1961-05-25

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to refer to the presence in the gallery of the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. David Ben-Gurion, the valiant nation builder of modern Israel. He is not unknown to Canada, having been here on more than one occasion, the first of which was in 1917 or 1918 when, following the Balfour declaration for the acceptance of the setting up of a national home for the Jews, he belonged to the Royal Fusiliers who were then taking their training in Windsor, Nova Scotia.
Throughout the years he has given leadership to his country. Our distinguished visitor is no stranger to parliament. He has served in the knesset, the parliament of his country, for many years, and represents that belief in parliamentary democracy which has been an essential element of his life and dedication. He comes from a land where our religious faith originated and from which many of the values of western civilization have been derived. Since the creation of his country in 1948 the people have been engaged in a remorseless struggle against climate and economics. As the leader of that nation he has earned admiration for the perseverance which has enabled him and those associated with him to meet almost insuperable obstacles in the directions I have indicated.
We welcome him to Canada for the position which he occupies, and for the contribution that the people of the Jewish race have made to Canada over a period of slightly more than 200 years. I am sure I speak for hon. members everywhere when I say that we extend to him the warmest of greetings and good wishes, and through him to the president and people of Israel.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition and on behalf of the Liberal opposition I am happy to join the Prime Minister in extending a sincere welcome to Canada and to this
parliament, to the distinguished Prime Minister of Israel, the head of government in that dynamic little state.
On the occasion of his visit to this parliament it is appropriate that we should remind ourselves that Canada has been in the forefront of almost every vital step in the development of the state of Israel since 1947, when partition was first voted. This, too, is an occasion to recall that partition itself was urged and actively supported by the Canadian representative on the United Nations special committee on Palestine, Hon. Mr. Justice Rand, then of the Supreme Court of Canada. It was he who, along with others, pleaded for the creation of a Jewish state.
Then, of course, I am sure that all members will recognize the fact that is was the Leader of the Opposition who actively lead the move to admit the newly created state of Israel to the family of nations. Canadians generally, I think, are proud that he has been recognized for those efforts.
The applause that greeted the remarks of the Prime Minister, when he extended a welcome to Mr. David Ben-Gurion, as prolonged and as sincere as any we have had in a long time in receiving a foreign visitor, indicates our admiration not only for Israel but for the great statesman who is its prime minister. Mr. David Ben-Gurion is a man of action but he is also a man of thought. Like Balfour and Smuts, he has been able to combine the qualities of the statesman with those of one who loves philosophy and learning generally. His life has been dedicated to the survival of the Jewish people. History will demonstrate that, along with Herzl and Weiszman, he is truly one of the fathers of his country, this boy who at the age of 17 left Russia to come to what he calls Zion. Mr. David Ben-Gurion is a man of the world, and he has fought for the rights of man everywhere.
The Prime Minister mentioned yesterday that he recalled with satisfaction his own visit to Israel, and I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I may just make this personal note. The last time I saw Mr. David Ben-Gurion was in the desert, in his kibbutz, in Israel. I shall never forget the remarkable and memorable day I had with him there in 1958. So in welcoming him here today I can characterize our visitor in no better words than those used
5330	HOUSE OF
Visit of Prime Minister of Israel in 1958 by Hadassah in its award to Israel's premier tor distinguished humanitarian service:
With insight derived of wisdom, with perseverance and courage inspired by prophetic vision, guided always by the spiritual teachings of the holy Bible, he has translated the moral concepts of our ancient heritage into a humane and democratic leadership, this assuring for Israel and himself a unique and honourable place in the history of man's struggle for freedom.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the national leader of the C.C.F., I am very happy to join in the words of welcome expressed by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Essex East to Premier Ben-Gurion, who I understand was exiled by Turkey in the first world war, later came to Canada, trained in Windsor, Nova Scotia, under British guidance and later served with the British forces in the Jewish legion; who fought against evil at that time and who has been working for all that is good ever since.
Independence came to his country 13 years ago as a result of his guidance and decision. We are proud to know today that it is a democratic socialist state which has conducted a successful experiment that is no longer an experiment but a reality that really works. Except for a short period when he became a shepherd, Mr. Ben-Gurion has been a premier. A shepherd named David became a king; a premier named David became a shepherd. He is a prophet in the land of prophets. The rewarding rehabilitation program being undertaken in Israel follows the biblical instructions given in Leviticus 19:23:
And man realizing his loss, must set out to clothe the land with trees.
That great English orator, political philosopher and statesman, Edmund Burke, said:
The nerve that never relaxes, the eye that never blenches, the thought that never wanders-these are the masters of victory.
How aptly do these words apply to Premier Ben-Gurion, our guest today, the head of a state that has nourished democracy, where it has blossomed, and has caused the desert to bloom, giving new life and hope to millions.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth and sixth reports of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber) moved:: That the eleventh report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Tuesday, May 23, 1961, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as members of parliament are aware, preparations for the resources for tomorrow conference to be held in Montreal, October 23 to October 28 next, are now well advanced. The governments of all the provinces have cooperated with the government of Canada in planning to make the conference a most significant event in the history of our country, in so far as the development of Canada's renewable resources is concerned.
Background papers form an essential basis for the conference discussions. In all, 80 such papers have been submitted. As a number of these have been written by co-authors, upwards of 100 scientists and other experts in the various resource fields have contributed to the fund of information and judgment on which conference deliberations will be founded.
As a service to parliamentarians and the press, as well as to radio and television reporters and interested organizations and individuals, the resources for tomorrow secretariat has assembled, in each of the seven sectors involved, short summaries of background papers. For each sector a resume of highlights of the papers will be prepared. This resume is, in effect, a digest of contents designed to indicate the general pattern or trend of approach by the authors to the renewable resource development problems.
The first of these completed digests pertains to the waters sector, and this document is available in both English and French. The water sector resume will be followed, in due course, by information compiled in similar form in respect of wildlife, forestry, land use, fisheries, recreation and regional development sectors.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, to ask him whether he has yet been able to obtain permission from the premier of British Columbia to table the letter from the premier of that province written to him and dated January 13, 1961, as asked for by the hon. member for Laurier on May 22 and again yesterday by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I took the request that was made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as having regard to the

tabling of all correspondence that had passed between Premier Bennett and myself in respect of this subject, and that was what I undertook to speak to the premier about. I expect that I will be seeing him during the course of the day.
As far as the letter of January 13, 1961 which the premier wrote me is concerned, that has already been put before the house, and is to be found on page 1652 of Hansard for February 2, 1961. My reply to that letter in full was placed before the house on February 2, and is to be found at pages 1650 and 1651. It will be seen by all hon. members who care to refresh their memories as to the contents of these two letters-


Mr. Hellyer:: The minister's memory is fresher today than it was yesterday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that while
Premier Bennett's letter was written prior to the signing of the treaty between Canada and the United States, the premier's letter arrived here on Monday morning, January 16, when the Prime Minister was already on his way to Washington to take part in the signing ceremonies which had been arranged previously to be held on the morning of Tuesday, January 17.
It will be seen also by those who care to read Premier Bennett's letter that he did not ask that the treaty be not signed. As a matter of fact the tripartite discussions to which the governments of Canada, the United States and British Columbia had been parties had been proceeding for some time previously with a view to leading up to the signing of the treaty, which actually took place on January 17.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his somewhat extended answer to a rather simple and direct question concerning whether or not he had obtained consent to the tabling of a certain document. In any event, I take it that it is quite clear from the record in Hansard that both the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred to the specific letter by date. I take it from the minister's answer that it is also quite clear that the letter quoted in Hansard at page 1652 is the letter in question, and the only one that passed on that date from the premier of British Columbia to the Minister of Finance. As to the debatable part of the answer of the Minister of Finance which was rather extended-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what is the hon. member's question?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have a
Speaker in this house. The minister is not the Speaker.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, must we listen endlessly to this long winded exponent from Ottawa West?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am still waiting to hear what the question is. I take it that the hon. member for Ottawa West intends to ask a supplementary question.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I find myself in some difficulty at this time. I asked a direct question of the Minister of Finance in which I inquired whether he had obtained consent to the tabling of a certain document. The minister made a lengthy reply, part of which was addressed to the question. In his reply the minister said that the document was published in Hansard, and he gave me the page reference, but the latter part of his answer contained matter which was debatable, and I wish to raise a question concerning it.


Mr. Graffley:: One of our clearer questioners is now on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the floor to ask a supplementary question.


George James McIlraith: My supplementary question is this, Mr. Speaker. I take it from the minister's answer-the latter part of his answer, in any event

that it is quite clear that the letter from the premier of British Columbia-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George James McIlraith: -had been received in Ottawa well before the signing of the agreement with the United States?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, not "well before" at all. I made this quite clear when I was asked this question several days ago, and I have made it clear again this morning. The letter of Premier Bennett which appears in full at page 1652 of the Hansard of this house for February 2 was dated January 13. It arrived in Ottawa on Monday, January 16. The treaty was signed in Washington on Tuesday morning, January 17. The letter of Premier Bennett arrived here when the Prime Minister was already on his way to Washington to take part in the signing ceremonies which had been previously arranged and with full knowledge on the part of the representatives of the British Columbia government who had participated in negotiations on this matter with the government of Canada and, at times, with the government of the United States. This was a matter of arrangement among the three governments and was completely within the contemplation of all three governments.
5332	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They certainly took the minister for a ride.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Finance explain to the house why he said yesterday he would have to get consent to table a letter which he had already tabled in this house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I would not have thought that anything would require explanation when the situation was so clear. I had been asked on two days this week about tabling correspondence with Premier Bennett. There is other correspondence in addition to these two letters. I was asked about tabling correspondence and before I could table correspondence, which has extended over some period, I stated and I still believe that the consent of the government of British Columbia should be required. I said yesterday that I expected to see Premier Bennett today, not in Ottawa but elsewhere, and that I would have an opportunity to ask him about these letters. I remind the hon. member for Essex East, Mr. Speaker, who cannot be quite so lacking in intelligence as he tries to show this morning, that this letter was not tabled. It was read into Hansard-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the difference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in the course of a statement which I made to the house on this matter on February 2. It was the hon. member for Kootenay West who asked me then if I would table the letter of Premier Bennett to which my letter was written in reply, and I complied with that request.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Such ineptness.


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask a supplementary question arising out of the discussion with respect to this letter, as reported in Hansard of February 2, 1961. My question has to do with the request for the tabling of the letter of Premier Bennett, which the minister ascribed to the hon. member for Kootenay West, and I would ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot hear the hon. member who has the floor.


George James McIlraith: After pointing out that the minister ascribed the request for the tabling of the letter and its printing in Hansard to the hon. member for Kootenay West, I was going on to point out that it was the hon. member for Laurier who made the request and I would ask the minister when he moved that hon. member's constituency to Kootenay West.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the supplementary should not be admitted as it arises out of some ancient error in Hansard.


Mr. Stuart Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice. In view of the confusion that has developed in British Columbia because of press reports in recent days, did the Minister of Justice himself receive any communication from any member of the government of British Columbia prior to the signing of the treaty, indicating that the government of that province objected to that course?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no communication at any time from any member of the government of British Columbia indicating any reservation whatsoever about the advisability of signing the Columbia river treaty last January, or about the merits of the treaty itself.
On January 9 I forwarded to Hon. Mr. Williston, minister of lands and forests for British Columbia and chairman of the British Columbia section of the Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee on Columbia river development, a copy of the text of the treaty which had been unanimously recommended by the Canadian and American negotiators to their respective governments. This recommendation was signed by the deputy minister of lands of British Columbia as well as by myself.
In my covering letter to Mr. Williston I advised him that it was our intention to sign the treaty on January 16 and that under all the circumstances, including the participation and signature of Mr. Bassett, his deputy minister, we assumed that the British Columbia government was in accord with the terms of the treaty unless I heard from Mr. Williston to the contrary. Mr. Williston acknowledged receipt of the copy of the text of the treaty and of the Canadian negotiator's recommendation on January 12. No suggestion was then, or ever, made that the treaty should not be signed.
It was, of course, understood by both governments that in the interval between the signing and the ratification of the treaty by Canada certain agreements, including an agreement on the financing of the treaty projects, should be negotiated. It is obvious that if Premier Bennett had intended to communicate to the federal government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question of fact involved is the time of receipt of the communications that were exchanged. I think we are perhaps extending the matter into a debate on what transpired, and I suggest to the Minister of Justice that he terminate his

answer there unless he feels there is some further factual explanation that is needed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to do so briefly, because I was asked whether I had ever had any communication with the government of British Columbia involving reservations with regard to the signing of the treaty, and I think I should conclude my answer simply by saying that it is obvious that we have not had any such representations. It is obvious that the letter from Mr. Bennett of January 13 to the Minister of Finance was not intended by Mr. Bennett at that time-


George James McIlraith: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -on the basis of its contents, to raise any objection-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -to the signing of the treaty but was concerned entirely with the collateral matter of the financing of the treaty project.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. My point is that in the latter part of the minister's answer he went on to debate the position; because it is quite clear from the letter itself, which is now before the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George James McIlraith: -and which can be found at page 1652 of Hansard, reference to which has been made by the minister, that the position the minister is now taking is a debatable one and not the type of thing to be put forward in a factual statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think there is a strong desire to debate this matter and that this is not the appropriate time. I suggest that the supplementary questions terminate and that we pass to the next order of business.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the house whether he had been made aware of the contents of the letter from the premier of British Columbia at the time Canada signed the treaty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I have just indicated, it seems to me that there has been ample opportunity to verify the facts by question and answer, at least as far as can be done at this stage of the day. Therefore I cannot admit any further supplementaries or answers on this matter.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that in view of the fact that you asked the Minister of Justice to desist and he carried on-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: There we are again, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: There you are again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Essex East is raising a point of order. There was a point of order taken by the hon. member for Ottawa West about the answer of the Minister of Justice. I heard what he had to say and I am inclined to agree that the answer did go on into the expression of opinion as well as fact, but I consider the matter closed now.


Murdo William Martin: The only point I was seeking to suggest to Your Honour-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East had the floor. I will hear the minister's question of privilege immediately.


Murdo William Martin: The suggestion I was seeking to make before I was so rudely interrupted by the Minister of Justice was that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres put a question to the Prime Minister, which I suggest is an important one, and the Prime Minister was about to reply. While I understand Your Honour's desire to restrict questions, in the circumstances, I would think that since the Prime Minister was about to reply he should be allowed to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I not only want to correct what the hon. member for Essex East has said but also to point out that at no time did I act in disregard of your suggestion. The hon. member said just now that you, sir, asked me to desist and that I carried on.


Murdo William Martin: That is right.


Mr. Fullon:: You will recall that you suggested I might terminate my answer unless I had some other factual information. I said that in my view there was other factual information that I should like to give in reply to the question which had been addressed to me. I carried on in accordance with your own suggestion that there was a possibility of a proper continuation of the reply.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a rather unusual and flowery question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that a great many Canadians will never be able to come

Inquiries of the Ministry to Ottawa to enjoy the full glories of our tulip festival, would the minister consult with the national capital commission and any other appropriate bodies to ensure the distribution of at least some of the Dutch tulip bulbs to our provincial capitals of Canada, to the end that Queen Juliana's wartime association with the capital of Canada may be celebrated by lesser tulip festivals throughout the nation?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I will give my usual flowery answer; yes.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the reported turmoil in the census division of the Department of Trade and Commerce following the publishing of a magazine article advising readers to demand a confidential census form, can the parliamentary secretary assure the house that steps will be taken to guarantee that the taking of the census and publication of the results will not be delayed as a result of the incident?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, since there is no census division within the Department of Trade and Commerce I presume that the hon. member intended to refer to the demography division of the dominion bureau of statistics.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Under the direction of my minister I am in contact with that division, and let me say there is no turmoil within it.
If the house would permit, perhaps I should state factually what the two forms are in connection with the taking of the population census and, in so doing, again bespeak, as my minister has done, the active support and co-operation of members of parliament, who can give a most significant and meaningful direction to this great national undertaking which has such an important bearing upon the future economic and social life of Canada.
In reply to the question let me indicate that there are two forms involved. One is known as form 2A. It is in padded shape and consists-


Mr. Benidickson:: The appointments are also padded.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -of a series of questions kept in the pad by the enumerator. These questions are normal to all census taking both in Canada and in other countries which undertake census work. These questions have been asked in previous Canadian census taking.
At each fifth household a form known as form 4 will be left with every person 15 years of age and over. Some of the questions asked on form 4 are confidential in nature. These questions elicit information concerning gross earnings and the component sources of income which make up the individual's gross earnings. As I have said, this form will be left with each individual 15 years of age and over in every fifth household. The individual will be asked to complete it in privacy. Having completed it he will be requested to seal it with the gummed stickers provided for the form. The form will then be collected by the enumerator and returned by him directly to the dominion bureau of statistics, where it will receive attention from the dominion statistician. The sealed form will not be opened by the enumerator.
There will be no delay in the conduct of the 1961 census of Canada which will commence on June 1 through the activity of 27,000 enumerators. I bespeak again such support as the hon. gentleman and other hon. members can give to the conduct of this meaningful national undertaking.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the parliamentary secretary give us an estimate or indication as to when that part of the census information used for redistribution will be made available?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The returns from the population survey, form 2A, will be transcribed by two electronic computer machines.


William Moore Benidickson: Progressive Conservative machines?


Edmund Leverett Morris: After the returns have been fed through the machines we will have the population total, provided the electronic machines do not incur any disabilities such as afflict the opposition-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -and I think we can count on a meaningful answer in about 10 or 12 months.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct another question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the parliamentary secretary aware of the fact

that the confidential information to be given in form 4 is readily discernible by merely placing the form in the line of sight in any reasonable light, and therefore can be deciphered by any person who would be willing to look at the form?


Edmund Leverett Morris: I and the dominion bureau of statistics do not have the same imputations which the hon. gentleman has about the 27,000 enumerators. I have just courteously sent him the form. The form will be sealed. If he will kindly turn it over he will see three pieces of gum which will seal the form and prevent that situation which he has just mentioned.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a further supplementary question. I am sure the parliamentary secretary was aware of the fact that I was referring to the sealed form. It is still possible readily to discern the information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has brought the matter to the attention of the parliamentary secretary, and it seems to me that is all that can be accomplished on the orders of the day.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Because of the development of this second sealed questionnaire, has consideration been given to allowing the people themselves to fill in the regular census forms and have those sealed forms delivered to the enumerators also?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, we are carrying on in the 1961 census the standard census procedure.


George James McIlraith: Not in hiring staff.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. member for Ottawa West has made some interjection with, I presume, his typical lucidity. He would know all about this matter, because he ostensibly handled the last census.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And it was very efficiently handled.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The general census form does not contain any information which, in the view of demographic scientists, would require it to be prepared in an attitude or atmosphere of confidence over and above the oath of secrecy taken by the enumerator and for which protection is provided in law. Those details which are regarded as individually intimate are in form 4, which is taken from every individual 15 years of age and over in the fifth household ending with the numeral 3 or 8 in the enumerator's chronological order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: But it can be read just as easily as if it were open.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce another question relating to my previous one. Since the last census was able to provide information for redistribution in a nine month period, I wonder whether he could tell us why the Conservative machine-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is obviously intent on presenting an argument, a course which would be improper and which would probably prolong a discussion which has already been too long.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Notwithstanding-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has no question before him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can inform us of any new developments in the situation in Laos.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, on May 20 the international supervisory commission in Laos mentioned the reported build up of arms and ammunition on both sides. Because of the tension created and other problems, the commission expressed the hope that military supplies from outside Laos would cease forthwith. As well, it expressed the view that the withdrawal of foreign forces and advisers introduced into Laos since 1954 should take place with the least possible delay.
The principle that a status of genuine neutrality for Laos requires the withdrawal from that country of foreign military personnel who are not there by specific international agreement is generally recognized. In expressing the view of the Canadian government to the conference on May 17 the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
Such status would involve no foreign military formation on Laotian soil.
Also, on the same day, the United States secretary of state, Mr. Rusk, speaking for the delegation of his country said:
Foreign military personnel, except for those specified in the Geneva accords, should be withdrawn from Laos-
There is no problem about the withdrawal of the limited United States military personnel assisting with the training and supply of government
5336	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry forces if the 'Vietminh brethren' and other elements who have entered Laos from the northeast return to their homes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Geneva conference on Laos is about to be postponed until May 29, can the Prime Minister say whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to return to Laos to act as the Canadian spokesman?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hori. gentleman made a slip-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I intended, of course, to refer to the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to Geneva.


John George Diefenbaker: -not an unusual slip, but one which was apparent to everyone on this occasion.


Murdo William Martin: What was that nice crack?


John George Diefenbaker: When the Secretary of State for External Affairs returns to the house, which I expect he will do this afternoon, possibly he will be in a position to advise what further course will be undertaken. In any event, the postponement underlines the lack of urgency in the situation at this time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport concerning the Canadian National Railways. Last night and this morning I received word from Moncton by radio and press concerning a large C.N.R. lay-off at the Moncton shops. Yesterday the railway announced the curtailment of heavy repairs to passenger car equipment at Moncton, and the transfer of this work elsewhere. The employees predict that 130 men will be involved in this lay-off, while management has told the press that between 80 and 90 men are involved.
Would the minister instruct the C.N.R. and particularly Mr. Gordon to delay this order and to call a special meeting of the board of directors to review this policy decision of management?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, knowing the sincere and continuing interest of the hon. member in all matters concerning the Canadian National Railways and its employees, I can assure the hon. gentleman I will take up this matter with railway management immediately.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the assurance given by the minister that the government will take action in this situation, will the minister also undertake to discuss with the management of the railway the cut in employment on the railway in North Bay, resulting in additional people being put out of work at this critical time of unemployment?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I shall also bring this matter to the attention of management.
(Translation):



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport concerning the forthcoming opening of a French T.V. station in the Sudbury area. Since Canada and the United States have now come to an agreement on the use of channel 13, would the minister inform the house as to whether the required approval by his department before the work can be undertaken will soon be given.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.
(Text):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that a board of referees at St. Catharines has rendered a two to one decision disallowing the appeal of 15 unemployed persons from Welland county against the decision to suspend unemployment benefits for the day of their visit to Ottawa?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minisier of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have a supplementary question. In the light of the fact that the decision indicates that the suspension arose originally because of improper instructions given by the Welland office of the unemployment insurance commission, is the minister prepared to intervene on behalf of the applicants to ensure that they receive their benefits?


Michael Starr: The applicants now have recourse to appeal to the umpire, whose decision is final.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Does this situation apply to other areas from which men came here to Ottawa on that day? Are they also deprived of their unemployment insurance benefits for that day?


Michael Starr: Under the act anybody who does not report on the day on which the act specifies that he shall report is deprived of one day's unemployment insurance benefits.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: In the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I should like to pose a question to the parliamentary secretary, and ask him whether he or the minister will check into allegations that the immigration officials in Saint John, New Brunswick, are supplying beds and bedding to immigrant strikebreakers at the shipyards there.


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will check into that question.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since the minister has decided to keep the facts and figures to himself until after next Monday, would he care to confirm or deny reports that he will be setting an all-time record in his budget presentation and will be reporting the biggest deficit in Canadian history?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, to every hon. member of this house it will be perfectly obvious that the question which has just been asked is an abuse of the rules of this house. It attempts to make assertions which are untrue on their face, and it attempts to argue the case. This is not the latest period for the submission of a budget, and I do not know of any precedent for an opposition asking for the introduction of a budget when there is one measure of the previous budget still waiting final enactment by parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is your responsibility.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman opposite and some of his colleagues on this subject have been making assertions which are entirely lacking in truth. Some of these 90205-6-337
Inquiries of the Ministry assertions might be permissible on the part of persons who do not know any better; but when it comes to assertions of the kind that the hon. member repeated in his alleged question, coming from experienced members of this house like the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) out on the hustings, it is a different matter. These assertions of theirs are insidious and utterly irresponsible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since the hon. gentleman has addressed himself to me in such an affectionate way, Mr. Speaker, may I ask him a supplementary question. If there is a deficit of these proportions, does he not think that deficit ought to be made known to the 100,000 electors in these four byelections?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any greater service that could be rendered to the electors in those four by-elections or to the people of Canada than to know what an utter deficit the hon. member is to the Liberal party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am hurt.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Will the minister advise the house whether he has yet received the report of the inquiry into the establishment and operation of the Petawawa yacht club?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to report on this matter at the present time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister take the question as notice and advise the house tomorrow?



INQUIRY AS TO OFFICIAL REPORT FOR MAY 24

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Yesterday on the orders of the day, as found at page 5296 of Hansard, the hon. member for Kootenay West attempted to ask a supplementary question which appears in the left hand column on page 5296. My specific recollection of the question was that it was interrupted by yourself, Mr. Speaker, about four lines before he reached the name of Major W. H. Pope, M.C., and that the last three lines of the question were not pronounced by the hon. member. I am wondering how it is that they appear in Hansard.

Supply-Justice


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the hon. member, perhaps the matter could be deferred until he is present.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: am present, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman wishes to find out how it appeared in Hansard I wish he would go up to the Hansard office and find out, because I have not been there.

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 after-care agencies as may be approved by treasury board, $1,194,583.
The Chairman:: Department of Justice, vote No. 165. This item will be found on page 35 of the blue book, and the details on page 239.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order having to do with the conduct of the business of this house and the estimates we are about to consider. On Tuesday last the leader of the house was asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, following a consultation I had with him, as the hon. member for Laurier had, what the order of business would be on Wednesday. The minister replied what the business would be and indicated that today, Thursday, we would be taking up the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Just before we terminated our day's work last evening the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, as will be found at page 5326 of Hansard, asked the leader of the house what we would do today. The leader of the house replied:
Mr. Speaker, by special arrangement, which I hope is appreciated, we will take up the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare tomorrow; and on Friday we shall take up the estimates of the Department of Justice.
Then he continued and said what the order of business would be on Friday and Saturday, and that, of course, is not material. At five minutes to eleven this morning the whip of our party was telephoned, I presume by the Minister of Veterans Affairs-no; I understand it was by the government whip, and this is a new arrangement. The whip of our party was telephoned by the government whip and told that the order of business today would not be the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare but those of the Department of Justice.

As we all know, intimations are made as far ahead of time as possible by the government as to the order of business on a particular day, and sometimes on successive days, in order to give hon. members, particularly those who are primarily interested and who have given special attention to the particular estimates or proposed enactments, an opportunity of preparing and arranging their personal affairs and public engagements. To be told at five minutes to eleven that there was a change in the order of business is obviously unfair to the private members on the government side, and such an abrupt change is eminently unfair to those in the opposition groups.
The government, of course, is master of the arrangements in this house, but unless it wishes to be guilty of the charge of tyranny by majority it must take into account the interests, the concerns and the convenience of opposition groups as well. This is a clear manifestation of the lack of regard this government has for parliament and for the opposition parties. The opposition parties, under our constitution, play a role no less important in our deliberations than that of the government. To have the whip of the Conservative party-not the leader of the house or his spokesman-call up the whip of the Liberal party and say in an arrogant way which we have now come to associate with this government, "The order of business to day will not be as announced last evening by the government, but it will be the estimates of the Department of Justice" is most unfair, and I rise in my place to protest-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the manner in which the public business is being handled by this government, and in particular in this instance.
Mr. Pallet!: What a thespian.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "What a thespian"; I say "What a government". This is a government that is supposed to take into account the rights of parliament. They have not consulted us, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs does and has done with fairness, but we were approached in this manner this morning and told, "We shall not go on with what the minister said yesterday and what he said the day before". The whip of the party announces that we will go on with the estimates of the Department of Justice. I want to ask the government if this is a fair way in which to conduct our proceedings.


Mr. Churchill:: You will get an answer shortly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Members of our party who were here and who are here now are interested in the Department of National Health and Welfare. Other members who have been following matters concerned with the Department of Justice have made other arrangements, as attends all hon. members in the adjustments they must make in their daily schedules. Is it fair that we should have this sudden change imposed at this time, when it is not possible for us to apply our best and most experienced skills with regards to the estimates that have been called? This is not a fair way to treat parliament.
The fact that the whip was the instrument for providing this notice causes me to suggest that this was not a decision made by the leader of the house. I cannot believe that the leader of the house, having given these undertakings, would have resorted to this kind of action. I do not believe it. I can only conclude that the whip has done so on the instructions of the Prime Minister-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is entirely wrong.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -on the instructions of a man who is primarily interested in what happens on Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is entirely wrong.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only suggest to the leader of the house that this change arises out of the fact that the Prime Minister or the government, knowing that the government had been committed to bringing in the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, was not anxious to have any discussion at this time in this committee about matters that might be of interest to people concerned in the four byelections-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and which are connected with health and welfare. They did not want us to discuss pensions; they did not want us to discuss matters having to do with health and welfare.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege the hon. member has risen on a point of order and is now ranging into a debate on subjects which he thinks should be discussed. The hon. member has been making attacks on hon. members in their absence, and has been indulging in personalities. I think the hon. member should restrict his remarks to the point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this is not a point of order. What I am saying-
90205-6-337i
Supply-Justice
The Chairman. Order. I think the hon. member for Essex East has explained why he rose in his place, which was because of the change in the order of business. The hon. member has explained why he does not favour this change, and I think he has sufficiently explained his point.
I see that the hon. member for Kootenay West wishes to speak on this point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I have not finished.


