1961-06-09

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer the certificate of the election and return of John R. Matheson, Esquire, for the electoral district of Leeds.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government been advised of the date of arrival of the commonwealth mission which is coming to Canada to prepare for Britain's entry into the common market, and is the government in a position to state what is Canada's attitude?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has asked me a question identical to that of which the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot has given notice.
The government is aware that the United Kingdom government is considering how best to arrange for effective consultation with other commonwealth governments on the subject of the European common market and the United Kingdom joining that market. I might say that I have made it clear to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and he has agreed, that there should be consultation before any move in that direction is taken by the government of the United Kingdom.
There has been continuing consultation at the level of officials. The most recent discussion in this series took place in London two weeks ago during the meeting of senior economic advisers of the commonwealth countries. As to consultation on a ministerial level between the United Kingdom and Canada, to which the hon. gentleman made reference, nothing definite has yet been arranged.
I might say in that connection that while consultation on a bilateral basis would be helpful in order to take account of the special
interests of individual countries, I believe that instead of limiting consultation to separate meetings among interested commonwealth countries, the best means would be collective consultation among all interested commonwealth countries. I envisage bilateral consultation, official and ministerial, but because of the potential consequences of United Kingdom membership in the common market, I believe that the fullest consideration should be given to collective ministerial discussion and also, if necessary, to a meeting of the prime ministers.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister made such a direct suggestion to the United Kingdom prime minister for collective consultation among the commonwealth countries?


John George Diefenbaker: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman does not expect an answer to that question. The content of discussions that take place as between commonwealth prime ministers has not in the past been the subject of revelation in the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I could ask this additional supplementary question in view of the courteous but evasive answer of the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: It was not my intention
to be evasive.


Lionel Chevrier: Is Canada itself considering becoming associated with the common market?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the content of that question has been the subject of supplementary questions for the last several days. I believe the Minister of Finance has dealt with that question on more than one occasion.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could also ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister feel it is wrong to disclose a direct suggestion to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but at the same time right to make such a suggestion indirectly by a public statement in this house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, even though the hon. gentleman has had a close relationship with those who have occupied the position I now hold, I do not intend through a

Inquiries of the Ministry question on orders of the day to take advice from the hon. gentleman as to the course to be followed.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce perhaps I might ask this question of the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister inform the house when talks will take place between Canada and the United Kingdom with regard to the uranium contract? These talks were to take place on June 12.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the talks will commence next week.



REPORTED EXCHANGE OF LEAD FOR SURPLUS U.S. GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of a news report that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada has undertaken to exchange Canadian lead for 10 million bushels of surplus United States grain. I wonder if the minister would have any comment to make on this report; whether he is aware that this has happened, and whether he thinks it will have any effect on Canada's own grain marketing policy.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: As the hon. member probably knows there is in public law 480 of the United States a section which allows companies to exchange by barter certain products against commodities which are surplus in the United States. After representations by the Canadian government some four years ago, the government of the United States has been slowing down operations of this type; I understand that now they have come to an almost complete standstill. Renewed representations have been made since the change of administration in the United States, and we have been assured that there will be a decided slowdown in any form of barter, almost the elimination of this practice.
I am not aware of the present arrangement suggested by the question of the hon. member, but I will look into it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister report back to the house?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, I will take the question as notice.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.1



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASE IN DELIVERY QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormision (Melville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister prepared to tell the house what progress is being made by the Canadian wheat board in providing increased quotas for western grain?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I reported to the house several days ago that we have made fairly good progress. We had a splendid series of days between May 8 and May 11. I have the figures for June 8. The house will recall that the last time I reported the big effort was to get all the points from 2 bushels into 3 bushels. I am now able to report that in Manitoba, where on May 29, a little over a week ago, we had 121 points on 3 bushels, now there are none. In Saskatchewan a little over a week ago, on May 29, we had 190 points on 3 bushels and now there are 4, so that all through the west at the present time there are only 4 points on 3 bushels. The number of points on 4 bushels is now 762, the number on 5 bushels is 589, and the number on 6 bushels is 639.
I can say at this time that the situation in relation to Alberta is much better than it was last year, but in Manitoba and Saskatchewan it is still not as good as it was last year. However, tremendous efforts are being made by the grain handling companies on the prairies, the railways and the terminals, and they have now produced a situation where some 1,600 cars a day-and that is not far off 3 million bushels a day-are moving into the terminals. The eastern farmers have built up a demand for oats, so we gave a supplementary quota of 5 bushels per acre in order to try to get this supply into the elevators to make sure eastern farmers were supplied. This of course means that less wheat will be moved, to the extent of oats delivered. I should like to point out in conclusion that this year the producer marketings of grain is much higher than it has been for a long time at this time of year.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could tell the house this, since the end of the crop year is just some seven or eight weeks away. Does he still confidently expect that quotas and marketing opportunities will reach 7 bushels an acre?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I gave an answer to this question three or four days ago, to the effect that the advisory committee of the Canadian wheat board had

unanimously recommended that the first job of the Canadian wheat board was to sell grain. That means that if we get a market for oats in eastern Canada or for any other type of cash crop, this would get preference and be moved out. However, I still think it is physically possible in most cases to reach the 7 bushels. If there is some place that does not meet it, it is because we have given higher priority to the total number of bushels of all grain that the western farmer is allowed to sell.
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question inasmuch as it similarly involves cash flowing into the hands of the western farmers at this time. In reply to a question that I asked yesterday the minister indicated that the close-out of the 1959-60 wheat pool would be about a month later than last year. I wonder whether he could indicate to the house the reason for the delay this year. I believe the close-out was May 20 last year, and that the minister said yesterday it would be nearer to June 20 this year.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not just certain of the exact date of the close-out of the pool last year. However, I suggest to the hon. member that I have kept members of the wheat board fairly busy getting around the world selling wheat this year, and it has had some results.


Mr. Benidickson:: The farmers need a little bit of cash, too.



CRESTON, B.C.-INQUIRY AS TO EFFECT OF COLUMBIA RIVER DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The sittings are determined by the two co-chairmen. Yesterday there was no agreement on sitting. The head of the British delegation, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, issued a press release explaining why he was not agreeing to a sitting being held yesterday. These decisions are made from day to day.\n(Translation):']
Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the very serious situation, which became more serious last night, faced by Creston and other Kootenay communities arising out of the present flood conditions on the Kootenay river, can the Minister of Justice advise the house whether implementation of the Columbia river treaty will provide any measure of flood control on the lower Kootenay river?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, and this is one of the reasons we are so anxious to see the Columbia river treaty go ahead.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the house whether General McNaughton's proposal for the Columbia development would not also provide the same flood control?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure exactly what the hon. member means by that very general reference. General McNaughton was associated with us in an advisory capacity throughout the negotiations.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether the minister has a further statement to make to the house on this morning's news report that the 14-nation cease fire conference on Laos is very near collapse.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secreiary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is not an accurate statement of the situation. As I understand it, the conference is not meeting today. An attempt is being made, of course, to reach agreement concerning the recent military action in Laos. Two of the princes from Laos are expected in Geneva. Whether that will lead to any constructive result I am not in a position to say. The conference is in difficulties, but it is too soon to say that it is near collapse. We are very hopeful that it will carry on.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has it been decided when the conference will resume? I understand it was called off for a few days. Has there been any date set for the resumption of the conference?


Howard Charles Green: The sittings are determined by the two co-chairmen. Yesterday there was no agreement on sitting. The head of the British delegation, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, issued a press release explaining why he was not agreeing to a sitting being held yesterday. These decisions are made from day to day.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue or to his parliamentary secretary.
Is the minister aware of a statement made by Mr. Robert L. Dunsmore to the effect that the C.B.C. should gradually proceed to carry out its centralization plans with regard to its offices and studios in Montreal and Toronto?

Inquiries of the Ministry
If, so, could the minister tell us whether the C.B.C. has come to a final decision as to the site of its offices and studios in Montreal between Amherst, Dorchester, Papineau and Craig streets?
If there is no one to reply in their place, could a minister take this question as notice?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice.
(Text):



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister how soon the government expects to take the house and the country into its confidence with respect to the recommendations of the O'Leary commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will do that just now by saying to the hon. gentleman, in due course. As soon as we are in a position to do that, it will be done.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) asked a question supplementary to starred question No. 389. He wished to know if there was a road across the Poorman Indian reserve which is used by the public, and whether it is competent for the band to close the road against the public should it so desire.
In reply to the first part of the question I wish to say that there is a road across the reserve which is used mainly by the Indians, although members of the public on occasion use the road, particularly those visiting the reserve on legitimate business.
The question as to whether the band is competent to close the road against public use is a matter which involves a legal opinion, and 1 am therefore not in a position to reply.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: In view of the serious depletion of the unemployment insurance fund, can the Minister of Labour assure this house there is no danger that (Mr. Loiselle.]	.
benefits will be either cut off or lowered? Will the minister also give us an assurance that some form of legislation can be expected soon to deal with the situation?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I have nothing to add to what I said in answer to a question by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister give us an assurance that there will be an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act brought before parliament at this session?


Michael Starr: When the government has
evolved a policy with respect to this matter it will be announced in the usual manner.


Lionel Chevrier: When will that be?


Michael Starr: When it is decided.


Walter George Pitman: I do not think the question I put to the minister was the same as the question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I am asking whether there is any danger that there will be any cut off in benefits or any lowering of benefits. That is the main point of this question.


Michael Starr: That is a hypothetical question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Surely the Minister of Labour can give his assurance to the people-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hon. members know that they cannot discuss the answers they obtain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister aware that by the answer he has just given to my question he has repudiated the statement previously made in this house that there will be a bill this session?


Hazen Robert Argue: And in the speech from the throne.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 273. Bankruptcy Act administration, $118,770.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When these estimates were last before the committee I had my little say on this item, but during recent days I had a gentleman visit me from Montreal, a Mr. A. G. Heakes. I am raising a question of which I am sure the minister has some knowledge. I have talked to Mr. Heakes and I have read a number of documents and

letters, and he had hundreds of them. I simply lacked the time to go through the documents properly and read them and all the material that he had with him so that I could understand all aspects of this case. However, this gentleman does suffer from a sense of injustice and, from the material I had the opportunity to read and partly digest, I am of the opinion that Mr. Heakes has grounds for complaint. For that reason I promised him that I would raise this matter on the minister's estimates. I am going to bring the case briefly to the attention of the committee, because it is lengthy and most complicated.
In August, 1954, the Imperial Oil Company breached a contract with Mr. Heakes, and it was this breach of contract which forced Mr. Heakes into bankruptcy. He made a proposal to his creditors, as provided in the act. On February 7, 1955 Mr. Heakes submitted a proposal to his creditors to pay 100 cents on the dollar in four payments of 5 per cent and 20 per cent every four months over a 12-month period. A creditors' meeting was called for March 8, 1955. According to Mr. Heakes this meeting was never held. Then on May 31, 1955, Mr. Heakes made an amended proposal to the creditors offering full and final payment from the proceeds of actions to be taken against Imperial Oil, the Royal Bank and so on. It was a rather complicated arrangement, and I am not going to go into the details.
On November 22, 1955 this proposal was ratified by Chief Justice W. B. Scott in the superior court with the condition, endorsed in his own handwriting, that the actions must be started and served within 20 days from the date of ratification. On December 12, 1955 writs and declarations were served. In January, 1956, owing to worry over this business, Mr. Heakes apparently suffered a complete physical and nervous collapse and was hospitalized for several months.
In November, 1957 the corporation of professional engineers of Quebec began an investigation of the dispute of Mr. Heakes with the engineer of the Imperial Oil Company, Quebec marketing division. On January 25, 1958, approximately, Mr. Heakes says that a formal trial of this action was held before the full council of the corporation of professional engineers, following a report of the investigation by the committee on professional conduct of the corporation of professional engineers of Quebec whose chairman was Mr. Yvon Tasse, now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works. Then Mr. Heakes' premises were broken into and his evidence was stolen.
On January 1, 1958 he laid charges against the thief and there were postponements
Supply-J ustice
awaiting the verdict of the corporation of engineers. On February 4, 1958 there was another development with respect to this offence. He wired the trustee to this effect: Receipt for documents urgently required for police.
On March 28, 1958 a verdict was issued by the corporation of professional engineers completely upholding Mr. Heakes in his complaint against the Imperial Oil Company. Mr. Heakes has a copy of this verdict.
On April 9, 1958 hearing of the charge against thief was called on the day before the date set by the judge and on court subpoenas. The charge was dismissed because no one was there. On June 9, 1958 the trustee obtained an ex parte cancellation of the proposal alleging he did not know where to find Mr. Heakes and that Mr. Heakes had failed to make payments required by the proposal. On September 4, 1959 Mr. Heakes met Mr. Guy Favreau, assistant deputy minister of justice, through the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he spent the entire day with Mr. Favreau checking over this matter. On March 14, 1960 this gentleman was employed for a short time by the royal commission on transportation and submitted a report.
I have looked at a great deal of detail with respect to the sequence of events in this case which would not assist the committee in any way if I were to read it. After reading the documents I must say I am of the opinion that this gentleman has grounds for complaint. From what I have read it appears to me that the trustee has not properly performed his duties under the Bankruptcy Act, and that the registrar in question has been somewhat delinquent.
Is the trustee in bankruptcy an employee of the government? Is he directly responsible to the government for his actions when acting as trustee? Will the minister consider a further investigation of this case? Can he give us from his knowledge of the case, which I understand is quite extensive-and this applies to other members of the cabinet-some explanation why this gentleman, who is in very serious financial circumstances and, from what I have read of the case, unfairly so, has been unable to obtain justice and get the matter satisfactorily settled?


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, I rise also to speak to the case which the hon. member for Kootenay West has already mentioned. I have no doubt that the gentleman in question has importuned many members of this house in the past. From the resume of his file which I have seen I would say that he has had considerable consideration given to him both by the Minister of Justice

Supply-Justice
and by other members of the cabinet. It is this very fact, Mr. Chairman, that leads me to believe that in the government's checking into this file on the matter they have come across some evidence indicating that there is some truth to support the allegations made by Mr. Heakes.
Like the hon. member for Kootenay West, I undertook to at least raise this matter in the house. It would appear, Mr. Chairman, that one of the greatest responsibilities of any department, and particularly of the Department of Justice, is to uphold that greatest of legal principles that not only must justice be done but it must appear to be done. If for seven or eight years a man has been pursuing his remedy in and out of the courts and in this parliament, the supreme court of this country, with diligence and with documentary evidence, then it would appear that he is motivated by a real sense of having suffered an injustice.
I am not particularly familiar with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, but I have noted that under the subsections of section 3 the superintendent of bankruptcy, who is charged under that section with supervision of the administration of the assets to which the act applies, is empowered to make a complete investigation of any particular matter. Neither the material which Mr. Heakes has provided me nor that to which I have had recourse indicates that in fact such an investigation has ever taken place.
I would ask the minister, who I am sure is much more familiar with the file than I, whether consideration has yet been given or will be given in the department to having a full scale investigation made by the superintendent of bankruptcy with respect to the actions of the trustee acting on behalf of the creditors in this matter. So far as I am able to ascertain, the legal effect of this is that Mr. Heakes is insolvent but he is not bankrupt under the act and is in no position to be discharged. This means, then, that he is in a period of hiatus, is incapable of starting his own business again, and will always remain a credit risk. It means that a man of his capabilities will always remain incapable of getting a job or of keeping one or of starting his own business.
The government has already shown a great deal of consideration with regard to this matter. Both the ministry, representatives of the Prime Minister's office and other persons have indicated their extreme sympathy. It would appear, therefore, that in the special circumstances this matter might be resolved by going further than sympathy and having an actual judicial investigation, which is permitted under the act. The Bankruptcy

Act often works to the disadvantage of honest people in the community. This may be one of those cases, and I have another I should like to put before the minister for consideration at such time as the Bankruptcy Act may be amended.
As all hon. members know, the Bankruptcy Act was instituted in order that an individual might be assisted who, usually without fault, goes into such debt that he is incapable of discharging his obligations now or at any time in the future because his liabilities so greatly outweigh his assets. The act was instituted to aid the honest man who has done his best and is unable now and in the future to meet his obligations. However, because of the provisions of the act there are those who are able to take advantage of them to the prejudice of the public and beyond the purpose intended by the legislation.
May I for one minute refer to a case which came to my attention in practice before I was a member of the house. A widow who owned a very small cottage enlisted the aid of a man who held himself out to be a painting contractor. He had a truck and all the necessary equipment. She hired him to strip the paint from her dwelling house. He did this by means of a blow torch, and because of his negligence he burned down the house.
She then brought an action against him in the supreme court of Ontario and was successful in obtaining a judgment. The painter and his wife jointly owned their home, and they put a mortgage on it in order to pay part of their solicitor's fees and also in order to lodge an appeal. The appeal was a frivolous one, but many months went by before the appeal was heard. The judgment of the trial court was confirmed and the day following the defendant, against whom judgment had been given in the amount of $10,000 and costs, went into bankruptcy. The only debt he owed over and above his normal debts, such as mortgages on his home, one of which had been placed there for the purpose of proceeding with this litigation, and small telephone accounts and so on that everyone has at any given time, was the judgment in question.
There is no way in which such a person can be denied his rights under the Bankruptcy Act. In fact the only thing that can be done is to apply to the court when the applicant comes before it for discharge and, according to the case law, only in the rarest instance will discharge be delayed for more than a month or so.
These circumstances indicate that an individual who has been grossly wronged may be left without any recourse at all in law

while the person who has been the wrongdoer is able to escape and, after a hiatus of a few months, become a discharged bankrupt and enter again into exactly the same sort of business and thus prey upon the public again without in fact having lost anything. In effect this means that the law, by permitting an individual in such circumstances to go into bankruptcy, is in fact discriminating against the person who has been wronged.
So far as I am aware, Mr. Chairman, there is no provision in the Bankruptcy Act which sets out which individuals may have recourse to it. It is appreciated that it cannot be so rigidly drawn as to say what cases may come under it and what may not. However, I submit for the consideration of the minister and his department that where the Bankruptcy Act is resorted to for the purpose really of defrauding members of the public, there should be provision that an individual in the circumstances of this widow who was wronged may apply to the court in the first instance, so that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act will not apply and so that a person who is a judgment debtor will be required to work for some months or some years in an attempt to satisfy the judgment, or will be required to show just cause to the court why he will never be able to satisfy the judgment. Further, there should be provision that an individual shall not be discharged in order to enter into the same business so long as such a judgment remains unsatisfied.
These matters are perhaps not of the type with which I should take up the time of the committee, but they are instances where the Bankruptcy Act, intended for a particular purpose, has been used in the one case against the interests of a wronged individual and in the other case against the interests of a bankrupt person.
In support of what the hon. member for Kootenay West has said, I urge upon the minister that in the case of Mr. Heakes consideration be given to a full scale investigation by the superintendent. As to the second case I mentioned, I urge that consideration be given by the department along the lines I suggested, particularly with respect to an application being made to a court by a judgment debtor, to prevent the operation of the Bankruptcy Act for a judgment creditor.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad this matter has been raised. I do not intend to speak on the Heakes case, as I have no information about it, but I sincerely hope that a very careful study will be made. I hope action will be taken soon to correct the vicious practice which has developed with regard to proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act. I can say very definitely that a most
Supply-Justice
vicious practice has developed in British Columbia, particularly in the city of Vancouver, a practice that involves certain companies engaged in the construction industry.
There are in Vancouver a few completely irresponsible individuals whom I might almost call legal crooks. What they do is form a company and put in bids on construction work, particularly plumbing and heating. They undercut the bids of honest and responsible contractors, and they do so knowing full well that they cannot do the job for the price. The result is that they go into bankruptcy. Evidence is readily available in Vancouver that at the same time they go into bankruptcy they organize a new company; exactly the same individuals organize a new company and repeat the process all over again. When I was in Vancouver recently I was told that by devious means the new company on occasion gets hold of the very same material and stock of the company which went into bankruptcy, and then they repeat the process over and over again. I have been told about one company which has done this four times.
I think this is an abuse of legitimate business. I was told by those in the construction industry in British Columbia who are operating in an honest, decent legitimate manner that their very existence is being threatened by these people who are allowed to go into bankruptcy and then, within as short a space of time as a week, and in one case of which I have knowledge the very next day, start over again and follow the same procedure.
If there does not now exist legislation or regulations which can be strictly enforced to halt this practice and protect the legitimate operators in the contracting business, the department should investigate the matter and introduce the required policies and measures. When it is found that individuals are repeatedly following this practice there should be some provision preventing them from going back into business until they have demonstrated their honesty and integrity.
Because cases of this nature have been brought to my attention with increasing frequency during the past year, and particularly in recent weeks, I feel this is a developing threat that will endanger legitimate business. I urge the minister to comment on this subject and advise the committee whether it is possible for the department to take remedial action.


