourselves of the services of a judge from the court of appeal of Alberta in connection with appeals in the Northwest Territories.


William Arnold Peters: The minister said something about superior court judges within provinces who were taking extra work in arbitration and conciliation proceedings. The charge is being made that the reason why cases are piling up in the superior courts is because some of these judges are taking work outside their jurisdiction. Such a practice is said to have given rise to delays in judicial proceedings, and I should like to ask the minister whether he is consulted and whether his permission is obtained before extra work of this kind is undertaken. I should further like to ask whether the law as it now stands allows superior court judges to accept remuneration for work done outside their jurisdiction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Judges Act provides in effect that if authorized by the lieutenant

Supply-Justice
governor in council a judge of a superior court may act as a commissioner or arbitrator on any commission of inquiry or arbitration to which he may be appointed by any authority exercisable in that behalf by the lieutenant governor in council, so the act does provide authority for judges to act as commissioners or arbitrators. The act also states clearly that no judge so acting shall receive any extra remuneration. This is, then, in effect, made part of his judicial duties and a judge is not to receive extra pay in respect of such extra duties, though he is entitled to transportation expenses and living allowances which may be required in the course of his duty as commissioner or arbitrator.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I could pursue this question a little further. I understand the minister to be referring now to duties such as those of an arbitrator appointed, say, pursuant to a provincial arbitration act where decisions involving property and land have to be reached with respect to valuation. The question raised by my hon. friend from Tim-iskaming concerns the work of judges as chairman of arbitration boards and conciliation boards in labour matters. I wonder how this aspect of judicial duties is governed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member would have to consult the statutes that are applicable. The words used in the Judges Act are these:
-may act as commissioner or arbitrator on any commission, inquiry or arbitration for which he may be appointed under any authority in that behalf exercisable by the governor in council or the lieutenant governor in council respectively.
So if the provincial statute authorized the appointment by order in council of a judge to act as chairman of an arbitration board, or as a member of that board, it would come within the provisions of the Judges Act.


Frank Howard: But suppose the appointment was made by a cabinet minister? For instance, as I recall the labour relations act of the province of British Columbia it is the minister of labour who appoints the chairman of the conciliation board, not the lieutenant governor in council. I assume that in such a case the provisions of the act would not apply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is some danger in my making precise answers on general questions, but I would say, generally speaking that in such cases the consent of the governor in council here would have to be obtained. If it involves an appointment other than one that the lieutenant governor in council might be authorized to make, then the judge should obtain consent here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This question was discussed, the minister will recall, in the first session after 1957. I have not referred to Hansard to verify whether or not my memory is correct, but I believe the minister said at that time that he proposed to look into the question I then raised. My question arose out of a direction given by the chief justice of the trial division in the province of Ontario that those judges who served under his immediate direction should confine themselves exclusively to their judicial duties. There was concern about their participation in the work of boards of all kinds, arbitration boards, conciliation boards and other kinds of quasi-judicial bodies. I was prompted at the time to ask the minister what his view was with regard to such judges who came under his jurisdiction, judges of the Supreme Court of Canada particularly. I do not know whether this would apply with any force at all to judges of the exchequer court. I asked this question in order to ascertain what the view of the minister was.
Since that time the hon. gentleman has had an opportunity to acquire considerably more experience in his administrative duties and he may be in a position to tell the committee today what he thinks about this problem. On one hand we have the labour unions who have very strong views, I take it, against the use of judges on conciliation boards and the like. There are others interested in the administration of justice, members of the legal profession and others, who believe that the judicial function is one which as far as possible should be confined to its own particular field. Has the minister any views which he would care to express to the committee at this time?
I know the minister says that under the Judges Act a judge may act with respect to any matter which arises out of a direction given by the lieutenant governor in council but as the hon. member for Skeena has pointed out there are certain types of conciliation boards in labour disputes which afford to the minister in charge of the department and, in some cases, to the deputy minister, authority to designate an individual or individuals as a member or members of a conciliation board. We are developing in Canada, as they are in the United States and as they are, of course, in Great Britain -I suppose it is general in all modern industrial societies-a set of circumstances which requires the use of judicial experience and the judicial temperament outside the actual determination of matters which are directly related to the interpretation of the law in civil or criminal cases. There are many instances where, I am sure, the judicial

technique exercised by a properly appointed judicial person could make a much more useful contribution than people who are not trained in the sifting of evidence, and in the process of adjudication which lend themselves to more reliable determinations. I should be interested to know what the minister feels in this regard.
I realize in regard to the use of judges of the Supreme Court of Canada there is a divided view; a view, I take it, which is divided in that court itself. Different ministers of justice have taken different views with regard to the use of judges of the final court of appeal in respect of matters involving labour disputes, royal commissions and the like. I am not at this moment quarreling with their participation, but seeking to ascertain the view of the minister in regard to this matter. It becomes a matter of increasing importance in respect of the Supreme Court of Canada because, since the abolition of appeals to the judicial committee, that court has taken on an authority and, in consequence, a juridical prestige, which I am sure we are all pleased to see, and hope will grow.
Judges of the United States supreme court do not, I believe, take part in extrajudicial activities, with perhaps the exception of the chief justice, and their work is confined essentially to the work on the bench. I believe I am right in saying that in the United Kingdom it has not been the practice that those who sit on the judicial committee take part in commissions and the like. Excuse me, I am wrong in saying that. In the case of members of the judicial committee there are well known individuals, such as Lord MacMillan, who have taken part in royal commissions and the like. However, in the United Kingdom, I believe it has not been the practice for those judges who sit on the final court of appeal, as it were, in respect of domestic matters, to serve in a non-judicial capacity: I should like to know what the situation is here in this regard, and I address my remarks particularly in respect of the Supreme Court of Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word or two before the Minister of Justice speaks. I think the point raised by the hon. member for Essex East is of very great importance, and I should like the minister to recall that a former highly respected member of this house, known to both the minister and the hon. member for Essex East, the late John Hackett, had very strong reservations in respect of judges being appointed special duties because he feared, if they were drawn into matters which were controversial, particularly election petitions 90205-6-346J
Supply-Justice
and things of that kind, the absolute impartiality which is so essential to the performance of their duties on the bench might be impaired by this extrajudicial function. I mention that fact because I know it will be of interest to the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, at this stage I do not wish to go beyond what I said on earlier occasions, to which my friend the hon. member for Essex East has referred. I do not in any sense retract anything I said at that time, but at the moment I do not wish to go beyond that. At that time I gave a fairly extensive outline of my views regarding this question.
I can re-emphasize, however, my view that it is one thing for a judge to be asked to sit in a quasi-judicial capacity, as chairman of an arbitration board, where he is exercising at least a quasi-judicial function in the arbitration of issues, but it is a very different thing for a judge to act as chairman of a conciliation board, where he is mediating between parties, which seems to me to be foreign to judicial functions. That is almost inevitably bound to make him, in the eyes of one or other of the parties, a partisan, when the results are given. The results will favour one or other of the parties, because the judge has been carrying on mediation. It seems to me that a clear distinction can be drawn in this area and, as I said earlier, in saying so, I am not making any firm pronouncement regarding the use of judges in respect of arbitration boards. I think this practice should be resorted to rarely so as not to become the custom, because judges should spend the vast majority of their time in performing their essential judicial functions on the bench.
I should also perhaps give some indication of the attitude of this government toward the matter, certainly so far as the supreme and exchequer courts of Canada are concerned. Evidence of this attitude is found in the fact that since we assumed office in June of 1957, we have not appointed any judge from either of these courts to any outside board, commission or inquiry. That is a record which I hope we will be able to maintain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the minister quoted earlier from a statute concerning what a superior court judge may do in respect of duties outside his court functions, if that judge is appointed by the lieutenant governor in council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Those provisions are to be found in sections 37 and 38 of the Judges Act. Perhaps I should make quite clear what I have said. I make no prohibition against the appointment of judges to the functions which

Supply-Justice
are described there. There may be cases where that is proper, and where, indeed, the only person acceptable under certain circumstances is a person holding high judicial office, and I do not want anyone to interpret me as saying that this must never and will never happen. I should like to be interpreted as saying that it is my view that this should happen as seldom as possible, if ever, and so far we have been able to live within those guiding lines.
I have referred the hon. member to sections 37 and 38 of the Judges Act. I should remind him that judges of superior courts in the provinces are judges of provincial courts. It is true they are appointed and paid by the federal government, and there are very good judicial reasons for that, but once they are appointed, they are judges of provincial courts. We would not be well founded in taking the position that the provinces cannot, by appropriate legislation, decide what will be the duties of those provincial judges, making those duties part of their judicial functions. However, the scheme of the act, as it presently is, reflects the importance of maintaining the position that this should not be a casual thing, but must be something for which legislative authority exists in the province, and the particular exercise of that authority, in so far as making appointments is concerned, is vested in the lieutenant governor in council.


Frank Howard: I gather that if it is not within the authority of the lieutenant governor in council, but is a ministerial authority, then it is subject to the governor in council?


James Ross Fulton: That is correct.


Frank Howard: Perhaps the minister could indicate how often the governor in council has granted consent in comparison with the number of requests for consent which have been received during the past year?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Requests which are received are comparatively few; I should suggest in the neighbourhood of three or four per year. I do not give that figure as a firm one, but I am sure I should realize if there were more than three or four. I do not think there are more requests than that received per year.


Heber Edgar Smith: Mr. Chairman, I should like to-


Frank Howard: Perhaps I may be allowed to follow this subject to its conclusion. I take it this procedure applies also in respect of appointments of chairmen to boards dealing with things such as labour disputes, in that

the consent of the governor in council must be acquired if a ministerial appointment is involved?


James Ross Fulton: I certainly hope that is the case because, as I interpret the act, requests should be made here.


Frank Howard: When a judge is appointed as a chairman of a conciliation or arbitration board under ministerial authority with the consent of the two parties to the dispute, and with the consent of the governor in council, what is the position in respect of remuneration for his services?


James Ross Fulton: That is covered by the next section of the Judges Act, section 39, which says:
No judge shall receive any remuneration in addition to his judicial salary for acting as commissioner or arbitrator-*
And so on. Then, it is made subject to the provisions of subsection 3 which says he may receive travelling and living expenses which he ordinarily incurs while carrying on his duties as commissioner or arbitrator.


Frank Howard: He may receive fees as chairman of a conciliation board? That is not prohibited?


