Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I inserted in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday the following motion which perhaps the house will wish to have put through immediately:
That, notwithstanding standing order 15 or any order passed by the house during the present session, on and after Friday, June 11, the order of business from 8 to 9 o'clock p.m. shall be the same on Tuesdays and Fridays as any other sitting day until the end of the session.
I understand the motion has been presented to the leaders of the different parties and that it is agreeable to all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs) :: I desire to table a document known as "Canada at the United Nations, 1947," which is a report on the second1 session of the general assembly of the united nations held in New York, September 16 to November 29, 1947.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved:: That the name of Mr. McKay be substituted for that of Mr. Wright, and that the name of Mr. Moore be substituted for that of Mr. Bentley, on the special committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. McMASTER (High Park) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 342, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. ILSLEY:: Explain.


Mr. McMASTER:: This is a bill to amend the criminal code so that in certain cases an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. FULTON:: How many offences under the criminal code, which might be classed as crimes^ of violence, have been committed by offenders eighteen years of age and under in each of the years 1945. 1946, 1947 and 1948 to date?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Offences against the	1945	1946	1947 Not finalperson	
Offences against prop-	477	489	439erty with violence.	3,457	3,193	2,911Total	3,934	3,682	3,350
1948-No reports to date.
Reports are for the year October 1 to September 30.


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL-INCLUSION OF DIETITIANS, ETC.
Mr. WINKLER:: Has the Department of Labour received a request from the Canadian Dietetic Association^ or any other group within the last month urging that dietitians or others should be included with other professional groups named in Bill 195 namely, medical, dental, architectural engineering, and legal professions?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: The Canadian Dietetic Association submitted a brief to this effect to the standing committee on industrial relations of this house to which the bill was referred for consideration and report. The Department of Labour received a copy of this brief.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	How many American tourists visited Canada each year during the period 1935 to 1947, inclusive?

Flood Relief in British Columbia
2.	During the same period, what amount of money was spent each year in Canada by such tourists?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all letters and other communications that have passed, since January 1, 1947, between the dominion government and each of the provincial governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta relative to the construction of a dam on the South Saskatchewan river and/or the diversion and use of the waters of the South Saskatchewan river within the province of Saskatchewan for irrigation or other uses.


VERDIER V. HOLLER
Mr. LOW:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and documents exchanged between the Department of External Affairs or any officer of that department, and the Montreal law firm of Ho-ward, Holden, Hutchinson, Cliff, Meredith and Collins, between April 1, 1945 and1 October 10, 1945, relative to the case of Verdier versus Holler.


SOURIS RIVER PROJECT
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and documents exchanged between any federal department of government or official and the Saskatchewan government in regard to water conservation or irrigation development on the Souris river, commonly called the Souris river project.


FLOOD CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to give the house the latest information as to the arrangements made between the government of British Columbia and our own government with respect to flood conditions in the Fraser valley.
Since his arrival in Ottawa, Hon. Byron I. Johnson, Premier of British Columbia, has been conferring with the Minister of Finance and other members of the government, as well as myself, regarding arrangements for co-operation between the two governments in meeting the appalling situation in the Fraser valley, which the government has recognized as a national disaster demanding action beyond the resources of the provincial government.
After consideration by the cabinet yesterday, the government agreed to accept financial

liability for measures of relief and rehabilitation arising from the flooding of the Fraser valley, on the following basis:
1.	The costs of temporary emergency relief to be divided equally between the two governments.
2.	The costs of emergency measures already taken or being taken for protecting and strengthening the dikes and for their eventual reconstruction, and for the restoration of the protected lands by the pumping out of flood waters, to be met 75 per cent by the federal government and the remaining 25 per cent by the provincial government.
3.	The costs of rehabilitating the areas affected by the floods to be settled by subsequent agreement between the two governments after receiving a report on the extent of damage from the Fraser Valley relief and rehabilitation commission.
In calculating the federal share of the cost of emergency relief and of protecting and restoring the dikes, it was understood that costs incurred by the federal authorities through the provision of services and supplies and as a result of the employment of the armed services would be taken into account.
Both governments have already directed their representatives, General Hoffmeister and Mr. Hamber, not to permit the working out of detailed arrangements to delay action urgently required to provide adequate emergency relief, or to maintain, to repair or to restore the dikes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the statement the Prime Minister has just read confined exclusively to the Fraser river valley, or will the same terms be extended to cover all areas throughout the province which are suffering damage from floods?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My statement relates to floods in the Fraser river valley only.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then are any discussions under way or were any discussions held with respect to damage occasioned in other areas?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; other
areas have been considered, and matters with respect to them are still open. This is a statement on the agreement at the moment between the two parties.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: I havei received a report from Colonel Snow, commanding officer of the Vancouver area, who has been co-ordinating activities in connection with efforts to control the flood and provide relief in the Fraser valley. From this it appears that the situation is not yet out of the critical stage.

Flood Relief in British Columbia
Within the next two days we should know whether conditions are definitely on the mend or are likely to be considerably worse.
In view of the fact that in the United States they have had much more experience in flood control, particularly in connection with the Mississippi system, the flood control committee in Vancouver, with the concurrence of Colonel Snow, suggested that it would be useful to have the advice of American experts on the situation. Accordingly, at the request of the Premier of British Columbia, I made arrangements under which Colonel L. H. Hewitt, of the United States army, and two civilian engineers, Mr. John Monarch and Mr. Raymond Bracelin, were flown to Vancouver and yesterday inspected the dikes at Chilliwack and Vedder canal. We are greatly indebted to them for this service. Colonel Snow reports: "A number of suggestions were offered but general comment was that men in charge of dike work knew their job." They are looking over the situation in other areas.
At the present time, in addition to the naval and air force personnel engaged, there are 1,225 active and 1,359 reserve force army personnel, with another 500 active force on the way from the prairie command. Some of the reserve force men have been at work night and day for more than two weeks. Hon. members will agree that this is a very real contribution to meet a national emergency. It also represents a considerable contribution on the part of employers who would like to see their men back. Our intention is to release reserve personnel just as soon as the situation is in hand. In the meantime, I appeal to their employers to see the job through, as the men themselves are doing.
A rumour has been brought to my attention that several federal government employees have been told that the time they are spending on relief work will count against their holidays. On the authority of the cabinet I can tell the house that this is not so. Another rumour has reached me that an employer has laid off men because they were out with the reserves working on relief. I do not believe this; but if it were true I would think public opinion would be a sufficient corrective. No man should lose either job or holidays because he has been helping to meet a national emergency.


Mr. REID:: Following the statement by the Minister of National Defence, commending the military and naval personnel for what they have done, I think it only fair that a word should be said on behalf of the many thousands who volunteered when the call
came, and who have been working night and day without hope of reward. I rise today to commend them for having done so.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in connection with the construction of the Princess Elizabeth hospital for aged and infirm, in the city of Winnipeg. Have representations been received from that city for assistance on the basis of the recently announced health program? If so, is consideration being given this request?


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I did not receive any notice of this question. I am not able to say whether any such request has been received but I shall take the question as a notice.



LOAN COMPANIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 220, to amend the Loan Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: I might point out to the committee that this bill was referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. That committee made certain amendments to the original bill, which I shall read as we come to them.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-Number of directors.


William Ross Macdonald: This section was
amended in the banking and commerce committee to read:
Paragraphs (e) and (d) of subsection one of section fifteen of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(c) The requirements as to proxies, the record to be kept of them and the time, not exceeding ten days, within which proxies must be produced and recorded prior to a meeting in order to entitle the holder to vote thereon;
Loan Companies Act

provided that an instrument of proxy shall not be valid unless executed within one year of the date of the meeting at which it is to be used."
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Executive committee.


William Ross Macdonald: A clause was added by the committee, to be known as 7A as follows:
7A. Subsections (1) and (2) of section twenty-two of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"22. (1) The directors may by by-law provide for the appointment of a chairman of the board who shall preside at all meetings of the board of directors.
(2) If the chairman of the board is absent, the president, or in his absence, a vice-president, or in the absence of both the president and the vice-presidents, a chairman selected by the directors present shall preside at the meetings."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 8 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. MAYHEW moved that the bill be read a third time.
Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question about section 6 of the bill.


Air. MAYHEW:: Section 6 was carried. I do not think we should revert to the sections at this time.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Broadview is speaking on third reading. He can do that.


Thomas Langton Church: Does this bill amending the Loan Companies Act cover what were known as shark loan companies? Further, it seems to me that under section 6 these loan companies will be rich men's corporations. A shareholder must have stock to the value of $2,500. If he makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors he is disqualified. I should like to have my questions answered.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: To answer the hon. member's first question-


William Ross Macdonald: I would point out that we are now on the motion for third reading. The hon. member for Broadview has spoken.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question let me say that this measure does not include the small loan companies. If the hon. member will refer to section l(2)(i) he will find the expression, "exercising all the powers set forth."
[The Chairman.]
The word "all" is put in to include the loan companies but to exclude the small loan companies.


William Ross Macdonald: The parliamentary assistant has moved that the bill be read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. FRASER:: With amendments.


William Ross Macdonald: May I point out that the bill was not amended in committee of the whole. It was amended in the committee on banking and commerce, and was accepted in committee of the whole in the form in which it was presented.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
116. Departmental administration, $235,350.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Last night when the committee rose I was discussing the question of the suppression of crime comics. I had made a brief review of the situation, based upon certain information I had, and I was about to suggest to the minister certain specific measures he might take to limit, if not to eliminate, the circulation of these magazines.
I have since noticed an article in the Ottawa Journal of Tuesday, June 8, which discussed the effect of these crime comics upon juvenile minds. The article is a report by Fredric Wertham, M.D. in the Saturday Review of Literature. Doctor Wertham is senior psychiatrist at the New York City Department of Hospitals, and director of the Bellevue and Queens general mental hygiene clinics in New York, so that he is a well qualified observer, and his article leaves no doubt that these crime comics have the effect which I suggested last night. This article is so outstanding, so clear and so helpful that I believe the committee would be pleased if I were to read it into the record.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind the committee having all the information possible on this subject, but I submit that the discussion is out of order. We are on departmental administration, and if any legislation which occurs to any hon. member can be discussed on this item, the field is

Supply-Justice
unlimited. If my hon. friend will permit me to say so, my attention was called to the article last night by the hon. member for Stanstead, and the deputy minister of the department also called it to my attention this morning. I have not had an opportunity to read it.


Mr. HACKETT:: We want to read it to you.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but I think it is hardly appropriate on the item for departmental administration to read a newspaper article involving possible amendments to the criminal code. I have drafted an amendment to the criminal code on this subject. I shall lay it before council-if I ever get a chance to get t-o council-and I shall come back to the house when the criminal code is being discussed, or before, and state what the decision of the government is on this matter.
The hon. member for Kamloops sent me a shocking instance of the abuse of freedom of the press. I agree with him, that it is just that. I am afraid, however, it is nevertheless legal; it is not an offence to publish the kind of material which was published and which is being distributed in various parts of Canada.
I am told that formerly these crime comics came from the United States and that they were subject to some check by the Department of National Revenue. Now, however they are printed and distributed in Canada. I think the hon. member has made a case for careful consideration of this matter. As soon as it can be considered by council I will advise the house, probably by way of notice of an amendment to the criminal code. If we decide not to do it, or if we decide that it is the wrong thing to do, when the criminal code comes up I will announce my decision and my reasons for it. I want to assure the hon. gentleman that serious consideration is being given to the matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I certainly appreciate the assurance given by the minister, and under the circumstances I shall not delay the committee by reading this article, especially as the minister says it has been directed to his attention.
I should like to conclude by referring to the third suggestion I was going to make as to how this matter might be dealt with. Last night I suggested that it might be dealt with, first, by direct censorship, and second, by banning this type of magazine from the mails; and my third suggestion is that the minister might give attention to amending the Juvenile Delinquents Act. He has referred to a contemplated amendment to the criminal code, but he might find that the one or other or both
would furnish a useful means for getting at this situation. I would refer him to section 33 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which is chapter 46 of the statutes of 1929. This section reads:
Any person, whether the parent or guardian of the child or not, who, knowingly or wilfully,
(a)	aids, causes, abets or connives at the commission by a child of a delinquency; or
(b)	does any act producing, promoting, or contributing to a child's being or becoming a juvenile delinquent or likely to make any child a juvenile delinquent;
shall be liable on summary conviction-
I imagine the difficulty in bringing a prosecution under that section would arise from the fact that the crime or particular act which produces, promotes or contributes to a child being a juvenile delinquent is not specifically defined. If there were inserted in this clause, or in a separate clause, a provision to the effect that the publication or circulation of magazines or books devoted to the portrayal of crimes of violence by means of pictures or by words and pictures shall be deemed to be an act contributing to juvenile delinquency, it would be easier to secure convictions under this act, or indeed under the criminal code. It did occur to me that the Juvenile Delinquents Act might well contain such a provision.
In closing I should like to express, not only for myself, but for those who have brought the matter to my attention and for many others in the country, appreciation of the fact that the minister intends to study it and hopes to introduce legislation to enable prosecutions to be successfully launched against those who are contributing to juvenile delinquency by publishing and circulating these books for profit.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, what has just occurred indicates the contribution a private member of the opposition can make to the better government of this country. The hon. member for Kamloops brought this question before the house the other day and again last evening. The cogency of his arguments in bringing the matter to the attention of the house has resulted in the press taking it up and in public opinion causing the government to act where action was long overdue.
In view of the numerous amendments to the criminal code which have been brought before the house I should like to ask what, if anything, has been done during the past year toward mobilizing the support of the law schools, as well as of judges or magistrates who have retired, looking to a revision of the criminal code and bringing it up to date by removing obsolete sections and changing others
Supply-Justice

to conform to the penological, psychological and physiological advances which have been made.
This matter has been brought up before. On the last occasion either the minister or his predecessor said that it would be given immediate consideration. There has not been a revision of the criminal code since 1893. The result is that it is most difficult to reach a conclusion as to the applicability of many of its sections. A step has been taken in the right direction- I am not going to deal with this-so far as part XVI is concerned, and there is an effort in the amendments now introduced to bring some semblance of sanity and reasonableness to these sections. But many other sections require revision. The penalty sections should be changed in the light of present-day advances. The matter deserves serious consideration. Even though the minister is on the point of relinquishing the portfolio which he recently assumed, he could make a worthwhile contribution by laying the foundation for the setting up of a commission to revise the code as it is now constituted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The criminal code certainly needs revision. The commissioners on the uniformity of legislation have been working on it year after year. They advised me last August that they did not think they were the proper body to revise the criminal code. They are not remunerated for their work, and they do not have much time to devote to it. Certain provinces review certain parts of the code, and a great deal of work has been done. We have been rather hoping that a piecemeal revision of the code could be made by that method, and we have not completely given up the idea. The difficulty about revision is to get the proper persons to take charge of it, persons in whose judgment one has confidence and who are in every respect competent.
The amendments to the criminal code which I introduce year by year take an enormous amount of time. Decisions cannot be hastily made, because they involve balancing considerations. The amending bill this year is a long one. We adopted many of the recommendations of the commissioners on the uniformity of legislation; we rejected others, and we amended others. I suppose it would be an exaggeration to say that there is as much work on one of these criminal code amending bills as there is on the budget; but there is a great deal of work, days and days of it. It requires judgment which in the last analysis devolves on council. It comes to the minister, but the minister says, "I do not think we should do that; we should do something a little different." Finally it goes to council and we

evolve a bill. If council approves I propose to introduce an amendment this year to provide for the revision of the statutes to be made by a commission, and that will include the criminal code. In the meantime we are making inquiries to see whether we can get together the type of organization we want for the amendment of the criminal code. The work has not ceased; it is being done all the time by the commissioners, and these important amendments which are being introduced year by year are continually cutting down the amount of work that is left.
There is a view that we should try to prevail upon the commissioners on uniformity of law to do the whole thing, part by part and section by section, but I do not think they are quite disposed to accept that view.