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, I was also made aware of the facts in the case referred to by the hon. members for Kootenay West and Niagara Falls, but because much has been said about the matter I do not intend to pursue it further.

Supply-Justice
I direct the attention of the minister to the details of this vote under the subheading "Professional and special services" in which the amount of $52,000 is requested for the coming year. The same amount was voted last year in the main and supplementary estimates No. 4. The reason given last spring for the increase of $50,000 was that an investigation was proceeding in several parts of the country into the conduct of trustees.
Because of the interest expressed in the case referred to this morning and because of the number of other cases of which hon. members have knowledge, I should like the minister to make a progress report on the investigation that is now being carried out and to describe what course may be followed in the future.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I could start with the last inquiry first and then lead back to the case of Mr. Heakes.
With respect to the investigation of irregularities under the Bankruptcy Act, let me say there have been four prosecutions. Four individual trustees have been prosecuted, charges have been laid against a fifth and an investigation is under way in respect to a sixth which will lead either to charges or cancellation of licence. It has not been finally determined what is the appropriate course to be followed.
With respect to the progress report, I should point out to the committee that although I have referred to charges or investigations with respect to only six individuals, in the case particularly of two of them they were trustees engaged in a very large volume of business. They had hundreds if not thousands of files under their control which they were administering, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 or more estates each and every one of those files had to be examined. In those two cases particularly a considerable number of charges were laid. It has been necessary for us to retain the services of accountants as well as lawyers to check the files and make the examination necessary to support the charges, and also to advise or assist in an interim capacity to carry on the administration of the estates which, of course, could not be left dormant or arrested simply because the original trustee was under investigation.
With respect to the problems raised by the hon. member for Niagara Falls and the hon. member for Vancouver East, I am aware of the sort of difficulty they have referred to. The problem is not so difficult of solution in the case of an individual, but it is difficult in the case of a corporation. That is the problem of effectively preventing persons who may have formed a corporation which goes bankrupt from forming another corporation and continuing with the same type of business. While

the problem is difficult because of the nature of corporate law I am not saying it is impossible of solution.
The general study of the Bankruptcy Act has been going forward concurrently with the investigation of individual trustees and the two together will, we hope, put us in a position where we can make an intelligent and valuable revision of the Bankruptcy Act in the not too distant future. The points that have been mentioned here will be specifically borne in mind in the course of that revision.
Turning now to the Heakes case, I should say at once we have here a most difficult case in connection with an individual for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. The case has been exhaustively investigated by myself and at least one of my colleagues. It has also been exhaustively studied by senior officials in the government service. I have had a lengthy interview with Mr. Heakes. I referred him to the then assistant deputy minister of justice, who had several lengthy interviews with him. In the course of these interviews the position was fully explained to Mr. Heakes with every regard for the difficult position in which he found himself. Furthermore, I know that at least one of my colleagues has given assistance of a personal nature to Mr. Heakes during the period when he has found himself in difficulty, so it may be said that Mr. Heakes has not found an unsympathetic attitude on the part of the government and its officials.
In summary, however-and Mr. Heakes has been advised of this-the remedy for his difficulty lies in his own hands. We have indicated that we are prepared to do everything we can by way of offering advice to him to assist in this matter, but that unless and until he seeks to apply the remedies that are open to him nothing in fact can be done in order to improve his position.
Our investigation has established that at the time the proposal was made there was some confusion as to whether it was the original or amended proposal which was approved by the court. Our investigation also established that there was some error on the part of the trustee who applied later on to have the proposal annulled. But the action of the trustee, so far as I can determine- and at this point I am satisfied of this on the report of my advisors-was in error and not of the nature of fraud or bad intent.
This having been ascertained, it was suggested to Mr. Heakes that he should apply to the bankruptcy court either for an order reinstating the proposal or, in effect, for an order for a new proposal to be set up. Either course would have the result that his affairs could be dealt with in bankruptcy court and he would then be in a position to prosecute certain other actions which he feels he has and

which, as I understand it, form the only possible assets that he might realize.
Mr. Heakes has consistently taken the position that it is not his responsibility to take this action on his own behalf, that it is somehow or other the responsibility of the Department of Justice and the government to fight his case from now on. He appears to feel that because there was involved a trustee in bankruptcy who may have been guilty of some error, as I have said, it shifts the responsibility to the Department of Justice.
Here is where I should reply to the question asked me by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Trusties in bankruptcy are not officials of the government. They are appointed under the Bankruptcy Act. They are not paid by the government. They are not paid servants. Their remuneration is derived from fees out of the estates they administer. Moreover, they are not subject to detailed control in respect of their operations or to direction by the minister or the superintendent of bankruptcy. They are, however, subject to ultimate supervision as to the propriety of their conduct, but in effect the only control we can exercise is to remove them, cancel their licences or refuse to renew their licences if they are guilty of improper conduct.
As I say, nothing has been brought to my attention, from the full investigation in this case that we have made, to suggest that there was any improper conduct on the part of this particular trustee. But even if there had been improper conduct the only thing that I could and should then do would be to remove that trustee. This would not in any way alter the situation in which Mr. Heakes finds himself and in which, as I say, there are several courses open by means of which to pursue his case and bring about an adjustment of it. However, so far he has steadfastly declined to do so, taking the position that it is the responsibility of this department to conduct his case. We, of course, have no such authority or jurisdiction. I am not aware of any way in which, even with the best of intentions, I as Minister of Justice can go into court on behalf of an individual, particularly when the individual has it within his own power to do that for himself.
I have said that Mr. Heakes has had a most sympathetic hearing by members of the government themselves and by officials in the government service. I also know for a fact that he has been offered help from other quarters. When it became established that it was necessary for him to pursue his remedies in the courts we were concerned, because sometimes that is slightly cold advice to offer to a person who goes through this sort of misfortune which leaves him without the means of effectively pursuing his remedies.
Supply-Justice
But I know for a fact that Mr. Heakes has been offered assistance by friends in this regard; that is to say, they have said they would be prepared to assist him with respect to litigation if he desired to retain competent counsel and pursue that litigation. However, Mr. Heakes has apparently felt that assistance should take other forms, and that any litigation is the responsibility of the government.
I can only repeat my words expressing the sympathy I have for Mr. Heakes, and also repeat to the committee my assurance and my firm belief that everything has been done that possibly could be done for Mr. Heakes in the way of advice, consideration and study of his case, and that future action lies in his own hands.
I should also say that when these matters or facts were established as the result of our investigation, we wrote to the trustee concerned and suggested that in the event of Mr. Heakes retaining another lawyer, the trustee should accord him all possible cooperation in obtaining an extension of time in which to appeal from judgment of the bankruptcy court. The trustee replied on December 22, 1959 to the effect that he would defer his own application for discharge as trustee for as long as would be necessary to give Mr. Heakes appropriate time in which to retain counsel. There was no obligation on the trustee to do this, but he said that under the circumstances, as there had been an error here, he would maintain the status quo so as to facilitate the making of any application that Mr. Heakes might wish to make. That was in December, 1959, and no application has yet been made.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I should like to make one or two comments on this matter. I was very much interested to hear what the Minister of Justice has said to us. I am glad to know that the situation was not as black as the hon. member for Kootenay West naturally thought it was.
I also want to make one comment, and to ask a question of the minister, who referred to irregularities in the case of certain trustees. I thought perhaps it would be worth while, and it is certainly a matter of interest to me, to know more about this. I think he said there had been six cases of irregularities. I should like to know what percentage that is. I like to believe that most people we meet in our daily lives are honest. Of course, as long as there are dishonest crooks who are clever enough they will defeat any legislation from time to time. Finally, I want to ask one further question of the minister and it is this. A great deal of course, depends on the quality of those who are appointed

Supply-Justice
trustees. Those who are more familiar than I am with the operations of the act will, I am sure, endorse that statement.
I have just been looking at the section which provides for the appointment of trustees. I should like to read one paragraph of it, and then I should like to ask the minister whether in fact this case and other cases in his general experience have raised any question as to whether the appointment of trustees in bankruptcy should be somewhat more restricted than it has been in the past. I should like him, if he would, to tell us in a general way the kind of people who have been appointed. Having said that, I should just like to read the subsections which cover the matter. I am reading from section 5, subsection 2. under the general heading of "Licensing of trustees":
(2)	The superintendent shall make an investigation into the character and qualifications of any applicant for licence as the superintendent deems advisable or expedient and shall report to the minister the result of the investigation, together with his recommendation for or against the granting of the application and his reasons therefor.
Then subsection 3:
(3)	The minister, as soon as he has received a report from the superintendent as to the character and qualifications of an applicant for a licence, may, if he considers it will be of public advantage so to do, authorize the issue of a licence, which shall specify the bankruptcy district or districts or any part thereof in which the licensee is entitled to act.
My point is this. The whole question of the administration of the act has been raised. My experience, such as it was, would lead me to believe that the cases of honesty outnumber those of dishonesty many times over. If the minister would care to say a little more about this matter, I feel that he could reassure us on this point and also on whether, in fact, there is any ground, in his opinion, for having a tightening up with respect to the appointment of trustees or demanding higher qualifications even than those we have specified in the past.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The situation with regard to the appointment and qualifications of trustees naturally gives anyone in my position some concern because they are in a trust capacity. I am glad to be able to assure my hon. friend from Greenwood that the number of apparently dishonest trustees, or the number of trustees who are guilty of irregularities, is far outweighed by the number of honest and reliable trustees in connection with whose administration no question ever arises. It is, however, the unfortunate fact that in the case of two of the six trustees, although they are but a very small percentage of the total number of trustees, the size of their business was such that the number of estates

under their control represented a substantial percentage of the total bankruptcy estates in that area.
I have worked out with the superintendent and other officials of my department, as a result of discussions, what I believe is an improved method of investigating the qualifications of applicants for licence as trustees, and that system is now functioning quite smoothly. I am not going to say that no mistake will ever be made, but I think we have done what can reasonably be done to eliminate the possibility of appointing as trustee a man whose character would indicate that he should not be appointed to a position of trust.
As to his technical qualifications it is sometimes more difficult to make a judgment, and there may be room for error there. A perfectly honest man may just not be competent to do the job, and of course difficulties could arise there. However, in so far as it is possible to do so under the scheme of the present Bankruptcy Act, with respect to appointments and renewals of appointments I think we have a system which is an improvement over the one previously in effect. I think we have a fairly good system of ascertaining that we shall not be appointing anyone unless he is a proper person to appoint in the capacity of trustee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his remarks on this case. I should like to ask him this one question, because on a number of occasions I have heard the actions of trustees criticized very severely. In order to make certain that a trustee is a person of integrity plus competence, what would the minister think of the suggestion that persons should make application for the position of trustee to an appropriate court or judge? The applicants would then be passed upon by a judge or competent court as to their integrity and competence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, my reply is that I think the courts would have to rely upon precisely the same means we now use to make our investigations. The courts themselves have no investigative staff, and I think they would simply turn to the same agencies that we employ to make the same sort of examination.
I cannot see any particular advantage in that proposal. However, I think there is an advantage in a related proposal, namely that with respect to their activities we might be able to work out a scheme whereby there was more supervision by the courts.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think that is a very good suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Pensions and other benefits-
274.	Gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office, $15,000.
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, would the minister tell us how many widows or other dependents are involved in this vote?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, a quick count -and I may be a few out as a result, because I have done this very quickly, just going down the column-indicates that there are 171 widows.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
B-Penitentiaries-
275.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, $696,650.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, this is the first item in the penitentiaries branch and I undertook to the committee to make a short statement by way of a progress report in introducing this item. In discussing the situation with respect to penitentiaries and correctional reform I should perhaps start by saying that it has been the government's intention during the last few years to achieve two major steps forward in the transformation of Canada's penal system into an up-to-date and effective correctional program.
The first of these has been to arouse in the people of Canada themselves an interest in this long neglected branch of government, and to make Canadians aware of their responsibilities in this aspect of the continuing fight against crime. I think all hon. members of this house will have become aware that national interest in and support for the program of reform in our penitentiary system is at an all-time high, and I take this opportunity of thanking all those who have lent their support in fostering this enthusiasm.
The second objective has been a great deal more concrete and equally important. This has been the implementation of the plans and reforms which have been designed during the past few years. Our reforms are not complete, but in reporting to this committee which is asked to vote the money I am happy to be able to outline a series of positive achievements in terms of new penitentiaries, new methods, programs and activities; new ideas actually carried into effect. In other words, plans and preparations are now being matched by performance.
To be more specific, during the last year it has been our objective to develop for the inmates of all our federal institutions a program of training directed positively toward the goal of reforming and rehabilitating as many as possible of the inmates who are in our charge. The corollary of this is of course
Supply-J ustice
to make them fit upon discharge to take their places in our free society as law abiding citizens.
A second objective has been to develop a highly trained and competent staff to man our institutions and administer the positive programs of inmate training which have been authorized. Our third objective has been to provide suitable physical institutions where those sensible and progressive programs of training can be carried on effectively by that trained staff.
I think the most effective method of illustrating the progress made during the last year or two in achieving these objectives is by the simple process of comparison between the present and the past. I believe that the two pictures are more persuasive than anything else I could say in favour of continuing support for a dynamic program of penal reform.
Some 15 months ago 6,200 inmates were confined in federal penitentiaries. All but 400 of these were incarcerated in maximum security institutions across the country. Some of these maximum security institutions can only be described as out-dated fortresses maintained by an armed garrison, with innumerable locks and iron bars, with necessarily limited opportunities for effective training programs, which were carried out in an atmosphere of repression.
In these institutions the inmates were locked in their cells for the greater part of the 24 hours each day, only being allowed to exercise for brief periods, with virtually no provision for rehabilitative training as members of society, and where far too much of the time was spent in unrewarding and unproductive procedures.
The remaining 400, the fortunate few, were housed in the newly opened medium security institution at Joyceville, Ontario, and in the new minimum security institutions at William Head in British Columbia and Valley-field in Quebec, which we had designed and opened even though we were still much occupied with this planning stage. A few months later Springhill institution in Nova Scotia was opened, which gave some further relief to this depressing picture. This was the situation as we had inherited it and as we had modified it during the first two and one half years while we were primarily engaged in studying and developing our plans.
Today, two of these eight maximum security institutions have been transformed to medium security. At Collins Bay penitentiary in Ontario and at the federal training centre in Quebec, the armed and unyielding accoutrements of maximum security have given way to newer and more effective methods of reform.

