1963-12-13

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I will state my question of privilege, I will read a letter to substantiate that statement, and move a motion. For several months we have been told by ministers of the crown that the series of increases in the price of sugar has been due entirely to the rise in world prices and has not been due to any undue profiteering by the sugar companies of Canada. I have in my hand a letter from the British Columbia Sugar Refining Company dated November 29 and signed by the president. It says:
Due to the higher prices for sugar that prevailed through most of the past financial year, the profits of the over-all company have proven to be greater than normal. Under these circumstances, the directors of the company have decided that a special bonus be paid to all permanent employees.
The amount of each individual bonus has been determined by a formula which takes into account the length of service of each employee. Your bonus cheque is enclosed with this letter.
I wish to point out that this payment does not establish a precedent as it is being made as a result of most unusual circumstances that may not again arise in future years. It is hoped that it will be accepted in recognition of your years of service through both poor and good years.
The company has no wish to receive any publicity from making this payment and I would be obliged if each of you would keep it as confidential as possible.
Yours very truly,
Forrest Rogers, president.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fort Arthur:
That in the opinion of this house the government should investigate the excessive profits made by the sugar companies of Canada due to the price increases imposed in 1963.


Mr. Speaker:: Once more I have to decide whether there is or is not a good question of privilege. It seems to me, after due consideration, that the motion I have in my hand is a grievance in the nature of a substantive motion which, of course, requires notice. In view of the fact that the estimates of the Department of Justice should be up for discussion this afternoon I do not believe there is a bona fide question of privilege at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder if the house would give unanimous consent to considering this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Perhaps I might just say a word about that. There is one great difficulty about this matter. This is a subject which could quite properly be discussed today when, as Your Honour has indicated, the estimates are considered, and it does seem to me that to have some other procedure intervening, particularly in view of the ruling of the Chair, would be to follow a particularly unusual course.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, I would point out that to discuss this matter on the estimates of the Minister of Justice would not give the house an opportunity to express an opinion. Moreover, this subject covers a wider field than the item in the estimates of the Department of Justice. However, having regard to the objection expressed by the Secretary of State, I will accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you put this motion I wonder if I could say a word. The motion has to do, of course, with a salaries bill. I think there was agreement through the usual channels that when this particular motion came up we would do what we did with certain other motions about a week ago, namely that we would consider this matter as soon as orders of the day were reached and that by agreement Your Honour would leave the chair and the matter would be disposed of without debate so that the bill would be available for debate on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the procedure suggested by the Secretary of State is acceptable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (for the Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee later this day to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:

Inquiries of the Ministry
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Grain Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Income Tax Act, the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Railway Act, the Salaries Act and the Tariff Board Act with respect to the salaries of certain public officials.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I want to make reference to a statement that has appeared in a newspaper, as a foundation for the question I am about to ask. The statement is to the effect that at the time the Coffin case came before the cabinet the advice of the then prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, tendered to the then governor general of Canada, Right Hon. Vincent Massey, was followed by argument but that a constitutional crisis was averted. The report states that Mr. Massey did not want to sign the order to carry out the sentence of the court, and that he was only induced to do so by the eloquence and judicial wisdom of the prime minister of that day. It is stated that the story is based on a reliable source.
I ask the Minister of Justice this question. Is it not correct that under no circumstances does anyone reveal what passes between a prime minister and the governor general of Canada, and that the attitude taken by a governor general is never made public? If that be so, is the minister looking into the question of who this reliable source was or is?


An hon. Member:: Peter Newman.


John George Diefenbaker: I was speaking of a reliable source. This is a serious constitutional breach, and it certainly should be looked into.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition prefaced his question with a fairly long statement, and then asked a question which I think should have been put and should be answered. I need hardly say that when I listened to the news this morning I was very disturbed by the statement. Let me say, incidentally, that I considered the question of the right hon. gentleman very serious, notwithstanding the fact that perhaps it was not so considered by hon. members on the other bide of the house.
	'	'WTFS


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Lambert:: Nonsense.


Lionel Chevrier: I considered it so serious that I decided to call up Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, the former prime minister, and since the conversation with him was in French I should like to put it on Hansard in that language.

Mr. St. Laurent, to whom I spoke this morning, tells me that this story is ridiculous, that he did not see the governor general about that matter and that he did not intervene in any manner whatsoever.

I also took it upon myself to communicate with the former governor general, Mr. Massey, who told me he had received a number of inquiries from the press to all of which he had stated the following, that the principle in these matters is quite clear; the government of the day is responsible for its decisions and the governor general, under our system, acts on their advice.
Since I am on the subject I should like to remind the house that after the Coffin appeal had been dismissed unanimously by the Quebec court of appeal and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused, a reference was made by the governor in council to the Supreme Court of Canada under section 55 of the Supreme Court of Canada Act. The terms of reference were as follows:
If the application made by Wilbert Coffin for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada had been granted on any of the grounds alleged in the said application, what disposition of the appeal would now be made by the court?
The Supreme Court of Canada refused to intervene in the decision.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the division of the court?


Lionel Chevrier: The division of the court was five against intervening and two who dissented from that view.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: In view of the statements that are being made day by day regarding this whole incident, may I again ask the minister to reconsider his refusal to appoint a royal commission to look into this incredible series of disclosures?


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to that question, Mr. Speaker, which the hon. member has posed on more than one occasion, I may say I have inquired from the officers of the department on the question whether the sentence should have been commuted or allowed to take its course. I find that it was painstakingly investigated and considered in the Department of Justice and the cabinet

in the ordinary way before a recommendation was made to the governor in council. The record does not, of course, disclose the considerations that moved the cabinet to its recommendation. That confirms what the former prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, said with reference to the fact that there could be in his mind no question of matters of this nature being divulged in any way whatsoever, and I am convinced they were not.
However, I can say that the file indicates that representations were made to the department prior to consideration of the commutation issue, upon alleged new evidence relating to several of the matters now being raised, including the source of money spent by Coffin after the date of the murder, a rifle allegedly seen in Coffin's truck, other Americans in jeeps alleged to have been in the vicinity, and jeep tracks at the scene of the crime.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the latter part of the minister's statement, namely that these various matters were considered, does he not feel that in the public interest the suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Danforth should be considered? This kind of thing is very difficult. I am not here trying to do anything to embarrass the minister. This is one of the most difficult problems a government faces; in view of the discussion that has been aroused and the books that have been written, would the minister, even if he did not appoint a royal commission, appoint a group of people to go into this matter? The administration of justice in connection with commutations is a heavy responsibility as it rests on the minister, and everything should be done to reassure the public that no miscarriage of justice took place.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree fully that nothing should be done in any department, more particularly the Department of Justice, which would lead to a miscarriage of justice, but I have to say at once that the moment these questions were raised, officers of the Department of Justice gave and are still giving consideration to them. They are, as I indicated earlier, reading the book. My right hon. friend shakes his head, but all this has arisen because of the book that has been written, and I am sure the book must be read and considered in the light of the information which is in the files of the Department of Justice.
What I want to say in answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition is that until I have a report from them-and at this moment I must say I am not satisfied that there is cause for further action on the part of the government-none the less I am
Inquiries of the Ministry not closing the door to an investigation, and the director who is in charge of the criminal law section of the Department of Justice, together with several of the officers of the department, are devoting their time to a consideration of this matter.


Reid Scott: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that the controversy surrounding this matter is seriously calling into question the faith of a good many people in the whole administration of justice, would the minister urge the officials to hurry up their reading of the book so we could get a statement on Monday?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this matter is so serious that it should not be considered by way of hurry up proceedings, and I think the time that should be taken to consider this will certainly be time well spent. While I cannot add any more to what I have said, in view of the remarks that were made on the radio I will be prepared, as time goes on, to report to the house on the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister if he would consider having some independent individual or group of persons make this survey, rather than officials who may feel that the reputation of the department is at stake and may consequently be somewhat prejudiced in their decisions?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think my answer to that question has been given already, namely that I am awaiting a report, and once I get the report I will be glad to look into the matter.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question.
Since the government of the province of Quebec approved yesterday a loan of $1,100,000 to grant a first contract for the construction of the Three Rivers bridge, can the Minister of Transport say today that the government will not cancel the order in council passed by the former government about that matter?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member that information.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important for the minister to reassure the house and the public in regard to this matter. I would like to ask another question of the minister. Is he aware that the provincial government had a cabinet meeting yesterday on this matter; that the minister of highways said the figure of $62 million quoted by the minister was simply ridiculous, and that the provincial government had given permission to the bridge corporation to go ahead whatever the decision of the federal government? I think it is extremely important that the minister should take his responsibility.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been trying to take his responsibility in this very important matter. The situation is that the province has jurisdiction over roads and the federal government has the responsibility for the St. Lawrence waterway. The difficulty in this matter is receiving careful attention. I am not aware of all the assertions made in the hon. member's question, but I did see a newspaper item indicating that a contract for some of the preliminary construction was going to be let. I have no more information on that point than is contained in the news item.
It is perfectly obvious to anyone familiar with the situation that a crossing of the river in that general area is very much needed and wholly desirable; but it is also equally important to this country that the government should not stand idly by if in fact the reports are to the effect that the construction and location of the piers in the way proposed will materially affect shipping in the St. Lawrence system, and in addition damage the harbour of Three Rivers, which has a very good record as a harbour and one of which I am sure the hon. member who asked me the question would be very proud.
I therefore feel that the matter has to be treated responsibly and not in the way indicated by the question. At the moment I can tell my hon. friend that my latest information is that the provincial government is having hydraulic engineers study the effects of the piers on navigation on the St. Lawrence, and concurrently there is communication going on between the bridge company and the Department of Transport on the engineering matters involved.


Léon Balcer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the hydraulic engineers of the provincial government reported to that government, and that it was following this report that the provincial government made its decision yesterday? The minister of highways is the one who said that after consulting those engineers it was

decided that the figure of $62 million was ridiculous. What I am afraid of is that the minister will give his permission after the bridge is built.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the minister has further information to give, it seems to me we have discussed this matter at considerable length and the minister has given all the information he could reasonably be expected to give at this time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the last part of the statement made by the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: -by the hon. member for Three Rivers requires an answer. The difference with this minister is that he does pay attention to competent engineers' reports when he sees them and tries to act responsibly.


Norman Platt Lambert: Order.


Mr. Clement Vincenl (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question?
Did he get recently a written communication from the premier of Quebec in this regard?
tText]


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. member correctly he ueed the adjective "recent" communication. The answer is no.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that he said to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) that he had not received any letter from the premier of the province of Quebec, regarding the Three Rivers bridge could he tell the house whether he has received any communication from the premier of the province of Quebec or from another minister of that province on that matter?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I did discuss this matter with the premier of Quebec on a personal visit. I did not say that there had been no written communications; I said there had been no recent written communications.


John George Diefenbaker: No, you did not. [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Can he tell whether that discussion contributed to hasten the hon. member for Three Rivers' project?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. I hope it will bring about a proper solution of the difficulties in a way which will serve the interests both of the people in the communities adjacent thereto who require the bridge facility and of the people in Canada who require the shipping facility in order to keep the economy of this country operating at a high level.


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Does he think that a bridge will be built in the area of Three Rivers in the near future? [Text]


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the provincial government's responsibility, it is not the responsibility of the federal government; but I hope a bridge or tunnel will be built there in the near future.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE    MEETING WITH MANITOBA DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of Transport which he can answer in his customary short way. Has a meeting been arranged for next week between representatives of Manitoba and the government concerning the T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg; and if so, can the minister give me the time, date and place?
Hen. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the final arrangements were made in my absence and I was not told about it yesterday. I would like to check into the matter further.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was not an arrangement made weeks ago for such a meeting next Tuesday, and is not the Manitoba delegation coming?


George James McIlraith: There was a proposal for such a meeting, but I believe it was never made final.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Transport consult the Prime Minister and ascertain whether this matter was discussed at the last federal-provincial conference?


George James McIlraith: I am quite aware, Mr. Speaker, of some discussions with regard to this matter, but I was asked whether a meeting had been arranged.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question has already been put.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT RESPECTING QUEBEC CRIME RATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It arises from a statement by Mr. McGregor, president of Trans-Canada Air Lines-Air Canada, reported in this morning's paper, which quotes him as saying that Quebec is already free and that there are more hold-ups there than anywhere else. Does the minister not think this is an insult to the province of Quebec and, if so, does he not. think that it is time Mr. McGregor shut up-[DOT]-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: I have asked the minister a question and would like his opinion in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not want to say this at this stage, but I will now. In my opinion that question is completely out of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Then I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As a member of parliament coming from the province of Quebec, and also on behalf of members from the province of Quebec in all parties in this house, we should feel insulted by the remarks made yesterday by Mr. McGregor about Quebec having the most hold-ups in this country. I question this statement. As a member of this house coming from the province of Quebec my question of privilege is that the Minister of Transport should ask the president of T.C.A. either to shut up and stop making these foolish statements or get out of his position. [Later:]


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Could the minister tell the house whether it is stipulated in the Criminal Code that a province where there are more armed robberies has more freedom and independence?

Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR RETRACTION OF STATEMENTS BY PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question in French for the Minister of Transport.

Bearing in mind the general consternation brought about by the answer the minister gave in the house yesterday concerning Mr. McGregor's statement about the Caravelle, does the hon. gentleman intend to tell us clearly whether he approves Mr. McGregor's remarks?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no point of order. I think the minister is quite right in not answering.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temiscamingue):: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Speaker said there was no point of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am raising a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it is up to all hon. members to use a little discretion with regard to this very touchy racial and linguistic subject. I do think we should have a sense of responsibility.


Paul Raymond Martineau: That is precisely the reason I am raising this point of order. Yesterday the Minister of Transport stated in answer to a question, as found on page 5746 of Hansard:
The government has no intention of forcing Mr. McGregor to retract any statement he made. As far as I know, he made no inaccurate statement.
A little later in answer to a further question on the same subject he stated:
Perhaps I should look at the answer and the question and see if my answer was sufficiently complete-*
Because of that statement and because of the circumstance to which Your Honour has just referred, I think the minister should give a clear answer to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has done a very good service in reading the answer I gave yesterday. I attended all the meetings of the committee, with one exception. Regrettably I had to miss one session because I was in the House of Commons dealing with legislation. During the time I
[Mr. CotS (Longueuil) .1

was present at the committee meetings I heard no statement made with which I could disagree.
When I gave my answer yesterday it was quite apparent that there was a great deal of concern on the part of a segment of the members of the House of Commons. I believe it was the Leader of the Opposition who asked a question later in the proceedings yesterday, and I gave an answer then that was not so categorical.
Now, then, the committee evidence was not printed until late this forenoon. Part of it has been printed but the rest is not yet available. I propose to examine the evidence very carefully, because it is readily apparent to all who read the newspapers in both languages that there have been constructions put upon answers given in the committee which are not warranted. Indeed, this whole matter was raised in the committee, I think by way of a question of privilege, and the committee members took an active part in dissociating themselves from certain stories that appeared in one or two of the newspapers of that day.
Notwithstanding the statements of these hon. members, it seems that these newspaper stories have been printed as a record of what took place in the committee instead of the actual transcript of evidence. I want it to be clear that when I make these remarks about the press, they are not general. I believe the stories were confined to one or two newspapers, but unfortunately these stories seem to have been reprinted in other newspapers since and there is some real concern about the point raised by the hon. member. I propose to examine the evidence very carefully.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; may I ask the minister to identify those newspapers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the reason is quite simple. The matter is one of the record of the printed proceedings of the committee, and I do believe that in a matter of this sort the record should be followed. I do not believe a subject like this should be treated lightly in the question period.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. According to Beauchesne a question of privilege should be raised as soon as the breach of privilege occurs, and it is for this reason

I am raising the question now. Just before the question was put by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, Your Honour said that the question referred to some racial or linguistic matter. I take exception to those remarks, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for St. Mary that he wait and read in Hansard what was said. The interpretation he is giving now is not, I suggest, a proper interpretation of the remarks I made.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Can he deny or confirm reports now circulating to the effect that the next ambassador of Canada to France will be no one else than Mr. McGregor?


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to set the record straight on the point made a moment ago by the Minister of Transport.
The minister mentioned that members of the committee had dissociated themselves from an article published in a Montreal paper, La Presse. I must point out that we dissociated ourselves from the article as far as bilingualism is concerned, but that we agree with the remarks in that paper concerning the Caravelle aircraft.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see no question in those long remarks.



CANADIAN PROTESTS RESPECTING U.S. ACTION

[Stage Direction]
(On the orders of the day:
[Stage Direction]
Hpn. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temiscaming.ue): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and [DOT]Commerce.
Could he tell us whether it is true that a [DOT] confidential note has been given by our ambassador in Washington, Mr. Ritchie, to the assistant under secretary, Mr. Johnston, protesting against the United States legislation for the identification of Canadian timber? Could he state whether representations of the Canadian government have brought some results, up to now?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the hon. gentleman refers has been one of
Inquiries of the Ministry very great concern to the government. As hon. members know, a bill passed the United States Senate and I believe is now in conference or perhaps has now been approved by congress which would require the marking of imported goods and particularly the marking of sawn lumber. We have already made strong representations to the United States authorities both on the bill as a whole and on the lumber amendment, pointing out the restrictive effects on trade which would flow from the enactment of this measure. We are continuing to be in close touch. Indeed, I believe our ambassador was in the state department, and I think in the White House, yesterday putting forward these representations.
We believe that the amendment which deals with sawn lumber in particular is contrary to obligations undertaken by the United States under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. We are hopeful, of course, that these representations will have the effect of there being non-approval of the legislation by the President, but it is too early to say whether we have been successful.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether the note remitted by the ambassador is in the nature of a note of protest?


Mitchell William Sharp: Oh yes; the note is also one of protest, and we hope it will have the effect immediately of there being either the veto or non-approval of the legislation by the President.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan-Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister been in touch with his opposite number in the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we thought because of the great importance of this matter that our representations should be made at the highest level, which is higher than my opposite number in the United States.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arlhur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question which comes from the rising controversy in Toronto. Knowing the minister's powers of anticipation, I would ask him whether he has any kind of a statement or explanation about this move of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in converting station CJBC into a French language station in the Toronto market and audience area.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have received no communication, official or unofficial, from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about this matter. Therefore I am not in a position to provide any enlightenment to the house that has not already been provided by the press.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister, in view of published stories in this morning's Globe and Mail which indicate the seeming reluctance of the C.B.C. to make this move, whether he can assure the house that there were no representations or pressures exerted by the government to compel the C.B.C. to make this move.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the hon. gentleman that so far as this member of the government is concerned there was no such pressure, and I am sure there was none from any of my colleagues. I say that because 1 am the official channel of communication between the C.B.C. and the government.
I must say, sir, that it has been the policy, I think with the approval of all sections of the house, to endeavour to see either through public or private efforts that there is broadcasting wherever it is feasible for any significant minority, either English speaking or French speaking, in any part of this country. Just as I would be exceedingly sorry if anything should happen to jeopardize English language broadcasting in the city of Quebec, so I feel as a Canadian that the very considerable French speaking minority in southern Ontario is also deserving of similar consideration.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether he had any discussions with Mr. Ouimet on this decision to convert this radio station CJBC into a French language broadcasting station.


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (President of the Privy Council):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State supplementary to the questions put by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I wonder if he can tell the house whether there is, or will be, any plan to protect the interests and the future of outstanding personages such as Bruce Smith, Walter Bowles, Ed Fitkin, El-wood Glover and others in connection with the planned transfer of CJBC.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will draw the question of the hon. member to the attention of the

board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, all but two of whom were appointed by the government of his right hon. leader.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister if he knows whether the C.B.C. gave any consideration to whether this minority group could not be served by low power relay transmitters rather than by taking over a major station with an established market and audience.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to put that question to the C.B.C. and when I get an answer I will give it to the house.


Reid Scott: Would the Secretary of State investigate the rumour that the person appointed to manage the French station cannot speak French?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will not conduct a personal investigation, because apart from not having the constitutional authority I would doubt my competence to do so. But I will draw that question also to the attention of the C.B.C.



NEWS BROADCAST RESPECTING INCREASES IN ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding the reporting of the proceedings of the house. I have here a copy of the transcript of the C.B.C. television news broadcast of last evening at eleven o'clock, which of course was a nation-wide broadcast. It says:
The Commons has passed legislation increasing the old age assistance, blind and disabled allowances by $10 a month. The increases, passed by the vote of 117 to 100, bring the allowances up to $75 a month, the same as the federal old age pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members on the treasury benches seem to think this is amusing. I hope the C.B.C. does not think it is amusing and I am sure the nation does not think it is amusing, that a crown corporation responsible for communications in this country should make a statement which is completely at variance with the facts.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And false.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These increases were not passed by a majority of 117 to 100; they were passed unanimously.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That's right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The vote of 117 to 100 had to do with an amendment moved on third reading

to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole to reconsider the matter of effective date.


Some hon. Members:: Right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the record ought to be made clear, Mr. Speaker, and I think the minister to whom the C.B.C. is responsible ought to draw to the attention of the news department of the C.B.C. that it would be advisable to be more accurate in reporting the proceedings of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is an experienced member of this house, and I am sure he knows that this is not the first time that even an experienced member, in the guise of a question of privilege, has got his point of view put before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise now on a question of privilege-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a question of privilege-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I-


Mr. Woolliams:: Arrogance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would allow the hon. minister just to finish his short statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a question of privilege. I intend to stop the Secretary of State-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I intend to stop the Secretary of State-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, sir-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman knows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think in the circumstances the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am rising on a question of privilege.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order again.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Smilh:: You can tell the C.B.C. what to do, but you can't tell us what to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to surrender the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I rise again on a point of order-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, you have already given me the floor three times.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not intend' to allow the Secretary of State to impute motives to me. He is not going to be allowed to do it in this house.


An hon. Member:: He didn't.


Some hon. Members:: He did.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He made the suggestion that under the guise of a question of privilege I was seeking to do something else. I rose, as is my duty as a member of this house, to draw the attention of the house and the country to the fact that there was an inaccurate reporting of the proceedings of this house.


Mr. Monleith:: Exactly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did so in all honesty, and I do not intend to have motives imputed to me by the Secretary of State. This has become a common practice with him, and I do not intend to ignore it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the last
sentence of the hon. gentleman's remarks is about as clear an imputation of motive as anyone could possibly make-


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -in the suggestion my conduct is generally unbecoming. But I am not going to ask him to withdraw that remark at all-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
58Q2

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: -if that is his opinion.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not so thin skinned as to be worried-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I do hope I might be allowed to speak now, after I have been-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Secretary of State should be allowed to finish his statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman suggested I had imputed motives to him.


Some hon. Members:: You did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I imputed motives to him, I withdraw the imputation. But I go back to the point that an hon. member familiar with the rules knows that a question of privilege can be raised about the official record of this house, but if the time of the house is to be taken up-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -by objecting, under the guise of questions of privilege, and attempting to correct every news report everywhere in this country, there would be no public business done at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was astonished that an hon. member belonging to a party which has always advocated the independence of the public broadcasting corporation should suddenly have suggested that the government should discipline that corporation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I can tell the hon. gentleman that from this side of the house there is going to be no suggestion of censorship of the news on the C.B.C., to please the N.D.P. or anybody else. If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation made a mistake, that could be referred to in debate by any hon. member at any time and no doubt they would do their best, as would any other reputable news medium, to correct that mistake. But this is not the first time the C.B.C. news has made reports of things that happened in this house that some of us did not like.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Smith:: But this is fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite often there are
reports that some of us on this side of the house do not like either. It seems to me, sir, we have had about enough of being thin


skinned this morning, and we had better get on with the public business and leave it to the press and the broadcasters to report us, without trying to interfere with the way they do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Again?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -the Secretary of State has just quoted me as saying that I wanted the government to discipline the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that.


Some hon. Members:: You did.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That statement, as the record will show, is completely untrue. What I said was that I would suggest that the minister to whom the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is responsible should draw this to the attention of the news department of the C.B.C. That is all I asked. The minister could simply have said he was prepared to do that and the matter would have been dropped. I want to say also that this party is in favour of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation being independent, and it is because we want to keep it independent that I have raised this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this in any way, but I think when the hon. gentleman looks at the record he will see that I did not purport to quote him at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You made that allusion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I made reference to my own opinion. Surely I am also entitled to give my opinion in this house without being restricted. But I did not attempt to quote the hon. gentleman, and I am not suggesting that I was attempting to quote him. If the record shows that I did, I will withdraw it at once.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would like to make a suggestion to all hon. members in the house, that we now proceed with the orders of the day.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, in view of what has just taken place here. Does the Secretary of State realize that the last four times he was on his feet, he was on his feet without recognition from the Chair?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Secretary of State wasting the time of the house.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the Sainte Adresse was shipwrecked during a storm on the night of December 10 on the north shore of the St. Lawrence carrying a cargo of 1,100 tons of beer cases, and what steps does the government intend to take to salvage this important liquid cargo so that my constituents can have a beer for the Christmas holidays?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in view of this particular ship's cargo I suspect that the hon. member will have no difficulty in getting very quick consideration of this problem.



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF CANADIAN MERCHANT FLEET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the light of the statement made by Mr. Roy Crabtree, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, that export of Canadian manufactured goods will exceed $1 billion this year, does not the minister feel that the time has come to have a merchant navy more realistic and better adapted to our transportation needs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I see very little relation between the two statements of the hon. member.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENTS BY PREMIERS OF ONTARIO AND QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of the speech made by Premier Robarts of Ontario to the Hamilton Traffic Club yesterday, wherein he stated that the province of Ontario was going to take a harder or tougher line in the future with the federal government. In view of the alleged spirit of warmth and harmony following the last federal-provincial conference, I wonder whether he would inform the members of this house
Inquiries of the Ministry which of the agreements between Ontario and the federal government are particularly vexing or that the premier is unhappy about, so we can be prepared for this battle which is going to take place.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what is in Premier Robarts' mind, but if he did say what my hon. friend quotes him as saying I could not blame him for wanting to try to drive a harder bargain for his province, in the same way as the premier of the province of Quebec is trying to drive a good bargain for Quebec. They are matters which will be discussed at the next federal-provincial conference on fiscal matters, and I have nothing more to add to the matter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question. Is the Acting Prime Minister saying that the premier of Ontario has not communicated this information to the federal government before?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not imagine that there has been any communication since the conference terminated its proceedings some days ago here in Ottawa.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. Could I ask the minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Hon. Eric Kierans in his speech to the Empire club in Toronto in which he attacked the fiscal policies of the federal government and criticized what he called the "increased economic nationalism in Ottawa"? I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether these views are shared by government members from Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been drawn to that statement save and except as it has now. I have not the text of the speech, nor have I seen what Mr. Kierans has said, but I will be glad to look into it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Does the minister share the opinion of Mr. Lesage who wants to impose double taxation and put the odium on the ministers of the federal government?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I consider this question out of order for many reasons. [Text]



RETURN OF CLERK ASSISTANT AFTER ILLNESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I believe that what I am about to say is not

Inquiries of the Ministry strictly within the rules of order, but in this case I am sure the house will raise no objection. I am sure we are all pleased to see the efficient Clerk Assistant back in his place today after his illness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might thank the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for drawing our attention to something which gives us an opportunity to recognize the immense debt we owe to the officers of the house and particularly to those who sit patiently and silently at the table throughout our deliberations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CONSIDERATION OF PAY INCREASE FOR CLEANING STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I hate to intrude in these proceedings, but after all I have only risen 16 times. I wish to address a question to the very kindly Minister of Public Works. My question is based on certain conversations I have had with certain ladies very early in the morning. In view of the fact that the majority of the employees in this house coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works received a recent increase in their emolument, and the cleaning ladies have been overlooked, will the minister look into this matter to see if consideration is being given to the needs of these worthy women?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: I am going to look into this matter and some time next week report to the hon. member.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since there is only a two bushel wheat quota in existence at many points in Alberta, and in the light of the fact that in Vancouver there are many grain cars lined up waiting to be unloaded, would the minister look into this situation and try to speed up the handling of grain at this port in order that these cars might be unloaded and released for further movement of grain from the country elevators in Alberta and western Saskatchewan?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been in communication with the officials of the wheat board on a

number of occasions with regard to expediting shipments, particularly of wheat, and the movement of grain both east and west. The chairman of the wheat board told me today by telephone that now the St. Lawrence seaway has frozen over for the winter it will be the objective of the board to achieve as high a degree of equalization as possible until the opening of the navigation season next spring. This will include points in Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am afraid that does not answer the question I asked. My question was directed to these cars which are lined up in Vancouver waiting to be unloaded. This has nothing to do with equalization. The point is that these cars are not being moved out for reloading.


Mitchell William Sharp: I meant to include that in my answer. I have been discussing this with the wheat board. They are conscious of the problem and they are doing everything they can to get a quicker turnaround.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In
view of the fact that a question I asked two days ago is really supplementary to the one just put to the minister by my hon. friend, I wonder if I may address it now to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I addressed it originally on Wednesday to the Minister of Agriculture, who I see has now left the house.
My question was this. Are the minister or his departmental officials considering approaching, or making plans to approach, farm co-operative organizations, wheat pools and line elevator company officials to improve elevator and other facilities so that Canada, with a surplus of grain, could meet the demand for western wheat? That question was in line with what the minister said in reference to not being able to complete the contract with China. We have the wheat, but we do not have the facilities to deliver it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have already been in touch with the groups mentioned by the hon. member, and I have consulted the wheat board in an effort to speed up movement out of Vancouver. However, even though we have experienced some of these difficulties-difficulties which have persisted for years and years under the administration of my predecessor and of his predecessor, too, in charge of the wheat board-I can assure the hon. gentleman that we shall achieve our targets, which involve the movement of tremendous quantities. Indeed, the chairman of the wheat board feels we shall exceed even the 550 million bushel figure which was originally cited. So any of these difficulties are relatively minor in comparison with the enormous movement which

is going on now, movement which is the result of very close and energetic co-operation among the railways, the elevator companies and all parties concerned.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Did the minister receive a delegation from Raymond, Alberta, concerning a decision of the British Columbia Sugar Refining Company to close its plant in that city, and has his department taken any action in this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to the first part of that question is yes. It is not a responsibility which rests on the federal government as such but in my capacity as Minister of Trade and Commerce I have been having conversations with some of those concerned with the production and refining of sugar in that area.


Robert William Prittie: Has the restrictive trade practices commission received a submission from the mayor and representatives of Raymond concerning the decision of the company to close its plant in that city?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am told so, but I would have to inquire and report to the house.



HEAVY WATER PLANT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: have a question to direct to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that his department is now reconsidering the letting of the contract for the production of heavy water and the location of the plant, would the minister once again take into consideration the representations made by the industrial development council of Estevan, Saskatchewan, to have the heavy water plant located there?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: I can assure the hon. member that if any review is made, all these considerations will be taken into account.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Last Friday, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I directed a question to the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister with regard to charges that the R.C.M.P. were making security investigations at Regina college. The Prime Minister said he would make inquiries. I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister has any information to give the house.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime
Minister): Yes; the Prime Minister did speak to me about it, and I saw in Hansard the question which was put by the hon. member.
I inquired about the matter, and I find that the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., having made inquiries at my instance, has given me his denial that the R.C.M.P. approached any student as alleged. There was a chance meeting in the coffee shop among a student of the university, an officer of the R.C.M. police and an employee of the Regina Leader-Post, which was not instigated by the R.C.M. police and did not lead to any such proposal by them.