James Ross Fulton: I think this section is clear. It reads as follows:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (3), no judge shall receive any remuneration in addition to his judicial salary for acting as commissioner or arbitrator-
Then there are some other words which do not make the situation any clearer. Then we come to subsection 2 which reads:
Subsection (1) does not affect the right of any judge to receive remuneration under the provisions of any dominion or provincial statute in force on the 1st day of July, 1920.
Do not ask what the historical background of that is. I continue:
(3) A judge acting as commissioner or arbitrator pursuant to subsection (2) of section 38, or as administrator or deputy of the Governor General or performing any duty or service he is required to perform for or on behalf of the government of Canada or the government of any province, may receive, in addition to his judicial salary, such moving or transportation expenses and living allowance as the governor in council or the lieutenant governor in council, as the case may be, may fix by general or special order.


Heber Edgar Smith: Mr. Chairman, some remarks were made a few minutes ago concerning the dignity of the bench. It seems to me it does not add dignity to the bench nor to our legal profession to have retired judges returning to practice before the bar and the courts where for many years they sat as presiding judges. I think this criticism is especially valid, as the hon. member for Essex East would agree, in matters in the

Supreme Court of Canada which, of course, is now the highest court in the land. One would hope that those retired judges are not forced to take this course of action because of economic necessity owing to the inadequacy of their pensions.
As a footnote to the same comment, Mr. Chairman, it has been noted and brought to my attention that in Ontario at least certain judges have used the title of their former position in furtherance of their own professional interests when they have returned to practice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The practice of judges retiring from the courts, of course, is not one of recent origin. As a member of the bar, I can very well understand the concern of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken with regard to this matter. I rose not so much to pursue this aspect of the problem, although I am aware of its existence and its importance, as to ask what is the position, for instance, with regard to a county court judge-I do not want to identify the person because I have no reason to suspect his good intentions, nor do I in any way wish to reflect on the integrity of the person -who takes over the chairmanship, for instance, and the administration of the liquor control commission in one of our large provinces? I do not know whether the minister knows to whom my remarks are directed, but I wish to know whether that person has the right to continue to be regarded as a judge? What is -his status? Is he still a county court judge? I know this situation does not apply to the present chairman of the civil service commission who, on taking over that office, abandoned the right to the privileges that flows from the appointment as one of Her Majesty's judges in the supreme court of Ontario. I do not know whether that applies to his title. I think he bears the appellation "Mr." and not "hon. Mr. Justice". What I rose particularly to ask was this. What is the situation with regard to the particular assignment given to the individual who was a good county court judge and who I am sure is a man of great integrity, who continues to be regarded as a judge and continues to be called a judge, but who is administering an important position in a government department?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The situation in that regard is not altogether clear, Mr. Chairman, and is one to which I hope to be in a position to bring some clarity at a time when I am able to present some general provisions revising the Judges Act in this regard. I cannot really say much more. If the hon. gentleman is really interested in following it up I might, with the greatest of good will, suggest that
Supply-Justice
possibly the answer to the situation is within his knowledge or his ability to obtain because it arose during the period of time when the government of which he was a member was holding office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want the matter to be left on that basis because I think on reflection the minister will regard that as not the way to leave it. It is true that the particular individual was appointed to this provincial post at a time when I happened to be in the government. The individual was appointed to this provincial post by a provincial government, and that appointment had nothing to do, of course, with his appointment as a judge, nominated for that purpose by a minister of justice serving the crown in the right of the federal government.
There is no law, of course, to prevent a judge duly appointed from taking an appointment of that kind. The minister may have some legislation in mind because he speaks about clarifying the situation sometime in the near future. It may be that the way to do it is by legislation, but it does seem to me that when we are so justifiably proud of our judicial system and of those who serve on the bench, whether in county court, district court or in superior court positions, we should be jealous about any act that in any way detracts from the dignity, the prestige and the authority of those courts and of those who sit in those courts. Of course the federal government cannot say to a provincial government, "You shall refrain from appointing a judge appointed by us to act in a purely administrative capacity". In the absence of legislative authority for that kind of direction the federal government cannot say that. It may be, as I said, that it will be necessary to provide that kind of enactment. The minister meets with attorneys general frequently, not only at constitutional conferences but on other occasions. It seems to me an effective way to deal with this situation is to have it clearly understood that judges are not to be used by federal or provincial executive bodies for that kind of purpose.
I am not now talking about sitting on commissions or boards. When I made my comment a few moments ago I did not express a view as to the merits. I was simply putting forward a statement for the purpose of ascertaining the minister's thinking in the matter. But appointing a judge to something that is not only extrajudicial but is entirely nonjudicial and nothing more than an administrative function is an altogether different matter, and I think it is a wrong use of experienced judicial personnel. I am not asking the minister to take steps now to cause something that has happened to be corrected.

Supply-Justice
However, I think it is only by a discussion of this kind that we can ascertain what is in the mind of the minister, and the discussion will serve to help him in the formulation of policy for the future.
I have no doubt that these things were done during the time that another government was in office, and I am not raising the matter in a critical way. The minister has said that during the time the present government has been in power and he has been Minister of Justice no judge of the Supreme Court of Canada has been used in any way that would place that judge in a position where he would be competing in a non-judicial function with some other person serving, let us say, on a board of arbitration. I think the minister is to be commended for that. I think that our supreme court judges in particular ought not to be used except in judicial functions so that they cannot be placed in a position where they are open to any kind of suggestion that has anything other than a judicial aspect to it. I raised the particular matter not because I expect the minister to correct the situation. He has said enough to satisfy me with regard to that situation, and it may be that this discussion will serve to encourage him to raise the matter when he discusses these questions further with the attorneys general.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate very much indeed what the hon. member has said. I think he and I share the same approach to this problem.


Frank Howard: Before we carry this item, would the minister explain what is the substantive law of divorce that applies in the Northwest Territories and also the Yukon?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the statute that set up the Northwest Territories in 1870, I believe, the effect was that the matrimonial causes act then in force in the United Kingdom was made applicable in the Northwest Territories.


Frank Howard: Did I understand the minister to say that this was contained in a statute establishing the Northwest Territories?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Frank Howard: It says in the statute that the law of divorce will be that of the United Kingdom?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In effect, the laws of England as in force at the 1st of July, 1870, shall apply in the Northwest Territories to the extent they are applicable and are not excluded by special provisions of the laws of Canada. Similarly, when British Columbia entered confederation the same general situation was brought about. There was a provision in a
CMr. Martin (Essex East) .1
statute at the time of entry into confederation which had the effect of making applicable in British Columbia the laws of England as they were in force at certain dates.


Frank Howard: Did I understand the minister to say that it was the statute which provided that British Columbia would have certain divorce laws? I understood it to be a court case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I had not intended to say that the statute made specific reference to divorce. The statute said that the laws of England in effect shall apply and, as a matter of fact, it took a couple of cases in the privy council to determine precisely what laws of England with respect to divorce and matrimonial causes were in effect then and were therefore applicable in British Columbia.


William Arnold Peters: How many divorce cases have there been in the Northwest Territories in the past year and where were they heard?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not have any figures on that because these are civil proceedings and therefore they do not come to my attention nor do I have any responsibility for them. I assume they would be heard in Yellowknife which is the judicial centre of the Northwest Territories and the place where Mr. Justice Sissons presides. Mr. Justice Sissons does go on circuit and I suppose he could hear a divorce case in a place other than Yellowknife but I do not know that he ever has. Yellowknife would be the normal place where these cases would be tried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Combines Investigation Act-
171. Restrictive trade practices commission, $94,840.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think the practice followed last year and the year before, if not in other years, was that we dealt with the combines investigation branch and the restrictive practices commission under the same item, and I should like to follow somewhat the same approach. Under the activities of the branch I should like to raise again a specific and important matter relating to what is loosely referred to as the drug industry or the ethical pharmaceutical industry. I have dealt with this matter a number of times in the past, and recently a fair amount of publicity has been given to the activities of the Kefauver committee in the United States and also the statement of evidence by the director of the branch to the restrictive trade practices commission.
I should like to refer briefly to an article by Charles King which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of December 11, 1959, in which he deals with certain statements by

Mr. Stanley Conder of the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers' association with regard to the prices of certain types of drugs, an exchange of comments between myself and Mr. Conder through the newspapers and statements I made in the house.
I want to point out first that the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers' association, according to the latest information I have, has some 60 pharmaceutical houses or companies affiliated with it and represents, by its own statement, 90 per cent of the industry in Canada. Mr. Conder made some comments about the profit picture of the Canadian industry. He pointed out that the average profit after taxes was 6.5 per cent which he said was "not out of line with the general economy".
The difficulty, of course, in dealing with whether or not that is a correct figure is that a large number of the drug companies in Canada are subsidiaries of United States parent companies primarily or in some cases of companies in other lands. Therefore the Canadian financial picture is hidden in the annual reports of the parent company and is not shown as a separate item, so it is not possible to deal with that particular point.
I would say that the drug industry of Canada is controlled primarily by parent companies in the United States although some of the parent companies are in Switzerland, the United Kingdom or France. Primarily though it is the United States drug industry which controls the drug industry in Canada. Therefore I think we are entitled to draw some comparisons between the industry in the United States in the light of its examination by various public bodies and the industry in Canada.
In June of 1958 the federal trade commission of the United States published what it called an economic report on antibiotics manufacturing which deals with profits in the industry. I wish to make only a passing reference to it before dealing with the Canadian industry. On page 216 there is a table showing the net profit as a percentage of assets for certain antibiotic and other pharmaceutical manufacturers from 1950 to 1956. In it are named the companies and figures are set out for their pharmaceutical operations as distinguished from their antibiotic operations, and as separated from the total consolidated financial picture if indeed proprietary medicines were dealt with also. It shows so far as pharmaceutical operations are concerned, under profits as a percentage of assets for the year 1960, that the company of Smith, Kline and French had a percentage profit of 74.5. I mention this company because it has a Canadian subsidiary. G. D. Searle and Company had a profit of 55.04 per cent.
Supply-Justice
That company also has a Canadian subsidiary. Schering Corporation Limited had a profit of 50 per cent. There are other companies listed here but I picked those three out because they are parent companies in the United States with subsidiaries in Canada. The weighted average for 10 companies is 37 per cent, which is an increase of 10 percentage points over the picture in 1950 for the same companies, increasing from 26.3 per cent in 1950 to 37.5 per cent in 1956.
In Canada, as I say, it is a bit more difficult to pick out these particular figures. However, there are some figures available. With respect to the various companies, although not necessarily in this order, I mention the companies involved: Abbott Laboratories Limited; Ames Co. of Canada; Ayerst, McKenna and Harrison; Bristol Laboratories; British Drug Houses; Burroughs Wellcome & Co.; Canada Pharmacal Co.; Ciba Co. Ltd.; Cyanamid of Canada; Dymond; Charles E. Frosst; Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.; Frank W. Horner Ltd.; Eli Lilly Co.; Merck & Co.; Parke-Davis & Co.; Pfizer Corp.; Pitman-Moore of Canada; Poulenc; Riker Pharmaceutical Co.; Schering Corp.; G. D. Searle & Co.; Smith, Kline & French Inter-American Corp.; E. R. Squibb & Sons; Upjohn Co. of Canada; Winthrop Laboratories of Canada; and John Wyeth. Of these companies 18 are subsidiaries of United States parent companies. I am afraid there is no date on this particular publication, of the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers' association but I received it some time last year. So at least as of last year all but four of the companies I last mentioned were members of the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers' association, and that is what is shown with respect to the profit picture of the Canadian industry.
In its relationship with other industries in Canada, and this material is taken from the taxation statistics of 1958 of various types of manufacturing industries, it shows that the highest profit rate was for paper products being 10.8 per cent; that the second highest was for pharmaceutical products, being 10.5 per cent and that next in line was nonmetallic mineral products, being 10.1 per cent. Perhaps a few other references will give an indication. Just taken at random from the table they show as follows:
Profit
Manufacturing industry	%
Foods and beverages	 5.6
Tobacco and tobacco products	 7.9
Rubber products	'	5^3
Leather products	 10
Textile products (except clothing)	4.2
Clothing	 2.5
Wood products	 2.7
Paper products	 jq.8
Supply-Justice

