[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS FOULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, the special committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the

Civil Service Committee Report
Civil Service Act begs to present the following as its third and final report.
Pursuant to order of reference dated February 22, your committee has held forty-eight sittings, has examined the three civil service commissioners, the secretary of the civil service commission, the chief, the acting chief and investigators Boutin and Jackson of the organization branch, and the chief examiner of the civil service commission; heard representations from Sir Francis Floud, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., United Kingdom high commissioner in Canada, the professional institute of the civil service, the civil service federation of Canada, the amalgamated civil servants of Canada, the dominion railway mail clerks federation, the amputations association of the great war and the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League. Briefs were received from army and navy veterans in Canada, officers, mates and petty officers of government ships, the Canadian postmasters' association, the customs and excise officers' association, and the New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island nautical association.
Your committee had charts prepared showing the organization of the staffs of the civil service commission and all departments of the government whose staff are under the civil service commission, hut was unable, in the time at its disposal, to make an extensive inquiry into the various departments.
Having carefully considered the evidence adduced, your committee recommends:
1.	Your committee deems it expedient and in the interest of the public, the civil service and the civil service commission that a standing committee on civil service matters be appointed at the commencement of each session of parliament, and therefore recommends to parliament that standing order 63 be amended by adding after clause (k) of said order, the following clause (1): "on civil service matters to consist of fifteen members, nine of whom shall constitute a quorum."
2.	The committee further recommends that no official or employee in the civil service shall make any direct or indirect recommendation or reference by letter or otherwise on behalf of any relative by blood or marriage, or take any part whether directly or indirectly in any competition, temporary or permanent assignment, promotion, classification or reclassification in which any such relative is an applicant.
3.	Your committee recommends that it shall he the duty of the civil service commission to make their own rulings on the operation of the act and apply the same uniformly, provided, however, that any department affected by such ruling may join the civil service commission in any submission to the Department of Justice for an opinion.
4.	Your committee reaffirms the eighteenth recommendation of the civil service committee of 1932, which is as follows:
"18. Your committee is of opinion that there is a great deal of overlapping in the performance of duties by the heads of different branches of the civil service commission, owing to matters receiving the attention of the secretary of the commission which are in no way related to secretarial duties."
"Your committee, therefore, recommends that the secretary of the civil service commission be
called upon to perform only those duties which are peculiarly those of a secretary and that the civil service commission consider ways and means of eliminating duplication of correspondence and departmental memoranda which now pass through the secretary to the commissioners."
And your committee recommends that all forms presently in use for such purposes shall be altered accordingly.
5.	As the multiplicity of classifications and the discrepancy in salary ranges tend to create jealousy in the service and have resulted ir injustices and dissatisfaction, your committee suggests that the service should be divided intc five or six broad classes, with a maximum ol not more than nine grades in one class, anc such division to be set up as soon as possible.
6.	From the evidence it appears there is at present a considerable discrepancy in salary ranges as between departments and as between the various branches of the same department and as between the Senate and House of Commons, which militates against efficiency and cooperation, your committee recommends that the organization branch be charged with special responsibility with regard to salary levels in order to simplify ranges and also to thoroughly investigate salaries paid in comparable classes within and without the service.
7.	Your committee recommends that
(1)	Annual surveys of departments, units or branches shall be made in rotation by the various investigators, whether requested by the department or not, and such reviews shall be made so as to remedy overlapping, overstaffing or understaffing and any unfair discrepancies which may exist.
(2)	If there is to be specialization, it shall be within classes rather than by attempting to cover a whole department from top to bottom, as at present.
(3)	Investigators shall mention in each report the time spent with each employee and the date and circumstances of the interviews.
(4)	Investigators shall not sit on examining boards as members thereof.
8.	In order to give the civil service commissioners a complete picture which will ensure fairness and department responsibility, and which will standardize the service and speed up the handling of cases, your committee recommends that the investigator's report and organization branch chief's comments be forwarded to department concerned and returned to the civil service commission with any comments such department wishes to make.
9.	Your committee recommends that no married women shall be employed even temporarily under her maiden name and regulation No. 36 of the civil service commission shall be strictly applied.
10.	Your committee recommends that subsection one of section 38 of the Civil Service Act be amended by adding at the end thereof the following proviso:
"Provided that,_ except on approval by the governor general in council, such authorization shall not extend to the employment of a person who is not a natural born or naturalized British subject and also has been a resident of Canada for at least five years."
11.	Your committee recommends the commission may, at the request of the department con-
[Stage Direction]
Civil Service Committee Report
cerned, but subject to the approval of the treasury board, appoint without competition any person who has already held a permanent position in the civil service and who has resigned, to the same or a similar position within the department if the department and the commission are satisfied that such person is deserving of such appointment, is not over fifty-five years of age, is of good character and in good physical condition.
12.	Your committee recommends that standard advertisements to cover the classes and grades suggested in its fifth recommendation should be prepared and adhered to and that the practice which has often been followed in the past of writing advertisements to fit the qualifications of a single individual should be discontinued. Your committee recommends further that any reason for varying such standard advertisements should be submited in writing by the deputy-head suggesting such variation and be reported thereon by the organization branch and that no such varied advertisement shall be issued or published unless previously approved by the civil service commission.
13.	Your committee recommends that examination papers should not be translated for examination purposes but should be read by the examiners in the language in which they have been written, whether English or French.
14.	Your committee is of the opinion that
whenever advisable transfers to other branches of departments, as well as from one department to another, should be encouraged so as to prevent favoritism and for the purpose of helping employees to acquire a general knowledge of the work of the department or departments of the government. Your committee considers that the effect of this recommendation will be to open new horizons to the younger employees by offering opportunities for advancement and promotion at the same time preventing the static condition of the service and remedying certain injustices.	_
15.	To facilitate the adjustments of complaints of a civil servant, where such complaints cannot otherwise be adjusted, your committee recommends that such complaints be adjudicated by a board of appeal consisting of a nominee of a civil service organization named by the appellant, a nominee of the deputy head of the department affected, and a nominee _ of the chairman of the civil service commission, the latter of whom shall be chairman of the board.
16.	Your committee recommends that ratings on efficiency and fitness, on which selections for promotion are largely based, be made by a board of three departmental officers instead of by individual departmental officers, as at present, and that a system of periodical ratings recording the efficiency of employees be established, for use in connection with promotions, salary increases and retirements. That the employee shall be advised of the result of all his ratings and shall have right to appeal such rating to the board mentioned in the preceding recommendation.
17.	Your committee recommends that promotions shall not be confirmed until after the expiration of fourteen days so as to permit the making of an appeal to the board mentioned in your committee's fifteenth recommendation, and in the event of such appeal being made that such promotion shall not be confirmed until the appeal has been disposed of.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
18.	Your committee recommends that the practice of placing employees in vacant positions in an acting capacity instead of holding promotion competitions for them be discouraged.
19.	Your committee recommends that the commission investigate the feasibility of more extensive and adequate advertising of competitions by press and radio.
20.	Your committee regrets that the recommendation of the civil service committee of 1932 "that all papers, documents, et cetera, placed on the files of the commission, be consecutively numbered in each file, so that removals or deletions therefrom will be apparent" has been ignored, and recommends that it shall be strictly observed and that also each document on file shall be duly initialed and dated.
21.	Your committee recommends that section twenty-one of the Civil Service Act, dealing with vacancies in the departments, be amended by providing (in subsection two thereof) for the case of temporary appointments when there is no eligible list that: "the commission shall forthwith hold an examination and, if necessary, to prevent any serious interference with the public business, but not_ otherwise, may fill the position at once, subject to the approval of the head of the department, by making a temporary appointment as prescribed herein," the only change in the subsection being the insertion therein of the words italicized above.
22.	Your committee is of the opinion that the preference granted by section twenty-eight and twenty-nine of the act to persons who have served overseas in the military or naval forces of His Majesty's allies shall apply only when such persons are natural born or naturalized British subjects, and also had been resident in Canada before the great war.
23.	Your committee recommends that no male employee shall be retained in the civil service beyond the age of sixty-five years and no female employee beyond the age of sixty years, and that such retirement be made compulsory without any extension.
Your committee is of the opinion that this would materially increase the efficiency of the civil service, would facilitate promotion and create a brighter outlook for the future of the younger people in the service or desirous of entering therein.	.
24.	Your committee is of the opinion that a departmental division of eighty per cent permanent and twenty per cent temporary results in discrimination in certain branches where the work is entirely permanent and where twenty per cent have to wait years for any hope of permanency, and also that further evil of this system is that a branch may pad up work to bring in extra temporaries, so as to absorb into the permanent quota those who otherwise would not be permanent.
25.	Your committee recommends that long term temporaries on the staff of the House of Commons who have been giving satisfactory service for a number of years should be made permanent employees under the civil service commission.
And that the evidence taken by the committee be indexed and one thousand copies in English and five hundred copies in French be printed in bluebook form.

A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence taken is tabled herewith; also three exhibits filed on May 25.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Jean-Frangois Pouliot,
Chairman.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfort) moved that the third and final report of the special committee appointed to inquire into terms and operations of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, presented to the house on June 28, be concurred in.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
want to say only a few words on this report. I know how invidious it is for a member who has taken no part in the work of a committee to criticize the results of their faithful labour, and I do not want to put myself in that false position. But I must express, on behalf of those whom I more immediately represent in connection with the matter, my disappointment that the report is not more definite than it is. If I remember rightly, this is the third committee on this subject in the last five or six years. They have all made the same indefinite kind of report, and each of them has ended in just nothing being done. I believe one committee recommended that the departmental officials should look into it. Time is going on; most of these people are getting old, and they are looking forward hopefully, or almost hopelessly now, to some arrangement being made so that they can come under the superannuation act. The people I more immediately refer to are the masters and mates and petty officers of the government boats. There is no reason in the world why they should not, and many reasons why they should, be allowed to come under superannuation. They put in petitions year after year. I myself have been privy to at least three of them. Now the best we get is to have the committee recommend that a similar committee be set up to continue the inquiry next session. I make no reflection on the work of the committee. They seem to have carried on an extraordinary number of interviews, they have examined a large number of witnesses, and so on; but it is unfortunate that perhaps they were rather late in getting organized. I quite admit that it is now too late for the government to do anything this session, but I would suggest that either the chairman of the committee or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) might hold out some hope of the committee being set up early next session in order to present in ample
Questions
time a concrete recommendation which the government could put into effect. If the months are allowed to pass and another committee is appointed it will have to begin de novo and go over the same evidence again, and a year from now we shall be in the same position. We shall again find that the report of the committee will come down too late for the government to take action. I earnestly urge upon the government that they make a note of this so as to have the committee set up early next session in order that we may have some definite recommendation which might be acted upon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
QUESTIONS	.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Did J. Ulric Leblanc resign as fishery inspector for the county of Westmorland?
2.	If so, was he asked to resign?
3.	How long had he been in the employ of * the Department of Fisheries as fishery overseer
and fishery inspector?
4.	Were any complaints made against him for inefficiency as fishery overseer and inspector?
5.	If so, what was the nature of such complaints, and who made the complaints?
6.	Is the said J. Ulric Leblanc a returned soldier?
7.	If so, how many years did he serve in France, Belgium and Germany?
8. Was an investigation asked for?
9. Was an investigation held?
10.	If not, is it the intention of the department to grant such an investigation?
11.	Did the department receive any petition from the fishermen of the county of Westmorland praying that the said J. Ulric Leblanc be maintained in office as fishery inspector for the county of Westmorland and asking for an investigation?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Since February 8th, 1920.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6 and 7. There is a record of number 1702, Joseph Ulric LeBlanc (date of birth, October 6, 1894) who proceeded to France on the 14th September, 1915 and returned to England on the 15th of April, 1919-service in western theatre of war, 3 years 7 months. His address on discharge was given as Cape Bald, county of Westmorland, N3.
8.	No.
9.	No.
Questions

10.	Answered by No. 8.
11.	A number of petitions were received from fishermen of Westmorland county asking that date of acceptance of inspector LeBlanc's resignation be amended to an indefinite time or else that grave reasons why his resignation should be accepted be shown.



BTJCTOTJCHE, N.B., OYSTER BEDS

Mr. MacINNIS:: 

NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-VANCOUVER CONTRACTS

Mr. GREEN:: For a copy of all contracts, leases, agreements, memoranda and other documents in effect between national harbours board and Empire Stevedoring Company Limited, dated during past two years, concerning Ballantyne and/or Lapointe piers in Vancouver harbour, or the equipment thereon.



MILL FEEDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Concerning the agreement between the railway companies and the government for reduced rates on mill feed from milling points to coast points may I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) whether such reduced rates apply to carload lots for the benefit of farmers and poultryimen along the Columbia river in West Kootenay district? Further, does the government accept the declaration of the railways that if intermediate points insist upon reduced rates the railways will cancel the rates to the coast?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: The only part taken by the government in the matter referred to by my hon. friend was to pass on to parliament an offer from the railways to meet the wishes of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), who brought the situation before the house. The railways offered to include mill feeds in the feed grain rates covered by the agreement of 1933, and I passed that offer on to parliament. The railway offer provided that the same rates that apply in the movement of mill feeds under an arrangement made in 1933 will apply as the maximum rate on mill feeds moving from points outside British Columbia into British Columbia.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: May I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) whether action has been taken by his department in regard to the further critical situation that is developing through the congregation of single unemployed in the vicinity of Victoria?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): I 'have no doubt my hon. friend has seen the statement that appeared in the press yesterday that, with regard to the non-resident transients formerly in the forestry conservation camps, provision has been made for emergency relief pending their transportation to their own provinces, as originally proposed. I have nothing further to add to that statement but no doubt the matter will be again discussed when the estimates of the Department of Labour are before the house.

C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue-for the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 174, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain expenditures made and indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1938, and to authorize the guarantee by his majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section one agreed to.
On section 2-Power to issue securities for refunding and capital expenditures.
Mr. BENNETT:: There is nothing here to indicate that it is capital expenditures. The minister yesterday made it clear that we were coming within that provision of our general rule by providing capital for the road. This is not providing for deficits or for deficiency of revenues to meet ordinary, everyday maintenance charges, but for capital charges. Should that not appear in section 2, so as to have it read:
. . . approved to provide the amounts necessary to meet in whole or in part capital expenditures made or indebtedness incurred on capital account during the calendar year 1938
That would be in accordance with the principles that govern Canadian National financing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Paragraphs (a) and (b) make it clear that those are capital expenditures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subparagraph (a) does, but (b) does not. In the details as given yesterday the word " capital " was used in one case, and inferred in another. The down payment on certain equipment might be regarded as a capital expenditure. It has been the custom-I cannot say whether it has continued-to charge the instalments due each year on purchase price to operating revenues. They may buy a locomotive for $100,000, pay $25,000 cash, and the other $75,000 is represented by securities which mature over a period of years. The general rule has been- it may be changed now-to retire them out of earnings. I think that is what the interstate commerce commission approved and what we adopted. It would appear reasonable that the expenditures involved in the use of the locomotive for the business should be charged against operating revenues.


Clarence Decatur Howe: While that is the principle of amortization behind the Philadelphia plan, nevertheless the twenty-five per cent payment is a capital expenditure. It seems to me unnecessary to put in the word " capital "; the fact is it is capital. But there can be no objection to doing so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We laid down this rule with respect to capital and other expenditures on the road, that the country assumes responsibility for the capital expenditures. It is well to keep that line of demarcation clearly before us. If we provide $50,000,000 for deficits, that is one thing; if we provide $15,000,000 for capital, that is another, and we should make that clear in the statutes so that those who desire to study the general situation may have no difficulty in ascertaining what is capital and what is not. I am not concerned about it other than for that reason.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I hardly think it necessary, because the section refers to the "following accounts," and the accounts are set out in considerable detail. There can be no question about the purpose to which the money is to be applied.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Power to aid other companies.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What does clause 5 mean?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is a clause which has appeared in previous bills. "The said companies and railways" is the phrase, I presume, that prompts the right hon. gentleman's inquiry. The companies and railways are referred to in clause 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not named; that is the point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But they are defined as "the companies or railways comprised in the National Railway system as defined in the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act, 1937." It is necessary that clause 5 be included, otherwise the company's expenditures would be limited to its own properties, excluding the properties of these other railways which are a part of the Canadian National system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But is there no limitation as to amount? That has been one of the things that has wrecked such enterprises, the guarantee given by a parent company for the obligations of subsidiaries.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The limits are contained in clause 2. The power to aid and assist is limited by the other provisions of the act.

C.N.R.-Guarantee oj Securities
The only purpose of the provision is that the parent company, the railway proper, shall not be limited to expenditures on its own lines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I follow that. The fact is that someone has copied section 5 into this from another act, and it does not link up with the other sections that limit the expenditures. As it is now it would enable anything to be done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is confined to the
authorized expenditures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not authorized by this act. That is the point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should say it is by this act. It is by some act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the clause is to get away from a technicality, that the parent company might not be able to use money appropriated for its own use in respect of companies which are separate corporate entities. It has been in every act from the beginning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I realize that, but it should be linked up with the other provisions of this act. As it stands it might be said to authorize anything. It is not tied up to expenditures authorized by the act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The intention is to tie it up with these expenditures. They cannot make a single expenditure under that clause which is not authorized by act of parliament. It covers expenditures authorized by act of parliament on any part of the system, including the properties of these subsidiary companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But clause (b) does not cover that at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 28, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Lapointe-Mr. Sanderson in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to incorporate a commission with power under the Minister of Justice to administer, control and manage the penitentiaries; to provide for salaries of the commissioners and assistant com-

missioners and to amend and consolidate the Penitentiaries Act and amending acts and repeal the same.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Last evening I was dealing with the report of this commission on the Buck case. Before I conclude what I have to say in that regard I think I should refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ontario, reported in volume 3, Dominion Law Reports, page 98. I do that for one purpose only, namely to point out how serious this matter was in the judgment of Chief Justice Mulock. He points out with very great care that this man had openly advocated the very thing which he was charged with doing in that penitentiary. And now to re-try this case in the sense that it has been re-tried in this report does violence to one's understanding and appreciation, I think, of the whole theory under which commissions operate and act. For instance, Chief Justice Mulock refers to the evidence given by Buck himself, and at page 102 he says:
According to the evidence of the accused Timothy Buck, large numbers of communists in Canada, in the fall of 1920, secured copies of those theses and statutes and in 1921 several groups of communists held a conference in Canada and formed an association called the communist party of Canada. Buck testified that the communist party of Canada was a section of the communist international, and that from the year 1924 onward the above named theses and statutes became binding upon the communist party of Canada.
Those words in themselves were very serious, and they were the considered words of the chief justice of Ontario, Sir William Mulock.


Mr. COLD WELL:: May I ask the date of that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This was in 1932, just before Buck was actually sent to prison, on the case that was presented to the court of appeal in the province of Ontario.


Mr. GRAY:: What has that to do with the report of the commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am now dealing with the penitentiaries report and the Buck case. The language used at page 103 is this:
-the communist party to join systematically, lawful and unlawful work, lawful and unlawful organizations ... It is especially necessary to carry on unlawful work in the army and navy, police . . . and persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation if necessary in the army where communist groups should be formed in every military organization.
That was part of it. Then he proceeds:
Such mass demonstrations are prepared and carried out by the organized masses of the proletariat under the direction of the united, disciplined, centralized communist party. Civil war is war. In this war the proletariat must

Penitentiaries Commission Act
have its efficient political officers, its good political general staff to conduct operations during all the stages of that fight.
Then, follow references to other points of the same character, and I-direct attention to this matter particularly:
In every country where, in consequence of martial law or of other exceptional laws the communists are unable to carry on their work legally, a combination of legal and illegal work is absolutely necessary . . . But refusal to carry on or to participate in such work should be considered equal to treason to the revolutionary cause and incompatible with affiliation to the Third International.
I need not trouble to read further references, but the decision of that court resulted in this man being sent to Kingston penitentiary. Then riots occurred on two occasions, to which reference is made in this report; and during the quelling of one of those riots, with the aid of the militia, the shots to which I referred last night were fired. A report was made by two inspectors and by the superintendent, and six years later this commission makes a report which did not involve the calling of eye witnesses, as did the other case, but which enabled those who were the proponents of the faith of Buck to make the allegations that have been made from time to time in recent months.
I now proceed to what I regard as the most important point in connection with the report of this commission. I should like to ask the minister just where the authority was given to this commission to investigate the day to day operations of these penitentiaries. That is a matter for the minister, through his superintendent. I look at the order in council, for which the minister made the recommendation, and that order in council says that the commission is to inquire into and report upon-
-the penal system of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, the following matters:
1. The treatment of convicted persons in the penitentiaries, covering the investigation and examination of the classification of the institutions;
As to that we have some evidence and something in the report, but that does not involve the question of the trial of the officials who, under the Civil Sendee Act, are responsible to their chief and to the department over which the right hon. gentleman presides.
The classification of offenders;
The construction of penal institutions;
The organization of penal departments;
The appointment of staffs;
The treatment to be accorded to the different classes of offenders, including corporal and other punishment;
The protection of society;
Reformative and rehabilitative treatment;
Employment of prisoners;
Prison labour;
Remuneration;
The study of international standard minimum rules, and other subjects cognate to the above.
2.	The administration, management, discipline and police of penitentiaries.
Surely that does not cover dealing with the individual men in the penitentiaries. That is a matter for the minister, and, as I said yesterday, we have substituted for the minister and his control the work of this commission.
3.	Cooperation between governmental and social agencies in the prevention of crime, including juvenile delinquency, and the furnishing of aid to prisoners upon release from imprisonment.
4.	The conditional release of prisoners, including parole or release on probation, conditional release under the Ticket of Leave Act, and remission generally.
Then the order in council was amended for the purpose of appointing Mr. McRuer in place of Mr. Anderson. I want to point out just one more fact in that connection. Under these provisions you have the public destruction of the value of many tried and experienced officials. I am sure the minister never intended that this should be done. The minister never intended that these men should go into these institutions and pick out John Smith, Peter Jones and so on, and say, "We do not like the way these people do their work," because the doing of that by this public commission has destroyed the usefulness of these men, who are public servants, responsible to the minister and to the government of the day. This commission having made this report has made it extremely difficult for these men to continue to function.
I will give another case; I gave some last evening and if I so desired I could go through this report and take them one after the other, to show that there was no power contemplated on the part of this commission to deal with these matters in this way. Least of all I think did the minister expect it to be done. No one who participated in the discussion that occurred in this house ever thought we were to do that.
Now I take another case, at page 296, in connection with the chaplain and religious services at Kingston. The chaplain there was Reverend Mr. Kidd, who, unfortunately, happened to be -the brother of the local member for that constituency. Why should he be brought into this and singled out to be treated in this way? Why should any of the chaplains be treated in this way? But the commission say:
Several complaints were made that the Protestant chaplain lacked the proper personality and approach to the men and that he was unable to gain their confidence. While
Penitentiaries Commission Act

your commissioners believe that he is earnest in his work, we do not find the same evidence of results as we found in some other penitentiaries. It is very important that chaplains should possess the ability to secure the confidence of the inmates if they are to be able to influence them.
The reports of the people who know Mr. Kidd, who was a padre overseas, are absolutely at variance with that statement. What is the position of the Minister of Justice in this matter? Here he has in front of him individuals dealt with by name. He himself has these recommendations or statements made about them, and yet he cannot remove them from office, unless it be under the section which says that it is in the interests of efficiency of the institution that they should be removed. And the commission go all through these penitentiaries, one after the other, and take the wardens, the deputy wardens, the guards, the inspectors and the chaplains, and deal with them one after the other. I ask the minister if that was the purpose of this investigation. That was not my understanding of it, or of any application that was made. It was to deal with the large and broad problem of prison administration-in detail, as the minister has pointed out-the question whether or not the proper form of administration prevailed and whether or not the chaplain's services are desirable. In the Saskatchewan penitentiary, where there is a full time Protestant chaplain, they say he does not visit the cells. Not visiting the cells, he has the prisoners paraded before him. They may have questions to ask and complaints to make. That was a recent appointment of a full time official. The same is said with respect to the Roman Catholic chaplain, namely that he does not go to the cells to see them.
I must ask the Minister of Justice if that is the sort of thing he thought this commission was going to deal with. That is a matter of internal administration, a matter for the minister's own guidance, not something which should be made public in this sense, thus destroying the entire usefulness of it. Man after man is picked out and dealt with in this report, one after the other. We may take the case of Dawson, to whom I referred last night. He is a returned man, who served with the Canadian expeditionary force. He was an accountant, and they say they do not think he is a particularly good man to be an inspector. That is the sort of thing that goes on through this whole document.
I ask again, can we adequately deal with this matter without having the opportunity to study the evidence? And listen to the kind of evidence that was taken, according to the report itself, not what I say about it.