Supply-Justice
In the space of one year the number of inmates kept under medium security conditions has increased from 200 to almost 1,600, or an increase of 800 per cent, and the 200 kept in minimum security has increased by almost 100 per cent, thanks to the coming into operation of the new Springhill institution. At the present, therefore, the federal penitentiary system consists of six maximum security, four medium security and four minimum security institutions.
During the coming months it is intended to place the emphasis upon the development of minimum security institutions. The committee will have gathered from my previous remarks that the pressure for medium security institutions has in some measure been relieved, and our greatest need is for institutions in which the benefits of minimum security conditions can be brought to bear upon those inmates who have responded to our new rehabilitation methods. The necessary provision has now been made so that, across the country, we shall be opening five correctional work camps, each designed to provide accommodation and training for 80 inmates. These camps will be located at Agassiz, B.C.; Petawawa and Bracebridge, Ontario; Gatineau Park, Quebec, and at another site in Quebec which has not yet been finally selected but with respect to which discussions are now under way.
I would like to assure the house that none of the men held in these institutions will be engaged upon work which would deprive other Canadians of employment. None of the projects which they undertake would be commenced within ten years if they had to be paid for out of tax moneys at the current rates of civilian pay.
In addition to these work camps, five minimum security farm camps will be established, one at each of the five institutions which operate farms. The institutions involved are Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick, St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in Quebec, Collin's Bay penitentiary in Ontario, Manitoba penitentiary and Saskatchewan penitentiary at Prince Albert.
When these steps become fully effective and when, as we expect, we have transformed one other maximum security institution into a medium security penitentiary, our inmate population will, by the end of 1961, be allocated as follows: 3,500 in maximum security, 2,000 in medium security and 1,100 in minimum security conditions.
I would like to add at this time a word about drug addiction. It is the intention of the government, as will have been seen from the debates on the narcotics bill, to build in the lower mainland of British Columbia a drug addiction treatment centre in which will

be confined those persons who are drug addicts and who have been sentenced to penitentiaries for criminal offences. This institution should be ready for occupancy within about two years, and in it we shall try to provide treatment and training for addicts which will assist them to overcome the drug habit. We will also have achieved what to me is an essential reform, in the segregation of the drug addict from the remainder of our inmate population.
Let me now turn to the equally important problem of supplying our penitentiaries with a skilled and dedicated staff. When the correctional planning committee investigated the staff situation it was found that an unfortunate degree of stagnation existed. Moreover, although there had been a staff college in existence since 1948, the available facilities did not permit more than 21 officers to be on a course at one time. This has led to the unfortunate state of affairs that up to this time less than half of our penitentiary officers have received formal training at the hands of the college.
This has now been changed. With respect to staff generally, a system has been worked out under which a full career will be available in the correctional system as a whole. After recruiting and training, emphasis will be upon opportunities for transfers and promotions, not only within institutions but to a much greater extent than before between institutions and regions and between the field and headquarters, so that not only will our present staff be encouraged but a young man joining the service may also have the prospect before him of rising to the very summit.
Just since last September, for instance, eight of Canada's penitentiaries have received new wardens by either transfer or new appointment between institutions; a number of new appointments from within the service will be made when the new camps are opened; all of which opens further opportunities for transfer and promotion to junior officers now in the service. At the present time 14 officers are changing their institutions to take over the position of assistant warden at other institutions. During the coming summer 12 officers will leave their present institutions to become superintendents of administration and supply officers at the new correctional work camps and farm camps.
The revised Penitentiary Act to which the house gave first reading yesterday will, when adopted, put the seal of approval on the new staff and regional organization system.
In order to benefit further from the opportunities thus opened, the staff college at Kingston is to be very considerably enlarged so as to accommodate twice as many trainees as at present. A regional staff college for

French speaking officers from Quebec is in course of being established on the St. Vincent de Paul reserve. A director of staff training has been appointed at headquarters in Ottawa. His task will be to co-ordinate staff training at all levels of the service.
In accord with our advanced theories of penal reform, special emphasis has been placed upon building up our professional and semi-professional counselling staff. At the moment we have 75 positions for supervisors of classification, psychologists, classification officers and assistant classification officers.
One item which might seem small but whose effect on morale may be considerable is that the formidable military type uniforms of the penitentiary staff are to be replaced by a uniform cut in a civilian pattern made of a smart blue material. It is expected that by the end of 1962 this style of uniform will be available to all officers who serve in medium security institutions. All the uniforms will be made in the institutions themselves.
Finally, I should also mention some of the actual programs which are being put into effect in Canadian penitentiaries. Within the last four months a program of evening activity for inmates has been established in every one of our institutions except St. Vincent de Paul. Unfortunately, in that institution conditions caused by overcrowding render such programs impossible. We are moving as rapidly as possible to meet that situation and put St. Vincent on the same basis as all our other institutions.
Formerly an inmate's day ended at 4.30 in the afternoon when he was locked in his cell, where he remained until seven o'clock next morning. Now, however, his day is extended to 9.30 or ten o'clock in the evening, and in the intervening hours he is encouraged to take part in group activities, sports and study opportunities. In many of our institutions citizens from local communities come into the penitentiary and bring with them their knowledge of special arts and skills.
A prison system which has not solved the problem of prison labour cannot be said to be operating institutions of correction and reform. There is little chance of effecting the rehabilitation in society of an inmate who upon his release is unwilling, unable or unfit to accept employment. In most cases it is only by instilling in the inmate the habit of plain, hard work that any lasting value will be obtained from the expense of imprisoning and training him.
As a part of the replanning of the penitentiary system arising out of the correctional planning committee's report, a special report was prepared on industrial expansion in the
Supply-Justice
present institutions. The objectives were to organize factories with modern methods of production similar to those the inmate would meet in commercial industry, and thus train him for competitive employment and reduce the prospect of his repeating as a criminal. This work, involving a total of approximately 2,000 inmates across Canada, would be done only for the government and tax-supported institutions, and would be sufficiently diversified to have no appreciable effect on any private industry.
To enlist the co-operation of labour and industry on an advisory basis concerning policy, preliminary discussions have taken place during recent months with industrial executives in Toronto and with Mr. Claude Jodoin, president of the Canadian Labour Congress. Reactions have been sympathetic to these proposals, and further discussions are being carried on.
In order to have continuing assistance from industry and labour I propose incorporating into the new draft of the Penitentiary Act a section establishing an advisory committee on penitentiary industry of up to nine members, consisting of representatives chosen from the fields of industry, labour, government and the general public, to advise the commissioner concerning industrial operations to be carried on by inmate labour in connection with the service.
Not only is the inmate encouraged to extend his education and professional training; he is also encouraged to keep in closer contact with his family and those friends who the warden feels will be a good influence upon him in the future. Letter writing restrictions have been substantially lifted, and visits by the family are being given a less clinical treatment. I should mention further that at a number of our institutions we have been able to start a program under which, during the season of certain religious festivals such as Easter and Christmas, relatives of the inmates come to the institution to take part in religious services with inmates and remain there afterward for a social hour in surroundings of complete informality and lack of restraint. During the Easter period just past some 70 relatives attended the Protestant religious services in these circumstances, and an equal number attended the Roman Catholic services.
As one example of the success of these new methods, I might mention the small group of inmates at Kingston penitentiary who during last summer attended night classes at Queen's University to study advanced techniques in the printer's trade. These men mingled freely with other students and were accepted readily by them. Again, you probably heard, Mr. Chairman, of the 14 inmates of the

Supply-Justice
William Head institution who graduated from a public speaking course. Their graduation celebration was held at Victoria, and the function was attended by the mayor of the city and his wife as well as by other civic officials.
I believe that all of Canada-indeed I know that much of the free world-is aware of and interested in our correctional reform program. I have given here a necessarily very much condensed report on progress. While we in the Department of Justice and all the staff of the penitentiaries service are pleased to have been able to record this substantial degree of progress, we realize that much remains to be done. However, I have felt that in asking for continued support for our program by way of these appropriations I should outline to the committee some of the progress made, so the house and the country will know that the money is being put to effective use.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all the members of the committee have followed closely and with great interest the statement the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has just made concerning the reform of Canada's penitentiaries.
One of the first aims of such a reform is naturally to facilitate the rehabilitation of the inmates. This rehabilitation process starts within the institution itself but it must keep on after the prisoner has been released. That is one of the objectives the minister mentioned. According to him, we must first arouse in the people of Canada an interest in this reform of our penal institutions and, second, put into practice most of the recommendations contained in the Fauteux report, if not all of them.
In fact, when the Fauteux committee was set up, a few years ago, it was undoubtedly entrusted with the task of making a special study of the situation in the penitentiaries. It completed its task and submitted its report to the government. And now this government is trying to put those recommendations into practice.
In my opinion, one of the most interesting aspects of this question of penitentiaries about which I should like to say a few words, is the inmate's situation when he is freed, and during the period of time between his imprisonment and his full release.
The inmate goes through the various stages the minister mentioned. First, there is the period of maximum security, that is when he is confined to a penitentiary, then the period of medium security and finally that of minimum security, just before his release.
(Mr. Fulton.]
All those stages are most important for the inmates but it is also quite important that the public should know what the inmates go through during those stages.
It is important also that the public be aware of the treatment given to inmates during the medium security period, and more especially during the minimum security period. In fact, it is essential that the public be familiar with the situation of inmates in general after their release, and I believe this is a point that members of the committee should emphasize.
Mr. Chairman, I have here an item published in Le Devoir of November 16, 1960, reporting a statement of the Minister of Justice regarding appointments made, especially at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. I am pleased to point out in particular the appointments of Majors Martineau, Surpre-nant and Desgroseillers, because I had the opportunity of knowing them when I served in the Canadian army. I am convinced that they are worthy of the confidence placed in them and that they will prove equal to their task.
But such was not the purpose of my remarks. I want to stress the importance of the part to be played not by officers and employees of the penitentiaries, but by society in the rehabilitation of inmates.
Mr. Chairman, I now quote from the article I referred to a moment ago:
We are Informed that despite all the good intentions of officials in correctional institutions and their efforts to better prepare inmates to return to a normal and decent life, the apathy of the public and particularly of employers in relation to former inmates remains the greatest obstacle to rehabilitation.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure this article is completely true. We can never repeat often enough to the public at large, and more particularly to employers, that they must try to understand the inmate, a person who through some accident, some misfortune or because he was led into it, has committed a crime but remains an unfortunate human being who would be glad to start a new life in society.
However, if on being released from the penitentiary or from the common prison, the inmate is left to walk the streets, with nothing to do, chances are that he will meet those criminals who traffic in goof balls. In other words, he is bound to get mixed up with bad friends.

Some system must be evolved in order that an inmate will not be left in idleness after his release.
Not only must we reform the penitentiary system as we are doing, but more important, we must reform the individual in society, by understanding the unfortunate situation of the inmate and by contributing to his rehabilitation.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am certain we are all grateful to the Minister of Justice for giving us a preliminary outline of the changes that have taken place in the past two years with regard to policy and administration in the realm of penal reform. Even without the statement of the minister I was convinced that there must have been changes made in the past two years. The evidence is very clear. I have not had nearly as many letters smuggled out to me in the last year as previously. As a matter of fact I have not had one in the last three or four months, so I am convinced that things have been improved.


Mr. Peters:: You may get a couple yet.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member for Timiska-ming says I may get a couple yet. If so, I will look into them as I have done in the case of all letters of this kind that have come to me.
I was most interested in what the minister said as to the changes he anticipates in the next two years as a result of the new policies and new construction. If I remember his figures correctly, this will bring us to the point where a little more than half the inmates in our penitentiaries will be under minimum or medium security control. I think this is as it should be, and the success of the program up to now has demonstrated the correctness of the policy being followed. From the information I have gathered through talking to officials and reading newspapers, I understand that comparatively few inmates in minimum and medium security penitentiaries are abusing the privileges they obtain there.
The extension of this principle brings to mind another phase involving a new policy about which I should like to make a few remarks and ask the minister for his comments. It comes to mind particularly because of the information the minister gave a few moments ago that he is recommending to the house the acceptance of the principle of an advisory board on penitentiary matters. He said that the members of the board will be drawn from many fields of activity, and referred particularly to industry and labour. This ties in with something I had in mind about which I should like to speak very briefly.
Supply-Justice
In the last eight or nine months I have been most interested in reading articles about a new policy that is being tried in some places and which, as far as I can ascertain, is working successfully. It does not apply to those who have to be kept under maximum security control, but applies particularly to those under minimum control and perhaps to some extent to those under medium control. It involves inmates who have been sentenced to penitentiary for breaking the law but whose crimes do not involve violence or vicious or malicious actions. The purpose of the policy is to try to keep them in closer touch with society and to aid in their rehabilitation by taking a new approach.
The idea is that after careful study, analysis and scrutiny, those in whom it is felt confidence can be placed should be given the opportunity of working at their own trades under close supervision, of course, outside the walls of the penitentiary. It is my understanding that this policy has been tried, and that in the light of the evidence up to the present time it has proved successful. The person is definitely still a penitentiary inmate. He leaves in the morning, goes to his place of employment and has to return at night. He has to serve his full sentence. Part of the money he earns goes toward his upkeep in the institution to relieve the burden on the taxpayers, and the balance goes for the upkeep of his family so they will be maintained by his own personal work and will not need to become welfare and relief recipients.
I recognize all the difficulties in such a policy, but it must be noted that it is being tried elsewhere and it does seem to have something to recommend it. I am wondering whether any consideration has been given to extending the study of penal reform referred to by the minister into this realm. If consideration has not been given to this idea yet, I believe it is something that might well be studied by the advisory committee which the minister says will be appointed as a result of changes he is recommending in the Penitentiary Act.
I must admit that the articles I have read on the matter intrigue me very much, and if the idea is practicable and applicable it might be a step forward that would assist in certain cases in the rehabilitation of those whom we want to ensure are rehabilitated as quickly as possible and in a proper manner. I would be most interested if the minister would comment on the feasibility and practicability of that suggestion.
Though it is only a small point, I should also like the minister to tell us what new employment has been given to those inmates whose former employment was taken away from them because of a change in policy made

Supply-Justice
by the Post Office Department. In visiting the penitentiaries I have always been most interested in seeing how many were employed in repairing damaged postal boxes. Because of a certain unfortunate situation that arose early this year a change in policy had to be made, and the work is now being done by private firms. I am interested in knowing to what kind of work these men have now been assigned.
There is one other small matter which I should like to raise at this time. Can the minister give us any information as to what is being done or can be done with regard to those who, for the protection of society, are serving sentences in penitentiaries but whose natures are such that of necessity they must be kept in solitary confinement at all times? I can think of two in British Columbia who must be kept in such solitary confinement; one of them whose absolutely uncontrolled violence means that he is dangerous to everybody, and the other whose sex perversion is of such a nature that even in the penitentiary he must be kept in solitary confinement at all times. I cannot help but wonder, if that situation prevails in the penitentiary and men of this type have to be kept in solitary confinement for the entire duration of their sentence, what will be the position when they come out of the penitentiary? This question may be out of order on this item, but unfortunately I was not able to be here when the other items of the minister's estimates were being considered.
May I also add a word in connection with those who have been in a penitentiary. I have drawn this matter to the minister's attention every year during the consideration of his estimates. What further consideration is being given not only to the training and psychological rehabilitation of penitentiary inmates, but also to their follow up upon release? I can assure the minister that outside of pension cases and grievances of that nature that come to my attention as a member of the House of Commons, the most appeals I receive are from those who have been released from the penitentiary with $15 or $20 at a time when we have a serious unemployment situation. These men cannot get jobs, so what can they do?
I do feel that since the taxpayers' dollars have been spent in making these people pay for their crimes, in trying to rehabilitate them by driving out their antisocial attitudes and giving them a new social conscience, then some provision should be made for assistance of a practical nature when these men are released in order to guarantee that they do not return to crime.
I would appreciate it very much if the minister would comment on some of the matters which I have raised.


Mr. Deschaielets:: I should like to make a few remarks at this time, and I shall try to complete them before the luncheon recess. My comments have to do with the application of sections 60, 61 and 62 of the Criminal Code, dealing with habitual criminals. Hon. members know that when an accused has been convicted of three different charges, each punishable by five years or more in the penitentiary, the crown may charge him with being an habitual criminal. Then, if the crown proves its case, this man may be confined to the penitentiary for an indefinite term. I do not like these provisions in the Criminal Code; I have never liked them. I was wondering if we should not take a second look at them.
I should like the minister, if it is possible, to let us know the number of inmates presently in our penitentiaries who have been convicted of being habitual criminals and are held, au bon plaisir. I should like to know also for how many years they have been detained. I believe that for the morale of the inmates, a definite term should be established. If a man is sent to the penitentiary for 15, 20 or 25 years, at least there is some limit to his detention.
During the past number of years we have been taking a second look at questions relating to reform and rehabilitation. I do not believe these particular sections of the Criminal Code are in line with our thinking on reform and rehabilitation. I hope the minister will be able to give us a few comments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should say, first, that I appreciate very much the remarks of the hon. member for Megantic, with which I thoroughly agree. I have stated on a number of occasions that we might have the best designed program in the world, the best institutions, administered by the best staffs, but this would come to nothing if on release the inmate is unable to find employment. I appreciate the approach of my hon. friend, and I hope his remarks will register with the public and with potential employers.
In so far as the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver East are concerned, he asked me first to consider the possibility of providing what might be called extramural work for inmates as a further step in the program leading toward their ultimate rehabilitation into society. I might tell him that at present we are doing this ourselves, although on what I think might be fairly described as a very limited scale, in connection with pre-release. There are cases in which we arrange for suitable inmates to work outside the walls during the day and return to the institution at night. It is our intention to enlarge this program, but it is definitely part of our program of reform.

My hon. friend will appreciate, however, that you cannot make all these reforms at once. We have in mind the establishment of a pre-release hostel to which selected inmates might be sent, and from which they would go to work in industry in the community- possibly the same job as they may be continuing after their release; that is definitely in our mind.
I should say, of course, that to a certain extent the parole system itself is a step in this direction because an inmate, instead of serving his full sentence in the institution may, if he is regarded by the parole board as suitable, be released from the institution to serve the balance of his sentence outside in employment under the supervision of the parole board. It is, therefore, in a sense quite properly part of the concept which the hon. member for Vancouver East put before us.
I see it is one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps I could conclude my reply after lunch.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Just before one o'clock I was replying to the observations that had been made and the questions that had been raised on the first item of the penitentiaries branch, and I had just answered the first matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East. His second point related to the position of those who are in solitary confinement or, as it is technically called, disassociation. I think the best answer I can give to my hon. friend is to refer him to a reply I gave to a question asked by the hon. member for Skeena. I refer to starred question No. 172 which was made an order for return. The return was forwarded by me to the office of the Clerk on April 5 and, according to the note I have, was tabled on April 11 of this year. It dealt with the situation in the British Columbia penitentiary. I understand that is the institution in which my hon. friend is primarily interested. It contains full particulars with regard to those who have been held in disassociation there.
As the hon. member noted, two inmates there are held virtually permanently in solitary confinement for the reason that he knows. When I was in British Columbia two years ago, I think it was, I went personally to inspect the conditions under which these men are held. One, as is noted, is there of his own volition; that is the man who has a sexual disorder. The other man is there not of 90205-6-385
Supply-Justice
his own volition, it is true, but he simply could not be allowed to be left with the other inmates. No one with whom I have discussed the matter, including one or two members opposite and members on this side who have been there, disagrees with us that it is proper to keep this man in disassociation because of his violent and uncontrollable criminal tendencies. I should inform the committee that these men who are held permanently under these circumstances have their cases reviewed once a month. Every month their cases are reviewed to see whether there is any change in their circumstances, their outlook or their medical or other conditions which would warrant reconsideration of the decision that has been made. The next point-


Harold Edward Winch: Before the minister leaves the point with which he has been dealing, may I ask him this question. Are they not actually to some degree insane? My point is this. Although you have to hold them in that way, are they going to be released on society? If they are of that type, can they be put somewhere else?