Jacques Flynn: I trust that the hon. member will keep to the point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I trust, Mr. Chairman, that you will allow me to finish my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Pallell:: Withdraw that.


Jacques Flynn: I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor and I am speaking about rights which affect us very seriously-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am speaking on behalf of our party-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have already indicated to the hon. member for Essex East that the Chair has a discretion in hearing the hon. member on the point of order; that is clear. I now recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I cannot entertain more than one point of order at the same time, and I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order. Do you rule that I do not have the right to proceed?


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have indicated to the hon. member that I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West. If the hon. member persists in remaining on his feet, having heard what I have said, I shall report him to the Speaker.

Supply-Justice


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I now appeal your ruling. You have ruled that I cannot continue with my point of order, and I appeal your ruling.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not think the hon. member may appeal this ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Jacques Flynn: I had indicated I was going to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West, adding that if the hon. member for Essex East would not remain in his seat I should have to report him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you now
suggesting we do not have the right to appeal your ruling?


Jacques Flynn: This is not a ruling which I have made. This arises on a point of order. I have not disposed of the point of order. I simply indicated to the hon. member for Essex East that I thought he had made his point and that I was going to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West on this point of order. If, later on, I think the hon. member may add something to the debate I will recognize him.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, you asked me if I had anything further to say, and I said yes.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: Hon. gentlemen over there will not even let us make our points; then you allow another hon. member to intervene. I indicated that I had not finished making my point. If I had been out of order that could have been pointed out, but that was not the case. You have now ruled that I cannot continue and that I cannot appeal that ruling.


Jacques Flynn: I have ruled that the hon. member was discussing something which was extraneous to the point of order. I said I thought he had made his point in what he had to say, first about the order-of business and second, about the inconvenience the change was causing to the members of his party. Later I indicated that I wished to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West.
If, after the hon. member for Kootenay West has spoken, the leader of the house has something to say, and if the hon. member for Essex East wishes to reply, then it will be in order for him to speak. After all, the hon. member was discussing things which were not relevant to the point of order. The Chair may allow an hon. member to speak on a point of order but it has discretion to intervene in the discussion, to close the debate or to hear another member. That is the final point I made.
[The Chairman.]
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: I want some information, Mr. Chairman. Which standing order provides that the Speaker or the chairman can silence an hon. member who has not completed his statement on a point of order?
I think I am entitled to an answer on that matter.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member will realize that I have not recognized him.


Alexis Pierre Caron: No. I rise on a question of privilege concerning every member of this house. Which section of the standing orders does the chairman take as a basis to silence an hon. member who is raising a question of privilege?


Jacques Flynn: The point is clear. If the hon. member will let me consult the standing orders, I shall let him know the number of the standing order in a moment.
In the meantime, so that we will not take the time of the house, I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be brief, but I wish to support the hon. member for Essex East. He mentioned while speaking on the point of order that the Conservative party whip notified the Liberal whip of this change at five minutes to eleven. I was notified of the change by the whip at 11.25. My first point is that I do not like the assumption made by the whip of the Conservative party that this group is running 30 minutes behind the Liberals.
Members plan their work for the next day, both in the house and in the committees, and it is very important, particularly in view of the circumstances under which we now have to work, that these plans should be on the firmest basis possible. On account of the inconvenience caused by this change at very short notice I wish to protest strongly on behalf of this group with regard to these last minute changes in the arrangements for business on the orders of the day.
I think the committee is entitled to an explanation. Decisions of this kind should only be made in situations of extreme urgency when altogether unexpected developments take place. I hope the leader of the house will give an explanation. We in this group would like the leader of the house to give us far more information than we have received this morning with respect to this change in the order of business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is an unfortunate and unexpected change in the business of the house, but once in a while unexpected changes do occur. As to the question of how the notice was passed to members on the other

side of the house, that is immaterial. In my instructions I asked the whip if at the earliest moment he would convey to members of the other side of the house the information about the change in the program. I myself was tied up attending to matters which are of great concern to members opposite. They are continually asking questions about legislation which will be brought before us. I was engaged in pressing on with the preparation of certain bills which will come before the house next week. The only possible way to continue my work and still get the message conveyed to those on the other side of the house was to ask the whip to convey that message, which he did.
On other occasions when a change of business has unexpectedly arisen I have endeavoured to inform the house immediately at the opening of the sitting. Unfortunately it was impossible for me to be present here when the Speaker called the house to order. I was hoping I would have an opportunity now to make an explanation before a complaint was lodged, but I was not given that opportunity. I want to make it perfectly clear that the change was made when I received a message from the Minister of National Health and Welfare saying it would be impossible for him to be present today. I then instructed the whip to pass that information to hon. members on the other side.
On the question of notice of business, an indication was read out to us that certain business had been announced for today. That is true. Each week-and this has been going on now for two sessions-I have changed what was the practice in years gone by and tried to keep the house informed a week in advance as to the business which would be before it. I think most hon. members have found this arrangement very convenient.
From time to time I have been asked by members on the other side to change the order of business. By far the most convenient order of business for us this week would have been that which I announced on Friday night, when I said we should carry on with the estimates of the Department of Transport followed by those of the Department of Justice. That would have suited us perfectly. But at the wish of the hon. member for Laurier I was asked to postpone consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport, which could not be done without great inconvenience to us. However, after some consideration, and after discussing the situation with the hon. member for Laurier, I consented to make that change.
This involved a whole series of changes. Then, having decided to go ahead with the estimates of the Department of Justice instead of the Department of Transport, I was met
Supply-J ustice
with a request by the hon. member for Essex East to bring on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare today.
I said that would be impossible, that we preferred to call them, perhaps, on Saturday. But, no, the hon. member said he was going to be away Friday and Saturday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are the one who altered it. You ought to be ashamed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said we might make an arrangement, depending on how we proceeded with the bill which the Minister of Justice was putting before the house yesterday, and I made a further suggestion that we should carry on with that bill today, which we would have preferred to do, interrupting the business at 7.30 tonight in order to begin consideration of the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the convenience only of the hon. member for Essex East. But that did not suit him.
I then consulted with my colleagues, and we thought it might be possible to carry on as I announced last night. However, I had to make a further change in the program for the week because of the illness of the Secretary of State, whom I expected would be present. I have no control over these things happening, such as individuals being called away unexpectedly. Often members of the opposition are called away, perhaps unexpectedly, and the house has to adjust to the situation.
As far as preparation is concerned, weekly notice is given, and has been given every week since this session started. The estimates have been before the house since the book of estimates was tabled in January, and it is strange to me that individuals are not prepared to go ahead with the subject indicated. In any event, the estimates of a department do not often reach completion in the course of one day, and there is normally an opportunity for absent members to enter the debate at a later stage. This situation exists quite often. That is the explanation I have to make in respect of what happened today.
Let it be quite clear that I very much regret not having been able to inform hon. members of this change earlier, but I had not received the information in time to do so. Because I was engaged myself in very important business, I asked the whip to be the messenger. That is something which also happens often in this house. The whip is continually discussing these changes in the program with the whips of the parties on the other side, and I suggest it is nonsense to say that is not a proper way of conveying a message. Under normal circumstances I should have telephoned the house leaders of

Supply-Justice
the two other parties myself to convey this message, but it was impossible for me to do so. There is nothing abnormal about this situation, except that it has come as a bit of a surprise to this house. However, I feel the house is equal to the situation.
In so far as dealing with the estimates of the Department of Justice is concerned, this was forecast last week. I presume that members on the other side are prepared for the consideration of these estimates today. In any case they perhaps will not be completed today, so that hon. members who are absent will have the opportunity of dealing with them at a later stage.
If this house would prefer, we can go back to the consideration of the Department of Transport estimates today, which is what we originally wanted in view of the fact that we had spent three and a half days on those estimates to date, and it was felt that perhaps we could wind up the consideration of those estimates today. However, to accommodate hon. members on the other side who had made other arrangements, and because we unexpectedly had to change the program, I think it will be generally agreed that this is all that could have been done under the circumstances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, 1 have listened with interest to what the minister has said in explanation, but in the absence of further information it is difficult to understand this sudden departure of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and why this change could not have been known to the house before the closing hour last night. However, to be informed at five minutes to eleven, whether it be through the whip's office or by the minister himself, that the order of business for today was to be suddenly changed is not in keeping with our practice nor with the way the hon. gentleman, as leader of the house, has personally sought to conduct the business of this session in collaboration with opposition groups. The fact is, however, that opposition groups have made particular preparations, and it is not fair to the proper discussion of the public business to have this sudden change made, in view of the absence of certain hon. members because of arrangements previously made.
The hon. gentleman stated that the arrangement to consider the estimates of the department of health and welfare today was made to accommodate me. I readily acknowledge that the leader of the house did accede to the suggestion of the hon. member for Laurier that, as I could not be here on Friday-there was no suggestion that I would not be here on Saturday, and I will be- and perhaps in view of the fact that I had
[Mr. Churchill.)
formerly been in charge of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the estimates of that department could be brought on today. The minister acceded to that request, which I readily acknowledge, and I personally expressed my gratitude to him at the time. But that is not the issue. The fact is, the house was informed that it would be dealing with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare today and not those of the Department of Justice, and that it would not be considering the estimates of the Department of Justice before Saturday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Friday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Friday; the Minister of Justice properly corrects me. Mr. Chairman, we have spoken with some heat this morning because this change seriously affects arrangements the opposition parties have made for its scrutiny of the estimates. Under our parliamentary system the house cannot properly scrutinize the estimates unless there is participation in that scrutiny by those who sit in opposition. I suggest that is clear under our system. If the government wishes to railroad these things through-


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -there is nothing we can do to stop it. The Prime Minister looked at me very crossly a few moments ago and I returned that look with one of equal concern, because I place on his shoulders, as Prime Minister and leader of this house, the responsibility for the proper conduct of the business of this house, and we have not had that conduct from this government this session.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to enter into a controversy, but I understand that the hon. gentleman, while I was absent-which of course is not unusual for him to do-made an observation, suggestion or insinuation that because the communication was made through the whip I had communicated with the whip. May I say to him, that was unworthy of him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: That was very unworthy of the hon. gentleman.


Murdo William Martin: You do it all the time.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman while he was speaking, and I should hope he will accord me the same courtesy, unless he has a question to ask.
Situations necessitating this kind of change have arisen quite frequently in the past. During the time I was in the opposition things sometimes took place which made it impossible

to proceed with the announced business of the house. While I realize that there will always be inconveniences involved, the fact remains that hon. members have known for the last week or more that the estimates of the Department of Justice were coming up for consideration. The change yesterday was made to accommodate the hon. gentleman. As circumstances have developed, it is impossible to proceed in that direction today. In the absence of hon. members opposite-[DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Just a moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister asked me if I had a question.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: Just one moment. I am surprised to find that the hon. member opposite who was to deal with the estimates of the Department of Justice is among those who are absent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no; he is here.


John George Diefenbaker: He is here? Oh, well, I thought possibly the hon. member who was going to deal with the estimates of the Department of Justice was not here. That not being so, this whole situation becomes another tempest in a teapot. I thought possibly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was going to deal with the estimates of the Department of Justice, he being the expert on the law. I am sorry, and beg your pardon; I should have known better than that. In view of the presence of the hon. member of the opposition who will deal with those estimates, and because hon. members opposite have known since last week these estimates were coming up for consideration, there can be no discomfiture. As to the railings and rantings that have taken place, I suggest that sometimes the railings of the hon. member for Essex East are-


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are getting under your skin.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say this-


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are beginning to worry you.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Essex East has tried over and over again to leave the impression that things are being railroaded.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: He got two supporters that time.
Supply-Justice


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are going to lose four on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is working himself into a state of synthetic annoyance. However, let me say that these situations arise from time to time, and there is no reason whatever why we should not proceed with the estimates of the Department of Justice, in view of the opposition expert, who can now speak with authority being present.


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


John George Diefenbaker: Let us now get on with the business of this house. Changes are made from time to time when circumstances arise making it impossible to follow the announced program. However, the suggestion that these estimates are being pushed through is absolutely false. As a matter of fact, we are taking much more time in respect of the estimates than is ever taken in any other democratic parliament within the commonwealth. The opposition is given all the time it desires in asking helpful questions, but the repetition is continuing. Let that be; that is the function of the opposition. However, the government's function is to get on with the business, and to try to secure the approval of the house in respect to the estimates. If there is any item in the justice estimates in respect to which an hon. member will rise and say that with some expert now absent, for some inexplicable reason the house will be able to deal with it in a manner that will assure the fullest investigation, and without whom it cannot, that item can be postponed in order to accommodate. Let us get on with the business.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
courteous Prime Minister a question? Would he tell the house why he could not have extended to opposition parties the courtesy of advising them before five minutes to eleven that there was going to be this change, when as a result of not doing so all the government was doing was putting a gun at the opposition's head?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what good it would do to put a gun at the hon. gentleman's head. There would be no damage done in any event.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What a wonderful reply. What a dignified Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I must have hit the target. I simply point out that the explanation has been given by the house leader. Let us get on with the business.

Supply-Justice


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the house leader a question, and I might add that his remarks were relevant and he did try to be courteous to the house. What was the reason for the delay in communicating the change in plans for today? After the decision was taken to change from health and welfare to justice, what was the reason for the delay in communicating that decision to the opposition?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said earlier I did not get the information myself until nearly eleven o'clock. I immediately got in touch with the whip, and as soon as he appeared I asked him to relay the message.


George James McIlraith: I want to thank the minister for giving the explanation, an explanation that was not given before.


Mr. Habel:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it is my duty to be fair to the chief government whip. I imagine that he did what he thought was right. He certainly called me as soon as he got the news, but I could not do otherwise than advise my leader today of what had taken place. I am not blaming the whip for it at all. I think the government is to blame.


Jacques Flynn: For the information of the hon. member for Hull I would refer him to standing order 34, where it is indicated that Mr. Speaker may permit a debate on a point of order. This has always been interpreted to mean that if he may permit debate he may also interrupt or end it. It has been the constant practice in the house for the Speaker to do so when in his opinion he has heard enough to be able to rule.
Second, the point of order raised by the hon. member for Essex East was not, of course, a point of order in itself because standing order 18 (2) provides:
... government orders may be called In such sequence as the government may think fit.
I have allowed expressions of regret for half an hour, and I think we should now proceed with the business of the house.
Mr. Pallet!: If I may have your indulgence for one minute, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something with respect to the comment of the hon. member for Kootenay West as to the time he was notified. I would advise him that I got in touch with the office of the leader of the new C.C.F. party and he was not there. I then endeavoured to get in touch with the hon. member for Kootenay West and there was no answer on the telephone. The office of their whip also did not answer. I waited until after the welcome to our distinguished visitor, because I thought the hon. member might wish to prepare notes, depending on 
what had been said before, and he was informed immediately after that. I thought that in courtesy to him he should know the sequence of events.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thanks for the courtesy to me, too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I accept the information in good spirit. I was in the veterans affairs committee prior to that time.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 165 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman, let us discuss it.


Mr. Eudes:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. It has not been customary to make a statement on the first item of the Department of Justice, but for the information of hon. members I might say that it is my intention to make a statement by way of a progress report on the first item of the penitentiaries branch, and I shall probably have something to say on the first item of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimates.
(Translation):


Raymond Pierre Eudes: Mr. Chairman, the impression we get from the estimates brought down by the Minister of Justice for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, is that of a marked increase in that department's expenditures over the past few years.
At the moment, we are called upon to vote estimates totalling $33,481,664. During the last fiscal year, the committee approved an expenditure of $28,328,287 for the same services, that is $5,153,377 less than this year. In other words, this year's estimates are slightly more than 18 per cent higher than last year's.
In 1957 when this department's estimates were examined by a special committee, parliament authorized the then minister to spend $18,615,230, namely $14,866,434 less than this year.
That means that the estimates we are asked to approve are 75 per cent higher than those voted by the house in 1957.
We would understand and agree if the increase in this year's estimates over those of 1957 were proportionate to the salary increases granted by the civil service commission, to the increase, since then, in the number of judges of the various federal courts and to the additional expenditures incurred by the implementation of certain recommendations of the Fauteux commission, like the ones concerning the national parole board, to the improvement of a few of the existing penitentiaries and the construction of a few new penitentaries.

But those items-the national parole board, the penitentiaries and the various federal courts, come under a different heading in the estimates now tabled by the minister.
If you consider the item before us, dealing with departmental administration, you find that the minister is asking the committee to vote an amount of $1,194,583, or $250,346 more than last year, an increase of close to 30 per cent.
In 1957, for the same item which was then numbered 166, the then minister asked the house to vote the amount of $513,658, or $680,925 less than what the minister is asking for now. For this item alone, the expenses anticipated by the minister for the current fiscal year are therefore 130 per cent above those incurred in 1957.
The administration of the Parole Act and the penitentiaries service show increases of $79,503 and $4,443,532 respectively, which makes a total of $4,523,035, or 20 per cent more than last year. Those two services will cost the taxpayers, for the current fiscal year, the sum of $24,687,224.
Last year, for those two services, the Department of Justice had been voted a total of $20,164,189.
In 1957, this committee had voted appropriations of $186,585 and $11,514,643 respectively for those two services, a total of $11,701,228, or less than half what we are now asked to vote.
Faced with this impressive and rapid increase in the votes asked by the Minister of Justice, we are forced to recall the criticism the Conservative party used to make when they were in the opposition and their promises to the electorate in 1957 and 1958, that, once elected, they would cut each department's expenses and would follow a policy of strict economy to reduce the taxpayer's burden.
As the elected representatives of the people it is our duty to check the use which is made of the money the people pay daily through taxes and to ask ourselves whether the people get out of this increase in government expenditures, advantages which are equivalent to the sacrifices they have to make, and, finally, whether those funds are used in accordance with the principles of efficiency and thrift we can rightly expect the government to follow.
This obligation brings us to make a closer and more accurate examination of the items included under the heading "Departmental Administration."
90205-6-338
Supply-J ustice
Thus, we find that we now have five people, instead of three last year, who hold the ranks of deputy minister, associate deputy minister or assistant deputy minister.
Even though I have no intention of criticizing the salary paid to any one of those people, I notice that the total expenditure under this heading for the current year is $92,500 whereas, in 1957, the salaries of that category of officials cost $65,000. That means an increase under this item, for this year, of $27,500, or approximately 40 per cent.
The number of the department's advisory counsel which totalled 31 in 1957, has gone up to 40 since last year. That item entails an expenditure of $353,360 in salaries whereas, in 1957, this item was $176,220; that is an increase of 100 per cent.
In 1957, the then minister and the solicitor general had on their staff a private secretary and two executive assistants, which cost the public the sum of $19,000.
Today, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General are assisted in the dispatch of their work by a private secretary, an executive assistant, a special assistant, an associate private secretary, a private secretary to the Solicitor General, an assistant private secretary and an executive assistant to the Solicitor General, which means a staff of seven instead of three in 1957 and a cost of $50,480 a year; this is an increase of $31,480, or 160 per cent, over 1957,
In 1957, the Department of Justice had two administrative officers and one technical officer, and their salaries came to a total of $14,170.
This year, the same department has seven administrative officers and seven technical officers, and the taxpayers have to pay those people in this fiscal year, an amount of $58,180, or an increase in expenditure of over 300 per cent under this item.
I will not take the time of the committee by making a detailed review of every item under this vote. It is enough to say that in 1957 about 109 employees came under this central administration vote, with salaries to an amount of about $460,000. This year, the minister put under this vote 157 civil servants and he now asks for an appropriation of $910,983, or about double the amount provided in 1957.
The increase in personnel that I have just mentioned requires necessarily an increase in personnel in other departmental branches.
The number of clerks, secretaries of those high officials, stenographers, typists, messengers, which was 68 in 1957 reaches 96 this year.

Supply-J ustice
Auxiliary expenditures have also gone up accordingly, for instance, those for professional and special services, travelling expenses, telephone, telegrams, publications, stationery, books, etc.
In 1957, these auxiliary expenditures amounted to $52,000. This year, they total $146,000, or an increase of almost 200 per cent.
In the figures I have just mentioned are included, of course, statutory salary increases authorized by the civil service commission.
Nevertheless, the personnel of this section of the Department of Justice, that is the departmental administration, has increased to such an extent that it can only be justified by a proportionate increase in the duties and the tasks assigned to it by the minister, and that increase in work must, in turn, be assessed according to its necessity and its efficiency.
I should like to read now, if I may, without commenting on them-comments are not required anyway-the three following excerpts, the first from a report on a meeting held in Truro, Nova Scotia, published in the May 2, 1957 issue of the Toronto Telegram.
(Text):
The Conservative leader told an overflow meeting that a Tory government would drastically cut government expenditures and give relief to long-suffering taxpayers.
(Translation) :
The second excerpt from the London Free Press, which was published on the occasion of a meeting held on June 7, 1957 at Woodstock, reports the following statement by the present Prime Minister:
(Text):
The Conservative party in the house had insisted that the government itself first of all should reduce the high cost of big government.
(Translation):
And the third item, from the Ottawa Journal, reporting an interview granted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on June 26, 1957, says this:
(Text):
Finance Minister Fleming told the Journal today that he is declaring war on waste and extravagance ... Thrift is a virtue of individuals as well as of nations and governments.
(Translation):
I shall let the members of this committee draw their own conclusions.
I now have a few brief remarks to make in regard to those who are generally called the top officials of the Department of Justice,
[Mr. Eudes.l
that is, those who enjoy the confidence of the minister and who, because of their experience and ability, are called upon to advise him in his important function. I mean, for instance, the Solicitor General, the deputy minister, the two associate deputy ministers, the two assistant deputy ministers, the executive assistants, the private secretaries, the assistant secretaries, the legal advisers, the administrative and technical officers, as well as the heads of the various branches.
Those high officials help the Minister of Justice solve the many legal issues which are submitted to him by the various other government departments.
The Minister of Justice is, in fact, the legal adviser of his cabinet colleagues and, sometimes of the provincial legislatures on these matters.
The advice of those high officials is therefore sought whenever the government intends, for instance, to amend the Criminal Code, the Bankruptcy Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Patent Act, and in general, in respect of any bill submitted to parliament.
All those bills, are necessarily more or less directly connected with civil law.
However, the province of Quebec has a civil law of its own, which differs substantially from that of the other provinces, and which, needless to say, is a most highly prized part of its heritage.
I am not in any sense suggesting that those officials, in discharging their duties, fail to take cognizance of this peculiarity of the province of Quebec in their advice to the minister. However, this peculiarity logically calls for a reasonable representation, within this group of officials, of people steeped in Quebec civil law.
Last year, there was one deputy minister from the province of Quebec out of three. This year, out of five deputies, only one seems to be from the province of Quebec.
Similarly, out of five members on the national parole board, only one seems to be from the province of Quebec. The same remark applies to practically every division of the department.
It seems to me that in the discharge of such important duties, particularly in view of the complications arising from this peculiarity of Quebec civil law, the task of these officials, and hence that of the minister, would be made easier and more effective if there were a more adequate representation of people thoroughly trained in the civil law of that province.

I have just referred to the national parole board.
I am pleased-I had raised this question in the house on April 22 and June 18, 1959- that the minister has accepted the recommendations then put forward by the associations particularly interested in the rehabilitation of criminals of the female sex, to the effect that a woman be appointed to that parole board.
The female inmates in our penitentiaries, while they do not represent a large proportion of the total number of inmates, nevertheless are increasing in numbers year by year, and surely they need, with respect to both detention and rehabilitation, a treatment different from that which is applied to the male inmates.
Miss M. L. Lynch will, I have no doubt, be of effective assistance to her colleagues on that board in this particular aspect of the important social problem of rehabilitating criminals of the female sex.
Since the end of last war, especially, crime in every shape and form has been on the increase to a frightening degree in all countries and such outbreak often attended by violence has caused persons who generally remain indifferent to social problems which do not concern them personally, to revolt against it.
Public opinion has been alerted. Sociologists, moralists, criminologists, public officers, the people's elected representatives are considering the problem.
In this connection the third biennial Canadian congress of corrections was held in Toronto from May 14 to May 19 last.
That interesting meeting shows the importance being attached today to the problem raised by the criminal in society and it will be of valuable help in finding a solution.
According to the program, on Wednesday, May 17, Mr. George McLean presided over a discussion on information or communications of an administrative nature. The man is introduced in the following terms: Information Representative, Department of Justice, Canada.
But what seems strange to me, is that nowhere in the government telephone book, under any division of the Department of Justice could I find the name of that Mr. George McLean.
If he is not an employee of the Department of Justice, why was he described as
90205-6-338J
Supply-J ustice
"Information Representative, Department of Justice, Canada". I wonder if the department has paid him representation expenses.
After that digression, I should like to come back to the serious and difficult problem facing society and the government, because of the increased number of crimes.
Following extensive and objective studies in several countries, it has been found that there is a tendency to consider criminals in a more humanitarian light.
Criminals are seldom considered nowadays as reprobated and repugnant human beings to whom, on account of their crimes, must be meted out exemplary punishment.
More and more the tendency is to examine criminals in their psychic and psychological behaviour, instead of merely banishing them from society.
So people wonder why, among so many human beings possessing in general the same moral and physical faculties, living in an almost identical environment, subject to the same difficulties, one of them should become guilty of an act for which the court will condemn him to reclusion for years, in a penal institution.
Personally, I think a criminal, even for his first offence, does not deserve absolution without penance. Besides, our judges, in the case of first offences, show much understanding and humanity toward the accused.
Most of the time, sentence is deferred in order to give the judge a chance to consider the accused under the circumstances which have surrounded his criminal act and his conduct up to that time, precisely in order not to punish him harshly but to impose upon him the fair punishment he deserves.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
(Text):
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Raymond Pierre Eudes: Mr. Chairman, before the house took recess, I was speaking about the upsurge in the incidence of crime and of the growing tendency to look upon the criminal from a more humanitarian angle.
In this respect, however, we must take care that our humane feelings do not lead us to

Supply-Justice
the other extreme, i.e., mawkish sentimentality. Even in the case of his first offence, the criminal must be considered as a malefactor towards his victim, though he himself may only too often be considered as a victim of society, in the widest sense of the word, for instance through lack of family education, or a deficient family education, and, therefore, because of bad examples in his family surroundings, without the necessary correctives; he may be so as a result of lack of understanding on the part of a teacher or employer, with a resulting attitude or rebellion against any authority or persons considered superior; or again he may be a victim because he cannot earn a living by his own work and according to his abilities and needs, which again is a cause of resentment against society as a whole. After he has served his sentence, the criminal tries to reinstate himself into society. It is at this point that society must play its part, accept him into its ranks, and give him employment as soon as possible. Otherwise, if he remains out of work, he will turn again to crime, convinced as he will be that he has to live outside the pale of society.
Unfortunately, it seems that, in spite of the activity of the national parole board no progress worth mentioning is apparent with regard to the rehabilitation of criminals or their reintegration into a normal life within society.
That remark is based on the last report submitted to the minister by the penitentiaries commission.
The report reveals that, on March 31, 1960, the total number of prisoners registered in the penitentiaries was 6,344. Judging by the sentences meted out every day in the courts, I think this number must have increased since.
(Text):


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit me to interrupt and say that if he wishes to make some remarks on penitentiaries at this stage. I will not seriously object, but I indicated that I intend to make a statement on penitentiaries when we reach that item, at which time I expect we will have a discussion related primarily, if not exclusively, to penitentiaries, so I wonder if his remarks would not be more appropriate then.


Raymond Pierre Eudes: Mr. Chairman, I am not talking on penitentiaries; I am talking on crime in general, but I am using statistics which are important.

(Translation):


James Ross Fulton: I understand.


Raymond Pierre Eudes: I therefore have no doubt that following the many sentences meted out each day in our courts of justice, the number of those criminals will have increased since then. From this number we have to deduct the criminals who have avoided arrest.
The same report notes a general and steady increase, since 1956-57, in the number of admissions to penitentiaries. The St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary has set a sad and regrettable record in this respect, with an increase of 435 compared to the previous year.
A fact which makes us think and which motivated my earlier remarks is that out of this total of prisoners, 1,186, i.e., 18.69 per cent are serving a first sentence. We may therefore gather, which is more deplorable still, even if we consider the previous record, that 5,158 of all those prisoners were at that time habitual offenders, in the appalling proportion of 81.30 per cent.
During the year ending March 31, 1960, 3,403 prisoners were sent to the penitentiaries, 1,468, or 43 per cent, of them being habitual offenders.
On page 16, paragraph 47, the same report notes that the influence of the national parole board has been felt to a marked degree, for, by virtue of the parole board act, 1,427 prisoners were discharged, compared to 839 during the previous year. Now, during the same period, 1,468 habitual offenders were sent back to the penitentiary. It might therefore be interesting to know how many of the 1,427 discharged prisoners are today leading a normal life and have not, since their discharge, been brought again before the courts under some criminal charge.
Another revealing fact which may give a better idea of that dark and gloomy picture of crime, is found in paragraph 52, page 17, of the said report where is is said that 776 prisoners among the 3,403 incarcerated during the year ending March 31, 1960, were under 21 years of age, that is 23.28 per cent, which represents an increase of 124 compared to the previous year. Among those 776 inmates under 21, a total of 401 which means 50 per cent, are habitual offenders.
This completely objective examination of the criminality situation in this country, based on official statistics which do not include the number of inmates of prisons under provincial jurisdiction, warrants some serious reflection.
Not one of us, I presume, remains indifferent when, in reading his newspaper every morning, he finds the lengthy account of the crimes committed the day before.