I quote:
At the outset, your commissioners decided to give all the inmates and officers of the various penitentiaries the fullest opportunity to make any representations they wished, pertaining either to their own welfare or to conditions existing in the different institutions, and, in order to ensure this by removing any fear as to the consequences which might result from freedom in expressing their views, the commission decided not to engage outside counsel, that the sittings should be held in camera, and that, while inmates were giving evidence, no penitentiary officer would be permitted to attend.
That is the sort of thing that we find. I visited the penitentiary at Kingston with the then Minister of Justice, without notice, and I asked various prisoners why they were there, what their previous condition had been, where they had come from. I can remember only one who said to me, "I am here because I ought to be here." Most of them said it was a frame-up or that someone had done something to get them there. I must say to the Minister of Justice that in ninety cases out of a hundred-well, perhaps not ninety, but at least eighty

the accused give evidence. If they are convicted, in addition to the other offences with which they are charged, they are perjurers, because a judge or a jury has not believed their statements made under oath; and they are now brought in here, free from any surroundings which may control or limit their activities, and permitted to tell their tale. And on that we have these men-these hard working men-treated in this way. Is it fair? Is it right or just?
Surely it was not intended that that ever should be the duty of this commission. Obviously the commission has entirely gone outside of its order of reference. What is more, and one of the regrettable things, long before this report came in it was known that they were going to get Ormond, that they were going to get Dawson, and others named in the report-an absolute negation of the purpose for which the commission was constituted. It was to report upon the penal system, and to deal with matters the minister now deals with. Think how much more difficult it has been made for the minister. Charged as he is with an enormous responsibility in connection with the penal institutions of this country, he is now handicapped by reports made public with respect to men on the evidence of inmates given in the manner indicated, all of whom have been convicted by the courts of the country, and the majority of whom are also perjurers-found as such either by the juries or by the courts. Is that right, or just, or fair?

Penitentiaries Commission Act
Who were these men? Some of the men I saw had been convicted of murder, and their sentences had been commuted to life imprisonment. Others had committed offences against the person, such as assault and attempted murder and rape. In this list you have forgers, men who violated the criminal law with respect to embezzlement, theft, and matters of the kind. And these men come in here by invitation and make their statements in camera, without the presence of anyone connected with the administration. You take the names of the officials mentioned in the report and you say, "We do not think so and so is doing his job as fully as he might." That is a matter for the minister and the superintendent to decide. That is a matter of discipline. See what we have done: we have made it that much more difficult for the Minister of Justice to discharge his heavy duties and obligations.
I pointed out the other day that the first time I remembered Kingston being mentioned in the house was in connection with the penitentiary. At that time they were dealing with problems, and demanded a commission. They got the commission, to which reference is made in the report. That commission made its report with respect to certain matters. Then there was another commission on which Mr. Biggar, K.C., sat, and that commission made its report. Mr. Biggar was one of the committee who recommended . that General Ormond should be appointed. Now we have the present report. Kingston has always been looming large with respect to discussions of penitentiary conditions. I ask the minister this:	Were these men experts on the kind
of buildings that should be built? And yet I find the commission complaining bitterly about the change of construction in the women's building at Kingston. They say the architectural plans have been changed. They say further that Collin's Bay cost too much money and is too elaborately got up. Now, the Minister of Justice was the gentleman who was responsible for the setting up of Collin's Bay. They make this reflection upon that work. It was carried on by the next government, and is being completed by the present government. The women's building was designed by the best men available, and then alterations were made in it. I refer to the building at Kingston. That is set out at length.
That building, too, was commenced not by the late government or the present government. And there you have running through it this web of interference with respect to all these matters, setting up the judgment of 51952-277
three men, without any evidence as to their knowledge or ability to deal with it, as to the construction of a building and matters of that kind. Is it fair or just that we should hand over this whole penal system to a commission, without having had at least some opportunity, not upon this evidence thus secured but upon what the minister and others know to be the facts, to consider the matter?
As to the complaint against men who have had military training, the minister is not to blame for that. The civil service commission appointed them, not the minister, and preference was given to returned men under the statute. The minister did not do that. Now they are complaining that the statutes of Canada are improperly enacted. This commission has said that these military men should not be there, that they are arrogant and that they bring militarism into the conduct of the penitentiaries. In the report that was read this morning with reference to the civil service, the only limitation placed upon appointments was that they should not be of people who were bora outside of Canada. But so far as I know both these men against whom complaints are being made were born in Canada, and they gave service,
I do submit to the minister that we should not be asked to change the whole penal system of this country without any evidence that warrants it. In England, at Dartmoor and elsewhere, my observation is that the governors in most of these institutions are military men, and have been for years. In our country, until the great war came, there was, generally speaking, no military class from whom these men could be selected. The civil service commission has made all the appointments to the penitentiaries-I do not mean temporary clerks but appointments of importance-therefore the minister is not responsible.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: My right hon. friend is forgetting that six months after the appointment of General Ormond the government of which he was the leader changed the Penitentiaries Act so that all appointments in the future were to be made by the governor in council-superintendent, wardens, inspectors and all the officers-and since then the civil service commission have had nothing to do with the appointment of either the superintendent or the wardens.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: In April, 1933.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite, but I am thinking of the appointments that were under consideration by this commission.



Penitentiaries Commission Act


Ross Wilfred Gray: Go back a little.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have already indicated, Mr. Chairman, that I answer no questions from that source. I make that perfectly clear, so he can keep on asking them as long as he pleases.
I am well aware of the change the minister mentions, and he knows why it was done.


Ernest Lapointe: I do
not know. But if the system was so good that the superintendent in 1932 was appointed by this board after every consideration had been weighed; if it is almost a crime to say anything about a man who was appointed in that manner, why was the method of appointment changed six months afterwards?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was appointed by
the board to which I referred. I think the right hon. gentleman has followed me. The inquiry commission laid no specific charges against the superintendent, who had been appointed by the civil service commission; and he has not to this day had an opportunity to be heard, although they make this finding against him. He was examined, grilled for eight days by the commission, after, as has been pointed out, the inmates came in one after the other, and made statements not- under oath so far as I have been able to ascertain-I have not seen the evidence. But do you suppose that they were going to make any statements other than those they did make once you hung up the notice: Come on in and make your complaints against this institution?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same thing happened when General Ormond made an examination. He examined 650 inmates. You will find that in the debates of 1933.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. He was examining just for the very point I have been endeavouring to make. He did not make a public report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a public report of this kind with respect to individuals. I know what he was doing; the minister knows what he was doing. He was trying to help the minister to be 'better able to discharge his important duties by ascertaining wherein as a matter of internal discipline the situation could be improved. That is what I conceive his duty to be under the minister's direction, and he was endeavouring to improve the conditions. But to name these men because they do not visit the cells of prisoners, as this 
commission does, is a different matter; and they say they do not regard that as being a sound system.
Then the commission drag in the question of coal. The men make an adequate explanation in the newspapers about the coal, but the commission find that because somebody else investigated the matter the investigation was not adequate. Who made them a court of appeal? Who gave them the right to do this? The people concerned never had the opportunity to come there and be heard. They found as a fault, mark you, that previous investigators did not call the contractors. All this leads to just one conclusion which I desire to make and which I again present to the minister, namely that we have had no adequate opportunity to study this report. The report of the textile commission has been placed before us this session, but no legislation. We have had the grain report, but no legislation. We have had other reports, but no legislation. Fourteen days ago yesterday this report was brought down, and upon this report, without having had an opportunity to consider it, we are to change the whole penal system. I appeal to the court of ultimate resort, the minister himself. Will he say that the superintendent has not served him, and this country through him, as faithfully as any superintendent he has ever had under him?
Mr. GRAY; No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Justice is very unfortunate in choosing his proxy.


Ernest Lapointe: Choosing what?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question was answered by a member sitting behind the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: I will answer for myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the minister would. I do not wish to do more than present what in my judgment as a member of this house I conceive to be one of the greatest difficulties we have had to meet in this regard, namely, the lack of opportunity to determine whether or not there is any evidence upon which action might be taken. Before the report came down the government had apparently made up its mind to take action. The government probably knew what the commission was doing, because the report was dated in April, but I had no knowledge until the report came down. I have looked at the recommendations, but I have had no time to read the report except casually, as I pointed out yesterday, and members of the

Penitentiaries Commission Act
house tell me that they have had no time to do more than read the introduction. None of us have seen the evidence, which we thought would be laid on the table of this house that we might consult it. No one suggests, least of all I, that we should go to the expense of printing it, but in the case of the commission dealing with the railways, the report was placed in the library and the appropriate place for this report would be to lay it on the table of the house that we might study it. The report of this commission, dealing with matters of great national concern, is apparently to result in an entire change in the penal system of this country. The minister says that the appointment of the three commissioners will not be partisan, that he will do his best to prevent that, but they must necessarily be political appointments, and that commission is to be the governing body of the penitentiaries of this country.
I say further that the minister has sustained my position; the act is to be brought into force by proclamation, thereby indicating that there is much to be done before these recommendations can be made effective. I suggest again, without of course any likelihood of its even being considered, in view of the position taken by the minister, that the interests of this nation would be best served by giving an opportunity for the people also to think about the recommendations made by that commission. It is usual to afford an opportunity for consideration of a report of this kind, and certainly there has been no opportunity for the public generally to investigate and consider the recommendations and to arrive at conclusions. I am not going to do more than make that statement again to the minister, knowing that, having taken the position he has, he cannot vary his view. But rarely have I known of any attempt being made to deal in this way with a matter of such great public importance-within fourteen days of the bringing down of the recommendation, to change a whole system which has been in existence since pre-confederation days, and then support this attitude, when we ask for further time, by saying that it will not go into force except by proclamation. No opportunity will be afforded between now and then for any changes to be made, because the statute itself will be conclusive upon every phase of penitentiary administration. I would think that many changes would have to be made in the Penitentiaries Act, that many changes would also have to be made in the whole setup of our penal system, and that these operations would take considerable time.


Mr. COLDWELL:: We have listened to a very long discussion of some phases of this report. As I listened last evening to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) dealing with the Kingston riots, it did not strike me that he was painting an accurate picture, as I understood that picture from the report, and therefore, at the risk of taking a little time when the committee does not wish time to be taken, I desire to deal particularly with that phase of it. Since last evening I have made a very careful study of the relevant pages in the report. I think this, that in the recommendation regarding the superintendent the commission was justified upon the evidence relating to the Price incident alone.
You will recollect from the report that during the penitentiary riot Price was shot in the right shoulder. The guards were called and told that a prisoner had been seriously wounded, indeed that he was dying. This, of course, proved to be exaggerated. The wounded man remained unattended in his cell for twenty-two hours, from October 20 to October 21, the bullet not being removed until October 23. Subsequently the wounded man was in hospital until December 1. There is no evidence given anywhere, either by the superintendent or by anyone else, to show that he endeavoured to place the responsibility for the firing of this shot or for the neglect to which this particular man was subjected, nor is there any reason given for the delay in giving Price medical treatment, in securing an X-ray photograph, or in the removal of the bullet until some days later. In his report to the Minister of Justice, on the contrary, the superintendent treated the incident as one of little account. I find on page 80 this report to the Minister of Justice:
One convict in the prison of isolation was struck in the shoulder by a bullet which ricochetted from the barrier. It was ascertained that he was not seriously injured.
That was the report made to the Minister of Justice by the superintendent. As I said a few moments ago, I believe it shows that he treated the incident lightly.
We have the commission's finding on the following page. After reviewing the evidence, this is what the commission said:
The commission find that the treatment accorded to this prisoner (Price) after he was wounded was brutal and inhuman. In addition to being allowed to remain in his cell for twenty-two hours without medical attention, he was given no surgical treatment until the third day after the shooting. In our opinion, the circumstances called for the most searching and careful investigation in order to fix responsibility both for the shooting and the subsequent neglect, as well as for strict disciplinary action when the responsibility

Penitentiaries Commission Act
had been fixed. The superintendent failed to do this, and, instead, issued a report to the minister, which eventually was made public, indicating that the wounding was of a trifling and accidental nature.
The leader of the opposition dealt at considerable length with the Buck case. I have looked into the evidence which was submitted to the commission, and find that the picture presented to us last evening was not an accurate representation of what occurred. Let us remember that the Buck case has not only been investigated by the commission; it was the subject of a trial before Judge Deroche, who delivered judgment on July 6, 1933. Last night the leader of the opposition quoted from the report which was made, almost a year after the riot, by inspectors Craig and Dawson, who were parties interested in more or less shielding themselves in connection with what occurred on -that particular occasion. In that report, the leader of the opposition contended, inspectors Dawson and Craig had stated that Buck admitted incitement to riot. Now, -that can not only be disputed, but it is not a statement of fact, as was found by a duly constituted court and by Judge Deroche.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read from the report here.


Major James William Coldwell: The record from which the right hon. gentleman read was simply a report made by inspectors Craig and Dawson themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read the questions and
answers.


Major James William Coldwell: And the questions and answers. I propose to read the judgment of Judge Deroche, before whom Buck came to trial for his participation in the Kingston riot. I take it that the leader of the opposition will agree with me that when a judge in a court tries a man and delivers judgment, that judgment, except upon appeal to a superior court, is unassailable, and at least is much better evidence than the kind of evidence which would be given by two inspectors who were interested in whitewashing themselves and the institution in connection with the incidents that occurred. I turn to page 81 of the report and. I read:
Buck was tried for his participation in the disturbance of October 17 before His Honour Judge Deroche, who delivered judgment on the 6th of July, 1933, in part as follows:
"Then I think I had better say this before I start my judgment proper. You presented to me-
He is addressing Buck.

a most unusual request in your argument this morning. Your request in so many words said 'I hope your honour can find me not guilty,
[Mr. ColdwellJ
but if you feel you must find me guilty, then there is something I prize even more than the question of guilt, and that is that my name may be cleared of having done or said some things which I deny, and which would stamp me in my own opinion as a blackguard.' I am very glad to say to you that I can clear you of these things. I do not believe you shut off the motor in your shop; I do not believe you spoke in the mail bag department stating you would kill the screws unless you got what you wanted. I do not think you made a speech in the dome, or influenced any men to fight in the stone shed on that day; that was a personal fight between two men, I am satisfied, a personal grudge. I do not believe you ordered the men from the stone shed to go in the mail bag department. There is no evidence that you were an instigator of the assembly which developed into this riot. I think this covers all the things that were worrying you, and therefore, I have been able to do what you ask me to do. Having said this, may I proceed with my formal judgment.
The evidence in this case has not changed my opinion, but rather confirmed it, as to the history of the events of the afternoon of the seventeenth of October, as expressed by me in the Kirkland trial. My opinion in this regard is, I think, well known, so I need not repeat it here. I think these things constituted a riot; more than three men were engaged in it; there was a common purpose in the minds of the men; the tranquillity of the neighbourhood was disturbed for various reasons; the assembly, although peacefully intended in its inception, soon became tumultuous; there was a promiscuous, noisy commotion which -was aggravated by some men carrying hammers, iron bars, and sticks; machines were broken, and locks were burned off doors. The warden himself was prevented from leaving, even when he desired to do so. Officers and guards were ordered to the mail bag department, and ordered to the front when shots were fired, and they felt they had to obey and did obey. Different witnesses have testified to being alarmed, to being in real fear, and these events constituted a riot.
I think I should say here, however, that the riot was not nearly so serious a matter as it was thought to have been at the time it occurred. From newspaper reports at that time, and general conversation amongst the public, it was deemed to have been an exceedingly serious matter, but I think the evidence as developed in these cases thus far has shown something different. Certainly it has convinced me that the riot was not intended to be a riot at the outset. I believe you, Buck, and the other witnesses, that the intention was a peaceful assembly, unlawful perhaps, at least breaking prison rules to do it, and the men knew they were breaking prison rules; nevertheless, I am satisfied that in the minds of the leaders anyway there was no desire that there should be a riot."
His Honour then went on to find that there was, nevertheless, a breach of the law, that Buck had participated in it, and that therefore he was guilty as charged. In dwelling with the subject of the sentence, His Honour stated as follows:
"While I do not intend to sentence you, Buck, to-day, I think at this juncture I might give some reasons which will move me in

Penitentiaries Commission Act
sentencing you when that day comes. While I am satisfied that you formed part of this riot I am also satisfied that you had an honest desire that no one should be injured and no property damaged; that is damage itself for the sake of damaging property. I am satisfied it was your desire to have the assembly of men make a demonstration merely for the purpose of emphasizing your demands for redress of grievances, and that is all to your credit. From the evidence produced in the Kirkland case I know of many of those grievances, and I know that since _ the riot they have been largely remedied, which makes your demands look reasonable; and that helps me somewhat in reaching a conclusion as to what sentence I shall impose.
While you did not personally injure any property I feel bound to hold you responsible in law, and, as I have said therefore, you are found guilty of an offence punishable with seven years, but I do not intend to give you seven years. The officer in charge of your shop says that you are the best machinist they have ever had in that shop; that your work and conduct have been commendable, and this is also very much to your credit. Then you exercised some restraint over the men, you and two or three others at certain points in this riot, and that is very much to their credit and yours."
And in another place His Honour stated:
"First, the riot itself was not of a very serious type. I would like the public to get that, because I am satisfied the public had the wrong idea of this riot at the time it occurred. The intention of the men at the outset was only to break a prison rule for the sake of assembling to make a protest, but it developed into a real riot, although not of an intensely serious nature. There have been many riots in many prisons, of a much more serious nature than this one. As riots go, I would say this was a very mild riot, but it was a riot, and I had to find you guilty of participating in it.
Then, secondly, I do not believe you instigated the riot, and that, I think, is one of the things you wanted me to find. I believe that you had an honest desire that no harm should come to either person or property. But, as I said before, being a part of the unlawful assembly which developed into a riot, you are responsible for the consequences of the riot, and I must sentence you to some term of imprisonment."
That is the judgment of Judge Deroche, delivered after a competent trial in a competent court; and in my opinion it far outweighs any evidence that may have been submitted to the superintendent by inspectors Craig and Dawson, who themselves were interested in rather minimizing or whitewashing the affair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The judgment is that he was guilty.


Major James William Coldwell: The judgment is that he was guilty-of what?-of	technically
participating in a riot but not of instigating it. Furthermore the judge points out what
constitutes a riot. Where three or more persons are assembled together and a tumult follows, that is a riot. Again, the judge says that as riots go this was a very mild one. The leader of the opposition this morning introduced remarks made by Judge Mulock in the Communist trial of 1932. Probably what the judge said as to the instructions given the communist party in 1920 was a statement of fact. I am not sufficiently well informed to know whether that is so or not. But let me point out that what may have been said by any group of men under the stress of the conditions that prevailed in the country in 1920 may not have been their considered opinion twelve years later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he said it was, in 1932, at the trial.


Major James William Coldwell: I hold no brief for the communist theory, to which I have always been opposed, but from my personal observation, as I said once before in this house, much of that communist propaganda that was spread from 1920 to 1927 in the city in which I live was disseminated and encouraged by a sergeant of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who masqueraded there as the secretary of the communist party and who was during that time first a corporal, then a sergeant in the force. If we had communism in Regina the secretary of the communist party in Regina was none other than Sergeant Leopold of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, whom we knew in Regina at that time as Comrade Jack Esselwein of the communist party.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely
communism has nothing to do with what is before the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: But it was introduced as part of the discussion this morning, and I thought since the point had been raised I should endeavour to meet it by pointing that out.
Then there was a subsequent investigation, and Buck submitted a written statement which appears in the evidence, making the same contentions that were proven in the court presided over by Judge Deroche. Of this Inspector Dawson said, as reported on page 84 of the report:
I believe Buck in practically every respect, what he said.
In the light of that, how can it be said that this riot was started and conducted in the manner which has been described to this committee? The point I am making is
Penitentiaries Commission Act

that General Ormond took no steps to investigate the shooting at the cell occupied by Tim Buck until almost a year after the event occurred. We find at page 88 of the report the letter that the Minister of Justice had written to General Ormond asking him for a report-


Richard Bedford Bennett: In consequence of a
complaint.


Major James William Coldwell: On receipt of that letter the superintendent wrote to Inspector Craig as follows:
August 16, 1933.
Inspector W. H. Craig,
% the Warden,
The Penitentiary, Kingston, Ont.
Re 2424, Buck-Kingston Penitentiary
1.	The above named convict is reported to have made a statement, while giving evidence, that during the disturbance following the riot in Kingston penitentiary in October, 1932, some guard or guards on the staff of the penitentiary deliberately shot at him while he was in his cell.
2.	Please proceed to investigate this matter at once.
I would draw the attention of the committee particularly to the next statement:
3.	This convict made a similar statement to me in October or November, 1932, but there was no substantial evidence to bear out his statement.
May I remark that inspectors Dawson and Craig went to the cell ten months later and found the evidence upon which they based their report.
It is possible that he may produce witnesses, either convict or guard, that will prove or disprove his allegation.
4.	Inspector Dawson should sit on the investigation with you. If a stenographer can be made available the evidence should be taken dowrn verbatim. If not, a synopsis of the evidence should be taken down by you in longhand.
5.	Please treat this matter as urgent.
That letter was written months after the incident had occurred, and the superintendent admits that the complaint had been made to him months before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On August 5, 1933. Look at page 87.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: So anybody would say, now.


Major James William Coldwell: But General Ormond apparently did not consider it of sufficient significance or importance even to investigate it several years previously.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he did investigate it. There is no evidence that a guard ever fired into a cell.


Major James William Coldwell: The general in his letter
says:
This convict made a similar statement to me in October or November, 1932, but there was no substantial evidence to bear out his statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right at the time, 1932.