Edmund Davie Fulton: One of them is undergoing life imprisonment and I think the other is an habitual criminal. I will check that matter. They are examined not only from the point of view of seeing whether they should be continued on in the circumstances in which they are now but also whether there has been any change that would warrant a program being instituted looking toward their ultimate release. So far we have not been able to see any signs of the latter. One is on a 20-year sentence and the other is in there on an indeterminate sentence.
With regard to their mental condition may I say this. I think I have mentioned previously that there is perhaps an unsatisfactory gap in the relationship here between our institutions and the provincial institutions to which persons who are certifiable might be committed. It could perhaps be argued that these men should be in a mental institution rather than in a penitentiary. I would not oppose that point of view at all. However, I just note that we have made efforts to get them into a mental institution and, perhaps understandably, the authorities in the mental institution did not want that kind of responsibility and so we have had discussions, but generally when we have tried to transfer them we have not been successful. Rather than transfer the men over there, have them transferred back six months later and have them shuttle back and forth, it seems to me to be more humane, although not a desirable situation, to do the best we can for them within our institutions. The third point-

Supply-J ustice


William Arnold Peters: Before the minister leaves this matter may I ask him this question. Has any consideration been given to operating on these particular men in order to make them at least acceptable in society? I understand that in California in particular brain operations are being done, that part of the motor lobe is removed, and that these operations have been fairly successful. I am just wondering about cases in which the length of time has been considerable and it looks as though it will be indefinite. In the one case I would think it would not be too difficult to get a voluntary release in order to allow that kind of operation to be performed. Is any consideration being given to this matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under our law as it stands at the present time we certainly could not perform that operation or any other type of operation on an inmate without his consent. So far our medical reports do not indicate that there is any type of operation that could be performed that would have any desirable result; indeed, it might have an entirely undesirable result. We keep them under medical supervision, and if at any time it were suggested to us that their condition could be improved, we would be prepared to consider that. But as I say, we could not perform any operation without the consent of the inmate himself.
The third point raised was with regard to the situation of an individual inmate on his release, from the point of view of whether he has a little bit of cash in his pocket or other assistance so that he can last out perhaps the first few difficult days or weeks without being compelled to return to his former associations, undesirable haunts, and so on.
This has been a problem that has concerned us very much, and as a result of the report of the correctional planning committee we made a submission to treasury board, which has now been approved, regarding the earnings of inmates in our penitentiaries. The result has been that in the case of the average inmate, when he leaves the penitentiary he should in future be discharged with between $80 and $100 in his possession, as against the sum at the present time of around $15 to $20.
I recognize that is not a great deal of money, but it is certainly a substantial increase and should tide him over a week or two anyway. In conjunction with the stepped-up program on which we are now successfully working, with the parole board and private after-care agencies, we hope this little insurance in his pocket, plus the assistance given by the voluntary agency or the parole board, will

serve the purpose of getting him rehabilitated into employment and back into useful life in society.
As my hon. friend will recall also, we put through a change last year, I think it was, with respect to the rights of inmates to continue to receive unemployment insurance after having served a term in our penitentiaries. They are not now disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. These measures together will, we hope, go some way toward solving the problems that have been mentioned.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont raised the question as to how many habitual criminals are in our institutions. This question and related questions might better have been answered when the parole board estimates were before the committee, because the parole board keeps all the tables with regard to this matter. However, my present information is that we have 36 inmates in our institutions who have been sentenced as habitual criminals.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, it was not
necessary for those of us who heard the Minister of Justice piloting the amendments to the Criminal Code on capital punishment through this house to be told that he is a man of sympathy and understanding, nor that he took great pains in what he was doing. But even if we had not known that, we learned it today. I have listened to the minister's remarks about penitentiary reform with deep interest and with the feeling that he was taking it as one of the most serious, perhaps the most serious, of his duties. We should all be thankful to the minister for what he has done and is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have perhaps a somewhat unexpected and unusual way of praising the minister for bringing us so far along this road, because it so happens that I have a filial connection with the report of what I believe was the first penitentiaries commission. This commission reported in 1914 and my father, the late G. M. Macdonnell, was its chairman. That report went a very short way along the road which the minister has taken us infinitely further along.
Perhaps the committee would allow me for just a moment to refer to two or three of the things upon which that commission reported and which would seem far removed from these enlightened days. The commission was set up to inquire into the affairs of the Kingston penitentiary and also, in broad terms, to report on the subject of the conduct and administration of penitentiaries.

Their report into the affairs of the Kingston penitentiary does not make pleasant reading and I shall not take up any of the time of the committee in reading from it. There is just one item to which I would refer. Although it is harsh it has almost an element of ironic humour in it, that when a man was recommended for flogging, as he often was by the sentencing judge on entering the penitentiary, he was flogged on entry and he was also flogged just before he went out. It seems to me there is a bitter irony in flogging a man just before he leaves, because he would certainly not have a very pleasant attitude toward the society which had dealt with him in this way.
The minister had another advantage which I am sure he will not mind my mentioning. That is that he has in his family, in the person of his wife, a trained social worker and I am quite sure that her views also are represented in this legislation.
I would just like to refer to the fact that the commission with which I have, as I say, a filial interest did recommend against flogging; it did recommend schools and hospitals, which apparently were considered quite unnecessary before that day, in penitentiaries; it did recommend that penitentiaries should be operated with a view to encouraging the inhabitants in the habits of order, industry and a better appreciation of the duties of citizenship, and it did recommend that the hosing of convicts and their confinement in a dark cell or dungeon, and shackling them with ball and chain, be abolished.
One other thing was recommended. This was in regard to the employment of prison guards. More regard was to be paid to the character and education of guards with the view that the officials should exercise the best possible influence over the prisoners. There was another recommendation; that in the place of the prison uniform which was worn, a suit and cap of one-tone material, blue or grey, should be adopted.
Perhaps the committee will forgive this little personal excursion. I thought it might be of some interest to other hon. members as well as to myself. It also enables me to say again how far we have come from those rather primitive days and how much we owe to the Minister of Justice for what he has done and is doing.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the debate on this item, especially since we will be dealing some time next week or the week after with the Penitentiary Act and we will then have ample opportunity to raise the points we wish to raise.
I should like to ask one question of the minister with relation to the consultations 90205-6-385J
Supply-Justice
that were held by him with the attorneys general of the provinces with regard to changing the jurisdiction as between penitentiaries and county prisons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Megantic refers to the meeting held in 1958, the occasion of which was to discuss the implementation of the Fauteux committee's report, in which it was obvious there were a number of recommendations which were of mutual federal and provincial concern.
At that time we indicated to the attorneys general of the provinces our readiness to accept in principle the Fauteux committee's recommendation, that we should accept responsibility for the treatment of all prisoners sentenced to terms of over six months. It was as a result of the discussions at that meeting and the conclusions arrived at unanimously that the correctional planning committee was set up, which recommended to us the detailed methods by which we should implement the various recommendations that were then put before us.
Although we agreed in principle at that time on the acceptance of this recommendation to assume responsibility for these additional prisoners, it was made clear to the attorneys general that there was a great deal to be done in the existing federal penitentiary system both from the point of view of reorganizing our system and with regard to improving our own standards before we should be in a position to assume the actual responsibility.
With respect to the first, we have been and are still faced with the problem of overcrowding in our institutions and it would not be reasonable, before we got that under control, to accept responsibility for another 5,000 inmates. In respect to the second, it was recognized in the Robichaud report and the MacDonald committee report, as my hon. friend pointed out, that there are many changes which should be made in our own penal system before we can stand up and say that we have a penal system in operation which is as good as we can make it, or as good as, or better than any in the provinces.
We are anxious to take over this new field when it becomes possible to do so and we are all agreed this should be done in order to provide a better system for prisoners in Canada as a whole, but when the correctional planning committee went into the details of the matter and when we received its report indicating the size of our own problem of reorganization and reform it became only necessary and fair that I should write to the provinces within the last eight or ten months to indicate that I did not expect we should be in a position to go ahead for the next two

Supply-Justice
or three years. We are pressing on as fast as we can and I hope the report I gave today indicates that substantial progress has been made. I hope that within the next few years we shall be in a position to say to the provinces: we are ready to go ahead and take over the responsibility which was agreed by all that we should assume.


Harold Edward Winch: I have one or two comments to make on this item prompted by the statements which have been made by the Minister of Justice. The minister said he hoped that within two years the first of the institutions for the treatment of those addicted to narcotics would be open and that perhaps more would have been opened. Can the minister give us any information on the principles guiding him in the location of the treatment centres. Are they to be built within the grounds of the present penitentiaries? I sincerely hope not, because I think that would be psychologically incorrect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to be able to advise the hon. member that we announced yesterday, I think, that the new drug treatment centre will be located in the Matsqui area which, as he will appreciate, is well removed physically from the British Columbia penitentiary reserve.
I understand that a statement appears in the Vancouver press today by one who, I am advised, is a prominent doctor in this field, somewhat preemptorily dismissing our program as being too big, too costly and the location too far from Vancouver. This seems a somewhat preemptory dismissal of the new program. We have not even got the plans fully prepared ourselves. We have simply chosen the location. We know what our approach is to be, and we are prepared to discuss it with experts and draw up our detailed plans accordingly. The location is sufficiently far away to enable us to have a good degree of control of the persons who will go to visit there and, as a result, we should be able to control this great problem of the smuggling in of narcotics. On the other hand it is not so far away that the specialized staff, both the permanent and visiting staff needed to service such institutions, will be discouraged. It is 45 minutes from the centre of Vancouver and I know of many persons who spend more time than that struggling to and from work. We think this is a good location. With respect to the size of the institution, its detailed planning and the number of inmates who should be there, we are prepared to be flexible. I am convinced that most people will not accord it the preemptory dismissal which I am informed this doctor has done.


Harold Edward Winch: We shall take care of him.


William Arnold Peters: I have listened carefully to the discussion so far, because this is not a field with which I am familiar. I appreciate the forward looking developments which are taking place in our penal institutions, but there are still several questions which I think could profitably be discussed even by an amateur like myself.
In my own limited experience of the working of penitentiaries I have been unfavourably impressed by the number of officers employed in them whose previous experience has been of a military nature. It has often occurred to me that it is not necessary to have persons of this type placed in positions of responsibility in penal institutions. As a result of their military training they are usually not persons inclined to encourage discussion and co-operation; instead, they are inclined to seek direct and complete obedience which is a concept not usually acceptable to the general public-and, of course, prisoners in penitentiaries are still part of the general public. I often have the impression that military discipline only infuriates people and deters them from cooperating. I may not be altogether fair in saying this, but it seems to me that the answers to some of the questions I have put to people with military minds have not been altogether acceptable to me, reflecting, as they did, a type of thinking which was distasteful to me when I was in the service and which still is, now that I am outside it. It seems to me we should give a great deal more consideration to employing people trained in the sociological field rather than those with a background of military training. While it may be all right to give some officers from the armed services jobs in these penitentiaries, I think we should be careful of putting too many of them in this particular field.
I wish to raise another question, one which relates to medical care. It has been brought to my attention that medical care in some of our penitentiaries by no means reaches the standard it should. Looking in the details of the estimates on page 252 I note that for all the penitentiaries we have one medical officer grade II, three medical officers grade I, seven part-time physicians and eight parttime psychiatrists. On the other hand, there are 18 chaplains and one part-time chaplain. It looks as though we look after the spiritual needs of the prisoners much better than we do their medical needs. One particular case at Kingston penitentiary was brought to my attention. The man's sister asked me to go and see him and I did. I received the courtesies that I am sure all hon. members would receive from the staff at the penitentiary if they should happen to go there. I was struck

by the fact that this individual was seen much more often by psychiatrists than by physicians and the reports of the psychiatrists were given more credence than those of the physicians. It seems to me that in an institution as large as Kingston much greater attention should be paid to medical care.
Probably we can all take a lesson from the hon. member for York-Scarborough. He has visited many penitentiaries. A little while ago he said that he had shown interest in a number of them and had gone to visit them. Maybe we should show more interest in these institutions because many things are happening in them that to me are just not right. I have on my desk a return to an order of the house which indicates that a number of people were strapped, and it gives the offences for which they were strapped and the number of strokes they received. In most instances it was because they had talked roughly to an officer. I have a number of returns. I have information on a case that happened in the west. In this case the guard insists he was asked and pratically forced to resign because he raised the question that medical attention was not available to a man who died in solitary confinement. This man had been in solitary confinement previously and at the time of his death was in solitary confinement, with no medical attention available to him. He was completely alone. Of course, I do not know what might have occurred if he had had the medical attention which is normally available in an institution. In this particular case I am told that not even trained nurses were available or anyone who could give first aid, nor was there anyone available who had male nurse training.
It would seem to me that in an institution as large as Kingston, where there are well over 1,000 people, one doctor should be available at all times in the hospital. This means there would have to be three doctors on call. This is not unreasonable. I am sure we would expect this in a little town of 1,000 people. A doctor should be available there at all times. I do not know whether the minister wishes to comment on this particular case. I have read it. It concerns John Bathford, I believe.
The case we are discussing brought to mind the case of Waslychen. I think the minister should comment on this particular case. It is only an indication that all is not as we have been told. No doubt improvements have been made, but improvements remain to be made. There is no reason why we should assume that everything is as it should be. The implications in this particular case bear out what I have said about other cases that have come to my personal attention. This one has been discussed for two or three years.
Supply-Justice
It is a British Columbia case and I do not wish to get involved in it. I have read it. It is the kind of case that warrants an answer. The gentleman should be charged with malicious intent, or something else, because the charges he makes are serious. I do not think it should be just left in the air. It should be answered and then some improvement made in the situation which would prevent it happening again, or it should be shown that the individual is not correct in the charges he makes. This case has been widely aired on the radio. I have read copies of the radio scripts and articles in the newspapers. It is a very well-known case.
I should like to bring another problem to the attention of the minister. This is an old one. I should like to read from the prisoners' own magazine entitled C.B. Diamond, dated October-November, 1959, Kingston penitentiary. I turn to page 24 of the magazine where we find the following:
Canada v. Russia Prison systems and visits The Russian system:
(The following is an excerpt from an article which appeared in Life magazine and was written by Judge Samuel Leibowitz, a prominent American jurist after a recent trip through the Soviet union.)
One other feature impressed me rather profoundly while I was inspecting Krukovd (the name of the prison). During my unconducted tour I strolled into a building which contained a series of small bedrooms. I glanced into one. A man and woman were sitting on a bed, engrossed in conversation.
"You don't have regular visiting rooms?" I (Mr. Leibowitz) asked the general. I was thinking of the many iron-cage interview rooms I have seen in the U.S., where a prisoner is permitted 30 minutes conversation with his wife perhaps once a month through a screen and under the eyes of guards.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the hon. member tell me the date of this article?


William Arnold Peters: October-November, 1959.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Thank you.


William Arnold Peters: I continue:
General Bochkov looked at me in surprise. "No," he said. "Our method is what you see here. This is a prisoner being visited by his wife, who will live with him several days. She was brought here at government expense and can come once a month, as long as his conduct is good. It is one of the reasons, I think, why we have so few efforts at escape.
Your prison methods in America disregard a prisoner's sexual and emotional life. It is part of your vengeful attitude. You feel it is none of your concern what happens to his marriage, to his wife, to the normal sex drive, to the most powerful instinct he has.
Don't think we don't know what goes on under your system. In your country a prisoner's marriage often disintegrates, robbing him of a central motive for reform. At best he is torn by doubts about his wife's virtue during the years they are separated and he may very likely be plunged into despair by learning that legally or otherwise

Supply-Justice
she has forsaken him. And homosexuality, of course, is one of the biggest headaches of the wardens in your institutions."
The Canadian system:	(As practised at Collin's
bay Penitentiary).
The iron-cage system is not used at Collin's bay. There is no physical barrier between visitors and inmates, but the rules demand that there be absolutely no physical contact. No handshake between a father or brother .. . No wifely kiss ... No kiss between mother and son ... Nothing. The rules are strictly observed here. The other day I was visiting with my parents at the same time as another inmate was being visited by his wife. The half-hour period that we are allowed once a month came to an end and this man's wife leaned over to kiss him goodbye. It was a visible struggle for him to turn away as he must do, or else lose his visiting privileges. The disappointment in his wife's eyes also was plain. She did not understand why. She was hurt and the visit most certainly left her feeling depressed. That made the inmate feel even worse than if she had not come to see him. He felt so helpless: not able to comfort his wife when she needed it most.
One-half of an hour a month, that is all that is allowed for an inmate to try to keep his family together. And then just with conversation.
The article goes on to talk about the children coming. When I was at Kingston one could talk to one of the prisoners, but I had no desire to have a private conversation with one of them. One is aware of the fact that the guard is within hearing distance, and I do know that this must put a strain on the families. Unless something has happened in the past to make the present system at Kingston necessary, I think we should be developing a much more humane method of operation. I have referred to this prisoner's view of what he would like to see done and from my experience I am certainly in complete agreement with him. I can see no reason why we cannot find a much better method of dealing with this problem. It will be solved to some extent, of course, when we get away from enclosed prisons to the open-door type. As long as the prison building at Kingston remains where it is, it seems to me that we will always attempt to make use of it but in doing so we are actually making use of something that belongs in the decades of past centuries because of the nature of the building and the type of prison it is.
I have known people who have come out of Kingston penitentiary to resume civilian life, if that is what you call it, expecting to resume their married life only to experience a strained relationships not because of the wife's infidelity but because of the husband suspecting infidelity. The present system does nothing to make the return of the prisoner to civilian life that much easier.
This prisoner to whom I have referred suggests a different system and has quoted Judge Samuel Liebowitz as saying that it is not an unreasonable one. There should be no reason why arrangements could not be made at Kingston penitentiary so that wives

and families could spend some time alone with their husbands and fathers. I may be wrong because of my inexperience in this field and the fact that I have not taken the interest I probably should have but it seems to me that something should be done that would be much more satisfactory than the present cold-blooded system.
I asked the guard the other day what his point was in listening to the conversation and he said he had no particular reasons except that it was his job to do so. He said he was supposed to listen to the conversation. I had no objection to him listening to my conversation but if I were in that prison and my wife came to visit me I think I would object violently to him listening to our conservation. I think we should move quickly to do something about these problems that are inherent in the very type of building at Kingston. This massive rock pile at Kingston is probably only good for the use to which it is being put. We should be working very hard to eliminate that prison.
While it is true that there are prisoners of the type to which the minister refers who may be put into solitary confinement possibly at their own request, it seems to me that we have failed to find a better way of solving the problem. I should like to refer to the answer to question 172 asked by the hon. member for Skeena on April 11, 1961. It has been mentioned that there are two prisoners who have been in solitary confinement for six years, 200 days and four years, 197 days, respectively but there are many who are in confinement for disciplinary reasons or under regulation 69, whatever that may be. For example, I note from the figures given here that various prisoners have been in solitary confinement for 208 days, 70 days, 128 days, 104 days, 244 days, 263 days, 109 days, and so on. There are many of these cases where prisoners are in solitary confinement for a considerable length of time and it seems to me that this is rather an archaic way of dealing with the problem. They might as well be punished by being placed in stocks in front of the town hall.
Obviously this system has not worked with many of these men. Men have not only been confined just for 21 days but many have been confined for close to a year, and the result has not been satisfactory. Such punishment can be inflicted as often as you want to inflict it and probably it is not too much of a hardship on these men. It seems to me that a great deal remains to be done and it behooves members of parliament to become more interested in the matter.
It has always seemed to me that to be too interested in our penitentiaries has been regarded as a nasty business. It might be