And so on.
From this we find that the pharmaceutical industry in Canada has the second highest profit rate, being second only to the paper products industry. From this I think we can therefore conclude that the situation is not, as the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers said it was or claimed, namely that their profit picture is not out of line with the general economy. I think we can conclude that in reality it is out of line with the economy to the extent of being the second highest and fairly close to twice as much as the other types of industries I mentioned. Of the number of companies to which I referred to a while ago, we find that 13 of them have a profit rate of more than 20 per cent and that six fall into the category between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. So of those in a position of having a profit rate of over 10 per cent there is a total of some 19.
I should like to deal with the argument advanced by the pharmaceutical industry that its high prices are justified and necessary on the ground that the industry makes extensive and large expenditures in the field of research and must recoup these expenditures on research as quickly as they can before the drug itself is replaced by some more efficacious drug made by another company or by the same company, and that they spend on research many dollars which result in nothing usable being developed. I think this argument about extensive expenditures on research is not a factual one and is not one of the major reasons why there are such high prices in the drug industry as I intend to show.
Again referring to the United States and their federal trade commission economic report on antibiotics for 1958 at page 205, we find some statistical information given by the federal trade commission. In this instance they do not identify the companies by name but merely designate them as company No. 1, company No. 2 and so on. For the period 1956, so far as salary and advertising expenses are concerned-and I will deal with this part of it first-as a percentage of the sales dollars, company No. 1 expended on selling and advertising 26.4 per cent of its sales dollars. Company No. 2 in the line expended 24 per cent on selling and advertising. On company No. 3 there is no information available. Company No. 4 expended 28.1 per cent; No. 5, 14.4 per cent; No. 6, 30.7 per cent; for No. 7, No. 8 and No. 9 there is no information available; No. 10, expended 14.4 per cent; No. 11, 14.6 per cent; No. 12, 8.5 per cent.
With respect to Canada the picture is somewhat the same. Without going into a long series of statistics about each of the companies I mentioned earlier I would say this.

The average of all the companies I mentioned earlier is not quite 25 per cent. That is the percentage of their sales dollar which is expended on advertising, salesmen, detail men, direct mailings, supplying samples and the like. Perhaps I should give the committee the exact figure; it is considered that 24.93 per cent of the sales dollar is expended on selling, advertising, research, and so on.
If we calculate this in relation to the cost of goods sold by these companies, we find this averages out at 36.21 per cent. I think anyone would agree that this is a particularly high percentage of the sales dollar income to be expended on selling, advertising and promotional activities of the industry. I will relate this to research expenditures in a moment or two.
This matter has also concerned the Canadian medical association and is referred to in the Canadian medical association journal of September 3, 1960. At page 505 we find a portion of the report of the committee on pharmacy of the Canadian medical association, which reads as follows:
The cost of drugs has been a matter of much discussion in recent months. There is no doubt that the pharmaceutical houses have made many contributions in past years to our ability to alleviate illnesses which in the aggregate represent an almost incalculable economic and humanistic gain to our community. There is some evidence to suggest that the return which they are receiving on their original investment is excessive.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member what he is reading from?


Frank Howard: This is a reference in the Canadian medical association journal of September 3, 1960; it is volume 83, page 505.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the document from which my hon. friend is reading now?


Frank Howard: No, this is an excerpt taken from the Canadian medical association journal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering what document my hon. friend is reading from, if he would be kind enough to say.


Frank Howard: I am reading from a document, page 118, called "Material collected for submission to the restrictive trade practices commission in the course of an inquiry under section 42 of the Combines Investigation Act relating to the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs by director of investigation and research Combines Investigation Act, Department of Justice, Ottawa, 1961".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for giving me the information. I have to raise a point of order. The hon. member is reading from a report on material obtained by the director of investigation and

research and transmitted by him to the restrictive trade practices commission.
On a number of occasions recently motions have been made in this house by the hon. member who has just spoke calling for the production of this report and the production of various documents that were before the director in the course of compiling his report. The house has decided that these documents should not be produced, and the motions in every case have been rejected by the house.
I recognize that some portions of this document, copies of which were supplied by the chairman of the restrictive trade practices commission to parties and persons whom the commission thought it might be appropriate to ask to appear before it, have found their way into the hands of the press. It is alleged that portions of them have been reproduced in the press.
However, I raise the point of order that in so far as proceedings or discussions in this committee at this time are concerned, it would not be proper to attempt to introduce any portion of that report, from wherever it may come, whether by reading from the report itself or by reading alleged portions thereof which have been reproduced in the press.
I take my position on that point of order on the basis of section 28 of the Combines Investigation Act, which says:
All Inquiries under this act shall be conducted in private, except that the chairman of the commission may order that all or any portion of any proceedings before the commission or any member thereof shall be conducted in public.
The house has taken the position that this is a document which should be kept private, and it is therefore not open to me, and I submit it is not open to any hon. member of the house or this committee, to seek to discuss that report or to attempt to introduce any portion of it into the record.
If it be argued by the hon. member that this position is not consistent, that a portion of a report which has been reproduced in the press and may therefore be read by hon. members of the house outside the house should not be excluded from proceedings in the house, my answer is that the only purpose for which these portions of the report could be read here must be for the purpose of discussing the report. Since the discussion of the report is in my submission out of order, it is not appropriate or in order to read the report or portions of it at this stage. I point out further, sir, that it seems to me to be a matter of judgment or, to use the words in May's Parliamentary Practice, a matter of "good taste" as to the extent to which a private member is permitted to read from documents which cannot be produced in the house.
Supply-Justice
In that connection may I emphasize that the report of the director, while it is impartial in so far as the director is concerned- his task in this kind of inquiry is not to make a case for or against any individual or group of individuals, but to report what he finds and his conclusions thereon and lay that report before the commission-at this stage it is a one-sided report because the parties had not been given the opportunity to present their cases in full.
When the time comes for the commission to hold its hearings, the commission, with the director's report before it, copies of which are supplied to the parties, invites the parties to make their comments. Then the commission's report is of course made public and at that stage we have a balanced report; the case on both sides is summarized.
The second ground of my point of order is the matter of the propriety or, as May says, "good taste" in permitting reference to this kind of document which, as I have said, is a one-sided document at this stage.
The scheme and purpose of the Combines Investigation Act, as appears so clearly in section 28 which I have read, is that inquiries by the director should be private and nothing should be published unless and until the chairman of the restrictive trade practices commission, in his sole discretion, decides that the hearings before his commission should be in public; otherwise nothing is published until the commission makes its report. Then, by the statute, that report is required to be made public.
At this stage, therefore, with respect to the report of the director it is my submission that it is not in order to read from it or to read purported extracts from it, because it is not a document which can properly be before the House of Commons at this stage, and the house on three separate occasions in the very recent past has so decided.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out with respect to this particular document that it is true a motion was made and the house rejected the motion to table a document called a report of the director regarding the pricing and selling policies of certain pharmaceutical houses in respect of new types of drugs, if I recall the words correctly. I have used them so often recently that they are almost as familiar as my own name. It is correct that the House of Commons decided it should not be tabled, but I submit, with respect, that this decision under which the Minister of Justice was not required to table the document does not prevent any hon. member reading from that particular document.

Supply-Justice
We hear continually in this chamber hon. members reading from correspondence and documents of a like nature which are considered to be private. Some years ago a famous debate arose about horses on the payroll. That involved a private document, yet references were made to it and extracts were read from it by various members, including members of the Tory party. There is no ground for a point of order being raised here. I am not infringing any rule of the committee, unless it be said that I am reading a speech, but I would point out that I endorse the point of view expressed in whatever observations I do read, and, in any case, I am not reading from the report of the director himself but from a photostatic copy of that report, if hon. members want to get technical about it, reproduced in a publication which is in the public domain.
Not long ago-I believe it was a week ago Wednesday-the House of Commons agreed to a motion of mine-and the parliamentary secretary to the minister said it was fine and dandy-that a list of documents and publications to which the public has access, with bibliographic reference to material perused or used by the combines investigation branch should be produced, and this is undoubtedly one of the published documents used or perused by the combines investigation branch. As I say, the house has already ordered that we should be furnished with such a list together with bibliographic references. The only condition attached to it was that it was not to be taken that any publication so listed or any of the bibliographic references were necessarily contained in the report itself.
All I am doing in this instance is to read from a document entitled the Canadian medical association journal. The public has access to this particular publication, and I am reading from it, even though the actual words are not written by the journal itself but are reproduced from it. I submit, on these grounds, that there is no substance in the point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to make a few comments on this point of order, but before I proceed to do so may I take this opportunity to express the hope that the hon. member for Spadina, the assistant Deputy Speaker, will soon be able to return to this house. I mention this not because you are in the chair, sir, but simply because I happen to have visited the hon. member yesterday. While I express this hope, I want you to know, sir, that we have every confidence in the person who is occupying the chair at this moment.