I do not claim to know the causes of this constant rise in criminality, but while I am no specialist in the field, one can accept without fear of error the theory that the criminal is not alone responsible for his crime.
Every day we hear of accused people who, having either pleaded guilty or been found guilty, are asked by the judge "But why have you committed this crime for which I have to sentence you to so many years in prison?" And they reply: "It is because I was led to it".
Indeed, many factors can lead to crime: defective home education, bad examples from parents, bad literature or movies, the failure of society to provide means of earning a living, and on the other hand, the inexplicable ease with which one can obtain weapons, the unconcern of society and even its refusal to assist in the rehabilitation of the criminal.
I am reminded of the case of a federal civil servant who was dismissed after years of loyal and competent service, when it was discovered that some ten years before, he had been found guilty of shattering a store window with intent to steal.
As to movies, despite the constant efforts of the various organizations which, across the country, are concerned with morality and particularly with the problem of criminality, it is astonishing to see the number of pictures using as their theme either crime or gunfights.
In fact, those movies are advertised in the newspapers and on movie house billboards, with pictures always showing as the centre of attraction an actor holding a revolver in his hand. Even if those pictures do not glorify crime, they seem to revel in its detailed exposure and in showing the many uses to which firearms may be put. In many cases, they may be regarded as a kind of finishing course for budding criminals. Their suggestive pictures-we all know the influence of pictures-cannot but leave a damaging imprint on the minds of the young.
In that regard, television networks, whether of the C.B.C. or not, surely deserve no compliment. There is no doubt that close to four pictures out of five which are shown in our homes through television display a hero, good or bad, who packs a pistol.
While each one of those pictures may not be immoral in itself, the repetition of fights, battles and killings can only have a bad influence on young minds.
Supply-Justice
The same remarks also apply, of course, to comic strips published daily in most newspapers.
(Text):


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Order. I am sorry to have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it
the pleasure of the committee that the hon. member be allowed to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond Pierre Eudes: I wish to thank the members of this committee.
(Translation):
Thus-unconsciously perhaps, for the purpose of making money-a climate is created which gives the impression that crime is easy, less odious, and that the use of firearms is normal and practically necessary in society.
The publicity given each day in the press to crimes which have been committed the day before certainly does not help to improve that dangerous climate either.
I understand that the duty of the press is to inform the public but there is a certain difference, which newspapers disregard too easily, between keeping the public informed and giving detailed descriptions of crimes.
Allow me to give you an example to illustrate the power of bad example.
A few months ago, the newspapers reported that a Montreal bank manager had received a telephone call threatening to kill him and his family if he did not leave a certain amount of money at a set time and place. The scheme worked, but on account of the ensuing publicity, it was tried again several times without the same results.
In this regard, I feel the committee would be interested in learning from the minister what consideration was given to the brief submitted to him by the chiefs of police association of Canada asking that use of the telephone to threaten, insult or annoy other people be considered as a crime punishable by law and subject to severe punishment.
According to experts in that field, one of the main causes for the increasing number of crimes and their increased violence is the ease with which firearms can be obtained.
Without those arms, there would be practically no crime.
Mr. Justice Wilfrid Lazure, president of the court of Queen's bench, in Montreal, and a foremost authority in criminology, said that

Supply-Justice
his 20 years' experience as a judge of a criminal court led him to believe that at least 75 per cent of the crimes are caused by the use of firearms.
On the other hand, Montreal police officers have stated that, in that city alone more than 2,000 shady characters are unlawful owners of firearms and that each of them is a constant threat to the public.
How many other persons are legally in possession of a firearm whose necessity is highly questionable, and how many crimes would have been avoided if their author had not been in possession, even lawfully, of one of those firearms?
I cannot understand how, despite the strictness of the law, despite the minute precautions prescribed by legislators as regards the manufacture, sale, use, exchange, loan and even repair of those arms, all those bandits are able to secure them.
I have been told that many of those small arms have been sold by the crown assets disposal corporation after having been declared surplus by the Minister of National Defence and many of which came especially from the air force.
I wonder whether it would not have been a better plan for the government to store those dangerous weapons instead of putting them into circulation.
Anyway, either the law is not strict enough, and I wonder how it could be made more stringent, or it is not properly enforced.
That question was brought up on June 30, 1959, when the Criminal Code was amended, and again last year, on June 30, 1960, when the estimates of the same department were before us.
According to page 5619 of Hansard for June 30, 1960, the minister stated:
The problem of firearms generally is a large, important, urgent but very difficult problem, and I have given instructions to my department and to the R.C.M. Police to review this matter, to prepare tables of what amendments might be made to the Criminal Code that would be of assistance in dealing with the sort of situation about which people are concerned in Montreal, and to give me those papers, at which time I will study them and hope to make a reference to the conference of commissioners on uniformity, and have their consideration this fall, and after consideration report back to the house again at the next session.
On Tuesday May 16, 1961, answering a question put by my colleague the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Descha-telets) concerning that matter, the Minister of Justice said:
I do not think I will be in a position to introduce amendments relating to this matter at this session. There are discussions and studies under way at
CMr. Eudes.l
the moment concerning the whole question of the control of firearms, but I do not expect they will be completed in time to make possible the introduction of amendments at this session.
In view of the urgency and gravity of this problem, the delay is extremely regrettable.
During the studies that are under way in order to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code in relation with firearms, perhaps the minister would consider adding a section which, if it had existed, would have prevented the murder of constable Marcel Lacombe, of the Montreal police force, on May 5, last.
This constable was shot point-blank, at police headquarters. His murderer, on the preceding April 18, had been arrested for illegal possession of the very arm with which he killed constable Lacombe.
This 17-year old murderer had previously appeared before the welfare court, then was referred to welfare agencies, who tried to no avail to help him.
Arraigned in magistrate's court on April 18, he pleaded not guilty and was released pending preliminary inquiry. When he failed to appear at this inquiry, an order to appear was issued against him.
Arrested once again, he came back before the court which found inadequate the evidence in support of the charges of illegal possession of a firearm.
Once released, he insisted on regaining possession of his arm which, in fact, was given back to him the following day. And it is with this very arm that a few days later he killed constable Lacombe.
The Criminal Code could perhaps include a specific provision allowing a judge, at his discretion, even if he releases a man charged with committing a crime or attempting to commit a crime with an offensive weapon, to order final confiscation of the weapon, to annul the accused's permit to carry a firearm and make it impossible for him to renew his permit.
The minister might also consider the possibility of amending the Criminal Code with regard to drugs in general and barbiturates in particular.
I understand that his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mon-teith) will soon introduce in this house a report on this urgent matter. Indeed, the seriousness of the present crime wave and the number of upheavals in penitentiaries are certainly due to the use of barbiturates.
Under present legislation, legal proceedings for the use of narcotics must be taken under chapter 201 which comes under the Department of National Health and Welfare.

The crimes listed in that chapter are of a restricted and limited nature.
I would therefore ask the minister to consider the possibility of amending the Criminal Code so as to make it an offence to use those barbiturates and narcotics. Such an amendment would enable law enforcement officers, whatever their jurisdiction, to fight more freely this evil which is so dangerous for society.
Finally, before I conclude my remarks, I should like to draw the minister's attention to another important question which was mentioned several times in this house but especially on June 18, 1959, by my colleague from Papineau (Mr. Meunier), during the debate on the same department's estimates.
I am referring to the appearance on the market, during the past few years, of those trading stamps which affect the unwilling consumers who use them more and more every day and which the Criminal Code has been unable to prohibit because it could not foresee their existence.
The well founded representations which the Canadian consumers' association made to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the Minister of Justice makes you wonder.
Those trading stamps are nothing but a sham. Calculating the number of stamps he needs to get the premium, the article described in the catalogue, the consumer no longer stops to ask himself if he needs the product he is buying; his sole ambition is to collect the required number of stamps. He does not realize that this premium he is coveting, it is he, the consumer, who is paying for it; it is he, furthermore, who is paying for the printing costs of those stamps, publicity and other intermediate operation costs of that gigantic enterprise, all of which add to the price of the article he is buying, most of the time without any necessity, but only to have more stamps.
Such practice is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of the law. It offers unfair competition to the small retailer and is an important inflationary factor in our economy.
In January 1960, to the representations made by the Canadian consumers' association, the government replied that it was awaiting a decision on a specific case before taking any position on the matter.
That test case was decided by the supreme court in both suits against Loblaw Groceterias Co. Ltd., and David Thompson (Niagara I.G.A. Grocery) by the attorney general of Manitoba.
Supply-Justice
The supreme court rendered a decision indicating that under the present wording of the Criminal Code the use of those premium stamps was permitted.
Therefore the time has come for the department to indicate the position it intends to take in this connection.
Finally, it would be most interesting to know the reaction of the minister at the results of the poll recently conducted by the newspaper La Presse about a provincial or national lottery.
We know that the poll has shown that in the province of Quebec, at least, a large majority of the population was in favour of such a lottery.
The minister might tell the committee whether it is the government's intention to bring forward an amendment to the Criminal Code to legalize such a lottery if not throughout the country, at least in provinces that would favour lotteries.
To conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I will respectfully ask you to assure the minister that all my comments were inspired by a complete and honest desire to co-operate.
(Translation) :


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I should first like to thank the hon. member for Skeena, who expected to speak at this time but who allowed me to go on instead, because of another engagement I have.
Before entering into the discussion in respect of the estimates of the Department of Justice, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga. I listened to his remarks with great care ahd can only conclude that he has made a great study of this subject, and is a man with considerable knowledge of jurisprudence.
In speaking on the estimates themselves, my first words are of praise for the Department of Justice and in particular the Minister of Justice. It is in no spirit of affectation that I say, and I think hon. members will agree, that the minister is young in years, an earnest student of jurisprudence, and a reformer. Since he has taken over the Department of Justice we have been able to consider such things as the reform of the practice of parole of prisoners-a subject which has been dealt with by the hon. member for Hochelaga-as well as reform in respect of the pensions of widows of judges, which certainly needed reviewing. We have also been able to think in

Supply-Justice
terms of legislation in respect of judges themselves, in making certain that we have a strong judiciary at all times in every province of this great country.
I also have in mind, as I am sure all hon. members have, the question of the reforming of prisoners. When lawyers have occasion to speak about this matter they think of young men from good families who through no fault of their own sometimes get into serious difficulties and are incarcerated in one of the institutions in this country. There has been a lot of reform in that regard. I also think it took a real statesman like the minister to come to grips with the subject of capital punishment. I do not want to deal with that because it is before the house in another measure. I simply wish to say that the minister has come to grips with the subject, and we have now progressed along the road in that if the bill is passed, capital punishment will be abolished with respect to certain kinds of murder.
I should like to deal with some of the matters I mentioned in my introductory remarks, and one of them is the parole board itself. I think all of us appreciate that this country is only as strong as its families. When one of our sons or daughters runs afoul of the law and is incarcerated in an institution, we want to have that son or daughter rehabilitated so they may take their place in society with other Canadians. I wish to congratulate the minister most warmly in this regard, because the emphasis has been placed on the rehabilitation of such prisoners wherever they may be incarcerated. We have set up a new parole board which reviews cases from the psychological and sociological points of view. The board takes into consideration the crime of which the person was convicted and all other circumstances; and if we can put one person back into society, if we can save one Canadian every day, we are doing a job in this particular field. I would say that the national parole board and its officials are doing an excellent job in that regard.
I should also like to mention the changed attitude with regard to penitentiaries. The old bars and cement are disappearing to some extent. We now have three types of institutions, minimum, medium and maximum security. When a person has been convicted of a first offence surely that person, as has been said many times before in the house by able jurists, should not be forced to mix with hardened criminals who need to be under maximum security. Therefore we have established a different kind of penitentiary that does not have maximum security. We have established prison farms for people of

this type, and rehabilitation starts immediately they come to such an institution. At these prison farms we have now established a person takes his place with others knowing full well that he will be assisted in rehabilitating himself to take his place in society.
Then we have medium security institutions for people who may have committed the same offence again, or are put there because other circumstances enter into the picture. Last, we have maximum security institutions for those persons who do not respond no matter what the penitentiary officials do or what judges may say. These people have come before the bar of justice many times for offences and, of course, a criminal of this type must be kept away from society until there is some sign that he is prepared to be rehabilitated. I think this reform was necessary and overdue, and I wish to congratulate the young and aggressive minister for bringing it about.
I should like to say a few words about the judges themselves. After all, I think the administration of justice really is the window dressing and the colour of democracy. Just recently I picked up an old book that belonged to my mother. The book is 100 years old, and I should like to quote a statement which represents the view of those who believe in the rule of law:
Law does not put the least restraint Upon our freedom, but maintains it;
Or, if it does, 'tis for our good,
To give us freer latitude;
For wholesome laws preserve us free,
By stinting of our liberty.
In other words, we have to give up a little of our freedom for the good of society, but out of it all we get a greater degree of freedom. As a lawyer I believe that over the years we have always had a good and independent judiciary. Not only under the present government but under the former one good appointments were made to the bench. Only two weeks ago I was before a judge who was appointed by the former administration. He is a man who was born in Alberta and whose parents came from central Europe. He was able to hand out the kind of justice that every Canadian feels should be dispensed. This is the calibre of man that we need on the bench. I think the government has seen to it that our judges have continued to be of a high calibre so that at all times in our democracy we have a judiciary of high standard which exercises great care in the application of the laws of our country.
With respect to those men who have dedicated themselves to serve as judges, I would point out that too often people say that this judge or that judge is making so many thousands of dollars a year. There is a tremendous

responsibility in accepting a judgeship in this country. Many of our top lawyers who could earn three or four times the salary of a judge by practising law make a financial sacrifice in order to assume this responsibility in our society, to see that our way of life remains free, and because they believe that the right calibre of man should sit on the bench to administer justice. When we have men of this type coming forward and making sacrifices to serve their country, I think it is up to us to make certain that their families are protected. A judge is expected to maintain a certain standard of living, and their salaries over the years have been far from commensurate with the work they do. I know of several widows of judges who have been left without the necessary security and whose pension is very low, sometimes $3,000 or less. I am glad to see that the situation is being reviewed, because if we expect these men to make the kind of sacrifices they do make in many cases when they go on the bench, the people of this country should be prepared to make certain that their families are protected and compensated for the sacrifice the head of the household has made.
With reference to judges' pensions, while it may not be true today it certainly was true in the past that men went on the bench at an early age to serve their country and were not able to save very much money before doing so. When the time of retirement came they found themselves having to reduce their standard of living considerably. I am glad to see that this matter is also being reviewed.
I want to deal now with something that concerns my own constituency. I would ask the minister to bear with me, because I have another engagement and I may not be here when the particular item is being dealt with. I feel the matter is very important to the constituency of Bow River and particularly to the Drumheller area. Hon. members have heard me mention this matter on other occasions, and I want to be fair in dealing with the circumstances. I am talking about the soft coal mines in the Drumheller area, and I will relate this matter to the estimates before us at the present time. There are two industries there. On the one hand there is a rich farming area and, on the other hand, there is a very depressed coal mining industry. Because of the competition of natural gas and petroleum with coal, miners have been thrown out of work and as a result there is a degree of unemployment in the area similar to that in Springhill.
I come now to the point. I am asking the minister and his officials to give serious consideration to the establishment of a penitentiary in the Drumheller area when a peni-
Supply-Justice
tentiary is constructed in western Canada. I have various reasons for this request which I will deal with now. I have mentioned that it is an excellent farming area, and I have referred to the unemployment situation. Unemployment there is not something new. It occurred between the first and second wars and has happened again since the second war because of the competition of other fuels with coal. The kind of coal mined in that area is domestic fuel; therefore the industry was hard hit by the petroleum industry immediately it entered the competitive picture. These men who have put everything they have earned over the years into their little homes or their little institutions are forced to leave that area when the mines close. Many of them are men who have reached a time of life when they are not able to take up another kind of employment.
I say, therefore, this is a disaster area because of the relief situation. If something could be done, such as the erection of a federal institution, these men would be helped. Alberta is the only province in this country which does not have a penitentiary. The prisoners from that area go to the city of Prince Albert and are incarcerated in a Saskatchewan penitentiary.
Let us look at the attributes of the area itself. It is a large farming area. As I have said, there is a great deal of unemployment. Only this year another coal mine was closed, thus eliminating a payroll of $400,000 from that area. There is a good water supply, because the Red Deer river runs through the city. There are good access roads, because that area has been represented by a member of the legislature who has been minister of highways for a number of years. The area, therefore, has excellent hard top roads. The city of Drumheller is on the main Canadian National line from Calgary to Saskatoon. If you take a look at the map you will find that Drumheller is located pretty well in the centre of the province.
Last, but not least, I believe that the area desires such an institution. In many cases people do not want a maximum security penitentiary located in their area. Certainly the records show that the people of this area do want it. The united mine workers of America have petitioned the department for such an institution. The chamber of commerce of Alberta has asked for it. Organizations of coal workers have asked for it. In fact the people of the whole area have petitioned for it, because they have the same feeling that I am endeavouring to express in words today in respect of these people who find themselves in a very unhappy plight.

Supply-Justice
May I just review the evidence, on the strength of which I am requesting that this institution be located in this area. It is a good farming area in which to establish the farm type of institution which I discussed earlier in my remarks. There has been a great deal of unemployment there for almost 20 years. There is an adequate water supply, and we have the main line of the Canadian National and good roads in that area. I would ask in the strongest possible terms that consideration be given to the building of a penitentiary in that area.
I want to refer to two or three other matters before I conclude my remarks. I promised to be brief because the hon. member for Skeena was kind enough to allow me to speak in his place, since I have to leave. At the beginning of my remarks I mentioned the importance of the administration of justice in the province of Alberta. This is the one province in which the right to a jury trial in the supreme court can be waived because of the old Northwest Territories Act which is still part of the law of the province of Alberta. I have been one of those men at the bar who think that the guilt or innocence of an accused person should be determined by a jury of his own peers. There is danger in the belief that when you can waive a jury trial you can speed up the administration of justice. There is danger, too, that the jury system will eventually disappear from the province of Alberta. I may say that, except for capital offences, it is very rare now to have a jury impaneled.
This leads to three difficulties. One is that the judiciary itself loses the knack or the experience of addressing a jury and charging so far as the law is concerned in reference to criminal cases. Second, there is a feeling that they would rather not have the jury there. Defence counsel, who is an officer of the court, gets away from the idea of the jury system. I suggest that this is a matter which could be worked out by the federal and provincial governments, and which should be looked at with great caution before the jury system is eliminated from the province. There have been some cases in which defence counsel have asked that the jury be eliminated in so far as capital offences are concerned. I do not say it would happen today, but there is a danger that judges may say we do not want juries, and then if defence counsel insist on juries and the accused is convicted, the sentence might be a little more severe. These are dangers that exist in an environment in which there is no jury. I suggest, as I speak for the province in that regard, that we should exercise great care when we are thinking about doing away with the jury.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
I believe that ours is the only province in Canada in which the attorney general is not a lawyer and, therefore, has not had experience before the bar in so far as the jury system itself is concerned.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That could be a big advantage.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One member says that could be a big advantage. This has not been so in the past in those provinces which have had Liberal governments. I do not believe this has proven to be an advantage. In fact I have pointed out what one of our leading lawyers, the Minister of Justice, has done in so far as the reform of the law and administration of justice are concerned.
Once again may I say that I appreciate the hon. member for Skeena allowing me to speak at this time. I know he had planned to address the committee, but I had another engagement and I want to thank him very much for his kindness.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, may I first say that it was, of course, a pleasure to be able to assist the hon. member for Bow River or any other hon. member who finds himself in similar circumstances. It is not something for which an hon. member should offer extreme thanks, because I feel it is something each member of the house would like to do for another hon. member who finds himself in a similar position.
The Department of Justice, Mr. Chairman, is one which covers a wide variety of subject matters, many of which are not connected, that perhaps at this stage one might follow the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice and by others participating in the debate and leave specific suggestions and remarks about specific branches of the department until such time as we are dealing with the items for those particular divisions. For example, we have some argument to make in connection with the penitentiary branch and the parole structure which would be better left until the committee deals with those items. Certainly in so far as the enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and two or three other subjects are concerned, I think they would be better dealt with when those specific items are before the committee rather than-what was the word used today?-bifurcating our remarks about this department.
Initially I should like to deal with the functions of the Minister of Justice and to say I believe he has not properly carried out his duties. I refer to the functions of the minister pursuant to section 3 of the bill of rights. At the outset, Mr. Chairman, may I say-this is the result of hindsight-that I

feel it was a great error for parliament to enact that particular section in the bill of rights. What we did was to put into a statute a responsibility of the minister in so far as the internal functions of parliament were concerned. We were then drawing into our activities the Senate, the crown and presumably the courts.
This has been dealt with in a couple of instances in the United Kingdom, when members introduced bills dealing with the internal functions of parliament itself. It was held on a couple of occasions by Speakers in the United Kingdom parliament that it was not competent for parliament to entertain bills which contained provisions relating to the internal functions of the house itself. This is what we have done by the enactment of section 3 of the bill of rights giving the Minister of Justice a certain responsibility to examine the bills presented to parliament.
I think perhaps an error was made in doing it in this particular way. Nevertheless, it is the law. That is the responsibility of the minister under section 3. Perhaps I could make reference to it and read it. Section 3 of the bill of rights states as follows:
3. The Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the clerk of the privy council pursuant to the Regulations Act and every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
I think the situation is made quite clear there. The section states:
The Minister of Justice shall. .. examine ... every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons-
It also states that he shall do this in pursuance of or in accordance with such regulations as may be provided. I have the regulations here, and I shall make brief reference to them. This is from P.C. 1960-1792, December 31, 1960, regulations respecting the examination of bills and proposed regulations pursuant to section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Again it is stated here:
3. In the case of every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons the minister shall forthwith upon receipt of two copies of the bill from the Clerk of the House of Commons,
(a) examined-
And so on. It also states that he shall make a report. The words used here are similar to those found in the statute itself. I submit that the minister has failed to carry out his statutory obligation in this regard with respect to one bill before the house at the present time. I refer specifically to Bill No. 0-76, which is set down for second reading,
Supply-Justice
having been introduced or presented, as the bill of rights states, and standing in the name of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. This bill was given first reading or introduced in the house on March 22, 1961, a little more than two months ago.
It should be remembered that the bill of rights and the regulations say that the minister shall examine every bill introduced in or presented to the house. We made some inquiries earlier, as you may recall, Mr. Chairman, about what had happened with respect to this particular Bill No. C-76 in so far as examination of it was concerned, and with respect to Bill No. C-86 which has already been passed by this house. As found at page 4213 of Hansard of May 2, 1961, I asked the Minister of Justice whether he had so examined Bill No. C-86. On that day he stated as follows, and I am quoting from Hansard:
I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Justice always exercises his responsibility under section 3 of the bill of rights and the answer, as I am sure he has anticipated, is that this has been done in the case referred to and no inconsistency has been found.
That was in connection with Bill No. C-86, to which I referred. I then asked him in a supplementary question whether he had examined Bill No. C-76, which had been introduced, as I said, on March 22. The minister said this:
The Minister of Justice has looked at the proceedings of the house and the purported Bill No. C-76, and had discussions on that matter with the Chair. It is my view that this is not a bill which is properly before the house at all in that it purports to be a bill to amend a statute while actually it does nothing more than re-enact the same statute. In my view it is nothing more than an abuse of the procedure of this house, but I do not care to go further than that at this time.
The minister may have some opinions and they may be valid opinions in his mind. I think they are not, but they may be valid. But merely because the Minister of Justice has these opinions about a bill which has been introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, this does not allow him to get around section 3 of the bill of rights. He cannot in that way get out from under his duty and obligation to examine that particular bill. It is one which has been introduced in or presented to the House of Commons. What the minister's feelings are about this being in order is another matter entirely.
The minister was asked further about this particular subject matter, and as reported at page 4213 of Hansard he stated:
I have not concluded my consideration as to the propriety of Bill No. C-76.
I would point out that the Minister of Justice has examined Bill No. C-76, standing

Supply-J ustice
in the name of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. He has examined that bill from the point of view of its consistency or inconsistency with the bill of rights, and I submit that the Minister of Justice has found that certain parts of Bill No. C-76 are inconsistent with the bill of rights. By his own admission he has done this in another way; yet he refuses to report this inconsistency to parliament.
I therefore submit he has been derelict in the duty ascribed to him by this parliament under section 3 of the bill of rights. As found at page 4229 of Hansard of May 2, 1961, when the Minister of Justice was then discussing Bill No. C-86, which was the bill in the name of the Minister of Fisheries to amend the Fisheries Act, this is what the minister said:
I can assure the house that my colleague the Minister of Fisheries is, as are all members of the present government, most careful to review the legislation and the activities of the officers for which he is responsible to ensure that the legislation does not place him or his officers in a position where things are likely to be done contrary to the bill of rights.
On that occasion the minister said that Bill No. C-86 was designed to overcome the inconsistencies of the old Fisheries Act with the bill of rights. Then he pointed out further as follows, and I quote again from page 4229 of Hansard:
-we have here before us today a very concrete example of the effectiveness of the bill of rights. When you see the extent to which the Fisheries Act, a statute which has been on the books for many years, has offended the provisions of the present bill of rights, you will understand the important step forward made in introducing this piece of legislation entirely in conformity with that bill of rights.
As found on page 4230 he said further:
This government has had this under consideration since last fall, shortly after the bill of rights became effective in order to bring in legislation which will remove the objectionable features so that the officers of the Department of Fisheries, from the minister down, will be administering a piece of legislation which is in conformity with the bill of rights.
Here on three separate occasions or in three separate comments during the same day the Minister of Justice said that the old Fisheries Act to some extent was inconsistent with the bill of rights, and that Bill No. C-86 introduced by the Minister of Fisheries cleared up those inconsistencies.
We know what is contained in Bill No. C-76, in the name of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. That is a bill to re-enact the old Fisheries Act, with an additional clause that it should be studied to find out whether it is inconsistent with the bill of rights. I submit that the minister, by his own admission, has studied Bill No. C-76. By his own admission in another way he has told us that it contains a provision which is inconsistent with the

bill of rights. Yet he adamantly refuses to carry out the responsibility placed upon him by parliament and to report those inconsistencies to parliament, all because of some political embarrassment, perhaps. Regardless of the embarrassment that might be felt, I submit that the minister has no right to hide his embarrassment behind the argument that he feels Bill No. C-76 is not a bill properly before parliament, and he has been delinquent in his duties in this regard.
The bill of rights says the minister must examine and report at the first convenient opportunity. Surely the first convenient opportunity has passed in as much as it is now two months since Bill No. C-76 was introduced. Surely the first convenient opportunity has passed when the minister, by his own admission, says he has already examined the Fisheries Act and the bill introduced by the minister and found that certain inconsistencies in the old act were cleared up.
I do not want to suggest that the minister should take himself to court and sue himself under the section of the Criminal Code which deals with this question. There is a section of the Criminal Code which applies, section 107, and the minister is not above this particular section. This section says it is an offence against the Criminal Code to refuse to carry out responsibilities that a person is duty bound to carry out.
I think in this instance, Mr. Chairman, there is a prime example of a minister of the crown failing for one reason or another, or deliberately refusing to comply with a statute passed by this parliament, namely the bill of rights, to examine certain legislation and report to parliament upon it.
While we are on the subject of the examination of bills which are presented to the House of Commons may I again make reference to a question which I asked the minister concerning his activities in the field of divorce bills. On March 7, 1961, the minister was extremely busy because he examined 108 divorce bills which had been presented to this house, and he found none of them inconsistent with the bill of rights.
Let us take a look at one of the divorce bills which the minister examined and said is not inconsistent with the bill of rights. Let us take Bill No. SD-36 as an example. This is one of the bills the minister examined on March 7. Let us just see what he examined. This is the bill:
An act for the relief of Hela Hinda Fachler.
The preamble says:
Whereas Hela Hinda Fachler, residing at the city of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, wife of Szmuel (Samuel) Fachler, who is domiciled in Canada and residing at the said city, has by her petition alleged that they were married on the twenty third day of October, A.D. 1945, at the

city of Lodz, Poland, she then being Hela Hinda Chaim; and whereas by her petition she has prayed that,-
This is what the minister has examined:
-on the ground of his adultery since then, their marriage be dissolved; and whereas the said marriage and adultery have been proved by evidence adduced and it is expedient that the prayer of her petition be granted: Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	The said marriage is hereby dissolved, and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
The minister says this bill is not inconsistent with the bill of rights. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is as inconsistent with the bill of rights as anything could be. I should like to quote again from the bill of rights. Section 2 (e) provides that no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to:
-deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
I submit that Bill No. SD-36 has deprived a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations.
Let us take a closer look at what occurred with regard to this particular bill. I have here a sworn affidavit and I should like to read it. It was sworn in the province of Quebec, district of Montreal, on the fourth day of May, 1960, before Mr. Morton Morris, commissioner of the superior court for the district of Montreal. It reads as follows:
I, Charles Charron, investigator, residing at No. 252 Georges Etienne Cartier Square, in the city and district of Montreal, and therein domiciled, do solemnly declare:
1.	That on the twenty sixth day of April, 1960, between the hours of five and six p.m., I did serve the corespondent Rose Franklin with a true copy of the notice hereto attached and marked "A", by giving the said copy and leaving the same with the said Rose Franklin in person, at her domicile, at No. 3145 Clarke street, in the city of Montreal, province of Quebec.
2.	That at the same time and place and in the same manner, I also served the said Rose Franklin with a true copy of the petition, hereto attached and marked "B", and a sworn declaration of the petitioner attached to the copy of the petition and also marked "B", appended to which copy there was a true copy of the information to the corespondent Rose Franklin which hereto is also attached and marked "C".
3.	That I believe that the said Rose Franklin to be the person described in the said information to the corespondent.
4.	That when serving the above upon the said Rose Franklin she admitted to me that she was the person described in the said information to be to the corespondent.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
Supply-J ustice
That is signed by Charles Charron. You will note that the relevant parts of this, Mr. Chairman, are that Mr. Charron swears that he served someone by the name of Rose Franklin who is named as the corespondent in this particular case, at a particular address, 3145 Clarke street and she admitted she was Rose Franklin, the person described therein.
The only point in all this is that there is no No. 3145 Clarke street; it does not exist. If the address does not exist, how can Mr. Charles Charron swear that he served someone with a series of documents at that particular address? I submit that not only does the address 3145 Clarke street not exist, but neither does the corespondent.
Letters were mailed to Rose Franklin at 3145 Clarke street. A letter was attempted to be delivered by the postal service and I will quote from a letter received from the postal authorities in this regard:
The address of 3145 Clarke is inexistent and a directory service did not establish the present address of this Rose Franklin. The item is included.
This was after the letter was mailed to Rose Franklin at that address, after it had been returned by the Post Office Department indicating on the letter that the address did not exist, after it had then been sent back to the postal department with the request to check again and make sure that the information I just read out was correct, that the address of 3145 Clarke street was inexistent.
If the Minister of Justice says he looked at Bill No. SD-36 and at the part that says, "and whereas the said marriage and adultery have been proved by evidence adduced." without going into the evidence adduced, and came to the conclusion that this was not inconsistent with the bill of rights, what about the right of the individual, of the respondent in this case? This same gentleman, Mr. Charron, who swore that he delivered something to a woman at an address which does not exist also swears-and we are entitled to cast some doubt upon this-that he served the respondent at his particular address, and the address is given here.
I submit that Bill No. SD-36 is inconsistent with the bill of rights because it deprives a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Is it not the right of an individual who was named as a corespondent to have the opportunity of a fair hearing? And how can there be a fair hearing when there is no address at which the investigator can call or leave his papers? Our old friend Mr. Charron, whose evidence has given rise to several difficulties in the past, swore, nevertheless, that this address existed in the case to which I am referring. We are changing the status of the respondent in this case