Major James William Coldwell: connection, and it must be remembered that this commission was composed of a judge and two eminent lawyers, both of whom have occupied judicial positions as magistrates in their own cities. These were men accustomed to sifting and weighing evidence, to making recommendations based upon facts, and they recommend that a competent commission should replace the superintendent. I am thoroughly in agreement with that recommendation. True, it is unfortunate that we did not receive this report earlier in the session, but the report is here and if the government fails to do anything about it what is going to happen? I venture to say that every prisoner in our penal institutions knows of the existence of this report, and every prisoner is watching to see what will happen. How can discipline be maintained in those institutions during the coming year if we do nothing about its recommendations at the present time? It seems to me that in the interests of the prisoners themselves, in the interests of discipline, in the interests of the government, in the interests of Canada and, as somebody suggests, in the interests of democracy, this report should be implemented to the extent that the government intends to implement it. I therefore wish to express my support of this resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: In a very few words I wish to emphasize again what I said yesterday in answer to the request that this matter should be postponed because the report was made at a late stage of the session, and the suggestion that it would be better that further consideration be given it by members of the house. I repeat that the bill which will be introduced merely provides for the creation of a prison board. No other change is made by the bill. This report will be considered further with the help of this prison board, when it is appointed. Any necessary changes in the law will be made then, and where such changes can be made by regulation, that will be done.
I shall go further. We, the government, on our own responsibility could propose thi3 change of policy to parliament, without the help of any report at all, even discarding this report and these recommendations. The policy is one of which we approve, and I believe that under the present circumstances, with the conditions as they exist to-day, it is very important that this prison board should be created. This is being done, and it can be done without accepting all the findings, recommendations or suggestions of the men who sat on that royal commission. We may accept all of them or any of them, but I am 
in favour of creating a prison board, without being bound to reflect against any officer or any man. It is unfortunate that the discussion on the resolution has turned to personalities instead of being directed to the necessity of a change in the system. However, as the commission itself has been assailed I may say that we are responsible for the creation and personnel of the commission. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that not one of them asked for the appointment. We tried to secure the services of the best men available, and we had difficulty in getting them- each one of them.
As the name of Mr. McRuer has been mentioned in particular, I may say that Mr. McRuer accepted, after being pressed to do so, at very considerable sacrifice to himself, as a public duty. After what has been said, I think I owe it to him to make that statement to the committee.
With regard to the report itself, I may say that all the comments of newspapers in Canada have been sent to me. There has been almost unanimity in commending the report. A few newspapers thought it was rather hard on one gentleman, but on the merits of the report itself the opinion seems to be almost unanimous. May I quote from a letter I received from the Canadian Penal Association, an organization which is doing a great service in Canada. Eminent citizens from most of the large Canadian cities serve in that association. In the brief which they have sent, in which is quoted portions of the report, they say:
In approaching you, sir, in regard to this very important document issued by what is commonly known as the Archambault (royal) commission, the officers and directors of the Canadian Penal Association wish, in the first place, to acknowledge their debt to the present government for having implemented its promises to appoint such a commission of inquiry in order to satisfy the general public on this matter of the administration of our penal system. Further, we desire to place on record our deep appreciation not only of the great and long efforts of the commission to get at the essential facts in every phase of this study, but also of the personal courtesy shown to those of us who appeared before the commission and of the sympathetic hearing given us over a year and a half ago. We are of opinion that the volume issued will be worthy of the study of every criminologist and penologist and that the general attitude on this problem enunciated by the commissioners constitutes an epoch in Canadian criminological affairs. At the same time we are quite aware that there will be strong resistance from certain quarters when it comes to legislation, but we hope the government will insist upon giving effect to the proposals made.
As I stated, all we are doing is to create a prison board. This action is not directed

Penitentiaries Commission Act
against any official. I feel inclined to answer what my right hon. friend asked about the prison superintendent. So far as I am concerned, he has certainly served faithfully during my term of office, and has been industrious. But, as has been stated, there is the difficulty of one man having in charge this huge system, one which is broadening all the time. One of the complaints made in the report was that the superintendent did not visit the penitentiary during his term of office. With the immense amount of work which is his, as head of the penitentiaries, I know he simply could not do it. This is a job for more than one man. I repeat that it is the system we are introducing to-day, and to that point I wish to limit myself. I recognize that my right hon. friend had a duty to perform, and he was loyal to a gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whom he hardly knows.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and in whom he has confidence. I am glad he recognizes that, having responsibility for the matter, we have to proceed with the legislation, especially under the present conditions. It is a necessity, because I do not see how we can proceed under the present system after what has taken place. I would not feel that I could safely be responsible for the administration of the penitentiaries.
With regard to the appointment of the commissioners-to-be, I repeat what I said yesterday. My right hon. friend says they will be political appointments. Well, in the broad sense of the word that may be true, but no more so than are the present appointments. In 1933 the law was amended to provide that the superintendent and all officers should be appointed by the governor in council. If we do not do the right thing we will be responsible to parliament and to the people, and we will deserve what we get.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before it carries I desire to say this. With respect to the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that he would not care to assume responsibility for the conduct and administration of the penitentiaries unless this legislation is passed, if he had said that at the very beginning of his observations I think I should have felt bound to accept it. No man in this house has a greater regard for the maintenance of law and order than myself. Sometimes I am charged with 'having too great a regard for it. But when one with the experience of the minister, whose administration has been under fire in this report in some instances, from 1923 to 1930, and from 1935 to the present time, says that he would not
care to assume responsibility for the administration of the penitentiaries unless this legislation be passed, it becomes impossible for any member of the house who has regard for law and order to do otherwise than to permit the legislation to pass without further comment.
I do wish to add, with respect to Buck, that he was found guilty by a judge. He was found guilty of having been in the riot, and was sentenced accordingly. I refer to the charge against him only for the purpose of indicating that he advocated, and was convicted of advocating, the very thing which he did, namely the use of force if necessary against the maintenance of law and order.
I was more pleased than I can say to hear the observation of the right hon. gentleman, with respect to a man whom I did not know more than in a casual way, that he had served him faithfully, industriously and loyally. But I do think that with respect to royal commissions we should realize how serious it is to have what happened there take place again. At page 81 we have these words:
The evidence of the superintendent before the commission occupied eight days.
And he was not present when any of these statements were made against him by inmates of the penitentiary of which he was the superintendent. I regard that as a very serious matter. I am satisfied in view of what the minister has said that he will do everything in his power to see that those whose reputations have been reflected upon by this report, in my judgment very improperly in many instances and without evidence, shall receive that measure of consideration which the infallible justice of the crown under which they serve should ensure to them, under the terms of their employment under the Civil Service Act.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 175, respecting penitentiaries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has it been printed and distributed?


Ernest Lapointe: It is
printed and will be distributed. After distribution we might take the second reading this day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This day.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Income War Tax Act

The house resumed at three o'clock.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue-for the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 164, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Transactions reducing liability to taxation.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I should point out
that the addition in this section is not covered by the resolutions, but I think it is a beneficial section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the third reading of the bill.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I should say before the bill is given its third reading that I have been considering the matter mentioned by the minister the other day. I realize that the difficulties to which he referred are very great. I also recognize the efforts that are being made to meet them for the purpose of securing something for our revenue from those who belong to the second class mentioned in section 7 of the bill, and that the minister and his officials are doing their utmost to find some solution.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ELECTIONS AND FRANCHISE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 91, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons-Mr.	Power-Mr.	Johnston (Lake
Centre) in the chair.
On section 14-Qualifications.
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: When this bill was
last before the committee there was some discussion of subsection 1 of this section. I

understand from the chairman of the committee, who is not here at the moment, that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is now willing to withdraw his objection to the word "ordinarily" in this section, provided that certain amendments are made to section 46. I believe there is an amendment before the committee. I would therefore ask the permission of the committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Alan Webster Neill: I should just like to confirm what the minister has said. The proposal now made will, I think meet the objections which several hon. members, including myself, made the other day, by leaving the word in section 14, which meets the objections made by several hon. members from the province of Quebec, and by taking it out of section 46. It has been pointed out that this will give us practically all we want. It will not be quite so convenient for a man to vote in a logging camp, because he will not be put on the list at all, but he will have the facilities of what is called "swearing himself in." The only difference is that he will be put to some trouble in taking the oath and in getting somebody to vouch for him, but it seems such a desirable compromise that I give credit to whoever it was thought of the suggestion. I should like to say for myself, and I think I can presume to speak on behalf of the members from British Columbia who joined with me in connection with this section, that we appreciate the attitude taken both by the minister and by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). It was nothing to them how this thing went, but they took no end of time and trouble in adjusting the matter. It is only a continuation of the knowledge we have that they have always shown courtesy and fairness in meeting any objection in connection with this bill, which has now been before the committee for two years.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I associate myself with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). But do I understand the minister has no objection to the proposed amendment to section 46?


Charles Gavan Power: No, no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 16-Interpretation.
Charles Gavan Power: This was allowed to stand, for the same reason.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Elections and Franchise
On section 31-Polling stations.
Charles Gavan Power: With respect to section 31, considerable discussion arose on Friday evening of last week. We have not found it possible to arrive at any compromise. Personally I am not particularly enamoured of the section which is now in the bill, although it was arrived at after a great deal of discussion in the committee, and is a compromise with those who felt that some arrangement should be arrived at which would prevent what occurs at the present time, namely the results of elections reaching British Columbia about three or four o'clock in the afternoon. A number of suggestions were made, and the one which is incorporated in this bill appears to be the only one which may by any stretch of the imagination be called practicable. In view of the fact that the committee has endeavoured to meet all views, I am personally prepared to support the section as it now is. I do not think it is a matter of partisan politics. As was explained by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) the other evening, it is really a question for the judgment of each individual member. The government does not insist on the amendment, but as the minister in charge of the bill I think that it should pass, in view of the good work done by the committee.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: There was an amendment moved to subsection 5 of section 31, reading as follows:
The poll shall be opened at the hour of eight o'clock in the forenoon and kept open until six o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, and each deputy returning officer shall, during that time, in the polling station assigned to him, receive in the manner hereinafter prescribed the votes of the electors duly qualified to vote at such polling station.


Alan Webster Neill: The amendment was to strike out the existing subsection 5.


John Frederick Johnston: Yes, that subsection 5 be deleted and what I have read substituted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The complaint was as to the circulation not only of the results of the election in the east, but also, unfortunately, of wholly false information. I thought that the matter might be dealt with apart altogether from section 31 by providing in a later section that it shall be an offence to publish false information respecting the result of elections. Everyone knows that in one of the elections- we will not say which-an extra came out indicating results in Nova Scotia which were absolutely opposed to the facts. Surely we should be able to deal with that situation. The other aspect of it I refrain entirely from
discussing, because the views expressed by hon. gentlemen on this side who were present in the committee I am content to accept.


Charles Gavan Power: It is true that there is a complaint of false news having been published, but that would not settle the question-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that would be preventive, perhaps.


Charles Gavan Power: Even though accurate news were published the complaint would still exist.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Agreed.


Charles Gavan Power: It was found impracticable to arrive at any amendment which would prevent news from being published. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) discussing the matter the other evening, very properly pointed out that there was no way of preventing news leaking out to the United States and being broadcast through American stations if anyone wanted to take the trouble to do it. There would perhaps be good grounds for endeavouring to suppress inaccurate information concerning the results of an election, and if, in the opinion of the house, something of that kind were necessary it might be provided for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the penalty section.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. But that also was considered by the committee.


Mr. KINLEY:: It seems to me that the way to prevent inaccurate information is to publish true information, and that is what would result if the amendment passed. All the members from Nova Scotia are opposed to the section, and in favour of the amendment, and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) the only Conservative member in the house from the maritimes, is also in favour of the amendment. After all, Canada is an extensive country, and we cannot have elections without difficulties. It is a long distance from the maritimes to British Columbia and we contend that it should be possible for us to vote during the day. Between six and seven it is getting dark and voting is difficult in the rural sections. Moreover, that is a time of day when any excitement that has been brewing during the day might culminate. It is also a time when people are at supper, especially the working man. I do not think any real trouble results from the existing hours of voting and the members from Nova Scotia, I believe, are unanimously in favour of the amendment.
Elections and Franchise


Mr. STEWART:: In answer to the contention of the hon. member as to voting in the dark-


Charles Gavan Power: That is not confined to the other side of the house.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -that has not often happened. I never thought that the people of Nova Scotia were afraid to go home in the dark. If they wish to vote before darkness overtakes them, there is nothing to prevent their doing so; they can go and vote before it is dark. The fact that the poll is open an hour later does not compel anyone to wait until the last minute or until the last hour to go and vote.


Charles Gavan Power: Counting the ballots in the dark might present some difficulties.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That has been done, too. But they have light in Nova Scotia as well as in Quebec and Ontario. In the committee there was no division of opinion whatsoever that there was an abuse there and we considered every suggestion that was calculated to overcome and to prevent it, and one after another was dropped in favour of this one as being the most effective. All I can say is that if there is an abuse-and it was admitted that there was-and if it is desirable to correct it, I cannot see any reason why we should reverse the action of the committee. Why should not this method be adopted that seems fair to all concerned? The disadvantage will perhaps be to one party in one election, and to another in some other election. It has happened so. In the committee it was freely admitted. Newspapers had been delivered to every voter as he came up to vote. A special issue had been got out and delivered to the voters announcing the results in the maritime provinces. Unfortunately, some people are influenced by their desire to follow the winning side, and I think we all agreed that there should be an absence of that sort of thing. Voting is secret individually, and it should be secret collectively. I do urge that the action of the committee, which was a reasonable compromise arrived at after careful consideration, not on one, but on several occasions, be sustained.


Mr. HEAPS:: It seems that the majority
of the members from British Columbia do not want this section in, and' the members from Nova Scotia do not seem inclined to support legislation of this kind. I do not see, therefore, why we should attempt to force upon these provinces something that they do not want. While we are trying to remedy an

undesirable condition we are likely to deprive a large number of electors in British Columbia of their right to exercise the franchise, and I do not like to be a party to any such thing,, particularly after we have taken the trouble to frame an act that attempts to give everyone the opportunity to vote. We have advance polls open for many days prior to the election in order to afford a few people, comparatively speaking, an opportunity to vote. These polls are open in the evenings as well as in the day and we keep them open several days in the week, and yet on the one-day when we ask everyone who is registered as an elector to go and vote we are going to attempt to deprive the people of British Columbia of the right by making them go-and vote before five o'clock in the afternoon. In Nova Scotia they will have an opportunity of voting until seven o'clock in the evening, and I do not see why British Columbia should be placed in any inferior position in relation to the maritimes. Personally I will support the amendment so that a great many people who would otherwise be deprived of the right to vote may have that opportunity through the extra hour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I endorse the hon. gentleman's remarks. It is not so much a question of any party disadvantage or advantage. We have reason to believe that both parties have erred in the past, but there is certainly an abuse to be remedied, and I suggest that the way to remedy it is not to consider the advantage of any party at the expense of the voters who cannot vote by five o'clock in British Columbia. We are working a gross injustice on the working community as far as British Columbia is concerned, if we do not accept the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster. We should consider some alternative remedy which would not deprive working people of their franchise.


Mr. DONNELLY:: It is not only the
people of British Columbia that are affected but also the people of the prairies, because we are suffering from the same condition at the present time. It is a very undesirable condition. In every village and every polling booth in every constituency in western Canada-or at any rate in Saskatchewan and in my constituency-from four until six o'clock people flock around the radio listening to the election returns from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Whether the news is true or false, the returns are coming in, and people coming intending to vote are influenced. I

Elections and Franchise
do not know whether this is the best way to remedy it but this condition exists and is very undesirable, and anything that can be done to remedy it should be done.


Mr. STIRLING:: This matter was carefully considered in the committee, not once or twice but three times. It d'oes not appear to me that there will be suffering at either end of Canada. But it is an attempt to right a wrong which undoubtedly exists. I should very much like to see it tried. It is not such an unthinkable thing that an act should be amended when it is proved that it is not working satisfactorily. In the maritimes it does not seem to me to be an injustice that the polls should be kept open until seven o'clock. Voters do not have to wait until six-thirty to vote; they can vote when it suits them. In British Columbia, with the facilities given for voting, I cannot see that it is any deprivation of rights. This is a definite attempt to right a wrong, which has worked both ways in the past, and I think it should be tried.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I protest against this
determination to deal with the estimated effect of advance news in the west at the expense of thousands of voters in British Columbia. I am confident that all hon. members representing constituencies on the lower mainland of British Columbia could demonstrate that it is a physical impossibility for thousands of workers there to vote before five p.m. The point has been made that modern transportation facilities enable them to travel to the polls within the space of two hours. That completely overlooks the fact that the homes of many of these workers are separated from their place of employment by Burrard inlet. It is a question not only of street car connections, but also of ferry connections. It is a question not of speed of transportation but of making definite connections at certain hours. Large communities are almost entirely populated by workers employed in Vancouver city who find it impossible to vote before six o'clock. In fact any of us who have had experience in elections on the north side of Burrard inlet know that plans have to be organized to enable the electors to reach the polls just prior to six o'clock. That is when the heaviest vote is polled. To force this clause through would definitely disfranchise whole blocks of voters in certain sections of the lower mainland of British Columbia; of that there is no doubt. Surely it is the height of folly. No one knows what the effect of advance news may be. It may be desirable to take steps
to correct that situation, but I urge the committee not to take a step which would involve the disfranchisement of thousands of voters in British Columbia.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: It is perhaps fair to explain that the special committee devoted considerable time to this question. We considered all the suggestions that were made -that of holding over the count in the maritime provinces until after the vote was polled in the west; that of changing hours; that of imposing a penalty for publishing reports. The committee concluded that whether this section as it appears in the reprinted bill goes through or not, we would at least ibe bringing to the attention of the people of Canada the need of devising some means whereby people should not be influenced by the announcement of results in some parts of Canada before the polls are closed in other parts. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster is that we revert to the old form. While as chairman of the committee I am staying with the report of the committee and voting for the clause as it stands, I can readily understand that with opposition from both east and west the report may not be accepted.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Replying to the statement of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), and for the information of other members of the committee, I think it only fair to point out that two hours of the day without deduction of pay are free to people employed in factories and industries to enable them to go and vote. I suggest that whether it be in Vancouver or elsewhere, with an hour available for lunch and two hours off, any voter can go to the polls and record his vote. The committee considered the possible disfranchisement of voters, and not much weight was given to that in view of the time allowed for voters to go and vote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Notwithstanding the two hour provision in the act I have personally known scores of voters to be disfranchised in Vancouver even at six o'clock.


Mr. BARBER:: A large number of people wait until the last hour to vote. If the poll opened at seven o'clock in districts with which I am familiar, a large number would vote before eight o'clock, because they go some distance away to work and they leave about eight o'clock to be on the job at eight-thirty. Often these people do not care enough about voting to come back before six o'clock; they say: If we cannot vote before eight o'clock we are not going to vote. That happens to a large extent in British Columbia.
Elections and Franchise


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: As a member of the committee I was strongly opposed to the subsection and reserved my right to vote against it. I warned the other members of the committee that it would be strongly objected to by hon. members from the mari-times. As the chairman of the committee said, alternatives were considered by the committee. One I suggested myself, that the polls close at six o'clock everywhere, but that deputy returning officers in the polling divisions in the maritime provinces should not give out the results of the poll before eight o'clock. Some hon. members thought the people would be impatient to know the results, but they would get used to that. Another suggestion was to prohibit the transmission of results in the maritime provinces by radio, telegraph or telephone. Some people say there would be a leak. I think we could at any rate prevent results from being published in the newspapers. And if there should be a leak we would not be any worse off than we have been in the last fifty years. Why not try that? Why not put a provision in the act prohibiting the publication of election results in the east? If it does not work, we can come back to this synchronising of hours.


Howard Charles Green: I wish to concur in the remarks just made by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robichaud). I cannot understand why these two alternate schemes cannot be tried. I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) that it is unfair to close the polls in British Columbia as early as five o'clock, that it might disfranchise many voters; but even yet I do not understand why the results in the mari-times could not be held for two hours and why it could not be made an offence to send out news as to the results of an election until the polls have closed right across Canada. It does seem to me that would do a great deal to help the people in eastern Canada realize just how large this country is, and to remember that there is a great western part of Canada.


Mr. RINFRET:: I come from a part of the country which is not influenced by reports either from the east or from the west, but it strikes me that if there is anything in the question now under consideration there is a difficulty either way. I quite appreciate the point made by some hon. members that by closing the polls too early you might deprive a number of working people of their opportunity to vote; but if there is anything in this contention at all it would mean that

a large number of electors wait until four o'clock to go to the polls, in order to learn what has happened at the other side of the country. There is a danger that a large number of electors may be blocked out of the polls by presenting themselves in the late hours. If that is not so, then we are not discussing anything at all, because it would only deal with a few electors who would be waiting for those results. Unless there is a large number of electors waiting for the results from the east, the question really has no practical value. So far as I am concerned I would rather favour the report of the committee closing the polls at different hours, but I would see that section 48, which requires employers to give adequate time to their employees to go and vote, was properly enforced.


Mr. HARTIGAN:: So far as the east is concerned we must take two things into consideration. The first is that in the extreme east, if we have an election in the spring or winter or fall it is practically dark at four o'clock. From four o'clock until seven o'clock it is going to be hard to keep our polls open. If a man is at a poll from eight o'clock in the morning until six o'clock at night that is long enough to ask him to stay in charge of the balloting; and in the last hour, from six to seven, there is going to be a chance for all kinds of corruption and all sorts of things to take place which may have a deleterious effect in many campaigns in that end of the country, because people are so accustomed to having the polls close at six o'clock. I am speaking from a practical point of view, and probably I am only saying what other hon. members are thinking. That is a fact. Then there is the question of expense. The candidate has to supply lunch at the noon hour, and now he will have to supply two meals.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David James Hartigan: That is all right; those are election expenses. You cannot expect a man to remain at a poll all day without something to eat, and somebody has to pay for it. I am sure the man himself is not going to do so. I am not so much concerned with that, however; I am only mentioning it as an additional cost that will have to be incurred. The geographical position is no reason why the east should be penalized and forced to hold back information which may or may not have an effect on the west or the central part of Canada. It works out the same for both parties; it does not make any difference whether it is the Libera! party, the Conservative party, the Cooperative Common-

Elections and Franchise
wealth Federation or anything else. It would be an intolerable situation in eastern Canada to have the polls kept open until seven o'clock.
Amendment (Mr. Reid) agreed to: yeas, 75; nays, 36.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would it not be well now to consider one of the alternatives that were suggested in the committee in order to bring about the very desirable result which the committee had in mind? We have disposed of the suggestion that was adopted by the committee. Now let us see if we cannot agree on something else, because we all admit that something should be done.


Charles Gavan Power: What does my hon. friend
suggest?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suggest that we hold the returns; that is the next best thing. I believe such a section was drafted, and we might allow a section to stand where that might be put in.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not believe there has been any draft of an amendment to hold the returns.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There was a draft before the committee; they had drafts of all three propositions. If the minister does not think that is a good suggestion-and apparently he does not-then let us draft a clause that will prevent the publication, which is the third best solution. That amendment was drafted also.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, that was drafted, and I have it here. A section was drafted to deal with the first suggestion made by the hon member for Leeds, to this effect:
In the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the hour of eight o'clock in the afternoon; in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, at the hour of seven o'clock in the afternoon; and in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia-
That was the time at which the counting and reporting was to be done. That would really mean holding the return in the polling booth, I take it. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. friend, but I do not think that is a practical means of accomplishing that end. I do not believe it is at all possible. I would not want to make any invidious comparisons between one province and another with respect to their interest in elections, but I am quite sure that in my own province, if the polls closed at six o'clock, it would be almost impossible to ask the electors, waiting outside for the results, to remain there patiently until eight o'clock, when the deputy returning officer would announce them. I fear that with
the well known public spirit of our friends from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick there would be no possibility of holding the results. Some way would be found of signalling outside. It must not be forgotten that in the polls there are two scrutineers from each party, a poll clerk, and a deputy returning officer, making a total of six persons. Does anyone seriously think those six men would sit around for two hours after they counted the vote and not endeavour to communicate the information to someone outside?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The suggestion was that the ballot boxes should not be opened, so that they could not communicate the information.


Charles Gavan Power: That they would not count the ballots?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: That would be still worse.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Why?