I rise to support the position taken by the hon. member for Skeena. The votes which have taken place in this house are not involved in this particular dispute. The house has voted on three different occasions that the minister should not be required to produce the particular report in question, nor should he be required to table it. That is not the point at issue at the present time. The minister quotes, in support of the position he takes, section 28 of the Combines Investigation Act which reads as follows:
All Inquiries under this act shall be conducted in private, except that the chairman of the commission may order that all or any portion of any proceedings before the commission or any member thereof shall be conducted in public.
That section does not in any way affect the nature of the dispute between the hon. member for Skeena and the Minister of Justice. That section deals with the in camera character of the proceedings of the commission. It does not preclude any publication of the proceedings of the commission, and certainly it in no way affects this committee of supply. It is a provision which is confined entirely to enquiries held under this act.
The document in question has been made public as a result of action taken by the chairman of the commission-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: That is not right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Am I wrong in that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would take issue with it. This was made public, apparently, by some of those to whom the commission had sent it on a private basis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I accept the correction. However, it was put in the hands of a number of people and it became a public document and was referred to in the press. Now the minister has taken the position that a document which is at the present time, in its essentials, public property, cannot be referred to in this committee by the hon. member for Skeena, that it cannot be dealt with in the way in which he is endeavouring to deal with at least part of the report. I cannot agree with the contention advanced by the minister. I think the hon. member is perfectly justified in discussing in this public forum a report which is now public property, and it would seem to be that for the minister to take the attitude he does is unusual, particularly if we bear in mind that on another occasion the Prime Minister had no hesitation in disclosing in this house what admittedly was a secret document, namely the so-called economic report which he revealed so brazenly in 1958.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And tabled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And which he had tabled; a confidential document, a document which had not been the property of the public. But the Prime Minister had no hesitation in taking that confidential document and using it for the purpose which served him at that particular moment.
The hon. member is referring here to something which has become a matter of public concern and public knowledge. This being the case, he seeks to take advantage of the fact by discussing in this chamber what he could go out and discuss in any public hall at any time. If the hon. member were to take this report and go down to the Chateau Laurier and call a public meeting in the ballroom to discuss this report, no one could stop him. Yet because of milieu in which we find ourselves, he is denied the opportunity to do something he could do at any time outside this chamber. If the Minister of Justice seeks to set aside my argument on the ground that he can not be compelled to table the report, I say that the decision of this house was not that the report should not be discussed but simply that the minister should not be compelled to produce it. That was the decision which was made, and it is defensible, although I do not myself agree with it. It is defensible because the minister is the minister to whom the chairman of the commission is responsible. He argues that in these circumstances the position he must take in respect of these matters until they reach finality is a neutral position. That would be a legitimate argument for the minister to use in connection with the production of a document and it was, in a sense, the argument which he did use at the time. But it does not in any way affect this situation and the right of the hon. member for Skeena.
So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that it is clear that the hon. gentleman should be allowed to discuss this report just as much as he would be allowed to discuss it outside this house, and just as much as editorial writers, radio commentators and others are discussing this report, which has come to them, in the way which we have already mentioned it has come to the public. For those reasons I strongly support the position taken by the hon. member for Skeena.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one or two things in this regard. There is one point which I do not think emerges as clearly as I should like, from what I first said. Perhaps first I may be allowed to make a correction, with which I am sure the hon. member for Essex East will agree, in that he
Supply-Justice
said the minister was responsible to the restrictive trade practices commission. It is my understanding that the responsibility is the other way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right, certainly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in the consideration which I asked the committee to give to the point of order raised, I ask the committee and you to include this fact. At page 460 of May's sixteenth edition, it is stated that a minister may not cite a paper or document which he is not prepared to table. If, then the situation is that it is not proper to table a document, a minister is unable to discuss it. Therefore I am in a position where I am unable to discuss this document, for I think it is quite clear that I would be in breach of the spirit as well as the letter of the statute which I am responsible to administer if I were to discuss this document at this time.
I am precluded from discussing it, as May has pointed out at page 460 and page 461. I suggest hon. members are also in this position, although greater latitude has been permitted in this regard to members than to ministers of the crown.
Since, in my view, this document should not be tabled because it is private, and the house has supported that principle by its decision, it seems to me the hon. member should not discuss it. Whether he does or not, I cannot discuss it, and it seems to me, therefore, that the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, should give some consideration to the question as to whether it is in accord with the rules and customs of this house that reference should be made to an extract from a document which should not be discussed, and which I cannot answer during the consideration of my estimates.
Consideration should also be given to the principle of good taste, quite apart from the fact that the report itself at this stage does not present a full picture, but only one side. Is it proper that an hon. member, into whose possession a photostatic copy of this document has come, should be permitted to discuss it when it is not a matter which I am able to discuss in the consideration of my estimates at this stage? That is the third reason, in my submission, why this document should not be read into the record or tabled before this house at this time. I suggest when the whole inquiry has been concluded and the commission has made its final report, then the matter can be discussed and will in fact be discussed in public. To discuss it at this time, I submit, would result in a one-sided presentation, and I suggest the committee should ask itself very carefully whether that would be proper. In addition

Supply-Justice
to that, I suggest it is not in order for an hon. member to read from a document which cannot be tabled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one statement regarding-


Gordon Campbell Chown: I recognize the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, apart from the suggestions made before, I feel the minister is raising another consideration under this point of order, and is in reality prejudging his own decision of some future date. He has said on this occasion, as well as on at least one other occasion in this house, that the report of the restrictive trade practices commission will be made public. I suggest that is not necessarily the case. The act gives the minister the authority to make that report public if he deems it in the public interest to do so. I should just like to correct him in that regard. The minister at this stage is not in a position to prejudge his own opinion in regard to a report which has not been completed, and which he has not seen as yet. I suggest his statement in respect of tabling the report should be qualified to the extent that, if within 30 days of the time the report is completed he deems to make it advisable to make it public, it will become public.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, when the minister referred to the citation from May, he did not identify it, and I was not, therefore, in a position to understand it. Since that time the Solicitor General has sent me a copy of the sixteenth edition of May. While I do not complain about anything the minister has read from May, I think it is important that the concluding paragraph in May under the title "Citing Documents Not Before the House" ought to be placed before Your Honour. That paragraph reads as follows:
Members not connected with the government have also cited documents in their possession, both public and private, which were not before the house:
Therefore, there is-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member read the rest of the paragraph?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I intended to and I shall. I suggest, therefore, there is strong precedent for what the hon. gentleman has done today.

As the Minister of Justice has requested, I shall read the rest of that paragraph, which is as follows:
-but though the house is equally unable to form a correct judgment from partial extracts-
That is what we have today. I continue:
-inconvenient latitude has sometimes been permitted, which it is doubtful whether any rule but that of good taste could have restrained.
The matter is not laid obviously to a decision of the Chair, because there is no rule that has been contravened as a result of the action taken by the hon. member. It will simply have to be determined whether the action taken by the hon. member today is in good taste. On that score, I suggest that is a matter which the hon. gentleman has to decide, and which the house is not given authority to decide because it does not involve any violation of any rule, as May points out. I simply repeat that what the hon. gentleman has done today, any persons outside this house could do, and are doing now through different agencies of one kind or another.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I should like the minister to assist me in respect of one point. At page 500 of Votes and Proceedings there appears a motion of the hon. member for Skeena for the production of specific documents. I should like the minister to confirm my impression, that the motion which appears there has regard to this particular report?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, the motion of the hon. member for Skeena was, that an order of the house do issue for a copy of the statement of evidence by the combines investigation branch regarding the selling and pricing policies of certain pharmaceutical houses in respect of certain new types of drugs. The vote of the house in respect of that motion was 37 in favour and 148 against, as reported in Hansard of May 3, 1961. This is the document to which that motion referred.
Perhaps I may take the advantage of this moment to say one or two more things in this regard. I rest my case on the matter of good taste, as covered in the passage from May, as read by the hon. member for Essex East. My case in this regard is, whether it is in good taste to read from a document in light of the fact that all we can get is a onesided presentation in respect of which I am not at liberty to participate in the discussion.
I should also like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a distinction between the situation involved in the tabling of the economic report, referred to by the hon. member for Essex East, and the tabling of this report, because the Prime Minister took the position that the confidentiality of that

document no longer existed, and therefore no objection could be taken to its being tabled. Therefore, that document was properly laid before this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That document continues to be confidential.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in respect of the point raised by the minister, I should like to suggest that I am trying to present a one-sided case; the people's side. I do not advance this as having any actual bearing on your ruling, Mr. Chairman, or on the point of order, but I would point out there is some doubt whether the document from which I am reading is actually the document with which the motion dealt. I do not think it is particularly important because, if I can quote it correctly, the motion referred to the statement of evidence by the director of investigation and research regarding the selling and pricing policies of certain pharmaceutical houses in respect of new types of drugs. I have not it exactly before me but I think I have given the gist of the motion.
I have not a statement of evidence before me. What I am quoting from to identify the document for the minister is "Material collected for submission to the restrictive trade practices commission in the course of an inquiry under section 42 of the Combines Investigation Act relating to the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs by director of investigation and research, Combines Investigation Act, Department of Justice, Ottawa, 1961". The comparable words are "the director of investigation and research". These words are mentioned both in the motion and on the front page of this particular document. This does not mention certain pharmaceutical houses, as does the motion. In the identifying sheet it makes no reference to certain pharmaceutical houses. The document I have here does not relate to what are known as new types of drugs. It refers to the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs.
May I emphasize this in another way and refer to what is known as the preface dated February 28, 1961, signed by D. H. W. Henry, director of investigation and research. To avoid any misunderstanding may I emphasize that this is not a report under the Combines Investigation Act. It is a statement of material collected and analysed by the director of investigation and research for the purpose of being laid before the restrictive trade practices commission in the course of an inquiry under section 42 of the act. The text of section 42 is set out on page 1 of the statement and provides that the commission is required:
... to consider any evidence or material brought before it... together with such further evidence or material as the commission considers advisable and to report thereon In writing to the minister.
Supply-Justice
The preface goes on to talk about the present director's predecessor, Mr. MacDonald, and so on, but nowhere is there any reference to certain pharmaceutical houses or to new types of drugs nor to the selling and pricing policies of certain houses but merely to the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs. I cited this only because a question was raised whether this was the matter referred to in the motion which I submit is not too relevant, anyway.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly clear that this is the only report prepared by the director. Its correct title is, "Statement of Material". It is the only document that he has placed before the commission, and by one of the sections of the act this investigation is made an inquiry, and that is what is referred to in section 28 as the thing which should be conducted in private. All inquiries are to be conducted in private. This is the only document. I do not think my hon. friend from Skeena really quarrels with my suggestion that all of us all along have known that this is the document which was the subject matter of the motion which was placed before the house on an earlier occasion.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I start with the premise that the Chair is under the control of the house. On Wednesday, May 3, a motion for the production of a report, which I am satisfied has been identified as this report or part of a larger report, was rejected by a vote of 148 to 37. Therefore, this puts the minister in the position where any reference by the hon. member to this report cannot be commented on by the minister. I refer the committee to Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 159 (2), which reads:
A minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence.
I take it that the point made with respect to the matter of not being in good taste is something which is also worthy of consideration. I go back to my original point that the Chair is in the hands of the house. On an earlier occasion the house came to a decision and accordingly I must rule that any reference to the document by the hon. member concerned is out of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, you are coming to the conclusion that the document from which I am reading is the same document which the house said would not be tabled. The minister may think it is but I for one do not. However, I shall abide by your ruling