John Thomas Hackett: 
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the delays in the appointment of judges, I will mention one particular case-and I do not think the reason for the delay has been a shortage of Liberal lawyers. On the third of March I asked a question in the house about the vacancy in the district court in the judicial district of Prince Albert. I speak not as the representative of that constituency but as a member of the bar of that judicial district. This judicial district over the years has given one judge to the Supreme Court of Canada, in the person of Mr. Justice Lamont; has given to the diplomatic service two erstwhile judges, Chief Justice Turgeon, who now occupies the post of Canadian high commissioner in Ireland, and Mr. Justice Davis, who recently retired from the bench to enter the diplomatic service permanently and is now ambassador to China. That bar has turned out at least twelve superior court judges, besides some ten or twelve county court judges, in the last thirty-five years. Prince Albert was one of the first judicial districts established in Saskatchewan. Since January 1, 1947, we have had no judge for that judicial district. We have had the assistance of two acting judges, one from Humboldt and the other from Melfort. His Honour Judge Hanbidge, from Humboldt, has discharged most of the duties, and done it well. But, sir, the delay in making this appointment just cannot be brushed aside by the answer given by the minister on March 3, when he said:
As the volume of judicial work in the Prince Albert district since the retirement of Judge Doak has been such that the judges from Humboldt and Melfort districts have been able to perform it in addition to the duties in their own districts, it has not so far been deemed necessary to appoint a successor.
That answer just is not fact; it does not answer the question at all. I shall not go into details unless the minister wants them. This judicial appointment should not be allowed to remain outstanding until a provincial election has been held. The appointment should be filled. Any number of possible Barkises are able and willing to accept the appointment. Why does that judicial district appointment remain in such a nebulous position, and why has it not been filled? It is a serious matter that this district, in which the volume of business is as great as in all but two or three of the other judicial districts in the province, should have to depend upon judges coming in from other judicial districts. If a judge is appointed or transferred to that district, we
shall be perfectly happy. We have a right to the appointment of a judge instead of the delays such as we have experienced.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This delay is not unusual. It occurs in provinces where there is a comfortable allotment of judges, as everyone knows there is in Saskatchewan. If this were in the province of Quebec, and we were dealing with superior court judges, we would be falling all over ourselves to make the appointment because of the greater rush of cases and the tremendous necessity of filling appointments promptly. There are some provinces in which that is not so, and Saskatchewan is one of them. I have never been told before that anyone is suffering as a result of judges from the outside coming into that district. I am not convinced at all that judicial business, or the interest of litigants, or the interests of the bar, have suffered.


John George Diefenbaker: If that is the attitude of the minister, so long as the people of Prince Albert understand it, it is all right with me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The people of Prince Albert are not being discriminated against. The same condition exists in various parts of Ontario, for the same reason. It often happens in the maritime provinces.


Mr. BROOKS:: Hear, hear.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But if there is a delay of years in filling a judicial appointment, for instance, that is when the need arises. When it comes to our attention that the business of litigants is not being transacted, we act immediately and responsibly to the requirements of the situation. My hon. friend has never said anything in this house to indicate that anyone is suffering as a result of this appointment waiting a while, as many appointments do, not only in Saskatchewan but in Ontario and in the maritime provinces, and I think in some other parts of Canada as well.


Mr. McIVOR:: I should like to say a word in support of the splendid success of a judge at the head of the lakes who presides over the family juvenile court. If every city in Canada were taken care of in the same way that that judge takes care of the juveniles at the head of the lakes, the criminal code would soon become obsolete. Judge McKitteriek, in addressing a group of young athletes, paid tribute to the men and women who control the athletic endeavours of the young people at the head of the lakes. During the winter there are twenty-four hockey rinks in operation in Fort William, and controlled and supervised playgrounds are in operation during
Supply-Justice

the summer. Judge McKitterick said that not one boy or girl was sent from the head of the lakes because of juvenile delinquency. The reason he gave was that the boys and girls were well taken care of. I pay my tribute to the judge, because he is one of the direct causes of this desirable condition; and it is the result also of the manner in which he takes care of the mothers and fathers. He tells them how they should take care of their children; train them up in the way they should go, and when they become men and women they will observe the law. I thought it would be a little encouragement to the Minister of Justice to know that in some parts of Canada we are not thinking in terms of observing the criminal code; we are thinking of the care of our boys and girls.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not come from Saskatchewan, and unlike some others, I do not intend to take any part in the affairs out there, and I know of no Toronto member who wants to. I want to bring three or four matters to the minister's attention. I shall just mention them without discussing them.
There has been a lot of trouble about what is and what is not a voluntary statement made by one in the custody of the police. It was referred to in the court of appeal for Ontario last year in connection with a Hamilton case. There should be some clarification of the law in that respect, to find out how far a police officer can go in examining a prisoner in his custody. For example, the other day the court of appeal dismissed the case of an Indian charged with murder because the Indian said he was talking in his sleep. Notwithstanding all that the chief justice said about it, how could it be a voluntary statement? Many people talk in their sleep. They are not conscious-or it is the operation of the subconscious; it was not voluntary. I cannot understand it.
The second thing is this. Parliament has no power to enforce its own laws across Canada. A couple of hundred thousand orders in council were passed during the two wars and the interval in between. Since confederation the enforcement of all federal laws that we pass, the statutes and the orders in council and their interpretation are left to the crown officers of the provinces. For this reason, every bill we pass has become a very heavy burden on the municipal police systems. In Australia a bonus and subvention are given to the large city of Sydney. When I looked it up some years ago it amounted to a subvention of $2,000,000. I believe the time has come when two things should be done. Either the

federal government should enforce its own federal laws, or it should give some bonus! subvention or subsidy to the police system, as they are doing all over the dominion today in many other matters involving section 92 of the British North America Act. A cash subsidy was given at confederation for the definite and specific purpose of maintaining municipal institutions and justice in the provinces. A duplicate municipal system has been foisted on the country by section 92. I hope this matter will be considered by the government during the parliamentary recess.
Many young people are in trouble today. It follows every great war. We all know wrhat the Addington administration said in 1801. That situation followed Pitt on down through to 1815, and it has followed every great war. It followed the Crimean war, the South African war and others. Many young people get into trouble, but they have no counsel. They roam all over the country looking for work, and my hon. friends capitalize on them later on. Steps should be taken for the improvement and betterment of the citizen. During the days of the depression a large number of high school students were roaming around looking for jobs, but no work was provided for them. The result was that they got into trouble. The police could not do anything about them, and some of them were cpm-mitted to jail.
I should like to know how far policemen can go in these cases. I know of about seventy-eight policemen in the Court Street station in the business district south of Queen street in Toronto. A large number of them are returned soldiers. They are the finest possible type of officer. Of the 104 members of parliament who visited our city the other day, one or two commented on that fact. We should have clarification of the law regarding our police officers. I am only expressing my own personal opinion about it. In many of these cases the youth is not armed where he is trying to do something he should not do and all that kind of thing. Some of them are panhandlers. Others are down and out, and they flock to the city. Some of these are displaced persons who have been brought in for certain specific work; they roam back to the city, and the police have trouble with them.
I suggest to the minister that there should be some clarification of the law as to how far a police officer may go in firing first in the air, then along the ground. He may injure somebody who may have committed only a petty offence under the law. Clarification is in the interests of the police themselves, because some of them have been sued in the civil courts for such offences.

Supply-Justice
I will just mention two or three other matters. One is with regard to accidents on the roads and highways in Toronto and throughout Ontario; all over Canada I believe it is the same. At weekends some of the poorer people who own a truck take fifteen to twenty people, including children, out to the country. The roads are crowded. Eight here in this city there was a week-end accident. Five people were injured, and nobody faced a charge. In our city a small truck with thirty-two people in i.t collided with another vehicle. What is the law in that matter? As far as I know, there is no law except the Highway Traffic Act. This is a dangerous situation. You see these trucks going along on weekends, when there are thousands of cars on the roads. I know of no law by which anyone could be charged.


John Thomas Hackett: Provincial regulations.


Thomas Langton Church: There should be some federal liability to cover it.
Another thing about which there has been considerable trouble is the overcrowding in streetcars. I brought this matter to the attention of the house about a year ago and made a suggestion to the minister. The present minister, from what I have seen of him, has been efficient and hard-working. I suggested that where there is overcrowding in streetcars, or disorder in the streetcar system, something should be done. I had a clause in my private bill to cover disorderly control. This is a matter which was referred to in another place by some of those who seldom if ever travel in the streetcars. There is a great deal of disorder on the streetcars all over the country. There should be some amendment of the law to deal with it. There is such a law on the steam railways; I do not see why it should not be applied to buses and streetcars as well. Another matter has to do with the banditry which is going on all over the country. There is no amendment to the code, so far as I can see, to deal with banditry, although there are sections of the code having to do with this offence. The law clerk has written me a letter about it. I do not think there is anything personal in it, and I shall quote a part of it, as follows:
All the offences that bandits can commit are already provided for in the code. I have searched everywhere for a definition of "banditry" and do not think there is a special one which would apply, and, if we were to improvise one, we would be sure to come into conflict with existing provisions of the code.
That is right. I might point out that it is difficult to secure a conviction because there are loopholes in the other sections.
I know of no law which compels a woman to wear a hat in a court of law because she
is a person. Some of them do not wear hats even in parliament. I know of no law by which a judge can say that a woman must wear a hat before she can become a witness. Some of the hats worn are small, and some of them are large. As I said to the minister one day, when I was calling his attention to the matter, some of the judges might want a long hat about the size of the paper carton in which molasses is put up in the cafeteria or in the parliamentary restaurant. The hon. member for Temiseouata said those hats would be too big for the honourable justice who requires the ladies to wear hats. There is no law in the matter.
The time has come when there should be abolition of imprisonment for debt; this was covered in my criminal code bill of last night. The minister referred to it last night in connection with Bill No. 207, when for the first time second reading was moved. That is the first opportunity we have had to consider it. and this is the 102nd day of this session. We have never had five minutes' time in this house to discuss the matter. We talk about the rise and fall of stocks, the rise and fall of wheat, and all those material things, but we have never had five minutes' time to devote to one of the main issues here

motorcar and other deaths. Eighteen people were injured or killed on May 24 on the roads of our country. The highways are not safe, owing to the way people travel on them. Men and women have been murdered in cold blood by hit-and-run drivers. We have not investigated the deaths at level crossings, the deaths of children who have been burned in their homes, and all these other matters, including the problem of babies born in prison. In England there is a law with respect to that particular matter. I understand that at the great battle of Queens-ton Heights only eighteen lives were lost on our side. That many people are killed in a week-end right here in the two central provinces, and the rest of Canada is not much better. I suggest that more time be given to discussion of these important subjects.
In England there is a law with regard to babies born in prison. Some people have fines imposed on them with no time to pay them. Many people are committed to jail who cannot pay their fine. Some of these are women. With regard to babies born in prison, I suggest that it is against the public interest to give a pregnant woman a term of imprisonment. I understand that, under the present minister, these women are moved to some other place. I am hoping that we may have some law to deal with the matter so that
Supply-Justice

a stigma will not be attached to an infant who has done no wrong. I believe some survey should be made throughout the country with a view to making it impossible for a condition. such as that to which I have referred, to be continued.
I should like to see the state do something further. The state is responsible for young people who leave jail. They have no chance. The hon. member for Spadina is not here this morning but his partner Mr. Borins, K.C., was assistant crown attorney in the city of Toronto for some years, and he was a good one. He knows the facts. He gave an interview to the press which appears under the heading "Young man leaving jail hasn't a chance-Borins". The article reads:
Norman Borins, Toronto's 38-year-old assistant crown attorney, who prosecuted nearly half of all Ontario's criminal cases during the past eleven years and who has retired to enter private practice, yesterday expressed alarm over the fate of youthful offenders against the law in this province.
Pointing out that 75 per cent of all crimes are committed by youths between 18 and 25, the attorney, who looks nothing like the Hollywood conception of a hard-driving prosecutor, said emphatically that the provincial system of dealing with young offenders is all wrong.
Then the report goes on to say:.
"As a prosecutor, it was not my place to advise the courts as to the treatment of convicted men and women," said Mr. Borins, "but I always did what I could out of court to help young offenders and never put barriers in the way of pleas for consideration made by their lawyers."
Little or nothing is being done in this matter. Just the other day the Toronto Synod of the Church of England was complaining about the same thing. The diocesan council for social service built, at their own expense, a hostel to rehabilitate these young offenders. The Church of England have a hostel for young women in trouble, and they intend to do the same thing for boy offenders, at their own expense. When a great many of these young offenders who get into trouble are in the downtown district, it would help to keep some of them under control and assist them to get on their feet again. Nothing has been done about it, though, by the state.
There was a case in Toronto the other day, in the riding of the hon. member for Danforth, which in the newspapers has been called the battle of the trolley. Citizens who came to the aid of a constable were abused. The constable's uniform was badly torn, and he was assaulted. That is not the sort of thing we should permit on our street cars, yet it is comparatively common in most of the cities of this country. There is a law about it in respect to railways. The present minister I

think did have some provision passed in that regard, but those in another place did not sanction it.
I do believe something will have to be done during the recess of parliament to speed up implementation of the report of Mr. Justice Archambault in regard to prison reform. The minister has done something; but as the Ottawa Citizen said in a long article the other day, the pace of prison reform is very slow. I believe there should be a real housecleaning, because conditions have not improved. I know about some of these prisons. In my own constituency we have the Toronto jail, which was built at about the time of confederation. Years ago the late Doctor Hastings, the health officer, and I, visited the jail and found it to be unfit for human habitation and against all known laws of public hygiene; yet today it is still used to house prisoners, many of whom have to sleep on the floors at night because of overcrowding. I compliment the minister on having made a start at prison reform, yet we are far behind the mother country in constitutional reform, parliamentary reform, cabinet reform and most of all law reform. So I believe we have reached the stage when more time should be devoted to these matters. Under our present control system many people are going to jail because they do not have the money to pay the huge, savage fines imposed in Our police courts. I have objected to that, and I object to it again, today. Just the other day a poor woman was sent to jail for some minor breach of the income tax law. She did not file a return, through a misinterpretation of the law. As a result she had to go to Toronto jail, where there is no room for her, or to Mercer reformatory, an institution which should have been burned down long ago. I can tell you that in England they have closed half their prisons through real law and prison reform. They have done this by means of what is called the summary offenders act, under which a person is given time in which to pay his fine. He may have to spend an hour or so in a central office down town or in a police station, but he is allowed out on bail before five o'clock on the same day, and is given time to pay his fine.
My hon. friends to the left have been adopting this policy, I understand, just as they have conscripted the policies of our party during the last five or six years, as well as some of the policies of the Liberal party. Let me tell you that if I have my way there will be no union government in Canada. We had one experience of that kind in this country, and even today they