Charles Gavan Power: Because idle hands will find evil to do. I would be very much afraid of that. Personally, with all the desire in the world to meet the wishes of hon. members, I do not think it can be done.
The other amendment submitted to the committee is in these words:-
No person, company or corporation shall in any province before the hour of closing of the polls in such province publish the result of the polling in any electoral district in Canada, whether such publication is by radio broadcast, or by newspaper, news-sheet, poster, billboard, hand bill or in any other manner. Any person contravening the provisions of this section (and in the case of a company or corporation any person responsible for the contravention thereof) is guilty of a corrupt practice and of an offence against this act.
In the first place, the hon. member for Leeds admitted the other evening that this could be circumvented by giving the news to someone in the United States, across the river from St. Stephen, New Brunswick. Immediately it could be flashed across to the Pacific coast, and could easily be broadcast from Seattle, if anyone wished to take the trouble to get the information to British Columbia. I do not think the broadcasting of news could be prevented.
In the second place, from the point of view of public policy there would be grave objections, in that we would be seriously interfering with a free press. After all it is a serious matter, and perhaps a greater amount of abuse than that now existing would be necessary to warrant the parliament of Canada preventing newspapers from publishing accurate news. That may be allowed in some
Elections and Franchise

sections of Canada, but it should not be confirmed; nor should it be sanctioned by the parliament of Canada.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry to see that
the minister, who some weeks ago was so ardent in the desire to have elections properly conducted and to have legislation introduced to that end, is now throwing up his hands in complete surrender and saying, "We cannot do anything to cure what we all admit is an abuse." That is the attitude of the minister in charge of the bill.
On Friday evening I did say it was possible to have a communication in the manner now outlined by the minister, and that to some extent such communication would nullify the accomplishment of the object we have in view. I do believe however that the suggestion made would prevent a recurrence of what happened in British Columbia in connection with the delivery of special editions of a newspaper. All I said was that we had not extraterritorial jurisdiction and could not prevent an announcement being made by radio from the city of Seattle and penetrating into British Columbia. However that is only one aspect of it. In my view the greatest abuse was in the issuing of special newspaper editions which were delivered to the voters as they came to the polls.


Charles Gavan Power: With false information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know whether
it was false or accurate; the point is that it was done with the object of influencing the vote in that province at the election. Whether the information or the news is false or accurate, if the object is illegal or improper, then it should not be done. I am sorry the minister seems to lie down before what he thinks is a difficulty, and does not propose to do anything about it.


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot do any more than the committee did. The committee had the solution.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: One of those suggestions
the minister discounts, and believes to be of no value. I will move as an amendment to section 31-


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think it would
come under section 31.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I suggest that the
amendment might be made to subsection 1 of section 50. The amendment contains the words:
In the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, at the hour of eight o'clock in the afternoon, in the

provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, at the hour of seven o'clock in the afternoon, and in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia-
And these words would come before the word "immediately."


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is not the amendment I have in mind.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member is referring to publication?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It seems to me the
amendment which has the best chance of carrying, and which I now propose, would not come under that section. I do not know where it might be placed.


Charles Gavan Power: We have a section dealing with offences.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But I believe that has been passed.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. However, we could pass the other sections, and when we come to consideration of offences the hon. member would have an opportunity to propose his amendment.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under what section should it be proposed?


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. member wishes *we may now deal with it informally. I suggest that although the sections dealing with offences have been passed we might consider the hon. member's suggestion as an additional offence, when we are considering the last section. I would offer the compromise that it would be possible to draft a section providing that the publication knowingly of inaccurate information with respect to the results of an election would be an offence. I should be willing to go that far, if it would be satisfactory.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That does not amount to anything. How would it be possible in court to prove that a man knowingly published inaccurate information?


Charles Gavan Power: There must be intent and mens rea in every criminal case.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The accused person would say he got the information from A or B, and that he believed it to be accurate. That would be a sufficient defence.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is section 31 as amended agreed to?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: The reasons given by the minister for refusing to accept the suggestion that the ballot boxes be kept

Elections and Franchise
locked for two hours after the close of polling booths are not substantial. He has said that Satan will find mischief for idle hands to do, but that suggestion does not meet the situation. There is nothing to prevent the scrutineers representing all candidates from remaining in the room with the ballot boxes, the boxes to remain locked. There could be no interference with them any more than there would be during the day. The minister might as well suggest that because at some hour in the day there were no voters on hand, someone would tamper with the ballot boxes. The boxes can be left in the booths and at the end of a two hour period the votes can be counted. I am informed that in the county communities of Great Britain the results of the polls are not announced until ten o'clock on the morning of the day after the ballots have been cast.


Charles Gavan Power: That is true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that in the last election the present condition worked a decided hardship on people in western Canada, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly), I do suggest some change should be made. Right across the street from where people were voting in my constituency was a huge sign on which were the words, " Liberal landslide in the east." It might just as well be a Conservative or a C.C.F. in the next election. It is bound to have a psychological effect on the voter who is going to cast his ballot.


Mr. EULER:: Not very complimentary to the voter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I submit that there has been no reasonable objection advanced against an amendment to section 50.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection to my hon. friend moving the amendment I have sent to him when we come to section 50.
Section 31 as amended agreed to.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, have we
passed section 14 in toto?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What did we do with paragraph (k) of section 14?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was carried.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is there any objection to reopening that section?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; it is carried.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Some hon. members say no, but as the minister knows we took objection to that paragraph last week, and with the consent of the committee I should like to revert to section 14, to move an amendment to paragraph (k). We objected very strenuously last week to this provision which deprives people in old folks' homes from casting their ballots on election day. There was a division of opinion in the committee whether the clause should be in or not. What the clause really does is to say that in provinces where people in these institutions are not allowed to exercise the provincial franchise they shall not be allowed to exercise the franchise in federal elections. I have very strong objections to any legislation which would take away from people the right to vote, for no other reason than that they are old and in poverty. As most hon. members are fully aware of the implications of this clause, I now move-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. Section 14 has been adopted by the committee, and before any motion to amend the section can be made the previous motion for its adoption will have to be rescinded.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I thought I had consent to reopen the section.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister has no objection, but if the committee objects I shall have to move my amendment on the third reading, and it might as well be done now. If there are hon. members who support the principle of disfranchising these people because they are poverty stricken and happen to be in these institutions, they can so vote, but personally I am not in favour of any such thing. Consequently I am going to move that paragraph (k) of section 14-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I hope some hon. members know how to behave themselves. They pay an occasional visit to the chamber and then try to cause a disturbance when they come.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member can move his amendment only by unanimous consent, and I understood consent was not given.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I thought I had consent to reopen the clause.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Gavan Power: Let the hon. member go ahead and move his amendment.

Elections and Franchise


Abraham Albert Heaps: I move that paragraph (k) of subsection 2 of section 14 be deleted.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Mr. Chairman, this provision was inserted at the request of the special committee itself. It was not in the original draft bill and the committee adopted it from some previous act. During the discussion in the special committee it was brought out that these homes are established for the purpose of taking care of people from all over a province and that the inmates are not necessarily residents of the constituency in which they are at the moment residing. For instance, you will probably find in any one of these institutions more people from other constituencies than from the one in which the home is established. Evidence was given as to the mentality of some of these people and the possibility of influence being brought to bear upon them,, with the result that you might have a whole institution vote en bloc instead of exercising individual freedom of thought and action such as we expect from electors. The committee, having given the matter careful consideration, came to the conclusion that it was not fair either to the candidates in the constituency in which the home was established or to the people of Canada generally, to allow the franchise to be extended to inmates of these institutions.


Mr. FAIR:: A number of members fought in the committee to have this provision excluded, and I believe the fight should continue until the clause is deleted. Speaking to this clause I told the special committee and also the committee of this house that if everybody got what he deserved, there would not be nearly as many people in these old folks' homes; many people who are now outside would be not in old folks' homes but in buildings guarded with iron bars. We should not for one moment consent to a clause of this kind going through. I take much pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps).


Frederick George Sanderson: It will be necessary, before the amendment can be moved, to have a motion that the previous motion for the adoption of clause 14 be rescinded.


Charles Gavan Power: Could we not, by consent of the committee, make a short-cut, Mr. Chairman, and allow my hon. friend to move his amendment so that we may dispose of it one way or the other?


Frederick George Sanderson: By consent, the question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Amendment (Mr. Heaps) negatived.

On section 46-Manner of voting, by qualified voter whose name is not on the list in a rural polling division.


Charles Gavan Power: In accordance with the
agreement arrived at by all parties, I move that the word "ordinarily" in line 33, page 60, be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 47 agreed to.
On section 49-Loud speakers, ensigns, banners, etc., prohibited on polling day.
Charles Gavan Power: An amendment was suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) who thought it was unfair and unjust to prevent people from celebrating by carrying banners around after the polls closed. In view of the fact that a great many of us expect to win the next election we do not want to be deprived of that right. I therefore move:
That the words "within any electoral district on the day of the election and on the day immediately preceding it" in the fiftieth and fifty-first lines of page 63 he deleted, and the following substituted therefor:	"on the day
immediately preceding the day of the election and before the closing of the polls on the day of the election."
I also have to move a similar amendment as regards lines 45 and 46 on page 63. This will permit of the carrying of banners., loud speakers, ensigns and sets of colours as much as we like on election night after the polls are closed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 50-Counting the votes by the deputy returning officer.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I move:
That the following be inserted before the word "immediately" in the twenty-first line on page 69:
"In the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, at the hour of eight o'clock in the afternoon, in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, at the hour of seven o'clock in the afternoon, and in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia."


Hugh Alexander Stewart: To make that consistent would you not have to strike out "immediately after the close of the poll"?


Charles Gavan Power: No. It would read: "In the provinces of so and so, at eight o'clock; in other provinces, at seven o'clock; and in British Columbia, immediately after the close of the poll."
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Elections and Franchise
Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) will now move his amendment, we will ask the clerk, if it is carried, to insert it in the proper place in the bill. It will constitute one of the offences.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Two suggested remedies for what we all admit is an abuse having failed of adoption, there is nothing left but to propose the third best, the only remaining one, I believe, which was considered by the committee. I move:
That the following be added as section 107A:
No person, company or corporation shall, in any province before the hour of closing of the polls in such province, publish the result of the polling in any electoral district in Canada, whether such publication is by radio broadcast, or by newspaper, news-sheet, poster, billboard, handbill or in any other manner. Any person contravening the provisions of this section (and in the case of a company or corporation any person responsible for the contravention thereof) is guilty of a corrupt practice and of an offence against this act.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the hon. member be willing to substitute the words "illegal practice" for "corrupt practice"? For the latter a very severe penalty is provided, and it might affect a candidate quite innocent of wrongdoing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know whether there is any definition of "illegal practice".


Alan Webster Neill: It is defined in section 77.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In the interpretation section "corrupt practice" is defined.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. "Corrupt practice" is
much more serious. In section 77 the same language is used in connection with attacks on a man's character.


Charles Gavan Power: That would be the relevant section.
Amendment (Mr. Stewart) agreed to: yeas, 64; nays, 37.


Alan Webster Neill: Did the hon. member accept my suggestion that we should use the word "illegal"?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no objection. So long as it is made illegal, that satisfies me; it puts the stamp of disapproval on it.


John Frederick Johnston: It has been moved that the word "corrupt" be struck out and the word "illegal" substituted therefor. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Shall the
title carry?


Abraham Albert Heaps: With the permission of the committee I would ask that section 106 be reconsidered. It deals with the question of signed pledges by candidates and prohibits a candidate from signing any sort of document that might be placed before him by the electors during an election. I think this provision goes altogether too far, because it takes away from the electors certain rights that they now possess and ought to possess. During an election a legitimate question might be asked a candidate. For instance, he might be asked whether he was in favour of railway unification, but if such a question were put to him it might involve an offence both on the part of those who put the question and on the part of the candidate himself. According to my reading of the section the electors would be prevented from asking a candidate any question along those lines. Perhaps the minister himself will admit that the section is too wide. If a request were made of a candidate for a contribution to bazaars or things of that sort, provision might very well be made against it in the statute. But when it is proposed to prevent legitimate questions being put to candidates in order to elicit an opinion on definite questions of policy, then I say it is going too far and I ask that the section be reconsidered. It should not be as drastic as it is.


Charles Gavan Power: I presume my hon. friend has the consent of the committee. Has he moved an amendment?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No; I should like the minister to do that.


Charles Gavan Power: This section is one which I myself suggested and therefore I am more in sympathy with it than I have been with some of the clauses for which I have been voting this afternoon. It arises out of a practice, which is too common, of certain groups, largely minorities, endeavouring to further their cause by asking candidates to sign questionnaires, pledges and so on. In my opinion that is distinctly undemocratic in that it makes of the elected member not a representative of the whole dominion but a mere delegate of a class or group or section. I may be expressing a rather old-fashioned theory of democracy, and perhaps it is; but in looking over the history of the past, from which, after all, we derive most of our institutions and some of the things that are best in life, I find that in 1774, Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman, having been confronted with a similar situation in his election in the county of Bristol, had this to say-and I think I had better quote his remarks in their entirety.
Elections and Franchise

because he states far better probably than any member of this house can the views that many of us hold. Speaking of his colleague he says:
He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city"; and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfaction, to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving, you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
My worthy colleague says his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that in which the determination precedes the discussion? in which one set of men deliberate and another decide? and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments.


Harry James Barber: Three thousand miles.


Charles Gavan Power: To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear, and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions, mandates issued which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience; these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation with one interest-that of the whole: where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest or should form a hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought
(Mr. Power.]
to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it, but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life; a flatterer you do not wish for.
That I think is a model of what members of parliament should write to their constituents. I read it not for the purpose of reading a lesson to hon. members, but in order to support the suggestion which I made to the committee and which is incorporated as section 106. It is based on the democratic theory and doctrine laid down by Edmund Burke, a good man in his day.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not think I should have to answer Edmund Burke here this afternoon. I though the minister was a little more up to date. Edmund Burke was an illustrious statesman in his day, a hundred and fifty years ago, but conditions to-day are different. When he was seeking the favours of his constituents in Bristol the franchise was very limited. A handful of electors would elect a member of parliament. Furthermore the franchise was such that they could do almost anything they wanted in an election. In these days with adult suffrage the situation is very different. To-day everyone of the age of twenty-one and over has the right to vote, so there are more people interested in public questions than there were a hundred and fifty years ago. I am surprised that a member of the government who prides himself on his liberalism, as does the minister, should go back a hundred and fifty years for his authorities. If he desired to come a little closer home I am sure he could give a great many reasons why a clause of this kind should not be in the act, depriving the electors, as it does, of the freedom which should be theirs.	,


Charles Gavan Power: It has been pointed out to me by one of my hon. friends that those remarks do not come very well from an hon. member whose faith is based on the ancient scriptures.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. I must point out that all this discussion on section 106 has been out of order. Section 106 was carried in the committee some three days ago. All sections of the bill and all schedules have been adopted by the committee. Shall I report the bill?


Leslie Gordon Bell: No, Mr. Chairman. The other evening sections 59 to 106 of the bill were carried in a few minutes just before eleven o'clock.

Elections and Franchise


John Frederick Johnston: Each section was called separately and declared carried.


Major James William Coldwell: But they were rushed through very quickly and most of us did not have an opportunity to read the bill. With all the work that has had to be done during the past week or ten days we have not had a chance to follow all the bills. I would say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon.
member may proceed if he has unanimous consent.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps I can best state what I want to say by simply reading a telegram which I have received from Saskatoon, from the secretary of the trades council:-
Saskatoon trades council views with alarm report of action of committee studying new election act in approving of principle whereby it will be an offence for a candidate to sign a questionnaire or pledge binding himself to any specific action and also making an offence for candidate to pledge himself to promote the expenditure of public money on behalf of any person, group of persons or organizations.


Charles Gavan Power: That unfortunately did not pass.


Major James William Coldwell: The telegram continues :
Labour in common with other democratic bodies insists on the right to demand from candidates of all denominations that they pledge themselves if elected to certain courses of definite action. On the suggested change railway workers would be deprived of the right to ascertain whether or not candidates were in favour of amalgamation. Labour could not ascertain if candidates were in favour of and would pledge themselves to support necessary social legislation. Under second clause no candidate could pledge himself to fight for a work and wages program or for adequate relief for unemployed or for the furtherance of state hospitalization or a hundred other pieces of legislation all of which must entail the spending of public money. We therefore request that you use every effort to see that these suggested changes are not put into effect.
I am not sure whether this clause is intended to be as wide in its effect as the interpretation put upon it by the Saskatoon trades council. If it is, I would say it is taking from the electors the right to ascertain the views of candidates seeking election. On the other hand if the clause is simply designed to make this parliament a more representative institution and less a body of delegates, there is not the objection to it that the Saskatoon trades council take. I would ask the minister-


Charles Gavan Power: Why not read the clause
yourself?


Major James William Coldwell: I have read the clause and I would say that it may be subjected to a much wider interpretation than many hon. members place upon it.


Mr. FACTOR:: May I interrupt to point
out the qualifying words in line 14?
... if such document requires such candidate to follow any course of action that will prevent him from exercising freedom of action in parliament. . . .
In other words the section prohibits any candidate from selling himself on certaim questions. That is what it amounts to.


Major James William Coldwell: If that is the proper'
interpretation, the objection that the Saskatoon trades council take is not so well founded. But other interpretations can be placed upon it.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I strongly
support the bill as this section stands. I have been a sufferer under the very circumstances. When I was elected I told those who were in the committee room that I now represented not only those who had voted for me but the whole of the voters in my constituency, and the whole of the voters in the Dominion of Canada. Immediately two of the committee members came forward and demanded from me a retraction of my statement. Those two are now members of the communist party, one of them being secretary of that party in Nanaimo. These are all matters of sincere concern to me; and if there are any who tell me that I have to think and act as they declare, then I am not going to stand as a member of parliament or any other similar body.


Alan Webster Neill: Since so many hon. members are saying a few words perhaps I may be allowed to do the same thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Alan Webster Neill: I claim the same privilege that has been granted the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Nanaimo.


John Frederick Johnston: It has not
been the chairman who has granted permission; it has been the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: I am rising to a point of order. The minister in charge of the bill has been kind enough to allow us to revert to various sections, and he can hardly refuse to do so now that he is so near the end. In any case, I am going to be brief.
43S6
Elections and Franchise

At the risk of disagreeing with Edmund Burke I support the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. There is one thing that strikes me as peculiar and ridiculous. When they were passing a regulation of this kind why on earth did not the committee make it an offence for people to ask for such an illegal signature? They put the blame on the wretched candidate. If he does not sign it he will be called a coward, and if he does sign it he is liable to be unseated.


Charles Gavan Power: That was my original
proposal.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister should have stuck to it and made it an offence for people to ask for these things. Apart from that, I do not see why it should be an offence. The only way to find out what man you want to vote for is to find out his opinions; and if some people have peculiar ideas of their own the way to find out is to ask. I would point out to my fellow members that there is no obligation on us to sign these things. We can either refuse or conveniently forget or do it after the election is over, whatever is most convenient. I understand that Edmund Burke says this would lead to a man voting against his conscience. Not at all; he should not sign the paper if he is not willing to live up to it.
I would point out another matter. This is not very complimentary to our integrity. We must not sign these papers, but we can go on the hustings and promise anything, and that is all right because it is not our bond. We can make any promises, however extravagant, apparently, and get away with it; but when we are asked to put our signature to it it is all wrong, and it becomes a criminal offence. I was very much surprised when I found the clause in the bill. It is quite impracticable to force a vote on it now, because we would not get anywhere; but I should like to add my protest against this thing. I have no objection to anybody in the world coming and asking me what is my opinion, and that is really all it amounts to. But I do object to making it an offence for me to sign a paper while it is not an offence for any of these societies, some of whom I admit are cranks, to ask me to do so.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 175, respecting penitentiaries.
Motion agreed to, .bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. REID:: I would suggest to the minister that he substitute the word " bricklayer " for " miller," because I cannot conceive of any milling going on in a penitentiary. There is some bricklaying that goes on in the penitentiaries, but no milling. Under paragraph (g) the following are designated:
"trade instructors" include bakers, blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, millers, shoemakers, stonecutters, tailors and persons employed-


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will see that this almost repeats the language of the old act. So far as possible I have avoided any changes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Minister to have control.
Mr. PELLETIER:: This clause provides:
The minister shall have the control and management of all penitentiaries and all prisoners and other persons confined therein and inmates thereof and over all matters connected therewith.
How broad a control does that give the minister concerning prisoners who have been committed to the penitentiaries for serious offences, such as murder? Does it mean that he can remit the sentence?


Ernest Lapointe: Only the control provided for subsequently by the details of the bill. It means that everything concerning the penitentiaries is under the supervision of the minister. In other words, the minister is responsible if anything goes wrong and deserves commendation when everything is right, which is very seldom.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-The penitentiary commission.
Ernest Lapointe: This is the substantial section of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not had an opportunity to read the bill, which has just

Penitentiaries Commission Act
been printed, so the chairman will have to proceed a little less rapidly. Paragraph (b) of section 2 reads:
"Commission" means the penitentiary commission incorporated under this act.
Do we contemplate making it a corporation?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the usual course, is it?


Ernest Lapointe: This
follows the English practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a corporation in England, in the sense in which we use that word in this country.


Ernest Lapointe: They are a corporate body, with power to own land and so forth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason is that they take the title to penitentiary sites and matters of that sort. I suppose here the title is in the crown. It struck me that we are going to have great difficulty if we make the commission, as section 4, subsection 5 provides, a body corporate. A board is one thing, but this is entirely different. The board of railway commissioners is not a corporation; neither are the other boards that function.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course the harbours board is a body corporate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is a different matter; they spend money and incur obligations.


Ernest Lapointe: So will this body.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not going to incur obligations. The harbours board have outstanding securities which have to be taken care of. We do not propose here to do other than have an administrative body. However, I shall not unnecessarily take up the time of the committee. This contemplates something entirely at variance with what I gathered was said this morning by the minister. It involves the creation of a corporation, instead of a board, and it has a corporate existence as distinguished from any board which has administrative powers. I gathered that the minister wished to create an administrative board.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think this is essential for the purposes of the legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Frankly I do not either.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection to moving that subsection 5 be stricken out, and that the other subsection be numbered differently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The "commission" then would mean the penitentiaries commission provided under this act, instead of "incorporated."
I think the minister will find that it is in his own interests that this should be so.


Ernest Lapointe: The amendment would be that paragraph (b) of section 2 would be amended by changing the word "incorporated"-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Probably it would be
better to say that "commission" means the penitentiary commission "established" under the act.


Ernest Lapointe: The amendment would be that in paragraph (b) of section 2 the word "established" be substituted for the word "incorporated"; that subsection 5 of section 4 be stricken out, and that subsections 6, 7, 8 and 9 be renumbered 5, 6, 7 and 8.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is correct.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Commission may perform other duties.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is very broad.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I agree.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think, if we were drawing this section, we would want to say "within the scope of the purposes for which they were established," because it is not contemplated the minister would ask them to do something wholly outside the order of business, in view of the fact that they have to spend the whole of their time in the business of the commission. The minister will appreciate the point I make.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the section might stand so that we may give it further thought.
Section stands.
On section 7-Commission to make rules.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In paragraph (c) of section 7 there is provision to make rules and regulations for "such other purposes as may be necessary or expedient for carrying into effect the provisions of this act." That was what I had in mind in connection with the general limitations in section 6.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Penitentiaries Commission Act
On section 8-Assistant commissioners.
Mr. LAWSON:: Are the assistant commissioners to perform the functions now performed by inspectors of penitentiaries?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


James Earl Lawson: In future there will be no inspectors?


Ernest Lapointe: They will be assistant commissioners, and will do the work now done by inspectors.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Staff of commission.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it we still retain
the civil service feature?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is intended?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes,
except as provided in other sections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not the words "except the superintendent and inspectors" have to come out? I find that the section contains the expression:
Provided that such officers (except the superintendent and inspectors) -
And so on. It seems to me those words no longer have application, because those officials become assistant commissioners. This is copied from the old act.