Supply-Justice
and I will not quote from the document itself in the house, although I gather I am at liberty to quote from it outside, if I so desire, as well as anyone else who wishes to do so.
If the minister is at a disadvantage now in being unable to table the document I have no objection at all to tabling it. I make it available freely to anyone. I will table it and the minister will be at liberty to discuss something that is before the house.
In any event, I would point out with respect to the high expenditures of the drug industry on selling and advertising, this has been of great concern to the Canadian medical association. At its annual meeting last year the Canadian medical association received a report from one of its committees, I believe the committee on pharmacy, and this report referred to the excessive charges of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. The committee on pharmacy of the Canadian medical association was of the opinion that far too much expenditure was being made by the pharmaceutical industry, in selling, in promotional advertising and in gimmicks such as recordings and the like with a nursery rhyme on one side and a plug for one particular brand of pharmaceutical on the other. All of the other costs such as reproduction of oil paintings, paper weights, pencils, knives, office material and the like are considered by many members of the medical profession and by the association to contribute toward the high cost of drugs and to constitute one of the main reasons why high prices are charged to the consumers.
With reference to the expenditures on research, I should like to refer to a document which is in the public domain. It is published by the federal trade commission of the United States. I refer to the economic report on antibiotics manufacture. I would point out that in substance there is no difference whatsoever between the federal trade commission report in the United States in so far as its connection with companies and the like are concerned and the particular document to which I referred and which you ruled, Mr. Chairman, I could not use. This is precisely the same kind of document. Apparently in the United States it is O.K. to have these things made public but we want to be a bit more secretive in Canada.
Let us look at the expenditures on selling and advertising of some of the companies mentioned. Company No. 1 spent 8.1 per cent on research. The committee will remember that earlier I said it spent 26.4 per cent on selling and advertising. It spent three times as much on selling and advertising as it did on research. Company No. 2 spent 3.9 per cent on research and 24 per cent on selling

and advertising. In other words, the amount of money spent on selling and advertising was more than six times the amount spent on research. For company No. 3 the information is not available. Company No. 4 spent 7.9 per cent on research compared with 28.1 per cent on selling and advertising. Over three times as much was spent on promotional gimmicks and through expense accounts and so on as was spent on research.


Mr, Skoreyko:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member agree that a great deal of the cost of selling and advertising is absorbed by the wages of salesmen?


Frank Howard: What my friend is now doing is asking me to refer to a document to which I am prohibited from making reference. My information is taken from the report of the federal trade commission and all I can say is that there is no differentiation made between salesmen's wages and so on. It is all lumped together as selling and advertising, and I am not able to answer that question by referring to this document. If you would agree to reverse your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and allow me to refer to this other document, I could give that information without any difficulty.
What is the picture in Canada? The picture in Canada is that in the main the pharmaceutical industry spends practically nothing on research. In company after company what is the percentage of the sales dollar that is spent on research? One per cent, 1J per cent, If per cent. For the 27 companies I mentioned earlier an average of 1.21 per cent of the sales dollar is spent on research compared with approximately 25 per cent spent on selling and advertising.
They also claim that expenditure is necessary for what they call quality control to ensure that the consumer gets the best possible type of product, that the product is of the purest quality and the most efficacious in the treatment of the ailment for which it is prescribed. Again, the Canadian pharmaceutical industry spends in some instances three quarters of 1 per cent of the sales dollar on quality control. Some of the companies spend nothing on quality control. The average is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1 per cent of the sales dollar which is spent on quality control. If I may quote again from the December 11, 1959, issue of the Ottawa Citizen, this is what Stanley Conder of the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers' association says is "a very, very costly proposition". Approximately 1 cent of the sales dollar goes into quality control to ensure that the public is protected and gets the purest drugs. One cent is spent

to ensure the safety of the public while 25 cents is spent by the manufacturers to ensure that they bamboozle the doctors into remembering the particular brand name of a pharmaceutical.
There is another phase to this matter with respect to why this situation has come about. Hon. members will recall that I mentioned that our drug industry is controlled by the drug industry of the United States. The patent picture also shows that is the case. I should like to make reference to the patents held by the United States companies if I may. I have here an order for return which is referred to in Votes and Proceedings No. 30, page 195, for February 24, 1960. I had asked who held certain patents and there are 15 pages of information here. There is no need to go into them extensively. I would point out that in each and every instance the patents for the so-called wonder drugs or antibiotics are held by the parent companies in the United States regardless of whether or not they have Canadian subsidiaries. I note that Merck and Company, for instance, of Rahway, New Jersey, holds a total of 30 patents on the drug or pharmaceutical known as streptomycin. Charles Pfizer and Company of Brooklyn, New York, holds nine patents on the same drug. When it comes to tetracycline, one of the broad spectrum antibiotics and an important base for a lot of these drugs, Charles Pfizer and Company of Brooklyn holds nine patents, American Cyanamid of New York holds 18 patents, Bristol Laboratories of East Syracuse, New York, holds five patents, and so on.
All the way down the line, for pharmaceutical after pharmaceutical the control is concentrated in the hands of these companies in the United States. Because of patent control, which puts the company holding the patent in somewhat of a monopoly position, these companies are able to charge higher rates for their products than they normally would.
I should like to place on the record some figures giving a comparison of prices paid by the Department of Defence Production in purchases it has made with the prices that the consumer has to pay for the same drug. This information was given in answer to questions of mine during the last session of parliament. I do not have the return with me but it is easily obtainable by reference to the Journals of the house. I should like to give one or two examples of the cost to the Department of Defence Production compared with what the consumer has to pay.
At the top of the list there is a drug known as tyrothricin with benzocaine lozenges. The manufacturer is Merck, Sharpe and
Supply-Justice
Dohme and the brand name under which the consumer buys the product is tyrozets. In October, 1959, the Department of Defence Production paid 22 cents per vial of 12 for these lozenges while the cost to the consumer was $1, or almost five times as much. The difference between the retail price and the price paid by the Department of Defence Production for this same pharmaceutical or drug is 454.5 per cent at the retail level and 272.7 per cent at the wholesale level.
You can go down the list and pick out others that are used regularly and which show precisely the same picture. Perhaps I might refer to one that has been in the news recently because of the activity of the food and drug directorate in issuing some suggestions about its possible misuse. I refer to a drug called chloramphenicol. It is a Parke Davis preparation and its brand name is Chloromycetin. In November, 1959, the Department of Defence Production purchased this product at a price of $11.25 for 100, 250 milligram tablets. The cost to the consumer for the same pharmaceutical was $56.70 per 100 tablets. This is a retail difference of 504 per cent or 302 per cent at the wholesale level.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to mention all of those that are shown here but I would point out that substantially the same picture is evident throughout. The difference ranges from 200 per cent to 400 per cent or 520 per cent.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What was the name of the drug to which the hon. member just referred?


Frank Howard: Chloromycetin.


William Joseph Browne: How do you
spell it?


Frank Howard: C-h-l-o-r-o-m-y-c-e-t-i-n.


William Joseph Browne: I am sorry; I thought the hon. member said something else.


Frank Howard: The nomenclature is a little bit difficult for a layman to get his tongue around sometimes, and it may have sounded like something else.
Here is another example I point out in order to show that there are differences in price and that it is possible to sell these pharmaceuticals at a lower price. If I may, I want to refer to the federal trade commission economic report on antibiotics manufacture of 1958. At page 192 there is a table headed: "Broad Spectrum Antibiotic Prices-46 250-milligram capsules". These are of the same class of drugs. I think this is an important table to which to refer, Mr. Chairman, in so far as the United States is concerned. As I said,

Supply-Justice
because of their corporate control and their patent control the Canadian picture is influenced to a great extent or perhaps almost exclusively by the picture of these companies in the United States.
At September 27, 1951, according to the reference here, a drug called terramycin was sold in the United States to the retailer at the price of $5.10 for 16 capsules and was sold to the consumer at the price of $8.50 for 16 capsules and that situation continued from then on in October, 1951; November, 1953; April, 1954; September, 1954; October, 1954; December, 1955; and December, 1956. It is shown during those same months to which I have just referred that other similar types of broad spectrum antibiotics entered the market at exactly the same price or were sold to the retailer at $5.10 and at $8.50 to the consumer. The report lists these drugs by their names. I think the conclusion to which we can come is that since September 27, 1951, the price range has not varied one penny even though there have been tremendous increases in sales of this type of antibiotics Even though other companies entered the field with the same sort of antibiotic under a different brand name, they entered the market at the same price that was established as of September 27, 1951. This will lead one to believe that there is relatively little room for price differentials or competition to take place at least in the broad spectrum antibiotic field. I think all this leads us to assess what this means in terms of a consumer in Canada. How about the individual who has a prescription in his hands and walks into the drug store? How is he concerned or how is he affected by the activities of the drug industry?
I wanted to be able to put into the record a bit more information in this particular field so it would not appear that it was in bad taste, as the minister said. However, I am now prevented from doing that and attempting to balance the picture out, even though I think the document I have here is not the one to which the minister referred. The names are certainly different on it. But in any event, I am prevented from doing that, Mr. Chairman. Nevertheless I think there are certain conclusions that can be drawn in a general way. I think this is advantageous because this matter requires some public discussion, in my opinion; and the more public discussion there is about it, the more possibility I believe there is of drug prices declining. Some newspapers in the country have conducted surveys in this regard, and with respect to some types or classes of pharmaceuticals in the ethical pharmaceutical industry there have been reductions in prices within the last year and a half or two years, whereas

for some considerable time previously there were no reductions in prices. I found this statement to be substantiated by having talked with two separate individuals who are pharmacists and whom I know. They also pointed out that they have noticed this fact in the various price lists they get from time to time from the pharmaceutical concerns, namely that in the last year and a half or thereabouts, so far as some drugs are concerned, there has been a decline in the price charged by the manufacturer.
I am sure that this is to a large extent the result of the activities of the Kefauver committee in the United States and the publicity that has been attached to the inquiry that has been conducted in Canada by the combines investigation branch, and the attendant publicity that was given to some of the material contained in that particular statement of evidence.
I think my time is running short at the moment. Rather than proceed to deal with my conclusions drawn from the information I have been able to obtain, perhaps I should leave my remarks stand there at the moment. There may be another opportunity, following the comments of other members who are interested in this field or a statement by the minister, for me to rise and draw some conclusions from some of the things that have been said.