Supply-Justice
have coalition governments in British Columbia and in Manitoba. The only alternative to such a government seems to be the party to my left. I say to hon. gentlemen of the C.C.F.: you have adopted the policy of bonuses, subventions and subsidies; it is a Conservative doctrine. Hon. members may smile, but they need not worry; I am not going to Saskatchewan, nor do I know of anyone else who is going there to take part in the local election. On the contrary I invite them to come to my riding or city at any time; we are always glad to see them.
I agree with hon. gentlemen to my left to this extent, however; that it is the duty of the state to take care of the matters I have mentioned, including the granting of time in which to pay fines, looking after those who come out of our prisons when their time is up, and all that sort of thing. That is a form of Christian socialism, and I am a Christian socialist just as well as hon. gentlemen to the left. I compliment them on what they are ready to do.
I believe the day is coming when we should devote some time to these questions. Now we do not have an hour to spend on them. I do not blame the minister, because he has been very hard-working. I have had a great deal to do with him and a great deal of correspondence with his department, and we heard his speech last evening in which he said the department was considering many of these matters. I do urge that more time should be devoted not only to the questions I have raised this morning, but to motorcar accidents, level crossings, fires, drownings, floods and all other things that contribute to the loss of life. By doing so we will be following a form of Christian socialism in this country, as they have been in England.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wish to say just a few words on the matter brought up by the hon. member for Lake Centre-the delay in the appointment of judges. The minister stated that at various times in the maritime provinces there had been some delay, and we all know that is quite true. We have suffered not only through delay in the appointment of judges in our province, but some judges have been ill for long periods of time, and as a result I think the work of the judiciary has suffered. The chief justice of New Brunswick died over two years ago, and another vacancy was caused by the death of Mr. Justice Eairweather. While the minister says he does not think law enforcement has suffered, I do not believe that is the opinion of the bar in general.
I should like to ask the minister when the vacancies in New Brunswick will be filled. The
position of chief justice was filled a short time ago by the appointment of one of the sitting judges, Mr. Justice Richards. I want to compliment the minister on this appointment, which was completely non-political, since at one time Mr. Justice Richards was Conservative premier of New Brunswick. He has been on the bench of that province for the past thirteen or fourteen years, and has had wonderful success as a judge. I believe his appointment as chief justice has been received with very general favour in our province. There was some feeling, perhaps, that his appointment might have been made to prove the truth of a statement made by Mr. McNair, Premier of New Brunswick, that he personally would not accept the appointment as chief justice. However, the people of that province know that while the position of chief justice has been filled there are two more appointments to be made to the bench, and there is a feeling that while Mr. McNair was not appointed to this position he may still accept an appointment to fill one of the remaining vacancies. As I say, I wish to compliment the minister on the appointment of Mr. Justice Richards as chief justice, though I believe Mr. Justice Harrison could have filled the position equally well.
This idea of non-political appointments is very wise, particularly in some provinces. I do not say this to discredit the bar of New Brunswick, but I feel that political appointments in that province have been pretty well exhausted, as far as government appointments could be made. I suggest to the minister that in filling these vacancies he continue the policy of making non-political appointments. Appoint the best men you can get. There are splendid lawyers on the Conservative side in that province, and I know the minister would do great credit to himself and to the bar of our province if he forgot about politics in making future appointments, as he did in filling the position of chief justice, and that it would be better for the bar in general.
My object in rising was to ask the minister w'hen he intends to fill these vacancies in New Brunswick. I do not think he can use as an excuse for not filling them the suggestion that they are not needed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have a feeling it is quite unusual for a Minister of Justice to say when he intends to make recommendations for the appointment of judges. I should not like to create a precedent by doing so in this instance. The situation is constantly under review, and a recommendation will be made in due course and in accordance with the facts of the situation.
Supply-Justice

I thank my hon. friend for his kind words respecting the promotion of Mr. Justice Richards. I thought when he was saying that there were good lawyers on the opposition side he was going to say, "on the opposition benches"; but he did not go that far.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No, I would not go that far.


Mr. GILLIS:: May I say first I am sorry this will be the last time the present Minister of Justice will pilot these estimates through the house. As a Nova Scotia man I was happy that we had in the house at least one sound and sensible person from Nova Scotia.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: That is a bit hard on the rest of you.


Clarence Gillis: I was referring to the government side, of course. I am sorry the minister has decided to leave us, because he will be greatly missed, particularly in the field in which he is now engaged. Because I view the Department of Justice as the one department which could do a great deal to civilize this country. I say that advisedly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Even Nova Scotia?


Clarence Gillis: More particularly Ontario, from the standpoint of justice.
I have checked over the details of estimates, and I have only this to say, I have listened to hon. members talk about reforms in the administration of justice, but in my opinion they are talking from the wrong end. Reforms do not come from the top; they must come from the bottom. From the point of view of personnel, administrative staffs, salaries, and the like, I believe the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice in the administration of justice in Canada is sufficient. In my view, if there is to be any reform in this regard, we must start in the magistrates' courts. My experience has been that across this country in most provinces-


John Thomas Hackett: They are not paid by the dominion.


Clarence Gillis: AH right; they should be. If you are going to talk about reforms you will have to get sane and sensible persons into the courts of first instance. No self-respecting lawyer in this country today wishes to hold the post of a local magistrate. The result is that, by and large, you have administering the courts of first instance local civic politicians with practically no training in law, and in many cases very little judgment. When juvenile delinquents and young offenders are taken before these local magistrates they are up against men who not only are lacking in knowl-

edge of law but subject to civic pressure, smalltown politics ini most cases, pressure from all directions, and the pulling of strings.
In many oases young offenders who have been sent to the penitentiaries for a year or fifteen months have been made criminals in the first instance because a local magistrate lacked judgment and discernment in handling the case. The young man comes out of penitentiary stigmatized as a criminal, when perhaps he should not have been' sent to a penitentiary at all. He comes out with a grudge against society, believing that he got a raw deal. And there is no doubt in my mind that many of them did get raw deals; their cases were not properly handled.
If there is a desire to reform the penitentiaries or to spend more money in the Department of Justice, I suggest that the department will have to make some arrangements with the provinces by which qualified persons, with knowledge of the law-they should be required to pass examinations in respect of their judgment in handling the oases coming before them -shall be appointed. Anyone wishing a position as a civil servant, a grade II stenographer or a filing clerk-anyone who wishes to hold even the lowest position in the civil service, must write an examination, pass aptitude tests, and so on. If we insisted upon that same procedure for the filling of positions in the lower courts, where the basis is laid for whatever may *happen in the higher courts, and insisted that the man before whom offenders must first appear is properly qualified, we would be taking a proper step.
The man in the lower court should be obliged to pass an examination. We should see that he has a knowledge of law-because evidence in murder cases is heard first before local magistrates. In many instances the evidence is written in longhand by the magistrate himself.


John Thomas Hackett: I think that is not quite accurate.


Clarence Gillis: I have sat in courts in Ontario and tried to read the handwriting of some of your local magistrates. I admit I am not a very good writer, but the worst writing I have ever seen was certain evidence that the magistrate scratched out himself. That is true in many cases across this country.


Mr. TIMMINS:: The magistrate does not try a murder case. You know better than that.


Clarence Gillis: Does he not? Go into some of the courts across this country and find that out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You were talking about murder.


Clarence Gillis: Yes.

Supply-Justice


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Get back into your own field.


Clarence Gillis: I am not trying to cover anything up. The trouble with the administration of justice in this country is that there is too much manipulation.
Some hon. MEMBERS : No, no.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes; there is. There is too much manipulation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What do you mean?


Clarence Gillis: There is too much covering up. Law is made too mysterious. There is not enough honesty in it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Clarence Gillis: You can "no" as much as you like. When I hear an hon. member, particularly a member of the legal profession, say that everyone has his day in court in this country and that there is equal justice for all, I make this statement, without reservation: you are pretty much in the same position when you face the courts of this country as you are when you go out seeking medical attention. You will get as much as you are able to pay for.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. LESAGE:: That is false.


Clarence Gillis: Is it?


Joseph Arthur Lesage: That is communism.


Clarence Gillis: I ask you if you work for nothing. How many of you fellows rush into court and for humanitarian purposes defend young fellows who are dragged into court? I know of many cases where young fellows were taken in and sentenced in the courts without having counsel.


An hon. MEMBER:: The exception.


Clarence Gillis: No, it is not the exception. It comes back to this business of the appointment of local magistrates. It happened right here, and in this province, with young ex-service offenders during the war.
If we are going to start to reform the administration of justice, and if we are going to do something about our penal institutions, then we have to keep young people out of these institutions in the first place, and not throw them in indiscriminately for minor infractions of the law, stigmatize them and bring them out as enemies of justice, because then it is almost impossible to do anything with them.
I know' many young fellows to whom that happened. I know that under the present setup the administration of law in the field about w'hich I am speaking is in the hands of the ' provinces. If w'e are going to spend more
money, if we are going to try to get equality before the law, a thing that we preach and a thing that most of us believe in, that is one thing; but if you come from the other side of the tracks and have occasion to run into these things you will find that the shoe is on the other foot. Do not make any mistake about it.
The appointment of more judges and the increasing of judges' salaries and all that kind of stuff is fine if proper conditions prevail all through the judicial field. I think the part of it that is administered by the present Minister of Justice is fairly and reasonably done. The field that lacks attention completely is the one I am talking about, the local magistrate's courts. The present minister or the Department of Justice should have a conference with the provinces with a view to arriving at some uniformity, and at least to see that trained personnel are in these posts and that once they are appointed they are free from local civic pressures. They should be qualified for the jobs that they are sent in to do.
I want to emphasize that point again. Anyone in this country who wants a job with the government must write an examination. In a field where we are dealing with social and human problems we should see to it that the men are qualified and at least have fair judgment in the matters they are going to handle.


John Thomas Hackett: I want to say a few words about the subject which has engaged the attention of the committee for the last few moments. The hon. member for Cape Breton South would like to have all magistrates pass an examination before they exercise their functions. I think sometimes it might be well if a like rule were applied to members of parliament, because to my mind it is almost criminal that an hon. gentleman, holding the responsible office he does, should speak about something concerning which his ignorance is rivalled only by his bitterness.


Clarence Gillis: On a point of order, I suggest that the hon. gentleman who has just apcused a member of the house of ignorance has too much dignity to allow it to stand on the record. It should be withdrawn.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is it true?


John Thomas Hackett: When the hon. gentleman levels a charge of dishonesty, a charge of greed, a charge of duplicity-


Clarence Gillis: I rise to a point of order.


John Thomas Hackett: I am speaking to the point of order.


Clarence Gillis: I am not allowing the hon. member to place any words in my mouth. I said nothing of the kind.
Supply-Justice


John Thomas Hackett: I am speaking to the point of order.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: The hon.
member for Stanstead is speaking to the point of order. I must ask the hon. member for Cape Breton South to resume his seat.


Clarence Gillis: I thought he had the floor and was making a speech. He is putting words in my mouth.


John Thomas Hackett: I have said that when the hon. gentleman rose in his place and charged a profession with dishonesty, charged the magistracy of this country with ignorance-


Clarence Gillis: Incompetency is the best word.


John Thomas Hackett: -with incompetency, if you will, he was making a statement about which the kindest thing to say is that he did not know what he was talking about. I did not wish to be dragged into a debate concerning which there can be no issue, simply because the hon. gentleman is not familiar with the conditions about which he has addressed the committee. There are many topics on which he has information, and I have always listened to him with interest when he spoke on those topics. I suggest to him that he remain within the zone in which he has information that is reliable.
I join with the hon. gentleman in hoping that magistrates will always be competent; but here we differ because I believe that most people holding judicial office in this country are not only learned, are not only honest, but are beyond reproach. Here and there may be a man who because of some weakness may not live up to the highest traditions of the bench. One out of the twelve failed, and I do not think the average of failure on the bench is nearly as high as it was in the tragic instance to which I have referred.
It is essential in a country like Canada, wherein the rule of law obtains, that the judiciary should be immaculate, unspotted, and unsuspected. I believe the judiciary of our country is that. I believe it is the strength of the judiciary that the people have in it a confidence that they could not have were there any serious departures from its high traditions. It may be that higher standards should be set, but I can speak for the province I know best and say I know that men of the highest integrity, men of unusual ability and learning occupy the posts of magistrates.


An hon. MEMBER:: In Ontario too.


John Thomas Hackett: I am loath to think that in Nova Scotia as a general rule the magistracy is recruited from a lesser breed than in the other provinces.


Clarence Gillis: There is no difference across the dominion.