David Orlikow: I wonder if the minister could make inquiries of the principal of Regina college, who made some comments about this matter, to see what information he might have?


Lionel Chevrier: The point which strikes me about this whole affair is that if there were four people present at the so-called interview there would not be much purpose in inquiring of the principal of the university, because this seems to me to confirm what the commissioner has said. In any event, I am sure the principal of the university would have made representations if something untoward had taken place.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of press reports to the effect that the trustees of the maritime transportation unions have made certain suggestions to the shipping companies as to improvements they might make in their procedures for bargaining with the employees? If the trustees need any backing in this matter, is the government considering giving such backing?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by my hon. friend gives me the opportunity to answer it and several others that have been raised in connection with the trusteeship. I am aware that the trustees have made it known that they intend to undertake consultations with the employers. Beyond that I have no information.

Inquiries of the Ministry
With respect to the desire that has been expressed to have an interim report from the trustees, I find that it is the wish of the trustees to be allowed to carry on for the present without making a report, with the assurance that they will make a report for presentation to parliament early in the new year, or as early in the new year as possible. Their view is that their work can be undertaken more successfully without the necessity of making an interim report at this stage, which I thought I might be able to have for the house last week.
The Leader of the Opposition asked about a questionnaire reported to have been distributed to the seamen. According to my information, no such questionnaire has been prepared or sent to the seamen.
With respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Danforth, no transcript is available of the press conference held recently by the trustees.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, I wish to direct a question to the associate minister. Could he tell us whether a final decision has been reached with respect to the elimination of the radar station at St. Sylvestre, in Lotbiniere county? If so, can he inform the house of the steps that the government intends to take in relation with the lay-offs that will result from the elimination of that radar station?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is still under study and no decision has been arrived at yet.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as the minister responsible for the world fair. On December 6 the minister informed the house that he expected a report from the corporation about its plans and projects for the fair. Could he tell the house whether he has received that report yet?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No, Mr. Speaker, but the over-all


plan will be given to me some time before December 20 and surely before the holidays.


Frank Howard: Will the report as to plans and projects be made public or tabled in the house?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, a bill is now before the house-


Stanley Howard Knowles: A resolution.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A resolution. If my hon. friend would wait until we take up the study of that resolution I will answer all questions pertaining to the world fair.


Frank Howard: What happens if the minister does not have the report by then?



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT ON 1962-63 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In his recent conversations with the Canadian wheat board officials did he ascertain whether an interim or final payment would be made soon on last year's wheat pool and, if so, when?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had some informal discussions with the chairman of the Canadian wheat board about this matter, and I think it will be his recommendation that the accounts should be closed out some time in January or perhaps in the first part of February. As the hon. gentleman knows, sales have been going very well. I might add in relation to the previous answer I have given-I overlooked it-that notwithstanding all the troubles we had on the St. Lawrence seaway arising out of labour disputes and strikes, we have in fact fulfilled every obligation that we undertook.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that affects me as a member and also as a member of the Queen's privy council. On page 5767 of Hansard for yesterday I find this sentence attributed to the hon. member for Medicine Hat:
Never before in our history has any member spent so much out of public funds in order to advertise a political party.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this is an imputation against my personal honour and against my activities as minister of agriculture. I have to ask not only for a complete withdrawal but, I would suggest, a very strong apology as well.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if anything I said yesterday can be construed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle as being offensive to him personally, I withdraw that. However, the statement he has quoted is my opinion, and I have a right to express my opinion in this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A very serious question of privilege has been raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. The words spoken by the hon. member for Medicine Hat in this house constitute a reflection on a member of this house. Let us look again at the sentence, sir:
Never before in our history has any member spent so much out of public funds in order to advertise a political party.
This is a most unusual statement to be made by any hon. member. The only recourse, sir, is a complete withdrawal.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It just happens that I believe the remark is true. If it happens to be offensive to a particular member of this house, we could surely change the word "member" to "former minister" or something of that sort. However, I do not feel under any obligation to withdraw something I said which I still believe is true.


Mr. MacEwan:: Prove it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I suggest that if the hon. member insists that he believes this statement, he has no choice but to move a substantive motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: In so far as the
question of privilege is concerned, when the remark was made yesterday by the hon. member for Medicine Hat I was quite astounded, because what he is saying is that the former minister of agriculture has misapplied public funds. In essence he is making a charge of fraud by misuse of public funds. Citation 108, paragraph 3 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, says in effect that libels on members have also been constantly punished and scandalous charges or imputations directed against members are equivalent to libelous charges.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has raised a substantial question of privilege, and not only should there be a complete withdrawal but a very strong apology as suggested. Certainly, in the brief time I have been in this house any
Question of Privilege
honourable member would withdraw such charges without any question at all.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Of course the hon. member who has just spoken has made an imputation that I am not honourable, so I could raise another question of privilege right now.


Howard Russell MacEwan: That is a question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hon. member for Qu'Appelle takes definite objection to the word "member", I could withdraw that. The implication I intended, and which I think was clear to all hon. members in the house when the statement was made, was that he, along with his government, had spent a great deal of public funds to advertise the advantages the farmers of Canada would receive from the Conservative party, and I still believe it.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless some other hon. member has some really soothing remarks to offer at this time, it happens very often that in the course of debate members get overheated, get carried away with remarks, with the emotion of the situation, and with the argument they are trying to present. This morning the hon. member for Medicine Hat has certainly cut off any individual reference to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: At least that is the import of what I have understood.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He has made it worse.


Mr. Speaker:: But on the other hand it seems to me that the question having been raised, having been aired, it would be a very gracious act if the hon. member for Medicine Hat would care to rise and just soften the effect of some of the words he used this morning.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to withdraw anything that the hon. member can construe as having been an allegation directly against him personally.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this goes beyond any allegations against me personally. He has intimated that I have misused public funds.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Greene:: That is your conscience
talking.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw that remark.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have no choice, Mr. Speaker, but to ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat not only to withdraw what he said about me in a personal way but to say without any equivocation that he removes

Question of Privilege
from me any imputation about the way I handled public funds in connection with my department.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if I had made such a statement I would withdraw it, but I did not.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out that Beau-chesne, citation 108 (3), says:
Libels on members have also been constantly punished: but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity, and the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the house.
I would hope that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle would feel that the matter has been straightened out. If not, now is the time to say so.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have no choice but to say I am not satisfied on the second point, namely that I misused public funds of this country for the good of the Conservative party. The hon. member for Medicine Hat repeated that statement again this morning-


Lionel Chevrier: He did not.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -and I have to ask that it be completely withdrawn, and I would hope he would be gentleman enough to apologize for it.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter refers to something that happened in the house quite some time ago concerning the ARDA program, and before any decision is taken by Your Honour I think there would have to be some reference to the debates that took place some time ago. I think there was nothing personal in the remark that was made, but Your Honour will remember there were charges some years ago when the ARDA program was put forth, for example, that something was published and circulated in rural communities concerning the ARDA program before it had been passed by parliament. At that time charges were discussed in the house which in my opinion would warrant some of the implications in the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
It also seems to me that we become very touchy in relation to party responsibilities in relation to points of privilege, and if the hon. member for Medicine Hat withdraws the personal implication, I think the party implication that was made at that time warranted the statement the hon. member made in the house yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have just one brief word on citation 108 (3) which Your Honour has read. There obviously is a direct imputation by the hon. member for Medicine

Hat as to the misuse of government funds, and what the hon. member for Timiskaming has just said refers to the publication of an ARDA pamphlet. There is no difference between that kind of pamphlet and the pamphlet covering the $500 house bonus issued under the Minister of Labour. The imputation has not been made in that regard, and should not be made in this regard by the hon. member for Medicine Hat; but citation 108 (3) says that a libel on an hon. member to constitute a breach of privilege "must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity, and the libel must be based on the matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the house."
The business of the house in this instance concerned the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, on which the hon. member was speaking, and there is no doubt it affects the conduct and personal character of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I do not know why the hon. member for Medicine Hat cannot be gentleman enough to get up and withdraw the charges he made.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, the last speaker has suggested that the hon. member for Medicine Hat had said that there was a misuse of public funds. I would like him to read that from what was reported in Hansard. I have not read that, and I would like him to read it where it says that. The hon. member is imputing something to the hon. member for Medicine Hat that is not in the record.


Mr. Speaker:: I still have the question to decide, and I would like to hear from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle whether he is satisfied with the explanations given and with the statement of the hon. member for Medicine Hat. These things concern the privileges of all hon. members of the house and are indeed very serious in principle. In the present instance they may not be that serious, but generally speaking, in principle libels against members, and purported libels, are serious and must be attended to.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it is because the subject is so serious that I cannot add anything more to what I have said. I would hope you would take this subject under advisement and come to a conclusion based on what has been said here today. I think the sentence I quoted out of Hansard is my complete case, both on my personal side and on my position as minister. I would ask, in view of the reluctance of the hon. member for Medicine Hat to withdraw the two charges, and in view of the charge made by the hon. member for Timiskaming who spoke in this debate today, that you consider the

evidence you have before you and decide your future course at your leisure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent suggestion, that the matter be taken under advisement and that no more time of the house be taken at present. Because it is a very serious matter, I hope, when Your Honour does so, Your Honour will also examine some speeches made in the house by the senior hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, also imputing motives to another privy councillor.


Mr. Speaker:: Acting on very sound advice, I will take the matter under advisement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the orders of the day I have a question for the Secretary of State. I want to ask the Secretary of State what imputation he was placing on the hon. member for Queens, in his absence, when he suggested to Your Honour that you examine some statement the hon. member for Queens had made. Let the Secretary of State identify his complaint with regard to the hon. member so that we may have the facts in front of us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Queens is a very experienced member of the house and I am sure he will be able to protect himself. If he puts that question to me I will be very glad to answer it.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Grain Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Income Tax Act, the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Railway Act, the Salaries Act and the Tariff Board Act with respect to the salaries of certain public officials.
Motion agreed and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of the whole on a certain resolution. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Chevrier (for Mr. Pearson) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-128, to amend the Canada Grain Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Income Tax Act, the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Railway
Supply-Northern Affairs Act, the Salaries Act, and the Tariff Board Act with respect to the salaries of certain public officials.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

House in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
40. Grant in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba, $15,000.
Lucien Lamoureux: House again in committee of supply, vote No. 40 of the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a little time on this question of the national museum and the situation which exists there and has existed for some time. I think it is interesting to note that there has been trouble and dissension in this organization since 1956; at least it began to appear in 1956. I think it is also of interest that there have now been three different administrations involved, the St. Laurent, the Diefenbaker and the Pearson administrations. Therefore I do not think one can say that this is really a one party issue. I tend to feel it is not necessarily a weakness in the ministerial approach, because we have had a succession of ministers of northern affairs and national resources and the situation has kept on developing. In other words I think there is something inherent in the administration of the museum and the personalities within the permanent administration which is the cause of quite a few of the difficulties.
This tale of the national museum is one of the most complicated I know. It is not a very large organization as government organizations go, yet it has been filled with more malice and sensation than any other part of this department.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would draw his attention to the fact that we are now on vote No. 40, which deals with the national parks branch of the department.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was aware, Mr. Chairman, that the preliminary votes had passed, but since you did not call them I thought I would take advantage of your omission and go ahead with my remarks. My remarks are entirely in connection with the national museum and I should like to get them over if I can, not so much to get an answer from the minister- because I am sure he will give one-but because I have to be in another place. I wonder

Supply-Northern Affairs whether I could have unanimous consent from the committee to complete my remarks on the national museum at this time.


Lucien Lamoureux: It that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
National Museum of Canada-
120. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,229,500.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Thank you very much; I appreciate that.


Mr. Dupuis:: Give us the same break sometimes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have been asked by the parliamentary secretary whether I would give them the same break some time. I am sure the parliamentary secretary knows what a co-operative group of people we are. We have just had recent evidence of that during the question period.
This museum trouble has broken out into the open again with some opinions expressed by the former director, Dr. Loris Russell. The minister in a sense tried, I will not say to slur over the issues raised by Dr. Russell, but he did not really come to grips with the problem. I have a mass of material I could go into, everything from archaeologists' bibliographies to the whole question of the kind of administrative controls which have existed in the museum, but I should like to try to approach the subject from some distance.
It seems to me-this is an honest opinion which I should like to put before the minister-that in all the information I have been able to gather, the one weak point in the whole business in a personal way relates to the now deputy minister of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Mr. Cote. In fairness I would like to explain why I think this is so. Ever since Dr. Rousseau was approached to come to the national museum, ever since it was decided that in order to bring Dr. Rousseau in, even though he was a botanist, and put him into the human history branch, thus effectively putting someone who should, from his background at least, have been on the natural history side, we have had two natural history types, Dr. Russell and Dr. Rousseau, heading two departments. Ever since that time the difficulties have developed. Mr. Cote was deeply involved in bringing Dr. Rousseau into the museum, and he was also deeply involved in all the recriminations which followed. As I understand it, I think the minister will acknowledge that although the previous deputy minister, Mr. Robertson, was not exactly at arms length with the museum, the main channel


through which the museum was administered by the department was Mr. Cote as acting deputy minister.
I suggest that a great many of the problems we have had with the museum must arise from some kind of inadequacy in the objectives and the kind of approach he has had to the museum. I am not sure that this situation has been cleaned up at all. Dr. Rousseau was, in a sense, given the gate. Dr. Russell has resigned, I take it from his account in the paper, to consider his situation because of the fact that he was not made over-all head. We have had a historian brought in from the University of Manitoba, for what good reason I am unable to fathom. Without being uncomplimentary to this gentleman's academic record, about which I have made some inquiries, there is nothing, it seems to me, in Dr. Glover's documents which would indicate he is the man we should have been looking for to fill this particular post. He has not, within an academic framework, had a career of the kind which would lead him to be the head of a department of even a relatively small university. The field in which he specializes has no more relevance to the museum and its purpose than a host of other studies.
Once again there seems to be a reaching out to get someone to come in without any real explanation of how his training and background would permit him to give the kind of leadership which this part of the museum will need. The move might be interpreted as being in response to the criticisms of the Canadian historical association; at least it is suggested by Dr. Russell that there were such criticisms. Dr. Russell seems to feel that it was criticism by the historians which prevented him from moving up into the top position.
I do not know what views the minister has, or may have, as to the role a museum should play; whether it should have a split capacity and deal with human history on the one hand and natural history on the other. I do not know whether he thinks the emphasis should be on research or on display. But I know there has to be a clear policy in this regard, a policy spelled out over a number of years in terms of dollars and cents in the estimates in order to achieve the desired objective, because there is bound to be competition.
We have the example of a similar situation in the federal civil service where the national library and the public archives are under one director. I have heard criticism of this arrangement because of the fact that the aims of the archives and the aims of the library are not on all fours; there are

differences in emphasis. It seems to me that if we cannot create a separate crown agency, a body with a genuine feeling for the subject matter itself, we should consider separating these two branches completely, that is the human history and the natural history branches. We might, on the one hand, have a natural history or a natural science museum, and on the other hand have the kind of museum which emphasizes human history and which is related to anthropology, archaeology, sociology and subjects such as those.
The pettiness involved in the situation we are considering is enormous. It so happens that one of the key figures involved in this museum question is a friendly acquaintance of mine. He has left the museum now. He is an archaeologist. I know from my contacts with him that the world of the archaeologist and the anthropologist is filled with controversy. There are different schools of thought. There are personality clashes entering into the field of scholarship. Their world is not a wide one, and in Canada we do not have a great number of people working in either of these two fields. We tend to bring into this country the controversies which split the academic world in the United States in these two fields of study.
This being the case, it does not seem to me there is any possibility of breaking out of the present rut unless we get an outstanding man, a world figure, to fill this particular post. It is apparent there will always be restiveness in the fields of anthropology and archaeology, particularly if work in the area of research has to be under the direction of a straight historian. I think only the most broadminded historian, someone with the highest of status in terms of international reputation, would be acceptable to the people working in anthropology and archaeology in this field.
I suggest to the minister that Dr. Glover, with all due respect to his accomplishments, hardly fills this role. He does not straddle the field of history in Canada or in North America with any genius. But, I should like to suggest, it is someone with a personality and reputation of this kind who is necessary if we are to bridge these other conflicts and establish a successful human history museum.
Another thing which disturbs me about the national museum is this. Dr. Russell suggests that politicians have been too much involved in this whole matter. I am trying to figure out who he means by "politicians". Is it Mr. Lesage, who in co-operation with Mr. Cote went to such lengths to get Dr. Rousseau into the museum? Is it the former minister of northern affairs, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who played politics with the museum? We do not know. Is it the present
Supply-Northern Affairs minister who is playing politics with the museum? Is there a suggestion that the appointment of Dr. Glover is a political appointment? We do not know. These are questions which the minister does not necessarily have to answer in terms of the past, but I think he should project a future in which no political interference will be brought to bear in connection with the museum's affairs.
There have been a number of appointments to the staff of the museum which intrigue me, particularly in the field of archaeology. I do not intend to discuss them at length because I have put a number of questions on the order paper in connection with them.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. When the committee rose at one o'clock we were considering vote No. 40. The hon. member for Port Arthur.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have been checking what I said before the lunch break, and I think it could be construed that I was unfair to Dr. Glover who was appointed to look after the human history aspect of the museum. I wanted to make it quite clear that when I said I had checked into his career I was informed by certain people that in historical circles he has not been one of the giants of the history profession in Canada, but he certainly has done good work and has at least several outstanding publications to his credit.
One other conclusion I came to was that I should have put on the record part of what Dr. Loris Russell said in his interview the other day in Toronto in order to put the thing in focus. I think it would look pretty scrambled on the basis alone of my preceding remarks. I am taking these quotations from the Ottawa Citizen of two days ago, December 11. This is Dr. Russell's story:
From 1930-37 I was at the national museum and I left to go to Toronto as a University of Toronto professor and a member of the Royal Ontario museum staff. In 1950 I was approached by the then chief curator of the national museum, Dr. F. J. Alcock. He said he was going to retire and wanted me to succeed him.
I came to Ottawa and while working at the national museum I learned in 1954 that there was a movement under way to make Dr. Jacques Rousseau the director. In fact, Dr. Rousseau had

Supply-Northern Affairs been promised the job by people who forgot it was a civil service position and would be awarded by competition.
I should like to interject here that I understand from information I have received from several sources that the deputy minister, Mr. Cote, was involved in this whole arrangement to bring Dr. Rousseau here. I do not know what were the main reasons for it. I do not know whether it was an attempt to strengthen French Canadian representation at one higher level in the civil service, but he was involved in it. As a matter of fact I understand he even helped Dr. Rousseau prepare his application to the civil service commission.
In 1956 the position came up for competition, and I won it.
I understand from information I have that Dr. Russell won it on the basis of the fact that he had the advantage of overseas service. All other things being equal, this gave him an advantage. Dr. Russell goes on to say:
There was a big hassle and the events that followed were slightly incredible. They were stuck with somebody they didn't want.
To get out of this mess they decided to split the national museum into two separate sections -the Canadian museum of human history with Dr. Rousseau as director and the Canadian museum of natural history with myself as director. They used the Massey commission report-
When he says "they" I presume he is talking about the senior administrators and the politicians of the day, which in this sense would be Jean Lesage who was minister of the department and, I would also assume, the deputy and assistant deputy ministers of the department.
They used the Massey commission report of 1951 to justify this act. The division would never have been made if I hadn't won the competition. It was an excuse to get themselves out of a mess. I found this out years later and I can't be contradicted-I know this to be a fact.
I also know it to be a fact. This is an example of what happens when you try to do something in order to achieve purposes that do not quite fit into the administrative structure. Dr. Russell goes on:
I protested this on grounds that you need a strong museum, not a lot of small uninfluential segments. I said this division was bad in 1956 and in 1957 the government could not get this bill creating two museums through the House of Commons. It was a piece of parliamentary clumsiness. They muffed it.
Again, I understand that by "they muffed it" he really means the minister and the senior officials.
So they created two branches of the national museum with both of them holding equal powers. We got along well for two years with no quarrels, no friction, although some people on the staff were working for us both.

I want to interject here that they created these two branches and put a man in charge of the human history branch who was not really experienced in that field. I think this is important to show how far the government and the administration of that time were prepared to wrench things to achieve, I suppose, although I am not exactly sure, a better French Canadian representation in the senior levels of government.
There is some poetic irony here because the people in most bitter and violent disagreement with Dr. Rousseau were the same people who used their power and influence for him in 1956.
I take it he means Mr. Cote, who helped to push Dr. Rousseau into this position and then was the main instrument in getting him out when things turned a few years later.
Dr. Rousseau was forced out and it was a bitter blow to him. As far as I know we parted friends and I hold no grudge.
The human history branch was in a dreadful state and deputy minister Gordon Robertson asked me to take over as a single director of a single museum. I agreed to act as director of natural history and acting director of human history.
But I was instructed to function as a single director-at no increase in pay-and I said I would not be bound to serve under a dual directorship again.
In the next few years I made it my main business to rebuild the human history branch. I added new staff, leaned over to assure the staff that I was not less interested in their work than the natural history branch. Finally we had a very nice organization flourishing with first class men on the staff.
But in 1960 I began to worry. The centennial year was coming and nothing was being done. There was a lot of talk but no concrete proposals.
I made it my centennial project to collect Canadiana on my own authority. We needed historical exhibits-ours were all anthropological. Everyone told me I was ten years late-now they say there wouldn't be anything if I hadn't started on my own authority.
To add to our problems the present national museum building was condemned in 1961 and public works said it would have to come down. We began to plan for a national museum with a great store of Canadian historical exhibits. The cabinet approved a series of yearly grants of $50,000 for this search for articles.
Now, in Ottawa, we have the greatest collection of Canadiana anywhere. It represents the history of the people-tells how they lived. I wasn't looking for bargains. I wanted to get the material before it had all gone into the United States.
It was all there-almost completely telling the story of Canadian life from the seventeenth to early twentieth century.
It was beginning to create a lot of excitement amongst historians. I had tried to get a historian on the staff-but I wanted one who would appreciate my point of view.
This is where I ran into trouble. The historians began to complain. They weren't interested in museums but they wanted a professional historian to run the historical section of the new museum.
Many of them were critical. I wanted to show people how Canadians lived.
I think it is interesting that Dr. Russell wanted to do this because this was not his

field primarily. His training was on the natural history side of things. I continue to quote from the article:
The historians wanted to show people relics from famous battles-they wanted to tell the military and political history all over again. I say this is best done in books.
Under their fire I became a little tactless and wrote a critical article saying historians were not interested in the museum. I said a historian must work with a qualified museum expert to create a great historical museum.
Apparently you do not talk to historians like this. It caused a great ruckus and one member of the Canadian historical association-
I have heard that this was Dr. Hilda Neatby.
-wrote the Prime Minister saying Russell must go. One letter was so abusive they wouldn't show it to me. I'd like to challenge that person to come out and say to my face what he said behind my back.
Great pressure was put on to get me out. An advisory committee to the minister was appointed and it appointed a subcommittee to advise it. These committees decided the new museum's historical section would be strictly military and political with only a passing reference to social history. I had lost that one.
In December of 1962 it was decided to appoint a new director of human history with equal power to mine-back to the old scheme which failed before. I hoped they would eventually appoint a director general and I decided to wait for a year.
Two qualified museum experts were among those who entered the competition for the job. When the smoke cleared-
I want to emphasize this phrasing.
When the smoke cleared Professor Richard Glover of the University of Manitoba won the job. He is a qualified historian but he has absolutely no museum experience and this was in the terms of reference for the job.
I should like the minister to explain to us something about that competition. I understand that a gentleman from Nova Scotia and another gentleman who was in the historical names section were also involved in the competition. I think in the light of the charges that have been made it would be a good idea if the minister indicated where these two people fell short and where Dr. Glover came through in this particular competition. I think it is especially fair that this should be done in the light of the things which happened between Dr. Russell and Dr. Rousseau and what that competition led to. I continue to quote:
This changed the situation. I met the new deputy minister Ernest Cote at the earliest opportunity. He has great enthusiasm and is a capable administrator but he is neither a scientist nor a museum man. His answers to me were frank but they were all wrong as far as I was concerned. I decided to resign,
I want that point to be remembered in connection with my suggestion that the root of much of the difficulty in the museum is the role played by Mr. Cote as administrator.
28902-5-370
Supply-Northern Affairs He is a capable administrator and he has great enthusiasm, as Dr. Russell says, but he is neither a scientist nor a museum man. I would judge from some of the things in which he has been involved that he has no clear idea where the museum should be going. I should like to continue reading:
I resigned because the situation had become impossible. You cannot have a museum of political and military history without arousing controversy. You have to pay homage to French Canada when you mention Canadian history and some segments do not concern French Canada.
Whether they like it or not they will have to use the material I have collected. And I personally do not think the new building will be ready in 1967.
The national museum must have unified direction and the director must have the status of the deputy minister and have access to the minister direct.
I should like to ask the minister whether these suggestions by Dr. Russell, which have already been put forward by other people, are not worth considering. If I understand correctly, Dr. Lamb who is head of the public archives and the national library, has the status of a deputy minister. It certainly seems to give him executive power, and this would be a means of having the control that has been missing in most cases. I continue to quote:
He must be a man with a blending of scholarly status and museum experience and he must have the confidence of the entire staff. The national museum should be a senior museum in Canada and people must be able to look up to it. They cannot look up to it now.
Political sniping at individual museum staff members must stop. Certain M.P.s have been doing this since the Rousseau incident. The best help the M.P.s can give the museum is to leave it alone. If individuals are not protected from outside political attack it will kill the museum as sure as an axe in the head of an ox.
I quite agree with him in connection with that last point. I probably have been one of those he is thinking about in terms of placing questions in order to find out what has been going on there. This is the reason I should like to close with the emphasis that we should, as much as possible, leave the past history of the museum alone.
However, I consider we cannot do that unless we get some fairly clear indication from the minister as to what he is going to do, for example, about putting the museum under a single head, or else making a completely clearcut situation as between the natural history section and the human history section. I think we need to know what the minister's feelings are, particularly in the field of archaeology and anthropology, about the difference that is envisaged in the research function and development of archaeology; whether there will be a research program right across the country which is

Supply-Northern Affairs led by the national museum's branch, or whether there is going to be a double function. Again, I do not believe he has given us as yet any clear answers.
I would hope that after the minister gives his policy, and the direction the museum is going, the political sniping will stop. We have a wonderful example here, over the years since 1956, of what a mess a place can get into when politicians and senior administrators at the top try to bend an institution in order to achieve objectives that have very little to do with the objectives of the institution itself. That is the way I read the Rousseau case and all the consequences that flowed from it.
I suggest that the minister has not had a great deal of time to determine what should be done with the museum and the kind of direction he is going to give it, but I would also suggest he has not got much time to make the decisions, because this is one of the responsibilities that rest upon him. For that reason I would ask him to be as clear and unequivocal as he can in response to these points and, further, if he cannot be definitive, that he undertake to do so within a certain period of time.
I have one final point. It seems to me Dr. Russell indicates he has no wish to come back but I still say, in view of the commendations I have heard with regard to his administration, that he should be kept in mind as someone who can still make a great contribution, and I would not assume that his role in the Royal Ontario museum is necessarily a die cast forever.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Port Arthur was discussing this item dealing with the national museum of Canada by permission of the committee. Is it the wish of the committee to continue with item 40, or stay with item 120?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say a few words about the national museum.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would go along with that, because my own remarks will be in reference to national parks.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that we conclude the debate on vote No. 120, dealing with the national museum of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I have known something about the museum and its operations for some time, particularly going back to the session of 1956-57, at which time I received information from a newspaperman, now deceased, as to the peculiar manoeuver-ing and finangling that was going on in so

far as the museum was concerned. As a result, when the bill was brought in to split the museum in two I opposed it, and we were able to block the passage of the bill because the election of 1957 was then about to be held. However, in spite of that fact they went ahead and split the museum into two parts without having any legislative authority to do so, and I think the troubles of the museum sprang from that action.
I do not propose to go back over the history of the matter and rake up a lot of old straw. However, I do think there is no question but that the difficulties in the museum, which have continued from that time, sprang from the attempt to divide it into two parts, and all the difficulties and jealousies came into being at that time. I do not think there is any point in attempting to attack officials, either past or present, over what took place.
We would like to see the museum put on a good, sound basis so there will be no continuation of the troubles in future. In order to accomplish that I think it is essential to restore the museum as one united organization with one head, a director general; and we must get the right man for that job, a man who knows museum work and who has the personality and ability to handle the job. We should then give him the authority to go ahead and organize the museum in an effective manner. There will be trouble in the museum until action along that line is taken. I do not want to take up any more time of the committee in discussion, but I hope that course of action will be followed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to take advantage of this item to say a few words, because I have been interested in this subject and problem for a number of years. Anyone who has any knowledge of the affairs of the museum knows there has been a very unsatisfactory state of affairs in it for a good number of years, under the former Liberal government and under the previous government, and unfortunately this state of affairs continues.
My interest has been prompted as the result of conversations with a good number of people in Ottawa who are interested in the museum, and as a result of conversations with other people interested in it. I discussed this matter with the staffs of other museums in Canada, and have some correspondence on it. It is obvious that the state of affairs that exists in the museum is a subject for discussion in museums across Canada by people who are interested in this question, and it is also a subject for discussion by people in other countries.