very nice to look the other way but when you make inquiries and offer suggestions and are given the brush-off it obviously behooves you to do something about it. The whole matter needs to be investigated further from the point of view of the institution and it needs more study on the part of members because their knowledge is not sufficient to understand the needs of the institution.
I have referred to the matter of prisoners in Kingston who have wives and young children and 1 see absolutely no reason why a prisoner could not be put in a room with his wife and children in order to talk to them privately. They cannot get out the door because it is bolted. What do you expect they are going to do? The children are not going to run away. They could be held as hostages. It seems to me that the present method is archaic.
I do not know whether we have advanced enough socially in this country to use the Russian system. Certainly the Americans have been using it for many years in the more advanced states. There are also some states that are much more in the dark ages than we are. However, there are some states that use this visiting technique. Cottages are provided and the family can come and stay for the week end. How much better it is for people who are going back into society to have a close relationship with that society particularly after they have been confined for a number of years. Otherwise it seems to me we are asking for trouble when we throw them out into society. They go back to families who have grown away from them and they do not know them any more. We are not doing them any favour and this in turn in reflected in their attitude to society.
The matter of medical attention is one that I think we should consider. It may be quite true that prisoners are probably just as good at swinging the lead as army people. This may be one of the reasons why they are not dealt with too favourably. A number of people in the penitentiaries division were army officers and they deal with these matters in that light. It does seem to me that, medically speaking, the penitentiaries are much understaffed. Possibly they are overstaffed in a psychiatric and psychological sense. In any event, it seems to me that something should be done to correct the situation.
I would think that part of the problem could be met simply by having doctors come to the penitentiaries as consultants. In that way there would at least be some assurance of impartiality. If there is only one doctor in Kingston penitentiary and he is dealing with 1,400 or 1,500 people, I am quite sure there are some who would say that the doctor is no good, that the doctor is a quack and not
Supply-J ustice
competent because the same thing occurs in every little town. You may even disagree with your wife on this matter. She may go to one doctor and you may go to another. You have faith in your doctor and she has faith in hers. However, it seems to me that with such a large number of inmates in our prisons there should be some opportunity for them to have some choice. When cases such as the Waslychen case are brought to the attention of the minister, I think there is need to give consideration to the situation which I in my limited experience have also found to exist. I hope the minister will give some consideration to the problems of the prisoners themselves in connection with this matter of being able to visit with their families.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I rise, Mr. Chairman, merely for the purpose of putting in what lawyers call a caveat to the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I should like to say that I think we all give him credit for the fact that he has interested himself, as he has, in this matter and has made a study of it. I am sure his representations will be considered on their merits by the minister and his staff. The point upon which I do wish to put in a caveat is this: The member seems to wash out, as unsuitable for positions on the penitentiary staff, military officers. I should like to differ with him there. In my opinion, a regimental officer who has shared the toils and dangers of battle with his men is much more competent to deal in a humane and understanding way with the ordinary, run of the mill citizens we come across both inside and outside penitentiaries.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Timiskaming has, unfortunately, concerned himself primarily with situations and circumstances going back as far as five years. I think if he would concern himself more with what the situation is today, he would not have such a gloomy, pessimistic view of the situation in our penitentiaries as he seems to have.
In so far as the case in British Columbia is concerned, he is talking about events that took place in 1958, and he is not even talking accurately about them. The inmate in question who died was seen every day by the orderly from the prison hospital, and every two or three days by the prison medical doctor. It is quite true that this case and others brought to my attention, after having been investigated by members of the correctional planning committee the chairman of which is now the commissioner for penitentiaries, led me to the conclusion there was an unsatisfactory situation in the British Columbia penitentiary. Action was taken to remedy the situation in

Supply-Justice
the prison hospital and to have medical service available. I am only sorry that the hon. member, who professes such a desire to visit our penitentiaries and obtain up to date information, has not visited British Columbia to satisfy himself as to the present circumstances.
It might interest the hon. member also to know that we have a substantial provision in the main estimates this year for commencing the construction of a 50 bed hospital at Kingston penitentiary. It is quite true that we will probably never be able to have as many doctors serving the penitentiaries as we might think ideal in order to provide adequate medical service. I am satisfied, however, that if my hon. friend will visit any one of our institutions he will find the situation has improved appreciably over what it was in the past.
We are embarking upon a new system which we have instituted in at least two of our penitentiaries, that is arranging contracts with clinics to provide service instead of relying exclusively on the employment of one doctor to whom we can rarely pay a salary under the appropriations authorized here. No first class man is prepared to give his whole time to the penitentiary. Under the contract system, we are getting very good service, and that is the system which we have instituted in British Columbia, starting about a year ago.
In so far as conditions prevailing with respect to visitors to institutions are concerned, I was interested to note that my hon. friend again was reading from a publication dated October or November, 1959, going back about two years. I am not saying that the situation in every one of our institutions is satisfactory today, but it is certainly vastly improved over what it was two or three years ago. My hon. friend went on to refer to the situation in Kingston, where he is dealing with an overcrowded maximum security institution. I have never hesitated to admit that conditions at Kingston and St. Vincent de Paul, particularly these two institutions, are unsatisfactory because of the gross overcrowding there.
My hon. friend has picked out, as he is entitled to do if he wants, one of our overcrowded, maximum security institutions where certain security difficulties are necessarily encountered and impose limitations on doing the things we would like to do to improve visiting facilities. If he were to go to some of our medium security institutions or other maximum security institutions, he would see a decided change. I mentioned in my introductory remarks a new approach to visiting and letter writing, as well as the fact that inmates spend time out of their

cells in communal activities. Visiting privileges are but one part of the new approach to our penitentiaries program. Naturally enough, we have been making the most progress in those institutions where the physical set-up enables this to be done. As soon as we can get other new institutions in Ontario to relieve the overcrowded situation in Kingston, then there will be some progress because of the physical facilities available. The raising of the limitation on the number of visits authorized per inmate at Kingston would mean that some inmates would have frequent visitors, while others would have none. We have to ration them, unfortunately, because of the limitation of physical accommodation we have for visitors.


William Arnold Peters: We are not really disagreeing with each other. I said I was only aware of and concerned with Kingston. However, I believe the minister is unfair in his treatment of this other matter when he says I am raising a matter that is three years old. I was reading from a copy of an interview that took place at 6.10 p.m. on Wednesday, March 15, 1961. A question was asked about it by the hon. member for Skeena on the 17th, and the minister's reply does not appear to me to be valid at all. This condition has existed for three years and charges have been made and are still being made about it.
The minister also referred to the fact that in this particular hospital in British Columbia there were nurses. In a broadcast by Jack Webster during the program called "City Mike", on April 6, 1960, this statement was made:
The male nurses at the pen are not registered nurses. They are graduates of Essondale nursing hospital-psychiatric nurses. They do hold first aid certificates.
I am also aware of the fact that the doctors should be allowed to operate their own practice. It was for this reason I suggested that doctors should be on a 24-hour basis, having three doctors rather than one so that one doctor would be in attendance at all times and yet these doctors would still be able to operate their own practice to supplement their income. It is true that a good doctor is not going to work for the penitentiaries branch at $7,000 per annum when he can make $18,000 to $20,000 in private practice. We are aware of these things, but this does not mean that we can justify the circumstances and nothing should be done about them.
I am aware of the improvement that has been made at Joyceville, but it would take a great many of these little prisons to equal one Kingston penitentiary in which there are 1,200 or 1,500 inmates. It takes a great many of these little institutions like that at Joyceville and at the new farm that is going in

there at Kingston to make up the number of people who are in Kingston penitentiary. As to the matter that was raised and the problem involved in it, maybe the minister did not understand. I did not intend to go into it. I did not want to do so and I am not going to do it now. I think some of the members from British Columbia have been much more interested in it than have I.
However, there is an implication with regard to one of the guards, a man who had served with the minister in the armed services or who had served under him, a man who has had service in many parts of the world under several of the officers who are now members of the House of Commons, and I presume they personally know whether or not he is honest. The implication is that he has been fired or at least has been forced to resign, or says he has been forced to resign, because he went to the minister, went over the heads of the penitentiary branch and particularly the officials in British Columbia. He says that this is why he had to resign.
What the minister indicates is this, and I do not disagree because what he says is borne out by all the information that I have. The minister indicates that he had an investigation into the hospital, that he was unsatisfied with the situation existing and that he corrected this situation. However, we still have this gentleman who appears still to want to work in the penitentiary department and who says he was fired or was forced to resign. He points out some of the disciplinary action that was taken against him because he went to the minister.
I also should like to say that this argument fits in very much with the argument that I was making against the military people who sometimes are involved. I have no disagreement with what was said by the hon. member for Greenwood. I agree that the training in many cases is the best training that could possibly be given. In other cases there is a tendency to follow the book and not to give any consideration to the exceptions that sometimes make up the rule. It is for these reasons that I mentioned this particular case. The minister himself is going to have to justify to himself-because he knows much more about it than does anyone else-if this is so, the reason why this happened.
I am concerned only for this reason. It would mean that if anybody wanted to make any suggestion or wanted to bring to the attention of the minister any malpractice that was taking place he would be immediately, as Mr. Bathford indicates punished in the same way and his dismissal or his resignation would be sought in the same manner. If this is true, I think the minister will 90205-6-386
Supply-Justice
agree with me that it would eliminate part of the protection or control that the whole system would have by having a co-operative staff. I may be tempering all this on something else. I could point out that this happened in a local provincial jail where the situation was very much the same and where eventually an investigation in Ontario into the situation resulted in the firing of a warden and the top executives in that prison. However, it did not get back the jobs of the people who brought this matter to the attention of the attorney general in the first place. Those people are no longer members of the staff of the penitentiary. Although what they said was justified and the results for which they asked came about, they sacrificed themselves as employees in order to accomplish it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is perhaps unfortunate that the hon. member does not put on the record all the other information he has available in connection with this case. It was also given earlier in this House of Commons in answer to questions by the hon. member for Skeena. It is true that the guard in question was one of those who brought to the attention of the authorities and ultimately to my attention directly, through a member of my staff, what he regarded as the unsatisfactory situation with respect to the hospital and medical facilities in British Columbia penitentiary. As I have indicated, that situation was investigated and effective steps were taken to improve the situation. The penitentiary officer in question was not proceeded against or adversely reported upon in any way as a result of the fact that he had brought this information to my attention. In the course of the reorganization of our penitentiary service as a whole the then warden of British Columbia penitentiary was transferred to Saskatchewan penitentiary. When the new warden arrived in British Columbia, in the course of his review of the personnel serving under him, he recommended that an annual salary increase, which had been withheld from the guard in question, should in fact be authorized and be made retroactive. That was the treatment this guard received and it is far from being treatment prejudiced to his situation. The new warden indeed preferred him and went out of his way to recommend that a retroactive adjustment in his favour should be made and that was accomplished and instituted by the new commissioner.
This is far from being suggestive of the fact that the guard was being prejudiced and persecuted because of the initiative he had taken. Some time later however, he himself submitted his resignation. His resignation

Supply-Justice
was accepted and forwarded. He came forward himself later and said that he wanted the opportunity of stating his reasons. He was invited to state his reasons and was informed that, as the regulations provided, they would be forwarded to the commissioner. Afterwards he wrote a letter saying that, under the circumstances, he had decided that he did not wish to submit any reasons for his resignation.
I think it is unfortunate that my hon. friend did not put that information on the record because it is all in his possession. It indicates the very contrary of what he has been trying to establish, namely that this guard was prejudiced and persecuted because he brought information to my attention.


William Arnold Peters: If I had this information-and it is quite possible that it is here-it is because I borrowed a file from someone else. It is therefore possible that the information is here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Skeena has all the information. I have discussed the matter with him personally.


William Arnold Peters: I may have it but the information that I have had an opportunity of looking at is mainly a copy of the script of a broadcast made on March 15 of this year. I think I indicated accurately what was in that particular broadcast. If there is other information available in connection with the matter, certainly the minister has now given it and it is perfectly acceptable to me.


Mr. Hicks:: I have a question that I should like to ask the minister about the new correctional work camp at Agassiz. I am wondering when it is proposed to have this started and when some of the occupants will be there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We expect to be able to move the trailers which are going to serve as the accommodation in there on June 15. As soon as they are established in there the first 20 inmates will be moved in.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
177. Construction, improvements and equipment, $5,850,865.
Gabriel Roberge: This is an item of $5,850,865 plus a supplementary vote of $900,000, that we are going to be asked to vote. Will the minister indicate the percentage of the work done by inmates and of the work done by outsiders? With regard to the latter, is some effort being made to hire unemployed persons through the national employment service?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I could not, without a good deal of research at any rate, break down into percentages the

amount of work that is being done by inmates and the amount being done by contract of the total work represented in this vote. I can say without hesitation, however, that the great majority of it is being done by contract. Generally speaking, wherever work is being done within an institution, within the building already there, it is done with inmate labour. In some cases where work is done on the reserve, with respect even to new buildings, some of it is done by inmates. However, generally speaking, where new construction is concerned it is done by contract. I would say that the great bulk of the work, 80 per cent anyway, represented in this item is contract work.


Murray Lincoln McFarlane: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to wish the minister well in his program. I fully realize that he has a problem which is serious all over the country at the present time and I should like to congratulate him on the progress that has been made.
I should also like to answer the hon. member for Timiskaming. I think if these people want to stay with their families, all they have to do is keep out of trouble.
The hon. member said there are not enough medical practitioners in the penitentiaries. There are many places in British Columbia with 1,500 or 2,000 inhabitants which have no medical practitioners at all, and I think they should be given consideration.
I should like to review under this item the request I have made in the past. First I should like to refer to my remarks in 1958 when I asked for the establishment of a minimum security prison or institution in the Fernie area. I said:
The establishment in Fernie of a penitentiary would have the effect of bringing people into the area and providing the personnel of the penitentiary with an attractive community in which to reside.
The minister's reply at that time was as follows:
We will have to survey the whole available field and, in fairness, I think I must say that when we make a decision it will have to be made in accordance with what seems to be the best program of building that we can devise.
In 1959 I also raised the same question on the floor of the house and at that time I said:
-I should like to add my recommendation to those already made for proposed construction of penitentiaries in western Canada.
In fact, we will be very pleased to receive anything that is available. I said at that time:
At the moment I am not very interested in the type of construction, but I am interested in the location. We have already established a precedent in the establishment and construction of a penitentiary at Springhill.

The minister replied:
When we get the committee's report we shall be able to come to some final conclusion. As I have assured my hon. friend and others who have written me on behalf of Fernie on previous occasions, the suitability of that location will be most carefully investigated.
In 1960 also I raised this same matter and asked approximately the same question. I said:
Ever since being elected to this house in March, 1958 I have been quite interested in the construction of penitentiaries in western Canada. We have placed our views before the department with regard to the need for penitentiaries in British Columbia. We have requested also that serious consideration be given to locating a penitentiary in the city of Fernie.
At that time the minister replied:
-I would remind the committee that we are designing a national system of correctional institutions. The program we are developing will be nation wide and the new institutions, wherever and whenever built, have to fit in with the national plan.
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, we have the request for penitentiaries in other places. I notice that since the trouble with the mines at Springhill-and the situation is very similar in my own constituency-there has been a development in the penitentiary system. I have here an editorial headed:
Good old Elliot Lake.
This editorial appeared in the Fernie Free Press on July 7, 1960:
In another part of this issue will be found a news story from Elliot Lake, Ontario, which is threatened with the closure of some uranium mines. It reads in part: "Plans for a $2 million prison farm and a provincial park development to bolster the economy of this slump-threatened centre were announced-
We have this progress in other places, and we have the same situation in Fernie. I believe that some action should be taken. It has been a year and a half now since the committee submitted its report on this matter; it was submitted a year ago last January. I feel that our committee did a wonderful job on this report and some action should now be forthcoming.
I have not seen the press report myself and I cannot quote it, but I understand the minister made a statement concerning the system of minimum security prisons and forestry camps running from Ontario through to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. We have seen the same thing in British Columbia; minimum security institutions and forestry camps have spread as far as the lower mainland in the Okanagan.
I realize the terrific problem the minister has on his hands at the present time, but I feel that now is the time to make a change in this policy. I do not feel this is a time
90205-6-386i
Supply-Justice
when we should centralize any further. I believe in decentralization all over our provinces.
I have the support of the residents and business people of New Westminster, who have requested that the penitentiary be removed from that area. Yet at this time I find an item in the estimates for an amount pretty close to three quarters of a million dollars- I have not looked at the supplementary estimates-in connection with the penitentiary in New Westminster, in spite of the recommendation that this penitentiary be moved out of that area.
There are several other matters that I think we should discuss at this time. I think we should bring this type of departmental work to various sections of the country. It is apparent to me that we have worked from the east to the west, and we have worked from the west to the east, and those of us who are in the middle are kind of left holding the bag. I am very hopeful that sooner or later the department will realize that British Columbia does not stop at the Okanagan, that the rest of Canada does not stop at Prince Albert, and those of us in the intervening areas should receive some consideration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to disagree and agree with the hon. member for Kootenay East. I cannot agree with his rather unsympathetic approach to the suggestions made by my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming, or his unsympathetic attitude toward the rehabilitation of those unfortunate persons who find themselves in penitentiaries. When I think about these unfortunate people I always say to myself that they are not entirely responsible for their own unfortunate circumstances but are a product of the society in which we live, in many instances. I say, again, under such circumstances no man is an island unto himself.
I do hope that the hon. member for Kootenay East will reread the speech of the hon. member for Timiskaming and, after having slept on it, will be in a little more generous mood toward these unfortunate people.
However, having disagreed with the hon. member on his philosophy of rehabilitation of inmates of penal institutions, I do wish to say that I heartily agree with him and support his request for the consideration of Fernie as a suitable location for the building of a penitentiary. I have some knowledge of the local circumstances. I have received letters from local organizations and local persons and I know that he has stated the case very well indeed. I wish to express my complete support for his effort to put forward the case for the

Supply-J ustice
suitability of Fernie as the location, particularly in view of the economic circumstances which exist in that city, and I hope that because of his great influence with the minister his plea will not be in vain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I should reply to the hon. member for Kootenay East whose interest in and concern about this matter are well known to me. I am sorry that I cannot say at the moment just where in western Canada the new institution will be built but I can say that the interest of the communities out there will be satisfied by an answer which I hope to give this fall. Our plans are advancing rapidly and I am sure that by the time we come to prepare our main estimates this fall, in October or November, I shall be able to include an appropriation for the purpose of purchasing a site for the new institution in western Canada. This will necessarily involve us in making a decision as to where it should be.
We have been aware that the lack of a definite statement is causing concern and uncertainty in those communities which are interested. On the other hand, I hope that members of the committee and the communities themselves will realize that under the scheme of government financing we do not get the money to make such purchases long before the facilities are needed; we have to wait until we are very close to making a purchase before we ask treasury board to approve an item in the estimates in that respect. I would point out that it would also be very dangerous and undesirable if, say, two years before we are going to make a purchase we announce that we planned to build in a certain area. This would have a very definite effect on land values in that area. I know that when the time comes to make a decision in this case I shall make 199 enemies and only one friend, but that is something which falls to the lot of all ministers from time to time. In the meantime, I want to pay tribute to my hon. friend for the skilful and kindly yet persistent way in which he has drawn the interest and facilities of his area to my attention.