John Thomas Hackett: If my hon. friend takes that attitude-I am speaking about the province of Quebec, and here I know whereof I speak-he is wrong; he is stating something about which he has no knowledge. He is stating a falsehood; he is stating something which if true would be a blemish upon the profession, upon the integrity of one of the great institutions of this country. When he makes that statement in this house he forfeits his right to be heard in an assembly in which honest and honourable men congregate.
I should like to say just one more word. When I attempted to ask a few questions, nothing was more remote from my mind than being drawn into a controversy which has to do with one of the great pillars, one of the great institutions upon which Christian civilization rests.
There is the church, there is the university, there is the law, there is the Christian family; and anybody who finds it in his heart willingly to malign or belittle any of them is not a good citizen. While criticism is the very source of our strength, and is necessary to correct evils, it must be criticism that rests on the bedrock of truth. Otherwise it belittles, it weakens, it discredits both him who utters it and the victim maligned.
The question I rose to ask, and the only question I want to ask, is this. What is the position in Quebec with regard to the superior court? The right hon. gentleman knows that there are arrears which in varying districts run from one to two years, that in consequence there is disorder and delay and people are denied the rights which a more expeditious administration would give them. Representations have been made to the right hon. gentleman by the members of different legal organizations. I know that the necessary provincial legislation has been passed. I am not certain whether it has yet been made effective; I am not clear on that point, but I dare say the minister is, and I would ask him to make a statement as to the administration of justice in the court of first instance in the province of Quebec.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a notoriously' large number of untried cases in the superior court district of Montreal, where some cases have not been reached although nearly two y'ears have elapsed since they were inscribed. The

Supply-Justice
legislature of the province of Quebec passed a bill authorizing the creation of six additional superior court judges for the province. The bill was to come into effect by proclamation, the proclamation to authorize not necessarily the whole six but any number up to six. The Department of Justice has not been notified that that act has been proclaimed, and we are proceeding on the assumption that it has not been proclaimed. When it is proclaimed there will be these additional judgeships to which we shall have to give consideration. It will require federal legislation to authorize the necessary salaries and create the additional positions here. It was suggested to me that we should pass the legislation conditionally, since, the situation is so acute; but my reply was that that would be a complete departure from the practice that had always prevailed, that the province must first make up its mind whether it wants additional judges or not, and having done so, the dominion parliament will deal with the situation. It would be impossible for us to enact legislation here except by delegating certain authority to the governor in council, which I think would be undesirable in the matter of the creation of judgeships.


John Thomas Hackett: So do I.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to say just one word about the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South on the specific point of the quality of the magistrates in Nova Scotia. I was surprised to hear what he said, because I was strongly of the impression that the last attorney general, the present Mr. Justice MacQuarrie, made important improvements in the magistracy of Nova Scotia. I know that in my part of the province there is no complaint whatever. I am acquainted with the magistrate who does a large part of the work in the rural municipalities of the western part of the province. I know him intimately, and not a word of criticism could be uttered against him, on the point of capacity, competency, character, or in any other way, and I was really feeling well satisfied with the quality of the magistrates in Nova Scotia. I know little about those in other provinces, but naturally the Department of Justice is concerned in the matter particularly in view of the fact that the new part XVI of the criminal code imposes additional responsibilities of great importance on magistrates. What the hon. member for Cape Breton South says about having good magistrates is true but I do not think his criticism of the quality of the magistrates in Nova Scotia is valid. I do not think it is correct.


Clarence Gillis: Perhaps I may be permitted to say this, Mr. Chairman. What I said to this house stands on the record, and if the hon. member for Stanstead will read it tomorrow he will find that his remarks today were completely off the point I was making. I did not criticize the judiciary. I said I thought it was adequate and that I thought the Department of Justice was doing a fair job in its field. But I did say that if reform of our laws was necessary the place to start was at the bottom, in the local magistrates' courts. I have discussed this matter with some pretty able lawyers who occupied the position of magistrate and resigned because they just could not take it. I discussed it with them, not just yesterday, but as far back as 1940. I was not talking out of turn this afternoon, but upon pretty good advice. I repeat, if we are going to reform, the place to start is at the bottom, and my plea was for qualified personnel in the lower courts where the basis is laid for whatever may happen afterwards.
Mr. DIEFE'NBAKER: I believe the hon. member for Cape Breton South went beyond what he really intended to say. I feel that when he cast aspersions on the profession of the law as a whole he was not speaking from knowledge; for I know of no reputable counsel in this country who denies to anyone accused of crime his defence, regardless of the question whether there is any fee. I know that some of us who are engaged in the law, particularly in the field of criminal defence, are sometimes disparagingly referred to as criminal lawyers; but, sir, if it were not for the lawyers who believe in justice to the individual and who undertake the defence of an individual accused of crime, injustice would often occur in this country.
Some who are lawyers for corporations speak of others engaged in the defence of the liberty of the subject as criminal lawyers. The reason that Britain is what she is today is that the Hastings, the Bennetts, the Norman Birketts, and all the great array of able British counsel, did not consider it beneath their dignity, in the interests of the clear and untrammelled administration of justice, to go into the courts of the land and appear for the defence. They go further-and this is a lead which might be followed by lawyers across this country. In Britain, counsel learned in the law, however great his capacity, however widespread his reputation, however great the fees he may ask where there is ability to pay, will deny no citizen a defence if called upon to accept a retainer. That is something that should be known in this country.
Supply-Justice

I hear the argument raised of class against class. I raise no defence ad hoc for the profession of law; for all through the years, from Shakespeare down, from the days of Jack Cade, it has been the popular thing to excoriate this profession. It needs no defence from outside, but sometimes I think it needs defence from the inside. Too many of our profession are prone to say of those who undertake-often without fee-the maintenance of freedom, the assurance of the rights of the individual, the protection of the weak against the strong, because these things take place in the criminal courts, that they do not occupy the same position as those who go into an office and take up an equally honourable branch of the law.
I repeat what I said a while ago: British law, British justice, British freedom, which we have in our country as a heritage, is more dependent than most of us believe upon the instrumentality of lawyers, who, regardless of fee but with an abiding sense of justice, have given the British and Canadian parliaments leadership through the law. These men have assured justice by what they have done. In saying that, sir, I want to point out one thing that I pointed out before. If we are to retain wholesome respect for the judiciary of our country we must maintain detachment on the part of our judiciary. It is for that reason that over and over again I have advocated in this house that we resolve now not to use judges on royal commissions where political and other such considerations enter; for in doing so we bring the judge from his elevated position of detachment down into the cockpit of party politics, where, regardless of the decision he makes, aspersions are cast on him in his position as commissioner, inevitably resulting in a disrespect for the judiciary as a whole.
The minister can do no better than to follow the course he pursued in New Brunswick in appointing as judge a person of another political faith. Too often and too long in this country one of the qualifications of a judge, aside from ability, is political competence. The United States has answered that by insuring that thirty per cent of the judges appointed be of the opposite political party. When one considers that over ninety per cent of the judges in this country have been appointed by the administration led by the present Prime Minister, I suggest that a move toward elevating the judiciary would be a declaration by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of this country that from now on, within reasonable limitations, political qualifications shall take second place to ability, capacity, judgment and the possession of the faculties that
jjMr. Diefenbaker.]
result in a judiciary so necessary to the main tenance of our security and our freedom.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Before the item passes will the minister be kind enough to answer the question raised by the hon. member for Broadview, who for seven years was chairman of the Toronto police commission? The minister will recall that he was almost ready to answer when be was diverted in his trend of thought. The question of the hon. member for Broadview was whether the minister's department is continuing day by day and month by month to improve the criminal code in every possible way. I hope the minister will take cognizance of what the hon. member for Broadview said, because be was speaking from -wealth of experience.
(Mr. ILSLEY: Certainly I will take into consideration everything that the hon. member has said. Probably I should have risen at once and said so. I have the greatest respect for the suggestions he makes and for the interest be tabes in these matters. It is a good thing that some -hon. members do.


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister did not get an opportunity to answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
127. Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $25,900 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the governor in council, $193,711.
Mr. FLEMING:: I am glad that this item gives the committee an opportunity to consider again the question of penal reform. I know that this subject is not a new one, and that it is considered annually, usually on this item in the estimates of the Minister of Justice. But no member of this committee need offer apologies for again raising his voice on the imperative necessity of giving due attention to the subject of penal reform in Canada.
One of the most hopeful things that has happened since last year's debate was the enlargement of the commission last August. The committee will recall that General Gibson, chief commissioner of penitentiaries, was appointed some two and a half years ago. On August 20 last the Minister of Justice-announced the appointment of two deputy commissioners: Mr. Joseph McCulley, who for some years had been headmaster of Pickering Boys College and a leader in boys'

__________ Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
educational work in Canada, and Dr. Louis Philippe Gendreau, the chief psychiatrist at the Manitoba Mental Hospital.
When this item was under debate in the house on June 27, 1946, I uttered1 words of strong approval of the appointment of General Gibson as chief commissioner. I should like now to commend' the appointment of the two deputy commissioners. It has been my good fortune to know Mr. McCulley personally for some years. We have had common interests in some aspects of boys' work. I regard his appointment as a most suitable one, for which the Minister of Justice should be highly commended. It is not my privilege to know Doctor Gendreau, personally, but from what I have heard about him I believe his appointment also was a most suitable one.
With a strong commission made up of these three eminent men, I think the public will have been led by this time to expect action in the field of penal reform. I urge upon the minister that he give to these three commissioners ample opportunity and a reasonably free hand to assume the task of penal reform. I hope he will give them every encouragement to take the Archambault report of 1938 and endeavour to make its recommendations a reality. Ten years have passed since this monumental report was written, with its eighty-eight recommendations, some of which have been carried into effect, but many of which have not. I conceive it to be the duty of parliament to continue to apply pressure to see that these salutary recommendations receive adequate consideration, and that they are given effect just as soon as possible.
In my humble opinion it would be a useful thing if we had a committee of this house which could1 hear the commissioners at first hand, receive a report of such progress as they have been able to make in the matter of penal reform, and discuss with them their plans for the future. There are grave limitations upon going into a matter of this kind in adequate detail in committee of the whole. We can address our remarks to the Chair and the minister can make his observations, but we do not have an opportunity of questioning the commissioners, who are dealing with the problem personally; or of discussing with them their plans for approaching the problem of reform. I am convinced that if this commission is given an opportunity, we shall see definite progress made in the direction of penal reform. At the same time I am conscious, as I think are all the members of the committee, of the need which still exists for it.
I am sure the committee is well acquainted with the unhappy results of several recent escapes from the penitentiary. I should like to mention two of them. One of them resulted in homicide, and one of the two persons who escaped was one of the four boys who had been involved in the homicide of a resident of my own constituency; the famous Tobias case. Speaking in this house on June 27, 1946, on the question of penal reform. I undertook to make some remarks upon that case-of course after it had been concluded. It happens that at that time those young men had been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to penal terms by Mr. Justice Keiller Mackay, the trial judge. One of these young men was involved in the recent jail break which resulted in the death of the prison guard at Kingston. It emphasizes the necessity of seeing that juries really do their duty as such; that they be not swept away by maudlin sentiment, and points to the results that flow from the failure of juries, to carry out their duty under the law.
There was another unfortunate jail break in September of last year which resulted in the escape of three notorious criminals, Mickey Macdonald, Ulysses Lauzon and Nick Minnille. The chief commissioner, General Gibson, issued a statement following that escape, in which he indicated that an intensive investigation had been made and that administrative changes had been effected with a view to promoting efficiency of administration in the penitentiary. No system can be perfect, but I think that matters of this kind could usefully engage the attention of a committee of this house.
There is another side to the matter of penitentiary administration which I think warrants consideration by the committee. I wish to refer to a statement made by the chief coroner for Ontario, Doctor Smirle Lawson, following an investigation which he carried out in August of last year. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that the matter referred to in this statement by Doctor Lawson has been investigated by the commissioners, and that the situation disclosed in this statement has been remedied and redress made. But I have seen no public statement in regard to it, and I bring it before the committee of the whole because I think it is a matter that should receive its attention.
In the Globe and Mail of August 7,. 1947, we have this article under the heading "Charges T.B. convicts not segregated at pen." The article reads in part as follows:
Convicts with tuberculosis in its advanced stages are kept in close contact with non-
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries

tuberculosis patients in the Kingston penitentiary infirmary, chief coroner Smirle Lawson charged last night.	_
The chief coroner declared the prison hospital was overcrowded and its equipment inadequate, particularly in the operating room. He made these observations on the basis of an official visit to the prison after a convict, Carl Woverenvitz, 57. had died1 in Christie street hospital.
Following Doctor Lawson's remarks, a coroner's jury investigating the death of Woverenvitz demanded that the federal government take immediate steps to segregate tuberculous and non-tuberculous convicts in the penitentiary hospital.
AVoverenvitz did not have tuberculosis but died of complications arising from a wound he received during the first great war. He was treated in the penitentiary hospital and in Kingston general hospital before being moved to Christie street. The inquest was held because the law requires that a public inquiry be held whenever a convict dies while serving his sentence.
Doctor Lawson declared the prison infirmary was well run and spotlessly clean. He also praised the surgeon in charge, Doctor Thomas Tweddell. But Doctor Tweddell, he Baid, could do little in the face of the hospital conditions.
"I found that where Woverenvitz had been lying in the prison hospital there were advanced cases of pulmonary tuberculosis which other patients might quite easily contract," Dr. Lawson said. He added that the infirmary was small and that the proximity of tuberculosis and other patients was "not good medical practice."
Dr. I. H. Erb, provincial pathologist, was a witness at the inquest. "Would you say," Dr. Lawson asked him "that these tuberculosis cases, under the conditions I have described, were a menace."
"Yes," Dr. Erb agreed. "From your report, I think they would be a menace provided they were in relatively close proximity. They would be especially dangerous to younger men who might not discover their own condition until many years later."	.
Dr. Lawson commented that because men had lost their freedom, that was no reason why they should not get as good medical treatment as patients got in other hospitals.
The jury found that Woverenvitz had received correct treatment from the prison surgeon and at Kingston General and Christie Street hospitals.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the situation here referred to has been remedied. With the kind of men we have on the penitentiaries commission I would expect that, on this very serious matter being brought to their attention, they would have acted promptly to remedy it; but I think it should engage the attention of the house, and I hope the minister will be able to make some statement with regard to it.
From many sides we are hearing criticism of present conditions. We hear the youth of today castigated, and we hear different panaceas put forward as solutions for the problem of crime among youth. As one who has sought to interest himself in youth and its problems