In that connection I want to read a letter which I received from the director of the Instituto Interamericano dated November 13, 1963. It reads:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
We have been interested in the affairs of the national museum of Canada for some time since our organization is dedicated to the study of man and his activities, past and present, and the dissemination of knowledge thereof. We have kept in touch with the museum's stormy affairs through the Canadian press. I enclose a copy of our current newsletter that you may see how things look to us at the moment.
He then draws my attention to page 5, which is a critical analysis of the circumstances that exist in the museum.
While our area of interest is world wide, we are perhaps best informed on the U.S. and Latin America. For this reason we are curious about certain points and facts which seen uniquely Canadian.
First of all, why is it that the museum is administered by the northern affairs committee?
That question is asked by people in Canada too.
It would seem more logical for it to be administered by the secretary of public education as in Latin America or by an autonomous board of directors subject directly to the prime minister or the parliament. I admit my unfamiliarity with Canada's internal affairs.
We have received a considerable amount of printed material regarding the location of the site of the battle of the Long Sault where Dollard des Ormeaux gained fame. Our material may have been somewhat biased but it appears to us that the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the site excavated by Thomas E. Lee. Yet we understand that officially the site is located elsewhere. Is this a political matter as one of our sources said?
That too has been asked by a number of persons in Canada.
A third point involves the museum staff. It is rather odd that twice within four years there should be wholesale resignations either voluntary or forcibly. Is this due to internal stresses or is it also a matter of politics as also has been suggested by published articles?
I suppose that all of this is really none of our affair but we are intensely interested and greatly involved in anthropology in the Americas and this museum matter affects Canadian anthropology gravely. Moreover, we have always had a very warm feeling for Canada and her people.
Sincerely yours,
Carl B. Compton, director.
There have also been articles in the French Canadian press dealing with certain aspects of the museum's operations and organization, and numerous articles in professional publications that would be read by people interested in museums. There has been a lot of questioning as to the type of organization that exists and as to the most unfortunate circumstances that exist between various members of the staff. I have heard the most amazing stories about people who are well 28902-5-370J
Supply-Northern Affairs paid by the government of Canada, arriving at the museum at eleven o'clock and doing an hour's work. I do not know whether they are true or not, but I had dozens of letters written to me in Ottawa, and something has been brought to my attention recently that shakes my belief in the validity of information given to this house by the officials.
I have definite proof that one publication filed by Mr. Taylor as a professional publication, a publication to which a man could lay claim because it was part of his professional publications, was nothing more than a commercial pamphlet distributed in this country and in Great Britain for the purpose of selling tents and camping equipment. This well paid official had one paragraph in this commercial pamphlet, which we were informed in this house, in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur was a publication.
This gives rise to lack of confidence, Mr. Chairman. In fairness to those who are doing their duty, those who are unfairly criticized, and so on, I am of the opinion that this situation requires a thorough investigation. It would be too much to expect the minister to rise in his place and give the answers to all these problems immediately. He must have time to thoroughly investigate the situation. I suggest there should be an investigation into the organization of the museum, after the minister has taken the advice of the best persons available, as to the functions of the staff, the duties they perform, their hours of work, publications, and things of that sort; in fact, all things related to the organization and operation of the museum. I think the minister must have time to organize his inquiry, as it were.
I suggest, in conclusion, that it might be a good idea to have the estimates of the museum referred next session-there is not time this session-to the committee on mines, forests and waters, where the officials could be examined and the committee would have the opportunity to call qualified persons from other museums. Then we would be in a position to treat the matter properly, to be fair to the staff concerned and sift out, shall I say, the weaknesses. This committee could then do something as the result of advice from qualified persons. They could make some recommendations to clear up this situation once and for all, so that in the future Canadians can be proud of their national museum, its operations and the way it is carried on.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with interest to the discussion on this item, vote No. 120, and it seems to me most of the discussion thus far has been concerned with a period in the museum's development that goes back to the years 1956-57

Supply-Northern Affairs when, as hon. members have indicated, there was a series of difficulties which finally had to be aired in the House of Commons. Some mention has been made of the fact that there has been continuing interference by the politicians with the activities of the museum. I believe this came from the statement reported in the press the other day which purported to come from the former director, Dr. Loris Russell.
I should like to introduce another note into this discussion. This has nothing to do with interference by politicians as being germane to the difficulties of the museum. That is another difficulty. I refer to the problems of housing the national museum. Over the past few years there has been a chronic shortage of space and at least attempts to formulate plans that would overcome this difficulty. Hon. members will recall that following the evacuation of the old Victoria building by the national gallery and the Canadian geological survey it was felt that at long last the old building would be adequate to meet the reasonable needs of an expanding museum. Unfortunately that decision had no sooner been reached than it was discovered that the Victoria building was unstable and not suitable for the purposes that fall to the development of a national museum.
I happened to be the responsible minister when this further crisis arose. At that time the departmental officials immediately tackled the problem of finding suitable and adequate housing accommodation. At the time of the change of government I think hon. members will recall there was legislation before the house to provide for a completely new plant facility to be built in time to coincide with the observance of Canada's one hundredth birthday in 1967. It seems to me this is one of the essential problems to be overcome in creating in Canada a museum that is worthy of a nation like Canada. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the sooner we in this house get on with the legislation that was proposed last year to provide for adequate facilities, the sooner we can come to grips with some of the other problems of the Canadian national museum.
During the three years I was responsible for the national museum I believe I enjoyed reasonably warm and cordial relationships with the dedicated personnel there, particularly the director and assistant director. Once the decision had been reached to establish adequate facilities it seemed that many of the major difficulties had been overcome. It was disturbing to me to find that once again difficulties-and this was information I gleaned from the press-had occurred amongst the very competent personnel engaged in museum work. What is at the basis of those difficulties

I cannot say, but I repeat that we must move with all haste toward the passing of legislation that will make it possible for the parliament of Canada to provide adequate facilities to house Canada's national museum.
There have been expansions in recent years on what might be called an ad hoc basis. The national aviation museum was officially opened in 1960. I am sure anyone who has had the opportunity of visiting that museum, which is housed at the present time in the terminal building at Uplands airport, will come to the conclusion that here is a display of Canadian aviation history which is worthy of our nation. I am sure that once we have provided through legislation for the type of accommodation that is necessary, there will be a further unification of the various aspects of museology. The aviation museum, for example, will be brought under the same roof as the museum of natural history and human history. The accommodation that was contemplated at the time of the change in government had this in view. The aviation museum would have become the nucleus for a museum of science, something that is entirely lacking in the present organizational set-up. Under discussion as well was the possibility, or the probability, of bringing the war museum under the one roof that would be provided. This might again be one aspect of the museum of science to which I have already referred.
I do believe it is essential, if the organizational structure of the Canadian national museum is to be rational-if it is to be organized in the best interests of efficiency- to have an over-all director with separate heads of staff for the various branches that would be required to provide leadership in the various areas of Canadian history.
I would be interested in hearing the minister's comments about the present state of the legislation which was contemplated last year, and how soon we might anticipate its being brought before this house so that it might be dealt with by parliament as a whole. As has been pointed out in the letter quoted by the hon. member for Kootenay West, it is not in the best interests of Canada to have these periodic explosions amongst the highly trained scientific personnel which, of necessity, must be the kind of people employed in museums, disturbances which receive considerable airing in the public press and the type of critical comment which has been placed on the record by the hon. member for Kootenay West.
Just by way of a further thought on this matter, the hon. member who has just spoken raised a point, which is of some significance, about the department of northern affairs being the most suitable branch of government

to have supervisory and administrative responsibility for the museum. We all know that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources came into being in 1954 and under its wing were included all kinds of interesting activities, which found a home in the department because they were largely orphans in other departments. As an example of this kind I refer to the Canadian government travel bureau, which for a number of years came under the purview of the minister of northern affairs and which a year ago was returned to the Department of Trade and Commerce because it was thought that this was a more suitable department to handle these activities. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that some thought might be given by the government and by the very competent officials who have worked with the government on these matters as to whether northern affairs is the most suitable departmental home for an activity of this kind.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the previous speaker, and I must say it had not occurred to me that there was anything inappropriate in the national museum being within the purview of the department of national resources, which I have always felt was the wing under which such a repository or record of our national resources, human and otherwise, should properly come. I should like to hear the present minister make some comment on this matter of museum accommodation referred to by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I think this is a very important question in the consideration of some of the matters raised in this discussion.
One point I should like to make is this. I am not at all sure that our national museum, with much interest focused on it, should be accommodated in the city of Ottawa or its environs. Such little real association as I have had with the museum as a member has arisen out of the desire of some of the people on the west coast of Canada to have brought back to the west coast some of the items which years ago were taken to Ottawa. A great many of our Indian peoples would like to have back some of their potlatch regalia which was removed from them; they say it was confiscated, although I have understood from time to time that the authorities in Ottawa tend to claim they were in fact paid for it.
In view of some of the discussion which has taken place regarding some of the unhappy aspects of the affairs of our national museum, I should like to say that in course of dealing with this question I had occasion to discuss it both with Dr. Rousseau and Dr. Russell. If there were any differences of
Supply-Northern Affairs outlook or any disturbances within the inner workings of the museum I should like to mention, so as to introduce a more cheerful note into the discussion, that as far as dealing with me on this particular question was concerned they concealed those things very well, and I found my dealings with them very satisfactory.
I should also like to say that as far as I was able to determine their outlooks on this particular question were similar. I met with a good deal of sympathetic consideration for the idea that there was a place for the functioning of our national museum outside the boundaries of our capital city of Ottawa. I put forward this point of view at this time in the hope that the present minister will deal sympathetically as a matter of policy with the suggestion that provision be made to assist the growth and development in other centres of the country of an interest in museum affairs, and that a national museum, centred in Ottawa and operating under wing of the minister of national resources, should consider as one of its functions the stimulation of the growth and development of interest in museum displays in a smaller way in many centres of the country.
One idea which appeals to me and which I explored in discussions with both the gentlemen to whom I referred a moment ago was the idea of providing small displays for some of the smaller centres, the title to which might well remain with the national museum but which could be placed on loan in such centres for a period of time. I hope, no matter what changes may be made in the organization and structure of the museum, that this idea will be kept in mind and that the policies which are developed, in addition to providing adequate accommodation for central displays here in Ottawa, will be such as to encourage opportunities for Canadians in other parts of the country to have a sense of proprietary interest in some of our national heritage which properly belongs to museums both national and local.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, a few words only concerning vote No. 120 which involves an expenditure of $1,229,500, that is an increase of $7,000 compared to last year.
If we examine the estimates, we notice that this amount is broken down as follows:
Natural history	$309,143
Human history	330,244
Common services	383,499
Canadian War Museum	64,875
National Aviation	Museum	141,739
As I said, there is an increase of $7,000 over last year.

Supply-Northern Affairs
This amount is allocated to the administration, operation and maintenance of the national museum of Canada. That is why we are of the opinion that the Canadian people, not only in Ottawa but throughout Canada, should know about the national museum and what it should mean to them. The national museum should be an attraction for visitors from this country and elsewhere.
As for visitors from outside, I am under the impression that, the moment they get to Ottawa, they think the federal parliament is the national museum. That is just because they cannot tell what the national museum is all about. They do not know what is going on there. As a matter of fact, there are many who ask themselves whether the national museum is not to be found in the other place.
Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to speak of the history of the war and of aviation, but I think the history of Canada should also have its exhibits in the museum. There, one should be able to go over all the history of our country, from the beginning of the colony, in 1534, to this day. Something attractive should be set up, considering the amount of money devoted to this item and which the Canadian people is required to pay.
I heard a while ago a member from the official opposition state that politicians must not interfere in any way with the national museum. Mr. Chairman, I have full confidence in the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) because I feel he is not himself a politician and will not interfere with the administration of the national museum.
On the other hand, I repeat my view so that this museum will have great significance for visitors and the Canadian people as a whole.
And if some day the national museum has to be expanded we might then suggest to the minister to find room there for the orthodox economists and sociologists who are still advocating the maintenance of an obsolete system in Canada. When that happens, visitors will be extremely interested to see those people mummified at the national museum.


Mr. Laing:: It might be the wish of the hon. members that I endeavour to make some reply on each main item as we go along rather than leave all my observations to the end. I want to say at once that I appreciate very much the interventions which have been made by hon. members, the criticisms which has been expressed and the advice which has been given me for my direction in the future.
I would like to say to the hon. member for Port Arthur that I thought he was more
[Mr. Caouette.l
prone to point at the flat tire than to push on the wrench. That, however, is his responsibility and I am quite prepared to take the observations he made. I am going to admit at once that the museum has been the most unhappy part of a department which otherwise, I believe, has been a very happy ship.
This is a situation which has existed over a number of years. Like the hon. member for Calgary North, I do not wish to thrash old straw, although I would have no objection to doing so if there were more grain in it. I think probably his suggestion that we must have some strong central direction of the museum is very sound. I think some of our troubles have arisen from the fact that there was more than one skipper on the ship. I think we shall probably need to make an investigation of whether an exceedingly competent scientist is always an exceedingly competent administrator. I am rather of the opinion that the reverse may be the case, and I think in the arrangements we shall have to make our first responsibility will be to find a competent administrator. I think a competent administrator, one who has a knowledge of human beings, will attract to him people who are extremely well qualified in the work of the various branches which are required within a museum.
With respect to this work, I should like to impress upon members of the committee that these are no longer just dusty studies of bygone days. They have a real application to the times in which we live. These things are not all in the attic. Many of them are in our living rooms and could be the source of worth while developments from a number of viewpoints.
I wonder how many members of the committee have been to our museum recently. I would like to suggest that it be a required visitation on their part; because in these years when we have had all these troubles, the last five or six years, a tremendous amount of magnificent work has been done by the men there. I could mention the displays in the Eskimo hall, the hall of mammals, the marvellous collection of Indian masks and the Lord Bossom collection, all of which are a tremendous asset to our museum.


An hon. Member:: And the mineral collection.


Arthur Laing: Yes, and the mineral collection. The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that we should send parts of our exhibitions around the country. I think that is a splendid idea and one which could be worked out. We did this when part of the Baddeck exhibition was sent to the Vancouver Pacific international exhibition early this year, and it would seem to me that from

time to time we should consider taking portions of these splendid exhibits and sending them to various parts of the country.
I do not want to revive the animosities and distress surrounding the severances and departures of recent years, because I do not think it would improve the position of those who have left. But I do accept the situation as being a serious one. Others including Dr. Russell-I think six or seven men with doctorates-have left us in recent years. I return to the belief that we must have a unified central administration in the hands of a competent administrator, and I think we shall start from there. So I can promise those members who have contributed beneficially to this discussion that I intend to pay particular attention myself, as minister, to the affairs of this branch. I have studied book after book on the history of the museum in recent years, and they make a doleful tale.
As I say, I intend to pay particular attention in my capacity as minister to trying to establish some peace there and to provide for some progressive work to be done. I can assure hon. members that the days of surgery are over but the days of medication are about to begin. That is a promise I can make to the committee, and I think it will work. I suggest to hon. members that they can hold me responsible a year from now, by which time I think we shall have made some progress.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. Some years ago the museum housed a Kootenay canoe, a type of canoe not found anywhere else in North America. That canoe collapsed. The officials of the day having responsibility ordered another one to be built by one or two of the surviving Indians who could build such a canoe and $400 was paid for it. I have paid several visits to the museum to try to find the canoe but without success to date. Can the minister tell us where it is?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I will find out for the hon. member where his canoe is. I think he has implied that he supports the view of my predecessor in office, that we simply have to get a new building and new accommodation and the sooner we do that the better. I want to remind the committee that from 1916, when the fire took place in the central building here and when some of the functions of parliament were removed to the museum building as it now exists, until the year 1960 we did not have sole occupation of that building for our own purposes. We have a great number of excellent things that should be on display to the Canadian public, items that would attract scholars from other parts of Canada to make
Supply-Northern Affairs studies of them in this atmosphere, but they are hidden away and will remain hidden away until we get a new building. I want to tell my predecessor that the general plans for the building are all drawn. We require only some detailed plans. I am informed by my officers that the building can still be ready to be opened in late 1966 or 1967, and that will be our objective.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now return to the consideration of item 40, national parks branch.
40. Grant in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba, $15,000.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I realize that everyone is quite anxious to get some of these estimates through but I should like to say a few words particularly about Banff national park, which is situated in my constituency of Bow River. This year more than a million people visited Banff national park, I believe, and one of the problems that no doubt troubles the departmental administrators and will trouble the new minister as it has troubled other ministers arises from the premise spelled out in the National Parks Act in relation to what goes on in the parks.
I do not think I could refer to two better authorities than the Glassco royal commission report, volume 2, page 37, and page 2 of the Oberlander report entitled "Urban Development Plan". I wish to ask the minister some particular questions, but before doing so may I say to him seriously and with the greatest respect that there is some uneasiness among the people in the parks with regard to statements that have been made that they feel are not correct. I have asked the present minister certain questions on the orders of the day. On some occasions he has denied the reports that have appeared in the newspapers as to statements made by himself, and on other occasions he has left the matter up in the air. In view of these facts I say to him seriously that there is some uneasiness among the people who serve the tourist trade, which is probably the second major industry in Canada.
Before dealing with this question I think it is interesting to put on the record the basic problem that frustrates me as a member of parliament representing Bow River, and other members representing constituencies where there are national parks. It is a problem that must frustrate the administrators and the minister as well. I read now from page 37 of volume 2 of the Glassco report:
The National Parks Act declares that these lands are "dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment" and further



Supply-Northern Affairs
stipulates that they be maintained "so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations".
If I may interject there, Banff national park is not a small area of land. It contains more than 87 square miles. I believe I read somewhere some months ago, possibly in the Glassco report, that the park is the size of Prince Edward Island. So it is not a small area of land. The few acres that are taken up by the Banff townsite are so small that they are like a pinprick on mount Rundle. Therefore when we are realing with Banff townsite and Banff national park we must realize they are two distinct things, one being the townsite that serves tourists and the other the park itself.
This is what the Glassco report says, and this is the whole crux of the problem and why there has been friction from time to time between members of parliament and the minister, and between members of parliament and the administrators. I see the officials are in their places this afternoon. Probably the new minister will have a similar experience with regard to members who represent park areas because the problem is difficult. The report goes on to say:
This is somewhat of a contradiction in terms, and the provision of amenities and recreational facilities for the five million people annually visiting the parks has, of necessity, brought about physical changes in the countryside which rob it, in part, of its virgin character.
In other words, if we are going to have the world Olympics at Banff national park we have got to make up our minds what we are going to do. An island is being rebuilt for the world's fair, and some very definite changes are going to have to be made quickly with regard to Banff town-site and also the skiing site.
Are we going to run slam bang into the proposition set forth in the National Parks Act that these lands are dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment? What that means I am not just sure. I know there is no judicial interpretation, and the administrators have interpreted these words as they have seen fit, as their ambitions and visions have dictated from time to time.
Let us take a look at what the Oberlander report has to say on page 2:
Established primarily for the preservation of the natural landscape and for the protection of native wildlife, they are to be "maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations".
I do not think that the fact that we allow some development of the townsite in order to serve tourists is going to run afoul of the preamble and intention of the act. In fact, I do not think the act says what some people
[Mr. Woolliams.l
believe it says. In my opinion it is being interpreted very narrowly, and from reading the Calgary Albertan recently I am inclined to think that the new minister agrees with me in that regard. But there is somewhat of a contradiction, because if you are going to attract tourists you must provide some facilities.
The extreme interpretation of the act is that the park should be fenced off so as to preserve those funny bears with their queer posteriors. Hon. members will recall when that came up in the house. That is the extreme viewpoint. The other viewpoint is that the park should be kept in its natural state as far as possible but that motel, swimming, camping and other facilities should be provided for tourists at certain places.
Even at the time when the minister of the department was a Conservative I said that when the Rogers pass road was opened there would be more people coming to Banff each year. The fact that more people visited Banff national park this year was not because there was a world's fair last year in Seattle. The fact is that people come to the parks of Canada for three reasons. First, they like Canada. Second, they like our parks. Third, they come because the dollar is pegged at 92J cents and they have more money to spend.
I think the administrators have a big say in the operation of the parks and I do not want to be unkind to them, but if I was critical at all it was because they lacked the vision that all these people were going to come to our parks. I do not want to give my source of information, but I have been told by a person who has lived in the parks for years, a person who is not in the restaurant business, the hotel business, the motel business or any other business whereby money is made out of tourists, but is in a capacity of some authority, that at one time people had to sleep in their cars in the park.
They could not find camp facilities because the camp grounds are crowded. I want to pay the former minister a compliment. There was a large development took place in connection with camp grounds under the previous administration. However, I must go this far and be fair by saying there is still not sufficient space provided to satisfy the number of visitors coming to Banff national park each year. Surely, after people drive 300 miles or 400 miles from the United States, after they have read these attractive ads that are costing the taxpayers of this country money, it is not fair to make them drive another 80 miles to the city of Banff to get accommodation.
This is a problem that was mentioned in the Glassco commission report. There seems to be a conflict as between some people as to

what the act means. Once we clear up that conflict, then we are on the road to getting satisfaction in these parts. I think that is the major problem. I will go this far: I know that everyone in the department is doing the things he honestly believes are correct. However, I say with the greatest respect that some individuals seem to have lacked vision in considering this matter.
I should like to take this opportunity to ask a few questions. I said there was some uneasiness in the parks with regard to the statements the minister has been making in the Albertan and the Calgary Herald. These statements have scared the people in the parks, and they have scared people like Mr. Bruce who has several times tried to get the Liberal nomination in that riding. It is not just the Conservatives who are scared, but the Liberals as well. Why are these people scared? Let me tell the minister this: For some time the department used to give 20 or 21 leases. Then, these leases were extended to 40 years or longer. This was the security of tenure on lands of persons who had invested in motels, restaurants and other facilities to look after the tourists. They made their investment in buildings, and they would have the security of tenure provided by these leases.
Now, recently, the minister stated that there was some question of the elimination of these leases. I do not know whether or not the minister made that statement, but it was reported in a Liberal newspaper, and because it was reported in a Liberal newspaper the Liberals believed it and so did the Tories. First of all, I think the minister should clarify that situation. Then, in that same article there was reference to the fact that people might have to pay land taxes. They have never paid land taxes in this area. These statements have unnerved the people. They expect an answer from the minister.
There is one matter that is sub judice, and I do not want to get into a court case. However, I do want to say that there is freehold land in the parks, and a large amount of it is owned by the Canadian Pacific-I do not know how many hundreds or thousands of acres. I want to say now that the Canadian Pacific does an excellent job of serving people from the United States and other parts of Canada who go to the parks. I am not being critical in that regard. However, there are other people who own land in the parks. I do not expect the minister to make a statement on this now because it is a big subject; but at some time I would like to hear from him an explanation of why it is that, over the years, land was expropriated from individuals. They were discriminated against, and 28902-5-371
Supply-Northern Affairs yet the land of the Canadian Pacific, that big corporation in this country, was not expropriated. I know it is said these decisions are made at the minister's level. I believe they are made at the administrative level and laid on the minister's desk.
Do you know how you expropriate land? You do not even notify the owner; you merely file an order in council. One group of individuals did not know they had lost their land until they wanted to make a transfer to somebody. They searched the land titles in the office at Calgary and they found a certain order in council. I can go further. When they came to me, I called the Canadian Pacific and they referred me to the head office. They did not know their oil rights were expropriated, and they are now very concerned. The previous government had suggested, and properly so, some changes in the law connected with expropriation. I was looking for such legislation. I would say this situation should be looked into by the new government. I want to say, too, that more and more individuals are being discriminated against but the Canadian Pacific holds its land on a freehold basis. I am not against freehold, and I want to make that point clear. I am against discrimination. I am against the method by which expropriation was accomplished.
I am not saying there were politics involved, but I know a man who was a friend of the late R. B. Bennett. He owned some 60-odd acres of land in the park and it was expropriated by the previous Liberal government. I do not say it was a coincidence, but I do say that if you leave the law of expropriation in this condition, whether it is a Conservative government or a Liberal government, you are going to find politics being played with land transfers in the park. It is time there was a clearcut policy from the minister and the department. This is a serious matter. The minister has not been too long in this portfolio, but this situation has continued for a long time. I might say that, at long last, like the Duke of Windsor, I can say a few words on my own. For five years I have wanted to say what I have said this afternoon. I am laying it right on the table. Here is a terrible situation. I want to say once again that individuals are being discriminated against. Why is it that the Canadian Pacific is allowed to hold land under freehold? If there should be a decision of the government approving the expropriation of freehold land in parks, then let us have it. I am against it because I believe that free enterprise can do a better job in the parks. I am certainly against any discrimination.

Supply-Northern Affairs
Now, that is point No. 1. Point No. 2 concerns a smaller matter, but it is an aggravating matter. For a number of years I have been asking that this be changed. It may be changed now, I am not sure. I wish the minister would assure the people it has been changed. People come into the parks and park their cars. They come to spend money, to see the mountains and live with nature.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and some of them live with nature. They park their cars. Maybe they park them too long and they get a ticket. Normally, in any city you can go down to the police station and pay $2 or $3, whatever it is and settle the matter. What have you got to do in the parks? You have to stay over. You are charged with an offence, almost as if you committed a murder, and you have to appear before a magistrate. Please get that regulation fixed up. If you do that for me, Mr. Minister, I can assure you that when your estimates come up next year I will be most kind. People have been asking for this change for a number of years.
I just want to say a few more words about the school of fine arts. There is even a recommendation in the Oberlander report in that regard, that the school of fine arts should not be allowed to develop any further because it might spoil the look of the mountains. This is a big area, as big as Prince Edward Island. I think there are bears in the park that have not been seen by a human and vice versa, it is that large. I may say that the hon. Senator Cameron, if I may refer to him in a most courteous way, has done a tremendous job in developing the school of fine arts at Banff national park. Why was it developed there? Well, certainly the senator could give this information far better than I, because I am not a student of the fine arts. The fact is that a school of fine arts should surely be in Banff national park, the most beautiful place in the world, in that mountain atmosphere. Surely buildings which fit into the trees and mountains, in a space covering 8,700 acres, will not ruin the park? They are not going to scare the little animals and they are not going to hurt those great, big mountains. Let us take a broader look at this thing.
I want to be complimentary to the minister in this regard, because I go along with some of the things he has said. He has grasped the situation that there is a definite conflict-


Arthur Laing: But neither of us want to scare Claude Brewster.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, we do not; but I am just going to show you how ridiculous this is. When Premier Manning of Alberta decided to build two art centres, one in Edmonton and

the other in Calgary, he wanted to use some of the stone that is found on mount Rundle. Now, mount Rundle is a fairly large hill. It is a pretty large place, and I am certain that somewhere on that mountain a little rock could have been taken out to build one building in Canada. But what happened? The premier could not get the rock. It could not be moved from the park, even with a truck, and so they shipped the stuff in from the United States, which doubled or tripled the cost. I may add that these two beautiful buildings in Calgary and Edmonton are a credit to the provincial administration, but surely the example I have given is carrying things too far.
There is a conflict between keeping all this place for nature and making use of it for other purposes. When one talks like this, especially around Calgary, people write editorials, and they are dirty editorials. They say you want dancing girls, pool halls, and everything else; but no one is suggesting that. I hope I make myself clear this afternoon. I am suggesting facilities suitable for the million and more people who visit the parks, and that these facilities should be extended to take care of more and more people who will come to visit the parks, and that this be done with real co-operation between the federal department and the provincial governments.
There is a little spot up in the north where a mine extends only a few feet into the national park, but if anyone were to put his hands across the dividing line he would have his fingers removed. This is carrying things a little too far. Again, the animals are not going to be scared by that little bit of encroachment.
It may be said that this will establish a precedent. In fact a lot of people criticize lawyers because they believe in precedents, but I have never seen a precedent that could not be changed, distinguished, or done away with by a court. Therefore I tell the minister not to be afraid, in dealing with the parks officials, if they tell him he is going to establish a precedent. The average person who thinks about the development of our parks is not concerned about that.
I congratulate the administrators; that is their job, to keep the parks in their natural state. But if we are going to have tourists we must have some development, and let us make it a reasonable development, and not a monopolistic development either. There was some suggestion, and I do not know whether this is correct or not, that the department was going to get into the building of motels. For goodness sake, it does not matter how socialistic a government may think we should become, freedom of enterprise does do a

better job when there is competition, and we can make certain that tourists from the United States and all over Canada can be provided with proper facilities without having the government getting into this kind of business.
There are three things I would say. This conflict must be straightened out. Second, for goodness sake take a look at the way expropriation is going on for the parks, and whether there is any discrimination. Under the present act there certainly could be. We should also determine whether it is fair to have certain forms of traffic regulations throughout Alberta, that encourage tourists to come to our parks, and then have other regulations that are medieval.
How many years does it take to make these changes? If the minister does the things I suggest, he will do a good job for the tourists, for the parks and for Canada. One of the most beautiful places anywhere for skiing is at lake Louise and Banff, and when the world Olympics come we will sell our parks as they are and develop good will all over the world. Look at what has been done in that connection in European countries. What has been done in Europe can be done in Canada.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, when I was listening to the hon. member for Bow River I remembered that the first time I came to this house I was seated immediately behind his predecessor, and I have come to the conclusion that, regardless of party affiliation, the hon. members for Bow River seem to show an almost obsessive concentration on the problems of Banff. I used to tell the former member that when one was travelling west, after spending a few weeks or months in eastern Canada, those mountains around Banff did not look too bad; but of course when one was travelling east, after having spent some time in British Columbia, those little pimples were hardly noticeable.
I have one or two suggestions for the minister which may help him solve some of his problems with the hon. member for Bow River, concerning the overcrowding of Banff.
I would point out that in my constituency we have some ice fields that would make the Columbia ice fields look pretty small. The hon. member for Bow River also talked about another vast expansion of park, but in the mount Waddington region there is mountain scenery that would make that at Banff rather pale in comparison, and which I hope will be made one of the great wilderness parks of Canada. However, I am not seriously proposing at the moment that this should be done immediately; but while we are discussing this item I would like to know how the 28902-5-371J
Supply-Northern Affairs minister is getting along in the discussions he has been having with the British Columbia provincial authorities in respect to national park development in the coastal areas of that province.
Earlier this session there were several references to Garibaldi park, and I would like to tell the minister that I have been receiving increasing representation from Vancouver island as to the desirability of Strathcona park and the Forbidden plateau area being developed as a national park. I have replied that the initiative for any such development would have to come from Victoria, because Strathcona park is a provincial park and comes within the jurisdiction of the province. But I have expressed the hope that if such a development would be within the wishes of the provincial authorities, then perhaps the matter would receive a favourable reception here in Ottawa, and I have indicated I would do everything I could to persuade the federal authorities of that desirability.
As I have said before in this house, it is a matter of great regret that while we do have these beautiful national parks in the eastern part of British Columbia, and in the adjacent area of Alberta, we have no federal park development in some of the beautiful park areas on the west coast. I would like the minister to tell us if there is any greater likelihood of his being able to make such proposals than there has been on various other occasions when this matter received discussion and attention here.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I have just a very brief question to ask the minister. He might reply to it when he replies on the item concerning national parks. My question concerns the proposal for the establishment of a national park in the Yukon. As he knows- or may not know-there are two views in the Yukon with respect to the establishment of a national park. All the groundwork has been done, of course, through the efforts of parks branch officials who have very thoroughly investigated areas in the Yukon which might be suitable for the establishment of a park. The matter has come before the legislative council of the Yukon on more than one occasion for discussion, and I believe the minister will find in his departmental files certain submissions made by the Yukon chamber of mines, and other organizations in the Yukon.
One point of view is that we should have a park because tourism is essential to the growth of any economy, and certainly it is an important segment of the economy of the Yukon. In opposition to this view is that of the mining community, which is against the

Supply-Northern Affairs establishment of a national park because of the existing restrictions which would prevent geological exploration and development with any park boundaries which might be established. The Yukon has perhaps the largest area of nature in the raw of any area in Canada, with over 207,000 square miles available for the establishment of a park. One of the objections of the legislative council in the Yukon to the proposed location of the park was that it was to be located in an area of promising potential development adjacent to, for instance, the holdings of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, where substantial low grade nickel deposits have been established.
All I would like the minister to do is tell us what the intentions are, in so far as the government is concerned, in connection with the establishment of the park. When he was in Whitehorse he spoke on the subject-it may not have been in Whitehorse, but certainly in one of the locations in the Yukon; perhaps Dawson City-of the establishment of a park. That might be a suitable area;
I do not know. Certainly the parks branch officials are much more capable than I to suggest the factors which should be present in the establishment of any park. But my understanding of the minister's remarks there was that such a park would be established, and just as quickly as possible. With those few brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, and the request to the minister to state the intentions of the government, I have nothing further to say on the item.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the minister did state his intention was to reply to each item as it was raised. If he would follow that procedure, it would be very acceptable to me.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Yukon, I would say I assume we would be forced to regard the territorial government in the same light as we would a provincial government. Therefore I would very much hesitate to announce that we were going to place a national park in the Yukon without an agreement with or request from the territorial council of the Yukon. I know, as the hon. member knows, that this matter is under way up there. I think all it requires is a determination and agreement on their part that they are setting aside a piece of property with regard to which they can overlook the expression that "there's gold in them thar hills". I think it is a matter of deciding on a property which the mining interests agree is not worth working. I am quite certain that if an application were made by

the territorial council on that basis, the government of Canada is desirous of seeing to it now, particularly in the light of the coming centennial celebrations, that there be set aside such property for preservation in the future. That would be the attitude as far as the Yukon is concerned.
As far as my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni is concerned, we have latterly had indicated to us that there is a minute piece of property in the general region of cape Beale, on the west coast, which is available to us. I do not think this would interest us because of its size and location. I have not given up hope entirely in respect to Garibaldi. I have spoken to some of the ministers of the province of British Columbia and I would hope there is some chance yet of our having the government of British Columbia agree to turning that property over to us. I am quite convinced that as there are four or five national parks on the Atlantic coast, and not one of the Pacific coast, it is in the interests of the provincial administration that we have a national park on the Pacific coast. I am quite certain it would net the province of British Columbia $4 million or $5 million a year in holding back that great number of tourists coming into that province from the south, making a bee line toward Banff, because Banff is a historic name they have in their heads, and then using the ultra modern highways to get out of British Columbia as fast as they can. I am told by men who are familiar with areas which people enjoy in Europe that there is no comparable area anywhere in the European Alps with what can be developed in the Garibaldi area. I want to thank my hon. friend for mentioning Forbidden plateau. It too is a very considerable and renowned area in British Columbia and I think it should be given a great deal of attention as either provincial or federal parks are developed in the future.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Bow River. I enjoyed him very much and I am quite certain he enjoyed himself. I think all the estimates he ought to discuss should be in this department, because he was indeed humorous and at the same time gave us something to think about. I want to assure him that I made the statement that we are searching for a different and more equitable basis than the present one on long term leases in the park.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What does the minister mean by "more equitable"?