Murray Lincoln McFarlane: I should like to express my appreciation to the minister for his explanation of this problem. I realize the difficulty he has and I am sure my constituents feel very much as I do, namely that when the difficulty is finally solved the minister will have found the right answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
Headquarters administration and national police
services-
378. Operation and maintenance, $7,904,906.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is an important item which involves, in all, a sum of nearly $56 million-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think this is the start of the R.C.M.P. items. I did indicate I would be prepared to make a statement at this point. It will not be of any great length, so the hon. member for Kootenay West will not have to defer his remarks very long if he will be good enough to allow me to make it now.
At the outset of our consideration of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimates for the present fiscal year, I should like to take the opportunity to say a few words to this committee about one of the activities or functions of the force which has recently been the subject of some comment. I refer to the security work which has been the responsibility of the force for many years and which has been performed unobtrusively, efficiently and with the least possible interference with the private lives of Canadian citizens.
It is, I am certain, obvious to all members of this committee, as it is to the public of Canada, that a security and intelligence service is necessary in order to preserve national security in the present world situation. This is not something which gives either the government or the members of the R.C.M.P. any pleasure or satisfaction, but it is, in our view, a fact arising from the situation in the world today, and as a result the task of carrying out this work is imposed upon the R.C.M.P. They have not asked for it. They do not particularly relish it, but I do venture to say that they carry it out in a manner which is most satisfactory to the Canadian public. It is not the kind of work which can be carried out without giving rise to misgivings and occasional unpleasant situations, but I think I should remind the committee that one or to unpleasant incidents will attract attention out of all proportion to the relation they bear to the total amount of activity in which the security force is engaged. Of the many thousands of inquiries made it is only a fraction of 1 per cent that gives rise to these difficulties and the publicity which occasionally occurs. I should like also to mention that in the security field the function of the R.C.M.P. is to gather facts and not to pass judgment on those facts. That responsibility rests elsewhere, primarily with the government. Others are responsible for judging the facts and deciding what should be done in view of the facts so reported.
Some of the things I have said are perhaps a little obvious but in view of the comments

I have seen, which suggest a misunderstanding, it might not hurt to repeat them. Obviously a security and intelligence service which does not keep its information secret, confidential and withheld from unauthorized persons is not fulfilling its responsibility. We get criticism on two counts. The R.C.M.P. are criticized because they keep their information confidential and refuse to disclose it. On the other hand there have been criticisms because, it is said, the fact that they are making these investigations known, whereas it should have been kept secret. Any security service must maintain its information absolutely confidential, for the use only of those who are authorized to receive it. It would be unfortunate indeed if the security program were to involve unnecessary interference with the private lives of Canadian citizens. Not only would this be undesirable from the individual's point of view, but it would injure the security program itself by reducing public support for the program, a support that is so necessary.
I am satisfied that I do not need to spend any time reminding members of this committee that there is a need for a security and intelligence service to protect the interest of Canada and Canadians against the efforts of those who are our opponents and who resort to espionage and subversive efforts to pursue and gain their own end. It is because of this that we have a security service. I know also that all hon. members are concerned that our security program should not cause any undue or unnecessary inconvenience to any Canadian citizen. I share this concern and I assure the committee that this matter is receiving and will continue to receive my personal attention as it does that of the commissioner and of all responsible officers of the R.C.M. police.
As I said, we know we cannot give 100 per cent satisfaction in this field. We know that we shall never have the Utopia in which this kind of activity on our part is unnecessary and which will not give rise to occasional concern. We know that the job is necessary. It is being done efficiently and we anticipate that it will have the over-all support of the Canadian people so long as we are scrupulous, as we are, to see that it is carried out with the minimum possible interference with the private lives and concerns of individuals; in other words, as far as it is humanly possible to ensure it, no individual is going to be unjustly prejudiced as a result of the application of this policy on the one hand. On the other it is a responsibility which neither the R.C.M. police, which has always accepted its responsibilities, nor the government, which has the over-all responsibility for the national interests, can avoid.
Supply-Justice


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad indeed that the minister opened the study of this item by saying a few words on security. As a matter of fact, this is the topic that I was concerned with and I should like to make a few remarks on it. There is no doubt that the task of security work is very important indeed, and there is also no doubt in my mind that even if the members of the R.C.M. Police who are engaged in this work are doing their utmost to discharge their duties efficiently, there is room for improvement. This is evidenced, I think, by at least three things. The first one that comes to my mind is, of course, the Biernacki case in Montreal. I do not want to deal with it because it is before the courts.
The other case that comes to mind is in the province of Quebec also and arose in Laval University where two students were under inquiry. The third thing which prompts me to say there is room for improvement is the annual report of the R.C.M. police for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960.
This report shows that only two members of the force were sent on cipher training courses; only nine took language training courses, which would surely be needed for comprehensive security work; three were taking full-time university training last year, and only one graduated in law in 1959-60. Two were studying for an arts degree and 12 members of the force were taking a 1-year non-degree university course.
According to the report, it is a fact that 54 members of the R.C.M. Police were undertaking or about to complete their training in security and intelligence. These figures appear on pages 43 and 44 of the report.
I am also informed, Mr. Chairman, and I have no reason to believe that my information is not correct, that at the present time the basic schooling requirement for entrance into the R.C.M. police is only grade 10. I would think that a much higher grade should be required, especially for the members of the force engaged in security work. I am sure the minister will agree with me that to carry on detective work in this field of security requires a vast knowledge of political theory in order to investigate security matters and also to conduct investigations. Of course, I do not know exactly what kind of course is envisaged in security and intelligence work and I hope the minister will give us some details on that.
I should like to put some questions to the minister which he might answer a little later on. How many constables in the security division have only the minimum entrance requirement of grade 10? How many N.C.O.'s or commissioned officers have only grade 10 education or instruction? At the same time

Supply-Justice
the minister might explain to us why only nine members of the force took language training. Why are only three studying for a full law degree and only two for an arts degree? The minister might also tell the committee, perhaps not in a detailed way, how much it would cost to require every security investigator to have a degree in political and sociological sciences.
I mentioned the case of the two students in Laval University who were investigated. The minister might tell the committee if some matters other than communism are grounds for investigation. I would mention especially some groups in Canada that are advocating that the United States take over Canada, or those who are advocating the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. Are these also the subject of investigation?
These are the remarks that I wanted to put on the record at this time. In answering I hope the minister will let us know what kind of courses are required for security and intelligence investigators and why only those that I have mentioned are studying for degrees in law and the arts?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's remarks with respect to the question of security investigations and I shall deal with that question a little later on. However, before doing so, I wish to express my sincere appreciation of the history, of the traditions, of the record and of the services performed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, sometimes under very difficult circumstances. I must say the force has quite an unusual and difficult service to perform in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I have known a number of the inspectors, officers, N.C.O.'s and men in the force, and have known some for a number of years. I must say they are most patient and most careful in the exercise of their duties, very frustrating and difficult duties at times, to make certain that they carry them out in accord with their traditions and our usual practices.
I am particularly impressed with the community work undertaken by members of the force in the district which I know best, namely the Kootenays. It usually takes the form of three types of activity. First, there is their interest, which is very much appreciated in the smaller communities, in community activities and organizations. I have had a number of people comment on this and I know all these small communities quite well indeed. I think this is a very good example of the excellent training and discipline the force receives because when you have one, two or three members of the force in an isolated detachment it is very easy,

human beings being what they are, not to do more than is required in the line of duty.
The second type of activity is co-operation with local organizations in the recognition of days of national importance. This has been very much appreciated, particularly with respect to remembrance day because in a number of the larger places they put themselves out to help to make the day successful in the proper sense of the word.
Third, there is the work of a number of corporals and constables in connection with youth groups which I think is of particular importance. I am thinking of members of three or four detachments in my constituency who are interested in church work, in scouts and other youth groups, and I find that this is a most valuable activity on the part of members of the force. In the small communities, particularly where the population is not large, these men have an influence out of all proportion to their numbers compared with the personal influence a person can exercise in a very large centre. I have talked to a number of young people in these places and I can say that this work on their part, which is quite beyond the call of their normal duties, is appreciated by the parents and particularly by the boys in question who, because of this contact with members of the force, have a respect for them as representatives of the state interested in the preservation of the rights and privileges that we should all enjoy.
Having said that, I must say that I have been asked to deal with a matter this afternoon that has concerned quite a number of people. I have had a lady visit me as the representative of the council of students at Laval University and have had persons converse with me from Queen's University and from the University of Toronto. This matter has to do with some aspects of the activities of the security section of the force which have been brought to the attention of the public recently through the press. I refer to the same circumstances that were mentioned by the previous speaker.
If I understood the minister correctly, the security force does its best to perform its duties without trespassing upon the rights of citizens, and I think this is generally true. But the parliament of Canada is the place to raise any question that arises when, in the opinion of some persons, there has been a transgression of their human rights and fundamental freedoms. I have promised a number of persons to raise this matter on these estimates, which is the appropriate time.
I want to refer first of all to an article that appeared in La Presse of Montreal on Tuesday, May 23. I had the article translated

by the bureau of translation so I presume it is accurate. It is entitled "Sequel to an Article from Le Carabin; If You Do Not Like the Atom Bomb, Beware the R.C.M.P." The article is written by Jean David. I am going to read it and comment on it as I do so because, as the previous speaker said, I think it indicates clearly that possibly there is some need for improvement and for greater care under particular circumstances. I am quite sure that no member of the house would question the necessity for security forces or that their work is necessary. What we are concerned about is that the security force should carry on according to the traditions of the force and according to the accepted understanding of the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country. I read:
Is a person suspect because he is against nuclear armaments? "We must protect life and property", is the answer you will get from a Mr. Berlinguette. This man is said to be the chief of the counterespionage section of the Quebec detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
That is the answer Mr. Berlinguette gave to two Laval students who came to inquire about an investigation being made of them. An R.C.M.P. constable by the name of Plourde had called them communists" in the presence of a female student whom he was asking to do espionage for the Mounted Police.
I might say that I asked the young lady who came from Quebec city to visit me if this was correct and she said the student council would vouch that this was an accurate report of the circumstances of the case. I come to the next paragraph headed "Origin of the Affair". It reads as follows:
The affair began with the publication of two pages of articles against nuclear weapons in Le Carabin, a students' newspaper at Laval, edition of April 20. The action was taken by the Laval section of the intervarsity campaign for nuclear disarmament. Miss Helene Senecal and Mr. Edward Smith set the pages and wrote a preamble. Among the various texts compiled by the two students are a quotation by Nikita Khrushchev himself, but also testimonies from persons as Catholic as Pope Pius XII and John F. Kennedy. What is more laughable in the context is the inclusion of a short poem by Ezra Pound, who is well known for his fascist sympathies.
One week after this issue of the Carabin appeared, an officer of the Mounted Police by the name of Plourde approached Miss Jacqueline Cyr, a student in pedagogy and guidance as a "friend of the family". Officer Plourde told the girl that he was making an investigation of communism at Laval. When she asked him what was the matter, Plourde talked to her about the intervarsity campaign for nuclear disarmament. He thrust under her nose, the two pages from the Carabin produced by Helene Senecal and Edward Smith.
If that report is accurate it does indicate that there is need for some improvement because it is quite obvious that this officer or constable was not carrying out security work in the proper manner. I continue:
Supply-Justice
Officer Plourde then asked Miss Cyr to join the group and report to him on the activities of the section. He appealed to her patriotism, pointing out that her co-operation would be greatly appreciated by the R.C.M.P. Jacqueline Cyr did not agree to join the game, and what is more, she expressed her support for the I.V.C.N.D., and also attacked Plourde and his methods. Previously, Officer Plourde had questioned her at length about the two persons who were responsible for the pages in the Carabin. She had objected to that interrogation. As he left her, Plourde did not conceal his exasperation.
Meanwhile, a Mr. Jean Marc Bourdet was ostentatiously making an investigation of the two students. Bourdet introduced himself as a counterespionage agent. The mounted police told the students that they did not know that man and also repeated it to us. Irritated by these methods, Helene Senecal and Edward Smith decided to take the bull by the horns. They telephoned the R.C.M.P. and demanded explanations. An officer replied that the R.C.M.P. would get in touch with them. They waited. A week passed. Despite the fact that it was examination time, they telephoned again. Once again an attempt was made to brush them off, but they insisted. Finally they were told that it was not a question that could be settled over the telephone and were asked to report to the headquarters. An appointment was made for them.	.
Therefore on May 8, between two examinations, the two students proceeded to No. 1 Grande Allee east. Miss Senecal asked to speak to the chief of the counter-espionage section. The receptionist replied, "Counter-espionage? We don't have that here." Miss Senecal then replied that they had an appointment with someone in any case. The receptionist asked them to be seated.
This is a report of the interview.
After a few minutes a man came down from the first floor and took them up to his office. On the door were the words "Criminal Investigations". The man never revealed his name or position. However, Helene Senecal deciphered the name Berlinguette which was on a plaque; she could only see the tops of the letters and she had to read them upside down. (Actually, after several calls to the mounted police, Quebec detachment and Montreal detachment, we managed to confirm that there is an officer by that name and that his initials are J. F. We have never been able to learn the initials of officer Plourde, but we were assured that an officer by that name is with the Quebec detachment).
Then followed a strange dialogue. Let us introduce the actors. We have told all we know about officer J. F. Berlinguette. Edward Smith is a young American from Lynn, Massachusetts; he has just completed his 2nd year in social work at Laval. Helene Senecal is the daughter of a well known lawyer on St. James street. After studies at Marianopolis, she went last September to the faculty of social science at Laval.
Officer Berlinguette first congratulated the two students for having come to see him in connection with this affair before he called them. But in a few minutes he told them that he did not know at all what they were talking about.
Berlinguette admitted moreover that Plourde got in touch with Miss Cyr, but cast doubt on the girl's evidence. He denied that Plourde asked Jacqueline Cyr to do spying. Each time he was pressed by the two students, Berlinguette answered something like this: "That little girl got excited and it is very easy to alter the facts." He repeated such a phrase several times.

Supply-J ustice
At one moment the officer told the students that he knew perfectly well they were not communists, that the I.V.C.N.D. is not a commumst organization and added that the mounted police is interested only in "communist infiltration". But although he insisted and repeated that the two students were not the subject of any investigation, he forgot himself later and gave to understand that he knew Smith was an American. Smith asked him how he knew. Berlinguette told him that there are not many English-speaking students at Laval and that he knows them all.
At another moment he said that he had investigated the persons responsible for the two pages in question "because I had orders to investigate". From whom? It is not known.
Later this man who had said a few minutes earlier that there had not been any investigation declared this time with regard to Miss Cyr, "The next time an investigation is made, we will try to find someone more reliable than that".
That is, to spy on her fellow students.
The two young people then pointed out that the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Tommy Douglas, had attacked the mounted police the day before for an investigation it allegedly made of the national committee against the dangers of radioactivity. Berlinguette did not conceal the slight importance he attaches to the C.C.F. leader and suggested that by such a statement he had a political objective in mind. With regard to the national committee against dangers of radioactivity Berlinguette first maintained that the R.C.M.P. has never made an investigation of that organization (it is known that, for example, one of the directors of the Montreal section is Father Jacques Cousi-neau, S.J.). A few minutes later Berlinguette went on to say that if the R.C.M.P. made an investigation of the committee in question it was not because of its communist activities, but because there exists "a danger of communist infiltration in such organizations".
In reply to the students who attacked the methods of the R.C.M.P., officer Berlinguette said, "We must protect life and property." And he went on, "Who knows how many members of the clergy are communists? Who knows how many people in the Conservative party, in the Liberal party are communists."
You will note, Mr. Chairman, he did not mention this little group over here. I mention this report to indicate the ridiculous nature of these comments by a person engaged in security work.
He even added, "We know very well that Jean Lesage is not a communist, but who is to say that there are not some people in his party who are communists?"
Berlinguette also had this to say to Helene Senecal and Edward Smith concerning their fellow students in the I.V.C.N.D. whose ideas the young people said they knew: "But what do you know about that? You did not know them until one or two years ago. What did they do before? Where do they come from?"
The two young people then asked Berlinguette if the R.C.M.P., by such an "investigation" did not wish simply to discredit an organization such as the I.V.C.N.D., by sowing seeds of doubt. Berlinguette did not refute that statement, even though he admitted that there was nothing communistic about the organization. But he stressed the idea of "communist infiltration", and repeated one of his favourite phrases "We must protect life and property".

Closing word: Officer Berlinguette told the two young people, "We have no apologies to make to you."
The interview lasted about three quarters of an hour.
I place this report on record in full to indicate support for the previous hon. member who suggested that some of these people have not the qualifications required to carry out this sort of work with discretion and without offence to people. As I said, I have discussed this question very carefully with the representatives of the students council of Laval University, with a number of people. Members of the faculty of universities and students in a number of cities are concerned. A great number of people are concerned and aroused by this newspaper report which, apparently, is news right across Canada. I am very pleased to know that people are sensitive when they believe the rights of any Canadian citizen in any part of Canada have been trespassed upon.
The previous speaker made some reference to the educational qualifications of the men engaged in this security work. Like him, I have done a bit of research with respect to the report of March 31, 1960. I want to make a few comments in connection with this security work. In my opinion, in so far as security matters are concerned, the job of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is to report the facts about an individual or a movement, not to express an opinion. Does this not in itself require a sophisticated evaluation of words and actions on the part of the person concerned. Then, how can a sophisticated evaluation be made by a person with little or no education in political theory and philosophy? This point was raised by the previous speaker when he said that, according to reports, it appears that entrance into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police requires a grade 10 education.
Now, a man can perform excellent service with a grade 10 education, but in this particular type of work I suggest that a higher educational qualification is required. A constable, I understand, could be given these tasks in connection with security work with a grade 10 education, although I understand that there are many of the investigators who have a better educational minimum than that. According to the latest Royal Canadian Mounted Police report, only three members of the force were taking full time legal training; only two were taking full time arts; only 12 were taking non-degree courses in specific subjects. According to the same report, only nine members of the force were taking languages. I am told, and I have received information in correspondence from persons connected with universities, that

many university people are under the impression that the force is somewhat unsympathetic toward intellectuals in general. I do not necessarily agree with that, but that is an opinion that has been expressed on a number of occasions. The force regards them for some reason or another with some measure of distrust. Under these circumstances, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigate nuclear disarmament groups which do nothing more than support proposals put forward in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In my opinion it is unlikely a communist would openly join such a movement as the ban the bomb movement or other movements of that type. These movements are supported by persons who are seriously concerned with the international situation, with the dangers of nuclear warfare. These movements, on that account, are supported by idealistic young men and women in the universities who, I think, should be given credit for being concerned with these very important questions.
Who are the persons connected with these disarmament movements and ban the bomb movements? They include Mr. Justice Thorson of the Exchequer Court of Canada; Major-General W. H. S. Macklin; Major Harry Pope, M.C., also mentioned in dispatches twice; Rabbi Feinberg; Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, chairman of the British Columbia hydro; Rev. Abbe O'Neil of Laval University; Dr. Jules Gilbert, director general of the Quebec hospital insurance service; Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan; those splendid women who are working in the Voice of Women; church leaders across Canada, a good many church groups and so on; in other words a crosssection of some of the brightest, and the most respected elements in Canadian society.
A good number of people consider that these activities carried on in this way in connection with groups of this sort, and to which I take exception, according to the reports that we have received from these people are inspired by some persons to create a fear of the social disapproval that could occur to those people who join these movements and to prevent people joining and supporting the ban the bomb movements, the Voice of Women and other organizations of that kind, through fear of loss of prestige.
In conclusion, personally and on behalf of the members of this group, on behalf of those persons who have visited me and who have written to me and on behalf of the good Canadians who are associated with these organizations, I wish to protest strongly against this type of activity by the security police, particularly when carried on in this way which shows a lack of training, a lack of discretion and a lack of understanding of
Supply-Justice
the rights and privileges that all Canadians should enjoy. It is completely out of place in a democratic country that professes great respect for the preservation of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and no one is keener on the preservation of those rights than is the Prime Minister.
I contend that we can maintain freedom only by being careful at all times and by making certain that all those who are responsible to the people of Canada practise the principles which we preach and in which we believe.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: I should like to say only a few words on this item.
It is common knowledge that there are a few communist cells that are very active at present in Canada. Everybody knows also that there are many communists, among others Tim Buck, who is the communist leader in Canada and a very active man.
I should like very much to learn from the minister how many investigations were made by the R.C.M.P. last year with regard to communist activity in Canada, as well as the number of communists in our country.
(Text):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I should like to make only a few brief remarks for the purpose of trying to increase the efficiency of the R.C.M.P. in the great north. I am told that the provincial government as well as some other departments of the federal government are now using a very efficient machine called the autoboggan in the north for transportation instead of dog teams. When the investigation is to be made in the north I am told that constables in the far regions of the Arctic are obliged to fly dog teams to particular centres to be investigated and then, of course, they are obliged to fly them back after the investigation is completed. I am told, moreover, that some officials here in Ottawa at the headquarters of the R.C.M.P. are planning to increase their dog teams and especially dog breeding. Since other federal departments are now using the autoboggan, I should like the officials of the department to examine this situation in order to improve the efficiency of the force as well as to save money for the taxpayer.
I have in my hand the report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. At page 45 I note this paragraph:
During the past year there was an increase of 4 sleigh dogs making a total of 269 for use in the north.
I am told that it costs at least $300 a year to feed one of these dogs. Without going any further, I should like to ask the officials of

Supply-Justice
the department to examine this question in order to improve the efficiency of the force in the great north.