I want to express my profound disagreement with some of those who are busy denouncing the youth of today. I see the superintendent of one reformatory has said:
Never at any time in the past twenty-five years has youth been found so insolent, so defiant, or so determined1 to do what is wrong as at the present time.
I think those words are unduly harsh. Those of us who have tried to keep in close touch with the youth of our respective communities will believe the youth of today are as good as were the youth of any other generation. On the other hand, however, they live in a very different kind of world, a fact which the older generation does not always take into account. Life is far more complicated; but fundamentally at the root of the problems of crime and delinquency among youth today is the question of control of children by their parents. It is not so much the failure of the youth of today, or delinquency on the part of the youth of today, as it is the failure on the part of the parents and the home. Everything that is weakening the influence of the home and weakening parental control and a sense of parental responsibility for youth is a detriment to our community. One of our great problems is the insidious pressure of materialistic forces and materialistic philosophies, striving to defeat religious and moral teaching which has its heart and centre in the home and the church. Anything we as men in public life can do to support healthy community influences, which in turn will not supplant but will help strengthen a healthy home influence, I am sure we will all consider it our duty to do.
There is one other aspect of this problem of which we should never lose sight, and that is the problem of the discharged prisoner. Much can be done in the early stages, of course, to guide the footsteps of youth into the paths of good citizenship and useful life. When youth goes astray, much can be done to guide its footsteps back into paths that will lead to useful life in the community. But there is a third aspect, a third stage of the problem, which at all times must engage our interest and concern. That is the problem of the discharged prisoner, the man who has gone astray, who has served a term and is released from a penal institution, only to be confronted by a world which may look to him quite different from the world he left when he was convicted; a world which in so many cases seems cold, unfriendly and inhospitable to him. Each of us, I am sure, has had experience with cases of this kind, but I wish to mention one which arose in an Ontario court some months ago. It is an example of the way in which a prison record dogs a man even when he is trying to

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaiies
go straight. It is an illustration of the fact that discharged prisoners, after they have paid their debt to society, need assistance from various quarters, not only from institutions such as the John Howard society, which is doing magnificent work, but from all who regard themselves as good citizens.
This was a case that came before the county court judge in Windsor. The man in question, whose name I shall not mention, was charged with uttering a forged cheque. The prisoner, who was just twenty-five years of age, had something to say when the court was about to pass sentence upon him. He referred to his police record as a nemesis and said that he believed society had failed in its treatment of men released from prison. He had been convicted first when a third-year university student. One would have thought he was in a position to advance himself into a career of usefulness to society, but he was convicted while attending university. Later he enlisted in the R.C.A.F.; but when his prison record became known he was discharged, just as he was about to receive a commission. That record, with one blot added to another, prevented him from obtaining a bond in one civilian position which otherwise would have been available to him, and it led to his discharge from a position in a Toronto munitions plant. This is what the prisoner himself had to say in court, as the judge was about to pass a further sentence upon him:
My understanding is that society, through the legislature, enacts laws for its own protection. But when a man comes out that debt is paid, and if society hinders or hampers him in his return to them, then society has failed.
The crown attorney commented, "There is something in what he says."
I am not one of those who take a superficial or unnecessarily sentimental view of our treatment of those who have gone wrong. I do not believe we should approach this question in terms of mere sloppy sentiment. I do think, however, that a great deal remains to be done. It is not a task we can simply leave to such beneficent institutions and organizations as the John Howard society, to which I have referred already, which are doing so much to help to rehabilitate discharged prisoners. We cannot rely simply upon individuals. In that regard I should like to pay tribute to the outstanding work done by the former chief of police in Toronto, General D. C. Draper, who is president of the John Howard society, and who did so much in the formation of the Prisoners' Rehabilitation Society which, several years ago, became the John Howard society. But it is incumbent upon all of us who regard 5849-314
ourselves as servants of the public to do all we can to arouse the public to a sense of its responsibilities to these men. Given a fair opportunity, given guidance and friendly help when they come out, the great majority of them will go straight, as one can prove by statistics. But given a hostile or unfriendly reception, and being denied employment and the opportunity to find a place in and be useful to society, then we are simply inviting them to tread again the path of crime.
I am proud of Ontario and the commendable lead taken in that province in the setting up of a department of reform institutions under a minister whose task it is to seek as soon as possible to carry out extensive reforms in the penal institutions of that province, to see that youthful offenders are not permitted to mingle with hardened criminals, that different types of criminals are segregated, and that the guiding principle behind all our prison administration shall be the reform and training in useful pursuits of those who are incarcerated, so that they may upon discharge find a place in society. The purpose is that they may regard themselves as useful members of society, and not as enemies of society. This, of course, cannot be done overnight, but it is a commendable lead and one which could be widely followed.
I hope what I have said today has been constructive. I repeat what I said at the outset, that I commend the Minister of Justice for the two appointments made last year to the penitentiaries commission. They were such as to lead many of us to be hopeful that substantial reforms will be made in those penal institutions which are under the jurisdiction of the dominion.
Again I urge upon the minister to encourage the commission to take in hand the responsibility for carrying forward the task of reform and implementation of the recommendations of the Archambault report, and the modernization of our penal system.


Mr. BRYCE:: Mr. Chairman, coming from a constituency which has within its boundaries a large penitentiary, I have an interest in the people employed there and, like the hon. member who preceded me, I am interested in the people who are confined there.
I should like to draw the matter of wages to the minister's attention. The cost of living has gone up by 153 points. The wages of those employed in prisons have not increased by anything like that amount. The Archambault report emphasizes particularly the fact that persons employed in prisons were not at that time being paid wages as high as were paid to those who cleaned the streets of our cities.
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries

I made that statement before, and upon checking it again I find it still to be true.
I find this at page 344 of the Archambault report:
Your commissioners are convinced that the success or failure of the recommendations contained in this report will depend almost entirely upon the prison personnel to be charged with carrying out the recommendations. The success of every prison system is dependent upon the type of officers in that system.
On the next page of the report the commission says, commenting on some surveys it had made:
No matter what public service one deals 'with -social or fighting-if the personnel is not the right type for t'he work in question-I stress that, for the work in question-the results will be poor. This is particularly so in service where the main preoccupation of the staff is in dealing with human beings as opposed to finance or commerce. In no public social service is this more true than in the prison world where we have to deal with both sexes; men and women of all strata of society, old and young in years of crime, rich and poor, the good and the bad, and, in some cases, the very bad.
I am sure the minister will realize that if we do not pay proper wages it will be hopeless to get the type of men we need for these prisons. The hours they work should compare favourably with those worked by ordinary tradesmen, but in fact they work much longer hours.
By order in council 33/2047 an increase of $5 a month is given to guard grade I, guard messenger, and guard storeman. Let me point out that an advance of $5 in these times is not enough, in view of the present cost of living. I say they are entitled to much better wages than that.
The prison authorities have come to realize that they do not want men like the old sergeant-majors under whom I have served. Those old imperial sergeant-majors set out first to break your heart, even if they accomplished nothing else. That was the type of man who was employed in prisons in earlier days.
I have served under such men. But in the modem world they are not accepted as fit for work in our prisons. Prison discipline and the management of our prisoners have made great progress in recent years. If we want the right men, we will have to pay wages equal to those received by men doing similar work in other spheres.
I shall not at this time go into the question of superannuation. I still have not had satisfaction in connection with the complaint I made last year that a man who has paid his debt to the government under a superannuation scheme, who has paid everything he owed with compound interest, should have to keep on paying until the day he dies.

There is another thing I want to bring up- the housing at Stony Mountain. For three or four years now I have appealed to the government to do something. Here is what the Archambault report has to say about housing:
The accommodation for the staff is inadequate. It is unreasonable and unnecessarily humiliating to ask the members of the staff to live under the conditions that now exist in the officers' tenements 'belonging to the institution. These houses were built fifty years ago; they are without sanitary conveniences, and prisoners themselves are much more comfortably housed in their cells than the officers in the penitentiary tenements.
Your commissioners are of the opinion that this state of affairs is destructive of the morale of the officers and that immediate steps should be taken to provide the staff and their families with respectable accommodation. In a large metropolitan centre the homes which are provided for the staff would, indeed, be condemned by the medical .authorities.
Even with the scarcity of building materials, the Department of Justice should be able to do something. Bowling alleys and picture shows are still being built; surely the government can get some lumber and start some houses here. The greatest objection is that there are no sanitary conveniences.
Like the hon. gentleman who preceded me, I have always been interested in the care of the young criminal or first offender. It is unfortunate that more progress cannot be made in establishing the Borstal system or some equivalent system to care for our first offenders. Our penitentiaries today are for punishment more than for corrective purposes or the reform of the convict. Our system has a tendency to make an habitual criminal out of the first offender. He is put in with hardened criminals or men who have been convicted many times. Under the present system it is practically impossible to segregate the hardened criminal from the first offender. Someone sent me a copy of "Must Canada Continue to Create Criminals?" and I should like to quote from the second page as follows:
The Borstal system of schools in England, for the reclamation of lads who are considered to have a chance, has proved its value. To be a success here, however, as they have been in England, the whole English system must be adopted. The juvenile court there, dealing with children from seven to fifteen, is the handmaiden of the Borstal system, which deals with lads from 16 to 23. The two reforms must go hand in hand.
In the report of the commissioner dated February 5, 1947, the following appears on page 15:
The royal commission dealt at length with the methods of treatment of young offenders between the ages of 16 and 21 and recommended the adoption in Canada of the principles of the Borstal system which has been developed in the United Kingdom. Your commissioner is con-

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
vinced that the principles of that system offer the best known opportunity for the reformation and rehabilitation of youths who have not yet become hardened criminals, and considers that any new institutions to be established by the government of Canada should be of a type to permit the adoption of those principles thereby enabling youths of the reformable type to be withdrawn from the penitentiaries for adults. It cannot be too strongly emphasized, however, that the success of the Borstal system depends primarly on the trained personnel it attracts to its service. It has been said that the foundations of the Borstal system are first the recruitment of the right men, then their proper training, and finally their full co-operation with one another in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual understanding.
I commend the reading of that to hon. members because it shows what can be done. But it must be remembered that wages will have to be increased in order to make this service attractive to people who can do a good job. The scheme advocated in the commissioner's report would be a step in the right direction. A system of this kind would tend to improve the effectiveness of our penal institutions, but no adequate system can be adopted until the indiscriminate herding of criminals in penal institutions is abolished. No doubt some wardens have attempted to discriminate between different offenders, but segregation under one roof cannot be very effective. Different classes of prisons will have to be set apart for young convicts who should receive Borstal treatment. Another prison could be set aside for first offenders and those who may be reclaimed for a law-abiding life. And of course there should be separate institutions for the habitual criminal who is a menace to society.
I do not want to take up any more time, because I think the minister knows what I am driving at. I want better wages for those who are going to try to correct these people. It does not matter how bad a man is; there is some good in him, and we should have some system that would try to bring out that good.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not discuss the Borstal system, because I did that on two previous occasions after making extensive surveys of the system as carried out in the prisons in England. What I want to bring particularly to the attention of the minister today is what can be done to reclaim prisoners. Frequently our talk is about prison reform but I have spent much of my time on methods of reclaiming prisoners. A previous speaker said that the prisoner should be taken care of after he gets out of the penitentiary. I have found that one of the main causes of a released prisoner again lapsing 5849-314J
into crime is his inability to get a job, as the previous speaker mentioned, or a lack of funds.
I have been able to get jobs for many released prisoners, but I tell the minister it is quite a task. I have had to call up manufacturers and heads of firms and give my own personal undertaking that the prisoner would do a decent job. I am happy to say that in every case in which I have done that, the released prisoner has lived up to my best expectations. I try to treat them as a father would, and direct them in the right way. In their minds perhaps the best way to direct them in the right way is to get them jobs.
I should like to know what is being done by the department for prisoners after they are released. Let me refer to a tragic case that came up in Toronto recently. It was that of a well-known convict by the name of Hopkins. Here is his record as published in the Toronto Evening Telegram, after he had been shot to death recently by a constable while engaged in robbing a store:
1930. Convicted of theft at Hamilton; suspended sentence.
1932. Convicted of housebreaking, theft and breaking of recognizance; sent to the Victoria industrial school for an indefinite period.
1934.	Convicted of breach of recognizance; given four months definite and eight months indefinite.
1934.	Convicted again at St. Catharines of breaking and entering; given four months in jail.
1935.	Convicted of theft; given six months definite and nine months indefinite.
1936.	Convicted of carrying an unlawful weapon and being in possession of an unregistered revolver; given three months in jail on the first count and fined $50 or 30 days on the second.
1937.	Convicted on August 1 of shopbreaking and theft; given five years in Kingston.
1941. Convicted of shopbreaking and theft and possession of loaded revolver; given five years on first charge and two years on second, to run consecutively.
1947. Convicted on December 12 on a charge of receiving; given one year.
Within the last month or six weeks he was caught with another convict breaking into a store and was shot dead in the lane behind the store. It is a tragic story-ten arrests and ten convictions within a comparatively few years. What is being done to reform or reclaim prisoners, if they can be reclaimed? I am convinced that the department and whoever is helping the department outside should make a
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries

much stronger effort to reclaim prisoners. This man Hopkins, after ten arrests and ten convictions in little more than a ten-year period, ended up by being shot. There are many cases of the kind, but I shall not take the time to give more examples. Is there any branch of the department that is making a strenuous effort to reclaim prisoners, if they can be reclaimed? Of course the Borstal system will help a great deal, but when a convict cannot be reclaimed, as apparently was the case with Hopkins, should he not be declared incorrigible and be put away for good? Every day we read of criminals who, after serving a term in a penitentiary, were released and committed a murder or some other crime much worse than the one they were sent down for.
I would say that the department should do one of two things: either reclaim these convicts or put them away for good. It has been said, and I agree, that the home has the greatest influence of all, and the sooner homes get back to the old habit of family worship, under which I was raised, the better it will be for the children. I can see my parents yet, reading a chapter out of the scriptures every morning, and then, after explaining it to us, offering up a prayer. There is not so much of that done in these days as there should be.
I recognize the tremendous job which the department and the police have to do. Nevertheless one of two things should be done: either the convict should be reclaimed, or when it is found he cannot be reclaimed, he should be put away for good.