Ernest Lapointe: It is to provide that they be not transferred; they are provided for subsequently.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Appointment of wardens, etc.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This section provides for the appointment of wardens, and there is no provision that they shall be dealt with in the same way as the staff of the penitentiaries branch, unless it be that the proviso covers them. It does not cover wardens, does it?


Ernest Lapointe: I believe section 13 makes provision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 9 contains the
words "provided that such officers (except the superintendent and inspectors)"; a warden would be an officer, would he not? Therefore he is covered by that section, and continues to act until an apopintment is made.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 11-Appointment of guards, trade instructors and subordinate officers.
Ernest Lapointe: In this
section the word "commission" is substituted for the word "superintendent".


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section contains the words:
The commission may appoint such guards, trade instructors and other subordinate officers, employees and servants as are necessary for the service of any of the penitentiaries.
I take it that it is intended to confer the power to appoint guards.


Ernest Lapointe: The
superintendent now has that power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In connection with guards there were certain qualifications as to stature and matters of that kind, about which at times there has been a great deal of difficulty. As I understand it, the proposed commission will assume the whole responsibility.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Civil Service Act and Civil Service Superannuation Act to apply.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not intended that the commissioners shall be permitted to come within the provisions of the superannuation act?


Ernest Lapointe: No; they are appointed only for a term of ten years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will know that we have had a great deal of difficulty in connection with pensions. He may find it difficult under the circumstances to get the kind of people he would like to have. I was wondering whether or not any provision of that kind had been made. I must say I think the type of man I have in mind as the type the minister will want, he will find extremely difficult to get if the man has no sense of security after the termination of his position at the end of ten years. I mention that to the minister because I am greatly concerned about it.


Ernest Lapointe: I have
given a great deal of thought to that too, and I admit we have to pay a higher salary when there is no pension attached to the position on its termination. But this may be a remedy.

Penitentiaries Commission Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: After what the minister said this morning, I no longer have a desire to do other than assist him in every way possible.


Ernest Lapointe: I thank my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he says he has to have this measure, I desire to assist him as far as I can, but I am bound to say that I think he will have great difficulty in getting the type of person he wants. I would have raised the question why he leaves the salaries to the governor in council, but I realize why. In order to get the right type of man who will have no sense of security at the end of the ten year period, the minister will have to pay very much more than he thinks he should pay having regard to other salaries in the public service.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
On section 15-Annual report by commission.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have found a little
difficulty in having annual reports in September, when the house does not meet until January, and I was wondering if it would not be possible to have a report that would be for the calendar year. Then you could change the time within which the minister must bring it before parliament and make it thirty or forty days instead of twenty-one days after the opening of the session. The minister knows how desirable it is, having regard to statistics and matters of that kind, to have the calendar year rather than a year running from the first of September. I mention that only because I had occasion not long since to read something about the comparability of statistics and the difficulties that arise when dealing with years, one ending in May, another in March, and so on, instead of the calendar year.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my right hon. friend know of any other branch where the reports are made for the calendar year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. We have been
endeavouring to do that in two or three cases. We do it with the railways. That is one of the things upon which we were insistent.


Ernest Lapointe: The only objection I see is the one mentioned by my right hon. friend, the tabling of the report after the house opens.


Richard Bedford Bennett: September is a long
time away from January, and as it is now, we shall have the report on the penitentiaries only up to September.


Ernest Lapointe: I see no insuperable objection to making it the calendar year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To change it might
interfere with some of the other clauses, and I have no desire to do that. The minister, I think, agrees that generally it is desirable to make it the calendar year if possible.


Ernest Lapointe: We shall have to amend the measure later.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
On section 17-To report defects.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change
here. I would take this for granted under the general powers of the commission.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Penitentiaries of Canada, Kingston.
Ernest Lapointe: This and the following sections down to section 24 are unchanged.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 19 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On section 25-Rail and tram roads.
Ernest Lapointe: The only change here is to substitute the words "the commission, with the approval of the minister," for " the minister."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 26-Commissioners and assistant commissioners to have free access.
Ernest Lapointe: The
only change is that instead of saying, "the superintendent, or an inspector under his direction," we say, "the commission or any commissioner or, under the direction of the commission, an assistant commissioner."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
On section 28-Duties of assistant commissioners.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the same except
to substitute "assistant commissioners" for "inspectors."


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.

Penitentiaries Commission Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is also open to a possible difficulty. It says that the assistant commissioners "shall perform such other duties as the commission may direct." Obviously the duties must be within the general ambit of their powers and their position as employees.


Ernest Lapointe: I am of the opinion this would follow naturally, but I have no objection to adding the words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We might as well point it out, I suppose.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 29-Ex-officio justice of peace.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Have we the power to pass this?


Ernest Lapointe: If we
have not, we took it in the old act, and we do it in the Indian Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 30-Suspension.
Thomas Reid: I wonder if the minister really intends that when the warden suspends an officer of an inferior rank, the suspension shall be pending the decision of the minister. It says:
The commission may suspend any officer of the penitentiary and the warden may suspend any officer of an inferior rank, pending the decision of the minister in each case.


Ernest Lapointe: The
decision of the minister governs in both cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there not some force in the point raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid)? Should not an inferior officer suspended by the warden be subject to the control of the commission?


Ernest Lapointe: He is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it says, "pending the decision of the minister in each case." If we follow the logic of it, it would be the commission.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course this affects the salaries. It is the same as it was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, except this, that we have established the commission in the stead of the superintendent and the minister with respect to the administrative side of the penitentiary, and if a warden suspends an inferior officer I would think the whole purpose of the legislation would be to have the commission deal with the situation which thus
	f'
arises, because we have given their by-laws and regulations the force of law, and inmates and wardens and servants are bound to obey them.


Ernest Lapointe: What would my hon. friend suggest?


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Pending the decision of the 'commission' in each case," instead of the "minister."


Ernest Lapointe: Of course the officers are appointed by the governor in council. I do not think we could take them completely away from the control of the minister.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Why not say, "pending the report of the commission and the decision of the minister"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be it. It would mean that the minister would still have the final authority, and the commission would make the report to the minister. That, I think, is what the minister had in mind.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


John Frederick Johnston: "Pending the
report of the commission and the decision of the minister in each case."


Grote Stirling: Will that be clear, Mr. Chairman? There are two separate matters dealt with in this clause, and for both of them the decision of the minister is finally required.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Will you not have to add the words "pending the decision of the minister" to the first clause, and then in the second, repeat them after the reference to the commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would think it would be desirable.


Ernest Lapointe: In both cases, though, there has to be a report, the report of the commission to the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There should be.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the amendment carry?


Grote Stirling: How does it read?


John Frederick Johnston: "Pending the report of the commission and the decision of the minister in each case."


Grote Stirling: Well, it is hardly sense. It refers to the first portion of the clause.


Ernest Lapointe: The phrase, "in each case," makes it clear that it refers to both parts of the clause.

Penitentiaries Commission Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is that there is temporary suspension in both cases. That is the point which has to be met.


Grote Stirling: I think it should read:-
The commission may suspend any officer of the penitentiary pending the decision of the minister, and the warden may suspend any officer of an inferior rank pending the report of the commission and the decision of the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no objection to that. It would be clear, except that it looks like a repetition. But it will be all right.


Grote Stirling: If the minister does not think it is necessary, that is all right.


Ernest Lapointe: That would meet the case perfectly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 31-Wardens to have executive control.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think the words "or of the minister" should not appear. It does not seem desirable that the minister should be giving written instructions direct to the penitentiary, because there might be a conflict between himself and the commission. The communications should be through the commission, the minister having the power to direct the commission to transmit whatever instructions he might give. I think, in view of the provisions of section 3, those last words, "or of the minister," would be unnecessary.


Ernest Lapointe: Except that it was in the old law. I have no objection to striking it out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the words "or of the minister" in line 9 be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In the old act the words are "most advantageous for the penitentiary." As I recall, there was some discussion about them. Why should it not be, "most advantageous in the public interest"? We have then covered the whole situation. It is difficult to see what this means, that it is advantageous for an intangible thing like a penitentiary, whereas if you say that it is most advantageous in the public interest you have, I think, covered the whole matter.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no objection to that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
On section 33-Security.
Ernest Lapointe: "The commission" is substituted for "the minister." That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 34-Oaths.
Ernest Lapointe: There is no change there either, except consequential.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
On section 36-Deduction of pay.
Ernest Lapointe: "The commission" is there substituted for "the minister" with regard to deductions from salaries of officers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the minister with his experience will realize, that caused some trouble. You do not desire a conflict between the commission and the minister. Subsection 2 reads:
The salary of any officer suspended by the commission or by the warden, shall cease during the period of his suspension; but the minister may direct payment of the same.
Inasmuch as, in the preceding subsection, the responsibility for taking action rests with the commission, would it not be desirable to state " the commission may direct payment of the same," because they are the people who are charged with administrative responsibility. This puts the minister in an invidious position, because he is then going to be subject to pressure on the part of those concerned to grant the pay. On the other hand, the commission, being responsible for the punitive action taken, should also be in a position to remedy it if the circumstances warrant.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, suspension under section 30 is pending the decision of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: So that if the minister decides in the last resort-
Penitentiaries Commission Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is quite all right; I follow the point. Perhaps it would be better from the minister's standpoint if it were the other way-


Ernest Lapointe: I know that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and I think he will find in the end that likely it will be.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 37 and 38 agreed to.
On section 39-Perquisites allowable.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The commission's report deals with matters that are affected by this section.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but we do not want to deal with those.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is sufficiently wide.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 40-Warden a corporation.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister think section 40 is desirable? I should think it would be undesirable to make the warden a corporation sole in view of the fact that we are treating the commission now as a board. To make him a corporation sole gives an ecclesiastical touch that is hardly in keeping with his office.


Ernest Lapointe: If my right hon. friend does not object, we will leave it. I do not think an action has ever been instituted in any court against a warden as a corporation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is an antiquated provision. I believe it goes back to the very earliest days of penal institutions, though I cannot speak positively about that. It used to be customary in some of the old legislation, and that perhaps was the idea behind the new elections act. The idea is very old. I should think it would be archaic.


Ernest Lapointe: I was a little afraid of becoming a corporation myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the minister has not done badly in that direction since I have known him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 41 to 51 inclusive agreed to.
On section 52-Warrant for removal.
Thomas Reid: Should not the words "of the commission " appear after the word " chairman "?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The interpretation section covers that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 53 to 56 inclusive agreed to.
On section 57-Transfer to reformatory.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Logically that should be the commission instead of the chairman, because the minister heretofore has had the power and we have substituted " commission " for " minister." However, I can see the purpose of the draftsman.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 58-If insane when received at penitentiary.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Should not that be the commission instead of the chairman?


Ernest Lapointe: It has to
be signed by somebody.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be signed by the chairman. It means only the substitution of three' for the opinion of one. Generally it was intended that the commission would act in cases of this kind. Inasmuch as it is named for the purposes of this bill,. I do not think there is any necessity of attempting to modify it.


Ernest Lapointe: It is
more routine than anything else.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 59-Ward for insane.
Ernest Lapointe: The commission will do what the minister was supposed to do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister rather dislikes the idea of provision being made for the insane. But inasmuch as it is a temporary measure, I suppose there is no reason why it should not pass.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. This question of insane convicts will have to be considered and dealt with separately.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question has to be taken up with the provinces also. There are great difficulties about that.


Ernest Lapointe: It gives a good deal of trouble.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will remember the case in which they left an unfortunate on the steps of a provincial institution in one case and on the steps of a federal institution in another, each contending that the other should care for him.

Penitentiaries Commission Act


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know whether I should admit that I was the minister in charge at the time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was very careful not to suggest that, although I happened to know it.


Ernest Lapointe: I am
grateful to my right hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 60 agreed to.
On section 61-Removal to asylum for insane.
Mr. McCANN:: I suggest that this ought to be on the certificate of two doctors rather than just the staff doctor at the penitentiary. In some provinces the certificate of two doctors is required; for instance, in Ontario one cannot be committed to an institution for the insane except on the certificate of two legally qualified medical practitioners. This leaves too much power in the hands of the staff doctor.


Ernest Lapointe: The suggestion of my hon. friend is worthy of careful consideration, but I would call it to his attention that this is one of the matters with which the commission to be appointed will have to deal, come to an agreement on, make regulations, and suggest changes in the legislation if necessary. I should not like to make any changes before these matters are considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister given any consideration and arrived at any conclusion with respect to bringing Mr. Paterson from England for the purpose of assisting in establishing the commission? I quite followed him that we are re-enacting these sections without amendments except purely formal ones in order that the commission when established may be able to formulate its views, and we shall then pass a statute which will take the place of this. It is understood that this is a temporary arrangement to enable the commission to be appointed under this bill to make its recommendations to the minister and thereby to parliament, and among others the matter that the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) has mentioned, the whole question of the treatment of the insane, will be dealt with.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend is quite right in his assumption.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister considered the question of bringing this gentleman from England?


Ernest Lapointe: There is no decision. What is my right hon. friend's view about the matter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have had grave doubts whether the principles that govern in connection with an institution like Wormwood Scrubbs or the one at Dartmoor can be made applicable to a country like this. But the commission which saw this gentleman seemed to think very highly of him, and have recommended to the minister the desirability of his being brought here, and I would be the last man to oppose my will to that of three such distinguished criminologists and penologists as those who made the report.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 62 and 63 agreed to.
On section 64-If arrangements exist with Ontario.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We deal in this section with the word "commission" in place of the minister, and not the chairman or vicechairman, although I notice the chairman or vice-chairman is to take certain action in regard to signing, so I suppose it is intended that the commission as a body shall deal with one phase and the chief executive officer shall deal with the other.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; the one thing is more important than the other.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 65 and 66 agreed to.
On section 67-Hard labour.
Ernest Lapointe: No
change except "commission" instead of "minister".


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) points out, you are apt to hear some repercussions regarding the provision for ten hours' labour. It is an oldtime section.


Ernest Lapointe: I am
resigning myself to a good deal of difficulty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I expect the words "if possible" enable the warden to make it six or seven or eight hours. This section was passed at a time when the usual hours of labour were ten hours. I remember when we were passing an eight hour law here a manufacturer in a small community said, greatly
Supply-Justice

to my surprise, he had never worked less than nine hours. This provides for ten hours' continuous hard labour, but the words "if possible" may do something to modify it. It may make life difficult for the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 68 to 84 inclusive, agreed to.
On section 6-Commission may perform other duties.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of what the
minister said, that it is temporary legislation, it may pass.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill as amended, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Remission service, including remuneration to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force (to be expended under order in council, and not to exceed $1,600) for assistance to this service, and an amount of $10,900 to reimburse the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force the amounts disbursed by them in ordinary pay and allowances to their men on loan to this service, $47,060.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this about?


Ernest Lapointe: This is for the expenses of the remission service branch.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the reason for
the increase of over $3,000?


Ernest Lapointe: I think the explanation is contained in the item itself. We are reimbursing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the salaries of men who are on loan to us. Formerly the mounted police paid these men and we paid nothing. Now they object to having these men paid out of their own appropriation and used by the Department of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of Justice-miscellaneous expenditure, $13,400.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no change in
this item?


Ernest Lapointe: No
change.


Major James William Coldwell: I would direct the
attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that there is a large delegation endeavouring to see him. I know the reply

has been given that the ministers are all busy to-day; but there is a good deal of anxiety throughout the country in relation to the padlock law, and I believe the final date in that connection is July 8. Petitions are constantly coming in and resolutions being forwarded, and throughout a very large portion of Canada this law is felt to be an infringement of the rights of our citizens.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. gentleman
realize that we in this house imposed a padlock law on the press just about an hour ago?


Major James William Coldwell: I was not here when
that was done. There is a good deal of anxiety about this matter, and I should like to press the point of view that we have pressed so frequently, that we feel such a law should not be allowed to remain on the statute books of any province. So far as the power of disallowance is concerned,, I do not think the Minister of Justice should take the sole responsibility for that action. As I understand it, that power is vested in the governor general in council, and it seems to me the matter should be one for the government rather than for the Minister of Justice, if I may put it in that way. In any case, we are anxious to know what is going to be done about the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: In
referring to the numerous petitions that are coming in, my hon. friend has the advantage of me in that he sees only one side of the matter. I see both sides, and I have received enough petitions to fill a couple of offices in my department. However, the suggestions of my hon. friend will be very carefully considered.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Before July 8?


Ernest Lapointe: In due
time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses of litigated matters, $25,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is the same amount as last year?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Annual contribution to the Canadian Law Library, London, England, $500.
Ernest Lapointe: This is the same as last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Justice-Yukon
Supreme Court of Canada-administration, $66,970.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The salaries are statutory, I take it?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exchequer Court of Canada-administration, $34,215.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no increase?


Ernest Lapointe: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon territorial court - administration,
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have to direct attention to the next item, which is statutory, covering judges' salaries and travelling allowances, amounting to S2,041,600. I want to ask a few questions. First, is there any age limit for the appointment of judges to superior courts? In my time there always was a limit, which was that the appointee should not be more than sixty years of age, the reason being that if he attained the age of seventy-five he would be entitled to superannuation, having served fifteen years.


Ernest Lapointe: That was not in the statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The original statute provided for fifteen years. There was no provision as to age, but in practice in the department no man over sixty was appointed to a high court position. I once urged that the most distinguished member of the bar of my own province should be appointed to the bench, but he had attained an age which the late Judge Doherty felt would mean that the established rule would be contravened, so he would not appoint him. So far as I know that rule has been honoured continuously. There have been one or two exceptions with respect to county court appointments, but not many even in that regard. To discuss the question of an appointment to the bench is sometimes regarded as something which should not take place in parliament, but I need hardly say that those who have read the life of the late Lord Darling, recently published, will quite realize that it is a proper thing to discuss. When he was appointed there was a great deal of newspaper controversy as to his fitness for the position.
Recently an appointment to the high court has been made of one well advanced towards seventy years of age, or at all events well over sixty-five, according to newspaper reports. I submit to the minister that this is not quite fair to the taxpayers of the country, having
regard to the effort that is being made to have the positions vacated by those who have attained the age of seventy-five. Obviously it means that if the position is to be vacated at seventy-five, a man appointed at the age of sixty-seven or sixty-eight years would have been only seven years on the bench. I am asking the minister whether the rule is a real one, or whether the practice has not been regarded as established sufficiently to warrant its being departed from, because I have always regarded it as a matter of very great importance? At one time the late Judge Doherty made it quite apparent that my efforts to appoint a very distinguished member of our bar must fail because the person named was sixty-five years of age at that time. Certainly that person was easily in some regards the most distinguished practitioner at our bar, and I always felt it was a very great misfortune that we were unable to appoint him, for he lived for many years after. I see the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) wonders whom I mean, and I would say that I refer to the late James Muir. The difficulty was a very real one. I should like to know what the rule, if there is any, is with respect to the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: There
is no fixed rule, although there has been a practice and more particularly with regard to county court judges, where the rule as to the seventy-five year age limit prevails.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course that is only recently.


Ernest Lapointe: It would not be in the public interest to appoint men well over sixty years who, upon reaching the age of seventy-five years, would have the right to retire on full salary, as obtains in connection with the county court judges.
A few years ago a gentleman was appointed to the bench of the county court of the county of York, I believe it was, who was well advanced in age; but in the file I found that when he was appointed the government requested that he^ sign a waiver of his right to pension. Of course friends of his have asked me not to take advantage of the wTaiver, but I have refused to intervene and he has no pension.
This year there was an appointment to the county court bench in British Columbia. Many persons were recommended, and the person I thought should receive the appointment was about sixty-five years of age. In that case, too, I declined to recommend the appointment unless the person in question signed the same sort of waiver. That was
Supply-Justice-Yukon

done. When that judge reaches the age of seventydive years he will have to retire but will not be paid a pension.
In connection with the high court there is no law compelling retirement at seventy-five years, or even making it advantageous to the incumbent to retire by drawing his full pension. The practice has always been to appoint judges not far advanced in age, or more than sixty years. I believe it would be a mistake to appoint older men not only from the point of view of the age for retirement but from the point of view of doing the work.
It is only seldom that we appoint judges over sixty years of age. There was one appointment within the last year in Ontario, and possibly that is the one my right hon. friend has in mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: According to the press, I believe, he was sixty-seven, was he not?


Mr. MARTIN:: He was sixty-six.


Ernest Lapointe: But for some years he had been engaged in quasijudicial work, and strong recommendations were made for his appointment. I knew him as a well qualified man. I may assure my right hon. friend, however, that his age was considered as an obstacle, and it was only after careful consideration that the appointment was made. The rule that barristers on their appointment to the bench should not be more than sixty years still prevails, and I shall adhere to it as far as possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think no more satisfactory answer could be given than that now given by the minister. However, the appointment of a man of sixty-six years has aroused considerable discussion, especially when it was pointed out that the same gentleman was the defendant in a very difficult piece of litigation. That litigation is of so serious a character that it embarrassed his brother judges to have to deal with it.


Samuel Factor: The action was dismissed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know, but what has that to do with the matter? The litigation is the point I am dealing with, and the court of appeal may have to deal with it; I do not know. I think it is a bad practice to appoint to the bench one who is a party to pending litigation involving issues of grave importance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the right hon. gentleman permit me to point out that the litigation was not against the particular person in question, but by virtue of his office as securities commissioner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point I make, and that is the reason why I say he should not have been appointed until the litigation was out of the way; because if the allegations contained in the statement of claim of an action of that kind were established, one would certainly hesitate to make such an appointment.
I have in mind an English case involving a judge of the court of appeal. He experienced great difficulty in that court, because the court had to decide against him in a matter of very great importance. In that instance he was not interested in the litigation when he was appointed.
I believe it is bad practice to make an appointment when litigation is pending. I have received communications of some importance with respect to the matter about which I intend to speak to the minister. It is too late to remedy the matter, so far as the appointment is concerned, but it is not too late to remedy a recurrence of a difficulty of that land. I believe the statement made by the minister is one which will be received with great satisfaction by everyone. I believe he said he will endeavour to prevent such action being taken again. I point out to him the difficulty of appointing to the bench one who is a plaintiff or defendant in litigation which will necessarily have to be considered by his brethren on the bench to which he has been appointed.
It is not always easy for a Minister of Justice to know all the facts, but I am merely directing attention to the matter so that in future he may be able to make inquiries. I believe I know how easy it is not to be fully advised of all the facts. I know of one appointment I certainly wish had not been made, and had I known certain facts which at the time I did not- know, the appointment would not have been made. The minister does the best he can, relies upon the answers he gets to the inquiries he makes, and treats them in good faith. But he is not always in a position to say, subsequently, that he has been fully advised regarding the matter, and if he has not been fully advised, a situation of great difficulty is sometimes created.
There is one other question, and it is one about which the late government experienced a good deal of difficulty. County court judges are supposed to reside, as indeed are the supreme court judges, somewhere near the point of their activities; I think it is within so many miles of a given place. The Judges Act with respect to high court judges is silent with respect to that requirement, but with respect to county court or district court judges there is such a provision, if my

Farmers' Creditors Act
memory serves me aright. A man is appointed to a position as county court judge in county X. He resides in city A. This involves the taxpayer in somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000 a year in the travelling of the judge from city A to discharge his duties in county X. Something should be done to meet such a situation.
It will be within the memory of this committee that in British Columbia an action was brought in connection with the travelling *expenses of one of the judges of the high *court, and it left an unpleasant memory. I have heard of, and in fact, I had to deal with a situation in which county court judges or district court judges made arrangements between one another so that chambers would be taken and they would thereby secure the travelling expenses incident to the discharge *of their duties outside their own jurisdiction. That is a plain and palpable disregard of the law. That, too, a minister of justice finds it difficult to know anything about unless it is brought to his attention. Circulars are sent to judges. They have been sent by [DOT]departmental officers in an endeavour to protect the exchequer, and a word of timely warning as to what the effect of this will be, and as to the power of the government to deal with it, would, I think, be desirable.
The only reason I bring these matters to the attention of the minister at this moment is that I regard them as being of great importance; because if one does a certain thing for a period, somebody else hears about it and starts in; then you have two, and then five, and then ten; ultimately you have made on the treasury a raid for which there is no *authority whatever, and this places the minister, who is entirely ignorant of the situation, in a difficult position when he has to explain, for the report of the auditor general, what authority there is for the amounts expended. Judges are in an entirely different position from others in respect to their expenses. As soon as the auditor general gets his accounts in the shape in which he requires them he pays them without question; the judge signs his little slip, puts it in the bank and gets his pay, and that is the end [DOT]of the matter. Obviously the only way a minister of justice can deal with it is by circulars and by letters addressed to the judicial bench generally, making clear what their position is under the law.