William Arnold Peters: 
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I have been a little reluctant to be drawn in, as it were, as third man in this combination which has reminded me of the old combination of Tinker to Evans to Chance. In this case it has been from Skeena to Timiskaming and back to Skeena again.
However, I think I should make a few comments, if only for the purpose of pointing out that at this stage there is nothing I can say about this drug inquiry for reasons which I indicated in the course of the discussion of the point of order.
The matter has been looked into by the director. A lengthy document has been presented by him to the commission and the matter is now before the commission for hearing. Not only, then, is it improper for me to discuss anything which is contained in the director's statement of material, but I think it would be untimely for us to make a decision now and for me to attempt to tell the committee what conclusions the government has arrived at and what it intends to do,

Supply-Justice
because we are not yet in possession of the report which will ultimately be provided to us in accordance with the provisions of the act. I refer to the report of the commission. This report will be provided when all the inquiries and hearings have been concluded.
At that time I hope and expect we will receive a report that will be helpful, based on the complete study which the act contemplates, and not on a partial consideration, which is all we have before us at the present time. We naturally would be expected to look into the matter in the meantime and I can assure the committee that this is being done, to see if there emerges from what is now available anything that really indicates that something could be done in the federal field without waiting for a further report.
There may be one or two particular aspects where the results of our consideration may suggest courses of action, but these, I submit, would be of an interim nature. Before it would be sensible for us to make up our minds as to the comprehensive action we should take, surely we should wait until we receive the over-all report which covers the whole field.
Certainly these inquiries take a long time. I am not happy about this; no one is happy about it, but they are pressed with all dispatch in the light of other work and other inquiries which come before both the director and the commission. I have not in my possession the information as to the actual length of time taken by the F.T.C. study in the United States, but it is my impression that it was a lengthy study. Certainly the committee in the United States of which Senator Kefauver is head has been working for at least two years and there has been as yet no full report. Indeed, I understand that in the United States nothing by way of executive action has emerged even as yet from the F.T.C. report, with the exception, I believe, of one prosecution in connection with Salk vaccine.
As will be appreciated, the situation in this country with respect to Salk vaccine is not at all the same as it is in the United States. The prices of Salk vaccine are pretty well controlled by the fact that the Connaught laboratory is at least the prime mover in the field although it does not actually control the whole field.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the institute of microbiology of Montreal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend from Essex East reminds me that the institute of microbiology of Montreal is also engaged in that field. I say this not in the way of boasting of the fact that these inquiries take this long,
tMr. Fulton.]
but simply to ask hon. members to realize that a proper sense of proportion suggests that inquiries of this kind in other countries as well as in Canada are necessarily time consuming, and even after they are concluded it is not possible to take startling and widespread action in a matter of days or weeks. We shall, however, be looking forward with interest to the report of the commission, at which time we shall be able to ascertain what action it is proper to take to deal with whatever problem is outlined in the over-all field and, I repeat, if in the interim a study of the material now available enables me to make any useful recommendation to my colleagues as to what could be done on an interim basis I shall do that, and I have arranged that the material should be studied, from that point of view. This study is going on now.


Frank Howard: Before this item carries, may I say I can appreciate that these matters do take a considerable period of time to examine and study. Perhaps other hon. members will now appreciate why it sometimes takes a long time to talk about this in the House of Commons.


Mr. Churchill:: I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question. In a house with a present membership of 261, does he realize that on Thursday and Friday of this week he occupied approximately 25 per cent of the time spent examining the estimates of the Department of Justice, and perhaps he has been doing the same today? I wonder if he thinks that is fair to the other members of the committee?


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am not rising now to defend the hon. member for Skeena or to confirm the validity of the things he has said over the past two days, though I do not quarrel with him on what he has been discussing now. But I do strongly take the position that it is not in order for an hon. member, and particularly a minister of the crown, to rise and complain about the length of time taken by a member of parliament in discussing the items brought before this committee. If any hon. member wants to catch your eye, Mr. Chairman, he has that privilege and he will catch your eye. This is certainly an indication of the growing arrogance of this government-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Steady, now. Hold yourself to the point.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: -when one of its
ministers rises to complain about the participation in the debate by a private member of this house.


An hon. Member:: He only asked a question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member against whom the complaint has been made does not belong to my party, but I believe so strongly in the value of this house that I would fight for the rights of any member, including private members supporting the government, and for the minister to complain because an hon. member has discharged his responsibility as he sees it, is, I contend, an indication of the increased arrogance of a government which is growing in public disfavour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a lot of nonsense. I was making no complaint about the hon. member exercising his right to speak. I was speaking on behalf of the other members of this committee who should have the opportunity to take part in a discussion of the estimates of this department.


Frank Howard: Yes. I cannot help it if the minister's supporters are hesitant and bashful in approaching these matters and if they do not want to engage in an examination of the workings of the department. If the minister wants to have a bunch of silent Sams or rubber stamps behind him, that is for him to decide.


An hon. Member:: There are no rubber stamps behind the minister.


Frank Howard: What did the Prime Minister say the other day about inveterate babblers? In any event it applies to the hon. member for Saskatoon, I can say that.


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: On a point of order, I think the hon. member should withdraw the statement that we are a bunch of rubber stamps. It is not true.


Frank Howard: I think that there is a certain amount of special concern attaching to the activities of the retail pharmacists within the pharmaceutical industry. The retail pharmacists are, of course, subjected to the largest degree of complaint by the general public, a great deal of which is unjustified. This arises because the retail pharmacist is the individual with whom the consumer deals.


Mr. Speakman:: On a point of order I do not believe retail pharmacists come within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.


Frank Howard: Where have you been all day?


James Stanley Speakman: I have been here longer than you have.


An hon. Member:: You have not.


Frank Howard: I say that this complaint is registered against the retail pharmacists because they are the individuals with whom
Supply-Justice
the consumer deals. He sees his fifteen or twenty dollars passed across the counter, in exchange for which he gets a small bottle or vial of tablets or cream or lotion. There is an activity in the retail field which does,
I	think, give rise to concern and contributes to the high cost of drugs. I should like to cite two examples. I refer, first, to a prescription which was given for aspirin, ordinary aspirin which anyone can buy. The purchase price of aspirin on this prescription, which was supplied here in Ottawa, was 50 cents. Without a prescription aspirin costs 32 cents. This is an indication of the effect of what is known as a prescription fee within the pharmaceutical industry. I have been told by others of an instance in which some tablets were sold by prescription at $1.15 a dozen, or a total cost of $9.90 a hundred. When sold by the hundred without prescription, because they are not an ethical drug, the selling price is $1.85. This represents a difference of some $8.00 and indicates another contributing factor to the high cost of drugs in this country.
In addition to that there is, of course, an
II	per cent sales tax on drugs, and on some items a tariff is applicable also. I think in essence we can say that in relation to the sale of drugs in Canada patents have been and are being used to create monopolistic situations which Canadian law appears to have been designed to prevent and the control exercised over the manufacture, distribution and sale of certain drugs through patents has virtually eliminated price competition in respect to these drugs and has encouraged other forms of competition. These, while possibly bringing other benefits to the public have resulted in prices being increased rather than decreased. Practices which are quite legal and unobjectionable in themselves- promotion, use of trade names and the like- appear to have been carried to extremes because of the insulation of certain sectors of the industry from price competition by reason of the control exercised through patents.
As is indicated below, the effects of the control exercised through patents affect the prices of certain drugs only. On the other hand, the practices of retail druggists affect the prices of all products sold in drug stores. These practices have resulted in the virtual elimination of price competition at the retail level.
Prices of drugs in Canada are among the highest in the world. These prices tend to reflect current prices of the same or comparative drug products in the United States, but because of the sales tax applicable in Canada prices to consumers in Canada are about 11 per cent higher.

Supply-Justice
The general information that we have indicates that prices of proprietary drug products are not unduly high in any sense, and I refer to those that are not included in the ethical drug field. Also, an established brand which has wide public acceptance is normally sold at a premium price. There are numerous substitutes available, and the consumer has a wide choice of products at various price levels. It is obvious that, because of considerations of health and personal well being, brand name product preference is likely to be more important in cases of proprietary drug products, than in the case of other merchandise.
In the case of standard, widely available ethical drugs, the situation is much the same. Brand preference is somewhat more important, and products of long established ethical drug firms, which enjoy a high reputation for the quality of their products, are able to command premium prices. There are practical limits to the amount of the premium which can be charged. The history of the industry indicates that once a drug becomes generally available to manufacturers, numerous alternative products are offered and prices tend to fall until they reflect only a modest mark-up over actual cost of production. As a drug becomes widely available, manufacturers usually stop promoting it aggressively and concentrate on promoting their more exclusive lines. This reduces the general costs of sale and distribution of the particular drug.
Regardless of what conclusions may be reached in respect of such matters, the fact which makes high prices possible is the patent control exercise over such drug. The clear intention of the special provisions of the Canadian patent law, is that this situation should not obtain. However, advantage has not been taken of these provisions, and the drug industry in Canada is, for all practical purposes, operating under conditions determined by the patent law of the United States.
Patent controlled drugs are imported into Canada by a few small firms, other than United States companies, generally classified as foreign, without any licence arrangements with the Canadian patent holders. The basic fact is, that such importations are made, and that importing firms offer dosage forms of such drugs at lower prices than the equivalent products offered by the patent holders.
To date, the availability of such products does not appear to have had any significant effect on the prices charged by the firm holding patents, except to a very limited extent in the case of some institutional buyers. This is due to a controversy which has raged and continues to rage about the quality of the imported products, and the products of small

firms. Until doctors generally are satisfied as to the quality of such products, their impact on the market and on the prices of established brand name products will continue to be slight. This situation, of course, would be entirely different if such drugs were available to all manufacturers.