John George Diefenbaker: I believe that a real work of reform is being done in some of our penal institutions. I refer particularly to Saskatchewan penitentiary, where the work done in the past few years has been such as to result in a minimum of recidivists. I know of several cases I could bring to the attention of the committee, but I do not propose to do so. I think it is only fair to say that while in certain areas recidivism is of serious proportions, the work being done in Saskatchewan penitentiary has been highly commendable. I know of one man who, after serving a long period in that penitentiary fol-owing his conviction for murder, was allowed out on parole some four years ago, joined the army, rose to the rank of sergeant, and is now back in the area in which he lived prior to commission of the crime, and is taking his place in society in a manner commendable both to him and to the system operated in the penitentiary of Saskatchewan. That young man entered the penitentiary at the age of eighteen or nineteen with a grade 2 education, and at the end of fourteen years he was

discharged from that institution with the equivalent of grade 12 education.
The new commissioner of penitentiaries has an important and responsible position, and one that is difficult by reason of two forces sometimes pulling in opposite directions- punishment for wrongdoing, and reform. One worthy thing that has been done during the past year is the establishment of a policy of education and training for penitentiary officers. Some twenty-five of them have taken the course. To be a successful penitentiary officer requires not only the capacity to appreciate human shortcomings and the ability to enforce discipline, but also the capacity for intelligent coercion. The hon. member for Selkirk referred to the old type of officer who was an autocrat and sometimes a martinet. That type of officer is rapidly leaving the penitentiary service of this country, and properly so. But you cannot get the type of officers who are needed in the penitentiaries at the present rates of pay. A penitentiary officer receives a low salary having regard to present living costs-it runs from $125 to $140 or $150 a month-and he has no security. He is a temporary official who can be removed at any time. His right to be made permanent was done away with some fifteen years ago. It is a serious situation. It was done that way because it was thought that those in charge of the various institutions would not be able to exercise proper discipline if there were permanence in the appointments.
I come now to a question that was raised by the hon. member for Eglinton in what I thought was an excellent statement of the problem of penal reform. During the last year-and he made reference to it-there have been a number of penitentiary outbreaks. The minister should indicate to the committee the various penitentiaries in which these outbreaks took place. There have been rumours as to the circumstances under which revolvers and firearms get to the possession of convicts in these institutions. We had an example in Kingston penitentiary of wyhat happens where there is no proper discipline. That is the most recent occurrence. Where did these convicts get possession of the firearms which they used in committing homicide in their escape? In what other penitentiaries in connection with which investigations have taken place in the last year have firearms been found in possession of prisoners? I cannot understand how firearms could get into the possession of convicts without assistance from within. If a lawyer goes to consult his client in the penitentiary he has no opportunity of being in a room with the prisoner. He is placed in the

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
same position as a visitor; he is removed from the prisoner and separated by a net. How do these things occur? What happened? Was anything done to punish wrongdoers within the penitentiary and prevent a recurrence of such incidents?
I should like to say a word in respect to remission of sentences. The present system of remission of sentences is haphazard and uncertain, and in many cases works unfairness among prisoners who are serving terms for similar crimes and offences. Too often the exercise of remissions results from representations which are made, and not from consideration from time to time, by those in authority, of the remainder of the sentence. I mention one case in particular. It is difficult to maintain authority within a penal institution when certain prisoners have their sentences remitted at the end of the minimum period of sentence, and others who have equally conformed to the regulations, find that for some reason nothing is done. I find it difficult to see any rhyme or reason for the granting of remissions. Certainly the principle upon which they should be based, as I see it, is, first, that the sentence served has paid the debt to society; second, that the sentence served has been sufficient to punish the wrongdoer while giving him an opportunity to reform.
I know of a man in the Saskatchewan penitentiary who was sentenced for murder in 1929. If ever there was doubt as to the guilt of a man, there was doubt in that case. I am not going to give his name, but I shall send it to the minister. He was sentenced to death. He had no funds or friends. A certain lawyer, reading of the case in the paper, and believing that that man was entitled to appeal, undertook the appeal, which came before the court of appeal of Saskatchewan. The court dismissed the appeal, but expressed serious doubts with regard to the case. Commutation was granted. My doubts of that case are no less strong today than they were in 1929. That man sees others going out year after year. When an application for remission is made- and his record is perfect; he has discharged any debt to society, if he was guilty, of which there is still doubt, and he continues to protest his innocence-the reason given why he cannot have his remission is that nobody will assume responsibility for him and assure him a livelihood if he were discharged. That seems difficult to understand. There is no doubt about it. The question has been asked over and over again whether anybody will accept responsibility for him. I feel that that is the type of case which the remission branch should
reconsider. The man's record in the penitentiary over nineteen years has been satisfactory. Remissions should be based on the record of the offender. In a case such as the one I have cited there should be no denial of opportunity for a man to take his place in society, even though the difficulties are almost overwhelming, having regard to the period in which he has been a ward of the state.
Mention was made of the John Howard society. Too often do we base success in life on material considerations. I am thinking at the moment of Mr. J. A. Edmison, K.C., a man who has taken over the position, as his life work, of secretary of this society. He sacrifices his profession and his monetary opportunities. During the past two years he has gone across this country, and I think more than anyone else has brought to the attention of the public as a whole the necessity of implementation of many of the recommendations in the Archam-bault report which, for all too long a time, did not receive from the Department of Justice the attention they deserve.
I do not know what can be done to rehabilitate the man who has served his sentence. It is trite to say that he finds grave difficulties. Everyone who practises the law has been told at first hand of men who, after having paid their debt to society, cannot secure employment because of their record. The John Howard society is doing something in that direction to assure assistance in rehabilitation to those men who made a mistake in life, and who have discharged their debt to society. While today some assistance is given to the John Howard society, I hope that I shall not be criticized for advocating a reduction of taxation on the one hand and then asking for additional expenditures on the other, when I ask for consideration by the government to making to that society a grant in order to enable it to expand its activities in this country for the benefit and rehabilitation of those who, having erred, now ask the opportunity to take their place in society.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I should like to ask the minister if he is in favour of cutting down the sentence of the criminal who has everything in his favour to indicate that he will make good, if somebody will sponsor him. I have had a good deal of experience with these cases. I think I have had about 134 men out under supervision in the past forty years, and only three have failed. The former minister of justice was willing; he thought it was a good thing if a man's sentence was cut down before he served a complete term.
My plan has always been to check up with the chief of police and not to ask for a man
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries

to be allowed out unless I interviewed him personally and found out his attitude. When a man is placed on his honour, but when he also knows there is somebody watching him with a live interest in his welfare, week in and week out, it gives him an opportunity to make good.
Only a little while ago I was asked to go out and see if it was possible to get a boy out of the penitentiary. When I went into the home the mother was smoking a cigarette and on the table was a bottle of Canadian rye with the cork out of it. I checked up with the police right away. I said, "Do not touch him. You will get into trouble. He has a bad habit, and he got it from his father and mother." I know some men like to take a drink. But when a boy is taught to drink in his home, he acquires a terribly bad start. But only three- and that is less than three per cent-of those we have had out, have failed. Thanks to the wholehearted co-operation of my better half, those boys were welcomed in our home and they enjoyed the friendship they found there. Does the minister think it is a good thing to have a man out on permit under certain conditions, or does he not?


Thomas Reid: I have just two questions I should like to ask the Minister of Justice; but, before doing so, may I make one comment regarding statements that have been made here this afternoon? It is true that the segregation of criminals has created considerable interest in this country, and the Borstal system has been mentioned by many speakers on many occasions. But I took note that a commission was appointed not so long ago in Great Britain to investigate the Borstal system there; because, under the changed conditions under which we are now living, it appears that conditions have also changed with youth and with adults as well. I know the statement is commonly made that youth should be segregated in penitentiaries from the hardened criminals. But as one who periodically visits the penitentiary in Westminster, I may say I have found that many old hardened criminals have expressed to me the request that they be segregated from some of the present youth who come into the pen. I do not say that in any spirit of levity, or in the way of carping criticism. That is the actual fact. In view of the fact that Great Britain, with its great Borstal system, has found that something has gone wrong with the youth, I am wondering if the minister has any information regarding the commission and what they found out there. I thought I would rise in my place and tell what I had found out in my visits to the penitentiary.

On January 19, in a speech here, I drew the minister's attention to serious complaints with regard to their wages made by guards in the penitentiary at New Westminster. Like the hon. member for Selkirk, I believe these men are doing a special kind of work. If you want to keep them content, it is my opinion that you should at least pay them as much as guards are getting in the provincial prison. Each and everyone of us judges by comparisons. We are all satisfied until we find that somebody else is getting a little more than we are. The guards are human too. The class of work they are doing today has been elevated. We are looking for a higher type of guard to look after the welfare of the men in the penitentiary. I could never understand why guards who look after prisoners in a provincial prison should receive far more than do guards who look after prisoners in the penitentiary, although they may later be looking after the same prisoners that are being looked after in the provincial jail. Has any investigation been made into the request I made on January 19, regarding the salaries and wages paid to these guards?


Joseph Henry Harris: I am desirous of commending those who are responsible for the appointment of Joseph McCulley. I say to the Minister of Justice that, from my own personal knowledge, this appointment is one which receives the support of my native province. It so happens that Pickering college, of which he was headmaster, was my alma mater. I have taken a keen interest in that particular institution and have personally observed the work of Joseph McCulley, which had to do with boys in the college where the surroundings were quite different from those he will find in the task he is taking on. The wonderful job he was able to do on behalf of hundreds of students who passed through his hands as headmaster at Pickering college is something which, to my mind, recommends him highly for the onerous duties he has now taken on as one of the commissioners.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to answer some questions that have been asked by speakers this afternoon. Perhaps it will not be possible for me to answer them all, but I think I can cover them fairly well.
In the first place, I think I should say something about the operations of the commissioner of penitentiaries during the past year. The foundation for the program being followed in the operation of the penitentiary system is to be found in the report of the present commissioner of penitentiaries, which I think was circulated in February of 1947. That was the report referred to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Selkirk. To some extent that

report is based upon the Archambault report, but does not go the length recommended by the Archambault report; that is, the centralization of control of all penal institutions in the dominion government. That probably is not practicable. We have no reason whatever to think it is practicable. We have had no request for anything of that kind from any of the provinces with the exception of two, I think I am safe in saying; those are the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba. While I have stated in this house that if the provinces wished us to give consideration to this important change in the constitution of our penitentiary system we would do so, I do not anticipate that I shall get any request to give consideration to it, having in mind the acri-moniuos speeches which have been made in some parts of Canada about the desire of the dominion government to centralize authority here in Ottawa.
So we are proceeding on a different footing, the one set out in General Gibson's report of February, 1947. I should like to tell the committee some of the things that have been done during the past year. The new act was proclaimed on September 1, 1947. The administration was reorganized. General Gibson was appointed commissioner, and two deputy commissioners, Mr. McCulley and Doctor Gendreau, were appointed. There are three assistant commissioners, the senior assistant commissioner being Mr. Sauvant. A training school for officers was inaugurated, and the second course is now in progress. The courses are given at Rockcliffe, in the R.C.M.P. barracks there. Twenty-five of the personnel of the penitentiaries come in for each course, which lasts six weeks. I visited this school being carried on there under the guidance or control or direction of Mr. McCulley, and found the atmosphere to be excellent. In other words, those who come in from the penitentiaries are keen to learn all they can. The instructors seem very good. There is not the slightest evidence of any feeling that this is a holiday or a lark or anything like that. They are very much in earnest about learning what they can about how to carry on their duties in the penitentiaries.
The salaries have been revised in all grades. In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Selkirk said that the cost of living had increased by 50 per cent or thereabouts, and that the remuneration of the employees of the penitentiaries branch had not been increased to the same extent. But the remuneration has increased by approximately 50 per cent since 1939 in all except the highest grades. For guards the 1939 range was from
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
SI,200 to $1,500 a year. After a recent increase, I think more recent than the last one with which the hon. member is familiar, and certainly more recent than the rate in existence last January, when the hon. member for New Westminster spoke to me about the matter, the 1948 range for guards is from $1,800 to $2,100, with a higher maximum than that for twenty per cent of the guards.


John Thomas Hackett: Are they not also supplied with clothing and uniforms and shoes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, they are.


John Thomas Hackett: So they really get more than the amounts mentioned?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. They also get a free meal in the middle of the day and free medical services.


John Thomas Hackett: And some pension rights?


James Lorimer Ilsley: And superannuation, rights
under exactly the same system as the civil service, which I cannot help reiterating is an extremely generous superannuation system, judged by any standard at all. The increases over the 1939 rates in the other grades are as follows:
Keeper	
Instructor	
Chief keeper ... Chief trade instr. Warden, grade 1 Warden, grade 2

2.400-	2,700
2.700-	3,300
2.700-	3,300 4.800- 5,400
5.400-	6,000
During the past year there has been an important, rapid extension of the system of classification. We have spoken in this house about the importance, first, of classification of prisoners, and, then, of segregation. I am prepared to admit that the segregation has not been carried on to the extent that ultimately it should be, because so much construction is required. There just are not the buildings and the facilities. The more you finally segregate, the more facilities you require, of course; but progress is being made in segregation, and more progress will be made in future when labour and material for construction become more readily available. First, however, there has to be classification. Classification officers have now been appointed in all the penitentiaries, and a proper system of classification is being developed.
Full-time vocational training has been inaugurated for young convicts at Collin's Bay and St. Vincent de Paul penitentiaries, where they receive instruction in construction carpentry, cabinet making, brick masonry, plumbing and steamfitting, tinsmithing and drafting. That system of full-time vocational
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries


William Scottie Bryce: For the housing of guards?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, for guards' houses. Therefore that is being taken- care of.


William Scottie Bryce: I am pleased to hear that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Selkirk has repeated the complaint he has made on other -occasions with -respect t-o the pension system. His point is that certain persons have to keep on paying in som-e cases until they have paid in more than they could possibly get out.


William Scottie Bryce: I have three cases I shall send to the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All- right; I would like to see them. H-owever, all I can say is that the rule being applied t-o these penitentiary employees is -exactly the same as the on-e applied throughout the civil service. There is no difference whatever. I wish to reiterate that the Civil Service Superannuation Act is an exceedingly liberal act.
It may be that if a person has to pay up -arrears and is given the option of paying a lump sum or paying so much for life, he will pay m-ore by taking the latter option, if he lives long -enough. But he w-ill not pay anything at all if he dies very soon.


William Scottie Bryce: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: Let us be reasonable about this. These people were temporaries who became permanent. As temporaries they were not entitled to superannuation. They

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
were given the privilege of paying for the back period which would partly-and only partly-pay the cost of their receiving a pension, or their families receiving pensions. They had the option of paying that up, with about one-third of the cost to the government. They could not do that, so it was said to them, "All right, instead of paying a lump sum, you may pay so much a year for the rest of your life." Well, the person who does that takes a chance of losing by living too long. There is no doubt about that. However that cannot be avoided. It is an option, and a fair option, based upon actuarial principles.


William Scottie Bryce: These men could not be temporary employees, because they were in the service since 1921.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are people who have been temporaries for many years. Finally they become permanent. My officials instruct me that these people did not elect to take advantage of the superannuation act. Then later in 1944, they elected to take advantage of the act.