Ernest Lapointe: Travelling expenses have to be certified by the chief justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, that came about by reason of a very unfortunate case of 51952-279
which I have heard. But there is no similar provision with respect to county and district court judges, and it leaves it open to a difficulty that I shall mention privately to the minister in connection with a case where the travelling expenses of the judge had been placed at as high a figure as over 82,000 in a single year in Ontario. I was asked in a communication to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. I shall not mention any names here.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that
a case of recent occurrence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and my attention
was directed to the page of the auditor general's report. I shall mention it privately to the minister, because I think it serves no useful purpose to mention names with respect to a matter of this sort.
There is one other matter in connection with this item that I shall perhaps be able to mention after eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


Hon. T. A. ORERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I desire to report to the house the following:
The managers on the part of the House of Commons have the honour to report that they met in a free conference the managers on the part of the senate for the purpose of further considering Bill No. 25, intituled, "An Act to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, and the amendments thereto.
The managers on the part of the House of Commons report that the following has been agreed upon as a clause to be substituted for clause 9 of the bill as added thereto by the senate:
9. No proposal shall be received in either of the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia later than the thirtieth day of June, 1939, nor in any other province except the provinces of

Farmers' Creditors Act

Saskatchewan and Alberta later than the thirty-first day of December, 1938: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to farmers who are soldier settlers within the meaning of the Soldier Settlement Act.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move that this amendment replace the senate amendment concerning which the conference was held, as section No. 9.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not quite clear from the minister's explanation as to just what is the effect of the amendment with respect to Ontario.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is no change so far as Ontario is concerned. The act will lapse in Ontario at the end of this year. It does so in all the provinces except in the four western provinces.


James J. Donnelly: When does it lapse in those?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In Manitoba and British Columbia, on June 30, 1939; and for Saskatchewan and Alberta the date was not fixed.


Thomas Reid: Would the minister be good enough to make it clear that it does not affect soldier settlers?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is in the amendment.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does that affect the section of the act which enables the governor in council to terminate the operation of the act in any province?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I think not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The senate substituted for our discretion a positive enactment.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe the discretion still remains.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes, before that time.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The operation of the act can be terminated earlier.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But it will terminate in any event on December 31 of this year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is right.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And may be terminated earlier by proclamation?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is what I understand.


Mr. LEADER:: I understand that so far as Manitoba is concerned, the operation of the act will terminate on June 30, 1939.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is correct.


Harry Leader: Has the minister received representations from the farmers of Manitoba asking that it do not terminate-well, they did not set a limit on the date; they wished it continued in Manitoba? I have had representations, and I assume the minister has had them also, from the United Farmers.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So far as my memory goes, no representations have been made to me. The amendment as it stands now gives a full year's time for any farmer other than a soldier settler in Manitoba who wishes to make application for a composition of his debts, and that should reasonably meet the case. Although personally I would have been disposed to extend the time until a later date, on the whole I think it is a reasonable compromise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to be quite clear that the governor in council may act whenever he considers it expedient, by proclamation:
On and after a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council, no new proposal shall be made or filed by any farmer or accepted by any official receiver in any province in respect of which the said proclamation is issued.
I think it should be put in a somewhat different form, because the section of the bill,
as it is now reads:
9. The said act is further amended by adding to section 11 as subsection 3, the following-
What it is proposed to put is:
No proposal shall be received in either of the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia later than the thirtieth day of June, 1939, nor in any other province except the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta later than the thirty-first day of December, 1938: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to farmers who are soldier settlers within the meaning of the Soldier Settlement Act.
I suppose that if we merely approve that, the effect of it will be to substitute for section 3 this proposal, and I think the motion should read accordingly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think there is any substitution. I think the two stand side by side.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has misconceived what I am saying. We are substituting a new section 9 for the present section 9, the one I have just read, but perhaps the motion should be put in proper form by the clerk, that the proposal of the managers be accepted and that section 9 as stated be made part of the bill as subsection 3. It is purely a technical form. So long as it is in 3hape, that is all that is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Supply-Finance
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
AUDITOR general's OFFICE
Salaries and expenses of office, $461,405.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Why the increase?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The salaries of the permanent
officials are increased by $56,651. There is an increase of $1,500 for printing and stationery and an increase of $2,000 for travelling expenses. Then there are two decreases, the temporaries by $25,980. and printing of annual report, $500. The difference between the decreases and -the increases is $33,671, being a net increase. I have the details of the increase in the permanents and of the decrease in the temporaries, which I can read to the committee if it is desired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bankruptcy Act administration, $38,320.
Mr. LOCKHART:: To what extent would the superintendent of bankruptcy in the federal department insist upon action being taken by the provincial government in case there was any want of action on their part? May I have a brief explanation regarding the jurisdiction of the federal superintendent of bankruptcy over the attorneys general of the provinces.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The superintendent of bankruptcy has no power over the attorneys general of the provinces, if that is the question.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: If, in one of the western provinces, the attorney general did not take action in a matter in which it was thought that he should, what would be the procedure in the federal department?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will the hon. gentleman
indicate the class of case he has in mind in which a provincial attorney general fails to take action.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: No, I cannot, but I was informed that in one of the western provinces the attorney general did not take action. In that event has the federal department any power to act independently?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am very sorry, but I
cannot answer the question in the absence of details. It is necessary to know to what kind of case the hon. gentleman is referring.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It is a question of
bankruptcy.
Mr. ILSLEY': I can only repeat what I said before. Without further details it is impossible to answer the question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Housing Act administration, $38,400.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is a fairly large
increase in comparison with the total. Will the minister explain?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is an increase of $1,320 in salaries of permanent officials, and an increase of $5,394 in salaries of temporaries. There is a decrease of $3,451 in sundries. The difference between the increases and the decreases is $3,263, which is a net increase.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mint, including the Dominion of Canada assay office, $275,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the profit of the mint last year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sorry, I have not that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this item include the cost of the material with which the mint worked-silver and copper? I should hardly think so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This amount does not include
the cost of material.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Old age pensions, including pensions to the blind, administration, $35,310.
_ Mr. BENNETT: Perhaps the minister is in a position to give a short statement as to what is being done in connection with federal administration. I have received a great number of communications complaining that pensions have been paid that should not have been paid, and wondering what the federal power is doing to check these payments. At the same time how -much was paid for the blind last year, as distinguished from others?
James Lorimer Ilsley: The auditors of the Department of Finance are now checking the payments made by the provincial authorities. They are going through the provincial offices where the payments are made and checking them. The estimate for pensions to the blind for the current year 1938-39 is $498,900.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What did we pay last year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was just started towards the end of the last fiscal year. I have not the amount here.
Supply-Finance


James J. Donnelly: That is just for the blind people between forty and seventy; not over seventy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because they are counted in with the other old age pensioners.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed that the estimate is to cover all pensions to the blind, including those over seventy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Blind people over seventy were covered in the old act. The act of last year covered only those between forty and seventy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not sure about that. I could get that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Superannuation and retirement acts administration, $25,960.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought this was administered as part of the general administration of the finances of the country. We have the use of the money; the fund goes into the consolidated revenue.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Administration is not charged against the superannuation fund, but it has to be voted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Out of the general fund?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government's contribution to the superannuation fund, $2,230,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is really covered by .statute, although it is not a statutory payment. The basis upon which it is paid is fixed by statute.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.
' Mr. STEWART: What is the explanation of the substantial increase, $150,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The contribution of the government depends upon the number of contributors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Rather upon the amount paid, or number and amount.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The government contributes dollar for dollar for their contributions, and there are now more contributors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the 5 per cent increase means more, because they get more salary as they go up the list.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public debt charges-administration of public debt, $212,355.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this still include the payments made in London for the administration there, as well as at home?
[Mr. Ilsley-1


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is for the staff here. It includes salaries, printing and stationery, insurance on securities, express, advertising and postage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; the details of the commission for payment of interest in England are shown on, page 80 of the main estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Servicing of public debt-Commission for payment of interest on public debt, purchase of sinking funds, services of fiscal agents, London bill stamps, registration fees, etc., $168,981.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is increased $5,500 by one item apparently; that is, the increased volume of debt. It is higher because it is on a commission basis apparently.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Subsidies and special grants to provinces-
Special grants:
New Brunswick, $900,000.
Nova Scotia, $1,300,000.
Prince Edward Island, $275,000.
Manitoba, $750,000.
Saskatchewan, $1,500,000.
British Columbia, $750,000.
René-Antoine Pelletier: What are these special grants for?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amounts provided for payments to the maritime provinces are those recommended by the White commission on maritime claims. On request of the premiers of the three maritime provinces a royal commission was set up under authority of order in council of September 14, 1934, to consider and deal with the recommendation of the Duncan commission, that there be a revision of the financial arrangements between the dominion government and the maritime provinces. In their report of February 8, 1935, the royal commission recommended additional annual subsidies in substitution for the interim annual subsidies recommended by the Duncan commission. For Nova Scotia the interim subsidy was $875,000; the subsidy recommended by the White commission was $1,300,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did that not include the two?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It included the whole of the Duncan commission award. To New Brunswick the amount recommended by the White commission was $900,000; to Prince Edward Island, $275,000, and these are the amounts provided for in this vote.
The grant of $750,000 to British Columbia was first provided in the main estimates for



193S

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Finance
1935-36. The grants to Manitoba and Saskatchewan were first provided in the supplementary estimates for 1937-38, to enable those provinces to continue essential services pending improvement in crop conditions and pending report of the royal commission to investigate financial powers and responsibilities of the dominion and the provinces.
René-Antoine Pelletier: Why was no grant
made to Alberta?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That matter has been
dealt with several times in the house to my knowledge. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) dealt with that fully in his budget speech of, I think, a year ago. It was referred to again in the debate on the resolution moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) this year and fully explained at that time.


René-Antoine Pelletier: As a matter of fact the action taken is based simply upon a recommendation by the Bank of Canada that there was no need of a grant for the province of Alberta.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants and contributions- Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, $2,025.
James Samuel Taylor: What is that for?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The object of this society is to promote interest in the fine arts. The members of the academy give their services gratuitously. Free classes are held in the large centres throughout the dominion. Grants are made to Toronto and other large exhibitions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Society of Canada, $4,500.
Harry James Barber: Would the minister explain this?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The purpose of this society, founded in 1882, is to promote the study of literary and scientific subjects.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They give most of the money away in scholarships, medals and prizes. The grant formerly was $5,000, and ten per cent has been taken off.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant towards expenses of the British empire games, $5,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Where were the games
this year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They were held in Australia in February, 1938. In other years they have been held at different places in the empire. In 1930-31 they were held in Hamilton, Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for acquisition of land and surveys in connection with the national parkway in the Gatineau valley adjacent to Ottawa, $100,000.
Mr. LEDUC (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the electors of Wright county, which I have the honour to represent, I wish to congratulate and thank the government for having voted $100,000 towards expropriations and survey in view of the construction of a national boulevard in my constituency.
The construction of this boulevard has been sought for many years. I am happy to note that the government appreciates the many advantages of this important project and has seen fit to vote the money required for preliminary operations.
The proposed boulevard, which will start at the Champlain bridge on the Aylmer road, will be entirely in Quebec territory and will extend through picturesque farming country to the heights of the Gatineau mountains, the beauty and grandeur of which one can admire from these Parliament buildings by directing one's eyes beyond the Ottawa river in a north-westerly direction. I do not intend, Mr. Chairman, to describe in detail the natural beauties of that section of my constituency and the numerous advantages of the proposed boulevard. Suffice it to say that it will attract visitors who will come to enjoy the wonderful scenery of the Lauren-tian mountains and of the country surrounding the capital city. In addition, the construction of the boulevard will provide work for many years to come to the poor unemployed of the southern part of my constituency who seek employment instead of the relief they now receive. I wish therefore to thank the government, and I hope that next year the necessary money will be voted to put the undertaking under way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister give the committee an explanation of this item?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is to provide for the
cost of preliminary surveys and the acquisition of land in connection with the general scheme of development of the Gatineau valley adjacent to Ottawa as a national parkway.
Supply-Finance

This represents the first stage in that development. Two parties are now surveying the route from the Champlain bridge north through the hills. At the moment they are in the vicinity of Meach lake. When this work is completed, final decision will be made as to the route and other details of development.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The route to where?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Through the scenic section
that it is proposed to develop.


Harry James Barber: Is this on both sides of
the Ottawa river?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This applies to the north
side.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assume that this is
the matter about which the Prime Minister expressed some interest one or two sessions ago, and which he brought up for discussion at that time. Is it the intention to acquire a large area of land for the purposes of a park? The Prime Minister spoke about the timber being cut on these hills, about the hills being denuded and presenting a very bare and barren appearance, and suggested that something should be done about the matter. I remember at the time it was suggested that the federal district commission might make a general preliminary survey. What is the plan, in a general way? The minister spoke about a parkway. Is it not the intention to acquire a large area of land for park purposes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member any exact information as to the acreage it is proposed to acquire, but it is proposed to acquire some land on the north side of the river, up the Gatineau valley.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: While we are on this
item, I should like to deal with the following item, which is statutory, covering the "maintenance of parks, parkways and plant, Ottawa and vicinity, under control of the federal district commission." As I recall it, provision was made for a grant over a number of years, payable by instalments. When does that expire, and how many more instalments are to be paid?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a statutory
grant of $200,000 a year. I would not be positive, but I think it expires in 1940.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My information, which I
think is correct, is that in 1930 the period was extended for ten years, during which $200,000 a year was to be voted and spent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is my recollection
of the matter, though as I say I may be wrong.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-Comptroller of the treasury's office and to authorize the civil service commission to designate what rate shall be effective, from the date of transfer, in the class into which any person is classified on transfer to the Department of Finance under the authority of section 35 of the National Harbours Board Act,
1936,	$1,920,385.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is a substantial increase here. I notice that in 1937-38 there was a staff of 870, whereas it is now 920. How is the increase made up?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If permanent and temporary employees are included, the total increase amounts to only ten. As a matter of fact, there has been a decrease. Our total number of permanents and temporaries as of April 1,
1937,	was 984 and as of March 31, 1938, was 974. There was an increase in permanents from 834 to 858, but a decrease in temporaries from 150 to 116.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Upon referring to page 82 of the main estimates I find that in 1938-39 the total is 920, whereas in 1937-38 it was 870. There is no decrease in those figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Shortly put, every increase in expenditures involves an increase in the department of the comptroller, who is responsible for the whole expenditure.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The increase is in permanents. If the hon. member would look under the figure 870 he would see that in the vote for temporary assistance there is a decrease from $133,020 to $92,460. The increase is due, at least to a great extent, to making temporaries permanent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act administration, $506,120.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This will probably not all be spent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the act is terminated, naturally it will not all be spent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is the salvage officer mentioned in the item for the comptroller general's office? I notice he is now under the Department of Finance, whereas he used to appear separately in the estimates. If the minister has not the information immediately available, he may let me know later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply

Finance
Expenses of the royal commission to investigate financial powers and responsibilities of the dominion and the provinces, $210,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the total sums expended to date, and what are the commitments?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The total expenditures to June 26 amounted to $209,554.43. I have the details to January 15, 1938, and I believe they will give the committee an idea of the headings under which the money is spent. It will not, however, be complete and up to date, because, as I have indicated, it goes only to January 15, 1938. The figures are as follows:
Living allowances	$ 3,255 65
Salaries	
33,164	58Travelling expenses	
8,492	61Professional services	
1,679	75Kent	
720	00Printing and stationery	
3,314	85Miscellaneous expenses	
1,584	07Advances outstanding	
6,372	46Total	$58,583 97


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Did I understand the minister to say that to June there had been an expenditure of over $209,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That must include a portion of the $210,000 here appropriated?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, since April 1.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The $210,000 for this year and the $150,000 voted last year make a total of $360,000 appropriated for the commission to the present time, or at least for the fiscal year upon which we are now entering.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the inadequacy of it which has struck me.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It seems to me that if we spent $209,000 last year and that the amount available to the end of March was $150,000 the $210,000 this year will probably be insufficient.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The $209,000 was not all spent in the last fiscal year. It was partly spent in this fiscal year. What is the hon. member's difficulty?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If we have spent $209,000 up to June, and $150,000 of that amount was for the last fiscal year, one would almost think we had overrun the estimate of $150,000 in the expenses of last year. I am wondering whether the $210,000 will be sufficient to take care of this year's expenditures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much of the $209,000
represents expenditures out of this year's vote?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed there will be about $150,000 for the remainder of this fiscal year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When will this commission likely finish its labours and give us its very interesting report?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It has been hoped that it would be about November of this year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We are all sorry to learn of the serious illness of the chairman. Is it likely that he will be replaced, or will the commission carry on with its remaining members?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The commission will, I believe, carry on without replacement of the chairman. It is at present intended that this will be the case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Insurance - departmental administration, $174,490.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this repaid by the insurance companies, or is any part of it repaid? They pay, as the minister knows.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; that is all repaid.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses of work in the interests of fire prevention, $20,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the nature of this work?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This work is almost entirely of an advisory educational and consulting nature, maintaining records of fire losses, preparing data upon fire prevention legislation and fire prevention methods in Canada and foreign countries with a view to establishing reasonable standards of fire safety and the standardization of fire prevention measures throughout Canada. The vote provides for the salary of J. Grove Smith, $5,220, and for clerical assistance, also printing, stationery, travelling expenses, and so forth in connection with this work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought Mr. Smith
was an employee of the Ontario government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do we get any contributions from the companies in respect of this item, or is it all charged against our taxes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no contribution.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice an amount of $4,320 for temporary assistance this year but no corresponding item last year. I wonder why the temporary assistance would be required this year when it was not last year.

Supply-Finance


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amount of $4,320 is to provide for the salaries of an assistant fire prevention commissioner, $3,600, and of a stenographer, grade 1, $720.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mint, including the Dominion of Canada assay office-further amount required. $4,088.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the further
amount required for?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The $4,088 is made up as follows: Reclassifications granted to twenty-one employees, $2,100; special equipment of alloy steel to be used for drawing the copper precipitate, also insulating with asbestos the duct drawing hot gases from the fine silver surveys, $1,988, or a total of $4,088.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants and contributions- Federal district commission-to provide for improvements of parks and driveways under the control of the federal district commission- further amount required, $31,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this for?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Plans, surveys and estimates for proposed alterations and improvements to the confederation square area in Ottawa. This is a revote of funds provided last year, under the special supplementary estimates, amounting to $25,000, which was not used; also for the purchase of part of the water lots adjoining the driveway on the Ottawa river in the vicinity of the Royal Canadian Mint. These water lots are required for works to strengthen the retaining wall and for the city of Ottawa for sewer outlets to the river, the cost of the sewer, $12,000, to be shared by the commission and the city, $6,000 each.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was paid for the plans?


James Lorimer Ilsley: None of this has been paid for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What will it cost? I thought the minister mentioned plans. The item itself says, "to provide for improvement of parks and driveways."


James Lorimer Ilsley: The $25,000 is to cover the cost of plans, surveys and estimates for proposed alterations and improvements to the confederation square area in Ottawa.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The item as it reads is to some extent misleading. How much of this amount will be payable for the plans? The whole $25,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We do not know. I do not think the matter is settled. Certainly nothing has been paid. I shall be glad to inquire if we have a bill for it, but I do not think we have.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would it be out of this item that the plans of the celebrated French landscape artist will be paid for? I understand that his work was done and a report made some time ago.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My information is that payment for the work done by Mr. Greber will be made by the Department of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-^-National battlefields commission- continuation of park development, $100,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the fact that
we have just voted $100,000, this seems to be a special item. It concerns the city of Quebec, I take it, but I do not know where the money would be spent there.


Ernest Lapointe: It is to complete the entrance to the park there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We vote $100,000 a year.


Ernest Lapointe: The vote is $75,000 a year for maintenance and general administration. In addition, we spent $100,000 last year and will spend $100,000 this year to complete the work around the park.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that about the entrance to Wolfe's cove?


Ernest Lapointe: The entrance near the St. Louis gate. This had not been done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought we did not spend anything on it last year, that there was no item for it.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes. Last year we spent $100,000. It was spent through national defence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Insurance - departmental administration, further amount required, $3,600.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is paid by the insurance companies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Yukon territorial court - administration,
Ernest Lapointe: We were discussing this
item at six o'clock.

Supply-Justice*-Y ukon


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the house rose at six o'clock I was directing attention to the next item, which is statutory, covering judges' salaries and travelling allowances, amounting to 82,041,600. I was referring to what I consider the undesirability of the appointment to the bench of an official who is the defendant in a lawsuit. He was appointed to the bench on about the thirtieth day of the trial, in the midst of his cross-examination. His appointment has certainly subjected the appointing power to a great deal of criticism. The action was brought against him alleging lack of authority in the delivery up of 275,000 shares of capital stock in one company and a larger number in another. On discovery he admitted he had no authority under the provincial statute to do this. He was a party defendant. The action was tried by, I believe, Mr. Justice McTague, and it lasted longer than any trial in the history of Ontario, so counsel for one of the parties said in a public statement. It seems to me to be rather an improper exercise of the appointing power to name a barrister who was one of the defendants in an action, under the circumstance that he was standing in the witness box in the midst of his cross-examination when the appointment was announced.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not supposed to have known that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I am bound to say, as one of my correspondents who is uninterested says, it is pretty difficult to think it was not known at least to those from that province whose business it was to advise the minister with respect to it. He might not know it. But it does embarrass a judge in the trial of an action to have a witness in the midst of a cross-examination promoted to be his brother on the bench. It is still more embarrassing to those who have to conduct trials of actions hereafter before that very same gentleman, to find themselves in the midst of the cross-examination confronted with a new justice of the high court, he having been, when he took the witness-box, a plain member of society, known by another title, and sued in his personal capacity.


Ernest Lapointe: He was defendant in his personal capacity?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, he was defendant in this action.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As securities commissioner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was sued, and it was alleged that he acted beyond his authority and was personally liable. He admitted on
discovery that he had no authority under the statute to do what he did, and in the midst of his cross-examination he suddenly became a justice of the high court. It made it very embarrassing alike for judge and counsel to face that situation.