Supply-Justice
from, that of a married person to that of a single person, without, I submit, giving him the right of a fair hearing.
This is something serious and casts a bad light upon the administration of justice in this country especially when we consider that this incident occurred within the very building which we occupy at the moment, when we consider that Mr. Charron and people like him can come before the Senate and swear affidavits to the effect that a particular address exists, when subsequently it is discovered that the address does not exist.
Let me take another case. I understand I have only a few minutes of my time left. Perhaps I should go into it on a subsequent occasion and draw to the attention of the minister another case where an individual swore on oath by affidavit that he had served a particular person with a notice at a particular address when that address does not exist, or at least, has not since 1952. We made a check on this through the legal department of the city of Montreal and we have correspondence from the city of Montreal with respect to a number of addresses which do not exist and which have never existed since 1952 according to the search which the city of Montreal made into its records. Yet in each of those instances somebody, a bailiff or an investigator, swore a statutory declaration on oath that he had served a person with copies of certain documents at the address which does not exist.
Surely this is an abuse of the efforts and of the credulity of parliament. In addition, it demonstrates how carelessly these divorce cases are dealt with and how much responsibility must fall on the shoulders of the Minister of Justice, as laid down in the bill of rights, to examine every bill to see that the rights of individuals are fully protected. Contingent upon that I say responsibility falls upon the minister to examine the evidence given before the Senate in every instance in order to ensure that this sort of hanky panky does not continue on the part of individuals such as Mr. Charron upon whose evidence grave doubts were cast, I submit, on three occasions last year.
Here again we find a certain person swearing he did a certain thing, and yet the particular address at which he was supposed to have done it does not exist. I have only mentioned this one case at this time but, as I have indicated, there are more of them, and in my opinion they should be placed on record so that they can come to the attention of those who are petitioning for these divorces, come to the attention of the persons whose names are blackened because they have been placed in categories to which they do not

necessarily belong, come to the attention of the Minister of Justice directly, so that he may have immediate knowledge of them, and, finally, come to the attention of members of the other place so that those who study these proceedings there may not be so careless in the future when they deal with these petitions. I think they should be placed on record, too, in order that the bill of rights may be carried to its full conclusion and innocent people protected to the greatest possible extent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise at this time not because I think that what the hon. member has said is very serious-indeed, I think he himself realizes that he had his tongue in his cheek most of the time when he was saying it-but because in the course of his observations the hon. member drew a number of conclusions which, I think should not be allowed to stand isolated on the pages of Hansard. I think the true facts should be put on record so that they will appear as closely as possible to the inaccurate conclusions which were drawn by the hon. member who has just spoken.
To deal generally with the question of divorce bills, the hon. member seems to have concluded that the bill of rights requires the Minister of Justice to become a private detective rather than Minister of Justice. That was never the intention of the bill and it certainly is not the intention of the minister. If the hon. member had stopped to reflect, or if he would stop to reflect, he would himself be forced to the conclusion that there is nothing in any of these divorce bills which in itself is contrary to the bill of rights. There is nothing in any of these bills which deprives any of the persons concerned of the right to a fair hearing.
The hon. member is seeking to make an oblique and indirect attack upon the Senate divorce committee. I think it would have been open to me to have raised a point of order, but I refrained because I did not think it would have advanced the interests of this house to do so. All the hon. member has been doing is suggesting that the Senate divorce committee has not properly investigated the evidence which came before it. The hon. member read into the record of this committee an affidavit which, he said, was full of false allegations. He went on further to suggest that the Minister of Justice had somehow been negligent in not reporting that the bill to which that affidavit related was inconsistent with the bill of rights. My obligation is to examine the bill. The affidavit is not part of the bill. Therefore, the fact that I reported the bill as not being inconsistent with the provisions of the bill of rights is in no way influenced by the fact that there may be

one, two, or six or a dozen affidavits presented to the Senate committee on divorce when it is considering a bill which comes before it.
The hon. gentleman has interested himself in these divorce proceedings. He has constituted himself a private detective-quite properly, if that is what he feels his role should be. But he has every right to bring before the private bills committee of this house any evidence he has that the affidavits presented in the other place are not in accordance with the facts. My obligation is to examine the bill and to report whether or not it is consistent with the provisions of the bill of rights, and not one of these multitudinous divorce bills-bills which, incidentally, are each checked in the department; it is not a routine check; every one of them is considered-is in conflict with the relevant provision of the bill of rights. The hon. member's approach has simply been to try to draw the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice into his private vendetta with the Senate divorce committee. Into that vendetta we refuse to be drawn.
More important, although even less accurate, is the hon. member's allegation that I have been negligent in my duty under the bill of rights with regard to Bill No. C-76, which is the bill introduced by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo purportedly to amend the Fisheries Act. First I should remind Your Honour that the hon. member for Skeena said the Minister of Justice, if I recall his words correctly, had been in direct and deliberate violation of his duties under the bill of rights. The bill of rights imposes upon the minister the obligation to examine every bill introduced or presented to the House of Commons in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions therein are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of that part of the bill of rights, and requires that the minister shall report any such inconsistencies to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
The hon. member has read certain questions and answers that were exchanged between himself and myself subsequent to the time when the bill was introduced. Those questions and answers make it perfectly clear, in my opinion, that Bill No. C-76 is not properly before the house.
I submit to you, sir, that it is my duty only to report in respect of bills that are properly before the house. It was not the intention of the bill of rights to enable an hon. member to obtain a legal opinion from the Minister of Justice in respect of an existing statute by a device which misleads the house.
Supply-Justice


Frank Howard: Would the hon. minister permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The fact of the matter is that the question of whether Bill No. C-76 is properly before the house is still under discussion by the house leader and his honour, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: We passed it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That matter has, therefore, not been determined.
The hon. member for Skeena has suggested that the Minister of Justice must report any inconsistencies to the house at the first convenient opportunity. I should, therefore, suggest there are two questions invilved. First, is the bill properly before the house and, second, when is the first convenient opportunity of reporting inconsistencies?
May I remind the committee that when the bill was introduced, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo said, as reported at page 3217 of Hansard for March 22, 1961 as follows:
-the purpose of this bill is to revise the Fisheries Act to bring it into conformity with the Canadian bill of rights and in accordance with the report to be tabled by the Minister of Justice under standing order 40, as required by the Canadian bill of rights regulations.
More specifically, the purpose is to determine whether the clauses which empower a fisheries officer (1) to accuse a person of violating fisheries laws, (2) to adjudicate on that person's guilt or innocence, (3) to confiscate without a hearing the property of persons, boats, fishing gear and fish, and which deny an appeal to the courts or to the Minister of Fisheries for restitution of the confiscated property if the confiscation is not coupled with a criminal charge, are consistent with the Canadian bill of rights.
When one looks at Bill No. C-76 and reads the motion of the hon. member, one will realize that it was represented to the house, when introduced, as a bill to revise the Fisheries Act, to bring it into conformity with the bill of rights, and it was on that basis that leave to introduce the bill was given. It was also on that basis that the bill was read the first time and distributed. When we examine the bill we find it is not a bill to revise the Fisheries Act to bring it into conformity with the bill of rights, but is a bill to re-enact the Fisheries Act.
As I have explained, this is, in my view, an abuse of the legislative processes of parliament and in my submission, which I made to his honour, Mr. Speaker, the bill is not properly before the house; first, because leave to introduce it was obtained by a subterfuge, and second, because it is-I have no doubt about this point-a bill which simply reenacts the provisions of an existing statute, and is, in no jot or tittle, different from the existing statute already on the books with the exception that, at the end of the bill,

Supply-J ustice
there is a clause saying that the existing statute is repealed. It is, therefore, not a bill at all, nor a legislative process. It accomplishes nothing. How can one solemnly ask the House of Commons to entertain the proposition that it should go through all the legislative processes of first reading, second reading, committee stage and third reading, simply to re-enact something which exists already? That is an absurdity, a monstrosity, and an abuse of the processes of parliament. My view is that, as Minister of Justice, I should not lend myself to such a process. That is my answer in respect of the first question, as to whether indeed this bill is properly before parliament.
The second question is, when is the first convenient opportunity at which the minister should report to parliament in respect of any inconsistency? As I have said, I have taken up the question with his honour, Mr. Speaker, as to whether this bill is properly before parliament and, at the moment, it appears to be his honour's view that the time to raise the question is when, and if, the bill should be called for second reading. Should the hon. member attempt to proceed with this solemn farce, then most certainly a point of order should be raised as to whether this bill is properly before parliament, and at that time I should properly present my views. If it were ruled that it was properly before parliament, then, of course, it would be incumbent upon me to express my view as Minister of Justice, and I should do so without hesitation.
In the interim I suggest that the proper position is that the Minister of Justice should not be asked to do that which the bill of rights never intended him to do-express legal opinions in respect of existing statutes, on the basis of a bill introduced, by a subterfuge and misinformation, to the house. The Minister of Justice, in my opinion, would be expressing an opinion as to whether a bill is inconsistent with the bill of rights when, in my view, it is not properly before the house.
Therefore, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing to the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena, and that in the interim the government acted, as it had intended all along, following a study of the Fisheries Act, by taking the appropriate, open and honest course in introducing its bill to revise the Fisheries Act, in order to remove those portions of that act which, upon review, were found to be inconsistent with the bill of rights. That has been done, and my opinion of the bill, presented by the Minister of Fisheries, was given in the course of the discussion in respect of that bill. I submit now that I have complied, as Minister of Justice, not

only to the letter, but to the spirit of the bill of rights and, in so doing, have avoided compounding an abuse of the parliamentary processes.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss a matter in connection with the administration of justice in respect of an impropriety which probably exists to a very limited degree.
I hold all judges, appointed by this parliament, in very high regard, and believe their decisions are as impartial as they can be, and the judges are beyond the realm of politics. I also hold in high regard those individuals appointed by our provincial governments to administer the law in our junior courts. I do not know of any one of them who is, or has been, partial in his duties. However, I do not think any of them should take an active part in an election, nor should they take any direct or indirect part in the patronage which might flow from an election. An infringement of the Canada Elections Act can occur; in fact, it often does occur. I do not suggest and I have no right to suggest that they would be other than impartial but yet I would think that their decision might be suspect. This would do nothing to enhance in the minds of the people the view that the administration of justice in Canada is always impartial. It occurs to me that anyone who is strongly partisan by act or deed and who has to do with the administration of justice may be acting quite legally within the law but not with propriety under the law.
As a member of another profession, I do not propose to lecture members of the legal profession. I am referring only to those who have something to do with the administration of justice. I am as interested as any other Canadian in seeing that the administration of justice is always above reproach. In bringing this matter before the committee may I say that I quite realize that these appointments are made by the provincial governments and therefore the matter is outside the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. However, the Criminal Code is a federal statute and we should all be interested in seeing that it is applied impartially.
After all, many more people come in contact with the junior courts than with the senior courts and their opinion about the administration of justice is formed from their experience in these junior courts. I do not bring up this matter in a partisan way and I hope the minister will not regard it as such. As I have said, the condition probably exists only to a very limited degree. I do not know whether it existed under the former government. Frankly, I have no information

on the matter but if it did exist I think it was wrong then just as I think it is wrong now.
I am not complaining because of any partisan action against our party on the part of the presiding officer of a court of lower jurisdiction. I am appealing to all Canadians to maintain the administration of justice on a high plane and above reproach. I do not suggest there should be any change with regard to the exercise of the franchise by these people although this is denied to the judges of our senior courts. I do not suggest that anything that has been done is illegal.


Mr. Smith (Simcoe North):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he tell us what he means by junior courts? Does he mean magistrates' courts?


William Hector McMillan: I refer to magistrates' courts.


Heber Edgar Smith: Or family courts?


William Hector McMillan: Magistrates' courts. I should like the minister to reply and I should like to hear the opinions of other members of the committee. If I am wrong in my thinking I should like to be corrected. I have always thought that this practice should not be carried on and I should like to hear the opinions of other members of the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, of course I would deplore any partisanship in any court, and I am glad to say that so far as I know there is no partisanship in any of the courts, certainly not those presided over by judges who are appointed under the authority of parliament. Mind you, all of us who practice in the courts and occasionally lose cases may be tempted, I suppose, to ascribe reasons, but I am satisfied it is correct to say that on the whole the bar and the public of Canada are well served indeed by their judiciary, whether it be in the superior courts of the province, county or district courts or in magistrates' courts.
The hon. member has brought before the committee a general proposition that justice should be administered without partisanship or favour, and with his proposition we would, of course, all agree. He said, however, that the situation he has in mind exists primarily with respect to magistrates' courts. He did not identify the situation. If it is in a magistrate's court, if there should be any such unidentified situation, all I can say is that it seems to me that the matter should be taken up with the authority responsible for the appointment to the magistrate's court.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to make a comment at this point. I have had some experience in this connection. I was brought before a
Supply-Justice
magistrate who was a member of the legislature who was of a different political persuasion from myself. He found me guilty with a great deal of relish and ordered me to pay a certain sum. I told him to go to hell, and that I would not pay the sum in question, and I have never paid it yet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The question there likely was, was the hon. member really guilty or not? I am glad to say that those bad old days in British Columbia are at an end. Even though the government of the province is not now one to whose political doctrine I subscribe, those bad old days are pretty well gone, and generally speaking that type of magistrate does not exist in our province.


William Hector McMillan: I did not mean to bring about a general discussion. I happen to know of one or two cases where this does occur, where magistrates do take part in federal elections. I have never made inquiries to ascertain whether or not the practice is general but if it is I think it is wrong. I think most hon. members would agree with that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure they do, and if the hon. member would bring such a case to the attention of the provincial attorney general it is a matter upon which effective action should be taken right away.


Mr. Baldwin:: Would the minister not agree that if it is apparent that there is the possibility of bias because of political partisanship any litigant has the right to apply for prohibition to prevent his case being heard by the particular magistrate?


James Ross Fulton: I would not care to give a snap decision on that point. I should like to reflect on it a little.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we have the estimates of the Department of Justice before us again. Its operations are very important to everyone but in some respects they remind me of the expression "Jefferies is chicken" used in the press gallery. It seems to me that the department acts in somewhat the same manner. The minister has referred to his obligation under the bill of rights and in that regard I should like to refer to divorce bills. Anyone who has read a divorce bill knows that it contains a petition. There is an allegation that adultery has been committed. Evidence is submitted to support the petition and a decision is made on that basis. I think the bill of rights gives the parties involved in a divorce bill a protection they are not getting at the present time from the examination that the minister gives these bills. Because of the problems that have arisen over the past few years in relation to the divorce law administered by the federal government

Supply-Justice
and the responsibility of the federal government except in those instances where jurisdiction is given to the provincial governments, it seems to me that some change must be made so that some of these things do not happen. The minister will debate, and can debate, his responsibility in relation to this matter of divorce. However, Mr. Chairman, the committee will be aware of the fact that a number of cases have been referred to the minister by the miscellaneous private bills committee and we have never received any answer.
One of these cases was the Eccles case of last year which received a great deal of publicity in the newspapers and other media of publicity across the country. To date, we have not found out the ultimate disposition of this case. We were told that the occurrence was within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but since the occurrence took place within this building I doubt that that would be the case. Even so, there must be some follow up as to what the decision in that case was. The province of Ontario itself has gotten into a great deal of grief in this field, but at the moment inquiries are being conducted across the province in an effort to solve the problem.
I offered to help the minister this year by suggesting the setting up of a parliamentary proctor, a Queen's proctor, to do the job of making inquiries about divorce cases when that course seemed to be necessary. We have done some work in this connection and I think the minister is going to have to do some work or take some responsibility in connection with this subject. It is quite true that, technically, the minister reads the divorce bill and sees nothing wrong with the bill. This is obviously the case because there is nothing in it except the petition; there is nothing in it to prove whether or not the people involved are being given any of the protection they should expect under the bill of rights.
By May 9, 1961, the hon. member for Skeena and I had sent letters to 242 persons involved in divorce cases. Actually, as you can see, there would be 484 people who received letters in this regard. Of this number, 114 letters were returned to us for these reasons: No such street, number or person in Montreal, and for respondents there were two, for corespondents five; not in the directory, unknown, 19 respondents and 45 corespondents; moved, not at that address, 16 respondents and 18 corespondents-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret that I must rise on a point of order here, Mr. Chairman. I do not think it can be said of me that I am unprepared to discuss anything which is within my responsibility and to give a good deal of latitude in that connection. However,

it does seem to me that what is being done here by certain hon. members is to seek to avail themselves of the opportunity of these estimates to discuss and to criticize proceedings before the divorce committee of the Senate, and to attempt to make a case-which may be right or wrong, I do not know, because it is not within my jurisdiction-that the committee has been careless or has been misled or whatever may be the case.
In my submission, sir, this does not fall within the responsibility of the Minister of Justice in any way whatever and should not be discussed on these estimates.


Frank Howard: I should like to speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman. You will recall that last session the miscellaneous private bills committee reheard a particular divorce case referred to as the Eccles case. This case was referred to the Minister of Justice, and he took certain action in respect of it. We have inquired of the Minister of Justice on three separate occasions on orders of the day as to what was happening to that particular inquiry. As a result of that referral to him, he gave pertinent information as to what he had done about the case and what was happening. Recently, the minister was sent a copy of an affidavit, both from myself and I gather from the chairman of the Senate divorce committee regarding certain alleged improprieties in connection with a particular divorce case. In reply, the Minister of Justice wrote me on March 30, as follows:
Dear Mr. Howard:
Thank you very much for your letter of February 28 concerning alleged irregularities with respect to the proceedings before the Senate committee on divorce on the petition of Yvette Dubois Leduc for a bill of divorce from Jacques Leduc.
I received the original of Mrs. Barriere's letter from the chairman, Senate divorce committee, and by letter dated March 13th I informed him that I was having an investigation undertaken immediately.
In both of these instances, the minister accepted some responsibility and took steps to deal with the cases. I submit that, surely this is something within the competence of the Minister of Justice. By his own admission in the letter of March 30, he was undertaking an investigation, just as he had in respect of the Eccles case. His answers on three separate occasions indicating that certain courses of action were being taken were an acceptance of some responsibility in the field.
Last year the miscellaneous private bills committee which dealt with the Eccles case felt the Minister of Justice was the only one with whom they could deal because this was a question of possible perjury which had occurred within the parliament buildings. I do not believe the minister can now disclaim all responsibility in this particular field.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in so far as one or two particular cases are concerned, I have taken them up when they have been referred to me. With regard to the Eccles case, as I have explained before, after a discussion with the Attorney General of Ontario, that case has been referred to the Attorney General of Ontario for investigation. I do not recall the situation with regard to the other case to which my hon. friend refers. My recollection is that the same course of action is being followed there. Where particular cases are referred to me with a specific allegation of perjury or something, then in accordance with a system I have worked out with the Attorney General of Ontario, these matters are referred to him. But in so far as the jurisdiction over, responsibility for, or control of proceedings with respect to divorce in the Senate committee is concerned, that is not my responsibility. It is not, in my submission, something which should be discussed on my estimates.
I am prepared to answer questions with regard to cases that have been or may be referred to me, but I am not prepared to answer questions with regard to cases that have been or may be before the Senate divorce committee, because I have no knowledge of them.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, I should like to suggest we have a right to discuss this subject for the simple reason that we have been studying the problem over the years and the most logical conclusion to come to is to give the exchequer court jurisdiction in the matter of divorce. At the moment the minister has a bill on the order paper to add another one or two judges to the exchequer court. I believe a fair conclusion to draw from this would be that the judges are being appointed to take care of divorces and that parliament will be free of this burden.


Jacques Flynn: I will not object if the hon. member puts that question to the minister, but the answer he receives may not give him permission to debate what he wishes to pursue. I may say that before the minister rose I had some doubts as to the relevancy or propriety of discussing the divorce situation when the estimates of the Department of Justice are being considered because, unless I am mistaken, there is no federal law on divorce.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, there is.


Jacques Flynn: Is there a law?


William Arnold Peters: The only law is the Canada divorce act of 1930 and the British North America Act which gives Canada the sole right in matters of divorce.
Supply-Justice


Jacques Flynn: I appreciate that the British North America Act-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I put it in this way, Mr. Chairman. Certainly the jurisdiction over divorce is in the federal parliament. But the responsibility for what parliament does is not that of the Minister of Justice. It is the responsibility of parliament itself. What I am pointing out is that it is inappropriate to seek to hold the Minister of Justice responsible for what a committee may do in the other place or even for what a committee may do in this place, a committee of which I am not a member, over which I have no control and before which I have never appeared. It is the responsibility of parliament itself, not that of the Department of Justice whose estimates are before the committee.
(Translation):


Mr. Deschaielets:: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me a word on that subject, in view of the fact that I am interested in this discussion, because I intend to deal briefly, in a few moments, with the matter of an amendment to the confederation pact with regard to divorce.
Subsection 26 of section 91 of the British North America Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government in all matters pertaining to marriage and divorce, except the celebration of marriage.
Since we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Justice, I think it is in order at this stage to suggest an amendment to that section. I want to give notice to the house of the question I shall be raising shortly in my remarks. I feel sure it will be appropriate to deal with divorce from that angle. At the present time, I have no knowledge of what my colleagues had to say on the subject.


Jacques Flynn: Could the hon. member indicate what is this divorce legislation to which he referred a moment ago?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is section 91, subsection 26 of the British North America Act, which gives jurisdiction to the federal government over all matters pertaining to marriage and divorce.


Jacques Flynn: I think I know that provision. I thought the hon. member was referring to a piece of federal legislation dealing with divorce generally. Is there any such legislation? I put the question to the hon. member.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No, there is none, but-


Jacques Flynn: I see.

Supply-Justice
(Text):
As I was starting to explain, there is no act concerning divorce in general. This house as well as the other place pass certain divorce bills but each bill is a separate case. The Minister of Justice has nothing to do with the procedure of the other place and of this place concerning the enactment of these bills. This is the responsibility of parliament as a whole and not the special responsibility of the minister.
Although it may not be wise on my part to give an opinion in advance on the point which the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont said he wanted to raise later on, I think generally that what I have said would apply. There may be certain circumstances where one could discuss the opportunity for the government to introduce some legislation in the matter of divorce but that would not be the responsibility of the minister. It would be the responsibility of the government to introduce legislation of that kind. It would therefore not come under the estimates of the Department of Justice.
The hon. member mentioned that the British North America Act gives the federal government power to legislate in the matter of divorce and marriage. I would point out that this authority is not given to the government but to parliament. That is why a distinction must be made between the responsibility of parliament and the responsibility of the minister. That is why I do not think the minister can reply to any problem raised on the general policy of divorce. This is a problem for parliament; it is not a problem for the minister. That is why I indicated that the discussion up to the present time has been out of order when referring to the procedure which is followed in the other place or here in connection with divorce.
As to the other point raised by the hon. member for Skeena with regard to certain cases to which he drew the attention of the minister last year, may I say this. He must remember that the enforcement of the law is a provincial responsibility. It may well be that the minister will wish to co-operate when certain facts are drawn to his attention by reporting to the attorney general of the province concerned; but that will not give the minister authority or jurisdiction on this matter under his estimates. Again it is a problem for parliament but I think it is not a problem for the Minister of Justice.


Frank Howard: Before we proceed, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. The initial raising of the objection by the Minister of Justice and the subsequent discussion in my opinion raised three other matters which should be considered before we finally determine where we stand on this particular issue. The first one
FThe Chairman.]
is this. If the administration of justice is a matter of provincial responsibility, then I submit that the Minister of Justice had no right whatsoever even to receive a communication from the miscellaneous private bills committee of last year with respect to the possibility of perjury or collusion in a particular case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How can I avoid receiving a communication? I must open the letter. I cannot send it back unopened. Don't be so ridiculous.


Frank Howard: After all, I am talking about a ridiculous situation such as that with regard to parliamentary divorce. Anything more ridiculous has never occurred in the history of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member himself sent me a communication.


Frank Howard: I sent you a communication and it takes you months to answer it. To the letter I wrote on February 28, 1961 I received an answer on March 20, 1961. It was a month before I received a reply. It leaves the miscellaneous private bills committee in a foolish position, not having any place to turn if they find the possibility of perjury or if they find, in fact, that there is perjury. The miscellaneous private bills committee is an element of this house or of parliament and has not any direct relationship with the provinces of Canada. The only relationship it might have is through the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is the person with whom the miscellaneous private bills committee deals.
The second matter that I think is of importance to consider is this. Under the Department of Justice comes the question of the operation of the Exchequer Court of Canada. Some few years ago the Minister of Justice, in answer to the then hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Knowles, made a comment to the effect that he, the Minister of Justice, was going to discuss the question of Exchequer Court jurisdiction in divorce with the Honourable the Speaker of the Senate. Surely we are entitled to talk about the Exchequer Court of Canada and whether or not its authority should be extended to include the question of divorce, especially in so far as the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec are concerned. Surely we are entitled to go into that particular phase of the matter. There is a direct responsibility of the minister shown here under item No. 170, administration of justice in the Yukon territory, including the Yukon territorial court. Surely we are entitled then to discuss the subject of divorce in so far as it is concerned in the Yukon territory if this is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice.