Mr. Clancy:: Would the hon. member tell me the difference between generic and brand name drugs?


Frank Howard: I did not understand the question.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: What is the difference between generic and brand name drugs?


Frank Howard: There is no difference.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Forget the malarkey, and tell me what the difference is.


Frank Howard: As I said before, there is no difference between a generic and brand name drug, in so far as the drug itself is concerned. It is simply the same as one person calling a box of material Rinso, while someone else calls it soap flakes.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: That is the worst malarkey I have ever heard in this house. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the reference to soap came to my mind when the hon. member rose to ask me a question.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: All this C.C.F. malarkey is the same. I asked the hon. member a question, and he has not answered it.


Frank Howard: You received your answer although you may not be able to appreciate or understand it.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I appreciated it.


Frank Howard: If you wish me to go further I shall.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Just tell me what the difference is.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor, and until he yields it for a question by sitting down, I ask the hon. member for Yorkton to remain in his place.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could use another example to illustrate the difference, using a product for which the hon. member may have use later on. One brand name of a product is Bayer aspirin, and the generic name is acetylsalicylic acid. They are the same thing, but one is the generic term and the other the brand name.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: How many grains are there in an aspirin? How many grains are there in a Bayer aspirin?


William Arnold Peters: There are no grains at all, there is acetylsalicylic acid.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Frank Howard: Now that the hon. and noisy member has gone behind the curtains, perhaps I can proceed.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I am back.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the hon. member will need a whole box of aspirins, or perhaps one of the more powerful chemicals, tomorrow morning.
As I said, there is very little price competition at the retail level, and that which does exists is chiefly in respect of proprietary and sundry drug products; tooth paste, and things of that nature. Apart from a very few discount drug outlets, most Canadian drugs stores sell their ethical drug products-drugs on prescriptions-at the manufacturers' suggested resale price, as a matter of course. This appears to be due firstly to the practice of the manufacturers in basing all trade prices on the listed or suggested resale price, and the acceptance of this price by pharmacists as the only proper selling price. Second, this is due to the pressure exerted by certain pharmacists' associations and their members to maintain certain price levels.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to go further in this discussion, but I think what I have said sums up what I have said on previous occasions in respect of this item, as well as what I said during the last session in respect of an item in the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I feel the comments and conclusions which I have presented fairly well meet the conclusions arrived at by the director of the combines investigation branch following extensive research and investigation into this particular field. I suggest also that, to the extent it is possible to analyse the wealth of material that was presented to the Kefauver committee, similar conclusions were reached by that committee in respect of this situation, except with reference to the control by patents and sales tax regarding comparable prices paid to importers.
I feel similar conclusions were also arrived at by the United States federal trade commission as contained in the report of that commission, to which I referred earlier. I do not have that report now, as I gave it to Hansard and it has not been returned.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I express the hope that an inquiry into this very important field will not be delayed, but will be undertaken with the greatest dispatch. I understand the combines investigation branch, and the restrictive trade practices commission, will deal only with selling and pricing policies of
Supply-Justice
certain pharmaceutical houses in respect of certain types of drugs. These were the words used in the annual report by the director of research and investigation, but not the words which appear in the document which I was prevented from reading a while ago.
But this is only one phase of the drug industry, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister and his colleagues should take this under consideration and advisement and also take some steps to deal with it. There is ample room for additional study in some other related fields, for instance, in the field of the physiological and psychological effect upon an individual who may be taking certain of the so-called tranquillizers. What about the medical effect on him? This is something which is not thoroughly understood by doctors themselves. They are discovering new things as each day goes by.
These are questions which have been raised by eminent people in the medical profession and by writers in this particular field. What about the effect on the individual of the so-called multiple vitamins? They take a number of them and put them together. What about the effect on the individual of the maxing up of different types of drugs into one tablet? These are things which I appreciate come more directly under the Department of National Health and Welfare, as well as the question of the ethical drug industry advertising directly to doctors. I think this is something that I can mention in passing because it has a relationship with the drug industry.
As I understood the minister earlier, he said that they were keeping this matter under review to see what possible action could be taken after studying the statement of evidence, or whatever it is called. The minister works very closely with the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the question of narcotic drugs and their effect and in the prosecution of offenders, together with the treatment of people who are addicted. As I say, this is another field in which the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Health and Welfare can work together very well. They should look into the activities of the drug industry from all points of view and their effect upon the consumer, the medical profession and illnesses. I submit that not only are the selling and pricing policies of immediate concern but the question of advertising of the ethical industry directly to doctors, and the question of the physiological and psychological effects of compounded drugs and new drugs on the individual who takes them.
Perhaps I should close my remarks on this particular phase of the matter and make

Supply-Justice
just one more comment about another subject at the risk of incurring the wrath of the Minister of Veterans Affairs but I think I must do this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give some other members a chance.


Frank Howard: Recently there has been a fair amount of publicity attached to activities of certain companies in the province of Quebec. While I think this is a sort of minor part of it all-I do not wish to play up what is taking place on the political scene in Quebec-yet it is from a certain activity there that this information comes. I think there is ample material for investigation or study by the combines branch to see just what is going on.
Evidence was presented to the royal commission in Quebec to the effect, for argument's sake, that Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation was paying a rake-off or a kickback of $10 on a ton of steel. I am not concerned at this time about who got the money or whether it was illegal to pay kick-backs and so on, but I am concerned with the question of kick-backs. Dosco has been prosecuted and fined once already for price-fixing under the Combines Investigation Act, along with Stelco and one or two other companies, that had subsidiary companies. As I say, this is a company which has been prosecuted and fined on one occasion for price-fixing. I wonder whether the combines investigation branch should look very carefully into whether kick-backs or rake-offs of $10 a ton, as it is said Dosco paid, have been used to enhance the position of Dosco within the industry and to ensure that price competition did not have its full play? This is something which I think should be inquired into very carefully.
There are certain other things from the corporate moral point of view that we should look at. I am wondering whether it is morally correct for Dominion Steel and Coal Company to receive subsidies from the federal treasury and then take part of those subsidies and channel them back into the Union Nationale party coffers in another province?
As I say, this is another matter which perhaps is not of concern here. There is also attached to it the question of whether these rake-offs are really a charge against the operations of the company and are reflected in less income tax being paid into the federal treasury. Armco Drainage and Metal Products of Canada Limited is another company that has been mentioned as paying phony commissions or rake-offs to the extent of $1,200. We must remember that Armco Drainage and Metal Products of Canada Limited is another company that was prosecuted and

fined under the Combines Investigation Act not so long ago. Brandram-Henderson is another company that was mentioned. The reference there was that this company was paying phony commissions of $1.50 a gallon on luminous paint for sidewalk and street markings, and so on. The combines branch has an obligation to look into this question of rake-offs or kick-backs or the paying of phony commissions in order to get certain contracts from the provincial government of Quebec. There should be an inquiry to learn whether the payment of these phony salesmen's commissions or kick-backs, or whatever you want to call them, was not in fact a device used to limit or prevent competition and to ensure that the companies mentioned and others who were involved in this were not using it as a means to get into a monopolistic position and eliminate competition in that particular field.
The other day the minister said he did not want to get involved in the political picture in Quebec. From the point of view of the activities of the Combines Investigation Act I think this is something which requires very serious study and investigation, and I am sure the minister will bring these comments to the attention of the director if he himself has not already noticed these things in the press and undertaken some preliminary inquiry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
173. Bankruptcy Act administration, $118,770.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to say a few
words on this item which has to do with the administration of the Bankruptcy Act. I am inclined to do it owing to an experience of some years ago. I became very interested in the administration of the Bankruptcy Act and even at that time I was convinced that there was room for a great deal of improvement to protect creditors of the companies going into bankruptcy. As a matter of fact, at the request of a number of creditors at a creditors meeting I was appointed a special inspector to deal with certain aspects of bankruptcy because I had some knowledge of the physical assets and circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy of the company. I must say that it was that experience over a period of two or three years that caused me to become quite interested in the administration of the act and aware of the necessity for some improvements and amendments in the administration. I am not going to deal with the circumstances of that day but I am particularly inclined to raise the question again because of a rash of bankruptcies that occurred in the southeastern portion of British Columbia, particularly since world war II.