Mr. Martel:: I should like to make a few brief remarks before the first item of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is voted and especially to make a suggestion. I will not take very much of the time of the committee. I am referring here to the new regulations that have come into force in recent years with regard to pleasure boats. If I am correctly informed, pleasure boats of a certain capacity require inspection of some kind of control or supervision of their use by the R.C.M.P. In the north country or in the smaller places a difficulty arises, especially in the province of Quebec and possibly also in the province of Ontario where there are fewer R.C.M.P. officers than there are in the western provinces, for instance, where they act in both capacities, as a provincial force and as a federal force. It arises as a result of the fact that some people using pleasure boats are not following the regulations. This matter has been brought to my attention.
In a few instances in my riding some of the pleasure boat users-some of them may be young fellows or maybe we can call them water devils, young fellows who have no experience-use them in a very dangerous manner. I feel that an arrangement should be made between the R.C.M.P. and the local police, either provincial or even municipal. In certain cases this matter could be handled by the local police. The offenders assert that this matter comes under federal jurisdiction. Once they are in the middle of the river they use their boats in an objectionable manner. Some of them even take away the muffler from the motor and make more noise, sometimes within the limits of a city or a small village. They use their boats and they make the claim that once they are on the river water they come under federal jurisdiction.
I should like to make the suggestion that the R.C.M.P. make an arrangement with the local police. I understand that they cannot have officers all over the place for the purpose of checking this situation. I believe the minister has stated in speeches outside the house that we are not a police state. I appreciate this, of course. My object in making this point is not to have the R.C.M.P. prosecute everybody who uses a pleasure boat.
I should like to give an example in support of my argument. In my area of Amos we have only a few R.C.M.P. officers, and this also applies to all northern detachments, probably more particularly in Quebec and Ontario where the R.C.M.P. look after federal matters only. These R.C.M.P. officers do their very 
best in this regard in my area, but in my district they have had numerous other duties to perform, more particularly in recent times. I am sure that in such large areas they cannot be everywhere at once, but perhaps consideration could be given to having these R.C.M.P. officers work with the local municipal police force in enforcing the act. Perhaps this is already in the act but these people are not aware of it. I should like to make this suggestion to the minister.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, whilst the Minister of Justice is making notes and preparing to answer all the comments and questions of various hon. members I hope he will also consider taking a note of something about which I should like to say a few words.
I believe the Minister of Justice owes it to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada to give as concise but as full a report as he possibly can on the story and activity that broke across Canada just over a year ago, I think it was, when as a result of lengthy investigations by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in co-operation with the F.B.I. and the Hong Kong authorities we learned about the conspiracy in connection with the illegal entry into Canada of a great number of Chinese.
If my memory is correct, the Minister of Justice stated once or twice that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had never said how many Chinese they thought were illegally in Canada. Be that as it may, somehow or other the impression got abroad-and it was really played up in the newspapers of Canada- that there were some 11,000 Chinese illegally in Canada. This, without any doubt whatsoever, cast a cloud of suspicion, and I think an unwarranted cloud of suspicion, on the entire Chinese-Canadian community. I know the Minister of Justice would be one of the first to admit that as a race Chinese-Canadians are excellent citizens. It is unfortunate that because of the publicity at the time I have mentioned the majority of these people should have come under suspicion because of the actions of the minority and because of the actions of a group of conspirators bringing into Canada, and through Canada, I understand, into the United States also, persons who were not entitled to be in this country.
As I have said, it is approximately a year ago that this information was made public and since it became such a greatly publicized story across this country. I presume that the investigation has now been carried out, but to the best of my knowledge there has never been any statement made or any information given as to the result of that investigation.
I do know, of course, from reading the newspapers that a few of these people- and I think it is a very few-have been

prosecuted. But what is the situation now? Is there any information as to how many are illegally in Canada? What is being done about them? Are they going to be allowed to stay?
I suppose that may be a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. How far has the department got in this matter? Have they got anywhere, or are they going to get anywhere in finding the master minds behind this conspiracy? Has the ring been completely broken up?
I believe we should have as much information as possible on this matter. I think it is only fair that we should ask for the results, as far as they can be made public, of this now lengthy investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in order that justice may be done to the vast majority of excellent Chinese-Canadians who are in this country legally, who are not involved in any way in this matter and are, as I said, good citizens.
I believe this is an important matter and I raise it because, as the Minister of Justice knows, we have a very large community of Chinese-Canadians in the city of Vancouver. In the constituency of Vancouver Centre and bordering on my own constituency I believe we have one of the largest concentrations of Chinese people in any country of the world outside China. I have in my own constituency quite a large number of Chinese-Canadians. They are excellent citizens, excellent businessmen, and they take an interest in the country and in community work. They do very well in business.
I believe that as far as possible this cloud which was cast upon these people should be dispelled. I know this cloud of suspicion was not cast upon them deliberately or purposely, but nevertheless it was cast on these people because of the situation of which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police became cognizant. That cloud should be dispelled by making public as much factual information as is possible and permissible, and making known the results of the investigation to date. We should be told the situation as it is now, and if the Minister of Justice can tell us, we should know what the situation is contemplated to be in the future. I sincerely hope that the minister, who is in charge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will give us the fullest possible factual report on this matter.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to say anything against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, because I really believe it is the best police corps in the world. I know that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Supply-Justice
force is responsible for bringing to Ottawa a great many people who want to see what the mounted police of Canada look like.
There is only one question I wish to ask.
I know that in the ranks of the R.C.M.P. there are quite a number of bilingual officers, officers who speak both English and French. In Ottawa, especially during the summer months, thousands of people come to see the parliament buildings and the mounties and try to get information from them. I wonder whether it would be possible to employ mounted police around the buildings of parliament who are bilingual, instead of employing those who speak only one language. I think this would be helpful. Those persons who wish to speak either French or English have a right to be answered in that language, especially around the buildings of parliament. After all, the two languages are supposed to be official, at least in the federal field.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, several comments have been made by hon. members regarding the number of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers who are receiving university education and training in language courses, and so on. These comments have been made, generally speaking, in the context of criticism of the methods, if not indeed of the policy, of the police in connection with security inquiries; and by the hon. member for Kootenay West, specifically in relation to the inquiry into certain activities at Laval University.
With respect to the university training program I should point out that the figures shown in this year's estimates as to the number taking that course do not relate to intelligence training as such. We have a proper proportion of persons in the security and intelligence division who have university training. Indeed, we have 20 in the headquarters research group alone who are university graduates. In addition to the provision for university training listed in the estimates, tuition fees are being paid to enable three members of the force to attend the university full-time, for six to attend university extension courses and 12 to attend the one year non-degree course and another 12 members to attend the university full-time in the faculties of law, arts, commerce and business administration. In addition we have one officer on each one of the national defence courses. These are not shown in the estimates because there is no charge made between government departments for them. It must also be borne in mind that although the minimum educational requirement on enlistment in the R.C.M.P. is grade 10 it by no means follows that we have no members joining who have higher qualifications than those of grade 10.

Sup p ly-J ustice
We have our fair proportion of university as well as high school and other graduates of standing considerably in advance of grade 10.
It may be interesting to know that the commissioner has for more than a year had a committee set up to examine this question of university training for members of the force from the point of view or whether, as is the case in some cities in the United States especially, police training courses should be university courses or whether on the other hand the desirable method is to send members of the force into the university. There are chairs in some of the United States universities, I am informed, in police training, particularly courses in criminology, scientific detection and so on. We are studying this. We have not just waited until there has been an outburst in the house. This is a matter of continuing concern, not only the question of the standard of education for recruits but the training which should be offered to members of the force after they have enlisted.
Apart from the university training and the training in the national defence college which members of the forces are receiving there is also, of course, the Canadian police college which is run by the R.C.M.P., to which our own members go and at which members of police forces across Canada and from some other countries also study. I am glad to say that we have the services there of a large number of university professors. So the training of members of the R.C.M.P. does not cease when they join the force. Not only are they trained in police methods but they are trained in research and in individual thinking on subjects not immediately connected with police work.
With respect to this difficult question of inquiries carried out by the security and intelligence branch, I am afraid I cannot at all accept as accurate all the facts contained in the newspaper report from which the hon. member read. I have not had the opportunity to study that particular report and I am not therefore able, even if I should attempt to do so at this stage, to refute it point by point. I must say I am not able to accept as accurate all which was contained therein. However, I do not mean to deny that there was some questioning of the students there. However, I have never heard it said that it was an infraction of a person's rights if he was asked a question. This is a new concept to me. I endeavoured to indicate in the brief statement I made on opening the R.C.M. Police estimates that we do have a communist threat in Canada. I am not stating anything new when I say that. It is our responsibility, then, to keep a constant check on the size, extent and efficiency of the progress being made by the communists.

It is an unfortunate fact that it is a tactic of communism to infiltrate perfectly respectable organizations. I think that most citizens, apart from an understandable irritation when they are questioned or hear of questioning, would appreciate and would be happy that the R.C.M.P., who have the responsibility in this field, are keeping a watch on these activities and endeavouring to ascertain whether and, if so, to what extent, there may have been communist infiltration into perfectly respectable organizations. Let there be no doubt about it, the respectability of the organization or the subject matter with which the organization is concerned is no guarantee against efforts to infiltrate. Thus I really do not think that any apology is necessary for the fact that inquiries have been made. Indeed, I am convinced that an apology would be necessary if we shut our eyes and said: this organization will never be the subject of communist interest so we shall not bother to inquire into it.
The R.C.M.P. is a most admirable force, but not even the R.C.M.P. can get information without asking questions. They are not mind readers. Sometimes I wish they were. I wish they were supermen so that they might know what people are thinking and would not have to ask questions at all. But since they do need to ask questions, they ask them as tactfully as they can and in a manner as convenient as possible to the person from whom they seek to get information.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just before five o'clock, Mr. Chairman-I was asked how many communists there are in Canada. I am not able to answer that question, since it would involve the kind of information which should not come from our own records, but Tim Buck, the leader of the communist party in Canada has said there are 3,000 card carrying members of the community party of Canada.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence.



TRANSPORT ACT


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-33, to amend the Transport Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to move the second reading

of Bill No. C-33, to amend the Transport Act. The proposed amendment is a simple one in its form but is of tremendous importance to the trucking industry and its 90,000 or more employees. It is designed to bring a measure of fairness and justice to the industry by providing for them the same right of appeal under the Transport Act to the Minister of Transport as other carriers have.
This is a position that has been taken by the Conservative party as a matter of principle for some time. When he was in the opposition the Prime Minister spoke very strongly in favour of the amendment that is now being proposed. In saying this I am not saying that other parties are opposed to it. I know there have been many members of all parties who have been favourable to this amendment, and this is really the first opportunity that has conveniently arisen in the house to give consideration to it. I may say that it will also be the first time that recognition of the trucking industry has been given in federal legislation, and I believe that as such it will be an acknowledgement of the great contribution made by this industry and its employees in the field of transportation in Canada and to the welfare of Canadians generally.
The rights of appeal referred to are those in connection with agreed charges of the railway. I want to emphasize in this amendment there is no intention to place the trucking industry in any special or privileged position; nor is it the intention in any way to hamper the railways. It is simply to provide the same rights of appeal under the act as all other carriers have. I would draw to the attention of the house that at the present time the act reads:
Where an agreed charge has been in effect for at least three months
(a)	any carrier or association of carriers, by water or rail, or
(b)	any association or other body representative of the shippers of any locality may complain to the minister that the agreed charge is unjustly discriminatory against a carrier-
And so forth.
The trucking industry, of course, is not covered under that right of appeal. I believe they are the ones most seriously affected under this particular provision, because an agreed charge can have the effect, and often does, of eliminating whole segments of the trucking industry from the competitive field of transportation. I believe it only fair and reasonable that they should have the right to appeal when such a case arises.
Agreed charges do not have to be compensatory to the railroad. Section 32 of the Transport Act says:
Notwithstanding anything in the Railway Act or in this act, a carrier may make such charges for
Transport Act
the transport from one point in Canada to another point in Canada of goods of a shipper as are agreed between the carrier and the shipper.
In other words, it is whatever agreement is arrived at between the carrier and the shipper, and that becomes the rate that is then in force. As I say, that can and does often have the effect of eliminating segments of the trucking industry. Many of the agreed charges specify that 100 per cent of the commodities shipped must go by rail; that truck transport cannot be used at all. Others specify that 95 per cent must go by rail, and so on. I am sure the house will agree that this is a very extraordinary method of rate making and agreement and is one that can have a serious effect on the trucking industry and, by the same token, have a serious effect on the competitive aspects of our transportation system.
This amendment then proposes that any association or other body representative of the motor vehicle operators in Canada or of a province thereof be given the same rights under the act to apply to the minister that other carriers have.
To follow this through I would draw to the attention of the house subsection 4 of section 33 of the Transport Act, which in its language, in my opinion makes it very plain that the trucking industry should be included in this right of appeal because of the very wording of the section. I think it will show quite clearly that it was meant and should have been meant to apply to the trucking industry. The subsection reads:
If the board, after a hearing, finds that the agreed charge is undesirable in the public interest on the ground that it is unjustly discriminatory against any person complaining against it or places his business or any other form of transportation services at an unfair disadvantage or on any other ground, the board may make an order varying or cancelling the agreed charge or such other order as in the circumstances it considers proper.
Now, I think by the words in this clause stating that where it believes any other form of transportation service is at an unfair disadvantage it was intended that it should have the right to appeal under this act.
I am sure the house will want to give speedy consideration to this measure. I do not think I need to go any further into the history of the act. I have spoken on it on many occasions in the house and I have spoken to many hon. members individually. I know there is wide support for the measure and it is my hope that we shall be able to proceed with it through the committee stage today.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am happy once again to find myself in agreement with the hon. member for

Transport Act
Vaneouver-Kingsway. In a matter under discussion in this house, whether it be legislation, estimates or resolutions, it is so easy to find oneself in disagreement with members on the other side of the house. Therefore, I think it is comforting from time to time to see that members do agree either individually or when speaking on behalf of their parties to a bill which comes up in this manner.
In so far as this bill to amend the Transport Act is concerned there is not the slightest difficulty on this side of the house. We will support the bill. Lest anyone from the other side rises to say that when this matter was under discussion under a previous administration a different attitude was taken from that taken by myself at this time perhaps I should give a short explanation.
In the first place I think I should say, and agree with the hon. member who has just spoken, that it is a fact beyond doubt that the trucking industry has made a tremendous contribution to our transportation systems in Canada. That was proven when there was a railway strike some years ago. The trucking industry showed then without any doubt what it was able to accomplish, together with the air industry, in transporting goods from one end of the country to the other. Therefore, on that general statement there can be little or no difference of opinion. The trucking industry is of tremendous importance to the economy of Canada. It has contributed a great deal in the field of transportation.
If one looks at the bill it strikes one at first blush that perhaps there is no necessity for including the amendment which my hon. friend has put forward. But if there is any doubt in the mind of the house or particularly in the mind of the trucking industry, then I see no reason why this amendment should not be included in the act. The section reads:
Where an agreed charge has been in effect for at least three months.
(a)	any carrier, or association of carriers by water or rail,
(b)	any association or other body representative of the shippers of any locality,
may complain to the minister-
It would seem to one at first blush that perhaps this in itself is sufficient to meet the requirements of the hon. member. He thinks it is not and I take it that the trucking industry thinks it is not. If that is the case, I see no reason why the language should not be clarified by adding paragraph (c) which would read as follows:
(c)	any association or other body representative of the motor vehicle operators of Canada or of a province thereof-