Mr. McLARTY:: Might I ask my right
hon. friend a question? I know he has as high regard as I have for the dignity of the judiciary of Canada, and I wondered if it would not be fair to state that it was in the official capacity in which the gentleman acted at that particular time that the question to which my right hon. friend now refers was asked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. My learned and
hon. friend, in a most unusual manner, has not appreciated my point.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I tried to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is very unusual for
him not to appreciate it. The reason is probably my lack of clarity and not his lack of understanding. What I desired to make clear was that the gentleman who was appointed to the bench was the defendant in an action, and it was alleged that he was occupying a position under a provincial statute-


Norman Alexander McLarty: May I suggest to my
right hon. friend that the fact that he was defendant in the action was possible only by reason of the official position which he occupied at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my learned and hon.
friend will possess his soul in patience, and not manifest some impatience, I shall answer him. This gentleman was a defendant, and it was alleged-properly or improperly I do not say

that he acted beyond the scope of his authority. On discovery he admitted that he had no authority to do what he did do with respect to 275,000 shares of one company and a larger number in another. The question at issue was whether or not he had made himself personally liable. In the judgment of the court different dates are given as to the duration of the trial. One of them says it lasted nine weeks; but as I understand the matter, nine weeks would include all days of the week, and the court did not sit every day of the week. The trial lasted about forty-one days, including the argument. At the end of about the thirtieth day, in the midst of his crossexamination, he suddenly became a justice of the high court, and counsel found himself
4416	COMMONS
Supply-Justice-M iscellaneous
cross-examining, not a securities commissioner, but a justice of the high court, which, of course, made the situation a little difficult alike for judge and counsel.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Might I suggest to my
right hon. friend that judgment has since been given in connection with the particular action to which he refers, and that judgment is in favour of the one who was appointed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The action was dismissed. That has nothing to do with the matter. It is as remote as the moon, and the hon. gentleman knows it, because an appeal can be taken. The difficulty is that in the midst of the cross-examination of the witness he is appointed to the bench, he himself is a party defendant, and is charged with doing something which rendered him, according to the statement of claim, personally liable. I was asked to bring this to the attention of the minister. I believe that if the Minister of Justice had known of these circumstances, he would not then have made the appointment. My long experience with him induces me to believe that he would not have made it; he would have delayed it until such time as the action was out of the road.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries branch-branch administration, $85,040.
Ernest Lapointe: It is
the usual vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is one of the two
items referred to this afternoon?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Criticism will have to
be deferred to another occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies and equipment, and maintenance and discharge of inmates, $2,679,561.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Those two items are the items mentioned this afternoon on the penitentiaries bill.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-William Tatton, $564.
Ernest Lapointe: This is a pension which has been continued since 1902.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
J. Langlois Bell, $600.
Ernest Lapointe: This is in the same category.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

To provide for publication of Canadian constitutional decisions of the privy council, 19291937: Payments may be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, $3,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Probably the minister will give some explanation of this item.


Ernest Lapointe: Really it is the officers of the department who have recommended this. It is a very useful work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Cartwright's cases. There were four volumes of them, and then we used to publish them. Then we had Cameron, volumes one and two. The later cases have not been brought up to date.


Ernest Lapointe: No; they are not up to date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that this is intended to provide for what would -be volume three of Cameron?


Ernest Lapointe: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To hereby provide for the payments of gratuities to the widows or to any dependent children, of judges who die while in office, $15,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister might make a short statement.


Ernest Lapointe: It has long been the practice, when a judge of the high court dies, to pay two months' salary to his widow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the item that covers that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-general administration, $227,368.88.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is an increase of $14,000.


Ernest Lapointe: In the three items that follow there is a large decrease of $72,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At this point the minister might make a short statement indicating the position of the mounted police with respect to the several provinces of Canada. It has been pointed out to me that in Nova Scotia there has been great laxity in the enforcement of the law in connection with what has always been a source of trouble, namely, smuggling. The complaint is that in that province at the present time-I daresay the minister has seen it in the press-alcohol is doctored, bottled

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
and sold as rum; that regular routes are established, and that this has been injurious to the well-being of the community at large, the practice having, moreover, become so prevalent that the present force is unable to cope with it.


Ernest Lapointe: As regards policing the provinces, we are doing only our own work in British Columbia. In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba we are doing provincial work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the agreements that have been in force for some time?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. In Ontario and Quebec we have our own work under federal statutes, and under agreement we are doing work in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. I am aware of the trouble that has taken place in Nova Scotia and the complaints that have been made regarding the enforcement of statutes, especially in connection with liquor smuggling. I am advised, however, that during the last few months there have been more seizures and convictions than at any previous time, and a reorganization is being effected. I do not know whether Mr. Mead has been appointed yet, but the intention is to send him to that province. He has been doing in Montreal effective work of the kind that is necessitated in Nova Scotia. He is going there some time this summer to take charge, and it is hoped that he will do the same excellent work that he has done in Montreal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that covers the question which I asked. My information is that there are fifty-two cases, of which I think I could give evidence if required, in which liquor has been landed at ports in Nova Scotia, having been really smuggled in. The minister says that he has been aware of the complaints, just as I am, and probably from the same source. For my part I should think that what he proposes to do in an endeavour to remedy the situation should be given the needed opportunity to demonstrate its usefulness, and if it is not effective, then will be the time for further criticism.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, the fact that we are sending the chief of the Montreal branch to that province is no reflection upon the officers there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is prima facie evidence of an intention to do the best one can.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Some time ago the minister indicated that it was the intention to investigate the complaints of espionage activities in Canada under the cloak of fascist
organization. I have seen photostat copies of letters placed in the hands of agents of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police showing that operatives are active within Canadian borders and to some extent linked up with espionage activities recently exposed in the United States. There has been considerable evidence to show that an attempt has been made to smuggle small arms into Canada, and all this has been done under the cloak of fascist organization. Can the minister make a short statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the minister
answers, I should like to say a word. A large number of documents have been sent to me, and if they are accurate they indicate clearly that there have been great activities in this dominion extending from the central provinces west. The peculiar activities touch perhaps more closely the Department of National Defence. It is not that it is regarded as likely that any effort will be made, for instance, to deal with the man power of the country, but is rather to prevent the industrial activity of the country from being made productive in munitions of war in the event of our having to produce such munitions. It is clear, for instance, that the turn of a screw might put out of commission an extremely valuable machine and render it impossible for that machine to function. The removal of a very small piece of machinery might render the whole incapable of work for a considerable time. Whether I can attach credence to these documents in their entirety I do not know, but certainly there must be considerable activity emanating from Chicago and spreading over this country dealing with conditions in Ottawa and Montreal, showing a desire to obtain information having to do with conditions in this city, with our aircraft activities, with the work that has been done in our factories. It occurs to me that we should take steps to the extent of our ability to deal with that situation. I was much impressed, when the great war came, with the fact that we laughed at the idea of any such thing as espionage in this country, and we did not take it seriously. Yet within a short time a bridge was destroyed. We were able to trace the matter and ultimately take proceedings in connection with it. The destruction of that bridge indicated a close and accurate knowledge of general conditions in this country. The placing of an explosive at a particular point wrecked the bridge. My information is that a great deal of activity is being carried on; that cameras are very much in use.
In the case I mentioned the other evening respecting a particular individual, I gave such

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
information as I had to one department which was looking into the matter for another purpose. It is clear that the gentleman had a map case, a camera and binoculars, which largely constituted his stock in trade. He worked on a farm in Ontario, and the farmer with whom he worked wrote to me. He then transferred his activities to Montreal. It is not necessary or desirable that I should at this time enter into a discussion of what he did there; that had to do with another branch of the activities of our friends.
If the evidence is to be relied on-I do not wish to say it is wholly reliable-certainly photostat copies of documents which came to me clearly indicate that we have in our midst in this country a condition which we should not tolerate. I trust the minister will see that the police take every step in their power to prevent this from continuing. We should cooperate as far as possible with the United States, because it is reasonably clear that the master minds that control activities there are also controlling them here. The communications to which I refer were directed to Chicago, and the difficulties that had to 'be overcome to obtain the information were great. It is desirable that we should not have any condition prevailing which would render ineffective any measures we might desire to take, or which would cripple our hands if we desired to use our army or air force for our own defence in time of peril. I was struck by reports as to what had been done in some of the great industrial organizations. No one thinks for a moment that there is an effort to cripple our man power in the large sense, but there appears to be an effort to cripple those productive machines on which in mechanized war the people must rely for their defence.


Ernest Lapointe: In answer, first to the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), I may say the communications he has received have also been received by me and by the department, and inquiries have been made. This allegation that people in Montreal who call themselves fascists were drilling and having arms arose, first, through statements in the press from boastings on the part of the so-called leaders, seekers after publicity more than anything else, that they had 25,000, 30,000 and, some were cheerful enough to say, 75,000 adherents. The number is much less than that. Well-intentioned people, even eminent gentlemen, by believing that sort of thing and giving expression to fear about it, are rather playing into the hands of those so-called fascist leaders who seek publicity. It is the same 
with the communists; they want publicity; if they do not get it they disappear. They live on it. We found that there was nothing as far as those allegations as to arms are concerned. Some of these people congregate in large numbers with all the paraphernalia, shirts-I do not know whether black or brown; it is foolish anyway-and make gestures and that sort of thing. They do, fifteen or twenty or twenty-five of them, what they call military exercises, just stand at attention and walk. There is nothing very dangerous about it, except that they make inflammatory speeches, denouncing many public men, particularly your humble servant. One of them said at a meeting that when they take office the first Jew that will be expelled from Canada will be Ernest Lapointe. But this does not prevent me from sleeping at night.
As far as reports that they were importing arms are concerned, these were sent to us by certain gentlemen, who were found by the agents of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be members of the communist party. We followed the hints and suggestions that were given to us from those men, but at the last moment the people were always disappearing, and the police officers who went to the places indicated discovered that there was nothing there. So the denunciations of those gentlemen will not be taken very seriously in the future unless they are supported by something more definite.
My remarks in that regard apply both to communists and fascists. They live on publicity, notoriety; they like it to be said that there are 50,000, 100,000 of them; that they are going to have candidates everywhere at the next general election-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may account for the Kingston riots.


Ernest Lapointe: It may. But I implore my fellow citizens not to be alarmed by these reports which are given to the press and at meetings by people who want to be considered big men and important factors in the national life. If we judged by press reports, Montreal is a place where we are in serious danger from both sides, fascists and communists. Let me tell hon. members that we are not afraid of them there. The population is too sane to be carried away by those crazy appeals. On the other hand I may assure the committee that the police and the secret service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have the situation well in hand. If anything of a serious nature, or suggesting any danger, should happen, these people will find that Canada is not a place where such things can be carried on without interference by the police.

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not touch my question.


Ernest Lapointe: In reference to the subject matter of the remarks of my right hon. friend, while it would not be in the public interest to divulge what steps are being taken, or by which department, there again I can assure him that the situation is being looked after and is well in hand.
I do not and we do not minimize the possible danger of the situation which my right hon. friend has depicted; we will collaborate and are collaborating not only with the United States but also with the British authorities in that respect.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am not attempting to exaggerate the importance of the fascist organization; but the situation took a different turn when a number of individuals were indicted during the grand jury sessions in the United States recently where, as I am informed, it was definitely shown that there was a relationship between those activities in the United States and similar activities in and around our important airports in Canada. I am asking the minister to exercise some restraint on organizations professing fascism, but which actually are commonly used as a cloak for espionage activities on the part of agents of foreign governments. May I ask if there has been some cooperation between the departments of Canada and the United States in this regard?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: So that these individuals may not cross the border and embarrass us with their activities?


Ernest Lapointe: I quite understand what my hon. friend has in view. For a time this session I considered the introduction of legislation similar to that enacted in Great Britain a couple of years ago, prohibiting parading in uniform for political purposes. I did not recommend it to the government, however, because I thought really it was giving too much importance to these people. There is some danger of doing that, and it is just what they want. If necessary, however, I shall be pleased to submit legislation of that kind to parliament if this movement increases; but in spite of the boasts appearing in their own little newspapers, my information, based upon facts ascertained by our agents, is that, instead of the movement spreading, the leaders find it difficult to gather at their meetings the same number of people who were attracted there by curiosity at first. However, we are looking after the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it were not for the fact that I think every member of the committee should have a clear appreciation of the possible seriousness of the matter to which the hon. member for Vancouver North has referred, as well as the statement I have made,
I should have been content merely to leave it to a private conversation with the minister. But I think every member of the committee should have some conception of what I regard as the seriousness of the situation.


Ernest Lapointe: The subject matter of the remarks of my right hon. friend is much more important.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must say that in the main I do not disagree with the minister in the other matters to which he has referred; but with respect to the question of espionage and spies, in the Niagara area, shall I say, the evidence submitted to me indicated that an effort was being made to bring over three hundred revolvers, and the person named upon whom they were to rely to effect the transfer across the border enjoyed the reputation of a well known bootlegger and smuggler, whatever that may mean.
I mention that now in this committee not because I do not think the minister is seized with the seriousness of it, or because I do not know that at least one other department, if not more, is concerned about it, but because I think it desirable that every member of the committee should hear the statement the minister has made, and that the members of the committee, when they leave here, should have a clear appreciation of just what may be involved. I think the statement of the minister will do much to help all of us realize, as we in this country should realize, that there is a possibility of this becoming a serious matter, though in the main we have always treated these questions as being unworthy of very serious attention. From what has taken place in the United States it now appears that something of the same sort is going on in at least some parts of this country, and if once we make it known in this public way that this is not to be permitted to continue with impunity, I think that in itself will have a very salutary effect; for I am satisfied that if the police and other branches of government departments take the matter in hand, we can adequately deal with it.


Mr. WALSH:: I want to assure the hon.
member for Vancouver North that what the Minister of Justice has said in connection with the fascist movement in the district of Montreal and the province of Quebec is quite correct. The so-called leaders of that

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
movement, particularly in the district of Montreal, are in no way leaders in the real sense of that term. They are men of very ordinary talent who love to wear a uniform of some distinctive character; and finding no other possible way of wearing such a uniform except through the medium of a movement such as this fascist movement, they don that uinform and pretend to be leaders. Now they are even quarrelling among themselves as to which is the actual leader and which the captain of this so-called movement, which has very little significance in the province of Quebec. It has been given wide publicity outside that province, much to the detriment of Quebec, but conditions have been very much exaggerated even in comparison with what they were at the maximum of their intensity.
A year or two ago I think we instituted something in the way of a cadet scheme or a training system for prospective members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I know there is a training school at Regina; but this system was introduced in order to train young men as prospective members of the police, or at least to give them the training which would be necessary to permit them to become established in that force. I was wondering if that effort had been pursued to any great extent. I think it was an excellent move. Even if it is not possible to absorb these young men into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, they have been excellently trained for other purposes, and may be trained to such an extent that they could find places in the service of a provincial or municipal government, or even with industrial plants. The training they would receive under a cadet system or the training system of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would not only fit them for that force, but fit them admirably for a position elsewhere in life. I was wondering if that system, instituted at one time, was meeting with any favourable progress, or whether it had been discontinued.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree
with what the hon. member has stated with regard to the excellence of the initiative taken to train some young men as prospective members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Last year at a certain time there were 300, and I believe the average was about 175 or 180. I am not sure that this will be done this year, as the money at our disposal is being used for additional reinforcements in some parts of the country. However, the idea is not at all abandoned, and the hon. member may be sure that not only are his remarks taken in good part, but when occasion arises they will be acted upon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the present
numbers of the mounted police, all ranks?


Ernest Lapointe: There
are 2,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $5,036,172.87.
Mr. MITCHELL:: In connection with allowances for married men in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is special allowance given a married man in a division who is living in a city, and not on detachment?


Ernest Lapointe: The matter is being seriously considered, but no decision has yet been reached.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-further amount required, $23,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Why was this additional amount required?


Ernest Lapointe: It covers repairs to a boat in the far north.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Chief electoral officer-salaries and expenses of office, $16,960.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Was it in the office of the chief electoral officer in which an assistant, who has nothing to do, was placed, at a salary of $3,000?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: May I point out that this vote and the one coming later in connection with the dominion franchise commissioner will be affected by the legislation adopted this afternoon. These offices have been operating since April 1, and after careful consideration we have decided to leave the estimates as they are. The bill provides that an additional three months will be required before the new measure can be enforced and the forms printed. Another section of the bill provides that some parts of it may be enforced only after proclamation. So it is expected that for at least two-thirds of the fiscal year the offices will be kept separately. Of course the major salaries are not voted, but are statutory. When the section carrying the new salary of the chief electoral officer is in force, the salary will automatically be increased from $6,000 to $8,000. In the same way, when the dominion

Supply-State
franchise commissioner's office has been dispensed with, the salary and other statutory provisions will be eliminated.
So far as the salaries to be voted are concerned, we expect the chief electoral officer, for the few months he may be left alone, will be able to carry on with the money asked for in the present vote. If necessary, we may meet an emergency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked whether the
assistant to the chief electoral officer is still continuing in office. That is the officer who, during the term of the last government, was not appointed, and there was no necessity for him during the three years prior to 1930. But shortly after the last election in 1935 an appointment was made. What has he been doing since?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I must say that statement is correct; but at the time I took the stand- and I still take it-that this office being composed of a small staff, it was desirable that the chief electoral officer be represented in his office by an assistant, should the chief officer find it necessary to be busy outside the office. At the time Mr. Castonguay made strong demands for an assistant, and was able to convince me that one was necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it was the other way about.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: During this session Mr. Castonguay has been busy before the committee on electoral matters, and I know the fact that the office has not been closed because Mr. Castonguay was called outside has been appreciated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see; there is a staff to keep the door open.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion franchise commissioner-salaries and expenses of office, $11,680.
Grote Stirling: What does the government propose to do with those civil servants who were occupied in the franchise office, from the commissioner himself and his assistants down?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am sorry I cannot give a precise reply to that question; but as regards the smaller offices, I have no doubt it will be very easy to absorb these employees either with the chief officer if the work demands it, or in other departments of the government. As to the dominion franchise commissioner, I am very sorry I am not in a position to say what the government will be able to recommend, but I might point out
that the disposition of that office is not with the government but with parliament through its committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public archives-general administration, and to provide, notwithstanding the terms of the Civil Service Act or any other act or law, for payment of an honorarium of $1,000 to J. F. Kenney as a recognition of his services as acting dominion archivist-further amount required, $4,000.
Mr. MALLETTE (Translation):: I have a question to ask the minister and a bit of advice to offer him, if he will kindly listen to me. The Public Archives Department publishes each year a most interesting report, but in addition it publishes from time to time special reports which should be better known to the public. I refer particularly to the work entitled Constitutional Documents whose authors are Messrs. Short and Doughty. These volumes have been published three times. The first English edition was brought out in 1907, with a French translation in 1911; the second English edition was published in 1914, with a French translation in 1915, and the third1 and last edition was printed in English in 1918 and in French in 1921. I have tried to obtain copies for every school in my constituency, but I was told that the quantity available did not permit of a public distribution. I managed, however, to get three copies of the series-one English and two French. I placed them in three of the principal schools of my constituency.
It is my opinion that this work should be reprinted with a view to being placed in the hands of all educators and of all citizens who take an interest in Canadian history. I do not expect the minister to promise this very evening to have these volumes reprinted immediately, but I ask him to give favourable consideration to my request in order that, copies may be obtained next year.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I thank my hon. friend for his compliments which I shall convey to my departmental officers. As to his request, I have to point out to him that the books to which he refers are somewhat important and fairly expensive. However, I shall consult my officers and see what can be done to meet my hon. friend's request.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a very dangerous precedent to establish,, and one which we have hesitated during all these years to establish, namely, that when an official during a vacancy discharges the duties of chief, he
Supply-State

should be compensated when an appointment is made by giving him some further amount. We have steadily taken the opposite view; but now and then where very arduous work had to be looked after, involving great responsibility, such a provision has been made. I can, however, recall many cases in which it was refused on the advice of those who had to deal with matters of this kind, that it was a dangerous precedent to establish. I think, if the item had been worded differently, it probably would have more correctly and adequately expressed the facts.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I can only say that I was glad that my recommendation in this instance was accepted by the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be difficult to justify it on that ground.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public printing and stationery-distribution of official documents, $44,100.
Harry James Barber: Why the increase in this item ?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In the new form of preparing the estimates, two clerks, who were usually shown under the general vote, have been transferred to this vote, so it is not really an increase. My hon. friend will find there is a decrease, not quite so large, in the departmental administration vote, but the difference is accounted for by the restora-ation of the five per cent salary deduction. Item agreed to.
Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $40,000.


Harry James Barber: What is the revenue from the sale of these publications ?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I regret that the king's printer is not here. Perhaps my hon. friend will allow the item to pass, and I can give him the information in the morning. This is the usual amount voted every year.


Harry James Barber: In the details I see an item of $32,363 for "printing, etc., for sale," and I was wondering what the receipts were.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The revenue for the ten months prior to January 31, 1938, from the sale of publications to departments, was $4,720.18, and from the sale of publications to the public, $32,725.31. The sale of publications to the departments is rather a bookkeeping item than an asset, but the revenue from the public is $32,725, so the service practically pays for itself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Public printing and stationery-Plant-repairs and renewals-further amount required $20,000. '
Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the plant become obsolete between the date of the main estimates and the supplementaries?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No. For two or three years we have voted only $10,000 a year for repairs to carry on the plant. In the old days the vote for repairs and renewals was from $25,000 to $30,000 and even more. Naturally we have reached a point where we find that we must renew certain of the machines of the printing bureau, and this vote is destined to meet that need.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope it reaches its "destiny."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naturalization branch, $62,180.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The small increase in these different branches is mainly due to the restoration of the five per cent salary deduction and the statutory increases.


Harry James Barber: What was the increase in the naturalizations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many were naturalized last year?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There are four new clerks in the branch. The amount for temporary assistance has been reduced by nearly $3,000.


Harry James Barber: The question I asked was, What was the increase in the number of those naturalized in the past year? Perhaps the minister could give the numbers by nationalities.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There are different sections under which naturalization is granted. The main one, of course,, which provides the normal procedure, is section 4. In 1936 there were 17,339 naturalizations; and in 1937, the last year for which we have figures, 15,831. Naturalizations under section 5 numbered eighty-nine in 1936, compared with seventy-two in 1937. Those are special cases. Sections 6, 7 and 8 apply to small numbers. As regards section 13, dealing with the naturalization of women, in 1936 there were 5,914 and in 1937, 7,590. This is one of the sections effected by an amendment of the act some years ago requiring the separate naturalization of women.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Companies branch, $48,360.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Have any steps been taken by the government looking towards the supervision of companies as indicated in some of the addresses which were made in 1935?

Supply-State
The minister will recollect that under orders in council certain powers were entrusted to administrative officers, and I desire to know whether any action has been taken looking towards a more effective supervision of companies and their capital structures.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understand we have in the supplementary estimates an amount covering that, establishing a special bureau.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bureau for translations, $281,130.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The large increase in the translations bureau item is due mostly to the fact that, carrying on the policy-I will admit -of the former government, and of the present one, we have transferred quite a number of translators from other departments to the bureau for translations-three from labour, two from mines and resources, six from national defence, three from trade and commerce and one from transport; in all, fifteen translators and clerks connected with translations, which accounts for most of the increase in that branch. The activity otherwise of the bureau has been very great on account of the number of reports which have issued from different commissions during the course of the year. I think this item will commend itself to the committee inasmuch as it is not really an increase as much as a transfer from other departments. I just wish to add that if you find occasionally in estimates of other departments the word " translator," it relates mostly to cases where the translation work is mixed with some other work. For instance, the patent records has an auditor who is still voted for under the caption of translator, but he is not really a translator. The same applies to one of my archivists in the archives branch. It is the policy of the present Secretary of State and the government to transfer under the bureau for translations all translators in the service, and when possible to give a different name to those who, not being translators, should not be designated as such.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is another striking instance of hon. gentlemen opposite having found, in office, the utility of the legislation passed when they were in opposition and which they opposed. It is gratifying.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is again an occasion upon which I am glad that I have been able to convince some of my colleagues.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite. I would think the minister's time is mostly taken up in convincing his colleagues of the justice of his recommendations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Temperance Act, $5,000.
Harry James Barber: Will the minister explain this item?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The Canada Temperance Act? I thought everybody knew that. This is an old act which is still on the statutes but is of application now only in three or four counties in the dominion. One is in Quebec- the city of Thetford Mines, I think it is- one in Ontario, Manitoulin, and a couple of counties in Manitoba. The amount is voted because in one of these counties the desire was expressed to have a referendum to do away with the operation of the act in that county. As I say, this is to provide for that, but there has been no expenditure in that direction for the last few years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And no difficulty in
convincing the minister's colleagues on that point!