Arthur Laing: Well, a fair basis. I am thinking in terms of what might be called a business tax, rather than the situation that now exists.

My hon. friend dealt with the tremendous increase in the number of people. Historically the western parks attracted some wealthy Canadians and a great number of wealthy Americans, as he knows, who came through in trains in the old days. They set up in C.P.R. or Canadian National hotels, where all facilities were provided, and their holidays were very expensive over several weeks. There is a new torrent of trade now, which is due to the automobile, rubber tires, good highways and a number of other factors, including probably the 92 cents dollar, but also the relatively buoyant conditions of the economy of Canada, and statutory holidays with pay. Therefore Canadians who hitherto did not have the money with which to see Canada now have that money. It is a very fine thing that they do. We have to take care of the accommodation that they require in our parks. I agree in general with my hon. friend from Bow River that our parks are large enough, the topography there is of such a nature that we can put these tenting and camping locations and the requirements for trailers in areas where they will not deface the general landscape. This is what we are going to do.
The hon. member talked about historic leases. I have studied this question and have been astounded and amazed at what I found. There are leases for tiny sums of money that have been built up through the years, partly as a result of the monopolistic situation created by the establishment of the parks by a national government, into tradeable items of many thousands of dollars-and I do not like it. I am referring to leases of $7 or $9 a year, and I hear reliably that those leases are being traded for ten, twelve and fourteen thousand dollars. I suggested that we should arrive, over a period, at a position where we could establish what I call a business tax in place of these long-term leases.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does that mean that the leases would remain the same, the tenure and so on? What you say is, tax the enterprises which are getting rich in the tourist trade.


Arthur Laing: I do not want to be unfair or scare anybody, but I am told that one or more provinces in Canada have given notice over a period of years that long-term leases are out. I have not decided that we should do that nationally, but we are making a concerted study to see whether more equity as well as fairness can obtain. Because we have a situation, as my hon. friend knows, where some grandchildren are today in the position where their grandfathers took the original lease of land in a national park and have been living in the park, but now that right is
Supply-Northern Affairs denied other Canadians because we do not lease them any more. In the interests of equity and in the interests of participation on the basis of the accruing value from the monopolistic position of the parks branch here, I would like to see something better than that which we are doing at the present time. I appreciate very much the advice given today by hon. members who have spoken on this item.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister say something about the remarks I made-made not in a political way-about the method of expropriation of land? I say this with great respect to the C.P.R., who have done a tremendous job of building up the tourist trade, not only with their trains but also with their beautiful hotels. I should like to know what the minister's plans are for the future, or whether he has discussed this question with the Department of Fisheries.


Arthur Laing: I do not know, without notice, about expropriations such as the hon. member describes. Any attempts we have made to buy property have been made strictly by negotiation. I think that is the case in every instance since I have been with the department. Some of the attempts we have made along the line of negotiations have frightened me to death, again because of the apparently monopolistic position. We are spending tremendous sums of money, and some of them I have set aside currently for this reason.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to develop this for one minute. A lot of these things have been cleared up, and in this I pay regard to the former minister. When I first became a member of parliament for Bow River in 1957, Mr. Edward McCormick, Q.C., of Calgary, had various cases in his office where all the government does-and I have checked the procedure; I know the procedure and have done research into it-is to pass an order in council, file it in the land titles office, and there is no notice to the landowner at all. He may or may not know about it. The land titles office may inform him, but otherwise there is no notice.
On top of that, five, six or seven years go by. I am now referring to one of the cases which the minister and his officials may have in mind. It has now got to the stage where I do not know whether they will compromise or not. I am talking about ordinary cases in Banff and I could name dozens. I have a file full of cases which were finally settled. We begged the minister and his officials from 1957 on, and finally they settled. I am not saying this was because the Conservatives came into power, but because pressure built up. Although I give the minister credit for cleaning these cases up in his time, I am sure

Supply-Northern Affairs that if he had been the previous minister he would have cleaned them up. The fact is that I hope the minister looks into it, because there is a lot of freehold in our parks land. One lady came to me when I was in Calgary with a letter from the department. She knows what happened to her other relatives. This letter said: "Will you sell your land?" If she does not answer the letter and does not negotiate at a price with a gun at her head, what happens? At some time in the near future there will be an order in council passed and there is only one solution. They say: "You can go to the exchequer court".
Why should a landowner have to go into court? Why does not the department in three or four weeks, if they cannot settle it at a price, after proper valuation take the matter to court and pay the costs? Much of this land in Banff is only worth $100, $200 or $300. If they did go to legal counsel and fight over it, it would not be worth their while. That is how it is done and it is wrong. That is why the Expropriation Act of Canada should be changed. I know the minister cannot do it today, but I ask him to take a hard look at this. I have a case-when it is settled, or tried and passed through the exchequer court-that will be a national scandal. It dragged along for four or five years before they started an action. Why should people have to start an action? Why are they not notified? Why does not the department sit down and negotiate with them? If they cannot agree to a reasonable price let the exchequer court decide. But the fact is that it costs that person money. He has to go and hire a lawyer. He is put in all these difficulties. But it is so easy for the department; they sterilize development. That is what the department does, and it is a national scandal. You can own land and put your life's savings into it. Then the government expropriate it, and if you do not take their price they sterilize development till they get it in their hands, and then develop it. Is that fair to the individual? What about the civil pronerty rights of the people of this country: That is what I am complaining about. It is a national scandal.


Arthur Laing: I do not think any of the conditions portrayed by the hon. member in the bad old days of which he was a part persist at the present time. I do not think we have picked up any person's property at all without attempting to negotiate. If we have been unable to negotiate-and I am talking after eight months' experience-we have not expropriated the property in question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Since the minister took over many of these things have been cleared up, and I would say that is correct; but in

the past, under former Liberal administrations it has happened. I am not saying it was because a Liberal administration was in power but that is what took place. It is at a halt at the moment, but I can show you letters where freehold landowners have written to me, maybe unknown to the minister, saying: "We do not believe in any freeholds in the parks; we want your land". But the C.P.R. does not get a letter like that. You can deny it, but give me the chance and I will bring in files of evidence.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Only one question for the minister. Has he received a request from the government of the province of Quebec to create national parks in that province? Because I do not think we have one park.


Arthur Laing: I understand that the government of the province of Quebec is engaged in some studies. We have had no request from them to establish a national park in Quebec. However, I am told some studies in respect of two areas are under way.


Mr. Watson (Chaleauguay-Hunlingdon-La-prairie):: Mr. Chairman, may I take a few minutes of the committee's time to make a few remarks. I am wondering why there is one very important deficiency in our national parks program, namely a lack of proper and adequate park facilities close to our two major metropolitan centres of Montreal and Toronto. I think there is a growing recognition at all levels of government that as the full force of the technological change which is called automation strikes industry and our working population, a shorter work week will result and it will be necessary to provide recreational facilities to meet the increase of leisure time. The full effects of this automation will first be felt in the metropolitan areas. I suggest that the need for park facilities within a reasonable driving distance of Montreal and Toronto is urgent. I suggest that wherever possible and with full cooperation from the municipal and provincial authorities, a survey be made in the river area along the St. Lawrence, in the Montreal region, and in the lake area around Toronto, with a view to establishing park areas around the many historic sites which mark the route of voyageurs up the St. Lawrence and the paths of the early settlers around the lake in the Toronto area.
I have a specific suggestion to make, and it is that the historic site of the battle of Chateauguay at Allens Corners in the county of Chateauguay should be properly established as a park under the jurisdiction of the department. This site is located only 25 miles from the island of Montreal and it commemorates, as I am sure any historian today would agree, one of the most significant

events in Canadian history-the repulse of an invading American army as it approached Montreal in October, 1813. This victory over the Americans on October 26th, 1813, was a French Canadian victory. Had it not been for the unity of all the elements of society in Lower Canada in 1812 and 1813 it is very likely that Montreal would have fallen to the invaders and, with the link with Upper Canada cut, that the whole of Canada would have fallen to the Americans. I suggest that this battle is worthy of proper commemoration.
At the present time there are two stone cairns commemorating the event. These are situated on plots of land, one of which measures about 25 feet square, and the other approximately 40 feet by 150 feet. Since there is a great deal of land available in this area -it is not an urbanized area-I hope the hon. gentleman will give every consideration to further development of the site commemorating the battle of Chateauguay.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest that along the St. Lawrence river a number of historic sites exist which are neither marked nor commemorated, and I hope the appropriate branch of the department will in the near future investigate the possibility of commemorating these important reminders of our history.
In closing, I should like to say that if we are ever to establish any sort of Canadian identity it seems to me it will have to come from our identification, as Canadians, with the vast wilderness heritage which has fallen to us. When we consider the space we have available, I think Canadians should be the greatest outdoor people in the world. Yet they are not. I feel, as I know the minister does, that his department has a most important role to play in instilling an appreciation of this Canadian heritage in our youth.


Mr. Patterson:: I was interested in the observations which have been made with respect to the possibility of establishing a national park in the Garibaldi area of British Columbia.
I know that on a number of occasions suggestions have been made in this regard. I do not know if the idea has been regarded too favourably by the province of British Columbia. It may be they are leary of the intentions of the federal government in this field, because on several occasions in the past they have been faced with efforts on the part of the federal government to gain a little more control over British Columbia and its resources. I look back a number of years to a bill called Bill 3 which proposed to take over the Columbia river area and declare it to be in the national interest. Then, more recently, the federal government proposed to
Supply-Northern Affairs lay claim to the offshore mineral rights of British Columbia, and this question has not been settle as yet.
So, with regard to this possibility of acquiring land for a federal park in the Garibaldi area there is a question of just what might be involved in the way of provincial natural resources. I would like to ask the minister if in any consideration he has given to this project he found himself in agreement with the former minister, that there is room for two developments in this section, one, provincial, taking in the Golden Ears area, and the other federal, to include the northern alpine area as a national park. I wonder whether the minister is of the same opinion as his predecessor was in this respect.


Arthur Laing: That might well be so, but I would prefer to have our technical men make an inspection of the area and report upon it before I make any judgment. So far, the premier of British Columbia has not agreed to let our technical men enter the property.


Erik Nielsen: I have only a word to say at this point and it is with reference to the minister's assurance that no decision will be taken with regard to the establishment of a national park in the Yukon until the Yukon legislative concil has made application. I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for that assurance, since it was on my suggestion that the previous administration established this policy. I am sure the people of the Yukon, through their council, will be happy to hear what the minister has said in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
SO. Canadian wildlife service-Wildlife resources, conservation and development including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $979,700.
Mr. Pascoe:: I have a few comments to make under this heading. The problem I wish to raise concerns the natural migration in the fall of large birds called sandhill cranes which do great damage to the crops of farmers in one area of my constituency. This is the area around Govan, Nokomis and Hatfield at the northern end of Last Long lake-an important lake which enters into the naming of my constituency, Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
To outline the problem very briefly which I wish to present, I should like to read a few comments from an article which appeared in the Semans Gazette, a newspaper in my constituency. The article reads in part as follows:
-the breeding range-
Of the sandhill crane.
-is in the far unsettled north, from Siberia to Baffin island.

Supply-Northern Affairs
This is the part I am concerned about:
In August the cranes start funnelling down from the Arctic toward their wintering range around Texas, Louisiana and Mexico. Last Mountain lake... is a sojourning region where the cranes gather in thousands and live well for a few weeks before continuing the journey.
With regard to the damage to crops done by the sandhill cranes the article says:
It is not the amount of grain the birds eat, although this can be considerable, but the damage they do to the swathed grain with their large feet that brings most complaints from farmers. The birds will literally take a field apart. What grain they do not eat they scratch out of the heads and pound into the ground.
The article also brings out an item which should be of interest to the minister and probably to the house. It refers to the number of sandhill cranes in this particular area and says:
On August 1 less than 300 of these cranes were in their usual roosting ground on the lake. By August 31 their numbers had increased to 30,000.
The problem I am trying to bring out is put in these words in the article:
It is one of trying to fit the crane migratory pattern into the local farming industry so both may survive and flourish.
Naturally the farmers who suffer severe crop losses want some way of controlling the birds. The former minister of northern affairs and national resources, whom I am glad to see in his seat, took definite action on the problem in 1961 and 1962. His department planted what were called lure crops to attract the birds from the grain fields. I think this plan was at least partially successful and I believe additional land was seeded to lure crops this year.
I have had considerable correspondence about this problem and I think the minister has too. I should like to refer briefly to some of it. I have here a letter from the secretary of the rural municipality of Wre-ford, No. 280, in my riding. He says in part in his letter:
We would recommend.. .If these cranes must be protected, that a couple of sections of lure crop might keep cranes off the farmers' crops which might be sufficient, under favourable weather conditions in the fall, to allow farmers to harvest their crops and not suffer too much damage, but in addition to this, exploders and shooting to scare practice should be used, outside the lure crop area, in order to herd them onto the lure crops.
I have another letter containing a resolution adopted at a meeting in Govan, Saskatchewan, of the Saskatchewan farmers union. This resolution was passed on March 21, 1963. It suggests that some plan be worked out under which the federal and provincial governments would pay all losses caused by sandhill cranes. I am sure the minister received a copy of that resolution. I think these
[Mr. Pascoe.l
resolutions demonstrate that the farmers in the district are ready to co-operate in any effective program of crane control. I find the residents around Last Mountain lake just as interested as any other group in preserving the whooping crane. To a great extent the whooping crane resembles the sandhill crane and the odd specimen of the whooping crane is found among the sandhill cranes. That is why the farmers are loath to shoot them. I do not believe they have permits to shoot them anyway.
It might be of interest to the committee to know that a small bird sanctuary, the first one on the North American continent for birds, was established in the area around Last Mountain lake in 1887, and I am pleased that it was established under the Conservative government of Sir John A. Macdonald. I suggest to the minister that this wildfowl sanctuary should be expanded by purchasing additional land, some of which can be seeded to lure crops and the rest left as marshy feeding grounds. I also think that the sight of
30,000	large sandhill cranes, each about three feet tall, feeding in one sanctuary would be a great tourist attraction. There would also be the possibility of tourists seeing one or more of the rare whooping cranes.
I understand that the minister's department has agreed to allow certain farmers in designated areas to shoot cranes threatening their crops. I realize that some of the farmers might be provoked into shooting the birds because of the damage to their crops, but I think it would be a mistake to allow indiscriminate shooting in view of the danger that one of the rare whooping cranes might be killed.
Most people would agree that an adequate bird sanctuary is a better solution. As I said earlier, the first bird sanctuary on the North American continent was established in this area in 1887. The enlargement of this sanctuary by 1967, 80 years later, would be a very fine centennial project. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources might be able to call on his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, to help secure the necessary land under the ARDA program, and I am sure the farmers in the area would co-operate in any project that is planned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could intervene to see what the sense of the committee might be. It was understood through the usual channels that at 4.30 the Minister of Justice would go on with his estimates, but I think I explained last night that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would find it a tremendous convenience if there was some possibility of getting his estimates completed within a reasonable time this afternoon. I should like

only to find out what should be done, because if there is no hope of getting them through in a reasonable time I think we will go right ahead at this point with the estimates of the Department of Justice.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it the intention to carry on with private members' business at five o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am hoping to find out through the usual channels. Perhaps we could reach agreement about that right now. I know that the first bill which stands in the name of the hon. member for Timiskam-ing is not going to be debated and the government is willing to have it stood, so that it will not lose its precedence. I have not been able to find out whether it is the general view that we should debate a purge for the King's-evil or the whooping crane, but as between the two I would hope, quite frankly, that we would go on with the whooping crane.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the whooping evil.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Arthur has expressed the desire to purge the King's-evil rather than debate the whooping crane.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps we could wait until five o'clock and let the hon. member for Port Arthur speak for himself.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether we have decided that we are going to continue with northern affairs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had hoped that we might dispose of the department in the next 20 minutes or so.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one question.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member does not mind, I should like to interrupt to say that I will need more than 15 minutes to make my remarks on the first item of northern administration. I was not here when item 1 was called and there are some urgent things I have to say in that regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, in that case, sir, we should do what we originally intended to do and go right ahead with the Department of Justice.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall item No. 50 carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: No, I have a question I want to raise on that item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman raise that question and have the item carry?
Supply-Northern Affairs


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like the minister, just briefly, to inform the committee what, if any, developments are taking place in the field of federal-provincial co-operation in respect of wildlife services. I have had certain representations made to me by fish and game organizations to the effect that there should be developed a federal-provincial cost-sharing program in this field, one which would probably lead to even greater integration and co-operation in this field.
Now, I should like to know whether or not this has been the subject of discussion at the resources ministers conference, and also whether there was any discussion of this matter during the recent federal-provincial conference.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member I may say that there are a number of fields in which co-operation is being advanced between the federal government and the provincial governments, notably under the resources program in respect of wildlife on the Canadian prairies. We have set up so-called "wet spaces", particularly for the duck population. We are in the process of making arrangements, over an extended period of years, to do considerable of this work which will plan the efficacy or fail to plan the efficacy of doing this on a large scale. We are finding a great deal more information about ducks all the time. We want to put some of this knowledge to use on a fairly extended scale, involving quite a sum of money in the various provinces.
The closest possible relations also are beginning to exist between the provinces and the federal government in the acknowledgement of the fact that here we have a resource of tremendous value, not only for the enjoyment of the people who live in Canada but for tourists as well. I can assure my friend that real progress is being made in that direction.
While I am on my feet I should like to say a word to the hon. gentleman who brought up the problem of the sandhill crane. He dealt with the technical aspects from begin-ing to end. I may say we have arranged with the United States authorities to, what my scientific people call, harvest a crop. The United States authorities have undertaken,, after separation of any whoopers that come up in the crop of sandhill cranes, to bash the cranes down. Whether or not that will work, I do not know.


James Ernest Pascoe: Is there any suggestion of increasing the number of sanctuaries?


Arthur Laing: Yes, some work can be done in that regard. Apparently, these birds can be attracted to one place, and they damage the

Supply-Justice
crops on farmlands. I do not believe anyone should snicker at this. I believe these cranes congregate in three places only; and when they do so in such numbers, millions of dollars of crop damage can result. There is a responsibility for us to try to entice them by baiting certain areas where we can feed them. In any event, we are undertaking, in co-operation with the United States authorities to annihilate them when they are down south.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the desire of the committee to pass also item 50a which also deals with wildlife service?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,378,100.
Mr. Bell:: I will be very brief in my remarks on this item because I do not feel the estimates should be dragged out. However, when the first item was up for discussion a week ago, most of the remarks centred around security changes. Speeches were made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. I do want to make one or two perfunctory remarks.
It has been customary, when the departments are first called and when the estimates were prepared by a former government, for the minister to say that criticism would be limited. At times former ministers have paid tributes to the different civil servants with whom they have been associated. I cannot do that job adequately, but since I was parliamentary secretary to the former minister of justice, Mr. Fulton, as well as Mr. Fleming, I do want to take a moment to say a few words. I am sure we all recognize the good record Mr. Fulton had when he was minister of justice. His energies and his capacities were known to all of us. He had a good record as a parliamentarian and I am sure he will be remembered as a good cabinet minister. In so far as his work in the Department of Justice is concerned, he will be remembered particularly for his reorganization and modernization of the federal penal system and the change to medium security and minimum security prisons, as well as for instituting a program of staff training and industrial training for inmates.
I should like to pay tribute at this time also to the press who were so co-operative during my time in the department in attempting to explain and sell this new idea of penal
[Mr. Laing.l
reform to the people. Some of the other matters that came under reform in the department during Mr. Fulton's time were the national parole board, narcotics control, capital murder, sexual psychopaths, anticombines legislation and R.C.M.P. reform. I merely mention these things for the record, Mr. Chairman. I had some extensive notes, but hon. members will be pleased to know I seem to have lost them since the estimates were first presented.
I want to mention two other subjects which were of particular interest to me, namely the R.C.M.P. and juvenile delinquency. I want to pay tribute to the former commissioner, Mr. Harvison and to his successor, Mr. McClelland. I am sure that their records are known to us all. We wish them both success in their new endeavours and their responsibilities, respectively. The R.C.M.P. have suffered a certain loss of prestige in the eyes of some people in the country. We hear of criticism of them in their performance of the many arduous duties assigned to them, such as traffic control, policing yachts, boats and matters of that type. I think we should take a hard look at that because it is we, in society, who assign these very difficult tasks to them. There have also been communist activities which have needed investigation, and we have been perhaps overzealous in our criticism of them there.
I think, Mr. Chairman, a new look is needed at this problem. It may be that social contact between the R.C.M.P. and individuals in our society will help this problem. It could be that a full campaign of national publicity and a youth program would help make this better understood. There were some figures I saw recently which quite surprised me. I noted that out of 1,538,000 investigations within a full year, the R.C.M.P. had only received 103 complaints and of those only six needed disciplinary action. This is one matter we will be watching from the opposition standpoint. The various activities of the R.C.M.P. do seem to be very close to our daily lives in this modem world.
Now, juvenile delinquency is another favourite subject of mine. A short while ago I asked the minister a question about the juvenile delinquency report, and he answered in some detail on November 20. That answer is in Hansard and I do not intend to go through it. It was to the effect that the committee, which was set up by Mr. Fulton, is continuing its work. There were some difficulties due to staff changes and the like, but it is hoped that the complete report will be available in 1964. I hope the work will go forward and that there will not be any delay.

I want to stress the importance of it. I am sure the new minister is interested in this too, and I would hope that in some way part of the report could be made available, after it has been seen by various responsible persons, so that those of us who are interested can go through the statistics and the information, and try to assist in making final recommendations that will result in new legislation.
Some of the figures on juvenile delinquency are very startling. I recall reading a report in the October 21 issue of "U.S. News and World Report" dealing with crime in Washington. I am not suggesting it is the same in Ottawa, but here are two capital cities that have similar conditions. What was amazing was that some 50 per cent of the juveniles who ended up in the hands of the police in Washington had come from broken homes, and in one particular area 90 per cent of the older persons with records had previously been charged as juveniles. I leave those figures with the committee for consideration, and I hope they will interest us to make these very necessary changes in our society.
There is, of course, a great link between the two subjects I have mentioned, the R.C.M.P. and juvenile delinquency. It might be that the responsibilities of the R.C.M.P. could be directed, even more than they are now, to problems of our youth, and in this way a more favourable image of the R.C.M.P. would be created. That force would then be dealing with one of the great challenges of today.
I do not have anything more to say. I wish the new minister well in his endeavours, and I hope he will carry on some of the very important reforms that were made by Mr. Fulton when he was minister of justice.


David Orlikow: It is not my intention today to discuss the question which I, and a number of other members in this group, have discussed on a number of occasions, namely the measures taken by the government in connection with security investigations. It is not that we do not think this is an important question. It is not that we do not think much discussion is required, but we have the statements made recently by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Justice that a new look is being taken at this important question, and that new policies and new regulations will be worked out. We are prepared to wait a reasonable time, to give the government a chance to work out a policy and report to the house, before we discuss the problem further.
I have just one more thing to say on this subject. So far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for other members of this group, despite what the last speaker seemed
Supply-Justice
to intimate, our criticisms have never been primarily with the R.C.M.P. I have said it before, and I will say it again, that successive governments have given the R.C.M.P. an impossible job in the field of security. They have not defined clearly enough what they want from the R.C.M.P. so that they could do the job that is required and still protect the rights of the individual citizens concerned. This is something we will be dealing with at the next session of parliament. Meantime I wish to tell the minister we expect to have a pretty clear, detailed explanation rather than the fairly good but rather vague and general statements recently made by the Prime Minister and himself.
This evening I want to discuss what I think is the completely inadequate rate of progress we are making in correctional programs. In 1950 the United Nations made a survey of correctional programs in its member countries, and Canada was listed fiftieth among those countries in the standard of service which was provided to unfortunate people who pass through correctional systems. We have had progress reports since then, but I do not think the improvements we have made will have boosted us very much in the scale, and I would be very surprised if we were in much higher than fiftieth position.
This is not surprising, if we realize that at any one time in Canada, in the prisons, penitentiaries and jails operated by the federal and provincial governments, there are probably over 17,000 people behind bars. Of those in the federal penitentiaries, 75 per cent of the inmates are repeating sentences, and in the provincial institutions somewhere between 60 per cent and 75 per cent are repeating sentences.
Stuart Jaffary, who is a professor of social work at the University of Toronto, in a book published this year gives comparison rates of prison populations in Canada and Great Britain. He uses the year 1955, which apparently was the last year for which he could get figures, and these figures ought to shock and cause a great deal of concern to us.
Great Britain in 1955, which had three times the population of Canada, only had a few thousand more people in prison than we had. We had 13,500 people in prison, the rate being 87 per 100,000 population; while Great Britain had only 18,500 people in prison with the corresponding rate less than half of ours, or 42 per 100,000 population. Of those convicted of indictable offences in Canada, 45 per cent were in prison, while in England and Wales only 17 per cent were in prison. For indictable and non-indictable offences 122,000 people went to jail or prison in Canada in 1955, a rate of 781 per 100,000 population;

Supply-Justice
while the number in England and Wales was only 39,000 people, a rate of just 90 per
100,000	population.
This is not surprising because the British have had a system of probation for a long number of years, while we are really only beginning such a system, and it is not much thanks to the federal government that we have any kind of probation system at all.
The last report, the last of many studies made of our correctional system, the Fauteux report, suggested that in a modern correctional system the first principle is to keep as many offenders out of prison as possible. I suggest that something be done to get this idea across to the public.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I might interrupt, and I apologize to the hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Port Arthur has sent me a message and I believe there would be general agreement to go right on until six o'clock. If that is the case, I am sorry to have interrupted the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Frank Howard: That is agreeable but it is regrettable the hon. member for Port Arthur is not here to speak for himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had power of attorney.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister of Justice can do something-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is it agreed by the committee that the Chair will not see the clock until six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Provided you see it at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are you going to say at six o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: "It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair".


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister of Justice can do something to convince the judges of this country that they ought to pay some attention to this recommendation in the Fauteux commission report. In this morning's Montreal Gazette there is a story that yesterday a judge hearing a case of a man being tried for robbery, I think, ignored the recommendation of both defence counsel and crown prosecutor-who agreed that the sentence for this man, who was guilty, should be only one year-and imposed a sentence of seven years in the penitentiary. The judge is quoted in the news story as saying, in explanation of having done this, that his first inclination was to impose a sentence of one year for each charge. There were 17 charges, so this man could have

been sentenced to 17 years in the penitentiary, but the judge was very generous in sentencing him to only seven years. Obviously that judge has not paid much attention to the Fauteux report.
Last year in the city of Toronto a man came forward and admitted he had been guilty of arson. This man was obviously seriously ill and needed intensive psychiatric treatment. The judge again completely ignored the recommendation of the Fauteux commission report and imposed a sentence- I am speaking from memory-of well over 29 years. There was quite a storm about this and a committee of very prominent lawyers was established to work on the case, but this did not help much with regard to the original sentence. We had a case a few years ago in the city of Winnipeg-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. gentleman continues he ought to complete this matter. The matter came before the court, did it not, and was not the sentence reduced? I think that should be clarified. My recollection is that the matter was considered in the nature of an appeal and the sentence was cut in two; is that not right?