I think that on all counts we are entitled to proceed on this course in dealing with these particular items. I think we are also entitled to deal with the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, under the bill of rights, to examine bills introduced or presented to parliament to see that they are not inconsistent with the bill of rights.
The minister has said he examined all these various divorce bills and found them consistent with the bill of rights, and I think we are entitled to review his examination and see whether or not he is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has said that divorce might be discussed under certain particular headings, but the point is, that is not what he is trying to do. If the hon. member wants to discuss the jurisdiction of the exchequer court, there is an item here on the administration of the exchequer court. I am not attempting to say how widely he can discuss the matter, but surely that is the place where he should discuss it and relate it to the exchequer court.
However, that is not what the hon. member has been trying to do. He has been trying to attack the proceedings of the Senate divorce committee on the first item of my estimates, and I submit that is completely irrelevant.
Then the hon. member says that surely he is entitled to discuss any particular case that may have been referred to me. I have already said I am prepared to discuss any such case and what I have done with regard to it. But the hon. member has not even done that; he is trying to have a general discussion.
It is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that the British North America Act gives parliament jurisdiction over divorce. How parliament exercises that jurisdiction is a matter for parliament to decide; it is not a matter within the administrative responsibility of the Department of Justice, whose estimates we are discussing. We are asking this committee to vote these estimates to enable my department to carry out its administrative responsibility; and jurisdiction over divorce is not one of those responsibilities. I hope hon. members appreciate that plain and simple point and will keep their discussions relevant to the items before the committee.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with the minister at all. I think part of the trouble stems from the fact that what the Minister of Justice says concerning the Department of Justice is probably true, but the minister also acts in the capacity of Attorney General of Canada. In that respect, what he says is not true.
I think that quite frankly he has done a fairly good job as Minister of Justice, and a lousy job as Attorney General of Canada.
Supply-J ustice
I think he has done an exceptionally poor job in that capacity, and I think the hon. member for Skeena hit on a sore spot when he mentioned the date of this letter. I have written letters to the minister and it has taken him over two months to reply to them. I have never received an answer earlier than three weeks after writing my letter.
I do not think it is my responsibility as a parliamentarian to examine all these cases. I do not think it is the collective responsibility of all hon. members of the House of Commons to examine these cases. It is not our responsibility, certainly individually, and I do not think it is collectively, to examine all these cases; but nobody else is doing it and this parliament is passing these bills. We are giving consent by remote control at the present time, or we let somebody else to it on our behalf on a temporary basis, but we are making the decisions.
I wrote a letter to the Attorney General of Ontario and received a reply much faster than I have from the federal Attorney General. I sent copies of my letters to both these people, and also to Senator Roebuck, because for all I know he may be the attorney general of Canada in this relationship. But somebody is the attorney general of Canada; somebody represents the highest appeal court from the courts of this land and must hear an appeal.
I suggest that the gentleman who holds the office of Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada must be the man to whom we should talk-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I would indicate to the hon. member that as far as concerns what may happen in a committee of this house or the other place, they may be able to act on their own initiative to correct any improprieties that may occur. However the fact remains that the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility; there is no doubt about that.
Even if the Minister of Justice is the Attorney General of Canada, that does not give him any jurisdiction in the matter of the administration of justice. With regard to the bill of rights, this question may be discussed, but only the point regarding the responsibility of the Minister of Justice in relation to the bill of rights. The discussion must not revert to the point made with regard to the procedure followed in the other place or here in the matter of bills of divorce.
With regard to the relevancy of some of the remarks being made under special items, I think the Chair should not rule on that point for the time being. I am just trying to indicate some general boundaries and I think the hon. member should bear in mind that

Supply-Justice
there is a difference between the responsibility of parliament and the responsibility of the Minister of Justice.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice made a statement not long ago in relation to this P.C. order which requires him to examine bills which come before parliament.
The minister went on to say something that surprised me. I think what he said should not be interpreted in the manner in which he said it, but he mentioned the fact that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo introduced a bill-and quite properly, in my opinion-so that the government would have to make some decision in relation to the P.C. order of 1960, No. 1792.
This bill was introduced and the government got on its bicycle and introduced a bill that took out of the Fisheries Act those sections which would be contrary to the bill of rights. The minister said they were going to do this anyway. If this P.C. order had been passed before the Feeds Act was passed by the House of Commons last year, that act would not be on the books in its present form, because it conflicts in many respects-and I would be quite happy to point out at least 12 of them-with the bill of rights.
Obviously the Customs Act conflicts violently with the bill of rights. It may be true that private members are taking advantage of the inefficiency of the government, but it is also true that perhaps the government should have extended this P.C. order to permit them, through their agencies, to examine all the legislation and bring it into line with the bill of rights. This would have made it unnecessary for hon. members to find methods of removing clauses which are so much in conflict with our wishes in this regard.
With regard to the matter we were discussing a few moments ago, I have a signed affidavit here, of which the minister also has a copy. It is true that it was signed in the province of Ontario, because that is where I live. It was signed by a barrister of the supreme court of Ontario, but it was from a lady in the province of Quebec who had never been in the province of Ontario in her life until she came here to protest the fact that she was being divorced and did not know it.
While it may be all right to send this to the Attorney General of Ontario, which I did, I think it also has some interest for the federal department because they were the ones who were causing her problem; they were the ones to whom she was going for relief against something they were doing, not the province of Ontario. She had really no argument with the province.
[The Chairman.]


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that I cannot accept this argument. The fact that somebody calls on his federal representative does not give jurisdiction to the Minister of Justice or even to parliament. As I indicated, the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility, and the enactment of divorce bills is the responsibility of parliament and not of the Minister of Justice.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I wrote to the Minister of Justice with regard to this matter and I included a copy of this petition. This is the reply I received from the minister, and the committee will be interested in noting that the minister does not mention the Attorney General of Ontario in his reply; he keeps it purely a federal matter:
Dear Mr. Peters,
Thank you very much for your letter of the 17th ultimo concerning alleged irregularities in relation to the petition for divorce filed by Ignatz Radakovitz.
X have written Senator Roebuck with respect to this matter and I shall communicate with you further in due course. I enclose herewith a copy of my letter to the senator for your information.
At this time the minister did not see fit to even call on the Attorney General of Ontario, although I had done so and sent him a copy of the petition. At the time I was not sure what course to follow. This is one of the cases to which the minister said he would give consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. member whether I am correct in my recollection that in my letter to Senator Roebuck I asked him if he would have anything which in his view or in the view of his committee would assist the appropriate law officers in the enforcement of the provisions of the Criminal Code? Did I not ask him to let me have any material in his possession so that I might then turn it over to the appropriate attorney general for a decision as to whether any action should be taken under the ordinary law, because perjury is an offence under the Criminal Code and it is my view, as it is, so far as I know, the view of the provincial attorneys general, that it is the responsibility of the attorneys general of the provinces to take action with regard to it?


William Arnold Peters: What the minister has said is correct. I would be happy to read the letter itself:
My dear Senator:
I enclose herewith a copy of a letter dated 17th ultimo which I received from Mr. Arnold Peters, M.P. together with a copy of the statutory declaration referred to. I would appreciate it very much if you feel free to let me have your comments

on this matter together with copies of any documents in the possession of your committee which you consider may be of assistance to me in giving this matter further consideration.
The letter is signed by the minister. Again, the province of Ontario was not mentioned in this case. I have another here; in fact I have a number. We asked these people in some cases for statutory declarations. I am not a lawyer and I do not really understand what weight that carries. We have had it done in the proper manner. A number of hon. members of the house have been very co-operative in doing this work for us. People have had the opportunity of being heard in this way. Then nothing happens, and that is what bothers me. The Attorney General of Ontario may make some investigation, but that is not my problem. If it were, I would run in Ontario as a candidate. The only thing that interests me is that it is costing me money when Mr. Kelso Roberts is doing work which I think the Minister of Justice should be doing. That is my difficulty. Also, the action appears not to be appropriate because it relates to people who do not reside in the province of Ontario. The foundation for this case was established in the province of Quebec, and if any attorney general should be referred to it should be the Attorney General of Quebec rather than Ontario. The difficulty which faces us is that the Attorney General of Canada is not, in my opinion, functioning in the manner in which he ought to function. Why is he not doing the job himself?


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have indicated earlier to the hon. member that the Attorney General of Canada is not responsible for dealing with the cases to which he has referred. I thought I had made myself clear on that point. On another occasion the hon. member may have opportunities to discuss what he is now desirous of discussing, but it does not appear to be the duty of the Chair to indicate when that matter might be raised. All I can do now is to rule on whether the hon. member's remarks are relevant at this point and in my opinion they are not.


James Ross Fulton: May I assist in this matter by saying that we have considered this very carefully and we have come to the conclusion that where a possible offence is brought to my attention concerning perjury alleged to have been committed in Quebec or an offence in connection with a false affidavit, then it should be brought to the attention of the Attorney General of Quebec. Where perjury was alleged to have been committed in Ontario it would be brought to the attention of the attorney general of Ontario.
We have considered all aspects of this matter very carefully and have reached the conclusion that it is not the constitutional practice
Supply-Justice
for the Attorney General of Canada to prosecute under the Criminal Code of Canada in the case of ordinary Criminal Code offences committed within a province. However, as I have said, when a particular case is brought to my attention I am not simply going to say: you must write to the Attorney General of Ontario, or Quebec, as the case may be. Perhaps I have been wrong. Perhaps I should have said that. But the practice I have followed is to write to the member and tell him that I would get in touch with the chairman of the Senate committee, bringing to his attention the material which has been supplied to me and asking him whether in his opinion there is any information available in the records of this committee which would throw any further light on the matter. The purpose of that inquiry is that we may have all the reports before us in order to lay them, in turn, before the appropriate attorney general. The purpose of that inquiry is not for me to decide whether to lay information but whether there is a proper case to bring to the attention of the provincial attorney general. That is the extent of my interest or authority. That is how I have tried to deal with particular cases brought to my attention. But with respect to divorce generally, the question of how this house handles it, or how the Senate handles it, is a matter over which I have no control.


Mr. Carter:: When the minister was replying to the hon. member for Skeena he made some reference to myself which I cannot allow to go unanswered. He charged that I had used subterfuge in order to get a bill before the house, that I had misinformed the house and misrepresented what was in the bill. I want to say to all hon. members that I am not in the habit of using subterfuge to gain any purpose and it is unworthy of the minister to make such insinuations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I only hope you won't do it again.


Chesley William Carter: I say to the minister now, that as far as straightforwardness and integrity are concerned I am prepared to match my record against his any time and any day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Except for this one case.


Chesley William Carter: You keep quiet. You have had your say and I am going to have mine. Let us take this question of subterfuge. No bill can come before the house unless it complies with certain rules. If the rules have been complied with there can be no basis for a charge of subterfuge and the minister himself is lowering his dignity by suggesting it.
Let us look at the facts and not at the smokescreen which the minister has tried

Supply-Justice
to throw up. The rules governing the introduction of bills in this house are clear, and in addition we have standing orders applying with similar force to this procedure. Standing order 71, section 2, provides that a motion for leave to introduce a bill shall be decided without debate or amendment provided that any member moving for such leave may be permitted to give a succinct explanation of the provisions of the bill.
The practice which has been followed in introducing this bill is set forth in the fourth edition of Bourinot at page 494, where the following words are found:
When the two days' notice has been given, the member in charge of a public bill rises as soon as motions for the introduction of bills are called, in the course of routine proceedings, and moves formally for "leave to introduce a bill, intituled, etc." He sends to the Speaker the motion in writing with a copy of the bill. The Speaker will then propose the question. "Is it the pleasure of the house that the honourable member has leave to introduce his bill?" But if the Speaker finds that the bill is "in blank or in an imperfect shape" he will decline to put the question and will return the bill to the member who must take another opportunity of bringing it up in conformity with the rules.
Standing order 71(1) provides that every bill must be introduced by leave with the title of the bill specified. Standing order 72 provides that no bill may be introduced in blank or in an imperfect shape.
Mr. Chairman, Bourinot provides that two days' notice must be given. I submitted my bill to the Speaker 48 hours before it was introduced in the house for the purpose of having the Speaker determine whether it conformed with the rules, and whether it was in blank or in imperfect shape. I was not informed that there was anything wrong with it, and naturally concluded that I was entitled to proceed with the bill. I suggest, therefore, the minister's charge of subterfuge breaks down in respect of Bourinot's citation, that 48 hours' notice be given, because it was duly given. I suggest the minister should eat the word "subterfuge".
In respect to his suggestion that it was misleading, the purpose of the bill was explained on the blank page opposite clause 1 of the bill, which was to determine whether it was consistent with the bill of rights and to re-enact it in conformity with a report which the minister is obliged to make pursuant to the Canadian bill of rights examination regulations.
The minister also suggested that I was asking for a legal opinion. The examination regulations of the Canadian bill of rights makes no mention of a legal opinion, but do refer to the report which the minister must present. What good would such a report be if hon. members are unable to make use of it in determining what changes should be

made to the legislation which is passed by the house? The minister talks about a farce; I suggest that is the biggest farce of all. That is, the minister makes a report which can serve no purpose, is of no use to anyone, nor of any benefit to our deliberations. It is beyond any intelligent person to understand why the minister dreamed up that requirement in the first place, if it was not to serve some useful purpose. What other purpose could the report serve than to guide members in the methods of improving legislation as it comes before this house?
The minister then went on to say that my bill was not properly before the house. Here again the minister has displayed his confusion, because at one point he said the bill was not properly before the house, yet later on he said that question was still being considered by Mr. Speaker and the house leader. Surely the minister cannot have this both ways.
I should like to inform the Minister of Justice that it is not his business to decide whether a bill is properly before this house, but is a function of Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear. The Minister of Justice continually seeks to usurp that function.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just wait, I will read you what Mr. Speaker said.


Chesley William Carter: I do not have to wait because I can tell you what Mr. Speaker said. He said this bill had no legislative effect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Chesley William Carter: It is upon that statement that the minister has based his argument this afternoon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, not at all.


Chesley William Carter: I suggest there are two things wrong with the minister's argument. The first is, he said, this afternoon, it cannot be decided whether a bill is properly before the house until a bill comes up for second reading.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have never said such a thing.


Chesley William Carter: That is not the procedure we have followed during the 12 years I have been in this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I never said anything of the kind.


Chesley William Carter: I suggest any bill which receives first reading is properly before the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I never said any such thing.


Chesley William Carter: Oh, yes you did; you said it could not be decided because the question

would not arise. Your very words were, that the question woud not arise as to whether the bill was properly before the house until it came up for second reading.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, with respect to this particular bill.


Chesley William Carter: This bill has had first reading and is therefore either before the house or not. The minister cannot have it both ways.
I would also suggest the bill is not in blank or in imperfect shape, but complies with the rules. There is a tradition in the mother of parliaments of introducing blank bills.
I should like to point out to the minister that if this bill has no legislative effect and is improperly before the house on that account, would that situation not apply to Bill No. C-60, the Canadian Bill of Rights, which the Prime Minister introduced in 1958? The Prime Minister stated when introducing this bill of rights as reported at page 4644 of Hansard for September 5, 1958:
I hope we will be enabled next session to discuss this question again fully and completely,-
Then he went on to say, as reported at the same page:
-whatever changes should be made in this bill of rights can be made in the bill then to be presented-
There was no motion for leave to introduce such a bill during the next session, and there was no similar bill introduced. The Prime Minister, in introducing Bill No. C-60 in 1958, did in fact introduce a bill which had no legislative effect. If it did, I should like the Minister of Justice to explain how it did.
I made it quite clear, when I introduced my bill, that the purpose of introducing it was for the consideration of the house, so that any inconsistencies in the bill might be removed. The Minister of Justice has seized upon the last clause of my bill, which stated that the Fisheries Act was to be repealed and re-enacted and I suggest the minister has made himself ridiculous in seizing on that one final clause and saying that it represented the whole bill. What about all the other clauses in the bill? Are they not part of the bill? How does he know we would ever get to the final clause or what changes would be made before the final clause was ever reached? The minister is basing his argument on the assumption that the bill is to be introduced in perfect shape and must go through in perfect shape without any changes whatsoever being made. This is in line with the arrogant attitude of the minister and his party toward parliament.
90205-6-339
Supply-Justice
As far as taking advantage of the house or abusing parliamentary processes is concerned, I want to emphasize that I have complied with every rule laid down by the house for the introduction of legislation and we want the minister to take back what he said when he used the word "subterfuge".


Edmund Davie Fulton: With the greatest of regret I find myself unable to comply with the hon. member's request, and I shall endeavour to explain in words of one syllable precisely why not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo points out that the minister said he had resorted to subterfuge. That, of course, is a reflection on the character of the hon. member if the minister used these words, and he now confirms that he did because he says he refuses to withdraw them. It must be obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Justice should know better and ought to be asked to withdraw words that clearly reflect on the character of the hon. member who complained-


James Ross Fulton: Once again the hon. member-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would you mind-


James Ross Fulton: May I speak to the point of order? Is the hon. member for Essex East the only one who has any right to speak in this house? That is the position that he has sought to assert increasingly over the past weeks and months.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Never mind the lecture.


James Ross Fulton: I have a right to speak to the point of order whether or not the hon. member for Essex East likes it, and I suggest to him that he try to maintain some of that equanimity for which he formerly used to be well known-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will not take any lecture from you-


James Ross Fulton: -but which seems to have departed from him in recent days.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -or from anybody on that side, from the chairman or from you.


James Ross Fulton: To deal with the point of order, it is a well known feature of our rules that if objection is to be taken to what is said the point of order must be raised at the time that the words are spoken.


Murdo William Martin: Nonsense.


James Ross Fulton: This was not done, and in my submission there is nothing to the point of order raised by the hon. member in any event.

Supply-J ustice


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It so happens, Mr. Chairman,-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that I am speaking to the point of order and I have not yet finished.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman says that he has not said anything contrary to the rules of the house. He has confirmed that he said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that the hon. member had resorted to subterfuge.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am hearing the minister on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has gone on to another speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I had about concluded my remarks on the point of order when the hon. member proved once again unable to restrain himself. The point I have made is that a point of order of this kind must be raised when the words were spoken. In any^ event, the hon. member for Essex East is this time so far out of court to be obvious even to himself. There is nothing in his point of order because the word used was in itself not unparliamentary. That is my submission. I was about to go on to deal with the position taken by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not think I was in the chair when the words about which the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo complained were spoken. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, who is the member concerned, did not raise a point of order at that time. He has said that the minister should withdraw these words but that does not indicate in itself that the member considers that the words are unparliamentary. He may have implied only that they were unfair. I do not know in what context the word "subterfuge" was used and I would point out that in some cases it may be parliamentary. It all depends on the context. It may be unparliamentary if the implication is that the hon. member was trying to do something unethical. Would the hon. member explain exactly what the words were?


Chesley William Carter: I do not know that I can quote the exact words but the implication was that I used subterfuge to get the bill before the house, that it was brought before the house by misrepresentation and in an improper manner. A few minutes ago the minister confirmed that and on the basis of

his confirmation I am now asking him to withdraw. If I missed doing so on the earlier occasion I am not missing doing so now when he confirmed it a few minutes ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I apprehended what the hon. member said, he endeavoured to establish that what I said was not correct and therefore as it was not correct, that I should apologize or admit that I was in error. I had risen and said that I did not admit that I was in error when the hon. member for Essex East raised a point of order that the word "subterfuge" was unparliamentary. To that I replied that the point of order should have been raised when the word was used, which must be upwards of an hour ago, if there was objection taken to it. No objection was taken to it.


William Moore Benidickson: It is still a crime.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In all simplicity, I submit that what is being done now is done in an attempt to waste time.


Chesley William Carter: If you want to be a man you can withdraw it; if you want to be a weasel you can weasel out of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo would apply to himself the principle he has just asked me to apply to myself he would admit that what I said was correct, as I shall prove.


Chesley William Carter: I do not admit one word of it, not one word of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall read to you, Mr. Chairman, the dictionary definition of the word "subterfuge" in order that you may ascertain whether or not it is in fact unparliamentary. I am reading from the concise Oxford dictionary which defines "subterfuge" as follows:
Attempt to escape censure or defeat in argument by evading the issue, statement et cetera resorted to for such purpose, use of such statements et cetera.
I see nothing unparliamentary in suggesting that the hon. member is attempting to evade the issue. That is done frequently. So, sir, I think there is really nothing to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Essex East. I am sorry to have to take so much time-


Chesley William Carter: The minister himself is evading. He said I used subterfuge and engaged in misrepresentation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is obvious, sir, that the hon. member for Essex East is inflaming the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. It seems to me that is an unparliamentary practice. I would suggest that we might try to get back to the point at issue.


Murdo William Martin: On the point of order, it is clear from what the Minister of Justice has said that there has been a violation of the practices of the house in the characterization that the Minister of Justice has used with regard to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend did not even hear it. He was not here.


Murdo William Martin: Perhaps the Minister of Justice will contain himself and try to acquire that serenity which we knew he possessed on other occasions. If the Chair does not insist on the Minister of Justice doing what any man with decency would do, then, of course-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think the hon. member is now following a course which would not help to settle the problem. The Chair has not made any decision but I think I can make one right away. I realize now that I was not in the chair when the word was used so it is very difficult for me to rule now that the word was out of order or unparliamentary at the time it was used because as the definition of the word indicates it may be used in a parliamentary sense. What is unparliamentary is the imputation of false or unavowed motives. Maybe we could settle the problem by asking the Minister of Justice to indicate that he did not use words attributing false or unavowed motives to the hon. member. That is the only way I can rule because the hon. member for Essex East will realize that as I was not in the chair at the time, as I do not have the exact words and as the word in itself is not unparliamentary outside of the context, I cannot force the minister to withdraw. On the other hand, I am sure the minister will not hesitate to say that he did not impute to the hon. member motives of that sort.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, of course not. I hope I am too good a parliamentarian and have too much respect for all my colleagues in this house to impute motives of that sort. The word was quite simple and it was used in a perfectly normal, proper context. It stands by itself. I had no intention of imputing motives of the sort you have described.
I come now to the question of whether or not the bill in question was introduced to the house on the basis of an explanation which misled. This was my complaint against the hon. member and against the bill. I said the bill was placed before the house on a basis on which the issue involved in the bill was not explained. This is my understanding of the meaning of the word "subterfuge", that 90205-6-339i
Supply-Justice
the issue involved in the bill was evaded in the explanation that was given.
It is a custom in this house which has arisen out of the rules, and has been sanctioned, that when an hon. member asks for leave to introduce a bill, he may be asked to give an explanation.
Now, the introduction of a bill, of course, has in itself no effect. The only thing that has effect is when a bill is read formally the first, second and third time. But our custom has grown that when a member is asked for an explanation so as to allow the members of the house to form a judgment on whether he may have leave to introduce the bill, because it is only when leave is given to introduce the bill that it can be read a first, second and third time. First reading is given a bill under our rules immediately upon leave for the introduction of the bill being granted. It is important, therefore, whether or not a member gets leave to introduce a bill.
While it has rarely, if ever happened, the house is quite entitled to refuse leave to introduce a bill. Certainly, if the house felt that an explanation given of a bill made the bill repugnant, the house would not give leave for the introduction of the bill. Certainly if the house were given an explanation which, on its face, raised a serious question as to whether or not the house should give the bill first reading, then the house would say, no, we will not give first reading now. We will wait until we see a copy of the bill or until we get a further explanation. Then, we would defer first reading and the bill would not have, in fact, been read a first time. I say, therefore, the explanation given by a member when he seeks leave to introduce his bill is a very important thing.
In this case, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo did explain his Bill No. C-76 on March 22, 1961. Here is what he said, as recorded on page 3217 of Hansard of that date:
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to revise the Fisheries Act to bring it into conformity with the Canadian Bill of Rights and in accordance with the report to be tabled by the Minister of Justice under standing order No. 40, as required by the Canadian Bill of Rights regulations.
There is another paragraph, and I will read it if the hon. member wants me to do so, but in my submission the operative and impressive words were, "the purpose of this bill is to revise the Fisheries Act to bring it into conformity with the Canadian Bill of Rights". It was on that basis, Mr. Chairman, that the house gave leave to the hon. member to introduce the bill to revise the Fisheries Act and bring it into conformity with the bill of rights. Leave was given, the bill was introduced and it was then read a first time

Supply-Justice
on the strength of the hon. member's explanation. But when we came to read the bill, we found that the impression we had been given was completely erroneous. This was not a bill to revise the Fisheries Act. This was a bill to re-enact, word by word, comma by comma, clause by clause and in precise detail, the then existing Fisheries Act.
I ask how anything could be a clearer case of the house having been misled?
I am not discussing motives, I am simply asking the house to assess the fact of whether or not it was misled by the explanation given. The hon. member sought leave to introduce a bill to revise the Fisheries Act, whereas what was pushed through first reading quickly, on the basis of the house accepting the explanation in good faith, was a bill to re-enact the present Fisheries Act and then repeal that act so that the hon. member's bill would have been the operative act.


William Arnold Peters: It accomplished what he wanted to accomplish.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It accomplished nothing except to mislead the house, on the basis of the explanation given, and it drew from Mr. Speaker words which I shall presently place on record. Mr. Speaker was candid enough, as Mr. Speaker always is, to tell the house he had not been aware of what was being done. The Speaker himself did not know what was being done. He accepted the explanation in good faith. The words of Mr. Speaker are reported on page 3353 of Hansard for March 27, 1961, as follows:
Perhaps the house would permit me to call attention to an omission or error of the Chair and ask for the indulgence of the house. It arose in a similar circumstance, where an hon. member had risen to ask leave to introduce a bill, namely on Wednesday, March 22, when Bill No. C-76 was given first reading, just as we have given first reading at this moment to another bill.
If I had performed my duty at that time I should have called the attention of the house to the fact- which I did not actually know, but I should have known, in my responsibility for the form in which matters come before this house-that the bill is designed to do only one thing; that is, to repeal and re-enact the Fisheries Act.
Well, is that a bill to revise the Fisheries Act? Of course not Mr. Speaker, the responsible officer of the house, says himself that the bill was designed to do only one thing, to repeal and re-enact the Fisheries Act, whereas the explanation which we accepted in good faith informed us that it was a bill to revise the Fisheries Act. Mr. Speaker continues:
In other words, it does not propose any legislation but it is simply a repeal and re-enactment of a statute now on the books, and accomplishes nothing whatever in a legislative way.
Now, I am sure that all hon. members, even my good friend from Essex East, will

admit there is a substantial difference between a bill which we are told is a bill to revise the Fisheries Act-and that is what we were told by the hon. member when he introduced the bill-and a bill which, as Mr. Speaker said, is simply a bill to repeal and re-enact a statute now on the books. It accomplishes nothing. It was for this reason I said the bill was introduced by subterfuge. It was introduced as a result of an explanation which evaded the issue and led hon. members to believe that they were being asked to give leave to introduce a bill to revise the Fisheries Act, whereas they were being asked to give leave to introduce another, different kind of bill.
I do not propose to pursue this matter any further. I gave my explanation earlier this afternoon as to why, under those circumstances, as Minister of Justice, I had not felt called upon up to now to report on this so-called bill. In my view, it was not properly before the house. As Mr. Speaker says, it accomplishes nothing. In my view it is questionable whether it is, in fact, a bill at all and therefore I felt-and I discussed this point with Mr. Speaker-that there would be a point of order to be raised when the bill came to second reading if that stage ever arose. At that time the house would decide whether or not this bill is properly before the house. If the house decided that, then of course I would be called upon to examine the bill and make my report.
I did not consider I was called upon to make a report with respect to a monstrosity to which, in my view, this House of Commons being a sensible body would, if the bill ever came to second reading, decide was not properly before us, that it accomplishes nothing, that it should never have been introduced, so that it would not be proceeded with.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo makes some point of the fact that perhaps the bill would have been amended and then, perhaps, the bill would have accomplished something because somebody in committee might have amended it in a way to make it worth while instead of the nullity it was when he introduced it. This might have been the case if we proceeded with the bill, but when he made his explanation he was talking about the bill as he introduced it, and not what it might be at some other stage when some of the common sense of the other members might have been brought to bear on this monstrosity. He was talking about the bill that he introduced and he said, "This is a bill the purpose of which is to revise the Fisheries Act". As a matter of fact, it was nothing of the sort. Therefore, although

I like to try to get along with all hon. members, I am sorry that I am unable to accommodate myself to the request of the hon. member that I should apologize for the word "subterfuge".


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Morton):: I recognize the hon. member for Skeena.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to let the minister away with that.


Murray Douglas Morton: I have recognized the hon. member for Skeena.


Chesley William Carter: I am speaking to a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Murray Douglas Morton: What
is the point of order at this stage?


Chesley William Carter: My point of order arises out of the words just used by the minister who has said that he sees no reason to withdraw the word "subterfuge". If you will just give me a few moments I shall state my question of privilege. If I used subterfuge in introducing this bill, I did not comply with the rules of the house. I challenge the minister now to tell me what rule of the house I violated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I never said the hon. member violated a rule of the house. I said that the hon. member, in making his explanation, did not give the house the correct explanation of his bill. That is all I have ever said.


Chesley William Carter: On a question of privilege, may I say that I did give the explanation to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not the correct explanation.