Bankruptcies in the lumbering industry have taken place under very suspicious circumstances. Generally speaking the companies were owned by United States citizens who operated in southeastern British Columbia, particularly in the Kootenays, for a period of one, two, three or four years and then went bankrupt. The owners or managers disappeared across the line and the merchants and other persons who were involved were, in ordinary language, left holding the bag. Mind you, this occurred repeatedly during the period when the forest industry was particularly flourishing. There did not seem to be much reason for this succession of bankruptcies, in one case repeated on three occasions by one man who at the present time is the owner of a company of considerable size south of the line.
I have made reference to this matter previously this session. In particular, I have referred to the bankruptcy of the Hilco Company Limited near Fruitvale which went bankrupt late last year. The owners disappeared across the line and in fact it was quite difficult to proceed with the bankruptcy and to ascertain who was responsible for the company later. Merchants and ordinary workmen were left holding the sack with very little knowledge of their rights and the responsibilities of officials and so on.
I have knowledge of the circumstances surrounding this case because I attended a meeting of the creditors. I did not do so because it was my personal responsibility. I was invited to attend the meeting because I had had some previous experience and had had a somewhat limited experience in the lumber industry. These people considered that I knew a little more about such matters than the average creditor involved. I attended with the idea of listening to the story of the creditors as to the circumstances surrounding this bankruptcy. This again leads me to believe that there must be amendments to the act to provide creditors with at least a rudimentary knowledge of the law-I am not suggesting that creditors can become as skilled in law as lawyers are-the responsibilities of the officers of the crown in administering the Bankruptcy Act, the sequence of procedures in administering the act and their rights in these matters.
I mentioned this matter briefly at the beginning of the session and the commercial attache to the United States embassy read my remarks in Hansard and very kindly telephoned me and told me they were very concerned about the information I had placed on the record. Later he came to my office and I discussed the circumstances with him and gave him the balance sheet and the other information that had been given to me. He
Supply-Justice
undertook to see that an investigation would be carried out in the United States and an investigation was in fact carried out in that country as to the operations of this company in the United States and in Canada. I am not going into the details. I have a letter here dealing with that. I can say that the report I received from this gentleman is not a credit to the company concerned.
That leads me to believe that there has to be some amendment to the act with respect to circumstances of this type where the owner has disappeared across the line. The minister will have an idea where the Lardeau district is because he likes to visit a beautiful district on occasion. I remember one case where a company had operated there for some months. The owner was able to get the men to work without wages for two months with the idea that he wanted to increase his capital so that he could expand. The company was shipping lumber to Nelson from where it went south on the Great Northern to the international boundary.
These men worked Saturdays and Sundays in an effort to assist the owner, but when the last trainload of lumber went out by rail and then by barge the owner went with it. He told the men that he would be back on Wednesday, that he had enough lumber now to get credit at the bank in order to be able to pay them. They waited until Wednesday and nothing happened. They waited until the following Saturday and then they began to make inquiries. The owner had this trainload of lumber shipped from Nelson over the Great Northern into the United States, and that was the last the men ever heard of it.
That circumstance has been repeated on a number of occasions in different forms. That is why I am particularly interested in amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, and if I heard the minister correctly yesterday I understood him to say that the department is giving consideration to amending the act. These repeated bankruptcies clearly indicate that some shady business goes on at times and that worthy creditors and workmen are not adequately protected. I wrote later to the superintendent of bankruptcy and received a letter from him in reply. He was quite concerned about this matter and I should like to quote part of his letter dated April 21, 1961. He said:
I have your letter of the 13th instant and enclosure the contents of which are noted. However, unfortunately, the Bankruptcy Act as now constituted does not seem to contain a remedy and I must confess that the solution is not immediately apparent. Should you have any suggestions, I shall be only too pleased to receive them and to give them due and proper consideration in conjunction with a study of the present provisions.

Supply-Justice
I frankly admit that I am not a lawyer and my suggestions are simply made on the basis of the experience of a layman with a number of these cases. I suggest that amendments are required to protect the public and creditors to a greater extent than is provided in the present act. I suggest that amendments are required to provide more severe penalties to restrain dishonest persons to a greater extent.
I suggest that in the administration of the act there is a necessity for permanent regional officers so that people will know where to go and so that someone will be available whose sole duty it is to administer the Bankruptcy Act in a certain area with a knowledge of the law.
I suggest that action be taken to provide that the minutes of creditors' meetings should not just be entered as minutes but that a stenographic report should be made by a court stenographer so that there will be an accurate record of the questions and answers. I also suggest that there should be something in the nature of an information booklet to give creditors of companies going into bankruptcy some general information as to how to proceed.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My final suggestion, and I will not be long-heavens above, I have sat here in patience for two days and I am trying to conclude in a few minutes. If it were not for the time factor and my sympathy for the minister I could go on at much greater length. My final suggestion is that there should be amendments to provide for situations where a person who goes into bankruptcy goes across the line and is out of reach of the creditors. I noticed in the Canada Gazette recently the reappointment of the trustees in bankruptcy and there is one omission. There are no trustees appointed for the Kootenay district, east or west. In view of our history in this respect and the need for a trustee, I suggest that until the law is amended the minister give consideration to the appointment of a trustee in the Kootenay district to serve that area. That is all I have to say.


James Ross Fulton: I want to thank the hon. member for his remarks and tell him that we will give consideration to the points he has raised.
I appreciate that it is after six o'clock but I wonder whether the committee might agree
to carry items 173 and 174 so that we could start with the penitentiaries branch the next time these estimates are before the committee.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 173 carry?


Mr. Caron:: No, it is after six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Benidickson:: Would the leader of the house indicate perhaps a little more fully than he did last night the likely business for Monday and Tuesday of next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the first item on Monday will be Bill No. C-92, an act to amend the Criminal Code. That will be followed by item No. 7 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-97, an act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. The third item will be No. 11 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice pertaining to the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act.
If these three items are finished we will then take item No. 3 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-77 dealing with agricultural development. The fifth item will be No. 2 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-93, to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act. If the house is in a very co-operative mood on Monday and wants to proceed with the business expeditiously, we can take item No. 10 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with the Export Credits Insurance Act.
The order in which I have announced these items will stand without change for the first three of which the Minister of Justice is in charge. If I have to make a change with respect to Nos. 4 and 5 I will let the house know at the beginning of the sitting on Monday.


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

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

Mr. Argue: At Queen Mary veterans' hospital in Montreal, what is the proportion of basically French speaking persons among: (a) surgeons (b) psychiatrists (c) all other medical doctors, not covered in categories (a) and (b), (d) matrons (e) nurses (f) nursing assistants and orderlies (g) patients?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):
As at April 30, 1961.
(a)	42.1 per cent.
(b)	25 per cent.
(c)	44 per cent.
(d)	16.6 per cent.
(e)	72.1 per cent.
(f)	79.6 per cent.
(g)	39.5 per cent.


MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS SHIPS' CREWS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What are the work hours per week and rates of pay of cooks and stewards serving aboard ships of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys on the (a) east coast (b) west coast?
2.	What are the work hours per week and rates of pay of crew, apart from cooks and stewards, serving aboard ships of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys on the (a) east coast (b) west coast?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):
Hours of Work
East coast-Cooks and stewards work a 48 hour week. All other crew members work a 40 hour week.
West coast-All crew personnel work a 40 hour week including cooks and stewards.
Monthly rates of pay for ship's crews on west coast are as follows:
Class	Rate per month
C.G.S. Wm. J.	Stewart
Carpenter 			 $294
Senior quartermaster		 294
Quartermaster 			 289
Coxswain 			 289
Seaman 			 279
Oiler 			 292
Fireman			 289
Senior gas engineer		 299
Gasoline engineer ....		 289
Chief steward 	 90205-6-347		 328
Questions
Class	Rate per
month
Chief cook	 322
Second cook	 290
Third cook	  274
Second steward	 274
Waiter	      253
Boatswain	 292
C.G.S. Parry
Coxswain	 $289
Seaman	 279
Gas engineer	 289
Cook	  290
Steward waiter	 269
Boatswain	 292
C.G.S. Marabell
Carpenter	 $294
Boatswain	 292
Coxswain	 289
Seaman	 279
Gas engineer	 289
Oiler	 292
Chief cook	 301
Second cook	 280
Chief steward	 306
Second steward	 264
Waiter	 253
Quartermaster	 289
Monthly rates of pay for ships' crews on the east coast are as follows:	'
Class	Rate per
month
C.G.S. Acadia
Chief gasoline engineer	 $301
Senior gasoline engineer _______ 263
Assistant gasoline engineer ...	243
Boatswain	   269
Carpenter	 269
Quartermaster	 260
Coxswain	 252
Oiler	 264
Fireman	 257
Seaman	*	229 +5
Chief steward	 311
Second steward	 238
Chief cook	 305
Second cook	 238
Waiter	 229
C.G.S. Baffin
Chief diesel motor mechanic ..	291
Senior diesel motor mechanic . .	279
Machinist	 309
Boatswain	 269
Carpenter	 269
Quartermaster	 260
Coxswain	 252
Oiler	 264
Seaman	*	229 +5

Questions
Class	Rate per
month
Chief steward	 311
Second steward	 238
Chief cook	 305
Second cook	 238
Baker	  248
Waiter	 229
C.G.S. Kapuskasing
Chief gasoline engineer	 301
Senior gasoline engineer	 263
Assistant gasoline	engineer

	243
Boatswain	 269
Carpenter	  269
Quartermaster	 260
Coxswain	 252
Oiler	 264
Fireman	 257
Seaman	* 229 +5
Chief steward	 311
Second steward	 238
Chief cook	 305
Second cook	 238
Waiter	   229
Note: *Plus an allowance of $5 per month when required to perform stevedoring duties.
C.G.S. Cartier
Senior gasoline engineer	$263
Gasoline engineer	 243
Boatswain	 269
Carpenter	 269
Quartermaster	 260
Coxswain	 252
Oiler	 264
Seaman	* 229 +5
Steward	 238
Chief cook	 305
Second cook	 238
Waiter	 229
Rates paid in northern waters
Chief diesel motor mechanic ..	301
Senior diesel motor mechanic ..	288
Machinist	 320
Boatswain	 279
Carpenter	 279
Quartermaster	 269
Coxswain	 259
Oiler	 272
Seaman	* 237 +5
Chief steward	 321
Second steward	 254
Chief cook	 314
Second cook	 247
Baker	 256
Waiter	 237
Note: *Plus an allowance of $5 per month when required to perform stevedoring duties.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
A-Department
[Stage Direction]
165.	Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada and $167,500 as grants to recognized private aftercare agencies as may be approved by treasury board, $1,194,583.
166.	Parole Act administration, $654,790.
Supreme Court of Canada-
167.	Administration, $242,715.
Exchequer Court of Canada-
168.	Administration, $151,110.
Northwest Territories-
169.	Administration of justice in the Northwest Territories including the Northwest Territories territorial court, $154,794.
Yukon Territory-
170.	Administration of justice in the Yukon Territory including the Yukon territorial court, $140,451.
Combines Investigation Act-
171.	Restrictive trade practices commission, $94,840.
172.	Office of investigation and research, $574,372.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 29, 1961

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) moved:
Thart the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping appointed May 15, 1961, be composed of Messrs. Badanai, Brassard (Lapointe), Broome, Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway), Campeau, Carter, Chevrier, Chown, Creaghan, Granger. Grills, Howe, Horner (Jasper-Edson), Kennedy, McDonald (Hamilton South), McFarlane, McPhillips, McWilliams, Mitchell, Monteith (Verdun), Pascoe, Robinson, Rowe, Smallwood, Smith (Simcoe North) and Winch.
Motion agreed to.