David Orlikow: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his addition. I think he is correct. However, speaking from recollection, even after the appeal the sentence was a very substantial number of years. In the city of Winnipeg just a few years ago we had a case involving a married man with a family, a railway worker, who had never previously been in trouble with the law. It was this time of the year, shortly before Christmas. This man was going to work; he was working the evening shift, as I remember. His wife was somewhat critical because they did not have much money for Christmas presents for the children. Unfortunately for him he left his house early and stopped at the local beer parlour, as they call them in Winnipeg. He had a few beers too many. I do not excuse what he did, but he went to the cashier of the largest theatre in Winnipeg and asked for the money. He had no gun, but he told her he had a gun and asked her to give him the money. He did not wait long enough to get the money; he ran away.
When he was apprehended he was charged with armed robbery, because of course he had threatened her and said he had a gun. The police who put him in jail asked if he wanted his wife to be notified. He said this would only frighten her, so she was not notified. He appeared before the magistrate the next morning. Everything that should have been done under the law was done, technically. He was asked whether he wanted to have counsel, but he said he was guilty

after all so there was no point in having counsel. He pleaded guilty and the magistrate imposed a sentence of four years. I am speaking from memory, but I do not think I am wrong. The first his wife knew about the case was when she turned on the radio and heard that her husband was on his way to the penitentiary to serve a four-year term of imprisonment.
Again I suggest to the minister it is time the judges of this country got into the twentieth century way of thinking about this problem of correction, instead of being better suited, as I think some of them are, to the days of the inquisition. Even if our judges were using more common sense-and I think some of them are-we would not achieve the results that have been achieved in Great Britain, because in that country they have an active and aggressive program of probation which is designed to keep offenders, and particularly young offenders, out of prison. We have a situation here where police chiefs, and indeed judges sometimes, are quoted as saying things which are not true and certainly do not help this situation. Just a couple of weeks ago the chief of police of Ottawa was quoted in both newspapers of this city as saying that the reason for the crime wave in Ottawa was that we are being too soft; that too many people who are out on parole are committing crimes. Of course, the records are clear; this is not true at all. But this is the kind of impression which people who ought to know better are still conveying. It seems to me that if we are to achieve the kind of results which have been achieved in Great Britain we must actively promote a probation system such as that proposed in the Fauteux report.
We have a large number of shared programs with the provinces. I suggest to the minister it is time we looked at the possibility of sharing with the provinces a program of really successful probation. If we do not do it on the basis of humanitarianism, I suggest we do it on the basis of the cold, hard saving of cash. I think the minister knows it costs somewhere between $1,500 and $2,500 a year to keep a person in one of our jails or penitentiaries, while the cost of probation runs somewhere between $50 and $200 a year. Unfortunately we have been too prone, too ready to pay for another building, another extension to a prison or jail in which to lock up people. We have not been ready to pay for the kind of thing that would really bring results; that is, a probation system. So we have the anomalous, ridiculous situation in which several provinces, such as Ontario and British Columbia, have no effective system of probation, while other provinces-
Supply-Justice
Quebec, for example-have no probation system. To my knowledge the province of Quebec has no such system. Then in other provinces, such as Manitoba, they have what is called a probation system, but they lack the properly trained staff to do the job that I think is required. I would suggest to the minister it is time we got on with this very important task of establishing a proper probation system. Even if we had such a system we could not keep everybody out of our correctional institutions.
The last time these estimates were before the committee the hon. member for Vancouver East spoke about our institutions, about the buildings. We have made some progress, but I would suggest to the minister that if he really means business, if he really wants the support of the members of this house in getting the money required to modernize our correctional institutions, he should arrange for hon. members to spend a day, as some of us have, going through St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. I do not think there is any hon. member of this house who would not be shocked at the conditions in that institution. All hon. members should spend a day there and see how these people live. They may have committed crimes, but they are human beings. I do not think there is a member in the house who, on seeing the conditions in St. Vincent de Paul, would suggest for a moment any reduction in proposed expenditure that the minister would want to make next year.
St. Vincent de Paul is the worst case, but it is not the only one. We have made some beginnings but really the beginnings we have made are infinitesimal. Our institutions are overcrowded. Because they are overcrowded we have no real system of segregation as proposed by every investigating commission which has ever looked into the correctional system in Canada. So you find, Mr. Chairman, in the prisons of Canada drug addicts, embezzlers, forgers, bank robbers, alcoholics, sex deviates, petty thieves and murderers all in the same institution and all sharing the same cell blocks. How can you do anything under those conditions? We cannot blame the staff. We ought to blame ourselves. The staff are doing the best they can in the conditions under which we expect them to work.
The Fauteux report recommended that the federal government take care of all prisoners whose sentence is more than one year, and that the provinces look after prisoners who have sentences of less than six months. But the federal government, although endorsing the report in principle, has so far refused not only to adopt this principle but to set the date when they will adopt it. The result is

Supply-Justice
that provinces which want to do the job say they cannot plan their programs until they know what the federal government intends to do and when it intends to put this kind of provision into action. Some provinces which have not been very enthusiastic about taking on the job, and I include my own province of Manitoba in that category, have found this to be the perfect excuse. The attorney general of Manitoba has said on a number of occasions that we were not going to go into any expensive building program until that province knows when the federal government will take on the job, and when the responsibility for it is clarified. Despite the fact that we are a long way from meeting the present needs, I suggest that the federal government should set a date when it intends to go ahead with this recommendation of the Fauteux report.
No system of correction can really be any better than the staff. You can have the best building in the world, but if the staff is untrained and is thinking in terms of incarceration and punishment instead of rehabilitation and correction we will never turn the corner and begin to solve the problem. We will never reduce the number of inmates in our institutions as they have in Great Britain and other countries. It is an amazing thing to me that this country can find the money to hire trained engineers to build the buildings we need and the roads to our resource developments; we can find experts in agriculture and do research into how to get better hogs, a better grade of wheat and how to get better fruit. I am not being critical of these things because they are required. But when it comes to finding people who are trained in the much more important field of how to rehabilitate people and improve people, we have almost been completely remiss. And of course we have no money for this.
If anyone doubts this, let him look at the answers which the minister has given this session and last session with regard to questions which have been put down regarding staff in our institutions. We have 26 penitentiaries. I put down a question not long ago asking for the names of the wardens. After all, a warden is the key man in any penitentiary. I asked how long they had had their jobs, what were their qualifications. I am not going to read a long list into the record, although I think it would be worth while to do so, but of the 26 wardens in Canada, according to the minister's reply two of them have a B.A. degree, one an M.A. degree, one a teacher's diploma and one a diploma in agriculture. According to my total, 21 have no formal training at all, or no better training than that which I have

mentioned. After looking at the qualifications of these 21 wardens, what does the minister say about them? They have had army training or they have had police training. I do not want to be critical of the training that a man gets in the army or in the police. If our correctional institutions are merely institutions of punishment, merely institutions for incarceration, I agree that a person who has had army training and training in police work would probably make a very good warden. I am not criticizing these people individually, I am sure they are doing the best they can. But if we are really thinking in terms of rehabilitation as suggested by the Fauteux report, I suggest that people with this kind of background, education and training who staff our penitentiaries simply cannot do the job.
I asked the minister the question whether all custodial officers in our correctional institutions receive training in the behavioural sciences by qualified professional staff, and the answer was very simple, with no argument about it. It was one word-"No"; that they do not. We have nothing in the estimates concerning training grants or bursaries in the field of correctional training, so even the people now on the staff or doing social work, or work in psychology or sociology, who want to go into the field could only get the training, paid partly by the federal government, on condition that they came to work in our institutions when they finished their training. This is a step which various provincial governments have taken, but we have done nothing in this direction.
Of 19 positions for psychologists in the establishment, only nine are filled according to the answer the minister gave me some time ago. Of those nine, five of them had only a B.A., three an M.A. and one a Ph.D. I want to suggest that the number is much too low and the training they have is completely inadequate to do the kind of job that people much better qualified than anyone in this house have said over and over again is required, if we are to have a modern correctional program. We have only eight psychiatrists on the establishment. I do not know how many they concede there are, but to the best of my knowledge not one of them is full time.
At the present time a murder trial is going on in the city of Quebec. On trial is a man named Dion. I have just been told he was sentenced to death today. I do not want to say anything about his guilt or the crime he committed, but I think it is significant that this was not the first time he had pleaded guilty to that type of offence. It was not the first time he had been in a penitentiary. The

reports which our vastly understaffed psychiatric departments had given on previous occasions were that this man was a very severely disturbed and ill person. How much psychiatric treatment did this man have, may I ask, before the parole board recommended his release?
I am not being critical of the parole board. I want to make that clear. I am not being critical of the psychiatrists. I have met the man who is on the staff of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, Dr. Cormier, and he is a really competent psychiatrist. But he works, I believe, only three mornings a week. How much can he do on this basis in an institution of that size? I want to suggest that if anyone is guilty of the murder of these boys it is the governments of Canada, the parliament of Canada and the people of Canada who have refused, in the past, and who have refused until this day to provide the specialist scientific staff which is required in a system such as ours.
The Fauteux report stated that the cornerstone of a modern correctional system is the classification staff. I want to read examples of the kind of classification staff we have recruited to do this work. It is true, we have made a beginning. We have the beginnings of a classification staff, the beginnings of a new system. The minister answered some questions which I put to him some time ago and I want to read some examples of what has been done. I am not being critical of these people. We get the people we ask for. The qualifications are those we set and, what is more important, we are getting the kind of people we are prepared to pay for. Obviously, we are not paying very much. Here they are. At Dorchester, the classification officer spent one year at university plus attendance at classification staff college. At Dorchester farm camp the classification officer is a high school graduate. These are the kind of people we are putting on the job, though the Fauteux report says classification is the cornerstone of the system. At the Blue Mountain institution the classification officer has almost completed his studies for the degree of B.A. At St. Vincent de Paul the classification officer has grade 12 plus university courses in criminology. Another has grade 10 plus some university courses.
At Kingston penitentiary the classification officer has three years attendance at university plus courses under the penitentiary program. A classification assistant has grade 12, plus courses at the penitentiary. Two classification assistants have senior matriculation, plus courses, and another classification assistant has grade 10. At Collins Bay the classification officer has two years attendance at university plus courses; at Landry Crossing correctional
Supply-Justice
camp the classification officer has junior matriculation; at Joyceville institution the classification officer has senior matriculation; at Manitoba penitentiary the classification officer has two years attendance at university, and at the Manitoba farm camp the classification officer has grade 11. At the Saskatchewan penitentiary the classification officer has a grade 10 education, at the William Head institution he has senior matriculation, and at the Agassiz correctional camp the classification officer has a high school education-I assume that phrase means he did not even graduate from high school.
Once again, let me say that I am not being critical of these people. We are responsible for the kind of people we have working for us in these institutions. I suggest that while we have a situation of this kind we have not even begun to nibble at the edge of the problem which faces us.
The Fauteux commission recommended that there be a presentence report.


Lucien Lamoureux: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is not my intention to delay the committee for any length of time and I have taken this attitude in all cases with regard to the balance of these estimates, but a situation has arisen since last April with regard to my constituency with which I feel obliged to deal, and I am sure the minister will know whereof I speak. In the concluding minutes of my contribution it may seem as if I am being somewhat irrelevant but I trust you will bear with me, Mr. Chairman, because my remarks will have a definite relationship to the balance of my words.
First of all, let me say there is a considerable degree of agreement everywhere in Canada that a greater degree of fundamental progress and reform took place in the general field of justice under the Conservative government than in any period of Canada's history prior to that time. Under the capable and aggressive administration of the former minister of justice, the Hon. Davie Fulton, stimulated by the well-known interest taken in this field by the former prime minister himself, the important and long overdue steps then taken included improvements in the administration of justice in Canada, reorganization and modernization of the federal penitentiary system and the correctional program, a new and effective approach to the problem of narcotic drug addiction and the traffic in barbiturates, a new law on capital murder, and several important amendments in the field of criminal law generally.

Supply-Justice
I have the details here before me, but I shall desist from taking the time of the committee by referring to them at greater length for the reasons I have previously mentioned. I wish, however, to make a brief reference to the advance which was made under the direction of the former minister in the field of prison work camps. The value of this work has been proven many times since it was undertaken, and it is the result of the policy which was so vigorously followed by the minister of that day. I also have before me a number of well documented articles and editorials by various organizations, and others interested in this work, acknowledging the tremendous steps forward which were taken under the direction of the minister of that day.
I also have a copy of the speech which was delivered by the former minister of justice, Mr. Fulton, on the occasion of the opening of the Joyceville institution. In the course of this speech Mr. Fulton indicated that the work of prison reform involved not only the officials of a penitentiary but the public as a whole. The rehabilitation program which the minister sought to bring about at that time was, in effect, made possible as a result of the change in the thinking brought about by the Fauteux report. I refer particularly to the section in which it is stated that federal and provincial governments should proceed as quickly as possible with the establishment and maintenance of special types of institutions for the treatment of various types of offenders. The minister of that day initiated action in this regard by setting up a committee to study the problem and bring in recommendations. I believe it was determined that the inmates of our institutions would be regarded in a somewhat different light; that there would be a change in the attitude taken toward them. The minister of that day tended to favour a program of lessened security. I believe the program, generally speaking, favoured medium security institutions, or institutions where security was even less, and he proceeded quickly in this regard. I believe he indicated in that speech at Joyceville that this type of reform in the treatment of inmates was long overdue and that it had been proven that these people could be rehabilitated in a much more sensible and satisfactory manner if they were handled in this way.
In order to save the time of the committee I will not refer in too much detail to the remarks of the minister of that day, but I should like to point out that he did state this at Joyceville:
By far the largest part of our penitentiary population does not require detention in a maxi-

mum security institution, yet the vast majority of our prisoners are kept in just such conditions. We do not need that type of accommodation. We do need more medium and minimum security institutions into which we can send carefully selected inmates to undergo carefully planned treatment and training.
Further on he stated:
It is here that our new parole system has its principal role.
As hon. members know, of course, he moved quickly in that direction. In the course of his tenure of office he made certain announcements that were indicative of the progress he intended to make. His thinking and the thinking of the departmental officials were based on two main premises. The first was 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 respect and of their continuing fight against crime. The second was to implement reforms and provide new facilities and programs which had been worked out during the same period.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, about the time of the election campaign of 1962 the minister visited my constituency and announced the construction of a project somewhere in the area of the villages of Markdale, Flesherton and Dundalk. I hold in my hand a copy of the Flesherton paper of Wednesday, May 16, 1962 in which is reported the announcement by the minister of the construction of a $4 million project with a yearly payroll of approximately $1 million. That project was to be built in that particular area.
Because of the necessity of proceeding with this project at that time my Liberal opponent also thought he should endorse it. Accordingly, in an advertisement in the issue of June 13 of the same paper he assured the people of that area that if they were interested in the construction of such an institution their wishes would surely be fulfilled when he was elected. Obviously that was the thinking of the people in the Liberal party at that time.
I come to an area now where my remarks may possibly be slightly irrelevant, but I would ask hon. members to bear with me because what I am about to say has a definite bearing on the program that is being followed. As the minister knows, I have discussed this matter with him personally and I honour the privilege of interviews with him for the purpose of discussing it. You will know, Mr. Chairman, as will other members of the committee, that at that time several medium security institutions of this nature were planned, one for the constituency of the hon.

member for Bow River, one for the constituency of the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe-Bagot and another one which I believe has actually proceeded. It is my understanding that as of the present time the others have been terminated, after some expenditure of money.
The important factor is whether the thinking of the department has now changed. Have they returned to the thinking that such a program is not the type of program to be followed? Are the institutions now in the planning stage to be maximum security prisons and is this the reason for the cancellation of the institution for my constituency? When I think of all the acts of patronage that have taken place, I wonder whether patronage is not creeping into the Department of Justice. I have very good reason for saying this.
As the minister knows, my Liberal opponent in the last campaign was down here pleading for the construction of this institution in my constituency. Therefore he agreed with the thinking of the minister of that day and with my own desires. Not only did he come to Ottawa but he brought the Liberal organization with him. In addition to the plea of the Liberal candidate, I understand that the provincial Liberal member for the constituency north of mine has also been pleading for this institution. I believe that the present leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario was also here pleading for this institution.
This is a very peculiar state of affairs. I believe the reason for the withdrawal lies in the fact that the minister has intimated that such an institution must be a maximum security prison, and therefore cannot be constructed in that part of the country because the lines of communication are too far removed, and as these criminals are hardened types they must be kept under tigher security. If this is the case, I suggest that the present minister review some of the thinking advanced by the minister of that day, and he will find that his thoughts on the matter are very basic, directly relevant to the findings of the Fauteux report and should be carried out, I believe. I think it is not too far fetched to say that the fresh air in my riding would do such people a lot of good, rather than keeping them in some area of southern Ontario where the lines of communication may be a little shorter but where traffic is heavy. So far as hardened criminals are concerned, I think my area would be a very good one in which to rehabilitate them, rather than putting them in the large and overcrowded institutions which exist today.
I have mentioned people who have made representations in this regard. It may be a
Supply-Justice
peculiar thing, but I remember the present leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario saying how kind and considerate the Conservative government had been to him. I must say he was probably referring to the provincial government, but thank God he has to deal with an organization like the Conservative government in the province of Ontario because he knows, as does everyone else who has beaten a path to the minister's door, that there is no use coming to Ottawa.


Mr. Choquette:: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to say a few words about the estimates of the Department of Justice now under consideration.
First, I would like to extend well deserved congratulations to the head of that department, because the minister is a man who fulfils his duties with great dignity and honesty; he is a very distinguished parliamentary figure and it is not too much to say that we are very proud of him.
Mr. Chairman, the matter I want to deal with as briefly as possible is the famous Coffin case, which is creating quite a stir in the province of Quebec. The matter was raised for the first time in the house last week, if I am not mistaken, when I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) if he intended to take special measures following the publication of a very contentious book, not to say slanderous, about some persons of rank. The minister answered me quite properly that this matter came under provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman, this famous case, now known as the Coffin case, causes as much turmoil as the Dreyfus case which happened many years ago but is still referred to. I wonder whether the federal government would not be well advised to institute an inquiry into this matter, even if it comes under provincial jurisdiction, because it would not be infringing in any way the provinces' prerogatives, since the following provision can be found in the Canadian Bill of Rights which is federal legislation:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada, there has existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely:
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person-
Mr. Chairman, if there was a miscarriage of justice as stated forcibly and violently by Mr. Jacques Hebert, it means that an attempt was made on the life of a man and that his life was even taken wrongfully which is a violation of section 1 of the bill of rights and consequently, it concerns the central government.

Supply-Justice
On the other hand, Coffin's conviction was maintained by the Supreme Court of Canada, our court of last instance, which exists by virtue of a federal act, the Supreme Court Act.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the persons involved in that case are treated by the author, not as guilty people, but as murderers: "I accuse the murderers of Wilbert Coffin", he says, and there cannot be any stronger title; among those murderers accused by Jacques Hebert there is a respectable and honest judge of the Quebec court of appeal who was appointed by the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, all those reasons, in my humble opinion, call for action by the federal government.
I think it is most important that the whole population have unswerving confidence in all our institutions, whatever the authority [DOT]concerned. If the general public has no trust in the value and the efficiency of our judicial institutions, then I say that order, peace and good administration are jeopardized in Canada; and order, peace and good administration in Canada come under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities.
Those are the reasons why I humbly and earnestly submit that the central government should institute an inquiry in the Coffin case.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: 
Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Chairman, could I have the hon. gentleman's consent to interrupt him for a moment? The acting chief government whip has two very important motions to make concerning changes in the personnel of committees which are scheduled to meet tonight. In order to permit him to make those motions I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I rise, report certain resolutions, and ask leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-moureux in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,378,100.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. House again in committee of supply on vote No. 1 of the Department of Justice.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, before recess, I was reviewing the main reasons for the increase in juvenile delinquency. I mentioned in particular the social and economic conditions which make families, as well as the press, radio, television and films, refuse to assume their responsibilities.

Supply-Justice
I leave this subject by underlining a major factor which, in my opinion, is responsible for the situation that exists now: I mean our economic system which does not hold any hope for our young people who see their future darkening because we, who are now entrusted with the nation's business, keep on increasing the public debt which they will have to bear and reimburse later.
I think that this economic situation in which we live is to a great extent-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Lake St. John, but it seems to me that he is straying quite far from the subject matter of the resolution now under consideration by the committee when he talks about the country's economic situation.


H.-Pit Lessard: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, but I think that a certain link can be found between the responsibilities of the Department of Justice with regard to juvenile delinquency and the reasons for it. I feel that the Department of Justice can, in its own field, point out to the economic and administrative sectors, the reasons for the problems it has to deal with at the present time.
In my opinion, the present economy of this country does not offer to our young people the advantages they are entitled to expect; that is the reason for this problem we now experience: juvenile delinquency.
To conclude, I should also like to mention that judges, when they met in Quebec city, admitted the weakness of our system as far as institutions where sentences can be served are concerned. In my opinion, judges have no choice when they have to pass a sentence. As a matter of fact, they must sentence offenders to a term in a penitentiary or in a prison. I suggest that the government should generalize in Canada, as it had been undertaken, the setting up of those institutions that make it possible to rehabilitate the young and not so young people who, in fact, constitute not only a burden for society but also a loss, since we deprive ourselves of the services they might render if they were rehabilitated.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we begin consideration of the estimates of the Department of Justice. They amount to a total of $30,748,000 for a department with 3,559 employees-I believe that the bench, at all levels, is included.
Although the incumbent of the Department of Justice and myself are politically in complete disagreement, I must admit that he is competent as far as the administration of the Department of Justice in our country is concerned.

This afternoon we heard several members successively and I would be remiss if I did not mention, for instance, the member who spoke on behalf of the N.D.P. about our penitentiaries, because it is important to reorganize them so that the directors of these institutions be, not professional executioners but educators.
We must by all means see, above all, to the rehabilitation of our young people who, for one reason or another, have to spend some time in those penitentiaries, in whatever province it may be.
We have received, on many occasions complaints concerning the treatment given to some prisoners, chiefly young people, as one must admit that inmates in those penitentiaries are mostly young people from 20 to 30 years old.
Mr. Chairman, I call upon the Minister of Justice to consider this question of prime importance most carefully. The staff of those penitentiaries must include educators, as I said, men and women of great ability who can come to an understanding and communicate with other human beings.
Very often in the past parolees became habitual criminals. Why? Because they had no chance to rehabilitate themselves and because, instead of being taught moral principles during their term in the penitentiary, their morale was undermined by the sombre perspective they were shown of going back to a society where there was no place for them.
I should also like to say a word about a point which the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) raised this afternoon, that is the Wilbert Coffin case which puzzled and still puzzles the average Canadian citizen.
The accusations in Jacques Hebert's book constitute an attack against the judicial organization in our country. The judicial organization of Canada finds itself today, if not undermined, at least badly damaged by violent statements and attacks against the administration of justice in one of this country's regions.
That is why I endorse the request of the hon. member for Lotbiniere when he asks the Minister of Justice to institute a royal commission to inquire into this particular case. I suggest that, in the present circumstances, such an inquiry is in order and is becoming increasingly so. Our whole judicial structure is attacked, dragged through the mire, and there is a point beyond which we should not allow things to go.
If Mr. Hebert is right, let the government find the evidence. If he is not right, then Mr. Hebert becomes himself a sort of moral assassin of our judicial structure in Canada.

I feel that the Canadian Minister of Justice does not have the right to tolerate or put up with a book which directs fantastic accusations againt judges and lawyers.
Therefore, that royal commission should be set up, so that the Canadian public does not lose confidence in our judicial structure and the administration of justice, not only in the province of Quebec but in the country as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to deal with the parole of prisoners. It will cost the Department of Justice $701,500 to administer the Parole Act.
On many occasions, complaints have been made about paroles being granted too easily in some cases. As a matter of fact, the Dion case was brought up before supper and I believe this criminal was sentenced today to be hanged. Dion was paroled once or twice, if I am not mistaken. Finally, after being charged with the murder of youngsters of 11, 12 and 13 years-there were four, but we mentioned only a few-Dion is now sentenced to hang after succeeding in evading, so to speak, the law of the province and of the country.
Now, occasionally some young people are condemned to six months, a year or two, young people who were arrested following a burglary, car theft, armed robbery, theft committed wearing a mask. Among them are young repeaters who in several cases were led astray when they were quite young. While habitual criminals sometimes manage to obtain their parole, some of those young people can hardly manage to do so, even when favourable reports are given by the judge who heard their case, by the parish priest, by clergymen of some municipalities or districts, by relatives or employers who are willing to hire them.
It appears to me that we should examine more thoroughly and carefully the requests for parole which are submitted to us or to the Minister of Justice in the case of many of our young people who are now in jail. This does not mean that we should give our blessing to the vandalism of those young convicts. Not at all. But I am of the opinion that after a stay of a few months in prison, many of those young people change their mind and become honourable citizens afterwards, citizens who understand the implications of their actions. I maintain that most of them have committed thoughtless deeds because they had joined a gang or a group of young people of their age, which was often dominated and led by elders-and it is in this manner that those young people have become involved.
Now, the parents must be taken into consideration and also the family circle where
Supply-Justice
those young people evolve. If the possibility of an easy rehabilitation is seen for them, if they seem to show regret as sincere as possible and a desire not to repeat the same actions, it seems to me that they should get better consideration from the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Chairman, in the estimates of the Department of Justice, there is also an item concerning the administration of the R.C.M.P. On that score, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Justice on a fact which happened in Quebec city some ten days ago. A certain Mr. Jos. Gignac had secured a $5,000 loan from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and he was paying it back at the rate of $100 a month. He experienced financial difficulties and undertook to pay back the corporation at the rate of $30 a month, and that, for the last five or six months. However, some ten days ago, while the balance due by Mr. Gignac was $507, an R.C.M.P. officer from the Quebec division, under the direction of a Mr. Poirier, arrested Mr. Gignac and put him in a cell, ordering him to pay the total amount of $507, otherwise he would remain in jail.
Apparently, the individual named Poirier, a very zealous member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, uttered threats against Mr. Gignac, saying that he would serve several months in jail should he not pay the amount of $507. Fortunately, somebody came to Mr. Gignac's rescue and paid the total amount, thus allowing him to recover his freedom.
I wonder under what section of what legislation a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can arrest and imprison a man simply because he does not discharge the monthly $100 payments he undertook to make to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I have the greatest respect for the R.C.M.P. I imagine it is the most famous police force in the world since it is given as example in the whole world, but among its members may creep some zealous people of Mr. Poirier's type, who threaten the people they meet or rub shoulders with behind bars.
I point out this case to the attention of the Minister of Justice to let him know that Mr. Gignac was imprisoned because he had not paid the monthly $100 he owed Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Mr. Chairman, it was said a while ago that Canadian penitentiaries should be rehabilitation centres rather than correction centres. I agree with that. It happens that small thieves are condemned to one or two years in jail because they broke down a store door. They are given a good talking to and urged not to commit again the offences for which they were condemned. On the other

Supply-Justice
hand, there are others who should be the subject of a very special attention from the Minister of Justice and be put behind bars too, especially when there is evidence that they did not steal only from stores, taxi drivers or banks but from all the population.
1	refer to the sugar trust.
It was suggested this afternoon that a fine be imposed on those cartels, those "controllers", those cartel and "trust" owners. A letter received by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) was also read to us which proved beyond any doubt that exorbitant prices were being imposed on sugar, whichever trust was involved. But the trouble is that, should the Minister of Justice decide to prosecute those people, make them pay a fine of $25,000 or $50,000, then they would go back to where they came from as if nothing had happened. A fine of $250,000 or $25,000 means nothing to them because, upon their return, all they would have to do would be to raise the price of sugar by one half cent, one quarter cent or
2	cents per pound.
Because, then, it is $1,000,000 which goes into their bank. Therefore, it is no punishment for them. However, there is a way to prevent trusts and cartels from exploiting the Canadian people. When we are confronted with the man responsible for a trust on sugar or some other commodity-let us amend the legislation so as to put him behind bars for 10 years. I assure you that once behind bars, the "controller" in question will think about it twice before exploiting the people again when he goes back to his usual business, whether selling sugar or engaging in any other sector of the Canadian economy.
Mr. Chairman, we have little thieves, but we also have public thieves. They are the ones who jeopardize the economic security of this country. They are the ones who prevent the poor from shaking off their poverty and impose hardships to human persons who do not deserve them. As it was demonstrated, the price of sugar is twice as much in Canada as in the United States. This situation is certainly not normal. We have been discussing the sugar situation in this house for three months, and the more we discuss it the more the people who control the sugar trust go on raising their prices, in order to take more unfair advantage of the people.
That is the reason why I ask the Minister of Justice to amend the legislation, so that those trust controllers might be sent to jail. Then we would enjoy greater freedom.
I understand that some trusts may help support election coffers. In all likelihood, this support to election coffers prevents the present Minister of Justice, as was also the

case for past ministers, to take action, but we, in our group, are not backed by the same coffers. We enjoy a greater freedom and this is why we denounce these swindlers and these trusts throughout Canada.
I appeal then to the Minister of Justice who, I believe, wants greater justice for all Canadians. We have a responsibility to help the oppressed and to safeguard them from the attacks of financiers and of trusts that prevent the human person from knowing self-achievement in a country like ours.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a few words, so as not to delay the passing of the minister's estimates.
I may have made somewhat bitter remarks in the past against the minister, but I am pleased to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate him for his appointment, which is well deserved on account of the services he has given the country for a little more than 25 years.
I wish to tell him that he has chosen a very efficient staff. I had the occasion to seek information from his two executive assistants, Mr. Lord and Mr. Denis, lawyers both, and I have always been answered in a courteous and conscientious way.
I would also like to ask the minister whether he intends to amend the Criminal Code in 1964, so as to allow the provinces to establish lotteries if they wish to. I know that there are provinces which do not agree about such a thing at the present time, but the federal government often assumes positions which do not require the provinces' unanimous consent.
My second question is this. At a recent meeting in Banff, Alberta, the minister announced that the government was considering the convening of a conference, in 1964, to amend the British North America Act. I should appreciate it if the minister would tell the house what he means by the word "amend". Will the objective be the strengthening of national unity? What amendments does he have in mind?
I wonder also whether it would be possible for the Department of Justice to examine a problem which exists throughout Canada concerning the C.B.C. Indeed, certain provinces complain because they have no right of censorship over the films shown on television.
In fact, I remember that on one occasion the C.B.C. presented a film on its network shortly after the authorities of a western province had forbidden its showing in theatres.
I would also like to ask the minister if it would not be possible to amend the legislation soon, in order to stop this great number of n.s.f. cheques the payment of which is

refused by the bank owing to insufficient funds. Those cheques are a plague at this time everywhere in the country. I wonder if there would not be some means of passing legislation similar to that now in force in Switzerland. In fact, under the provisions of that legislation, whoever writes a cheque without sufficient funds is immediately placed under arrest and brought to court. I believe that the adoption of such legislation would prove beneficial to society.
Mr. Chairman, as far as Mr. Jacques Hebert's book is concerned, I do not think that we should give it too much attention, because this author specializes mainly in sensationalism. One must not let oneself be carried away by whatever he writes, because this is an existentialist author, and he delights especially in writing sensational material and in trying to revive old stories.
In my opinion, the minister was wise to ask the experts of his department to examine the book instead of setting up immediately a royal commission of inquiry. In fact, if he feels that the question is doubtful, it might be advisable to have competent lawyers study the Coffin case, before an investigation is launched, to prevent boosting the sale of Jacques Hebert's book by excessive publicity. Indeed that is the author's objective. Afterwards, the file could be closed if the experts so recommend. I would like it very much if the minister would answer those few questions.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm allow me a question? Does he not find the question serious enough-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Skeena and given him the floor.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, when a minister introduces his estimates for the first time, it is customary to congratulate him on his appointment. Right now, I do not quite know whether I should do just that by congratulating the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) or whether I should wish him farewell.