Chesley William Carter: The minister emphasized only one part of what I said. When I introduced the bill I said-


Murray Douglas Morton: Order. I think the hon. member, in raising a question of privilege, is raising a matter of argument. I had understood this point of order had been settled with the explanation that had been given, namely that there was no direct imputation against the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and therefore no question of privilege upon which he had risen. I had therefore recognized the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: The minister obviously studied well at law school for he has been able to use so many words to attempt to confuse the issue. However, I think he has failed to do so. The bill of rights and the order in council to which I referred, specifically, without equivocation, state what the minister shall do with respect to every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons. The order in council states what he shall do with
Supply-Justice
respect to every such bill that is so introduced and then transmitted to him by the Clerk of the House of Commons. The question of the propriety of a particular bill and whether it is in order is one relating to the orders and functions of this particular house.
I say again, as I said earlier, that the minister has deliberately used his reasoning or his thinking that Bill C-76 is not properly before the house in order to avoid making a report which would have shown that the old Fisheries Act had in it many parts which were inconsistent with the bill of rights. If that is not the case, then I am quite sure we can expect tomorrow to find notice on the order paper by the Minister of Agriculture that he is going to revise the Feeds Act in order to bring it into conformity with the bill of rights. It is full of inconsistencies. The hon. member for Timiskaming referred to at least 12 instances where the Feeds Act introduced by this government is inconsistent with the bill of rights. I am sure we can expect that the Customs Act will be revised and brought up to date so that its inconsistencies with the bill of rights will be straightened out. But presumably what will be necessary before that event takes place is for other hon. members to introduce bills similar to Bill No. C-76, except that they make reference to the Feeds Act, the Customs Act and other statutes that I have not named which are inconsistent with the bill of rights.
The minister mentioned the fact that when instances of perjury were brought to his attention he would transmit these instances to the attorney general of the particular province within which the allegation of perjury itself as alleged was supposed to have taken place. I have drawn one of them to the attention of the minister already. I proceed now to draw another one to his attention. This also is connected with his duties and responsibilities under the bill of rights, section 3 of which states that he shall examine every bill. Here is another bill that the minister examined. He examined Bill No. SD-38, an act for the relief of Jack Warran Jones. In examining this bill the minister came across these words:
-and whereas the said marriage and adultery have been proved by evidence adduced-
These are the words the minister examined and on which he came to the conclusion that adultery had been proven by evidence adduced. Yet how does he know this is not inconsistent with the bill of rights? I am referring to the bill, not the evidence. Yet the minister on March 7 ridiculed it and said, "That is not inconsistent with the provisions of the bill of rights." I submit that section I read previously of denying a person the right to appear applies in this case also. Let me read

Supply-Justice
an affidavit sworn in Montreal on March 22, 1960 before Ouila Deroches a commissioner of the superior court in and for the city and district of Montreal, province of Quebec. It reads as follows:
I,	Harry Golden, bailiff of the superior court, in and for the city and district of Montreal, residing at No. 4870 Jean Brillant St., in the city of Montreal, province of Quebec, do solemnly declare:
1.	That on the 21st day of March, 1960, between the hours of 11 and 12 in the forenoon, I served the corespondent Alfred Sabourin with a true copy of the notice hereto attached and marked "A" by giving the said copy to and leaving it with the said Alfred Sabourin in person at his place of employment at No. 553 Dollard Ave. in the town of Lasalle, district of Montreal, province of Quebec.
2.	That at the same time and place in the same manner I also served the said Alfred Sabourin with a true copy of the petition hereto attached and marked "B" and sworn declaration of the petitioner attached to the copy of the petition and also marked "B" appended to which copy there was a true copy of the information to the corespondent which is hereto also attached and marked "C".
3.	That I believe the said Alfred Sabourin to be the person described in the said information as the corespondent.
4.	That when serving the above upon the said Alfred Sabourin he admitted to me that he was the person described in the said information as the corespondent.
t And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
And I have signed:
And there appears the signature of Harry Golden. This is the original document from the report of the committee on divorce, not the printed document but the original in each instance, and the original typescript as prepared by the reporter who attended at that particular hearing. You will note that it is sworn that the gentleman Mr. Alfred Sabourin was served at his place of employment at No. 553 Dollard Avenue and that he received this particular document.
Mr. Chairman, there is no such address as 553 Dollard Avenue. Again, communications were addressed to this individual at the address shown on the sworn statement and again we have communications from the Post Office Department; again the letter was returned. Again demands were made to have it re-routed, or for other action to be taken through the postal department. Again we have a letter from the postal authorities in connection with this particular case and I quote from the letter:
The address 553 Dollard avenue does not exist.
I submit this is something that is within the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, as the minister himself announced a while ago. When evidence of perjury is brought to the attention of the minister, he undertakes

to communicate with the responsible official in the province concerned in connection with the allegation.
I strenuously disagree with the contention of the minister that he has no responsibility to review this particular evidence taken in such a careless manner before the committee of the other place. I submit that the minister has a responsibility. Certainly the bill of rights says that he shall examine every bill, although it does not say anything about evidence.
This is another instance of the minister interpreting the bill of rights to suit his own convenience because he does not want to be bothered with these divorce cases, just as he interpreted it to suit his own convenience with respect to Bill No. C-76.
The bill to which I have just referred says that the marriage and the adultery have been proved by evidence adduced. The minister read those words and said to himself, "I will take them at face value. I will take at face value what is said in this bill". How can you prove that adultery took place when the address of the corespondent which is given here does not exist, and when someone obviously signed a declaration which is not in fact true? There being no such address, are we not entitled to entertain some doubt about whether there was in fact a corespondent? Are we not entitled to ask ourselves whether this is another of the cooked-up arrangements -and there have been so many of them, as we discovered last session-under which someone obtains a divorce by using a fictitious name or corespondent?
With regard to the question of whether or not this individual, Mr. Sabourin, actually existed we can refer to the evidence taken before the divorce committee. I refer to the evidence given by Mr. Clovis Paquette, who appeared as a witness for the petitioner. He was sworn and testified that on a particular day certain things happened. I will read from the evidence. Mr. Jacobs asked:
Mr. Paquette, on the evening of February 24 and into the morning of the 25th, 1960 was Mr. Jones in your company? A. Yes sir.
Q. Who else was with you? A. Mr. Brault.
Q. Where did you go that night? A. Well, I was there in the afternoon of the 24th.


Jacques Flynn: Get around to the night in
question.
I do not know whether or not this witness showed any undue interest in this matter, but anyway Mr. Jacobs then asked:
After Mr. Jones met you outside a certain place? A. He did.
Q. Where? A. On O'Brien Boulevard at 11.30, and I saw his wife arrive at one o'clock with another man driving a car, a Chev. convertible; and I went upstairs with Mr. Brault and Mr. Jones at two o'clock and I found his wife was in the house, because he had identified her to us.

By the Chairman:
Q. Did she hear him identify her to you? A. Oh, yes.
Q. And she didn't deny it? A. No she didn't deny it. I asked Mr. Jones if this woman was his wife, and he says yes.
By Mr. Jacobs:
Q. Where was this woman upstairs? A. She was in the room.
Q. What room? A. There was only one room and there was only one bed to accommodate two persons.
Q. Could you observe the condition of that bed? A. That bed was disturbed, and it is my opinion that it had been used by the two of them.
Q. Did you know the name of the man that was there? A. Yes, Mr. Alfred Sabourin.
By the Chairman:
Q. When did you find that out? A. I was there in the afternoon talking with the landlady downstairs. I asked her who was the man upstairs, and she said Mr. and Mrs.-
Then there was an interruption by a question:
But that Is hearsay evidence. You must have found it out some other way. A. I was informed by the office he was living there.
Q. Did you hear him called Sabourin upstairs that night? A. I asked him his name.
Q. And he admitted it? A. Yes.
Then they come to the question of dress, of course, and who was wearing what. I think the committee will have noticed that throughout this evidence given by Mr. Paquette- who, as I have indicated, is an investigator- nowhere does he say where they went that evening. He was asked what he saw, and did he see this woman upstairs; he said she was in the room; he was asked what room, and he said there was only one room and only one bed. We do not get to the question of where they went, what was the address, or anything else.
Perhaps in this regard we are entitled to wonder whether the address existed, inasmuch as they could not find Mr. Sabourin later, and yet swore that they did. Mr. Chairman, if I look a little further here-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You might find something juicy.


Murray Douglas Morton: Order.
I wonder whether the hon. member can assist the Chair as to how this is relevant to the discussion. I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member, but I think he is wandering rather far from his original intention of trying to show that some offence has been committed in which the Minister of Justice would have some interest. I do not think the hon. member would go to the extent of casting a reflection on the proceedings of the other place.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I hope you are not inviting me to do that, because we could be here for some time following that particular course. I think this is quite germane
Supply-J ustice
to the discussion under way and to the announced responsibility which the minister has assumed and yet declines to accept.
It is the accepted responsibility of the minister to transmit to the attorney general of the province concerned any allegation of perjury. I am seeking to show there is an offence of perjury here, first by someone swearing an affidavit that he served documents on a person at a particular address, which address does not in fact exist; and second by making reference to the evidence taken before the committee. I admit that the Minister of Justice should have done this in the first place; he should have looked at this particular bill and others, in his role as custodian of the rights and freedoms of people.
I submit that had the minister done this he would have seen that question of perjury does arise in this case.
We again get to the question of not being able to find the address at which this couple were supposed to have been discovered. The committee will recall from previous occasions on which we have discussed these matters that invariably the private detective says the address was such and such, the street was such and such, the time was 11.35, the lights were on, and gives all the intricate details about what was found.
I am attempting to show that nothing was found here, because nothing existed; that this is one of those instances of a put-up job and is an attempt to mislead the Senate divorce committee, the House of Commons, the miscellaneous private bills committee and His Excellency the Governor General when he comes to give royal assent to this particular bill. It is an attempt to mislead us into thinking certain conditions existed and certain things took place, when in fact they did not. I think it is one of the functions of the Minister of Justice to examine these particular bills.
I again quote from the typescript of the evidence in this regard to prove my point. I will now read from the evidence of Mr. Jones.


Murray Douglas Morton: Again, I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member but I think he is going too far in that he is bringing before this committee a matter upon which he asks the minister to make a judicial decision regarding whether a proceeding was right or wrong.
Having regard to the ruling made earlier, I think the hon. member is within his rights in bringing to the attention of the minister a matter which he felt had caused an injustice or a wrong. However, having done that I think it is up to the minister to take whatever action he considers appropriate in

Supply-Justice
referring the matter to whatever authority he may think proper. I think the hon. member is going beyond that point in reading into the record evidence of the proceedings of another place, discussing it and in effect endeavouring to make this committee take part in a judicial inquiry, which is not part of the matter before us.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I submit with deference, before your ruling becomes final, that by reading the affidavit sworn by Mr. Golden, where the address mentioned does not exist, I have shown that there is a question, or certainly an allegation of perjury in this matter.
Second, I wish to make reference to the evidence taken on oath before the committee of the other place to show that other facts should be investigated. That is why I seek to read from the evidence given before that committee, to bring to the attention of the minister another instance of possible perjury which should be examined. If I may be allowed to proceed-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, I think the committee will have to be very clear about this: if it is permissible to read evidence given before the committee of the other place it will become permissible to read other transactions which occur in the other place, and to my knowledge that has never been the practice of the House of Commons.


Murray Douglas Morton: That has been my concern as the hon. member has read on. I can see there may be some justification under our rules for his bringing this matter to the attention of the minister as something which may require investigation, but when it is considered that the bill itself is not before the committee I am concerned lest the matter should go too far and fall outside the terms of the business before us today. I think this whole matter is one for the house, if it wishes, to consider further when the particular bill concerned is up for consideration. In my opinion, having brought this question to the attention of the minister and having pointed out to him the existence of conflicting affidavits which, he alleges, amount to perjury, he has gone as far as he can under our rules. If he were to continue he would open up a discussion upon lines which the precedents governing this house do not allow.


Frank Howard: If I understand your ruling I shall not be able to make reference to evidence given before the committee of the other place in order to show that a possibility of perjury exists.
[The Acting Chairman.]


Murray Douglas Morton: I would suggest that it is not for the hon. member, today, to prove that the evidence is right or wrong. He has brought the matter to the attention of the minister for investigation. Whether the hon. member is right or wrong is something for another forum to decide. I would further suggest that the time to make the allegations he has made would be when the bill is before this house or before the committee; the committee will be perfectly right to decide on the evidence given whether the allegations are true or not.
What is, in effect, being done now, is to attempt to have a trial of that case in the course of our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Justice. I think that would be an improper precedent to set. In my opinion, in bringing this matter to the attention of the minister, alleging that there is something wrong, and making some references for the minister's guidance, the hon. member has gone as far as he can.


Frank Howard: There is one other point. Originally, the reference to the possibility of perjury related to one Harry Golden who declared himself to be a bailiff. The second instance relates to someone other than Harry Golden, a person who gave evidence under oath. I was attempting to proceed with the allegation of perjury in the second instance.


Murray Douglas Morton: I
think that would be taking the subject beyond the scope of the administrative responsibility of the minister, since proceedings in the other place would be involved. I think the hon. member has made his point and I trust he will not persist in following his present line.


Frank Howard: With all due deference, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as I am prevented from bringing before the committee this other case where perjury is alleged and some evidence taken under oath to show that the possibility of perjury existed, then with due respect I feel I must appeal your ruling.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the acting chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, in committee of supply when the estimates of the Department of Justice were being considered I ruled that the reading and discussion of evidence taken before the Senate committee on divorce were not relevant to the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Justice. Whereupon the hon. member for Skeena appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal from a ruling of the chairman of the committee of supply. In committee of supply, when the estimates of the Department of Justice were being considered the chairman ruled that the reading and discussion of evidence taken before the Senate committee on divorce were not relevant to the

administrative responsibility of the Minister of Justice. Whereupon the hon. member for Skeena appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to a 90205-6-340
Supply-Justice
problem and ask you to give it your consideration. The procedure of the house is that it is obligatory for five members to rise if a vote is to be called. I would ask you to consider very carefully whether, when that is done, members who have insisted on a vote should not be present when the vote is taken.
The situation is that five members of the C.C.F. party obliged the house to have a vote and yet only three were here when the vote was taken. I think this is possibly a new point and you may not wish to rule on it immediately but perhaps you would give it consideration and advise the house at a later date as to what rule should be maintained under these circumstances.


Frank Howard: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that a number of members of parliament are absent from the house from time to time and no question is raised as to their absence. No question is raised why particular members are absent or others are present, and I submit that the same should be true in these circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the point the Minister of Veterans Affairs makes as a point of order is that if a member takes part in insisting on a recorded vote his obligation is to remain and see the vote through. It is a novel point and I shall take it under consideration.
And the house having resumed in committee:
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m. (Translation):
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, if I remember rightly, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) stated in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Eudes), that it is not customary for the minister to make a statement at the outset of the examination of his estimates.
It seems to me that the Minister of Justice is not only the custodian and administrator of our laws, but that he should be an innovator in this sense that he should keep abreast of all possible reforms in an effort to remedy the problems of our society and also to protect the citizens of this country as well as possible.
That is why I felt it would have been most interesting to hear the minister speak of the numerous problems which the government

Supply-Justice
Now, I am wondering whether it would not be advisable to revise that article of the Criminal Code to prohibit in the future the sale of those contraceptives unless prescribed by a physician.
I would appreciate it if at the end of my remarks the minister would say a word on that matter, and if he would tell us whether the problem has ever been taken up with him.
Now, Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of the bill we examined yesterday, we were denied the right to refer to particular methods of capital punishment. I would like to say only a word about it here, because if I should be out of order in doing so now, I do not know when I might have a chance to take up that point at some other time.
I would urge the minister, since it is not too late for that, to consider the possibility of amending Bill C-92 to provide for some form of capital punishment other than hanging.
I fail to see why the government should not make use of the report of the joint committee of the House of Commons and of the Senate to abolish our present practice of putting condemned criminals to death by hanging.
I think there would be almost complete unanimity in this house if the minister were to apply the conclusions of this report concerning the method of execution.
I hope that between now and Monday, when we resume the discussion of this bill in committee, he will be in a position perhaps to introduce an amendment to his bill providing for some new method of capital punishment.
Mr. Chairman, I made a request yesterday and I take this opportunity, when these estimates are before us, to repeat it today, but I shall be very brief.
I again urge the minister to refer Bill C-92 to a special committee of the house where the Canadian Bar Association could be invited-


An hon. Member:: Order, order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -might be invited to tell us what they think about it.
My hon. friend just called out: order. I do not wish to dwell any longer on that. However, I hope this request I am making again, which seems wise to me, will be taken into serious consideration.
Last year, when we considered the bill of rights, we set up a special committee of the

house and then we came up before the committee of the whole; and heaven knows that if there was some similarity between the original bill and the one which was reported later, it was purely accidental.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, I should like, in closing, to say only a few words about the law relating to divorce.
I have no intention of going into details on the question of divorce. I will simply say this to the minister in his capacity as Attorney General and legal adviser to the cabinet: this divorce issue had left the House of Commons for the Senate; it is now back with us. We have fallen from the frying pan into the fire and we are facing a serious problem. When the minister replies to our suggestions, I wonder whether he would inform us on the stand which the government intends to take in respect of this question of divorce.
I shall say no more-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am very pleased that the hon. member states his intention of not making any other comment on this point, for he has already gone too far.
I have already indicated that this problem is not the responsibility of the minister but of the house.
We are now considering the department's estimates.
(Text):


Frank Charles McGee: It had been my intention to rise this evening merely to comment on the impressive program initiated by the Minister of Justice in the field of penal reform, but I cannot let pass the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. This great humanitarian who, I notice, voted against the bill which was presented to the house yesterday, presumably because he did not think the application of the death penalty should be limited, in a burst of compassion this evening decided that he wants to extend to human beings the same methods that this house voted to provide for the slaughter of animals a few years ago. I must say I am unimpressed by this sudden concern. The hon. member also made reference to special committees and I think if I were in his party I, too, would want to send out for a lot of experts and a lot of help. It is obviously a continuing process over there-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We would not call on you, I am sure.


Frank Charles McGee: It seems to me that the members of this house are perfectly capable of processing this bill, as they have proved capable of processing other measures and bills over the years.
Coming back, now, to my original purpose in rising this evening, I want to discuss the impressive program of penal reform which is being carried on by the present administration under the guidance of the Minister of Justice. I had the opportunity to examine some of our penal institutions at first hand not too many months ago. I had occasion to visit the city of Kingston and Queen's University and I took advantage, while I was in that city, of the opportunity to visit two institutions, the Joyceville medium security institution just outside the city, and that great monument to the reform instincts of the Liberal party, the women's prison in Kingston.
I should like to tell members something of my experience in visiting first the Joyceville institution, the medium security institution containing prisoners carefully selected as being prisoners who are deemed to be the best risk and to offer the greatest opportunity for reform and rehabilitation. This, as I say, is a medium security institution. The degree of control on the part of the guards is roughly equivalent to that of a foreman in charge of a work gang. In effect the work gangs, or work groups, were, when I saw them, leaving through the open front door of the institution and proceeding down to the side of the highway, highway No. 15, I think it is, which passes by the gate, on their way to perform various tasks connected with the prison farm, bush clearing and other outdoor activities. The institution itself is obviously adequately staffed, and supervision is as strict as it has to be. The point is that some individuals of very substantial size were wandering about in relative freedom to pursue their tasks. They were putting in a full working day and within the prison itself the main endeavour was to provide to many of the prisoners who had little or no useful experience in earning a living, the opportunity to learn a trade, to operate machine shops, tailoring shops and so on. Here is a forward looking, progressive policy in practice, and it makes so much sense that there is little serious area for criticism.
The contrast between this medium security institution and the women's institution in Kingston is, to say the least, striking. At Joyceville I had seen a burly 200 pounder walking through an open gate. At Kingston there were endless barricades, walls 40 feet high fortified with barbed wire, oak doors and bars in series, bars strong enough to resist the charge of a herd of elephants, all to be passed through before one encounters a
Supply-Justice
woman prisoner who would not have weighed more than 100 pounds soaking wet. The contrast between the open door and the animal cage was striking.
The person presently in charge of that institution was reluctant that I should visit the institution, and after I had completed my visit I could understand why. She had recently taken over the institution and was in the process of initiating some very constructive and effective measures. She was reluctant to allow me to inspect the buildings because she was in the midst of effecting these changes, and felt that if my visit was deferred two or three months, she would then be able to impress me with the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation. While I appreciate the feelings of that lady, I am pleased I had the opportunity at that time of seeing exactly what the situation was. There was, at that time, enough evidence of the previous arrangement remaining to impress me with the hopelessness of the situation as it existed before the introduction of these new methods, effected by that enlightened lady under this present administration.
There used to be at that institution a school to teach the inmates hairdressing. The female inmates were being taught how to earn an honest living at some considerable expense and effort. This school was finally discontinued because graduates, when they applied for jobs upon their release, although qualified, were refused.
I am pleased to say that, with the opening of the new building, there are now classes held in special rooms designed and equipped to teach the inmates different trades. It is my considered opinion that the old arrangement, which was an exercise in futility, has been replaced by a productive and beneficial arrangement whereby the inmates are able to learn typing, shorthand, bookkeeping, accounting and the like, and upon discharge are able to be placed in good positions. Classes in academic education also take place now at this institution in an attempt to bring the average education of the inmates up to a grade 6 level.
I should also like to mention that there is a laundry operating in the institution which has, over the years, looked after the laundry needs of the institution itself as well as neighbouring men's institutions and which worked a four hour day. Obviously this is an appropriate occupation for women prisoners but I wonder about the effectiveness of having the prisoners work only a four hour day in terms of preparing them for useful occupations after release. There is also a shirt factory in the institution which worked on the basis of a four hour day. Women who have worked there and who upon release sought employment in

Supply-Justice
shirt factories found themselves unable to sustain the pace of working an industrial eight hour day, after having worked a four hour day for four or five years. As a matter of record, very few have been able to hold their jobs after release. It is my understanding that the inmates only put in a four hour day because the guards were required to escort them from the laundry room to the mess room, to the laundry, and back to their cells. These guards worked only until 5 o'clock in the evening so the inmates had to be returned to their cells before that hour. Apparently the thought of the guards working shifts had never occurred to the officials of that institution, so that a normal seven or eight hour working day could be carried out.
If such a procedure had been followed, perhaps those inmates would have become accustomed to working a long day, and thereby would not have been faced with the sudden change upon their successful placement in a laundry in the outside world. Had this been so, at least some of them might have survived the difficulties of the transitional period from imprisonment to private life. It is unfortunate, though true, that in most cases, inmates released and placed in jobs outside met with unhappy results. I should in all fairness say, with the new programs being instituted in these institutions, the results are much better. I understand there is very little resistance to the increase in the length of the working day, although resistance was anticipated.
I have related some of my impressions of the operation and success thereof, which I found on my visit to this institution. I could take up more time in describing what I term, quite fairly, the dungeon conditions which I found there, such as one basement room in which there was a puddle of water surrounded by 20 or 30 beds. I suggest the existence of those conditions is the reason why the lady, to whom I referred earlier, was so reluctant to let me inspect the institution. However, as I say, the institution was in the midst of a change-over period, and conditions are now much improved. I was very impressed by the before and after picture.
It is quite clear that for at least a quarter of a century, perhaps more, the conditions existing in institutions in this country were completely ignored. I am happy to say that a new program is being carried out with vigour and interest, initiated by the present Minister of Justice and carried out by the officials of the penal institutions that come within federal jurisdiction. This program has had a dramatic impact, particularly in view of the difficulties which were encountered at the commencement of the program.
[Mr. McGee.1
The subject of penal reform has been discussed in this house, as well as by a number of interested individuals outside this house. It was discussed just recently during the debate on capital punishment. I have often heard statements made by uninformed individuals which would have lead me to believe, had I not known better, that a sentence of life imprisonment in these institutions could be likened to a vacation in Florida. That, of course, is not the case. The present program initiated by the Minister of Justice was embarked upon in a constructive way, in an attempt to train the inmates of these institutions, so that upon their release they would be capable of being placed in society in respectable positions and occupations. A great deal of careful planning and thought has gone into the designing of this program. I think the philosophy behind the project is sound, and that the pattern now being developed is desirable. These programs, plans and policies, however, are only as good, in the final analysis, as the results-the placing of released inmates in gainful and productive forms of employment.
I note an increase in this year's estimates of some $17,000, bringing the total to $167,500 in the form of grants to after-care agencies. The vanguard in this respect is composed, of course, of the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies, which are doing an outstanding job in this field. But, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, the work being done, the effort being made, the care and time taken, go for nought if upon release society in effect slams the door in the face of these individuals. This problem is, of course, aggravated in time of economic recession and, I suppose, according to the season of the year when release takes place. I think it behooves us as members of parliament, regardless of political party, to act within our capacities as ambassadors for the minister's programs and the programs instituted by these after-care organizations. If the first few doors are slammed in the face of the released inmate, we are simply and obviously increasing the possibility of recidivism, of having the released prisoner back in our institutions.
Finally, I think the most impressive feature of the minister's program of penal reform is that not only does it make sense but it actually saves the taxpayers, you and I, Mr. Chairman, money in the long run. This can be and has been demonstrated to be a fact from the point of view of cost to the state itself.
I hope that at some time during consideration of the minister's estimates he will shed further light on the question of life imprisonment and the implications thereof. There is a theory abroad, erroneous, I believe, and I

hope the minister will confirm me in my belief, that the frothing, foaming criminal guilty of a murder or a series of murders, who is found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, will be invited, if not encouraged, in a relatively few years to come back into society. Quite understandably fear has been expressed by members of the house and persons throughout the country that men of this type would be virtually invited to go free to kill again.
From the information I have gained in other quarters it is my impression that in our institutions at the present time there are persons who are serving sentences of life imprisonment and that for all practical purposes the sentence will be just that, life imprisonment. I say "for all practical purposes" because it seems to me that, in terms of the threat to society and the safety of society, when the person is aged, infirm and sick, literally not strong enough to harm himself let alone anyone else, there is no useful purpose in extracting the full sentence of life imprisonment and keeping such a person in hospital behind bars rather than in hospital on the other side of the bars. I hope the minister will clarify that matter for me and for the fairly large section of the public who, I believe, are under an erroneous impression concerning the effect of life imprisonment. As I said before, it is my belief that the person who clearly represents a threat to society or a likely threat to society if released simply is not released. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the minister on the part of the program I have followed with interest and examined at first hand and at the same time to wish him well in his future activities in this field.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I noted with interest that the hon. member for York-Scar-borough was interested primarily in the penitentiary program and, indeed, he discussed some aspects thereof. As I indicated to the committee at the commencement of discussion of my estimates today, it is my intention to make a general statement by way of a progress report on our correction and reform program when we reach the penitentiary item, and I would hope, therefore, that we might have a discussion of this matter on that item. Since it appears to me to be the fact that members are beginning to turn their attention to that matter, possibly they might be prepared to conclude the general discussion on the first item and perhaps it might be timely if I were to reply now to some of the remarks that have been made on that item so that we can proceed with the specific items in the estimates.
Supply-J ustice
The hon. member for Hochelaga commenced his remarks by drawing attention to the fact that there is an appreciable increase in the expenditure we are asking for this year compared with 1957, and there is no doubt that he is correct in drawing attention to that fact. I would, however, draw to his attention, and to the attention of the other members of the committee, that the main increase in expenditure consists primarily of the increase in the penitentiaries branch, the parole board and the salaries of the officers of the department, the penitentiaries branch and the other administrative boards that are under the general heading of the Department of Justice.
With respect to salaries, I point out that there have been two increases authorized by the civil service commission and approved by the government since 1957, that is, since the date with which the hon. member was making his comparison. I would draw his attention particularly to the fact that this increase in total expenditure by no means indicates that we are getting less value for the money that is being spent. Indeed, in my submission, we are getting more value. I would, for instance, direct his attention to the fact that under the penitentiaries branch-I am not going to discuss this in particular but this is an illustration of what I have in mind-the item for administration this year is $14,912 less than it was last year although the penitentiaries branch is spending more money this year than last year under such items as construction and maintenance. This is the pattern we have endeavoured, I believe successfully, to institute in the department.
There are certain things which are recognized as uncontrollable expenditures. If you have an increase in salaries authorized, then your salary item goes up. If you have an increase in your over-all activities, if you have a program which has the general approval and support of the house and the country and on which you must spend more money than previously, your estimates are going to reflect that increase.
The fact of the matter is that although the program has increased very considerably the proportionate amount being spent for administration has, as in the case of the penitentiaries branch, generally speaking been reduced, so that the country is getting better value for the money in part because the program is sounder than was the case before. One of the reasons why the over-all expenditure of the department has increased is, of course, that under this department there are being performed functions and activities which were not being carried out before. I have referred to the establishment of the national parole board, and I refer also to the new correctional reform program. Both

Supply-Justice
of these represent programs for which the country had had a very real need over the past years but which were not implemented until within the last two or three years.
Then, the hon. member referred to the increase in the number of legal officers, senior advisory counsel, and so on, within the department. I think the committee might be interested to know that the Department of Justice services the whole of the government of Canada, services all the departments. This work, of course, includes legal advice and counsel offered by the minister to his colleagues in the cabinet, opinions given by my deputy minister to the administrative heads of departments, assistance in particular matters given by my officers to their opposite numbers in other departments, litigation conducted on behalf of the government of Canada, the work of the criminal law section, which has responsibility for the general supervision of the Criminal Code, and those fields in which the federal government must take action under that code, and includes the legislation section, which is charged with the responsibility of the drafting of bills which are submitted by the government to this house. All of this work that I have mentioned, and much work that I have not mentioned, is carried on for the government of Canada with a total staff of 40 legal officers.
I think that if the committee will stop to reflect for a moment on the volume of work that must be done by the Department of Justice for the government of Canada, which means the people of Canada, they will realize that a staff of 40 legal officers is a very reasonable staff indeed with which to carry on that work. This number includes all the legal officers in the department from the deputy minister down. It is quite true that there has been a relatively modest increase in the number of legal officers employed by the department since 1957. One reason for this is that we have adopted, as a conscious policy, the practice of conducting more litigation, actually having the prosecution of more cases in the courts by our officers, rather than employing outside counsel.
I am not suggesting for a moment that we have adopted the practice of employing no outside counsel. We still retain and will continue to retain large numbers of outside counsel as agents of the Department of Justice in that litigation. We are, especially in certain fields, and I am thinking particularly here of important taxation cases as well as constitutional cases, endeavouring to have our own officers carry more of the litigation burden. May I give an example? For instance, in the year 1960, officers of the department took 90 cases in the courts,

supreme court, exchequer court, tariff board or provincial courts, which occupied 145 full days. The cost of this litigation to the government when carried out by departmental officers is, of course, less than the cost would be if we had retained outside counsel for all those cases.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must of course emphasize that, in addition to the work they did as counsel in court, all these officers were doing other departmental work as well.