They could then complain to the minister in the circumstances set out in the balance of the section.
I come now to a discussion of the matter which took place when I was not a member of the house, not that that makes any difference. At that time my successor, the hon. Mr. Marler, had for consideration in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines certain amendments to section 33. At that time a motion was moved by Mr. Lang-lois and seconded by Mr. Cavers that section 33 be deleted and replaced by a new section including subsection 1 as it now reads in Bill No. C-33 with, of course, certain other additions. Perhaps I might put that subsection on the record. It reads as follows:
33 (1) Where an agreed charge has been in effect for a least three months.
(a)	any carrier or association of carriers, by water or rail, or
(b)	any association or other body representative of the shippers of any locality
may complain to the minister that the agreed charge is unjustly discriminatory against a carrier or a shipper or places his business at an unfair disadvantage, and the minister may, if he is satisfied that in the public interest the complaint should be investigated, refer the complaint to the board for investigation.
I will not read the rest of the amendment which was proposed by Mr. Langlois and seconded by Mr. Cavers. At a later time in the hearings the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) moved an amendment to section 33 to this effect, that after the words "association of carriers by water or rail" the words "or any association of motor vehicle transport operators" be added. That amendment was defeated. Now the hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) brings in another amendment which I think goes further than that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs because it covers a broader field and is, I think, more explanatory.
I do not think I need to explain away the attitude taken by the committee at that time other than to say this. There was a long discussion of the bill, and while this amendment was of importance perhaps the committee did not realize at the time just what the meaning was or again it may well be that the committee thought that the words found in paragraph (b), "any association or other body representative of the shippers of any locality" were sufficiently broad and wide to cover the motor vehicle operators of Canada. Whether or not that is the case I do not know because I was not there. In any event, I have no hesitation in saying that while it may be that the language is sufficient to cover the industry, if the industry feels and if the house feels that it is not sufficiently broad I

cannot see any reason why the broader language should not be accepted. Having said that, I do not think I need add anything further except to say that we on this side of the house will support the bill as proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on only one point with relation to the bill. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) raised a point as to the necessity of the wording in the amendment. I support the amendment because I think this wording is an absolute necessity. The matter has been before the board on occasion and the board has ruled that these carriers do not come under the act. For that reason I think it is absolutely necessary that this wording should be included. Certainly there must be an appeal because the trucking business has grown throughout Canada to such an extent that when an agreed rate is fixed that industry should have the right to make representations where the rate would tend to discriminate against the industry as a whole.
As mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne), it could be that an agreed charge would require total carriage by rail to the exclusion of trucks everywhere, and to my mind this is wrong and discriminatory. On these two grounds I would recommend that the amendment be passed.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in almost the same position as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). When we in this group first read the amendment and checked it against the original section we were definitely of the opinion that the present wording was sufficient to meet what the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) has in mind. I think it is easily understood why that was our opinion. As hon. members know, the wording in the existing section is that any association or other body representative of the shippers of any locality may complain. Logically we took that to mean that the trucking industry was a shipper. What else can the trucking industry be if it is not a shipper just the same as the railways and water carriers are? We do not see why that is not the correct interpretation but if it is felt that it is necessary to make it absolutely clear that the trucking industry is a shipper and is entitled to the same right to complain if it feels that it is being unjustly discriminated against, then most certainly we have no objection to what is sought to be done through the medium of the bill.
It must be recognized, of course, that this amendment will in no way whatsoever solve
Transport Act
the problems or resolve the complexities of the transportation industry in Canada which is made up of the truckers, the water carriers, the railroads and the air carriers. It is almost inevitable that there will be competition between them. If I may say so, it does seem a little amusing and paradoxical that those who so heartily and enthusiastically endorse competition do not like it when it happens to affect a particular individual or company or industry in which they are interested. Whether it is just or unjust, it is still competition. However, irrespective of that, we have the rather amazing and paradoxical situation that when the competition gets tough they want to eliminate the competition. I say that as long as we do have this system it does seem obvious that discriminatory action should not be permitted in order to maintain this transportation industry.
As has already been pointed out, the trucking industry is an important and integral part of the transportation industry of our country. I should like to add to the words of the hon. member for Laurier by saying that the people of this country would have been in a most difficult position on more than one occasion if it had not been for the trucking industry. I refer not only to a situation which occurs during a rail strike but also to situations which arise as the result of the abandonment of lines by the railways or a curtailment of service. This has happened in British Columbia on the Kettle valley line. We would be in a difficult position there if it were not for the trucking industry. There is a daily movement by means of refrigerated trucks of the vegetables, hard and soft fruits for which the consumers are waiting.
We say, therefore, that basically we see no objection to this amendment. I have already said that, irrespective of the economics of the situation, if there is one phase of the transportation industry which is subjected to unjust discrimination based on the completely unfair competition of a rate which may have been set at an unprofitable level, then surely that segment of the industry has a right to object. As I say, Mr. Speaker, in view of these circumstances this amending bill which has been moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway will most certainly receive the endorsation and support of this group.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the present bill is similar to bills introduced in previous sessions by the hon. member. On previous occasions the attitude of the government has been that we should wait for the report of the royal commission on transportation before we acquiesced to the passage of the bill or before taking a definite attitude toward the bill. At

Transport Act
the moment we have received the first part of the MacPherson commission report, and I am expressing the opinion of the government at the moment when I say that this bill will not interfere with any of the recommendations that commission has brought forward so far. I am very pleased to say, in the name of the government, that we intend to ask every member in this house to support this bill.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is a bit unusual, but I should like to say, first of all, that this bill is a recognition of the great services the trucking industry has rendered to the Canadian people on a day to day basis. This bill, to some people, might not represent a tremendous change. On the other hand, as the hon. member said earlier, it represents the first time that the trucking industry has been recognized in a federal statute. I want to congratulate the hon. member upon his presentation of the bill and for the keen interest he has always taken in transportation questions, both here in the house and in the various committees.
The other day the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) paid tribute to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway for the deep knowledge he exhibited of the very complicated question of freight rates. There is no doubt that freight rates have become exceedingly complicated with the passage of time, and anyone who discusses these matters with a profound knowledge must have worked tremendously hard to digest all this information. I want to congratulate the hon. member upon the very clear explanation he made in presenting his bill and the recognition he has brought to the trucking industry of Canada.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting, with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and two of my colleagues, a group representing the trucking association of Canada. We discussed, for about an hour and a half, the various problems of the trucking industry and I must say it was an extremely interesting meeting. We might not, at all times, have seen eye to eye on the various problems they were bringing before us, but I can assure the house that the representations they made to us will receive most serious consideration. I appeal to the whole house to support this bill. I should like to say also, in the name of the government, that if the mover of this bill desires, and the house is willing, the government will consent to all three stages of the bill being passed today.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to say anything in opposition to this bill but I do feel I should say something about it, perhaps merely to give the hon. member a difficult time in

deciding whether or not this bill will go through today. There is only a half hour more to go. I am not unmindful of his lack of co-operation in connection with some other private bills. It might be advisable to show him that co-operation is necessary and is advantageous. It might be wise, in order to do so, to make my comments a little more extensive than the size of the bill would justify or dictate.


Mr. Brunsden:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is introducing extraneous matters which have nothing to do with this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will say that I agree. However, I thought that the hon. member had just completed these extraneous matters.


William Arnold Peters: I have just completed them, Mr. Speaker. We are in agreement with this bill. We do not intend to pursue a course that I outlined might be contemplated. However, it is surprising that the government see fit to accept these modifications in this way and that we are not now presented with a complete modification of the Transport Act itself. I presume-and I agree with the minister and sympathize with him-that this procedure is not going to be possible until the final report of the commission making studies in this field is completed. Therefore, because the trucking industry has grown in prominence and its needs are not being met according to the interests of the trucking industry itself and because they will be better served through this amendment, I am in agreement with the course the minister has suggested and would be willing to give the bill three readings today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On -clause 1-Complaints.
(Translation):
Jean-Jacques Martel: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few remarks to make on the bill now before the committee. First I should like to associate myself with the hon. members who spoke before me to commend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) for introducing this measure.
I hope this amendment to the Transport Act will be completely satisfactory to the trucking industry in Canada.
Indeed, I know that representations to the same effect were made last year by the Quebec trucking association. Last faff, I had

occasion to accompany a delegation which paid a visit to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) to submit a brief. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was also invited to accompany the delegation. I must say, incidentally, that he is quite popular among the truckers of the province of Quebec who had the opportunity to meet him and to tell him they fully supported Bill No. C-33 which we are on the point of passing.
It gives me pleasure to say that I entirely support this measure. My only reservation would be that it should in no way interfere with the rights of the provinces. At any rate, paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 33, which is the amendment put forward by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, contains these words:
-or of a province thereof.
Therefore, representations may be made both to the Minister of Transport and to the board of transport commissioners, either by the provinces or by the various trucking associations interested in protesting those agreed charges which have so often been discussed in the past. I hope this measure will ensure fair treatment to the trucking industry.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Ferguson Browne: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Trading stamps).-Mr. Howard.
An hon. Member:: Stand.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this bill be allowed to stand. It is rather unusual for a member of the government to ask that the bill of an opposition member be allowed to stand. However, in view of the circumstances I am doing so. The hon. member who is the sponsor of this bill is at the present time on an official delegation in Washington. For this reason I would ask permission of the house for this bill to stand.
Exchequer Court


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order stands.



EXCHEQUER COURT


William Arnold Peters: the second reading of Bill No. C-35, respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had not thought that this bill would be discussed today. We were rather hopeful that, before it was reached, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) would have given some indication that this was an acceptable procedure to which the government was giving some consideration. In introducing this bill may I say that it is one that has been suggested by other people before I came to parliament and that since my arrival it has been presented by me several times. It is a bill which would, in a manner, solve the problem confronting the House of Commons, the Senate and the people of the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. It would provide a court procedure by means of which to handle divorce actions from both the province of Newfoundland and the province of Quebec.
In connection with the use of the petition method where the petitioner petitions the federal government for a divorce one of the problems we face at the present time is this. Although there is not any question that the parliament of Canada is the highest federal court, we as a federal court have not the machinery, the rules or the regulations by means of which to handle in a satisfactory manner actions of this type. At the present time the Senate is serving this function and a review takes place in the House of Commons. Over the years this method has been proved to be a highly unsatisfactory one. The reason for suggesting the exchequer court that has a correlation between the lower fact that the exchequer court is a federal court. It has an advantage that we are not suggesting in this bill be used. However, it has an advantage that the exchequer court can move from place to place and therefore it could at any time be closer to the petitioners-at that time I suppose they would be the plaintiffs-than is the adjudicating body under the present system. It also is a court that has correlation between the lower superior courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, something that makes it possible that the one court can inquire into those abuses that sometimes take place. At the present time we find that one of the abuses is perjury. This is indicated by some of the evidence and declarations that are made before the

Exchequer Court
members of the committee. There are also false statements made in some of the divorce petitions. These matters are brought to
the attention of the house and the Minister of Justice by members of the committee.
This has been found to be unsatisfactory because the Minister of Justice does not act in the position of proctor for the Senate and the House of Commons. The minister has to operate within his own limited jurisdiction as the Attorney General of Canada, and for this reason this method has been found to be highly unsatisfactory.
The exchequer court has the advantage that its jurisdiction can be extended. Judges of the exchequer court could be empowered to handle cases sent to them from this parliament. It is not necessary to have a higher court than the exchequer court. It is well recognized that at the present time the exchequer court handles financial problems in the main. It handles appeals in financial cases. Its jurisdiction in the main is in the field of finance, but we believe that two or three judges could be attached to the exchequer court and a clause put in the appropriate act which would empower exchequer court judges, for a particular, specified length of time, to meet only in the city of Ottawa and hear divorce actions.
They should not have the right to hear divorce actions in the provinces of Quebec or Newfoundland. The ultimate aim, of course, is for the provincial governments to assume jurisdiction over divorce. However, we know there are reasons why the province of Quebec does not want to set up divorce courts. Other provinces have other reasons, The province of Ontario set up divorce courts by petitioning the federal government for the right to do so not too long ago.
The province of Quebec does not want divorce courts, and we can understand why that is so. Within our federal jurisdiction we have the divorce act of 1930 governing divorce procedures. This act was given to Canada through the British North America Act and is included as one of the commitments in that act for which the federal government has responsibility. Therefore if these provinces do not wish to assume the responsibility of having their own divorce courts, we have the obligation to do something about it. It seems to me there could be little objection to a federal court being established for this purpose. The matter of divorce thus could be handled in a much more satisfactory manner. Divorce actions should be included in the jurisdiction of the exchequer court. Hon. members will be familiar with the statements 
made by the Minister of Justice only recently. The minister said he would consider having the exchequer court assume this responsibility.
It should be borne in mind that this would not solve all the problems that have been raised over the past year or two. If the exchequer court were given jurisdiction over divorce this would not mean that court would have the right to award custody of children, which is at the present and will remain the sole responsibility of the provincial government. The exchequer court would not have the right to decide the question of alimony or maintenance for the children. If this jurisdiction were given to the exchequer court it would not carry with it the right to interfere with the licensing of agencies that are concerned at the present time and will continue to be concerned with divorce procedures. These changes cannot and will not be eliminated by any intervention on the part of the federal government in the field of changing the jurisdiction of divorce for the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec.
Another problem that will remain is a matter which affects provincial governments entirely. I refer to the matter of the licensing of bailiffs and other officials who are involved in divorce actions. The Senate has made changes in its procedure. It has a set of rules under which it operates. These rules are similar to those under which the courts operate. The Senate has set up the grounds for divorce in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and it has now stipulated that there must be an affidavit of sorts signed by the party concerned and returned to the Senate indicating that the respondent and the corespondent have been notified of the action against them, and have been notified of their right to a hearing in the action.
However, this procedure just does not work and it will not work even if the act is changed so that jurisdiction is given to the exchequer court. I say this will not work because in the province of Quebec we find that many of these petitions contain false statements. Petitions contain evidence that a bailiff has gone to a particular house, a particular party has made a statement and the bailiff has received from him a signature to a statement saying that he is the party involved; it is his name that is being used either as that of the respondent or corespondent. Yet when we write letters to these people and later have a tracer put on them we find that in many cases there is no such address. In fact, in 30 cases out of 240 divorce actions we found there were no such addresses in the city of Montreal. We found that the addresses physically

just did not exist. Yet we have a bailiff swearing a document to the effect that the address does exist, and producing a signature which he testifies is the signature of the person whose name appears as that of either the corespondent or respondent. When tracers are carried out by the post office, they confirm that these addresses do not exist and, as I have said, we have had 30 such instances where the address has been false.
This is another of the malpractices that flows from the problem of split jurisdiction under which we operate and under which it appears we may operate for sometime to come. There are advantages in establishing this jurisdiction in the exchequer court. This method would have more advantages than any we have investigated to date.
As I have said, the ideal and the final solution to the problem would be for these provinces to come to parliament and ask by petition to be given the right to set up their own divorce courts and handle divorce actions in their own way. In this way they would be able to assume the responsibility for the custody of the children, for the maintenance of those children, for alimony payments and for the legal operation of the court.
The exchequer court has some of the powers necessary for the judicial operation of a divorce court. There are officers attached to the exchequer court who are in a position to take affidavits and make investigations. It is not unreasonable to expect that if this action is taken by the house-perhaps not today but some time in the near future-the exchequer court would have the power to ask for and to use the services of the Queen's proctor. The Queen's proctor would be able to do the job which the hon. member for Skeena and myself have been trying to do in our own very limited way. I refer to investigating the offences that are taking place under the procedure which is now in effect. The hon. member and myself have done this in all the cases that have passed through the Senate to date.
We have written to every corespondent and every respondent. Hon. members of the house would be very interested in seeing some of the replies we have received. Our reason for writing to these people is only to see whether they knew they had been named in the particular case; whether they knew they were being divorced, on the one hand, or knew, on the other hand, that they were involved in the divorce and adultery charges that had been made.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit a question? We have listened to this debate over many hours, over many years. Exactly what does he want?
Exchequer Court


An hon. Member:: What is your question?


William Arnold Peters: I do not know what the question is. I could probably answer it by saying that if we had not been in such a hurry with the previous bill we should not be discussing this at all this afternoon. We are offering a solution to this particular problem of divorce which has plagued Canada since the passing of the British North America Act. I am sure that if Sir John A. Macdonald had known the problems which were going to arise he would not have placed upon the federal government the responsibility for divorce as it exists at present. He would have given it to the provinces in the first place. However, this responsibility does now rest upon the dominion government under the terms of that act and we are suggesting that the least objectionable way of discharging it would be to delegate it to the exchequer court. I have sat in on the procedures being used at the present time and I am sure many of the legal people involved have cause to wonder at the system which we adopt. Some hon. gentlemen, with the best of intentions, will get up and ask questions which bear no relation to the establishment of the adultery charge which should be the only ground for the divorce as at present constituted. I am sure many of the lawyers would be happy to see the whole question brought within the jurisdiction of a court which would function and operate in the manner of a court.
If we brought these cases into the exchequer court we would enable those who seek fundamental justice to have the right of appeal. Appeals could be taken to the supreme court and at least one of the difficulties now being experienced would be eliminated. We in parliament have no right to marry people. If we were to act as an appeal court-if we looked back over one of these cases and found that the evidence was a lie and that we had been completely deceived, and then decided that the petition should be rescinded instead of granted-we should in effect, be remarrying people who had been divorced, and that would be an impossibility.
It is almost six o'clock. I think there should be more time to discuss this important matter but we are not too concerned, because the minister has said he is giving consideration to it. I really believe that the Minister of Justice should bring in this bill rather than myself. The measure does not establish a divorce court which would operate in the province of Quebec. It does no more than make available to the citizens of Quebec a proper court procedure which is not available to them at the present time.

Business of the House


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I wish the hon. member had proceeded with his argument. It was most interesting, and in another three or four minutes he might have succeeded in convincing members of the house that they should support this bill. In the limited time I have available may I say that I have every sympathy with the objectives he has in mind in commending this bill. I have sat on the committee which deals with these divorce cases. I think there are other things we could more usefully be employed in doing, and I do not like the methods used in it. However, may I put one or two suggestions to the hon. member, and when the bill again comes forward for discussion he may be able to make use of some of them.
The exchequer court is composed of judges who deal with a specialized type of work- patent, copyright and similar matters arising out of legislation in this field-cases where the crown is involved. They have built up specialized skill and knowledge and I should hardly think that the learned judges of the exchequer court would be the proper people to whom we should allocate responsibility for settling these divorce cases. May I also point out that there is no provision for appeal in respect of divorce cases from decisions of the exchequer court as now constituted. People who resorted to it and wished to appeal would have no machinery available to them.
Third, may I say I do not like the limited ground for divorce which the hon. member has set out in this bill, a ground confined to adultery, having in mind the wider grounds which are now generally accepted and which form the basis of the United Kingdom law.
May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps the leader of the house would tell us the business for tomorrow and next week.


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow I think the house would like to complete the estimates of the Department of Justice in the morning before one o'clock. We spent two days on those estimates last year and already this year we have spent four days. However, the estimates of the Department of Justice will be taken first tomorrow followed by those of the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Forestry.
On Monday and Tuesday we shall consider legislation and unless some unexpected circumstance arises we shall take the items in the following order: the first on Monday will be Bill No. C-98, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act; the second item will be Bill No. C-100 to provide for the control of narcotic drugs; the third will be Bill No. C-105, an act respecting penitentiaries; the fourth will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture dealing with the Farm Credit Act, the fifth item will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with the Export Credits Insurance Act and the sixth the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Financial Administration Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister in a position to tell us what estimates we shall be taking next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not today. Perhaps I shall be able to inform the house tomorrow with regard to that. There are certain departments we have not touched yet-the Department of National Defence, defence production, health and welfare, public works and some others. I shall try to give the house some advance notice tomorrow with regard to the estimates that will be taken up next week.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.