Lionel Chevrier: At any rate, it is well said. [Text]


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that that is the extent of my knowledge of the language in which the minister is so proficient, because I will have to wait until I see the translation to discover what he said in rejoinder.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North spoke he outlined the views of the members
Supply-Justice
of the New Democratic Party very ably and well, and I simply want to say in passing that I endorse them. He indicated that the emphasis within penitentiaries should be on rehabilitation or reform, rather than on dispensing justice and carrying out sentences merely for the sake of carrying them out. It seems to me still, as it did a few years ago, that the penitentiaries branch is perhaps more interested in the soul of the inmate in prison than in what he will do when he gets back into society again. We spend more money for and employ more clergy than psychologists. I understand there are some nine full time psychologists on the staff of the penitentiaries branch and not a single full time psychiatrist, but there are 22 full time ministers or priests to minister to the needs of inmates. If we would alter that situation a bit and spend more money on psychologists and rehabilitation, those gentlemen and ladies who are now inmates of prisons would have a better chance to get to that place where the members of the clergy want them to go after they leave this earth.
In my view there is not too strong a desire on the part of members of parliament to pay more than passing attention to affairs within the penitentiaries, or to penological matters. In that regard I am reminded of the fact that since our native Indian people have been given the right to vote in federal elections there has been a marked increase in the interest by political parties and candidates and members of parliament in Indian affairs, because the Indians are a group of voters now. This has been beneficial, because it means that parliament and members of parliament are better informed about Indian affairs. It seems to me that we might expand this idea and perhaps give the inmates of prisons the right to vote in federal elections. If such were the case, I am sure the prisons would be filled with members of parliament wanting to find out how these people were going to vote, and in the process members of parliament would discover some of the problems within prisons. The result might be a better attitude toward prison matters than exists at the present time.
I should like to deal with only one aspect of the activities of the Department of Justice, which has to do with two sections of the Criminal Code. There is one section which I think is a most shocking invasion of the rights of the people of this country. I refer to section 660, the so-called habitual criminal section providing for the imposition of a sentence of preventive detention, which is in effect a life sentence.
A person may be charged, if that is the proper expression, under section 660 of the

Supply-Justice
code if he has been convicted on three separate occasions since the age of 18 years of indictable offences for which he has received a sentence of five years or more. If this can be proved to the court he can then be sentenced to life imprisonment, or as a so-called habitual criminal receive a sentence of preventive detention.
Even though this provision has been on the statute books for some 13 or 14 years, I submit this is wrong in principle because in fact it is a process by which an individual may be sentenced twice for the same crime. He may receive a sentence which in fact is the third of a series of sentences he has received since the age of 18 and then find he is subject to being charged as a habitual criminal and may be so charged and found guilty under that section. I am not sure of the legal terminology used with regard to this section. I do not know whether the individual is charged, found guilty and sentenced or whether there is merely an application to the court for the imposition of such a sentence. However, in essence the individual may find himself sentenced to a certain number of years on a specific charge and then find later that an application has been made to the court to sentence him again for exactly the same charge, plus two or more other charges for which he has already been sentenced and with regard to which he has already paid his penalty.
I submit this is sentencing the individual twice for the same offences; and in addition the sentence of preventive detention is based to an extent on future crimes that might be committed, because reference is also made in the statute to the individual habitually associating with other criminals or normally leading that sort of life. This section of the code is not confined to crimes of violence such as sexual offences or crimes of violence such as armed robbery or assault. It covers the whole field of indictable offences, and because it does its impact falls more heavily upon certain sections of our so-called criminal society than it does upon others.
I am thinking primarily about the impact of the status of habitual criminal as described in the code upon those unfortunate people who are narcotic addicts. These people, because they are narcotics addicts and because of the rather stupid policy adopted in the past towards narcotic addiction, are pretty well doomed to a life of narcotic addiction, whether they are in prison or out of it. Under this section a person may well find that he could receive, for one indictable offence, a sentence of five years if the crime with which he is charged carried a sentence of five years. Then, he could discover later that, even

though he had been sentenced to the maximum for the particular offence with which he was charged, he was confronted with a life sentence under the habitual criminal section of the code. He might, on the other hand, find himself having been charged with an offence which, for the sake of argument, carried a life sentence, such as trafficking in narcotics, and the presiding judge, in view of the circumstances of the case, may only sentence him to two, three or five years. Then, that individual may find himself faced with an application by the attorney general under the habitual criminal section of the code.
I submit that inherent in this section there is the principle that a person may be sentenced twice for the same crime. He may be sentenced once for the crime itself, and then under the habitual criminal section of the code which carries with it a sentence of life imprisonment if in fact, he has had other convictions which carried with them possible sentences of five years or more.
Normally, I gather there is a period of 30 days during which an individual may appeal his sentence. It can happen, and often has happened, that an individual who has been sentenced does not appeal within the 30 days. Then, he finds, after his last resort has gone, that he may be imprisoned for life if a charge is laid under this section. However, if an indication were given to him before that this charge might be laid, he might have appealed his sentence. There are a variety of reasons why a person might not appeal a sentence, such as a lack of money and so on. He might then, having the knowledge that he might be faced with life imprisonment under the habitual criminal section, take steps to save himself from that fate.
It is submitted that some people plead guilty or, in effect, take steps to prove their guilt under section 660 of the code without actually knowing what they are doing. Perhaps I could best illustrate this point by quoting from a letter sent to me by an inmate in one of the penitentiaries in Canada. I do not believe it would be correct for me to put the name of this individual on the public records. Any hon. member desiring to see the letter to ascertain that an inmate did write to me, may do so. The letter reads in part as follows, in respect of this question of pleading guilty or proving your guilt under the habitual criminal section:
There's one other thing that bothers me very much and that is the way the officials of the court allow you to plead guilty, without your knowledge, to what amounts to life imprisonment. By that X mean they first, with no warning after they have found you guilty or you may plead guilty, which I did, they then ask you if a document is your criminal record which, in fact it is. When you reply that it is, not knowing you are about to be charged as an habitual criminal 80 or 90 days later,

they use this admission in your habitual proceedings, which of course makes it very easy for conviction.
This, coupled with the practice which allows the 30 day period for appeal to lapse before an application is made, is a most unfair way of using what I think is a shocking section of the code in any event. The chairman of the national parole board, Mr. Street, is a person for whom I have great admiration. Incidentally, I think he is doing a remarkable job of administering the act under his jurisdiction and assisting in providing a mechanism whereby people may be rehabilitated. A few years ago Mr. Street made a statement to the effect that the habitual criminal section could be used more often so that individuals would be placed under his jurisdiction for potential parole of life sentences. Then, they would have control of these individuals on parole, with all the administrative facilities available to them, and that individual would be subject to their control for the rest of his natural life.
As a result, there was a marked increase in applications for preventive detention under section 660 of the Criminal Code. This has resulted in what I believe are some anomalous and rather ridiculous situations. If we look, for instance, at the question of the age of people who have been sentenced under this section, we find that in the city of Vancouver a 68 year old man, a narcotics addict, was sentenced to life imprisonment. We all, of course, have a feeling of pity and sorrow for narcotics addicts. I believe everybody in this house regrets the fact that past governments, this government and provincial governments, have not found an effective and sensible way of dealing with narcotics addiction. Here we have a person 68 years of age, a narcotics addict and he is sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual criminal. This is a rather ridiculous situation. The statistics printed in Hansard for July 17 of this year reveal that of the 68 people who are serving sentences of preventive detention, eight were 58 years of age or over. As I have said, this seems to be a rather ridiculous situation.
In British Columbia, the primary effect of this section of the Criminal Code falls upon people who have a history of narcotic addiction. We all know how the R.C.M.P. hounds people who have a history of narcotics addiction, almost day and night, for the purpose of trapping them and charging them with possession or trafficking in narcotics. Automatically, they are sentenced to the penitentiary. I have a great wealth of correspondence from one individual in the British Columbia penitentiary, and have visited and spoken to others who have found themselves in this position.
28902-5-372
Supply-Justice
The minister, his department and the government should review very carefully and seriously the section of the Criminal Code which sets up the machinery for preventive detention and take steps to eliminate it as it is presently constituted, because I submit it is a violation of the right of an individual, namely the right not to be sentenced more than once for the same crime.
There are other matters in which this party is extremely interested. I shall not go into them at this time, except to say that other members of the party have an interest in these fields also, and will put their points of view to the minister. We will attentively watch and listen to the responses of the minister to the various points we raise, and we hope the words we use will somehow or other have a beneficial effect.


Robert William Prittie: I should first like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, on his efforts in French tonight. I notice he has been carrying on some correspondence with the minister of natural resources in Quebec, and it seems Mr. Levesque has had some influence upon him.
Other hon. members this evening have spoken about people who are in prison and who may have been dealt with harshly. I am going to speak of some people who perhaps should be in prison and who have not been dealt with at all harshly. I want to say something about the anti-combines act and the activities of the government in the past few years in enforcing it. I have had a feeling for some time that for a great many years really not very much has been done in Canada in this particular field, and my feeling is shared by many people. It is only rarely^ that we see any successful prosecutions in the field of monopolistic practices, and usually these are followed by what seem to be very small fines.
Many members of the public are skeptical about this whole affair, and the vague feelings they and I have had, have been substantiated in a recent major criticism of Canadian anti-combines legislation and the enforcement of it, in a book published earlier this year entitled "Canadian Anti-Combines Administration, 1952-60." This was written by Gideon Rosenbluth, professor of economics at the University of British Columbia, and Mr. Hugh Thorburn, an assistant professor of political science at Queen's University.
Before dealing with the period under study, 1952-60, the authors give a short history of combines legislation in Canada. They deal with the early days, with the views of Mr. Mackenzie King on this subject, and with the work of Mr. McGregor who was commissioner until his resignation in 1949. They then go

Supply-Justice
into the dispute which arose, I believe around 1948 or 1949, between some members of the cabinet, between Mr. C. D. Howe and Mr. McGregor, a dispute which arose out of an investigation of the flour milling industry.
Following the resignation of Mr. McGregor a royal commission was established to investigate the legislation, and this commission was generally known as the MacQuarrie commission. I note that the President of the Privy Council was a member of that royal commission, and it made some recommendations, some of which were implemented by the government of that day.
It was at that time that the functions were separated, and there was established the restrictive trade practices commission, and the office of investigation and research. Incidentally, I notice that one of the original members of the first restrictive trade practices commission is the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, so that within the cabinet there is no lack of experts on this particular subject.
In 1960-61 other changes were made in the legislation. Over the years Mr. Fulton had gained some bouquets for the job he did as minister of justice, particularly in the field of penal reform, but I do not think he has any awards coming to him for what he did in the field of restrictive trade practices, because the changes made at that time seem to me, and to the authors of this book, to have weakened the act. However, it is the enforcement of the act with which we are primarily concerned.
The authors point out that the importance of a government department or agency can be measured by the amount of budget it receives. They point out that the amount of budget available to the combines investigation branch has been rather small throughout the years. In 1960 it had a budget of approximately half a million dollars, and at page 44 of their book they give some comparisons for other government departments. The Canadian government travel bureau in that year had $2.3 million, while the Newfoundland bait service had the same amount of money, half a million dollars. I am not knocking the Newfoundland bait service, but it seems to me the combines investigation service ought to be a more important field of activity.
In that same year the administration of the Immigration Act cost $1.2 million, and defence research and development $39.2 million. In any case, the amount of money allocated to combines investigation has been quite small, and on looking at the estimates for this year I was disappointed to note that there are very minor increases for the office of the director of investigation and research, and the restrictive trade practices commission.

I know the minister may answer that this budget was prepared by the previous administration. Perhaps that can be accepted for the moment, but I would point out that, even though our gross national product has grown year by year, and at present is around $37 billion, the total amount for combines investigation has not grown in any comparable manner.
The authors of this book made quite a thorough search and analysis of the administration of the act between 1952 and 1960. They analysed the fields of business that were investigated. They have made lists where successful investigations have taken place, where prosecutions have followed, and they have also listed those fields of business where the investigations were unsuccessful or were not followed up. The important thing is that the total amount of successful anti-combine work, the successful completion of investigations, followed by prosecutions in some cases and by no prosecutions in others, is a very small part of the total business activity in Canada.
It does not seem to me that there has been very much increased activity in this field since we had a change of administration last spring. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, has at present a series of questions on the order paper concerning recommendations of the restrictive trade practices commission, recommendations which have not yet been acted upon. During the past several months I have, on two or three occasions, asked about a report filed by the commission concerning tied sales, that is, the practice of petroleum companies forcing service stations to buy and handle certain products.
This practice was recommended against by the commission some two years ago, and the minister has replied that the recommendation is under study by an interdepartmental committee. I hope that in the new year we can see some action on this point.


An hon. Member:: What year?


Robert William Prittie: 1964. However, Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied from my own observation, and this has been verified by the authors of this book, that there has not been a very vigorous enforcement of the combine laws which we have. A number of years ago one hon. member of this house had this to say, and I am quoting from page 13 of the book:
A law can be full of teeth, but if the teeth are not used to bite with it becomes a mere sham on the statute books.
That member is now the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. Again, Mr. Chairman, the authors point out the dilemma that faces a Canadian government in this field. They say

the government has a choice between alienating important business groups in the country on the one hand, or keeping satisfied certain other groups on the other hand-the small businessmen, the consumers, labour, agriculture, and so on. They say also that in this balancing which is supposed to take place, the other groups-the consumers, the small businessmen-usually lose out. Again, Mr. Chairman, they pose this very important question:
Does anti-combines activity in Canada represent a serious attempt to influence the structure and functioning of the Canadian economy, or is it essentially a political gesture designed to meet the demands of voters while leaving the structure and practices of business substantially unaffected?
I get the impression that this is what has happened in the past, that it has been left unaffected. It seems that our governments in the past have acted on the assumption that combinations, monopolistic practices, are not the usual thing; this is something out of the ordinary; somebody may commit a crime and should be punished for it. I suggest this is the wrong approach, and that in the type of economy we have the tendency to eliminate competition is there at all times. Indeed, people in business may be forced to do this. Nevertheless the tendency to eliminate competition, to form larger firms, to get the market under the control of fewer and fewer companies, is built into our economy. It is not something unusual that has to be watched at all times.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is much truer in Canada than perhaps in the United States. An earlier study by one of the authors of this book, Professor Rosen-bluth, "Concentration in Canadian Manufacturing Industries", points out that we have a relatively greater concentration here than in the United States, so that we should watch this particular field of activity more than they do in the United States. I hope this subject is under study by the government at the present time. I see the parliamentary secretary to the minister has the same book in his hand, so at least he is studying it. I hope someone else is also. When the new estimates are presented for the next fiscal year I hope we will see an increase in the budget for this very important department.
I should like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by reminding the minister of this. I quote again from the text:
However, in more than a technical sense, ultimate responsibility for the scope of anti-combines activity rests with the cabinet. It selects the director and the commission, determines heir budgets, and can issue directives that govern their work. It selects prosecuting counsel and is responsible for their instructions. It can initiate changes in the legislation to meet needs revealed by judicial interpretation. If the application of the
28902-5-3721
Supply-Justice
combines machinery has been very limited, this state of affairs reflects the policy of successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative.
I trust, Mr. Chairman, we will see a change in the future in this particular field.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to rise in my place and speak on the estimates of the Department of Justice, particularly in view of the fact that this department is responsible for the estimates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is just 90 years ago that Sir John A. Macdonald introduced a bill into the House of Commons to set up this world famous force. We have always had good leadership in the force, which has contributed in a marked degree to their world wide reputation in the maintenance of justice and freedom in our country. It is a painful thing to have to sit here sometimes and hear members of parliament, who should know better, pick on the mounted police and their role in our national life as if they were some kind of hoodlum gang from Chicago, and not the world famous force which it is and which we so rightly admire.
To say that the R.C.M.P. hound people in the matter of narcotics is just sheer nonsense. If you knew, as I know and as the members of the mounted police know, how difficult it is to pin down the traffickers in narcotics in Canada, and how our boys go out and risk life and limb to track these people down, I do not think you would say they are hounding them at all. They are performing a most difficult task. Having found the fellows who peddle it, it is even more difficult to track down the source of these drugs. I would recommend to the minister through you, sir, that the mounted police be taken more into his and the people's confidence. I think those who have to administer the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act know better than anybody else the best long term plan for putting down this trafficking. I personally am convinced that if we gave drugs free to the people who are subject to this dreadful habit and took the profit out of drug trafficking, we would have some chance of putting down this nefarious business. It is the enormous profit which causes drug trafficking, even in Canada where we have the services of the mounted police to try and keep it down.
Some hon. members may not know that in certain countries these dangerous drugs can be bought for $2 or $3 a pound. When they get here and are watered down, thinned out, and sold on the market to the individual, sometimes one packet of dope costs as much as $30 or $40. This means a pound of dope can be worth $55,000 to $75,000. Do not say the

Supply-Justice
mounted police hound people. Let us get behind them, not only outside the house but inside, and appreciate the service they are giving us.
It has also been said that they hound people who are suspected of subversive activities. Hon. members know how difficult it is to track down subversive activities. These activities range from open sabotage to the undermining of the morale and the national spirit of our young people. It is not an easy task to pin it down. The R.C.M.P. are seized with this job. None of us like it; but they are doing the job and yet it is said they are spying on their neighbours. That is a harsh word to apply to the work of security. This is done in the United States by the F.B.I. We are very proud of the work they do down there. Our force, in plain clothes, are seized with this job in Canada. They are not hounding any Canadian, but are looking out for the security of our country. I am tired of hearing this carping criticism which I think is only dreamed up to get notoriety in picking on a famous organization which is doing its best.
I think the role of the R.C.M.P. should be reviewed with regard to their contracts with the provinces. On several occasions within my memory the R.C.M.P. have been in difficulty. Their leadership has been in difficulty because the duties of the force have not been clearly defined, when it comes to maintaining law and order. There are three circumstances in which the force might be called in. In the first place, if there is a man breaking the law, openly stealing or drunk in a public place, their duty is plain, where they are seized with this duty. It is to arrest the man and bring him before the magistrate at the proper time, see that the proper evidence is produced, and so forth. The role of the force is plain. It might be called out in time of open strife, perhaps even to co-operate with our armed forces in an emergency. Naturally if a submarine was seen coasting along the Cape Breton coast a patrolling officer would contact the military authorities, who would alert the army, the navy and the air force. Then they would retire to their proper role of civilian police. I do not think there is any difficulty there; they could be used as a warning device to let the proper authorities know.
Then there is a third situation, in which they are called upon in the role of what civilians perhaps call strikebreakers. Where are they then? I say that their duty in this situation has never been clearly defined. Where and when is it the responsibility of the individual policeman or the mounted police, as led by their officers, to maintain law and order, which in a sense is a kind of political war? I think these roles should be clearly defined and then never again will

the commissioner and the mounted police find themselves at loggerheads with the Minister of Justice.
Some years ago the R.C.M.P. were used actively in what we called the youth and police program. There are statistics in the records to show that when this youth and police program was in full operation juvenile delinquency suffered a dramatic decline. We used to call juvenile delinquency "being a bad boy," but, call it what you like, when the mounted police were actively engaged in this great program there was a dramatic drop in juvenile delinquency. I think many of the members felt at the time that this was an imposition. Some of them did it willingly, some under a certain amount of pressure from above; but nevertheless, if the record is looked up it will be found that the mounted policeman was proving himself to be in his finest role when he was interested and active in this preventive police work among our youngsters. I would recommend to the department, through you, sir, that this very important and valuable use of the mounted police be considered for revival.
Another matter to which I wish to bring attention, having been a policeman myself, is the great difficulty in the public mind, and sometimes even in the minds of the police, of the lack of uniformity of provincial laws. We have at least ten traffic acts in Canada, not to mention the bylaws in all the different cities. I know that that is not anything new, but I would again stress that I think it is of prime importance that at the next provincial conference perhaps the heads of the municipal police, the heads of the mounted police, and the heads of the various justice departments, the attorneys general, might well accompany their premiers, straighten out the situation once and for all, and agree upon a sensible traffic law which would be acceptable all across Canada. I do not think we need run into constitutional difficulties here. As long as we have uniformity in our thinking it would not be difficult to get uniformity in our laws. To travel across our great country touring and trying to keep in mind ten, 12 or 14 different traffic laws is certainly difficult for someone who has had personal experience in the matter; for the uninitiated driver of an automobile I am sure it causes many accidents and a great deal of grief and pain.
May I close by saying that during this 90 years we have always had leadership in the mounted police which has been a credit to that force and to our country. I must say that we can look forward to the future with confidence in these fine men who care for our national security, and the Queen's peace.


Mr. Frenetle:: Mr. Chairman, I shall take just a few minutes of the committee's time since I only wish to outline one point in connection with the estimates of the Department of Justice.
I should like to call the minister's attention to the necessity, indeed, the urgency of amending the Bankruptcy Act so that the rights of Canadian citizens are better protected and more respected.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a jurist and that may be why I do not understand much of that legislation. However, on the basis of what I have been told by members of the legal profession, I do not hesitate to say that the Bankruptcy Act is probably the most complicated and ambiguous piece of legislation in our statutes.
Besides, numerous bankruptcies are merely daring and clever financial operations to succeed in business in defiance of all honesty and fairness.
And yet, those operations are effected under the act and seem to comply, if not with the spirit, at least with the letter of the law.
I have just gone through a rather painful experience during which 30 odd workers of my city have lost almost $20,000 in salaries following a bankruptcy that has been before the court for more than two years.
Yet, those workers acted in good faith and relied on people regarded as competent to help them to recover their salaries.
In this case, of course, I am not accusing anybody of incompetence nor of dishonesty, but I am still convinced that if the Bankruptcy Act had been worded in a clear, accurate and concise way, those workers would have been able to recover what rightly belongs to them.
For several of them, the losses exceeded $1,000, an amount which represents several months' salary. I am not trying to be emotional over this, but try to understand, Mr. Chairman, what such an amount means to families having to manage on an annual budget of $2,000 or $2,500.
It is urgently required that the Bankruptcy Act be thoroughly reviewed so as to protect the public against unscrupulous and ambitious crooks.
I am thinking not only of workers, but also of suppliers and subcontractors who, more than once, have suffered at the hands of those sharks.
If they have not done so already, I hope that the officials of the Department of Justice will start planning a revision of the act, not to cover and shield questionable transactions, but to protect the rights of Canadian citizens who, in their vast majority, are honest and conscientious people.
Supply-Justice
The present act gives rise to judicial conflicts, which are always very expensive for those who bear the costs.
I quite understand that it is difficult, not to say impossible, to draft legislation which would put an end to lawsuits in cases of bankruptcy; but I am confident that the departmental experts will at least be able to improve matters considerably in that field.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I only need a few minutes to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to some of the problems with which my constituency is confronted.
However, before doing so, I wish to congratulate on his excellent French, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who spoke a moment ago. He should indeed be congratulated for this commendable effort, and I suggest that the other members might follow his example.
Mr. Chairman, I am coming now to the substance of my remarks. I wish to point out to the Minister of Justice that, in my constituency, there is no bankruptcy court.
As I pointed out to the Minister of Justice a few days ago, we must go to Sherbrooke, that is some 60 miles from Granby, the centre of the constituency of Shefford, to settle bankruptcy cases.
There is a court at Sweetsburg, in the district of Bedford but at the present time there is no bankruptcy court there. Such a condition is far from being practical for lawyers or interested parties who have bankruptcy cases to settle.
In addition, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that the city of Granby in my constituency of Shefford has quite a large population now but is still without a court house or a court; we have to go to Sweetsburg to settle our legal problems.
I am therefore wondering whether it would be possible to establish in the main city of my constituency a court where our problems could be settled. It is our most important problem at the present time. As the bar association of Bedford pointed out some three weeks ago in a resolution, it wishes to settle this problem as soon as possible. Consequently, I hope that the Minister of Justice will attend to this matter.
In addition, I wish to point out to the Minister of Justice the problems of the judges, especially in the Quebec, Montreal and St. Hyacinthe districts. Looking over the list of cases, we note that thousands are waiting to come before the court. It is also noted that in some cases, they will have to wait for three and maybe four years before they can be heard.

Supply-Justice
I think the Minister of Justice is aware of the problem.
At present, in the city of Montreal, there is a backlog of thousands of unheard cases or cases heard several years ago and still awaiting a judgment. Besides, a great many cases have not yet been called before the court.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to make a few comments concerning the famous Coffin case which everyone has heard of and which has been making the headlines these last few days. It does not seem normal to me at this time to allow someone to write a book- maybe hoping for a large circulation-that can only undermine justice in our country.
I am not discussing the merits of the book. But, at this time, the way things have been going, I doubt the wisdom of the questions being asked about prominent people and especially about judicial principles and mechanisms in Canada.
What strikes me most is that for several weeks now they have been reconstituting a case by means of films-and in this I ask the Minister of Justice whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not co-operating with the writer of this book in order to reconstitute the circumstances of the crime in the Coffin case. We have the feeling that the C.B.C. and the writer of the book in question work together, hand in hand, in order to create a scandal around an unproven theory.
In any case, what moves me the most is to see that the C.B.C. is using our money, public funds, to undermine the concept of justice in Canada.
Under the circumstances, I would ask the Minister of Justice, whose longing for justice I would in no way question, to kindly request the minister responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to have an inquiry made and see to it that openly offered cooperation by socialists in the C.B.C. be stopped. In fact, for several years, everybody has been complaining that the C.B.C. is crawling with socialists; you get the feeling, especially since the alleged Coffin scandal has been stirred, that the intention is to promote certain well known socialists in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I should like the Minister of Justice to settle that case as soon as possible, because the longer we wait, the more we let those things happen, the greater the harm done to the smooth operation of our judicial system.
Therefore, I suggest that the sale of that book be banned, that a royal commission be set up and that the culprits be convicted,

otherwise, the confidence of the Canadian people in the judicial system of this country will be destroyed.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have said enough to draw the minister's attention to the problems raised by the Coffin case, to which newspapers have been devoting full pages in the last few days.
We seem to want to pass the buck but if nothing is done, who will deal with the problem?
Mr. Chairman, I know that the Minister of Justice has answered a few questions on the subject, these last few days saying that he was expecting certain decisions which did not come under his department. But he ought to do everything in his power to set up an inquiry into the facts under his department, through his officials and those of the province of Quebec, so as to put an end to that scandal which, if allowed to continue, will contribute to undermine the trust of Canadian citizens in the judicial system of our country.


Reid Scott: I want to take a few minutes of the time of the committee to pursue a subject which I have raised on the orders of the day for the last couple of days and which has been the subject of comment by several of those who have spoken in the course of this debate. I refer to the Coffin murder trial. I want, again, to urge the Minister of Justice to give some consideration to a suggestion which has been made both inside and outside this house, namely that a royal commission should be set up to investigate the situation. I understand that some of my hon. friends on this side of the house are not in favour of this suggestion-that they have suggested a committee of lawyers should look into it. This, of course, is something which has already been done. It was done in the United States, and it was done here, when the committee which reviewed the case included some of the defence lawyers as well as newspapermen, all of whom came up with grave doubts as to Coffin's guilt, and the justice of his being put to death.
It may seem strange that we should be concerning ourselves today with what happened ten years ago. In the summer of 1953, three United States hunters came to an area of the Gaspe and were killed there. Their bodies were mangled by bears. A few weeks later they were discovered and Mr. Coffin was subsequently arrested. Then there began what is surely the strangest and most complicated criminal trial in the legal history of this country. No murder case ever went through so many procedures. Perhaps no man was ever reprieved so many times. By the time he was finally executed, Coffin had been drawn back

from the brink of death no less than seven times. He started his trial with jet black hair and he went to the gallows with snow white hair. No case within my recollection has provoked so much disturbance in the minds of the legal people who have perused the evidence. From the day Coffin was arrested to the day he died a curtain of mystery descended around this trial and this veil of mystery has persisted until this very day.
Recent disclosures have resurrected the events of the trial and revived doubts as to the validity of the sentence. Let us consider the trial itself. The mangling of the bodies meant there was no real evidence of the way in which they had died. Coffin was convicted on circumstantial evidence, and there is considerable doubt as to the strength of that chain of evidence. It is a well known rule of law that circumstantial evidence must not be just consistent with guilt; it must be inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. This is the question which has troubled the lawyers who have been concerned about this case. It has troubled the counsel who acted for him, the people who knew him in the penitentiary and the priest who sat with him and knew him for some five months. This was a case in which there was no murder weapon ever produced, no mark on the body, no killing bullet ever found. Only one charge was laid and that was in the death of the Lindsay boy. The only evidence of a bullet wound was a hole in his jersey. The medico-legal expert at the trial testified that he could not say with certainty that the rifle Coffin was alleged to have used would have caused such a hole.
So much at the trial was not done. One hesitates to criticize counsel. It is always easy to be wise after the event. But an examination of the trial itself makes me wonder. Witnesses were not cross-examined. No defence at all was put in. Not a single witness was called in Mr. Coffin's defence. Mr. Coffin himself was not permitted to take the stand to testify, although throughout the period before he was executed he insisted he had always wanted to. As I said, the only evidence of a bullet hole in the body was a hole in the jersey and the medical evidence was very doubtful in that sphere.
Some of the bodies were found five miles apart in the bush. Maps were presented to the jury, for example, that did not show the multiplicity of roads that permeated the area and the ease with which other individuals could have arrived at the scene of the murder. The goods of the murdered hunters were strewn along the road leading from the scene of the murder and evidence was given this could not have been done by one man but that, for example, it would require two
Supply-Justice
or three men driving a moving vehicle. No investigation was made in this regard.
Coffin had stated, and he maintained until his death, that when he left these men in the bush there were two Americans with them and that the Americans had driven up in a jeep which Coffin described in great detail and with great particularity. We have no evidence that any search was made to find this jeep though after his death, as I will show in a moment, witnesses came forward with affidavit evidence that they had met these men and seen them in the area.
Coffin denied having a rifle and no rifle was ever produced at the trial. Yet it was alleged he had used a rifle. The only evidence against Coffin at the trial as to a rifle was that of a Mr. McGregor, I believe, who said he had seen Mr. Coffin coming out of the bush and in the truck he saw what he thought was a rifle. The man was never cross-examined to ascertain if it could have been anything else. After Coffin's death this man came forward and made an affidavit stating that he wished to change his evidence, that he now wished to say he thought it was an iron bar that had been in the truck. Again, no investigation was made of this statement.
The trial was the longest and most expensive criminal trial in the history of the county. It would have bankrupted the county to pay for it, but the entire expenses were very kindly paid by the province of Quebec which seemed to have a very keen interest in the trial at that time. The defence had stated throughout that they were going to call 100 witnesses, but when the crown rested its case the defence got up and said: "We are not going to put in any evidence at all; Mr. Coffin is not going to take the stand in his own defence".
Coffin until his death, as I say, persisted in his story. He never changed it one iota. He always claimed that he had wanted to get on the stand and tell the one story that could have saved his life, namely that he had been in the bush, that he had seen the truck of the hunters, that he had stolen the goods that were later found in his possession but that he did not murder these hunters. This was the one defence which, if believed, could have saved Coffin's life but he was not given the opportunity to present it.
I am not being critical of the people who conducted the trial, but the trial itself raises very grave doubts in the minds of a lot of people as to the validity or otherwise of his conviction. However, Mr. Coffin was found guilty. Perhaps on the evidence presented this was the only conclusion the jury could reach. Certainly with no defence presented it must have been difficult for the jury.