William Moore Benidickson: My question to the minister was simply to wonder at this point, since he has statistics about this enlargement of the role of crown employees in actual court cases, if he also had avalaible for the committee information as to the expenditure by the department for the engagement of outside counsel on a comparative basis for some years back?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe that for an answer to that question I would have to refer my hon. friend to the tabulation in the back of the estimates book under the heading "Professional and Special Services", column 4. I say this because, while all litigation on behalf of the government of Canada is conducted under instructions by the Department of Justice, the fact is that this litigation is conducted on behalf of the departments concerned and the cost of litigation is charged to the department. It is not, therefore, reflected in our estimates. The total is reflected in that item.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister give the figure for 1961-62, with his proposal in front of us for that kind of expenditure?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just explained the reason why I am not able to give the total with respect to the Department of Justice. If, for instance, we prosecute a taxation case for the Department of National Revenue, we may well retain outside counsel but then the cost of that litigation is charged to that department. Similarly, if we prosecute a case or conduct a case on behalf of the Department of Transport, the cost of that litigation would be charged to that department. I am not able to give a precise figure. It is not reflected in the estimates of the Department of Justice.
The point I am making is that the extent to which we carry on litigation by our own officers, represents a substantial saving to the government and the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Hochelaga advanced by way of criticism the suggestion that there

is not, in the Department of Justice, a sufficiently high proportion of senior officers who are connected with the bar of the province of Quebec. This is a suggestion which I reject absolutely, and I am able to bring proof to support my statement. As I have said, there is a total of 40 legal officers in the Department of Justice. Of this total, 10 are members of the Quebec bar. In other words, one quarter of all the officers of the Department of Justice are qualified civil lawyers and members of the bar of the province of Quebec. At the deputy minister, associate or assistant deputy minister level, may I point out that we do have now a member of the bar of Quebec as associate deputy minister, one of the very senior officers of the department.
The department is now organized so that we have a deputy minister, two associate deputies and two assistant deputies. The position of associate deputy was created last year by an act approved by this house creating two such positions. We appointed to one of those positions a member of the bar of Quebec, a former director of studies in the faculty of law in the University of Ottawa. I therefore think I can say without fear of contradiction that this department recognizes full well, as indeed we should, the importance of having at our disposal and in the employ of the government of Canada a proper proportion of officers who are qualified members of the bar of Quebec with knowledge of the civil code. Indeed, we have a separate and complete section to deal with problems arising out of our field of responsibility under the civil code in the province of Quebec.
In connection with the question of whether or not there has been an unwarranted increase in senior officers, may I also point out to the committee that in 1957 and for several years prior thereto there were a deputy minister and three assistant deputy ministers, one of whom was a member of the Quebec bar. At the present time there are one deputy minister, two associate deputy ministers and two assistants. The picture is therefore not quite that which was presented by the hon. member for Hochelaga. There has not been an increase of two. There has been, in fact, an increase of only one in the senior levels of our department and I think a much more rational and logical approach to the problem of organization of the department.
Then I come to the question that was referred to by the hon. member for Hochelaga and by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, namely the matter of the control of firearms. That is an extremely difficult
Supply-Justice
question. We have had it under active study for over a year now. We have had an interdepartmental committee working on it.
Last year we referred the whole question, with certain informal suggestions arrived at by that committee, to the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation, criminal law section, at their meeting prior to the Canadian Bar Association meeting of last year. That conference was unable to arrive at any concrete and agreed point of view so the matter is still before us. We are examining the views of the association of police chiefs and others and it will be our intention to refer it back to the conference again this year in the hope that we may get an agreed recommendation as to what amendments should be made to the criminal law in this respect.
It will be appreciated that, although the enactment of criminal law is the responsibility of this parliament and therefore this government must take the responsibility for recommendations in that field, the enforcement is the responsibility of the provinces and views on this subject are held by large numbers of bodies including municipal as well as provincial police forces. It is therefore not a subject on which you can arrive overnight at hard and fast conclusions as to what should be done.
However, I would say this and what I have to say here is suggested by some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Hochelaga himself when he pointed out-and I am summarizing his words as I recall them-that the police in Montreal have stated that more than 2,000 persons are in illegal possession of firearms. Without for a moment denying that there may be room for improvement and appropriate amendment to the legislation, I suggest that a large part of the problem relates to enforcement. There are in existence now very definite provisions regarding the registration of firearms, making it illegal to be in possession of firearms that are not appropriately registered. Where you find, as is reported here, a responsible authority saying that more than 2,000 persons are in illegal possession of firearms, I think I am justified in saying or suggesting that the answer does not lie exclusively in another amendment to the Criminal Code. Part of the answer, at any rate, lies in the field of more vigorous enforcement of the existing provisions. Indeed, from my own thought and studies, I am led to suggest that in this matter, as in so many cases, the whole answer does not lie in enacting a criminal statute. The provinces and municipalities have authority now to license persons who may carry on certain businesses. One of the businesses that

Supply-Justice
might be subject to licence-that is the business itself-is the business of selling firearms. As I say, while not for a moment denying that there may be, and indeed there is, room for improvement in the Criminal Code of general application, I suggest that there is also very definite reason for our citizens who are concerned in this matter to ask their provincial and municipal authorities to look at their own responsibility and their own fields of jurisdiction and to ascertain whether in fact, there is not room for some improvement and control within these fields of jurisdiction.
Another matter that was of concern to several hon. members and particularly the hon. member for Hochelaga and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont was that of goof balls. I should here emphasize the fact that this matter has been under study for some time. As far as I personally am concerned, it came forcibly to my attention first during the course of a visit to Halifax early in 1958, when, if I recall the events correctly, there had been, if not a death, then certainly some outbreak of violence, which was attributed to the sale to and the use by juveniles of goof balls. Ever since that time the matter has been increasingly of concern. I immediately raised it with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare and again, as he has pointed out and as I have pointed out on more than one occasion, an interdepartmental committee was appointed and it has been studying the matter in the meantime. As was announced earlier by my colleague our studies are now advanced to the point where we have devised what we believe to be satisfactory legislation that will go a long way towards giving a method of control of this very dangerous situation. That legislation will be introduced into this house by my colleague, as I understand it, within a matter of the next few days or probably at the latest within another week. I hope the house will find that it represents a great forward step in the control of the problem of goof balls.
I recognize the fact that it is a matter of years since the problem first began to be discussed and first began to be one of real concern to municipal and other responsible agencies. I can only say that in fields such as this effective and acceptable legislation is not a matter of hasty drafting or hasty enactment. Here you are dealing with a problem of drugs, namely barbiturates which, legally and properly used are perfectly proper and legal and indeed salutary medicinal aids. You therefore do not enact out of hand and without consideration legislation which will make their use illegal or ban them in certain circumstances and in certain cases. Legislation IMr. Fulton.]
of this type requires exhaustive and careful study and consultation between representatives of the department of health and welfare, the medical profession, the police and other enforcement agencies, municipal bodies, licensing bodies and so on before you can come up with a statute which you can with confidence recommend to the House of Commons as being appropriate legislation to enact. So I have no apologies to make for the time it has taken. I believe we now have satisfactory legislation which will be introduced in a matter of a few days by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On the question of rehabilitation, which was also referred to by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, I have only this to say. I am in thorough agreement with what he himself said on that score. Indeed our whole penal reform program, designed as it is to enable us to rehabilitate so far as we can the inmates of our institutions, is of greatly diminished value if, having done that, we find that those who leave our institutions as, we hope, better men than when they went in, are not accepted in society. That will undo and negate the whole purpose of the program and I have been at pains in all my public speeches on this matter, wherever appropriate, to emphasize the responsibility of society in this regard as well as the responsibility of government.
The responsibility of government is a responsibility on behalf of society to design and implement effective programs of training and rehabilitation, but we cannot fulfil the role of society itself, which is the role of understanding and of acceptance. What we can do is ensure so far as possible that when a man comes out he is ready to resume his place in society; but unless society is prepared to give him a chance, the best program in the world will be defeated.
All I can say there is that I agree thoroughly with what the hon. member has said and express the hope that as our correctional reform program becomes better understood, and as its results become more obvious, there will be a corresponding and increasing acceptance by society of those who are what I might call the graduates of that program. But with respect to the program itself, as I have said, I would prefer to wait until we reach the penitentiary item, when I shall be able to make what I think will be an interesting and encouraging report to the committee on the progress made to date.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions I should like to put to the minister, in general covering the area of his responsibility. I should like to start off by asking him what his view of this particular statement is:

"Too often and for too long in this country one of the qualifications of a judge, aside from ability, is political competence... I suggest that a move towards elevating the judiciary would be a declaration by the attorney general and Minister of Justice of the country that from now on, within reasonable limitations, political qualifications shall take second place to ability, capacity, judgment and the possession of the faculties that result in a judiciary so necessary to the maintenance of our security and our freedom".
I suppose the minister recognizes that statement and knows who made it. It was made by the present Prime Minister, in 1948, and it is contained in an editorial in the Gazette of February 7, 1961. I want to ask the minister, in relation to the vacancies and the opportunities which exist, whether he agrees with this point of view expressed by the Prime Minister and whether he can assure us that at least a portion of the judiciary he has appointed or is planning to appoint is not composed primarily of members of the Conservative party.
We would be very interested in knowing, in view of this high-minded statement made by the Prime Minister, whether the minister can indicate if some of them are absolutely not connected in any way with politics. I ask this question just as a matter of interest.
I wish to ask another question in this same field but perhaps from a different point of view. The other day the Associate Minister of National Defence was very candid to us in the house in pointing out that, like the Liberal opposition when they were in power, this government recognized its friends; it could see its friends more quickly than it could its opponents.
In relation to the lawyers that the minister hires, I wonder whether he could give us the assurance that those lawyers who are being hired and who have been hired to handle these various cases of which he gave us statistics are friends of the government in the sense that-well, I think the minister understands the sense in which I speak. I ask this question because so often people say to me, "Why is it that there seem to be so many lawyers in politics?"; meaning, I suppose, not necessarily as active politicians but associated with parties. In all the small towns and smaller cities they seem to form the nucleus of the structure of either the Liberal or the Conservative party. The other day when I was in Peterborough somebody was setting out who the bigshots were in the Liberal and Conservative parties. In each case it seemed to be a little cluster of lawyers.


William Heward Grafftey: What is wrong with Frank Scott?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Someone says, "What is wrong with that?" I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with that, but I am always
Supply-J ustice
looking for an explanation to give people who raise these questions. One of the answers I always give is, "Look", as Marx said, "for the cash nexus". It pays a lawyer to be connected with one of the "in" parties, and especially one that is going to be in because he can count on getting some work from them. I just wondered whether the minister could assure us that these fees which are paid to outside lawyers are not only going to lawyers throughout Canada who are friends of the party.
The other question I wanted to ask the minister was this. I wondered whether the minister could give us some report of his negotiations with the attorneys general of the provinces in relation to ways to amend the British North America Act. It is very difficult to understand what is happening by following the press reports, and I do not believe the minister has given the house a comprehensive statement in this regard. It is very difficult for us to appreciate just what are the obstacles and what are the positions of the various parties. I know the minister would not want to interpret what may be the position of Saskatchewan, Quebec or Ontario, but perhaps he could give us some idea of the negotiations which have taken place and what the difficulties seem to be that are preventing a breakthrough.
There is one other point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister, and I must in a sense apologize to him for this. Several years ago when the minister introduced amendments to the Criminal Code relating to obscene publications I was one of those who feared that this could open the door to a great deal of censorship of material that had literary merit. However, so far the legislation has been almost completely ineffective, and I say quite candidly that I am delighted that this is so.
One of the things I have come to appreciate more and more is that if censorship in Canada is to get any real toe-hold it will be done through the Department of National Revenue and the customs officials. I am delighted to see that in this particular area the present minister has been much more liberal than ministers and officials of the previous government. I am not saying this lightly or without any-


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, I wonder what the hon. member means by saying that the legislation has not been effective. Presumably this legislation was designed to keep out smut and salacious literature. If this material is not coming in, the legislation is being effective.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My point with regard to this, as the hon. member knows from what I said last year when the legislation was going

Supply-Justice
through, is that these amendments to the Criminal Code could put into the hands of very narrow minded justices, and particularly magistrates, in provincial jurisdictions powers that would ultimately lead to the censoring of material for the whole country.
I am very pleased to see that, so far as I have been able to find out, there has only been one case. That is in a sense one where there is a really ridiculous element, because I have learned from the publishers that there are at least 250,000 copies of this particular book, D. H. Lawrence's "Lady Chat-terley's Lover", in Canada at the present time. I have an estimate by several publishers that there are at least 250,000 copies of that book in Canada. That is a tremendous circulation for any book to achieve at the present time in this country, so it would be really ironical if any judicial process were to lead to the banning of a book so many copies of which are already in existence here.
One of the aspects of smut or pornography with which the legislation was supposed to deal used to obsess the minister a good deal when he was sitting in this house as a private member; I refer to the field of comics, and picture magazines dealing with various sadistic poses and various aspects usually of the female form. I, myself, could wish that the legislation had been more effective in dealing with publications of this type. I know that in Ontario the attorney general has set up a most curious quartet of people whose job it is to advise him as to what is on the newsstands and to examine any material which they believe should be brought to the attention of the attorney general as likely to provide grounds for proceeding, as I understand it, under this part of the Criminal Code. Again according to my understanding of how this arrangement is working out, in over two years this quartet has still not made a single recommendation. I am not being critical of this but I do know they have had huge quantities of these picture magazines before them-all the various things that are put forward as obscene and pornographic-but as yet they have come to no decisions. Some of my more literary friends may say: that is excellent; we are not having any control or censorship, and you should be grateful. But I should like to make a distinction between work with literary or artistic merit, put together within some kind of covers, behind which stand the names of an author and a publisher and the kind of material, particularly of a sadistic nature, which appears in so many of those so-called men's magazines.
I am certainly not suggesting that we do not need this particular amendment any

longer, but I should like to hear from the minister some comment concerning the operation of this section of the Criminal Code and perhaps some explanation from him as to why it has been generally ineffective. It may seem paradoxical that I should welcome the effectiveness of the section as far as books are concerned while being a little disturbed by its lack of effectiveness in the field or men's magazines or the sadistic kind of monthly pot boilers.
Another point I should like to make underlines the reason why in my opinion the minister should give the committee an explanation. If he would recall what he said when he introduced this change in the Criminal Code, I think he will remember using the argument that one reason for this change was that it would lead to the removal of pulp trash from the newsstands. That was the main objective, as I recall it, of the change which was made at that time. I think that is a fair paraphrase of the position he took; the account which appeared in the Globe and Mail, at least, confirms my recollection. For this reason I should like to know how this legislation is working out in practice. I realize that the minister could say that this, after all, is something which must be worked out under provincial jurisdiction by the provincial authorities themselves, but it seems to me that to take such an attitude would not be good enough in the light of the promises the minister made at the time the change was introduced. He cannot now wash his hands of what was done. Perhaps he will be able to correct my impression that the amendment is not working very well, but in any case I think he owes the committee an explanation of what is happening.
There are some further remarks I should like to make in relation to the R.C.M.P. and to the Combines Investigation Act but I will wait until the appropriate point is reached in our study of the estimates. I must say, however, that I was startled by the minister's remarks reported from Toronto the other day to the effect-if I may paraphrase them- "please, Mr. Fulton, keep a file on me and some day I shall be able to show how innocent I am". There is an irony in this which I hope the minister will explain when we come to the estimates of the R.C.M.P. I should also like to ask the minister if he would consider giving an explanation which he has come close to making a couple of times in past years about not what is in the file but how the files are retired in so far as the security investigation branch is concerned. It seems to me the minister indicated three or four sessions ago that work was going along to develop a new standard of

appraisal of the files which are kept. I should like to hear later from the hon. gentleman what he has to say on this subject.


Mr. Jung:: Mr. Chairman, I wish at the beginning of my remarks to congratulate the Minister of Justice on the recent announcements which he has made regarding the adoption of a new attitude towards the rehabilitation of criminals. This enlightened attitude towards inmates serving their sentence in penal institutions deserves great praise because rehabilitation is emphasized and the positive aspect of penal servitude is stressed. I can appreciate the research which is being done by the Department of Justice into all phases of crime and delinquency and I commend the minister for the vigorous leadership which he has given in instituting these long needed studies and reforms. Notwithstanding the great amount of research which has been done into the problems of crime and delinquency, I feel that there is one area in which we still have insufficient information and that is in the field of drug addiction.
The minister will remember that last year, during the discussions of his estimates, I took the opportunity to put on record my grave concern about this problem. I pointed out that out of some 3,400 drug addicts in Canada, half are found in British Columbia and more particularly in the city of Vancouver, and most of their activities appear to revolve around a certain area in my riding of Vancouver Centre.
I mentioned then that there appeared to be a growing number of juvenile addicts. In 1957 for example, there were 25 teenagers in Canada who were drug addicts. In 1958, there were 47, and in 1959 the number had increased to 55. British Columbia had the dubious distinction of having the majority of those teen-age addicts because of the figure of 55, 46 are to be found in my province. I also said and I quote:
It would appear therefore that apart from teenager addicts there is some tendency towards stabilization in the number of addicts.
I expressed concern for the growing number of teen-age addicts last year and I am afraid that my fears have been justified because in the fifth annual report covering 1960-61 of the narcotic addiction foundation of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, the report of the director to the chairman of the board of directors disclosed that the number of young people voluntarily seeking help from the foundation had increased from the previous year. This is what the director's report had to say, and I quote:
The age groups of under 20, and 20-25 years showed an increased percentage of the total, and would tend to confirm the impression that the
Supply-Justice
age of onset of addiction is being reduced, i.e., younger people are being more exposed to addicting drugs than they were say five to ten years ago.
A questionnaire compiled by the foundation which was completed by 330 young people in Vancouver revealed information which is disquieting in its implications. For example, 19.5 per cent of the 18 year old males admitted having had the opportunity of using heroin. Of all the persons questioned, 56 per cent stated that they had had their opportunity to use heroin when they were drinking.
The questionnaire created some controversy in Vancouver, and some quarters have questioned the interpretation of the results of that questionnaire. Without entering into the merits of the argument, I feel that the foundation should be congratulated for having the courage to persist in conducting research into this most complicated problem.
The 330 young people who received the questionnaire included persons in the 15 to 18 year old group. Some of the information gained is startling. For example, 12.9 per cent of the 17 year old girls believe that there is no harm in occasionally using heroin, and to the question "Have you had an opportunity to use heroin yourself?", 5.9 per cent of the females aged 16, 11.6 per cent of males aged 17, and 19.5 per cent of males aged 18 replied "Yes".
Another question was included dealing with the availability of illegal drugs. It asked "Do you think you could get some narcotic drug illegally if you wanted to?" To this question 47.9 per cent of 16 year old males, 38.9 per cent of 17 year old females and 66.6 per cent of 18 year old males replied "Yes". These figures are alarming, and I hope there will be an opportunity to conduct a more comprehensive program of education and research.
The Vancouver Sun on May 3, 1961 reported that the senior councillor of the foundation stated that of the 285 addicts treated at the foundation during a two year period, it was disclosed that almost one half the group were addicted before their twentieth birthday, and he estimates that there are now 200 addicts under the age of 21 in Vancouver. I shall have more to say on this subject when the narcotics bill is brought forward by the minister.
I should now like to say a few words regarding the subject of increasing the salaries of judges. Let me say at the outset that, while I believe the salaries of judges are, by and large, already adequate, bearing in mind the generous pension provisions, I feel there is one class of judge which deserves an increase. I refer to county court judges.
I am well aware that the work of the county court judges varies across the country,

Supply-J ustice
so I base my remarks in regard to the work done by those county court judges serving in Vancouver. I do not want it thought that I feel that the judges of the supreme courts of the provinces, or of the courts of appeal, are not deserving of salary increases, but at this time I think a more urgent case can be made in respect of county court judges. County court judges now receive salaries of $10,500 per year. The jurisdiction of these county court judges is very extensive, and compared with the salaries paid to others, I suggest there is some justification for an increase.
For example, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has set up a series of naturalization courts across Canada. The presiding judges receive $11,000 per year. As well as the presiding judge, there is an administrator, a principal clerk, senior clerk, a clerk and a stenographer collecting sala-aries totalling $24,000. Prior to the establishment of these naturalization courts applications for naturalization were heard by county court judges who performed this duty along with their other duties at the salary of $10,500 per year. These judges were assisted by a grade III clerk and a grade I stenographer in the court registry, these two persons receiving salaries totalling $6,000 per year.
I am not casting any aspersions on the judges of the naturalization courts, but it does seem unfair to me that for performing one duty they receive more than a county court judge who has a very wide jurisdiction and, under the Criminal Code and provincial summary conviction act sits as a court of appeal where, by way of re-hearing, hears appeals from judgments of police and stipendiary magistrates. The responsibility of the county court judge is very heavy in these cases, because his decision on the facts is final.
The city of Vancouver has six magistrates with salaries, according to seniority, ranging as follows: $15,000, $13,500, $12,500, and two at $10,750. Some of the junior city prosecutors are in receipt of salaries exceeding those of county court judges. With comparisons such as those, I believe a good case can be made for increasing the salary of county court judges, and I sincerely hope the minister will give sympathetic consideration to my request on behalf of this group of citizens who are forbidden to speak for themselves but who, none the less, have answered a call of duty no less than have members of parliament.
Finally, I should like to say something about the R.C.M.P. investigation into the illegal entry of some Chinese into Canada. In so doing, I want to urge those Chinese, who have entered the country illegally, to come forward and regularize their status.

Hon. members will recall that, almost one year ago, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made a statement in the house to the effect that it was not the intention of this government, in connection with the current investigation, to prosecute or deport from the country any Chinese presently in Canada who have not themselves engaged in assisting other Chinese, apart from their own relatives, to enter Canada illegally. It is reasonable to assume that the R.C.M.P. must have had knowledge of these irregular entries. It is also reasonable to assume that if the R.C.M.P. were to proceed against these people in the usual manner, a substantial number of arrests would be made.
There are some individuals who think, because the R.C.M.P. have not made mass arrests, the government does not have any real evidence of large scale illegal immigration. Others construe the lack of arrests as a sign of weakness on the part of the government. Arguments have also been advanced that these Chinese people really have not broken the law in telling minor lies. I should be the first to agree that it would be very difficult to make out a moral case against the majority of these Chinese, because the Immigration Act, as it stands, was, and is, unduly restrictive.
I suggest that if the Immigration Act had permitted the early Chinese immigrants to bring their wives into Canada with them, none of this trouble would have started. Anyone who has been away from home for a long time, as for example, during the war, can understand how lonely persons can become after a few months' separation from their families. Imagine the unhappy state of affairs for those Chinese who were separated often as long as 20, 30 or 40 years from their wives and families. I suggest that had wives been allowed to come in, any children born would have been properly registered under Canadian law, and there should not have been the opportunity to create a fictitious family, which has made it possible for illegal immigration.
In so far as the actions of those people, who were prompted by a desire to rejoin their familities, are concerned, it is very difficult to make out any kind of a moral case against them, particularly when they have been good and law abiding citizens since their arrival. I want to emphasize the fact that I limit my remarks to those individuals whose illegal actions were prompted by a desire to rejoin their families, because there is a suggestion that in some cases being re-united with the family was not the guiding motive.

In an article dated April 29, 1961, written by Mr. Robert McKeown, an eminent writer, entitled "How Chinese Are Smuggled Into Canada" he states:
But the facts that have come to light through the current investigation seem to indicate that in relatively few cases is strong family feeling the basis for illegal immigration. The real cause of the racket is the money to be made from it.
It may be that such is the case, Mr. Chairman, but in all the cases that I have brought to the attention of the department a family relationship was established. I am not denying the truth of Mr. McKeown's statement, but because of my experience in a substantial number of these cases I want to put on record my impression that reunification with the family or some member of the family was the underlying factor. Indeed, in an article also published on April 29, 1961, in the same Weekend Magazine and entitled, "I Was An Illegal Immigrant", the author of that story said that his father died in the war with Japan and that his grandfather who had been in Canada since 1910 had helped his mother and brother by sending money and it was his grandfather who conceived the idea of him coming to Canada. Why did this young man come to Canada? Because his grandfather obviously could not go on forever supporting him, his brother and mother. As this anonymous author said, "I am working again in a restaurant and sending money to help my family who have got to Hong Kong from Toy Shan. My grandfather helped them for so long and it is right that I should help them now."
I think the government recognizes that there is this difficult humanitarian problem and that is why the minister announced the amnesty provision. It is not and has not been the intention of the government to prosecute those who came into the country illegally if that person was not an active agent engaged in making financial gain from such transactions. I can speak from personal knowledge in this regard because not one of those people whom I have advised to make voluntary statements has been arrested, fined, or deported by the Canadian authorities.
By regularizing their status these people can resume their proper names and identities and they can be granted proper landed status. In time they will also be able to apply for the admission into Canada of members of their family. The heavy fear of arrest is also removed and they are able to enjoy the benefits of living in this country. However, there has been some reluctance on the part of some to come forward because they fear that they will implicate others whom they consider as friends and benefactors.
Supply-Justice
Those who come forward voluntarily and make a full statement have everything to gain. This government, far from prosecuting the Chinese in Canada, has taken the unprecedented step of extending amnesty. But the period of amnesty cannot, in my opinion, go on forever. No matter how charitable a government may be, you cannot hope forever for special treatment when, after all, the law has been broken. Unfair though these immigration laws may have been and no matter how strong a moral case may be advanced for the actions of certain Chinese, the fact remains that the law has been broken. Two wrongs do not make a right.
It may well be that if more people in the Chinese communities across Canada had worked together earlier in order to urge a change in the immigration laws, these unfortunate incidents might not have happened. One could be tempted to say that such representations were made by certain individuals but they were not well received by the previous administration. If I were to say that, I would also point out that we in this party have not done as much for Chinese immigration as I had hoped, even though I understand that the present act is being amended.
The R.C.M.P. have had a difficult task in this investigation. By and large I think their conduct is commendable. However, I have reports that some who have worked with them in this investigation have not fully understood their position, but it is my understanding that where such cases have been reported prompt action has been taken to ensure that those persons concerned were instructed as to the exact nature of their duties and their spheres of responsibility.
I think that the R.C.M.P. have acted with great restraint because under section 16 of the Immigration Act they can arrest anyone whom they have reason to suspect of being in the country illegally. The power is there. The fact that the R.C.M.P. have not used it should not be construed as lack of evidence. Far from showing weakness, I think that the government is demonstrating a high degree of sympathy and I would be reluctant to think that advantage was being taken of this attitude and that the investigations were being unduly delayed by passive non-co-operation.
I regret that I have spoken at length on this subject. You can appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that it is a painful subject for me. But because I believe strongly that the law must be obeyed no matter how unpleasant it may be or until such time as it is changed, and also because I feel that Chinese who have entered the country illegally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by regularizing their status, I have taken this opportunity

Supply-Justice
to bring these facts before the house so that we will all exercise moderation and understanding in this difficult time in the history of the Chinese communities in Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the hon. member a question? I appreciated his statement, but he indicated that there might be in the future, and he did not define what he meant by the future, a time when this immunity might cease. He has closer connections with the Minister of Justice than I have these days and I wonder whether he would indicate to the committee what his opinion is as to the possible time when this immunity might cease?