William Scottie Bryce: When some of those people are sixty-eight years of age they will have paid compound interest on all they owe the government, and still they have to pay to the end of their days.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am satisfied my hon. friend is unreasonable in the position he takes. We are talking about these civil servants or penitentiary employees who were given a year or two years in 1924 or 1925 to exercise the option. They did not exercise it. But they found out twenty years later that it would have been advantageous for them to exercise it. Then they are given another opportunity to exercise it, provided that they pay up the arrears. They are given the option of paying a lump sum or of paying on an actuarial basis. If they find there is more money taken away from them if they go on that basis, they have no complaint.


William Scottie Bryce: I hope the minister does not really mean that-that I am unreasonable- because I think I am the most reasonable man in the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Usually, yes.


William Scottie Bryce: I have indicated this
grievance, and I would be failing in my duty if I did not bring it to the attention of the committee. These men have a just grievance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All right; we shall let it go at that.


William Scottie Bryce: Would the minister be good enough to mention the hours; is it fifty-one hours?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Forty-eight hours, I believe.


William Scottie Bryce: Do you not think it should be 'less than that?
Mr. ILS'LEY: If it is less than that you have to lock the prisoners up earlier.


William Scottie Bryce: There are lots of men in the country now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is difficult to arrange the shifts.


William Scottie Bryce: That was the excuse made during the war, that there were not sufficient men. There are plenty of men now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, it is forty-eight hours a week.


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister answer a question on the point he has been arguing with the hon. member for Selkirk? The minister said that in 1921 these guards who were temporary employees had the option of coming under the superannuation scheme.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I am wrong in that. I thought the hon. member was talking about temporaries. He was talking about permanents who were given the privilege of coming under the superannuation act in 1924 but who elected not to do so.


Clarence Gillis: As temporaries they would not have that option.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, they would not have it as temporaries.


Clarence Gillis: Is it not unreasonable to keep people in the service for twenty-five or thirty years, classify them as temporaries and deprive them of that privilege?


James Lorimer Ilsley: These people were not. That is another question.
Then the hon. member for Davenport asked what was being done by way of reclamation. I believe I have answered that pretty thoroughly. Our whole policy is directed toward reform by all the methods I have mentioned. As I say, arrangements are made with the John Howard societies to get in contact with them upon their release from the penitentiaries, and the estimates provide for grants to the John Howard societies.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do they get them jobs?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The prisoners' aid societies do the best they can to place them.
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister will remember that I said I had exercised myself in obtaining jobs for those whom I knew. They have done very well, because I do not know of any who have relapsed. How much does a prisoner take out of a penitentiary in his pocket when he is released? When he is out of money, what does he do for more?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not less than $10, and it depends upon the length of time he has been in the penitentiary.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would not take him anywhere. Much of the trouble comes from a lack of supervision over the prisoner after he is released. I do not know how it can be done, but certainly $10 would hardly take him from Kingston to Toronto, even riding in a second-class car. When he gets to Toronto he may need some place to lie down in, because they do not all have homes to go to. Then he must eat. There should be some place where a released prisoner feels he can go to obtain aid. This would not be mollycoddling; it is simply a matter of keeping them from going out and robbing some home or knocking somebody down on the street and taking their money.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The average cash taken out is $18 and transportation is paid to the place of sentence. The John Howard societies are communicated with to see if they cannot help to get these men established.
The hon. member for Lake Centre said something about pay, but I think I have answered that. Then he said there was no permanency. These men have the same permanency as civil servants, except that they can be dismissed by the minister for cause, while a permanent civil servant can be dismissed for cause, only by the governor in council. They have the same rights under the supeiannuation fund as civil servants.
The hon. member for Lake Centre wanted to know how arms get into the penitentiaries. The only recent instance is that at Kingston when a revolver got into the penitentiary. It is not known how, but the matter is under investigation.
The hon. member for Lake Centre said that the remission service was unsatisfactory. We do not get many complaints about the remission service, but it may be susceptible of some improvement.
The hon. member for Fort William asked whether I am in favour of letting out a convict whose record is good when someone will sponsor him? Our whole remission service is based on those principles which are pretty consistently applied.

The hon. member for New Westminster asked if I was acquainted with the investigations of a royal commission in Great Britain into the Borstal system. I am not, but I believe I read somewhere that the figures with reference to the Borstal system are not quite as satisfactory today as they were some years ago. There has been a little deterioration, not in the system, but in the results from the system.
I thank the hon. member for Eglinton for the tribute he has paid to Mr. McCulley, one of the deputy commissioners. I think everyone agrees that it was a good appointment, as was also the appointment of Doctor Gendreau. I need hardly say that the same would apply to the appointment of the commissioner.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to call the attention of the minister to three or four matters. I am greatly dissatisfied with the inspection of these institutions. You are spending large sums of money, six to seven million dollars a year, and getting little value in. the way of prison reform. The other evening I referred to the fact that in the old country they had had real law reform. Half of the prisons over there have been closed under the summary offenders act.
What prison reform has there been since the Archambault report? I venture to say that inspection is one of the most important functions you have, and there is no inspection except by crown officers. These institutions, whether they are rightly or wrongly managed, have been criticized by some of the superior court judges of the provinces. It is one of the cardinal principles of Magna Carta that the people shall take a large share in the administration of criminal justice. These institutions are managed only by crown officers, and the motto over their doors should be, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here".
As I say, there is no inspection except by crown officers. I had a bill up the other night for consideration. I want to compliment the minister on the amount of time he has given to this service since he took charge of the department. While I do not think the changes made go as far as they should, I want to say that he has done a great deal to bring these institutions to the attention of the public. He is one attorney general who has done this. I know that some never paid any attention to this branch of the department and were never in these places to see what was going on.
I should like to see these institutions inspected by businessmen because these places are extremely important. I remember when

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
we were appointing a new chief constable in Toronto a deputation, including Sir John Eaton, asked that a soldier be appointed. I said to them, "Can you learn how to run a department in Eaton's in a day? How are you going to learn this police business in a day? How are you going to learn the police or penal institution business in a day?" That just cannot be done. You must be in the business all your life to know about it.
I believe that applies as far as possible to this department, but there should be a proper system of inspection. Hon. members of the House of Commons have been on the board of visitors for years, but how many in this chamber have been in any of these institutions to see what is going on? I know the hon. member for Davenport is one who has visited one of these places. Years ago the only reform in these institutions was by a Conservative government in Ontario under Sir James Whitney, and by our city of Toronto, a pioneer city in prison reform, which built in 1910-11 two jail farms, one for men on Yonge street and one for women three miles away at Concord.
We have an old jail down on the Don which is in my constituency. It was built about the time of confederation and what I am saying here to this government applies to that institution. The former hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers), and another hon. member looked into these institutions, and the construction inside them is against all the known laws of public hygiene, and the member for St. Mary said the same thing. There should be some better system of inspection and the public should know what is going on inside these institutions. You can. never inspect them by sitting in your office. True, we have a very fine commissioner in charge of the penitentiaries. We have commissions on everything now. Everybody is changing his title. You change the name but you do not change the system. Under the present system you cannot find out what is going on in the penitentiaries, and we want to know and the public want to know. The Archam-bault report recommended that there should be a better system of conducting these penitentiaries. Every great war is followed by unrest, especially among the younger people who have travelled through difficult days, and the penitentiary population increases.
I should like to make the following suggestions to the minister. I do not want to hold up his estimates, because he has been very patient not only regarding private bills but the whole system of penitentiary and justice administration. The public are very much dis-5849-315*
satisfied with the conduct of some of these institutions. We have not the system which we should have, especially for youthful offenders. It is many years since the Archambault report was brought down. It grew out of debates on these institutions in this house. The commission recommended many changes. It is true that some minor changes which have been made are listed in the back of the report of the present commissioner of penitentiaries. I admit that considerable changes have been made, and so far so good; but they are not sufficient, especially at a time like this when people are being sentenced for minor infractions of the control laws. Can you blame anybody from trying to escape from these institutions? The penalty is too great-no wonder there are escapees.
I wrote to some of the wardens a few- years ago and I found that very little visiting of these institutions was done. Why not have the grand jury or even the petit jury inspect these institutions. Jury inspection has been the system in the province of Ontario ever since confederation. Why should the jury inspection system not apply to federal institutions? The jury would not go there to criticize the institutions but would strengthen the hand of the present commissioner. I do not say that they should go to these institutions more than once or twice a year, because in some provinces there are no grand juries and in others the petit juries are reduced to five in number. But undoubtedly w-e need a more adequate inspection system. That was urged in the report of Mr. Justice Archambault, and it was supported by the late Chief Justice Meredith, who tried more cases out on circuit at the assizes for more than fifty years than any other judge in Ontario or Canada. Many judges have emphasized the value of an inspection of these institutions, municipal, provincial and dominion, by juries, and I hope that something along that line will be done. It is the key to law reform. The public should be made aware of what is going on in these institutions. Some punishments are entirely too drastic, so much so that one would think we were living in the middle ages.
I want to thank the minister for the manner in which he has received my suggestions, in the same spirit as that in which I have made them. I am not criticizing the present commissioner. He has had a distinguished career in another sphere of activity, and it may be that in the years to come he may do good work in the penitentiaries; but the public believe that prison reform, which they had in Great Britain twenty-five years ago, is altogether too slow in coming in Canada.
Supply-Treimport


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not want to hold up my own estimates, but many members are interested in penitentiary methods and prison reform, and I should like to send to the members of the house a copy of a speech made by the commissioner on February 16, 1948, at a meeting under the auspices of the School of Social Work, University of Toronto, which I commend to their attention if they want to keep in touch with what is being done in the administration of the penitentiaries. The figures with regard to the pay of the employees need to be revised to some extent, because the speech was made before the last pay increase, but the speech is worthy of reading by anybody who is interested in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1/63. Departmental administration, $690,670.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have a return here, No. 167, which shows a property sold by the Department of Transport. It shows lots 122, 123 and 124, concession 1, west Yonge street, Toronto, twenty-one acres, sold for $105, although it cost the government $430, and I have information showing that property in that neighbourhood is selling and has sold at $400 or more an acre. I would ask the minister why this land was sold for less than it cost the government away back in 1907 to 1911. Despite the fact that the return says this land was sold by tender, I have reliable information that no tenders were called at all. I would like a little information on that.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is the land?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Lots 122, 123 and 124, concession 1, west Yonge street, Toronto. It was part of the land that was bought by the government from 1907 to 1911 for the Newmarket branch of the Trent canal. The information I have here shows that the land around it has been selling at $400 an acre, and some as high as $500 an acre.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not remember the details of this particular sale. It is somewhat vague in my memory now, but my recollection is that it was advertised. It may be that there were no bids and that, later on, the land was sold privately, but I should not like to be committed to that statement. I shall look into the matter and give my hon. friend a reply before I am through with my estimates.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Even if it were sold privately, those who sold it should have checked on the property nearby and should not have sold it for $5 an acre. That was giving it

away. This is valuable land. The property around there is now all built up with houses.


Lionel Chevrier: I remember now; it was advertised on more than one occasion. There were bids in certain instances and in others there were not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That was other land round there.


Lionel Chevrier: What happened was, I think, that the land was put together in a block and sold. In any event, I shall get the information for my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister a report as to the extent of the damage done to the Canadian National railway lines by the floods in British Columbia? What is the estimated cost of repairs?


Lionel Chevrier: I gave that information in much detail on the orders of the day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Today?


Lionel Chevrier: I gave a complete statement on it on Monday, I think.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals service-
467. Canals-construction and improvements, $579,660.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I spoke about this matter last year and at other times when the estimates were up. The Rideau canal, and also the Trent canal have great attractions for United States tourists; but, owing to the fact that so many automobiles are used these days, the steamers which we used to have on these canals are not running today. Therefore the weeds are allowed to grow in the rivers and the lakes of the canals. Many of the little docks that the government put in years ago are of no use today, on account of the fact that the entrance from a lake or from the canal itself is blocked with weeds. Would it not be possible, and would it not be good business on the part of the government, to clear these weeds out of these sections, because in Canada, and especially in my district, the ICawartha district, we depend on the tourist for a great deal of business. We depend on them for United States dollars, and it is the United States tourist who is asking that these weeds be taken out of these channels. If the department had a weed cutter it would not cost very much to do the job. The excuse given to me last year was that if the department cut the weeds they would float ashore and create a menace, breed flies and so on. That condition would prevail for only a couple of days and then it would be over. If the

Supply*-Transport
weeds were cut, growth would be kept down. Another way of doing away with them around the docks is, of course, to put lime down. That keeps them down for perhaps two or three years, and I do not think it affects the fish at all. Something should be done in that regard. We spend $650,000 or more advertising for United States tourists, and we should do everything possible for their convenience when they get here.


Lionel Chevrier: The last time my hon. friend brought this matter up, I think the difficulty was that these weeds w'ere not in navigable channels. They were in close to the dock or close to a channel which took care of boats of small draft. There are perhaps 500 miles or more of secondary canals, not all of which are of tourist value. Because of that, it would not be a simple matter in so far as the work and the costs are concerned. It might not be a big job to cut the weeds in the channels to which my hon. friend refers, but the whole question is whether it is a responsibility of the Department of Transport. If we were to cut them there, by inference it would create an obligation to cut them elsewhere. I am not saying that it cannot be done or that it will not be done, that is the objection which occurred to me when my hon. friend brought the matter up. I told him that I would ask my officers to look into it. They did, and they came to the conclusion that they would be assuming an obligation to cut the weeds in the other places as well. I do not know that the position has changed since, but I shall be glad to ask my people to look at it again.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Take the case of Keene, Ontario. There is a government dock at Keene on the river that runs from Keene into Rice lake, which is only a short stretch. That dock was built at Keene by the government. Thousands of United States tourists go there. They come into the Rice lake district, 'winter, summer, spring and fall, but they can hardly use an outboard motor in that section today from the main canal in Rice lake up to the Keene dock. The dock is there. It was built when the steamboats were operating. The steamboats kept it clear, but an outboard motor cannot plow through there. It is not only for the convenience of the United States tourists who are there but also for the business people in the section. They need the business of these tourists. In many cases the tourists have to go up the river to Keene to get their mail, because some of them have no roads or they are on an island. They have to go by boat for their mail, but they cannot go all the way. They have to paddle
through those weeds. There are not 500 miles' of weeds which would have to be cleared..
There is another spot which should be cleared. It has been checked by the superintendent of the department in Peterborough, Mr. Ryan. I refer to Little lake. Weeds have grown in Little lake because of the dam and the locks below. There is a concrete dock and shed and everything on George street, right on Little lake, but to get from the main canal you have to go through weeds. The weeds in that section are a menace to the outboard motor and to health, I would say, because they stop the proper flow of water down that stream.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I add a word, because I have exactly the same situation in Muskoka outside the town of Bracebridge? It seems to me that the situation described by the hon. member for Peterborough West is something that somebody has to deal with; otherwise an impossible situation will be created, and many of these waterways will fill up and become unusable for local inhabitants, and what is more important, for the tourists. I am not quite clear as to the responsibility in these matters. The waters referred to by my hon. friend, and certainly the waters that I have in mind, are navigable waters. Am I right in assuming that the department has a responsibility there? If I am, then the minister will answer me.