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent and Copyright office-branch administration, $34,285.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There is no change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent division, $143,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister made any arrangement in connection with the patent office? He will recall that I mentioned to him some time ago-and doubtless he has convinced his colleagues of it by this time- that it was desirable to make some necessary changes there, or at least to provide for additional help to take care of the overcrowded office in which patents were pending, including patents for providing estimates for the public service.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have given special care to that matter. If it were not for this late stage of the session, I have here a voluminous report from which, if I quoted from it, I would appear very wise. I have visited the patent office, and I may say, not for the sake of myself or the government so much as on behalf of the officers, who are loyal, that I found there was no vault in the patent office. They are cramped for space, and instead of there being a very large room in which all the patent records could be contained, some are downstairs, some are on the first floor, others even in the corridor, and therefore it takes a longer time to get at the different numbers required. For the same reason it has not been found possible to increase the number of clerks to the extent that we would

Supply-State

have desired, although we had three new ones last year and are providing for two or three this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nowhere to put them.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is exactly the point. We have been in communication with the Minister of Public Works and are securing an additional place in the adjoining building, but that will be only a temporary remedy. When the Post Office Department moves into the new building I hope it will be possible to accommodate the patent office as adequately as it should be. We have been gaining ground, and without going into detail I may say that I am giving to that particular branch of the service my very best attention.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: The minister might explain the increase of $10,000.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is to meet the required number of additional clerks that I have indicated, but part of it is due to other items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Companies branch-further amount required, $6,800.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is to establish a new branch of securities information, to which I alluded a moment ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the proposed nature of that branch? This becomes important, and I should be greatly obliged if the minister would indicate the plans he contemplates.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This new division of the
companies branch is to deal with the compilation and interchange of information relating to corporations, and issues of securities, also assistance and cooperation in connection with securities fraud legislation. At the meeting of the dominion-provincial committee on company law convened by the Secretary of State on Tuesday, November 3, 1936, it was unanimously recommended that such a bureau be established. The next year that desire was expressed again in the following terms:-
There should be established by the government of Canada a central bureau for the collection and distribution of information relating to promotions, records, persons and administrative activities in respect to securities. To this bureau each provincial body administering its securities act will report refusals, suspensions and cancellations for cause, with its reasons, and other relevant data. As the object is to secure interprovineial and provincial-federal cooperation for the prevention of fraud in this field, it is recommended that steps be taken to secure the exchange of views and information and to make other cooperative arrangements between the proposed bureau and the securities and exchange commission of the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point which I had hoped might be dealt with is not covered either by the memorandum the minister has read, or by this appropriation. The question I raised was as to the exercise of some effective supervision over the issue of securities by companies. This only locks the door after the horse is stolen; it only enables the department to maintain a bureau for the interchange of information. What we were seeking was a statement as to the attitude of the department towards effective supervision of the issue of the securities themselves by dominion companies. As the minister will recall, that matter has been the subject of much discussion, regarding the type and nature of securities that must be issued. It is clear that this item does not cover that, but deals rather with the establishment of a central clearing house of information in accordance with the recommendation made by the members constituting the body known, I believe, as the commission on uniform legislation and interprovineial laws, which meets at the same time as the Canadian Bar Association.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bureau for translations-further amount required, $8,460.
Grote Stirling: There was a very large increase in temporary assistants in the main estimates, and now the minister is asking for $8,000 more. Will he explain that?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: As I said when we were on the main item, there has been a vast amount of translation going on this year, and we have not been able to catch up with the work although the bureau has been working very hard. This is all intended for temporary assistance, printing and sundries, and is not meant to be added permanently to the bureau for translations. It is merely to conclude the work of the present session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Adjustment of war claims, $12,000.
Harry James Barber: The minister might explain this.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is not, as might be surmised, for the payment of additional war claims. That office was closed years ago. The amount is asked for by the Department of Justice to meet possible legal fees in an appeal lodged before the supreme court in the famous case of Rex v. Logan. It may or may not be expended, but the department has

Supply-Indian Affairs
asked us to provide the amount in case it is. The appeal being against us, naturally we have to respond to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs branch-Medical Indian hospitals and general care of Indians, $1,218,916.
Mr. PERLEY:: There is an increase in
the vote. I understand there is a request to build an addition to or to make improvements in the hospital at Fort Qu'Appelle or else at Le Bret. Can the minister make a statement?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is nothing in the
vote for increased facilities at the hospital mentioned by the hon. member. The increase is due almost entirely to the increased amount appropriated for the treatment of tuberculosis among the Indians, looking to a program of eradication. That explains the increase in the vote, but it is not intended this year to increase facilities at the hospital in question.


George Halsey Perley: Is it proposed to increase facilities at Le Bret in connection with the Indian school or to take care of suspects or carriers?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The matter is under consideration, but there is nothing provided for it this year. It may receive consideration next year if it is found possible.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am glad to see the
increase for this purpose, but could the minister tell us briefly the nature of the increased services to the Indians for the eradication of tuberculosis?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is done in cooperation with the provincial departments of health, and consists mainly of surveys in Indian schools, particularly in the older settled communities. Those surveys are made largely by the clinics of tlie provincial governments. That work was started a year ago on a very modest scale; the increased vote this year permits an extension. If there is more than sufficient money to care for the program in the schools, the work will be extended to some of the more necessitous cases on reserves adjacent to white communities.


Harry James Barber: Is it under this vote that,
buildings are erected or provision made at the different schools to take care of cases which are under suspicion?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The vote covers Indian
hospitals.


Harry James Barber: The minister told us that
this had to do with inspection of schools; that the provincial authorities send out their medical men and carry on these clinics at the Indian schools and settlements. Is provision made at each of these schools to take care of suspects?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not get the import
of my hon. friend's question before. The matter presents some difficulty. An effort is being made where possible to segregate Indian children who are active tubercular cases where they can receive treatment and possibly some instruction at the same time. We hope to make some progress this year, perhaps by taking one school and centring the active tubercular cases in it for treatment. But it is not intended under this vote to build institutions for the care of tubercular cases.


Harry James Barber: Is it not being done at the present time and for the past two years at Coqualeetza school at Sardis, and St. Mary's school at Mission City?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There are a few cases
where preventoria have been built. These are for cases that may be potential spreaders of the disease among other children. These cases are isolated in the preventoria. That may be extended in a few instances this year.


Harry James Barber: I understand that has been very successful at these points. As soon as a child in the school is under suspicion, it is removed to the preventorium, and in discussion with the medical men they speak very highly of the policy and recommend that it should be continued and extended.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There will be a few of
those preventoria opened again this year for that purpose. I think there is one at Alert Bay, British Columbia, and one at Fort Alexander in Manitoba.


James Joseph McCann: The problem of tuberculosis among the Indians is one which, I am sure, is engaging the attention of the department. It has for a long time engaged the attention of the Canadian Tuberculosis Association and of organized medicine. I should like to place before the committee a memorandum setting out the viewpoint of organized medicine with reference to the problem of tuberculosis particularly among the Indians.
Last year in Canada there were 6,763 deaths from tuberculosis. Of that number 748 were among the Indian population. That is, 11 per cent of the deaths in this country
Si ipp ly-In dian Affairs

from tuberculosis occurred among the Indian population. That figures out at twelve times as many per 100,000 of population among the Indians as among the white people. That means that the Indian death rate, which was ten times as many in 1936, has now risen to twelve times as many per 100.000 as among the white population. This is the memorandum :
The medical services of the Indian Affairs branch, however complete they may be and deserving of commendation in other ways are singularly lacking and inadequate in the matter of control of tuberculosis. A more aggressive policy is absolutely necessary to solve this problem. A comprehensive and progressive program is long overdue. These observations are based upon the following facts:
1.	The Canadian people have failed in their duty to 112,000 Indians as long as they are denied facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis to the same degree as they are available for the white population.
2.	The failure to control tuberculosis in the Indian population is hampering the program among the white population. Canadian provinces have assumed responsibility for tuberculosis control in their white population and they are complaining of the handicap due to the lack of an aggressive policy on the part of the dominion government for the Indian.
3.	The provincial health departments feel that it is unfair and inexcusable that a menace is allowed to exist in a section of the population within their boundaries which is not subject to the same measures of control that the provinces have found necessary to establish for the remainder of their people.
4.	Considerable sums of money are spent every year on education, relief and general medical services for Indians, but little is spent on tuberculosis, the Indians' chief cause of death, and by far the greatest cause of illness in the Indian population.
There are two reasons why a policy of tuberculosis control has not been initiated. We propose to discuss these and to suggest in a general way their remedies.
1.	Sufficient money has never been voted by parliament to make a worth while program possible. It is urged that the usual appropriation be supplemented by a sum of $300,000, the minimum required for a general tuberculosis program, and that in addition $200,000 be voted for a two year construction program to provide accommodation in areas where no facilities are available.
2.	Those under whose jurisdiction the Indians fall have told us that a reasonable long term policy with respect to Indian tuberculosis has not yet been enunciated. We would like to state that methods of control of tuberculosis in the white population are now clearly outlined and accepted and are being followed with outstanding success. The methods that should be followed in the Indian population can be no less clearly outlined. Their application may require some adaptation to Indian conditions, but the fundamental principles are the same.
In the campaign against tuberculosis in the white population it has become necessary to

define clearly the relative importance of predisposing and exciting causes of tuberculosis. It is our belief, that in the past, undue importance has been attributed to racial susceptibility, climate, diet and other environmental factors. This has served to becloud the real issue, namely that tuberculosis is a communicable disease, in the same way that leprosy, typhoid fever or smallpox are communicable diseases.
Measures to improve the housing, diet and other environmental status of the Indian are worthy of commendation but these measures will fail unless the communicable nature of the disease is recognized, and measures taken to control the spread of infection. The tubercle bacillus, always was, is and always will be the cause of tuberculosis, and hence direct measures are necessary to localize or segregate the germ. These measures will have far more value than indirect methods which are unavailing in the presence of massive infection by tubercle bacilli. Tuberculosis comes from tuberculosis.
We believe that the main reason why the Indian is polluted with tuberculosis is because he is conceived, born, educated, lives and dies in an atmosphere of tuberculosis. This atmosphere of tuberculosis infection wras grafted upon the Indian by his first contact with white settlers and has continued ever since.
When one realizes that the white population of this country has been the source of tuberculosis among the Indian population, it becomes clear and definite that the obligation is upon the government of this country to see to it that the Indians, who are their wards and for whom we have a contractual and moral obligation, are given the attention which they deserve for this disease in particular.
Whatever possibilities of escaping from this menace were possible when the Indian lived an open, nomadic life, were removed when he became firmly established on reserves. The faults of environment which have developed may have served to aggravate but are not the real cause of tuberculosis.
It is common knowledge that the Indian has never been given the means to protect himself from this menace in the same manner that has been afforded the more fortunate white population. A policy of tuberculosis control should recognize these facts as fundamental and the lines to be followed based on the most practicable and reasonable manner in which this lack can be overcome.
The policy of control should proceed from two premises:
1.	That the recognition or diagnosis of the disease is necessary wherever it exists in the Indian population. It was imperative that these diagnostic facilities be developed for the white population. This service should be made available for the Indian population also. Provincial clinics are even now available and are being utilized in a limited way but could be made more useful by proper organization. This requires the addition of trained personnel on the staff of the Indian affairs branch to coordinate and organize these diagnostic facilities.

Supply-Indian Affairs
I just wonder if any progress has been made during the last year towards the setting up of any such branch in the department.
It requires the addition of one or more physicians trained in tuberculosis to organize this work among the Indians in Canada. It is suggested that it requires one for the east and one for the west.
Such a system would lead to the proper notification and recording of tuberculosis on the Indian reserves. This is the foundation for a tuberculosis control program for any community or group of people.
2.	The next is that some action be taken in regard to cases of tuberculosis that are found to exist. This should be done by training. supervision, treatment or segregation.
We believe that in by far the greater number of recognized cases, some action could be taken that would gradually lessen the incidence of infection. This might be brought about in several ways and we offer the following suggestions that could be followed depending on the type of case that is found to exist:
1.	In the school. The age of greatest incidence of tuberculosis in the Indian is in the 'teen age group in contrast to the white where it is greatest in the 20-30 group.
I would direct that particularly to the attention of the minister, that the greatest incidence of tuberculosis in Indians is in the school age group, whereas the greatest incidence in the population other than Indian is between the ages of twenty to thirty. That elearty brings to mind the necessity of tackling this problem in the schools.
For this reason coordinated diagnostic services of the provincial tuberculosis clinics and the trained diagnostic staff of the Indian affairs branch should regularly examine the school children at yearly intervals. Cases of tuberculosis would thus be recognized and dealt with in two ways:
(a)	By removing open spreaders to a sanatorium or hospital.
(b)	Minimal early cases who are potential spreader's could be economically cared for in separate schools or divisions of existing schools where their education could be continued. They do not require expensive care.
In this connection this policy is already in operation by the Indian affairs branch in a limited way. It is found to be feasible, and has already shown evidence of controlling and reducing tuberculosis in the school population. It is the one bright spot in an otherwise dark picture. But it cannot be successful without further measures to control infection on the reserves. In the past some of these children have been sent back to the reserves to receive further infection and in turn to infect the pre-school population.
2.	On the reserves. Extension of the diagnostic services will bring to light the extent of the problem in the general reserve population. Cases that are so discovered should then be dealt with. Surveys are useless unless followed up. It seems reasonable that these will fall into several groups:
(a) Those that cannot be dealt with in any way but on the reserves. These will be the
older members of the band in whom old customs and traditions are so strongly ingrained that they either cannot be persuaded or that it would be inhumane to suggest that they be removed from the reserve. Some determined effort must be made on the reserve by Indian agents, medical officers, or health nurses, to provide as much segregation as possible. We recognize the old objections that will be raised that it is impossible but it can and must be done as it has been done even in slum areas in the white population. This requires a particular type of nurse with aptitude and training. In this connection, public health officials and tuberculosis officers maintain that there is a field for public health nurses and that they can make a contribution to this problem at a relatively small cost. They maintain that the limited staff of nurses employed by the Indian affairs branch prior to 1932 were doing creditable and worthwhile work. It is our belief that this avenue of attack should be further explored.
(b) The actual segregation of those in which this line should be followed. The segregation of tuberculous patients is a weapon believed to be most powerful in controlling tuberculosis in any community be it white, black or Indian. It is our considered opinion that the Indian affairs branch should treat and maintain in tuberculosis institutions that have been established, or that are feasible to establish, a reasonable number of tuberculous Indians for the protection of the whole Indian population. Experience will determine the number that should be so treated, but for the present a minimum of two hundred should be segregated. This will first include cases from those parts of Canada where the Indian population is in close contact with white people, and hence will contribute to the solution of the problem in both the white and Indian communities.
This group will include young Indians who are at present health minded and are asking for such treatment, cases from large families where there are numbers of contacts, hopeful eases that can be cured, intelligent Indians whose education and sanitary habits will have some effect in raising the .standards of the Indian generally. To deny that this is possible is a negation of the assumption that there is any use whatever in the policy of the Indian affairs branch of education of the Indian in any capacity.
The question of where this segregation should be given is an important one. It is natural and logical, just as it is in the white population, that this treatment and segregation be carried out as near as possible to the population it serves. This leads us to the question of reserve hospitals, or small so-called cottage sanitoria. If the Indians were in sufficiently large groups that these institutions might be practicable or economically possible this would undoubtedly be advisable. Its value has already been demonstrated by the Indian hospital at Fort Qu'Appelle, and other Indian hospitals easily accessible to reserves where already a certain number of tuberculous patients have been successfully segregated, and have been persuaded to remain for treatment with a minimum of difficulty. A satisfactory number of these cases have made a successful recovery. It is possible that in some instances this could
Supply-Indian Affairs

be adopted where there are large aggregations of Indians, but it is also true that where there are large aggregations of Indians beds are available in provincial sanitoria, such as Ontario and Saskatchewan, and a policy of duplicating these beds might receive serious objection as to the advisability of spending public funds in their construction. For the many scattered small Indian reserves local cottage sanitoria would seem to be out of the question.
Some general observations which would appear to influence to some extent the policy of treatment and segregation might be made. One is that considerable differences exist between the Indians east of the great lakes and those to the west of the great lakes. Those east of the great lakes have been longer in contact with the white population, there is a greater admixture of white blood, they approach more nearly to the standards of white man, and what is more important their tuberculosis death rate is less than half of that which obtains in the western provinces.
Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the usefulness of the program which has been carried on east of the great lakes and the lack of program which has not been carried on west of the great lakes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Joseph McCann: There is plenty of time. This is a very important subject, and if this country is going to perform a moral and contractual obligation to the 112,000 Indians in the country, then it is well worth giving some time to the consideration of their health.
For them, segregation and treatment in the white men's sanatoria would seem to be preferable where this can be obtained. There is .also the general observation that control policies will be more difficult to apply to the northern Indians, as they are so much in contact with the white people. For this reason, policies *of control should be instituted first in those parts oif the country where the Indian is in contact with others.
It is our firm conviction after years of thought and discussion that such a policy _ as we have outlined, if pursued over a period of years, would substantially reduce tuberculosis among the Indians. It would remove the growing criticism of the Indian affairs branch and of the Canadian government for what is generally considered a breach of trust in our obligation to a submerged and conquered race.
I should like briefly to summarize the financial requirements for such a program. The figures can be summarized under the following headings: Additional medical personnel, $15,000; extension of nursing service, $20,000; cost of continuation and expansion of school surveys and general diagnostic work, $75,000, and treatment of tuberculous Indians in sanatoria or hospitals, $190,000, making a total cost of $300,000.
These figures have been detailed with respect to the various provinces.
IMr. McCann.]	[DOT]
I wish to emphasize the importance of this particular problem. If one wished to take a selfish view it would be this, that the white population is being continually re-infected from the Indian population, where they are in close contact with one another. The death rate among the Indians is twelve times as great as among the white population. Statistics for last year show that the number of deaths in Canada was 6,763, whereas among the Indians it was 748. In other words, approximately twelve times as many Indians per 100,000 of population died of tuberculosis as died among the whites. Two years ago there were only ten times as many, so that, instead of lessening, the problem is gaining headway.
The Canadian Tuberculosis Association and organized medicine from one end of the country to the other feel, as I said a year ago, that the splendid work which has been done through the years by the organization is being nullified through lack of work on the part of the Indian Affairs branch. I am not criticizing the minister or his officials particularly. I know they find it difficult to persuade the Minister of Finance and other members of the government as to the importance of the problem, and find further difficulty each year in obtaining an appropriation sufficient to combat the disease.
AH I do at this time is to lend a word of [DOT]encouragement to the government, and to express appreciation of the work which has already been inaugurated in the Indian Affairs branch in connection with this phase of the matter. I would wish the minister continued success, and would hope that from year to year he might attack the problem more vigorously and might be successful in obtaining a greater appropriation to carry on the work. I would hope that he might extend the personnel of his department to include trained and efficient experts in tuberculosis, so that he might render a first-class service to those under his care, and so that he might give that measure of protection to the white population living adjacent to the Indian reserves to which they are entitled and of which they are deserving.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) has said, the problem is an extremely important one, and I am grateful to him for the statement he has just made. In view of his experience I am sure any observations from him will be found useful in the department.
When I succeeded in inducing my colleagues to increase the medical vote for the Indians, I did so for the purpose of making an attack on tuberculosis among the Indians. The importance of the problem has not been over-

Supply-Indian Affairs
emphasized by the hon. member. As the committee will recall, a year ago there was a small appropriation for a preliminary survey in some of the Indian schools. That survey revealed an appalling state of affairs in many of the schools.
The vote this year is approximately $300,-
000.	When we gave consideration to the question of how it could be most effectively spent, the department called into consultation the best tuberculosis authorities that we had in each of the provinces, and I wish to state publicly my appreciation of the services that they rendered. The line of attack which the department is now following carries with it the endorsation of these medical authorities who have had to do mainly with tuberculosis problems among the whites in each of the provinces. That program is directed, first, towards the schools where surveys are made, and active cases of tuberculosis, as well as potential spreaders, removed to sanatoria that may be adjacent to the schools. Every effort is made to segregate those who may be a source of infection. The program extends also to treatment in sanatoria of the more active cases from the reserves.
The allocation of the expenditure for this year falls roughly under three or four heads which pretty well coincide with the suggestions made by the hon. member for Renfrew South. It is proposed to add a tuberculosis trained man to the medical staff in the head office administration at Ottawa. The expenditure for medical men and public health nurses associated with the control of tuberculosis amounts to over $14,000; travelling expenses amount to between $10,000 and $11,000. Fees for diagnostic specialists and clinics employed in tuberculosis surveys, on the basis of ten thousand Indians to be examined, account for $30,000. There is a further provision for the examination of pupils who are found to have minimal tuberculosis in the Indian schools, a small allowance, amounting to $45,000 is made for their extra care and for food, over and above the tuition fees. For the maintenance of existing sanatoria and hospitals for Indians suffering from active tuberculosis there is the sum of approximately $190,000. I think it may be said that this is the first definite attack which has been made upon the problem among the Indian population.
As I said a moment ago, we have had the fullest cooperation from the provincial authorities, and certainly my conception of the method to be followed is to work in the closest cooperation possible with the health authorities in all the provinces who have more immediately under their charge the treatment of tuberculosis among the white population. I
think we have made a fair start. It is quite true that more funds could be used if they were available, and it may be found possible to increase the vote next year based on the information we gather in regard to this problem during the present year. I would hope so, because there is no doubt that tuberculosis among the Indians has a definite relationship to the health of the white population. I hope, indeed I am sure, that we shall get satisfactory results from the expenditure we are making this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Medical-grants to hospitals, $5,320.
George Halsey Perley: What hospitals receive part of this grant?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This amount is to pay the salaries of nurses engaged in Indian medical care in the northwest territories.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare and training-welfare of Indians, $975,315.
Harry James Barber: Would the minister explain this vote?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not the break-down of the item, but it has generally to do with welfare work among the Indians, the provision of relief all over Canada for the Indians, food and, in some instances, ammunition, nets for fishing, and the like.


Harry James Barber: In the details given on page 126 of the main estimates I notice an item " repairs to buildings," for which the amount this year is $28,572, whereas last year it was $3,935; also another item " structures and parts (new construction)", for which the amount this year is $29,948, whereas last year it was $8,500. Where are these repairs and construction taking place?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Last year the corresponding items appeared in the special supplementary estimates. It is just the normal expansion of the work, but last year the item was carried in the special supplementaries, and this year the amount appears entirely in the main estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian education, $584,508.
Richard Bedford Bennett: How is this money to be used?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is mainly for day schools.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On what basis?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: For the payment of teachers and supplies for the schools, and, in some instances, the building of new schools.
Supply-Indian Affairs


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought that came under the other vote.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Hon. members will find the details at the bottom of page 126 of the main estimates: Salaries and wages, $304,456; supplies and materials, $79,500; travelling expenses, $13,000. Another large item is assistance to ex-pupils, $24,000; repairs to buildings, $49,688; structures and parts (new construction), $68,920.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants to residential schools, $1,335,975.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: The grant varies in different schools. In some instances it is as low as $150 per school, and in others as high as $200. It depends somewhat on the location of the school. The higher grant is necessary in the northwest territories. Many of these residential schools are in the more remote northern parts of the western provinces, and some in the northwest territories, where the expenses are higher.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Can the minister give the committee a list of the schools there and the amounts allocated to each?
Item stands.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE

[Stage Direction]
By leave of the house the resolutions reported from committee of supply this day were read the second time and concurred in.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 30, 1938