Supply-Justice
But the real mystery of the Coffin case starts from the day of his conviction, because after his conviction and before his death a whole series of bits of evidence developed which cumulatively began to increase the doubt which everyone felt. For example, the crown had charged that Coffin had murdered these people for their money and had stolen $650 from them. After his death people came forward with sworn affidavits that they had paid Mr. Coffin $580 to go out and stake mining claims for them. This was never followed up and investigated further.
Coffin always maintained there was a jeep with American hunters at the scene of the murder. Sergeant Doyon, who testified at the trial, said that he had seen marks of a jeep on the scene but had not mentioned it at the trial because nobody had asked him. This was not brought out in cross-examination. Dr. Wilson, a young Toronto physician, swore an affidavit with his wife that in June of 1953 they met two American hunters crossing on a ferryboat going toward the area. They described the coats the men wore and the plywood covering, and so on, on the jeep, which was similar to the jeep that Coffin had described. Maddern River, a Lome Patterson service station operator, remembered seeing the same jeep and that the occupants had asked for the Lindsays, who were the murdered men. Again this was in the general vicinity.
A Dr. Charles Attendu of Montreal gave evidence that he had seen a jeep in the area near the murder. A Mr. Tapp, who was a police constable, recalled meeting an American at a cocktail party who was going to go to Gaspe to hunt, and in this book by Beli-veau he recites how the American was picked up by another man in a jeep and they drove off to go hunting.
The whole mystery of the rifle that committed the murder has never been resolved. I have already placed on the record the statement of Wilson McGregor who was a witness as to the rifle, and who first thought it was a rifle and later wanted to change his evidence, and made an affidavit that he thought it was an iron bar.
Because of these doubts the pressures mounted and the government of the day then referred the case to the Supreme Court of Canada and asked the court to give it guidance as to what it would have done if it had heard the appeal. The case was argued extensively. I believe the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration represented the government at that hearing and is no doubt familiar with the case. At the conclusion of the case the court ruled five to two that if

it had heard the case it would not have quashed the conviction and would not have granted a retrial.
No one is quarrelling with that, because the real significance of the Supreme Court of Canada case is that the court did not have before it all of the new evidence that came to light after Coffin's conviction. The Supreme Court of Canada, and rightly so under our rules, is limited to the court record at the trial and at this hearing it did not have access to all of the new evidence I have alleged tonight. To my knowledge this evidence has never been presented to a court of law considering this matter.
Therefore, while the Supreme Court of Canada did rule five to two, I think the significant point is that there was dissent, that a judge of the eminence of Mr. Justice Cartwright said on the basis of the evidence at the trial that, had he been dealing with the matter "it would have been my opinion the appeal should have been allowed, the conviction quashed and a new trial directed". I would have thought that the fact of a dissenting judgment by two eminent judges would have raised doubts in the hearts of the members of the cabinet. The new evidence I have mentioned tonight was not available to the court, of course, but it was available to the government of the day and representations were made to the government, first for a new trial, which was declined and, second, for commutation of the sentence to life imprisonment.
We do not know what consideration took place. The records indicate that considerable discussion took place in the cabinet and the matter was thoroughly investigated, but the tragedy is that by that time the Coffin case had developed political overtones in the province of Quebec. The then premier of the province, the late Mr. Duplessis, seemed to regard any action by the federal government as an infringement of provincial rights, and he began making very strong statements as to what view he would take should the federal cabinet ever grant a new trial or commute the sentence to life imprisonment. Indeed, Mr. Coffin's tragedy may have been that he was convicted of murder at a time when provincial rights were very dominant in the minds of Quebec politicians. There has never been any overt evidence of this, but it was significant that when the refusal to commute the sentence was announced Mr. Coffin then asked if he could marry his common-law wife and legitimize his little son. Mr. Duplessis, in all charity, refused. Mr. Coffin was hanged, I believe, the day after the cabinet declined to commute his sentence.
These, briefly, are some of the facts that surround this mysterious case. Over the years,

Mr. Chairman, the members of the legal profession, at least the ones I know, have had a secret doubt in their hearts. I do not know whether or not Coffin was guilty. I would have thought, in the face of the new evidence, in the face of the dissent by two eminent justices, there ought to have been enough doubt to have permitted Mr. Coffin to live under a sentence of life imprisonment. The tragedy today is that, even if we got a royal commission, even if we were able to prove Mr. Coffin innocent, he is not alive to be released. If ever there was a case which supported abolition of capital punishment, it is the case of Wilbert Coffin. Here was a case where there was doubt, I think, in the hearts of most honest men, a doubt which should have been resolved in his favour. For reasons good or bad, it was not so resolved.
After his death his counsel were so convinced of his innocence that they did not let the matter rest there. They formed a committee in Toronto, the Canadian Coffin committee, and invited newspapermen to serve on it. These people investigated further, reassessed the evidence and still there was this doubt. The well-known court of last resort in the United States, for the first time in its history, took up a capital case after the accused had been executed. They, too, investigated. As I have said, down through the years there has always been a doubt in the hearts of many people as to Mr. Coffin's guilt. Certainly, there was enough doubt that a new trial should have been granted. Certainly, there was enough doubt that he ought to have lived, so that if his name were ever cleared he would be able to be released. This avenue is no longer open to us and that is why we have raised this matter.
It is true that even if we were to investigate the case now, it would not help Coffin. We have always said that under our jurisdiction it is almost impossible for an innocent man to be convicted. The presumption of innocence is so strong, the necessity to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is so strong, that it is clearly impossible for an innocent man to be convicted. The question we now ask in our hearts is, is it possible for an innocent man to be executed? Until the mysteries of the Coffin case are resolved, I am not sure that we can ever say that under our jurisdiction it is impossible for an innocent man to be convicted and executed.
I am not too concerned with the recent book that has been written, although I think these charges are unprecedented and disturbing. The writer of the book seems to be alleging what almost amounts to a conspiracy of the parties to convict Coffin and have him executed. He makes what appear on the surface to be rather wild charges. They are 28902-5-373
Supply-Justice
sensational, and because they are sensational they are receiving very wide attention. I want to assure the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary, for whom I have a very high regard, that interest in this case is not going to die down. If you think that by postponing or neglecting it you are, in some way, going to ride out the storm, the forces that have again been set in motion by this recent book and by the sensational charges, the resurrection of all the evidence that no court ever heard, I can tell you that most of the interest in this case is going to continue. For my part, I will do what I can to see that this is the case. I think it would be a wise move on the part of the Minister of Justice to appoint this royal commission. Let us go into the facts of the case and if, in fact, an innocent man was convicted and executed, then let that be known. Until you clear away the clouds of mystery that surround this case there will always be a cloud on the integrity of our jurisprudence, and for that reason I urge the minister to give favourable consideration to this request.


William Arnold Peters: I had hoped the minister would reply before the item carried. There have been many problems that have been raised, but certainly none of them have been raised as eloquently as the last appeal by the hon. member for Danforth. I think it is a classic. If it does not move the Department of Justice to some consideration of this matter, then of course there is no point in anyone else speaking. I hoped the minister would reply immediately to the hon. member's remarks, because the problem I have is not quite as serious.
The problem I should like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is one in which I have been interested for a long time, but it affects only those who are getting out of prison or about to get out of prison. We have heard today many complaints about the manner in which we treat criminals. Certainly one of the problems that faces every inmate of a prison is the fact that some day he is expected to walk out the gate and live again in society. I think this is one of the most difficult problems that faces a prisoner, especially after many years in jail. In speaking to the officials of the Department of Justice, I have been told that cost is a factor in remedying the treatment of prisoners. They say that they know St. Vincent de Paul is in terrible shape and they would like to get prisons of a new type constructed. They would like a system under which an inmate might be given more freedom, under which he would be allowed to engage in useful activity in a community under supervision. These things would be very good, but we have not got the money for

Supply-Justice
them. Mr. Chairman, should we not have reached the stage where we try to treat our prisoners within our penal institutions in such a way as to indicate that we want to reclaim them in society? If we believe that the only purpose of putting a man in jail is for the protection of society, then I believe we have an obligation to make sure that a prison sentence is not necessarily considered as a punishment.
If this is true, then rehabilitation should be the prime consideration. It is very interesting sometimes to read what the prisoners themselves have to say. I should like to quote from an article written by a man who is certainly highly qualified in this field, the director of remission services, Mr. A. J. MacLeod. The article is entitled, "The Citizen and the Correctional System", and the author refers to a prisoner coming out of prison. He has this to say:
The prison experience is bound to have left its mark upon him, and this is especially so where the period of confinement has been eight, ten, 12 or 15 years. By this time he has forgotten most of the social graces that he ever knew. To him the simple operation of buying a package of cigarettes or ordering a cup of coffee in a restaurant is fraught with difficulty. He is highly conscious of his table manners-or rather the lack of them. He has forgotten how to go about buying his own clothing. He is nervous about meeting strangers.
I think that this is something most of us cannot understand. Just think, Mr. Chairman, how this must be in other fields, in particular emotional fields, rather than in social fields. The man who has been in jail for a considerable length of time has only met his family through a glass partition. He has not been able to talk with them in privacy, and he must have suffered untold emotional damage which he would have to be very strong to overcome.
I am sure some hon. members have visited prisons. No doubt a few of them have gone on junkets where they were shown around prisons, but I am sure others have gone to prisons to visit a particular inmate at the request of that inmate. He certainly has a problem or he would not invite a member of parliament to visit him; but when a member goes to see him a guard sits behind and the talk is through a partition. There is an emotional restriction that prevents free discussion.
By contrast, I am always very pleased when I visit any of the provincial jails. I do not know whether this is because I have no business being there, but when I go to visit prisoners in my own district the officials give me the doctor's office and we sit in easy chairs, with the guard outside the door, and we can talk about whatever we wish. It is much easier for a prisoner to discuss his

problems in that atmosphere rather than in the normal prison visiting atmosphere. I am quite happy to go into a room, have the door locked, and talk with one or two prisoners for a half an hour. They would not ask me to visit them unless they wanted to talk to me, and I am sure they would not cut my throat. Now, members of parliament certainly have more privileges than other prison visitors, but even so in federal prisons the atmosphere could be better.
There are many emotional problems that may develop between a prisoner, his wife and his children when they visit him, and there are many emotional problems for the family at home. We put the offender into prison and we say we do this because he has offended against society; but have we not really convicted his family as well, and is their penalty not even greater than the prisoner's? It has been said that once a door closes on a prisoner he knows he is convicted, what sentence he must serve, and the reason for it. But is this true for the family left at home who may not have been aware of the circumstances surrounding the offence which ended in the imprisonment? They may be completely unaware of it until, as some hon. member said this afternoon, the wife picks up a newspaper or listens to the radio and hears that her husband has been sentenced to four years in prison. What are we really sentencing such a family to, when they do not know what the circumstances were?
It is for this reason we should take advantage of some of the developments in other parts of the world. I know perfectly well that because we have not sufficient room to house all the prisoners in jail, we will have great difficulty in providing space for their wives to visit them in privacy. But I have been surprised to learn that in one of the most backward areas on this continent, the southern states, the state of Mississippi allows the wives and families of prisoners to visit them every Sunday. We should be able to do something like that. I do not know too much about penal institutions down there, but I have heard of the chain gangs. However, the authorities do not make these conjugal visits dependant on the good behaviour of a prisoner. It does not matter whether a prisoner has been on good behaviour or not; he is entitled to these visits. For three Sundays in succession his family can visit him from one o'clock in the afternoon until three, and on the fourth Sunday they can visit him from one o'clock until five o'clock.
In Alaska, which some say should be part of Canada, and which is the youngest of the American states, there is a law allowing families to visit prisoners for 24 hours, every three weeks, provided the prisoners have

been well behaved. This is even more far reaching than the system in Mississippi.
There are also cases where houses have been built in which families can visit with the prisoners. A wife can cook for her husband and the children can get to know their father. Such visits last for a week end, and when the prison gates open and the prisoner returns to society he does not find the transition so strange. Many countries have more farsighted laws in this regard than we have. I am not suggesting this will solve all the problems of rehabilitation, but it will solve some of them.
How many times have members of parliament sought parole on behalf of prisoners only to find that once that a parolee has been released he finds himself in trouble with his family? He no longer knows his wife. Maybe he did not know her too well before he went to jail, and the children left behind are now older. During the period he has been in jail the wife has been both mother and father to the children, has been the sole authority in the house, and when she punishes the children an argument develops with her husband. The man then does what he has always done, certainly what he has done when he has been in jail. He dodges responsibility, because he has not had to carry it for a long time. He goes downtown, gets drunk, his parole is rescinded, and he goes back to jail.
We do not want to talk about the homosexual practices engaged in, in all our prisons, but I think the minister will agree they have been the basis for most of the riots we have had in Canadian prisons over the past number of years. I am sure the minister is not going to stand up and go into the details of the homosexual practices that have taken place, and which have been responsible for many of these riots. But we know they exist. We know that if you take normal people out of society and put them under control, they will turn to any alternative which is available to them. With regard to those people who may not have the education, the intelligence and the background that would prohibit them doing this sort of thing, this is the type of practice in which they engage.
I think it is safe to say-and I am not making any charge against any particular penitentiary or any particular guard-that many of the guards fit into the category that allows this practice and take advantage of it, and sometimes they become quite wealthy because of it. This is a fact. This has always gone on in prisons; it has always gone on in any kind of institution where men are in close proximity for a long period of time.
There is another side to this question, Mr. Chairman. What happens to the wife? Sex is 28902-5-373J
Supply-Justice
equally important to both our sexes, and the wife also finds herself in a situation she has not been prepared to face. Her husband has not been sick; he has not died; there has been no preparation for the withdrawal, which preparation is necessary. If the minister wishes to refute my argument he will have to tell us how many prisoners have returned to their homes to find a child or two born during the period of their confinement in prison. We know this is true in many cases. I do not think you can blame the people involved, because they have been accustomed to a normal sexual life and there was no emotional preparation for this withdrawal. If there is a war and people go away, the emotional attitude makes this withdrawal possible. When a person dies there is an emotional attitude that makes it possible. In the case of the confinement that takes place in prison, this is not necessarily true.
What do prisoners themselves say about some of these matters. A year ago T. Cunningham, a prisoner, wrote in "The Telescope", the inmates' magazine of Kingston penitentiary, when speaking of visits:
Any time they sit across from their wives, a table and a mesh screen separating them, they don't think about words like reformation and rehabilitation.
They think about how nice it would be if they could just reach through the screen and hold her hand for a moment. In 30 short minutes she is gone and they find it hard to believe she has ever really been there. And some wonder if she will be back.
He points out this is not the case in some prisons, and speaks of the situation in Mississippi in this way:
"Wives are permitted to visit every Sunday afternoon between one and three, except on the third Sunday, at which time they are permitted to visit between one and five. Unless a prisoner is being punished and is confined in our maximum security unit, he is permitted to see his wife privately on any visiting day-no matter how good or bad a prisoner he is".
He is there setting out what the warden of the Mississippi state penitentiary has written about this subject. Then he says:
Adjusting to the society that banished him is a difficult task for a man released from prison. The affection and support of a wife and the responsibility he feels to his children can make the task less difficult.
No woman can be expected to endure a life devoid of physical love for a number of years because her man is in prison. Her needs are as great as his and they cannot be satisfied through a glass and mesh partition.
The communication must be more than spiritual, as has been borne out by the many broken marriages caused by imprisonment. If judges and magistrates understood that when they sentence a man to prison, they are also sentencing his wife and family, conjugal visits in Canada would be more likely to gain their support.

Supply-Justice
Mr. MacLeod, who is responsible lor this and you might say should be recommending a higher budget for it, does understand the problem and I think is very sympathetic to it. He had this to say in the address he delivered to the John Howard society on February 25, 1963:
We are concerned about the relationship of the inmate with his family. That relationship will, upon his release, usually have a profound effect on the question of his successful readjustment in society. Accordingly, we encourage visits to the inmate by members of his family and we provide as little restriction and supervision as possible during such visits, having regard to the security considerations involved. We want the inmate and his family to meet each other frequently in surroundings that are free from strain.
This may be true and it may be what we want; but it is not what we are accomplishing in most of our prisons. It may be true that we are a prudish nation and do not want to talk about these things. Very seldom, if ever, will you hear the reasons for the problems in prisons discussed. But there was a story told recently in this connection. The minister can investigate it. It concerns some of the practices that took place in Kingston penitentiary. The minister should look into this case of a young chap for whom the guards and the inmates took up a collection. They bought him a bicycle and turned him loose in the compound to learn to ride the bicycle. He was not an old man, or even a young man; he was a boy 13 years of age. I think the minister should find out for himself what happened in this case. Perhaps he would then be sympathetic to the problem we have in Canada because of our prudishness and our unwillingness to even face this situation.
I do not know whether it is wise to be too strong about these things. I do not think the minister is going to do a damned thing about this. I do not say that because he is the minister, but because this is a problem society has not faced up to, and it is a very serious one. If the minister is even going to talk about this problem, people will say, "Why in heck are you paying $2,500 a year to keep a guy in jail, if you are going to give him all the comforts of home?" Certainly they are going to say this. Many people don't give a damn whether that guy is ever rehabilitated into society. Even here we have the chief of police of Ottawa saying these people should not be out on parole, we should keep them in jail. If many of the people who are really involved with this matter understood these problems and were more sympathetic to them, more willing to bring them out into the open and ask for the help, support and consideration of the nation in general, and told people the facts of the problems, I think this nation

would be very sympathetic and would want some solution found to the problems.
We quite often cover these things up. I think we should not do this. If the minister were to get up and say, "We are going to allow conjugal visits for married prisoners who have been married over six weeks, and these visits will be allowed once a month", somebody would immediately get up and say, "What about the single man? How come you are doing this for the married man and you will not do it for the single man?" In other countries they supply prostitutes for the prisoners. I am sure this could not be tolerated in Canada and I am not suggesting it should be tolerated. But just because there are some road blocks, we do not have to go to that extreme or any of the other extremes; we can give consideration to those things which are acceptable to our society and can develop our program to meet the needs of today.
We are a long piece behind. I hear hon. members speak of the Fauteux commission. I decided to read it one time and did not get too far in my study of that document. But I hear people refer to it and I think you can take any part of it out and say, "I would like this to apply", because very little has been applied to our penal system in Canada. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I think our institutions should be for the re-establishment into society of people confined therein. Even murder is acceptable to society in times of war and other situations; it is even approved, spiritually approved in many cases. It is only when it does not conform to society that it causes difficulty in the society against which the crime is committed. We should try to rehabilitate these men in our society. I will not mention the other systems of treatment which may be provided to prisoners; other hon. members have done this much better than I could. I think one of the things we should be prepared to do is this: When a prisoner goes out of a gate he should be capable of going in a normal fashion into the society from which we took him, so as to live with his family in the proper way; so that he can walk down the street carrying his lunch pail to work, coming back again to his family who understand him and can sympathize with him and give him support at the time he most needs it. If we provide the machinery, they can make it possible. If these steps are taken about one or two years before long term prisoners are released, this will be an advantage and keep many people out of prison the second time, as well as making the job of the parole officer, that of the John Howard

society and others interested in rehabilitating prisoners in society very much easier.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I know the house is anxious, and I am sure the minister is, to end this discussion and get the estimates through, but I have a matter of a constitutional nature which I believe of some importance. Even though the matter is important I think I can sum it up very quickly.
A few weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the validity of the labour relations amendment act (1961) of British Columbia by a majority decision of four judges to three. This legislation in effect prohibited trade unions from using about 99 per cent of their funds to support any party or candidate for office in the federal field as well as in the provincial. One of the minority judges described this decision as a grave and unwarranted extension of principle. He also described it as a matter of great constitutional and political importance.
The decision, if I may say so with very great respect, justifies an intrusion by the provincial legislature into the field of federal elections, which is surely a matter which should be within the control of parliament, not of provincial legislatures. The decision of the majority indicates-and I say this with a great deal of respect to the court-a lack of understanding of the historic rights of labour. And lastly, this decision implies the right of the provincial legislatures to restrict the political rights of every organized group in Canada, be they a trade union, a corporation, a co-operative or any other association of individuals. It is, I suggest, entirely inconsistent with the bill of rights passed by this parliament, which purports to preserve freedom of association as one of the basic constitutional rights upon which our whole system depends.
In light of these facts, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will give careful and indeed favourable consideration to the request which I understand has been made to him to support an application for a rehearing of this matter by the full court of nine judges. The matter is of such grave importance that I respectfully suggest to the minister and his department that by supporting an application for a rehearing they will be assisting in the protection of the rights of this parliament, and the rights of the people of Canada.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall item 1 carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong this matter but I think everyone is waiting with great anticipation for the minister to make some response to the various proposals which have been made.
Supply-Justice


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that it would be possible for me to do this on the items as we go along after passage of the first item, because all of the matters which have been discussed can be discussed, as I understand it, under the various sections of the estimates. I had thought that if we passed the first item on administration I could then deal with the various matters; but if there is objection to that-


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am sure there is a general disposition in the house to proceed to pass the estimates of all departments within a reasonable period of time, and I assume preferably before next Saturday comes upon us. Such being the case I think there is also the general understanding that as much debate and reply as possible should proceed on the first item, and then the committee would move with dispatch to pass the other items without difficulty.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, Mr. Chairman, in view of that I think I will accept the suggestion made and proceed at once to deal as generally as I can with the matters which did come up for discussion. In the first place I should like to say how grateful I am for the manner in which these estimates have been discussed, not only this evening but when they were up for discussion on an earlier occasion. Having regard to the number of years I have been in the house and to the fact that I sat on the other side for almost six years, I think I can say that these estimates have been given very careful scrutiny and study by all those hon. members who rose to discuss them both this evening and on a prior occasion. I think that is all to the good. I am grateful too for many of the suggestions which have been made, because several of them, not to say all of them, have been excellent, and I shall certainly be glad to give them my utmost consideration.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North dealt with a number of items, and he will excuse me if I do not go into all of the subjects which he brought up seriatim, and in the manner in which he did. But I should like at once to say to him that I think he has shown a tremendous interest since he has been in this house in the matters which he has discussed and in the questions he has posed from time to time. That has been evident from the trouble it has given me to find answers, with those of my officers who surround me, to the multifarious questions which he has asked. However, I might say without any hesitation that all of them have been pertinent and enlightening.
The hon. member referred to the inadequacy of progress in the field of correctional

Supply-Justice
programs, and at once I must admit, and agree with him, and with those others who have spoken tonight, that there is inadequacy-in that field. There are reasons why this exists. I do not make any excuses for it. Unfortunately the progress should perhaps have been greater, but as my hon. friend knows, in a country such as ours there are always priorities. It is unfortunate that matters of this importance should be relegated to, I should not say the bottom rung, but to a secondary level. But none the less, unfortunately that is what happens from time to time. I can assure him that our officers are giving this matter careful consideration indeed. I might add that representations were made to me during the course of the last federal-provincial conference about this very matter and some action will be taken with reference to it.
The hon. member made comparisons between what happens in the United Kingdom and in Canada. Those comparisons were, of course, enlightening, but I should like to say to him that the constitutional position in Canada is entirely different from the position in the United Kingdom. The hon. member referred, for example, to the case of a young boy in Winnipeg whom a magistrate had sentenced to four years and compared it with what happens in the United Kingdom. I am sure the hon. member recognizes that this case, if 1 understood him aright, is one over which the federal government would have no jurisdiction. Magistrates are appointed by the provinces, except, of course, in the northern territories, and if a magistrate decides to pass a sentence such as that, even though it would appear to be severe in the circumstances, it is not a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I agree with the hon. member that every member of parliament should visit the penitentiaries of our country, particularly those which are not far from the House of Commons, penitentiaries such as Kingston and St. Vincent de Paul. He knows full well that members of parliament are free to visit these institutions. He and other members have been given the fullest co-operation in visiting them, and this situation will continue.
Reference was made to the Fauteux report and the fact that many parts of it are not being put into effect. As I said earlier, this, also, is a matter which was taken up by representatives of certain of the provinces with me in my capacity as attorney general, and this question is under study.
There was a discussion, too, on the Dion case.
[Mr. Chevrier.i

Mr. Chairman, here I take the liberty to say first a few words in French on this matter which, as the hon. members of the house know, has been discussed many times in the house not exclusively, but mostly by the members of the Social Credit party and also by certain members of the Ralliement Creditistes.
I prepared a statement some time ago concerning the points raised in relation to this unfortunate case, but considering what is going on today and due to the decision of the tribunal, I believe that I should not make that statement to the house under those circumstances. Furthermore, the case is still sub judice. There will probably be an appeal; as everybody knows, it is possible to go to the supreme court in cases as important and serious as this one.
I would then ask hon. members to excuse me from making a statement today; I shall make it at another time.

The hon. member for Grey-Bruce brought up a number of matters. He referred to the penitentiary program which was inaugurated by the former government and inquired whether there had been any change with respect to that program. No, as far as 1 know there has been no change in principle. The program is the same and it is being carried out in accordance with the recommendations which have been made by the commissioner of penitentiaries. There may have been changes as far as the locations of some of these institutions are concerned, but these changes were, I believe, decided upon for obvious reasons.

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) dealt with the Coffin case, as did the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott).

But since most of the remarks with reference to that case were in English perhaps I should deal with them in that language.
I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Danforth said with reference to the Coffin case and I do not think there is anything useful I can add to what I said this morning on the orders of the day. I do not think the hon. member would expect me at this time to say anything more. There is a divergence of view with reference to what should be done. The hon. member for Lotbiniere suggested a royal commission should be appointed and the hon. member for Danforth did likewise. One hon. member suggested a committee of officers of the Department of

Justice. The hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm felt the accusations in the book by Mr. Hebert should not be taken too seriously.
I thank the hon. member for Danforth for the time and study he has given to this case. It is easy to see he has spent a lot of time on it. I have no hesitation in saying that he has spent far more time considering the facts, at least, than the Minister of Justice has. But he will not be offended if I say that most of the things he said tonight-not all of them, but most of them-point toward action by the provincial jurisdiction. I would remind him, as I did earlier today, that this matter was referred to the appellate court in the province of Quebec which unanimously dismissed the case. Leave to appeal was asked of the supreme court. It was refused. Thereafter, the governor in council under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act referred the case to the court in order that the convicted person might have the same rights as he would have had if the Supreme Court of Canada had heard the case on appeal. As I indicated earlier, by a decision of five to two the supreme court decided that it would not interfere with the decision of the governor in council. The hon. member is right in saying they did not hear the new evidence.


John George Diefenbaker: Not with the decision of the governor in council; that was not a decision of the governor in council. I think the minister is in error, there. It may only have been a slip in expression. But the Supreme Court of Canada decided that if the case had come before it by way of appeal, it would not have allowed the appeal.


Lionel Chevrier: The Leader of the Opposition is right in correcting me and I am glad he did. I return to the interjection made by the hon. member for Danforth, and I say it is because of this new evidence that I have asked the law officers to ascertain if there is not some aspect of the case which the federal jurisdiction should consider. As I have said, I have not closed the door but I will have to await the report of these officials.

The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) raised the matter of sugar.
What grieves me a little is that he said that the Minister of Justice was hiding behind technicalities.
I am not in the habit of hiding because I am rather regularly present in the house, and I am sure the hon. member did not mean it that way but rather in the legal way.
It is a very serious matter, but when he deals with the sugar price, there is no need for me to remind him as well as the house
Supply-Justice
that the federal government has no jurisdiction as far as prices are concerned. Let us not forget, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) repeatedly said in the house, that if price control is what is wanted another jurisdiction than this one will have to impose it.
Unfortunately, the restrictive trade practices commission's jurisdiction is rather limited.
I have here a section which I cannot read into Hansard because it is rather long but you will find in sections 32 and 33 the powers attributed to the commission. They deal with the abolition of combines and, most of all, collusion. When there is collusion between two corporations, the government can intervene through that commission.
I appreciate that the question of sugar is of particular interest to the house because it affects every home, but the fact remains that the government is bound by the law and cannot go beyond it.
I would have liked to deal at greater length with these sections. I may have the opportunity to do so another time, because I wonder whether this is the right time.
I certainly do not want to ignore the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who dealt with the organization of our penitentiaries and suggested that we hire competent officials, so as to rehabilitate these people. That is what we are trying to do.
As I tried to say a moment ago, in reply to one of the hon. members who had raised this question, unfortunately there are some priorities to which we must give greater importance-and I regret to have to say that- both in the present circumstances and at the time of the former government, which was faced with the same problems.
The hon. member for Villeneuve mentioned a case in particular, that of Mr. Gignac; I am not acquainted with the details of that case, but I will seek information from the officers in my department.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) asked many questions. He asked me if it was my intention to amend the legislation in 1964 so as to permit the establishment of lotteries. I have already answered that question in the house by saying simply that following the federal-provincial conference I would report to my colleagues and that a decision would be reached at that time-


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister goes on-


Lionel Chevrier: May I finish the sentence?
5860	HOUSE OF
Supply-Justice

-with regard to the advisability of amending the legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister goes on, I should like to ask him whether he made the statement yesterday and whether he was speaking for the government when, in reply to a request by the international railway brotherhoods for an amendment to the Criminal Code to permit legal lotteries controlled and operated by the government, he said that he personally favours the establishment of lotteries under provincial jurisdiction? In saying that, was he speaking for the government? If not, how can he, in virtue of his position, separate himself from the government?


Lionel Chevrier: I have no hesitation in answering the question. Yes, I made that statement, and I made that statement at the federal-provincial conference. I made that statement openly. I made it before the attorneys general. I made it in the conference. I said that I personally favoured the operation of lotteries under provincial jurisdiction but that I was expressing a personal opinion and these matters had to be considered in the light of the representations that had been made by the provinces. These representations were made to me first by the attorneys general and some premiers and then later by the members of the dominion-provincial conference assembled together. I repeated again there that I would have to give consideration to the representations of the provinces, because many of the provinces were against the operation of lotteries. Several indicated quite clearly that they did not favour them. I believe that on that occasion I gave, as succinctly as I could, the reasons that certain provinces were against them. That is why I say that the matter will be submitted to-


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to clarify this. This is a very important matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to continue. Just a moment.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister is turning from that matter to another point then all I can say is that if he does not want cooperation he will not get it. I want to clear up how a minister of the crown can say that this is his personal opinion, and not be representing the view of the government of which he is a part.


Lionel Chevrier: I apologize if I did not allow the Leader of the Opposition to raise the question, but the Leader of the Opposition will remember that I was asked to deal with


what had been said. That is what I was trying to do. If questions are forthcoming when we get down to the particular item I will have no objection to dealing with them. Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he thinks I have been brusque-


John George Diefenbaker: No, but it is a simple question-


Lionel Chevrier: -I am sorry.


John George Diefenbaker: -of how the minister can make a statement like that and not bind the government.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may go on with the other question asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm having to do with an amendment to the B.N.A. Act; as I indicated, that again is a matter for a conference of the attorneys general which I said at Banff I intended to call during 1964. There is machinery in the Department of Justice to deal with conferences of this nature. There have been a number of them. This matter is under careful consideration now.
The hon. member also asked about an amendment to the Criminal Code with reference to those who issue cheques without funds. I think all I need say here is that there is a committee within the department that deals with amendments to the Criminal Code and I could ask them to give consideration to such an amendment, if it has not already been done.
I commend the hon. member for Skeena upon his excellent French. In fact, I think it is remarkable that he should speak, or at least write three languages, because according to the press there is another language which he at least writes. In any event, I can tell him that his French was quite good. I join with other hon. members in telling him how well he pronounced it. The hon. member dealt particularly with section 660 of the Criminal Code which has to do with habitual criminals. He paid a compliment to one of the officers of the department, and I am delighted that he did. I should add to what has already been said on this matter, that there is a study being made of amendments to the Criminal Code. I can tell him that the officers of the department will carefully review this section relating to preventive detention.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond dealt at some length with the combines act and referred to a book entitled, "Canadian Anti-Combines Administration", which had to do with restrictive trade practices and the like. I am delighted that my parliamentary assistant has given special study to this matter and I think I shall be guided by much of the advice which he will give me.