Douglas Jung: Surely the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River would not expect me to announce government policy. I think that question should properly be directed to the minister. What I have said is based purely on my own personal assessment of the situation as I see it.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I want to take a few minutes to reply to one of the arguments the minister made this afternoon. Before the committee rose for the supper recess the minister ridiculed Bill No. C-76 which I introduced on March 22. He said the bill was a monstrosity, that it did not accomplish anything, that it merely repealed an act and re-enacted it again and therefore it was a farce. The minister makes bald announcements but he never backs them up with any quotations or evidence and he never cites any authorities to support his words. The minister's pronouncements do not become truth just because the minister utters them. I am not prepared to accord infallibility to the minister and the more I listen to him the more convinced I am of his fallibility.
I should like to put before the committee this evening two precedents that I think are analogous to the bill which the minister has described as a farce and a monstrosity. There was a time before the Statute of Westminster was enacted when certain laws of the British parliament applied in Canada. The Canadian government did not like that situation and sought to remedy it. So certain laws were passed which we thought would correct the situation. In one instance we brought into effect a section of the Criminal Code, the old section 1025, I believe, which contained a clause that there would be no appeal from any sentence or judgment passed under that section.
Another one was the Supreme Court Act which contained a clause to the effect that the judgment of the supreme court would be final. In spite of all this, these laws were not effective in supplying remedies because

they were declared ultra vires. In spite of our own laws which we had passed here in parliament, cases and appeals were still taken to the British privy council.
Finally, the Statute of Westminster was passed-I think it was about 1931-and that statute contained a clause giving effect to future laws passed in this House of Commons from that time forward. But the Statute of Westminster validated only future laws that were passed in this house. It had an effect on future laws similar to the effect the bill of rights will have on laws passed in the future after the bill of rights was put on the statute books. There is quite a good analogy there.
These two examples which I have cited, the section of the Criminal Code and the appropriate clause of the Supreme Court Act, were brought before this house, repealed and re-enacted in exactly the same way as I sought to do through Bill No. C-76. If what I sought to do was a monstrosity and a farce, well, there is a very good precedent for it. It was necessary to follow this course because the Statute of Westminster applied only to future laws, so the old law had to be re-enacted. It was re-enacted in exactly the same form. There may have been a change in a word or a phrase, but there was no change in the intent, no change in the meaning and no change in the force of the old act. To all intents and purposes, it was exactly the same old bill which was brought in, repealed and re-enacted. This is what the minister says is a farce and a monstrosity.
Just as the Statute of Westminster was not in existence when the old laws were passed and future laws came under its influence, so there was no bill of rights in effect when the old Fisheries Act was passed but the passage of the bill of rights created a new situation which was similar to the situation created by the passage of the Statute of Westminster. I cite these cases to the minister, and I ask him to place on Hansard similar authorities, similar precedents, to bolster the argument he has made.
The minister keeps shifting his ground. He does not reply to the arguments that are made. The other day when the minister intervened in the debate with relation to the amendment to the Fisheries Act, he said Bill No. C-76 was not properly before the house. Today when the hon. member for Skeena had him backed into a corner by intimating the minister had been derelict in his duty by not submitting a report on the bill as the law required, he shifted his ground and said a decision had not been made. There was no ruling as to whether or not Bill No. C-76 was

properly before the house. This question was still under consideration by Mr. Speaker and by the house leader. Well, this bill was introduced on March 22 and today is May 25, which means this consideration has been going on for eight weeks.
I am, therefore, a bit curious about this report the minister is required to make under the bill of rights examination regulations and when the minister replies I want to inform the committee just exactly what the purpose of this report is. If the committee is not to make use of it or if we are not to have the benefit of it in considering legislation that comes before the house, what purpose does the report serve? I want to tell the committee that when I introduced the bill I did so in good faith. When the minister replied to my argument this afternoon, he kept emphasizing only one part of my statement. I said that I had introduced this bill to bring it into conformity with the bill of rights but I also stated it was to bring it into conformity with the report which the minister was obliged to make on this bill.
I could have followed my own ideas about changes in the bill which I thought might take care of any inconsistencies with the bill of rights. However, if there is to be a report handed down by experts who have studied not only the particular clauses in which I was interested but the whole bill, surely the sensible thing to do if we want to do a good job on this legislation as we put it through the house, is to get the best ideas we can about it. If I made a mistake, it was in taking the minister's report at face value. I thought it meant something and I thought it was for the purpose of guiding the members of the house in doing the best job we could on the legistlation that comes before us. If that is not the purpose of the report, I cannot see what other useful purpose it serves. I certainly would like to have the minister enlighten me on this point when he replies.
(Translation):


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to call the minister's attention to the rather irregular way the R.C.M.P. carries out certain investigations.
I have been told that, with the help of the food and drug branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the R.C.M.P. makes investigations in establishments where pharmaceutical products are sold, especially in retail drug stores. Yet, the way the constables do their work, they should not be called investigators but instigators. Indeed, under false pretences, they succeed in getting special drugs from people who act in good
Supply-Justice
faith, professional pharmacists whose only care is to exercise their profession conscientiously and do their duty by serving the public well.
Constables present themselves as sick people and pretend they have forgotten their medical prescription or that they are strangers visiting relatives and that they urgently need the drugs. They play on the druggist's sympathies so that the latter, moved by their plight agrees to give them without a prescription, drugs which call for one.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the minister's attention to two particular cases which happened recently in the Sherbrooke district, in the province of Quebec. R.C.M.P. constables went to a drugstore and told the pharmacist that they were on a trip and did not have a medical prescription for certain drugs they wanted. Out of sympathy for those supposedly sick people, the druggist gave them 12 tablets. Needless to say, that in both cases, the R.C.M.P. laid charges against the pharmacists who are highly respected in the profession and who render great services to the public. They were brought before the court and had to pay a nominal fine but it remains, sir, that this use of false pretence with druggists who act in good faith, who are conscious of their obligations, is what I would call a disgusting behaviour, if it did not reflect upon those who use such means to succeed in their investigations.
Consequently, I would ask the Minister of Justice if he could not impress upon the R.C.M.P. that its constables who are in the employ of the Department of Justice should not instigate honest people to break the law.
Mr. Chairman, since I am not a lawyer I feel I am in an advantageous position to make this second point which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. members of this house. The general public are sometimes justified in complaining about the slowness of court proceedings. Indeed, people who have to go to court, sometimes have to wait one, two and even five years before their cases are heard and passed upon. Such a delay in the proceedings is highly prejudicial to the taxpayers, that is to the Canadian people, and especially to those whose interests are at stake.
I personally know people who suffered serious money problems before they could obtain justice.
I would therefore ask the Minister of Justice whether he could take steps to increase the number of judges so that justice could

Supply-Justice
be rendered more expeditiously, thus insuring better protection and greater justice to the Canadian people.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have brought to the minister's attention the fact that I should like from him an explanation of his speech in Toronto and his views on R.C.M.P. security. Just a moment ago I went to the reading room and found that one of 'his old friends and associates who worked together with him on "Freedom Wears a Crown" by John Farthing, namely Miss Judith Robinson, in the Telegram has a comment on this very point. I thought he would be interested in hearing those observations and I thought it would help him to understand the point I was getting at. Miss Robinson in her column of today says this:
Last week end in Toronto Hon. E. D. Fulton, Canada's Minister of Justice, opened a new line of thought. He was explaining, to a dentists' convention, "the role of the police in a non-police state." Security dossiers on private citizens could, Minister of Justice Fulton said, be very useful in that role:
Then we have a quotation which I assume is from his speech.
"If slanderous rumors have been circulated about an individual and the police investigate and find him to be loyal and honest, then his file proves this fact," Mr. Fulton said.
"If his integrity is ever in doubt again, his file would attest to that," Mr. Fulton said.
Mr. Fulton did not say to whom it would attest or to whom it would prove; which makes it confusing. In old days the member (P.C.) for Kamloops made a good battle in parliament against an R.C.M.P. habit of leaking information from police security files. He was one of the freedom fighters who, in the parliamentary session of 1954, pursued another minister of justice until they cornered him on that issue and forced him to a statement:
"That it is government policy to forbid the giving of information to private citizens from secret police files."
So it would be strange if Minister of Justice Fulton's remarks in Toronto last week end meant what they seem to mean. It would be regrettable if he were really saying that information from police security files could be used to attest to any fact or prove anything, good or bad, to any citizen, about any citizen except under oath and in a court of law.
The courts are open to Canadians whose loyalty and honesty are impugned by circulators of slanderous rumor. Police, as Davie Fulton once knew, should have no power to attest to anything anywhere else. The quickest way to change a non-police state into a police state is to lift that limitation. Citizens are not dependent on character references from secret police files in a free country.
This also Canada's Minister of Justice knew before he was Minister of Justice.
Nothing like old Hansards for checking new speeches. 'Twas just such a spring as this seven years ago when the M.P. (P.C.) for Kamloops, E. D. Fulton, took after the government of Canada on its security procedures. He found them dangerous.
In the civil service an anonymous "security panel" of government employees, acting on secret
[Mr. Valade.l
information from secret sources had power to deprive men and women of their jobs without appeal and without giving reasons for dismissal.
In the Department of Justice security files were not being kept secret. As a case brought up in the house revealed, R.C.M.P. officers felt free to leak, and had leaked information from secret files to a potential employer about a Canadian citizen's past political associations; all completely lawful.
The member for Kamloops spoke strongly and followed a clear line in condemning this sort of thing. The government's security measures he said had in them "all the elements which make them potentially unfair."
The house, he said, was entitled to know "that there will be the maximum possible fairness to the individual who may come under security investigation."
It was inherent in our whole system of justice, he said, that a man suspected "should have an opportunity to know the case against him and answer it."
The question is do the principles of justice apply in the use of police security files which the Minister of Justice was reported as recommending in Toronto last week end. On the evidence of Hansard, it seems unlikely that the member for Kamloops would have thought so, back in 1954.
As I say, this expresses the point about which I should like the minister to speak later much better and more succinctly than I could express it. I hope the minister will be prepared to give us an appreciation of this position put by his former co-author, I was going to say, but certainly his co-worker on that great book by John Farthing entitled, "Freedom Wears a Crown".
(Translation):


Raymond Pierre Eudes: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a remark in relation to the point just made by the member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) and to this afternoon's discussions regarding the powers of revision and assent which the Minister of Justice must exercise on the various bills which are submitted to parliament, under the authority conferred upon him and the responsibility placed upon him by the bill of rights.
Section 3 of chapter 44 of the 1960 statutes provides, and I quote the English version because I do not have the French one:
(Text):
3. The Minister of Justice shall, In accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the clerk of the privy council pursuant to the Regulations Act and every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
(Translation):
One is justified in the conclusion that the Minister of Justice is required to examine only those bills which are referred to him since the assent to that bill.

However, Bill C-76, which was put forward by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo in the present session for the purpose of amending the Fisheries Act to make it consistent with the bill of rights shows the need to clarify this section of chapter 44 of our statutes. Proof of this need is found in today's debates, in the long discussions that took place in the house when the bill was considered, and in an elaborate ruling made by Mr. Speaker on March 27, 1961, in connection with Bill C-76.
The minister might perhaps consider amending section 3, to make it compulsory for him, as Minister of Justice, to examine not only the bills submitted to parliament since the date of assent to that bill, but to revise already existing legislation, in order to give assurance to every citizen that it is in all respects consistent with the rights and privileges to which he is entitled under the Canadian Bill of Rights.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies to some of the questions that have been raised I should like to mention briefly one of the subjects which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre raised, namely the question of narcotic drugs addiction.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre read what I believe was an article from the Vancouver Sun. I saw the results of a survey in the city of Vancouver with regard to high school students and their attitude toward the use of narcotics. The survey gave the number of high school students who have tried narcotic drugs, and how they could obtain them if they so desired.
I think one of the most shocking results of that survey, apart from the age of the people concerned, was that a fairly large number of them felt there was nothing injurious or wrong in the use of these drugs; they felt they would not suffer any harmful effects from the use of narcotics. They seemed to look upon trying out narcotics in somewhat the same light as a child of a similar age or younger looks upon smoking a cigarette, as being relatively harmless; making one nauseous perhaps, and a little green around the gills, but beyond that nothing too serious involved. I think this is extremely unfortunate and is a very strong condemnation of the past attitude at both federal and provincial levels of government and on the part of others toward the question of the use of narcotics.
I think perhaps every narcotic addict, at least during the early days of using drugs, is of the opinion that they are not harmful, they are not addictive and he is not really a slave to the drug; that he can, as the expression goes, "kick the habit" any time
Supply-J ustice
he feels like it. This, of course, as everyone knows who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to the problem, is simply not the case.
I think there is an extreme need in the field of public discussion and education to impart knowledge of the fact that tremendous dangers exist from even thinking in terms of experimenting with a narcotic drug. I think a great deal of public discussion, information and education must flow from the federal and provincial authorities, from various social workers and the like to enlighten as many people as possible about the extreme dangers inherent in the use of narcotic drugs.
I think in Vancouver, or on the west coast, there is the largest concentration of known criminal addicts, as I believe they are called, anywhere in Canada. The largest population in any penitentiary in Canada of those convicted of possessing or trafficking in narcotics is also in the British Columbia penitentiary and in the provincial jail at Oakalla. In neither of these institutions-at least, certainly not up until the last few months-has there been any opportunity or even, I submit, any great desire toward segregation of narcotic addicts from other classes of inmates.
No attempt has been made at segregation and there is no possibility of segregation because of overcrowding both in the penitentiary and in Oakalla. There has been no approach to the treatment of these individuals and no treatment whatsoever other than, if this is a treatment, isolating an addict from narcotics by having him institutionalized and thus making as sure as possible that he does not have the opportunity of obtaining drugs while he is in the institution.
However, this is not always the case. I think there have been a number of instances where this has not been the case. It is common knowledge in Vancouver that it is possible to obtain narcotic drugs in the Oakalla prison farm and there have been instances of guards in penitentiaries providing these drugs.
One instance which comes to mind is the case at Kingston penitentiary a year or so ago. A guard at the Kingston penitentiary was arrested and charged with being in possession of narcotics. He had them in his possession when he was entering the penitentiary to work. I understand that individual was acquitted, but nevertheless this is one instance that comes to mind. I have also heard in the past of attempts being made to smuggle narcotics into the British Columbia penitentiary.
This is understandable too, because as I said, there is no effort at treatment and

Supply-Justice
there are no facilities for treatment. The only approach taken to the poor individual addicted to narcotics, if he is caught and convicted of being in possession of them, is to put him in a penitentiary. This is all that has been possible under our system.
I understand that as soon as the minister took office he and his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, paid a great deal of attention to this question. I gather they have had conversations with provincial authorities, because they are involved in so far as the question of treatment is concerned.
I think before we proceed further with the various items of the estimates it would be of great interest to the committee if the minister would give us an account of the progress being made toward the establishment of narcotic addiction treatment centres, how long it may be before such centres are established, where they may be established, and all the other necessary information to apprize the committee of the actions being taken in this direction.
While I am still on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I should like to pose one other question to the minister. I wonder whether the minister could explain to the committee, say for the period of the last year, what have been the duties, responsibilities and functions assigned to the Solicitor General in so far as his work within the department is concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I might deal with the various points which have been raised in the order in which they were raised, beginning with the comments and queries of the hon. member for Port Arthur who was concerned with the question of the efficacy of the Criminal Code provision against obscene literature. The hon. member suggested that because there have not been large number of cases before the courts the legislation has not proven very efficacious. Might I suggest to him that such a situation might, in fact, prove exactly the opposite of his conclusion. It might well indicate that the legislation is so effective, especially in dealing with the class of material with which it was mainly designed to deal-the pulp trash-that numerous prosecutions have not been required because an appreciably smaller quantity of this stuff is getting into the stands throughout this country. I do not make that statement as a categorical statement, but I leave it with the hon. member as a suggestion indicating that the legislation is having its desired effect quietly and without fanfare.
I do know that I and my department used to receive, up to two or three years ago, a

large volume of this stuff from people concerned with these "girly" magazines and other trash reaching the newsstands. We had a substantial "library". I had one in my office and used to get embarrassed about it and put it away in the bottom drawer of my filing cabinet. My officials had a similar "library", if one can dignify it with that word. But mail of this kind has fallen off to a mere trickle and this may well indicate that this stuff is no longer in mass circulation. I think it is open to that interpretation.
I, too, am glad that so far as works with respect to which there may be genuine differences of opinion as to whether or not they possess artistic merit are concerned, they have not been swept away in undiscriminating fashion and declared to be obscene. The case to which the hon. member referred- "Lady Chatterley's Lover"-is going to the highest court. I think this is the way it should be. I think this also shows that the judges in Canada are not, as the hon. member feared they might be, apt to approach this matter with closed minds, throwing out anything new which anyone had said on the subject. At the same time I would draw attention to a judgment given by Mr. Justice Parker in the Yukon Territory in connection with a series of pulp magazines in which, as I recall it, in every case he found them to be obscene within the meaning of the new definition in the code.
The hon. member also asked me to make some comments in connection with security and the activities of the R.C.M.P. May I ask him to allow me to defer this until we reach the R.C.M.P. item at which time I shall be prepared to have a full discussion on security and all the other activities of the R.C.M.P.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo endeavoured to raise again the controversy we had earlier regarding his bill and the effect thereon of the bill of rights and my obligation to report thereon under the bill of rights. I am not going to revive this controversy. I am simply going to say, in respect to his assertion that I never quoted any authority in support of my position, that the hon. member had not been listening carefully to what I said. I quoted the Speaker of this house and I quoted what the hon. member himself had to say when he introduced his bill. My position has been throughout, and still is, that this bill was introduced on the basis of an explanation given to the house which does not accord with the facts. I have never shifted ground from that position and I have no reason to do so however the hon. member may seek to change his position. It is a fact that leave to introduce the bill was given on

the basis of a misunderstanding induced by that explanation, and rather than attempting to justify himself I think the hon. member should apologize for having treated the house in that manner.
The hon. member for Skeena raised a question of narcotic addiction, or followed up the reference made to narcotics by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. He reminded us of the long period during which there was no adequate provision for the treatment of narcotic addicts and no provision for the segregation of criminal addicts in our penitentiaries. With that, I thoroughly agree. With respect to the program we have in mind I would draw the hon. member's attention to the official policy announcement I made in this house on my own behalf and on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on January 24 of this year. I would be fully prepared to have a discussion on our program with respect to narcotics on the penitentiaries item. The hon. member will appreciate that under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act the main responsibility is borne by the Minister of National Health and Welfare but my colleague and I have reached a workmanlike agreement with respect to this matter under which he assumes primary responsibility for the legislation regarding the control of narcotics while I assume responsibility for that part of the legislation which deals with the custody and treatmnt of offenders under the act. So I shall be prepared to discuss our program in that regard when we reach the penitentiaries item because our program for treatment will be undertaken by the penitentiaries branch.
I might also add that the bill substituting a new measure for the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act will be introduced in the house within the next week or ten days. It carries out the policy statement that I made. However, I think we could have a useful discussion of this question on the penitentiaries item without too much anticipation of what the legislation will provide.
With regard to the work of the Solicitor General I should like to say in unequivocal terms that my colleague the Solicitor General does extremely valuable work in the department and for the cabinet and the government generally. The Prime Minister, approximately a year ago, gave a full answer to questions asked with regard to the position of the Solicitor General and I do not think I have anything to add to it. The position of the Solicitor General is a traditional one and it is one which both by tradition and by the character and ability of the present encumbent is a most important and valuable position in the cabinet and the government of Canada.
Supply-Justice


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might ask the minister a question? He has made reference on two occasions to legislation which will be introduced within a certain period of time. Could the minister indicate to the hon. members of this committee when they may expect the introduction of the revised Penitentiary Act?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should again say, within a matter of the next week.
(Translation):


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, just a brief remark before proceeding any further with the study of the estimates.
I listened with attention to the remarks of the minister in reply to suggestions made by the various hon. members who rose on this matter.
What particularly impressed me was that his remarks were to the point. Certain claims were made by the press and the radio. Hon. members themselves asked for an amendment to the Criminal Code so as to put a stop to certain crimes which are being committed in this country.
To my mind, all the suggestions made by hon. members today had already been formulated last year, and every time the Minister of Justice answered, he said that "it was being considered," and that "an investigation was under way".
Every year, we come back to the matter, which means that in spite of the requests made by the general public nothing is being done to amend the Criminal Code in that way.
Barbiturates and narcotic drugs have been mentioned, for instance, as well as addiction, and the crimes committed by addicts. The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) used to take up the matter every year in order to call the minister's attention to the many abuses and acts of violence due to drug addiction.
Again, the minister just answers that things are being studied, that some project is under consideration-always under consideration.
Last year, as well as two years ago, several hon. members rose in this house to protest against the use of premium stamps. Last year, the minister said that a certain case was being considered as a test case. Moreover, he mentioned that the matter was under the jurisdiction of provincial attorneys general. To sum it up, he gave all sorts of answers and shifted the responsibility from this government to somebody else's shoulders.
Nothing is easier, it seems to me, than to get in touch with the various attorneys general of the provinces for the purpose of

Supply-J ustice
reaching an agreement on the subject, making an arrangement to stop once and for all the abuse of gift stamps which, as various speakers have pointed out, are profitable only to large stores, trusts and chain stores, while the small corner grocer has to supply services not provided by those large stores and therefore is unable to sell at lower cost and giving stamps such as are given by the large chain organizations.
Here again, the minister has been remiss in failing to satisfy the wishes of a very important group of the Canadian people.
As I pointed out a moment ago, the same thing happened in the case of barbiturates. Every day we see the evil effects of such drugs and of those narcotics which, incidentally, perhaps do not affect the system when taken in small doses, but which, taken in excessive doses, produce the results we read about in every newspaper. Young girls and boys, even from good homes, first yield to the temptation of trying them, and then go on using them and finally go to extremes. They finally bring dishonour to their family and often end up in jail.
One means which would at the same time act as a preventive to crime would be to apply a strict control on firearms. Anyone at the present time, can obtain a firearm without having to register it, and this is true for all parts of the country.
I think we should make it more difficult to get a licence to carry a firearm. Moreover, when an accused is found guilty of robbery or robbery with violence, or of any other offence, an investigation should be conducted to find out whether or not he owns a firearm.
Last year, some members of this house discussed this subject and once more, the minister said the matter was under consideration. He told the house that an investigation had been started. True, but it has never been completed. I fail to understand why, every time a member of the house, whether on the government or the opposition side, asks a question to the minister, he is unable to give a definite or even encouraging answer.
The same applies to the matter of a national lottery. For several years, the members of this house have been asking for the creation of a national lottery. Certain newspapers with a wide circulation made surveys, and in one province in particular the report on one such survey showed that almost everyone was in favour of a lottery, provincial or national. The minister, in view of that almost complete unanimity within an important 
sector of the population of this country, should take immediate action. I wonder why the minister does not introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code and comply with that request. No, in this case as in many others, the Minister of Justice simply says that he is considering the question or that he is inquiring into whatever request is put to him. But what does he really do? He offers us a mitigated abolition of capital punishment, something nobody asked for. I say that nobody asked for that, except perhaps the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) because he seems to ride this subject to death, so much so that I wonder whether this question has such a vital importance for him.
However, the hon. member for York-Scarborough is considered an expert in this field, and this enables him to see his picture in the papers and also to appear on television. In addition, this gives him an opportunity of bringing on television his colleagues who are in favour of his measure, except a few who are against it. Besides, we find today that opinions are divided on this subject, among the Conservatives and the Liberals, as well as in the press.
Allow me to point out that last year, as the minister will remember, the matter of capital punishment was brought up and some members on the government side-


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member must remember that the house disposed of that matter yesterday and that, besides, the bill will be brought back before the committee next week.


Azellus Denis: You are perfectly right, Mr. Chairman, but that was only the minor premise to a conclusion to be drawn. As a matter of fact, the point is not only to deal with capital punishment but also to provide for a strict control of firearms, following the findings of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which sat for a year or two, if not more, and which included Liberals, Conservatives, C.C.F.'ers, Social Credit-ers, as well as senators of the same political affiliations. Moreover, if I am not mistaken, the Minister of Justice was on that committee.
The committee assigned experts, particularly in matters such as crime in general, hanging, and even degrees in the crime of murder.
I want to underline once again the fact the Minister of Justice was a member of that committee which heard judges, attorneys general, wardens, penitentiary directors, chaplains, criminologists, psychiatrists, etc.

Finally, all the available experts were there to consider any amendment on the three subjects: capital punishment, corporal punishment and lotteries. As the chairman does not want me to over-emphasize these points, I will make no further comment in this respect.
Now this committee, having made a full investigation, submitted its recommendations. I cannot understand why the minister does not follow the suggestions of the committee on which he was sitting, but does just the opposite. I am talking here of the joint committee.
Therefore, what is the use of the Minister of Justice telling us: "We will study the matter and make an investigation", if, the following year, he introduces a bill inconsistent with a report based on the evidence of experts on the matter.
As far as firearms are concerned, I wish to quote part of the evidence given by the chief of police of Vancouver, Mr. Walter H. Mulligan.
This is what he said, as it appears on page 14 of the report. Mr. Fulton himself was questioning:
Q. According to you, is the fact that there is capital punishment preventing criminals from carrying firearms and therefore from becoming murderers?
A. Certainly.
Q. In other words, they do not carry revolvers for fear one of them gets angry or nervous and uses it?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this opinion of yours based on conversations you had with criminals?
A. Yes. I spoke to criminals with long records and that is the opinion they expressed.
There it is, Mr. Chairman, evidence not only establishing the fact that reports are not only disregarded, but that steps contrary to the recommendations they contain are taken.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question? Was the person whom he quoted from that book Walter H. Mulligan?


Azellus Denis: Walter H. Mulligan, chief of police of Vancouver. He was called as a witness before the Senate committee.


Frank Howard: He ran away to California too a while ago.


Azellus Denis: Yes, but the report does not say so.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: I would ask the minister to take into serious consideration the suggestions made by some members, instead of always answering the same way, saying that everything will be considered, that an enquiry will be made.
Supply-Justice
I should like the minister to make other amendments to the Criminal Code, if there is still time, this year, in accordance with the report of the joint committee, whose enquiry lasted three years and a half and which cost thousands of dollars to the Canadian people.
The minister was himself a member of that committee, and it is his recommendations that I would ask him to carry out.
Other recommendations have been made by previous speakers, as well as by newspapers and the general public.
Let him implement these recommendations submitted to him, and let him refrain from serving us a review or an investigation every year.
If the minister wants the reputation of a man who has done something during his short term as Minister of Justice, I suggest that the least he can do is to propose the amendments that the members are asking for.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I look forward to the enthusiastic support of the hon. member for St. Denis for the three bills which are going to be introduced in the house in the next week or ten days and on which we were working long before he suggested them, namely, a bill to carry out a narcotics control program, a bill to revise the Criminal Code to deal with dangerous sexual offenders and matters of that sort and also a bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act to deal with barbiturates. We have been acting while he has been talking.


Azellus Denis: I should like to thank the minister for what he has promised, but may I tell him that for two or three years the Liberals have been asking for these improvements.


James Ross Fulton: For 22 years they did not do anything about them.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, in view of the statements made by the hon. member for St. Denis which you very properly ruled out of order after he had been speaking for some time, I would hope I would have the opportunity to reply because of the fact that my name was mentioned. Apparently the hon. member has been following post office robbers too much to have time to read the newspapers. If he had done so he would have found that editorials in every newspaper in this country, with one or two possible exceptions, have concurred in and supported the proposition put to the house last week by the Minister of Justice. To suggest that there was no demand for any change in the law concerning capital

Supply-Justice
punishment is patent nonsense. I would refer the hon. member to the 1960 Gallup poll for an expression of public opinion on this matter.


Azellus Denis: In answer to my hon. friend, may I point out that during that inquiry a list of states in the United States which had abolished capital punishment and then restored it because of the increase in violence and murder was submitted.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could we carry the first item tonight, Mr. Chairman, so that tomorrow we could get into the details which hon. members are so anxious to consider?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the business for tomorrow, may I say that the house leader has always been generous with the opposition, but is there any possibility that the Prime Minister may intervene again tomorrow and upset the arrangements?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: What will the business be tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Prime Minister has not intervened to change any arrangements whatsoever. The estimates of the Department of Justice will be the business for tomorrow.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Question



ANSWER TO QUESTION

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


Mr. Winch: 1. Did the Department of Agriculture ever make an advance to the Russwood ranch in cash for the purchase or supply of livestock to same?
2. If so: (a) what were the conditions of the advances, and has any financial return been made to the government? (b) under what act of parliament were such advances in cash or livestock provided by the government? (c) has any statement of the assets and liabilities of the Russwood ranch ever been presented to a government department? (d) what are the names and addresses of the owners or stock holders of the holding known as the Russwood ranch?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
90205-6-341

Friday, May 26, 1961