I commend the hon. member for Athabasca for his support of the activities and actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am delighted that he made the speech which he did. It is not the first time that he has intervened in this house in that respect. I think it is a good thing that members do rise from time to time, as often they do, to support the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Although some hon. members do criticize the mounted police, I believe that those who do so, criticize constructively. I was pleased to listen to the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Athabasca.

The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Frenette) and the hon. member for Shef-ford (Mr. Rondeau) talked about amending the Bankruptcy Act. I say without any hesitation that that act should be amended. The Bankruptcy Act is getting more and more obsolete. I wish to change the word "obsolete" and replace it by the expression "ineffective in some cases".
As both hon. members and the whole house know and as I said on several occasions, we are now studying the Bankruptcy Act in all its aspects.
I hope it will be possible at the next session of parliament to submit a bill amending that act.
I take note of the suggestions which were made by the hon. members for Portneuf and Shefford.

The hon. member for Timiskaming, along with other members, raised the question of the rehabilitation of prisoners, the aftercare treatment that they should get, and the fact that we should be doing more in order to integrate them into society. I agree with him. I hope it will be possible to increase the estimates for the next fiscal year towards that end. He did refer to one particular incident which took place in Kingston, and I shall ask my officers to look into it.
The hon. member for Greenwood asked me to give consideration to the labour relations practices act, and requested a rehearing of the case. I would ask the hon. gentleman not to press me unduly on the matter because, as he knows, I have received some representations and I am going to receive additional representations on this subject. Until I do, I do not think it would be proper for me to make any statement with reference to his request. I can assure him that I listened carefully to the submissions made by him, and I shall listen carefully to the submissions that will be made.
Supply-Justice
I think I have covered, as best I can, most of the suggestions that were made in the debate.


Frank Howard: May I be permitted to put on the record some brief background information about the sugar situation in Canada and to indicate, from my point of view, the smooth, facile and gentle way in which the minister approached this question. His approach left a great deal to be desired, so far as the people of Canada are concerned, and showed that the minister really did not tell all the facts about the sugar situation in this country.
Some years ago the B.C. Sugar Refining Company in Vancouver acquired the assets of the Alberta sugar factories and made them subsidiaries of that company. This acquisition put the company in a monopoly position in British Columbia, Alberta, and perhaps midway into Saskatchewan. A few years later the company took steps to acquire controlling interest of many Manitoba sugar factories, and made them subsidiaries also. This placed the B.C. Sugar Refining Company in a monopoly position in respect of sugar in all of western Canada to about the lakehead, which, I understand, is the break-even point on distribution costs between B.C. sugar refining companies and eastern manufacturers.
It was as a result of this acquisition by B.C. Sugar Refining Company of the Manitoba sugar factories that the combines investigation machinery was put into motion to determine whether or not the proposed acquisition was contrary to the statute. A reading of the report of the restrictive trade practices commission would be most enlightening. If hon. members think that the letter read by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam from Mr. Rogers, about keeping things secret concerning the operations of that company was enlightening, they should read the drastic statements he had to make about the steps which should be taken to gain control of the Manitoba sugar factories.
In any event, a charge was laid under the Combines Investigation Act, the merger section of it. This action was lost in the courts. This was the second case which was lost, the first being the one against Canadian breweries. I submit that the case was lost for two reasons. One, the merger provision of the Combines Investigation Act is just about useless, as these two cases proved. Two, the then minister of justice, who has since returned to British Columbia, Mr. Fulton, by the process of prosecuting the case, in fact gave it away.
In 1960 when the minister and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs sat on this side they were most vociferous in their opposition to proposed amendments which were then introduced by Mr. Fulton to

Supply-Justice
the Combines Investigation Act. They raised a fuss day after day in this house and in the committee on banking and commerce, I believe it was, which was studying the bill, in opposition to the amendments which were proposed at that time. Those amendments became law, and out of all this we really see that the Minister of Justice is probably one of those types which the mother of the hon. member for Red Deer referred to as being able to look both fore and aft when driving a car.


Lionel Chevrier: I thought he did not get the story over.


Frank Howard: Well, I was closer to the hon. member than the minister.


Mr. Macdonald:: That is an interesting admission.


Frank Howard: In this regard the minister reminds me of the Roman god Janus, who had two faces so that he could look both behind and ahead at the same time. This is the type of minister we have, one with two faces, and one face says, "we would like to do something about the sugar situation," while the other says, "We cannot." If he really had a sincere heart in this matter, the government would have long ago introduced amendments to the Combines Investigation Act so that the law enforcement officers could proceed to deal with the gouging that is taking place by B.C. Sugar Refinery.
When the minister, in his very suave and smooth way, tries to get out of all responsibility in this matter, I can only conclude he is speaking out of the other side of his face, and we will look upon it accordingly.
I was reading the Vancouver Sun and I saw where an old acquaintance of mine, one Wilfred Heffernan, a lawyer in Vancouver, is back in business as a prosecutor for the crown in drug cases. When the Conservatives came into office we discovered that they tore up the old patronage list of the Liberals with respect to lawyers to be employed in the prosecution of drug cases, and imposed their own list of Tory legal friends and firms to get the spoils of office by prosecuting in these cases. During the renegade years, as I think they are referred to, Mr. Heffernan and the other Liberal lawyers were out of the picture; but now Mr. Heffernan and other Liberal friends are back in it again, and I wonder whether the minister will tell us that he has put into effect the Liberal legal patronage list that existed prior to 1957.


Lionel Chevrier: In answer to the last part of the question there is no Liberal patronage list so far as I am concerned, and I can tell the hon. member that there are a number of lawyers who were appointed by the former

government presently acting in these cases because, as the hon. member knows, some of these cases last over quite a number of years as they go from one court to another.
I would remind the hon. member also that, while he does not seem to approve of what I have said, and thinks I am smug about the manner in which this act is being administered. I am not. I am as concerned about it as he is, and I am as worried as he and some of his people are; but I have to say I am bound by what is contained in this act, and it may well be that in order to put teeth in it, it will have to be amended. I am willing to give consideration to that, because I find that most of the time when investigations are made, or when lawsuits are brought-and I think the house should know this-it is section 32 which is kept in mind, and which says what an offence is. I will not put it all on the record because it is too long, but subsection (2) says:
Subject to subsection (3), in a prosecution under subsection (1) the court shall not convict the accused it the conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement relates only to one or more of the following:
(a)	the exchange of statistics,
(b)	the defining of product standards,
(c)	the exchange of credit information,
(d)	definition of trade terms,
(e)	co-operation in research and development,
(f)	restriction of advertising, or
(g)	some other matter not enumerated in subsection (3).
Then it goes on in another subsection and gives other reasons why the court shall not convict.


John George Diefenbaker: What year was that particular section brought into effect?


Lionel Chevrier: This section was passed in 1960. Now, I am not complaining. What I say is that the courts are bound by the law. The director of investigation and research is the one who has to put this into effect, and these are the difficulties. But I repeat what I said. I feel that we should give consideration to seeing if there is not some way to strengthen this legislation.
I do not think that we can do anything with reference to the control of prices, and I do not think the hon. gentleman, if he is serious, questions that. But I do think that we can perhaps do something to get at those who are guilty of collusion, mergers, monopolies and the like, and I say that I am willing to ask those responsible for the administration of this act if it is not possible to give consideration to amending it.


Frank Howard: With respect to the employment of lawyers for drug prosecutions, the minister said that there are still under contract, or however it is done, lawyers who were

appointed under the previous administration. Then he went on to imply that would not be carried on very long, because he said that many drug cases take a long time to conclude, through appeals and the like. I suppose what he does not want to tell us is that he does not want to change prosecuting horses in midstream, but as soon as those particular cases are finished we will find that these lawyers are out of business or prosecutors in drug cases, and this Liberal patronage list, that he does not know about, will suddenly be discovered-just the same as the Liberal patronage list that the Postmaster General and the Secretary of State did not know about suddenly came to light.
When the minister quoted the section from the Combines Investigation Act, that the courts shall not prosecute if the combine, conspiracy, or whatever it was, related to certain things, I would point out to him that when those amendments were introduced in 1960 by the Hon. E. Davie Fulton, the present minister and his colleagues, led all the way by the person who is now Prime Minister of Canada, said at that time that they would do everything possible they could to defeat them, because they were inimical to the interests of the Canadian people.
That was three years ago. They did not do very much about it then, but I thought that since returning to office the Liberals would remember the then clarion call of their leader, and we would have had amendments introduced to bring the act back to a stable basis, and remove it from the distorted condition in which the Conservatives placed it. I hope that if the minister stays in office, by the time these estimates roll around next year we will have had these amendments before us.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to enter into any argument respecting the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act three years ago, except to say that the concept that bigness is an offence is contrary to the experience of all the nations of the world, particularly the western world. The offence must always be that of doing something to the detriment of the public as a whole. Wherever that detriment is caused, it should be an offence. But in so far as combinations are concerned that are designed for the purpose of making it possible to compete for trade in other parts of the world, and are not in any way intended to interfere with the rights of people in Canada, certainly they should not be legislated against. But I did not rise for the purpose of dealing with that matter, Mr. Chairman. I come back to a
Supply-Justice
question that I asked earlier and which the Minister of Justice answered in a rather cavalier way.


Lionel Chevrier: I thought you had forgotten that.


John George Diefenbaker: The other day he advised the federal-provincial conference that he personally was in favour of lotteries operated under provincial jurisdiction. Furthermore, yesterday he repeated the same proposition to a group that met with him. I ask him this, and I hope to get an answer on this question. When he placed that viewpoint before the federal-provincial conference, was it the viewpoint of the government, or was he merely endeavouring to ride two horses, to be able to say, "I am in favour of this. I want to ingratiate myself with those who are in favour of this; but I do not speak for the government"? I am certain that a person with his lengthy experience would not advocate such a proposition. This is a statement made, according to the newspaper report, with regard to an amendment suggested by one or other of the provinces, which he said was acceptable to him and would be supported by him. In making that statement was he speaking only for himself? I ask the minister this simple question. When he made that statement was he speaking for the Prime Minister and the government, or was he merely flying the kite in order to ingratiate himself and establish further evidence of that smile which wipes aside so many arguments so often?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I hope the smile, if I continue to have it, will wipe aside the question that my right hon. friend has put. I do not want to be offensive, but I am inclined to think he put it with his tongue in his cheek.


John George Diefenbaker: No; I am asking.


Lionel Chevrier: I will answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; that is what we want.


Lionel Chevrier: Nevertheless, I think I indicated quite clearly to the right hon. gentleman earlier what I had said on two occasions, and I am not attempting to withdraw from that position. But I am saying this. There was a discussion on the subject. No decision had been taken. I think I as an individual, whether it be as minister or in any other capacity, have the right to express my opinion. That need not be the opinion of others. It need not be the opinion of colleagues. But once the government has taken a decision on it, then my right hon. friend is right-I think there must then be collective responsibility, as he has said. If that had been the

Supply-Justice
case, I think my right hon. friend would be quite right in the position he puts forward. But that was not the case. It was an informal discussion which took place following a subcommittee meeting, and in the course of a very friendly conversation which took place with several of the premiers I made the statement. I can only say that I was expressing my own personal views.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read the press dispatch with regard to this matter, because I asked the minister whether he was speaking for the Prime Minister. In a Canadian Press dispatch dated December 13 it says this:
Mr. Chevrier made the statement Tuesday in reply to a request by the international railway brotherhood for an amendment to the Criminal Code to permit legal lotteries "controlled and operated by governments".
He was pinch-hitting for ailing Prime Minister Pearson at the annual meeting between the federal cabinet and the national legislative committee of the international railway unions-
Does the minister say that when he pinch-hit for the Prime Minister he was not exactly sure on what team he or the government was?


Lionel Chevrier: I doubt very much if I used that expression, even though it is in the report. I am not denying the substance of the report; I am denying the words. I doubt very much if I said I was pinch hitting. I probably said that in the absence of the Prime Minister I was acting as chairman of the meeting, and I said about the same as I had said earlier at the federal-provincial conference. This, too, was a very informal meeting with the legislative committee of the railway brotherhoods at which the greatest, I should not say unanimity-


John George Diefenbaker: That is what appears.


Lionel Chevrier: -but certainly the greatest informality existed. I do not think I need add any more to what I have said. I was not speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister; I was speaking, again, on my own behalf, but I was acting as chairman of the meeting in the absence of the Prime Minister.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, it was good to hear the minister express such interest in and support for the anti-combines legislation. Coming as I do from Winnipeg, I have had 30 years in which to read editorials in that great Liberal newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press, about this wonderful legislation, this important legislation passed by that great Liberal Mr. Mackenzie King. The minister has mentioned the difficulties the government has had to face as a result of the amendment passed in 1961 by the former government. I express no opinion about that. But if one looks at the record of governments over the

years with respect to the anti-combines legislation, most of them Liberal years, he cannot help being struck by the complete ineffectiveness of the legislation we have had in those years.
Some members of parliament, myself included, asked last year, I think it was, for the tabling of the list of prosecutions which have been conducted over the past 15 or 20 years, I think. The list was a long one. I am speaking from memory, but there had been in the neighbourhood of 50 or 60 prosecutions. What do we find? Even when the courts found the companies guilty, they imposed penalties which were really ludicrous. If one makes a mistake and has the misfortune to commit an offence against property, commits a robbery, for example, the first time you are caught and convicted you are likely to get a relatively minor sentence. But if you are caught a second or a third time, the judge-I am not being critical of judges-makes very sure that he impresses upon you the fact that you should not be doing this again, and you are likely to wind up with a pretty severe sentence. I spoke about this earlier in connection with the kind of sentences imposed by judges. But when it comes to companies we see that in this country we have one law for the poor and one for rich; one law for the individual and another for the company-and it seems that the bigger the corporation, the better it is for them. I took the trouble to list these companies to see how many of them were convicted more than once. Speaking from memory-and if I am wrong I apologize-it seems to me that the Eddy Company were convicted four times, and certainly three times.
What are the courts doing about this? Here is a company doing millions of dollars worth of business and making fantastic profits. I do not question their right to do this if they are an efficient company. But in each case the court has imposed a fine of $25,000. In the course of eight or ten years what is a fine of $75,000 or $100,000 to the Eddy Company? That is not a penalty; it is a licence for doing business. It is a licence for stealing from the public, just as much as a man who holds up a store or a bank is stealing.
Unfortunately, these people do not go to jail. The law passed by the former government permits the court to impose a penalty of either a fine or a jail sentence. I ask the minister whether any officer or director of a company in the history of Canada has ever gone to jail for breaking the anti-combines law? I know that his answer will be no. I think the minister should look very carefully in this regard at the experience of the United States, where the officers of some electrical companies were sent to jail, it is true only

ior a month, but at least they suffered in the same way as poor people who break the law. Since we have for many years given the courts the option of making the penalty either a fine or a jail sentence, and since the courts have consistently refused to impose the more severe penalty, as they would with an ordinary citizen who breaks the law, I suggest to the minister that he give serious consideration to making the penalty of a jail sentence mandatory at the second or third offence. Because in my opinion the breaking by a corporation of the anti-combines law is just as serious as the breaking of any other law by an ordinary citizen.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the United States of America it is optional; it is at the discretion of the court.


David Orlikow: But our courts do not use it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is a matter for the courts.


David Orlikow: If the courts do not use it we will have to find another method.
There is another matter which comes to my attention. I took the time to get the reports of investigations made by the anti-combines branch of the department over the last five years and was amazed at the number of investigations which were made. Some involved in the neighbourhood of 15 to 20 reports. Many of them made very specific recommendations. I wonder whether the government is going to give consideration to looking at those reports and taking steps to implement those recommendations. Because if they do not, I suggest that the government is in fact saying that the work of that investigation branch is really useless.
I have put some questions on the order paper, and although I do not want to refer to them in detail I would like to refer to some of these cases concerning drugs. In this regard the commission made a number of recommendations. One important one was that the commission made the charge very clearly that companies who keep the price of prescription drugs in Canada at the highest level anywhere in the western world should have their patent rights taken away. I suggest the government look at that recommendation and introduce legislation to give effect to it pretty quickly.
In the case of the paperboard companies, the commission recommended that the tariffs be reduced. If ever there was a party which prided itself on the establishment of free trade and low tariffs, it is the present Liberal party. Is it not about time that these recommendations, which were made not yesterday or the week before but over the last two or three years, should be put into effect? In the case
Supply-Justice
of Canada Packers the commission recommended steps should be taken in the courts to force that company to divest itself of the control it had purchased in other companies.
I ask the government whether they are considering these recommendations, or whether, like so many others, the reports will gather dust on the files of various offices in this and other buildings. I think the sentiments the minster expressed and which we were glad to hear are very fine ones, but the time is long past when pious platitudes suffice. We ought to see some action by the government in this regard.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few remarks.
I appreciate that the minister had to deal with several subjects in reply to the many speeches made tonight, but I would like to get his or his government's views about the appointment of judges in certain judicial districts of our province in particular, where the rolls are too heavy. I believe that the minister forgot to mention this in his reply.
Does his government intend to make appointments shortly in order to relieve the backlog in several courts in our province?


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member allow me to answer this question when we are dealing with the item in question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take too much time; I simply want to say a word to the minister before the general item passes, because I imagine the other items will not take so long. I am sure hon. members of the committee appreciated the courteous replies the minister gave to the various questions put and statements made. But the minister's replies will not do much to stir up any enthusiasm as to what is the future program of this department. When the minister brings down estimates one generally expects him to map out the programs he has in mind and to set forth the plans and objectives of his department. I appreciate the fact that the minister has been in charge of this department for only eight months and that these were estimates prepared by the previous administration; therefore I think there might be some excuse for dealing with the matter in a fairly low key. But I suggest to the minister that when the next session comes along, at which time we hope he will still be Minister of Justice, despite all the rumours to the contrary which are being circulated-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Paris is no place for him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We would rather have him here than in Paris. But if he is still minister

Supply-Justice
we hope we shall be able to get a clear outline oi what his programs are in various fields. There is no need for me to go over them all because my colleagues have dealt with them admirably. There is, for instance, the penal system, which, in this country, is archaic. I have listened to the minister expressing his good wishes and good intentions this evening. But we have been listening to such expressions as these for over a quarter of a century.
I remember the Archambault report about which practically nothing was done. Then there was the Fauteux report about which very little has been done. I think we need from the minister a precise statement at the next session of parliament setting out the government's intentions in the field of penal reform. There is a tremendous need for the establishment of a farsighted policy in Canada in conjunction with the provinces. It is not enough for the minister to say that some of these matters come under provincial jurisdiction, that magistrates are appointed by the provinces and that there is not much we can do. The fact is that the federal government can do a lot by entering upon shared programs with the provinces to provide, for instance, probation and placement services. The provision of these services constitutes a most crying need today. Many of the provinces would respond. In fact, some of them are struggling to provide them on their own. I hope when we come to the estimates next session the minister will put before this house and the country a challenging program to bring Canada up to date in terms of its penal institutions and its penal program.
I think the same comment applies to the whole question of anti-combines legislation. This legislation is in great need of strengthening, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North said a short time ago. Some time ago I drew the minister's attention to the fact that three of these sugar companies which had been found guilty of making an illegal profit on
80.000	tons of sugar were ordered to pay fines of $25,000 each, which was equivalent to $1 a ton or less than one twentieth of a cent per pound. At that time the minister said there was no maximum limit on the fines which could be imposed. But, equally, there is no minimum, either. This legislation needs to be amended so as to make the punishment fit the crime. To fine three companies $25,000 each after an illegal profit has been made on
80.000	tons of sugar is, as I have said before, simply issuing a licence to commit piracy. Again, we hope that by the time the house meets next session the minister will have legislation ready to introduce.
We hope, too, that he will tell us what is to be done about the various reports of the

restrictive trade practices commission-reports which have been brought down and upon which no action has been taken. For the moment I am not laying this at the door of the minister because he has only had a few months in which to deal with these things, but we did expect this session and, certainly, we will expect during the next session, some statement from the minister about what he proposes to do. He has promised to look into the matter of the sugar combines. I had hoped there would be some report from him on this subject tonight. But if he has nothing to report at this time, perhaps he will be able to make a full statement to parliament when it meets again in January or February.
Reference has been made by my hon. friend from Skeena to the B.C. Sugar Refining Company. I drew attention the other day to the fact that this company has in the past year increased its operating profit from $5,670,945 to $10,084,271. Its net profit amounted to $2,780,000, a gain of $591,519 over the profit for the previous year. This is the company which was able to say, in a letter sent out by its president to the employees, that due to the higher price obtained for sugar which had prevailed through most of the past financial year the over-all profits of the company had proven to be greater than normal. Then the company proceeded to send out bonus cheques to its em-ployeees of $12 for each year of service, and the letter ends by asking them to keep it quiet. I do not wonder that the president should have asked them to keep it quiet, because this company virtually doubled its operating profit in the course of the past year.
This is the company which got into Alberta and obtained control of three small refineries there. Now it intends to close one of them in Raymond and concentrate production in the other two. At the very time when sugar beet acreage is being increased, at the very time when we ought to be increasing domestic sugar production, this company is closing one of its refineries and then saying that the reason it has had to increase the price of sugar is because the price of the raw material has gone up on the world market.
I hope the minister's department intends to give the sugar industry a most careful examination. The fact that three of the companies this year pleaded guilty in the course of prosecutions initiated by the restrictive trade practices commission, indicates that there is good reason for further investigation.
I also want to express the hope that when parliament meets again the minister will be able to give some further answer to the request we have made so often for an appeal board to be set up, a board to which persons who have been accused of being bad security

risks can go to have their cases heard. The minister said nothing about that tonight. I think the government has taken a step in the right direction by providing some appeal machinery for employees in the government service, but the rest of the public are entitled to equal protection. I will not take the time tonight to go into this matter further, but I will be most insistent about this matter when parliament meets again because I have come across case after case of examples of people who have been discriminated against and who think they are unjustly accused of being bad security risks. They should have the right to appear before some body appointed by the government, to see the evidence and have an opportunity to clear their names.
I trust that when parliament meets again the minister will be able to give us some idea of what he intends to do about these various programs. I think the hon. gentleman has been very co-operative in listening while members of the committee have raised so many problems, but what we would like to get from him is a definite statement as to government policy on some of the questions which have been raised.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40. Bankruptcy Act administration, $166,900.
William Arnold Peters: Before we pass this item, has the minister anything to say about contemplated changes in this act and its administration? There is a great deal of concern in the business world about the number of small companies which one finds going bankrupt with large involvements amounting, sometimes, to hundreds of thousands of dollars, though the assets may be only a few thousand dollars. There is a saying among some business people that you should have $100,000 in the bank after your third bankruptcy if you are any kind of a businessman. It may not be that bad. I am sure the minister has given some consideration to the abuses that are taking place in the bankruptcy field and I wonder whether there is in contemplation changes in the small bankruptcy field that will bring about much tighter controls than we have at present.
There is some problem with regard to trustees being available for the administering of bankruptcies. In many cases there is great delay in providing trustees for bankruptcies, because of the shortage of such people and the fact that the trustees have to have some experience in the particular field they are going to administer.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I dealt with that in the French language earlier and I think I stated that changes to the Bankruptcy
Supply-Justice
Act are under consideration in the department now and that I expect at the next session of parliament to bring forward a bill other than the one now on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will sympathetic consideration be given to the report of the banking and commerce committee on Bill No. C-5- I need not go into the details of it-to protect farmers who have sold their produce to processors who go bankrupt?


Lionel Chevrier: I am aware of it, and the answer is yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
40. Pensions to families of members of the mounted police who have lost their lives while on duty, as detailed in the estimates, $15,894.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word on item 40. As the minister knows, some of us have expressed concern over the years about the pension position of retired civil servants. As a matter of fact, it is in the category of retired civil servants generally that this problem arises for the most part. I am informed there are some instances of retired officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have been retired for some time and whose pensions have not had adjustments, such as have taken place in other cases.
As the minister knows, I have been pleading with the Minister of Finance to do something about improving the pensions of retired civil servants. I would hope that the Minister of Justice would participate in this discussion and put in a word for retired mounted police officers who have been retired for some time and whose pensions have not been improved along with others.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say to the hon. gentleman that I saw a delegation in Calgary on this very subject when I attended the Canadian Bar Association meeting in Banff and I had a discussion later with the then commissioner Harvison of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police about this whole matter. The matter is under study and when the opportunity arises I will discuss it with the Minister of Finance.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I think we all appreciate the genteel approach of the minister this evening.


An hon. Member:: That is the trouble.


Frank Howard: As one of my colleagues has interjected, that is the trouble. The minister has agreed with practically everything that has been suggested.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is a change, too.

Supply-Justice


Frank Howard: This is appreciated, and we look forward at the next session to so many items on the order paper emanating from the Department of Justice that we will be here well into the fall before we dispose of them. As I have said, in his reply the minister has accepted practically everything that has been proposed to him. Unless he speaks to the contrary now, we will assume that his remarks were not of the same kind as he made to the railway brotherhoods the other day, and that this evening he was not speaking personally but was speaking for the government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Northern affairs and national resources.


Frank Howard: Ten thirty.


William Arnold Peters: Ten thirty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, in view of the urgent preoccupation of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and as I understand the hon. member for Kootenay West is very anxious to ask the minister some questions and he would love to answer them right now, I wonder if we could continue for a while. I think there are only one or two more speakers. Could we not dispose of the minister's department in the few minutes before eleven o'clock?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the minister may be preoccupied with some things but so are other hon. members. I think it would be best to call it 10.30.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we are quite prepared, as usual, to go on for a few more minutes. The log jam has to be broken one of these days. There are eleven departments which either have not been considered by the committee or with regard to which the committee is still on item 1, seven departments which have been started and not completed and only five completed. That is why we of the official opposition are quite prepared to sit a little longer tonight and get on with the business.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If the hon. member had been more willing to help break the log jam about six weeks ago I think we might not have had this problem.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a falsehood and you know it.


Frank Howard: That is a factual statement, Mr. Chairman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is the old filibuster at work again.


Frank Howard: The Secretary of State made such an impassioned plea the other day to abide by the rules that I think we should now agree with him that it is 10.30.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, just before you see the clock may I say that I appreciate very much the co-operation of all those who co-operate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I hope that Hansard will record the fact that for the third day in succession now, or more than that, the opposition to sitting longer hours has come from the New Democratic party. In this regard I hope that the Hansard reporter will have got the names of the persons, and their party, who have asked the house to rise at this time.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, just in case the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, having lost his prestige, is also losing his hearing, may I again call your attention to the fact that you should see the clock. It is 10.30.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As you did on other nights.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
BUSINESS of the house


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the house leader reannounce the business for Saturday, and also for Monday if he can do so?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps it might be better if I had a little conference tomorrow about the order of the proceedings we hope to have on Monday. I reiterate my request, for what it may be worth, that possibly we might have a frame of mind tomorrow when we reach orders of the day that hon. members would be willing to let the resolution respecting the world exhibition go through, so that the bill could be debated at the beginning of next week. But if there is not that consent there will not be the possibility. There has also been put on the order paper today a notice of motion to go into committee of ways and means with respect to a relatively minor matter that is, however, of some importance to the economy. I understand the Minister of Trade and Commerce has discussed it with representatives of all parties in the house and there is agreement to proceed with it at this session, even though it was not in the Prime Minister's list. This is something that has cropped up in the last little while. I want to explain that I appreciate very much the co-operation which was extended to the Minister of Trade and Commerce by all parties in agreeing, notwithstanding the fact it is an addition to the

list, and I appreciate this. If the house were disposed, because the bill will be absolutely identical except in form with that resolution, to go into committee and get the bill introduced, it would save us one step. This is not extremely important and I am not insisting in any way at all on these things, but it would make the order paper a little tidier for Monday.
So far as the estimates are concerned, this is to be the main business for tomorrow. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration will, by agreement, be called first. When it is completed, the minister of northern affairs, who has been available on so many occasions for so long, and who is still hopeful that the committee will be willing to ask him a few more questions and dispose of his department, will be available. My amiable and long-suffering colleague, the Minister of Public Works is very eager indeed to get a chance to hear the questions that are to be asked of him. If we could dispose of those three departments it would expedite greatly the objective I believe we all desire to reach, despite some suggestions that are sometimes made, that is the orderly conclusion of the business of this session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the Postmaster General just as eager as the rest of these people?
Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Postmaster General is panting, but he is going to have to pant a little longer because hon. members took a little too long with another minister the other day when the Postmaster General was available. In so far as I can cast my mind ahead, Wednesday is the day I had in mind for the Postmaster General and two or three other departments as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we were successful in disposing of these other three departments tomorrow, to use the words of the Secretary of State, could we then dispose of the Secretary of State?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, but we could dispose of the Minister of Fisheries who really has been very patient also, and who is very anxious to be disposed of.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I was wondering, inasmuch as the old faithfuls are present at this hour, if we might not agree to sit a little earlier in the morning, say nine o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This might interfere with some of the committee work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is such a thing as the rule of law.
It being fifteen minutes before eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put.

Supply-Items Passed [The following items were passed In committee of supply this day:]



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
National Museum of Canada-
120. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,229,500.
National parks branch-
50a. Canadian wildlife service-Wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $96,200.
50. Canadian wildlife service-Wildlife resources conservation and development, including administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $979,700.
40. Grant in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba, $15,000.
45. To authorize payment to the national battle fields commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec (chap. 57, statutes of 1908, as amended), $231,000.

[Stage Direction]
Headquarters administration and national police
services-
1.	Operation and maintenance, $7,855,000.
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $106,000.
Land, air and training divisions-
10. Operation and maintenance, $44,392,000.
15. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,912,000.
Marine services-
20. Operation and maintenance, $1,697,000.
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $46,000.
30. Grant to the Canadian association of chiefs of police, $500.
35. Grant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police veterans' association, $500.
Pensions and other benefits-
40. Pensions to families of members of the mounted police who have lost their lives while on duty, as detailed in the estimates, $15,894.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
25a. Yukon Territory-Administration of justice
in the Yukon Territory including the Yukon territorial court, $2,000.
Combines Investigation Act-
30. Restrictive trade practices commission, $104,600. 35. Office of investigation and research, $545,100. 40. Bankruptcy Act administration, $166,900. Pensions and other benefits-
45. Gratuities to the widows or other dependants of judges who die while in office, $20,000.
B-Penitentiaries-
50. Administration of the Canadian penitentiary service, $650,600.
55. Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries including compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $20,128,000.
60. Construction, improvements and equipment, $9,967,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L25. To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purposes of acquiring livestock for slaughter and subsequent sale for use in institutional feeding, and of acquiring raw materials required to produce canned goods for institutional consumption:	the amount to be
charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed, $175,000.
A-Department-
1. Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,378,100.
5. Parole Act administration, $701,500.
Supreme Court of Canada-
10. Administration, $257,700.
Exchequer Court of Canada-
15. Administration, $163,100.
Other courts-
Northwest Territories-
20. Administration of justice in the Northwest Territories including the Northwest Territories territorial court, $189,500.
20a. Northwest Territories-Administration of justice in the Northwest Territories including the Northwest Territories territorial court, $2,000.
Yukon Territory-
25. Administration of justice in the Yukon Territory including the Yukon territorial court, $164,900.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, December 14, 1963