Lionel Chevrier: I can answer that right away.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I first just ask a supplementary question? If the department is not responsible, then is it a matter of individual initiative for the riparian owner?


Lionel Chevrier: To answer the first question on navigable waters, the department has a responsibility with reference to aids to navigation and the keeping open of the channel; but it has no statutory responsibility with reference to the cutting of weeds.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is meant by "the keeping open of the channel"?


Lionel Chevrier: Keeping it open in the sense of having proper beacons, lights and aids to navigation to permit traffic to go from one end of the waterway to the other.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But the minister would not suggest that that is what happened between Montreal and
Supply-Transport

Quebec? The department or whoever has the responsibility there keeps the channel open, free and available for the passage of traffic.


Lionel Chevrier: That is another matter altogether. From Montreal to Quebec it is a matter of dredging.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is a different principle involved there? Between Montreal and Quebec there is the responsibility to keep the channel open. At first blush, the minister's answer does not seem to be a good one, because actually between Montreal and Quebec much more has to be done than is suggested by us. I take it that it would be a much more difficult task to do dredging than it would be to cut weeds. I cannot yet see that the minister has given an answer to my question. If this is a navigable stream and particularly, as my hon. friend has said, where you have built wharves, is it not your responsibility to provide access to them? On the analogy of the situation between Montreal and Quebec, surety it is.


Lionel Chevrier: There is a distinction between the two. From Montreal to Quebec the department has dredged the channel to a certain depth-I think it is thirty-five feet- in order to keep it open for ships of certain draft. On the canal to which the hon. member for Peterborough refers, the situation is different. We do not usually take responsibility for cutting weeds on canals. We cut weeds on government property, on canal banks and the like. But cutting weeds for tourist purposes is not an obligation of the Department of Transport.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It should be.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says it should be. That is another matter. With deference, I submit that it should not be. However, I shall be glad to have the matter looked into further.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I may perhaps be stupid, but it seems to me that the minister has not at all explained to me this distinction. In each of these cases you have a navigable water. In the one case, as the minister has pointed out, the department has assumed responsibility for keeping open a channel thirty-five feet in depth, and it acts accordingly. In these other cases, particularly where a canal has been built or at any rate where there is a navigable water of which the department has charge-and which, as the minister says, has navigating lights where necessary-and still more so where wharves have been built to which access has

been had, surety the minister does not say there is no responsibility there. What is the difference in principle between cutting weeds and dredging out clay or whatever it is? I cannot follow that distinction.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry if I am not making myself clear, but I hope I am rvhen I state that there is no responsibility in the Department of Transport, as I understand it, to keep the water clear of weeds.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry to persist; but why does the minister distinguish between weeds, let us say, and stones, clay or sand? What is the distinction? In the St. Lawrence you recognize that you must keep the channel clear. Why not in the Muskoka river? What is the difference?


Lionel Chevrier: The difference is as I have stated. The responsibility of the department is to keep the channel open for commercial traffic and not for tourist traffic.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, that is a new point. Is that in the act? Surety a navigable stream is a navigable stream, and surety if you build wharves you have some responsibility to assure access to them.


Mr. CHEV  RIER@: We do not build wharves in the Department of Transport. That is not our responsibility. We have never built wharves in the Department of Transport. They were built by others. We operate the wharves once they are built.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: All right. The minister must not become too legalistic on me, because he is better at that kind of thing than I am. Let us get back to the point. Let me retract what I said about the department's building wharves. Will the minister say whether I am correct in thinking that those wharves are dominion government property?


Lionel Chevrier: That, is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And am I correct in thinking that it is the duty of his department to maintain access to them? Is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: That is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If weeds impede access to them, is it not your duty to take out the weeds?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think weeds impede the access of ships bringing trade and commerce to a port. That is my understand-

Supply-Transport
mg of the situation. But that is not the point which the hon. member for Peterborough raised. He raised the point that weeds are impeding tourist craft and boats of that kind from coming in. He mentioned the stretch from Keene to Rice lake. I do not know just what the position of the channel is there. I am not familiar with that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is about a mile long.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it on canal property?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was originally, yes.


Lionel Chevrier: It is probably connecting one canal with another.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Rice lake runs from Hastings up to Bewdley, and Keene is on the north part of it, with the Indian river running down. The dock is up in there. Years ago all kinds of boats went up in there, including steamboats. Later on, there were launches. First there were naphtha launches and then gasoline ones. A gasoline launch cannot go up there now, because it would get tied up in the weeds.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a navigable channel.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a navigable channel in the sense that ships bringing in a cargo come in there. How many feet deep is the channel?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It would be as deep as you can make it. In some places the Trent canal has a clearance of six feet and in other places a clearance of nine feet. There would be no reason why you could not have a clearance of nine feet in there if you want it. Steamships 100 feet or more in length used to go up in there. At many other spots such as Harwood, Gore's Landing and Bewdley, the weeds should be cleared out. As I said before, thousands of tourists are going up in there. We are spending $650,000 or more to advertise for United States tourists. We must do everything possible to look after their interests when they get here. They are buying outboard motors which are manufactured in Peterborough. We want them to use those outboard motors. We want to keep the working men in Canada busy. We want to keep our plants going.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to add something to what the hon. member has said. I really do not believe the minister can seriously say that the department's responsibility is to keep these channels open only for a certain type of craft and that the summer craft, such as launches and so on, are to be distinguished from what I think the
minister implied were more the commercial type of craft. In the broad sense, these summer craft are just as commercial as anything in the world could be, because they provide a great deal of business in the district. It is an obvious fact, as obvious as it can be, that if these waters become impassable, it may be a great detriment to the whole area. It is clear to me that these weeds must be kept down. The minister's argument that the department is not responsible for that seems to me, if I have understood him correctly, to be untenable; because what he says is apparently that weeds must be treated in a different way from the more solid obstacles which he removes in order to keep the channels open. I cannot believe that the minister intends to say this summer traffic, which, after all, is important to that whole area, is to be disregarded and that, in so far as the department is concerned, these waterways with docks on them which are government property are to be allowed virtually to become impassable. I cannot believe he intends to take that position, and yet that seems to be what he has said.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to send this document over to the minister. It is entitled 'Waters to explore-the Trent." It is interesting, and I know it will be quite an education to him.


Lionel Chevrier: I have seen it, but I shall be glad to look at it again.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hope the minister will look into this weed cutting, because it means thousands of dollars to the people of Ontario.
While we are on this item of canals, I should like to mention once more the eyesore which still confronts us when we come into Ottawa, in connection with the concrete retaining walls of the Rideau canal. The department is doing some work on the walls, and I was wondering if that work would be continued until all the walls are straightened out and patched up where they were eaten away, and so on, and the banks fixed up. It is a very pretty spot, but it needs to be improved.


Lionel Chevrier: We are proceeding piecemeal with the repairs to the retaining wall to which my hon. friend refers. Last year we did some work; this year we are doing more. I believe a portion of the work is now complete, and there is an item of $25,000 in the estimates to provide for the continuation of this work.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is only a fleabite.


Lionel Chevrier: It may be only a fleabite, but we must proceed gradually. I think we have done very well in the last two years. A considerable amount of work remains to be done, and we propose to do it.
Supply-Transport


Mr. McLURE:: Whale we are on this item of canal services, I should like to ask the minister What the gross revenue is from the operation of our canals. We have the expenditures here, but what is the gross revenue?


Lionel Chevrier: It is about a million dollars, roughly.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That leads me to this point-


William Henry Golding: Order. We are now dealing specifically with item 46.
M>r. McLURE: That is all in connection with canal service, is it not?


William Henry Golding: No.


Mr. STOKES:: I should like to ask the minister what provision is made for the removal of debris from the canals. I am now drawing attention to a condition in the Trent canal near the village of Frankford, directly in front of dam No. 6. A large amount of debris, presumably stone, covering an area of half an acre or more, has been deposited in the river, causing the main current of the stream to turn to the west and run over private property, damaging good garden land, the owner of which is not very well pleased. It seems to me that it would not be very hard to remove this material, because it is all loose. It was deposited there during high water. Probably the stone was raised up by frost and brought down, and it has been left in the middle of the stream in front of the dam.


Lionel Chevrier: I believe the hon. gentleman brought this matter to my attention last year. The position is that the equipment required to get rid of the debris to which lie refers has not been available. We have it on hand now, however, and it is hoped that we may be able to remedy the situation during the course of the summer.


George Henry Stokes: Just in that connection, the man who owns the land told me, after I had been in consultation with the minister, that some official of the department came there and wanted him to sell his land. That official did not say anything about improving the condition.


Lionel Chevrier: I would hesitate to believe that an officer of the department would go there and ask this man to sell his land. If he did so, he was certainly acting outside his authority. I would not think that a proper thing for an officer of the department to do.


George Henry Stokes: I found it rather peculiar at the time; but the owner of the land is a responsible resident of the village of Frankford, and I would have every confidence in anything he told me.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: This item provides an amount of $579,660, and the total of the items under canal service is $3,886,408. I want to point out to the committee that these expenditures are made almost entirely in central Canada. We in the maritime provinces have been overlooked pretty much since confederation. We have one canal project with which I am sure the minister is familiar, though I do not know that he has done much about it. I refer to the Chignecto canal.
Those of us coming from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have brought this matter before the house on different occasions since that canal and ship railway were projected. A subsidy was voted by parliament; and earlier in the session I made the estimate that if the money voted had been placed to our credit at compound interest it would amount by now to well on to $15,000,000. A subsidy for the completion of the Chignecto canal was cancelled for financial reasons; the builders were not able to complete their work within the time specified.
We do not object to these canals in central Canada, and we realize that it is necessary to maintain them. They are used for transportation purposes. With the canals, the river services and the lake services, manufacturers and shippers in central Canada are able to get cheap transportation. The railways have put competitive rates into effect, and this portion of Canada gets the advantage. We have no canals, though we are entitled to them; we have no such competitive rates, so that we have to pay the regular freight rates.
In view of our claims; in view of the fact that this undertaking was being dealt with before confederation and at the time of confederation; in view of the fact that a subsidy was voted in order to provide this service across the isthmus of Chignecto, I ask the minister and his department to take some action to advance the project. I ask him to see that surveys and estimates are prepared, and that a practical investigation is carried out as to the cost today. The maritime board of trade, the maritime mayors, members of parliament, newspapers and so on in recent months have been placing before the minister and the public the claims of that part of Canada for some consideration; and I make another appeal today. Since I have been here,
I have brought up this matter on many occasions, and again I ask the minister and his department to deal seriously with this question and to take some action, so that we may have the benefit of modem transportation facilities across the isthmus of Chignecto.

Supply-Transport


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I rise to second the remarks of the hon. member for Cumberland. It is not necessary to speak at length at this time, because this matter has been raised on numerous occasions by members from the maritime provinces. I must say, however, I cannot find myself shedding any tears for the failure to remove obsolete canals in Ontario, so long as canals are being neglected in the maritime provinces. It was all veiy well for Ontario to have pleasure excursions, scenic beauty and places for the boys to go swimming, but we in the maritime provinces are asking for canals which would be of some benefit to the maritime provinces and to the whole of Canada.
As the hon. member for Cumberland has pointed out, the rest of Canada, particularly Ontario, owes the maritime provinces a great debt, so far as canals are concerned. Those canals in Ontario were not built by the province; they were built by the federal government, and the maritime provinces contributed many millions of dollars. Now that those canals have become obsolete, and when at the same time there is an opportunity to build a canal which would be of some commercial benefit to the country, I suggest that some of this $4,000,000 be taken to construct the Ohignecto canal, which I sincerely believe would be of great benefit to the whole country.
This matter has been before the house on many occasions and has been discussed by all members from the maritime provinces. As the hon. member for Cumberland has stated, our press has given a clear outline of the possibilities, and the great help such a construction would be to commerce in this country.
One of the finest things the Minister of Transport could do would be to begin construction of the Chignecto canal. If he were to do so, I know his name would go down in the history of our part of the country and, I believe, the rest of Canada, as being a most efficient minister in his department.


Mr. ISNOR:: I have heard of a game in which, if you hold two cards of the same kind, and then add another, your position is considerably strengthened, I am not as familiar with that game as some others might be, but in this instance when two aces are showing I should like to add my strength, and to put in my word for further consideration of this project.
In the past I have not urged this to any great extent, because I considered there were some features which might not be entirely in the interests of certain sections of Canada. I am always a little careful in connection with disturbing interests certain sections hold. I have in mind particularly the shipping of the
great port of Halifax. I can see where, at great expense, the proposals now made might operate to the detriment of Halifax.
At the same time I am in accord with the thoughts expressed by the hon. members for Cumberland and Royal, and I hope the minister will look into the matter to ascertain whether this would be a wise expenditure, and whether the project is feasible. Anything the minister can do in connection with this or any other project which will help transportation and give us greater possibilities in trade with central Canada should be looked into.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I rise to support what has been said by the hon. members for Cumberland and Royal in connection with the building of the canal. If that canal service is put through, perhaps it would be of greater benefit to the farmers of Prince Edward Island than to any other group in Canada, and especially in the maritime provinces. Therefore I gladly endorse what the hon. members have said.
The minister has just said there is a revenue of about a million dollars from the canals. I notice that the remaining expenditures are not charged up as a deficit, but that they appear in the public accounts as a service. I would draw to the minister's attention the different circumstances which apply to the ferry service to Prince Edward Island, which is a much greater revenue producer than are the canals. When the accounts are balanced a deficit is charged against Prince Edward Island, or against the service. I say it should appear in the public accounts in the same manner as this is shown, namely a service paid by the federal treasury.
I would endeavour to impress this upon the minister, so that at another time when public accounts are being made up, the word "deficit" would be deleted, where it applies in respect of the ferry system between Borden and Tormentine, and that it should appear as a canal service. It is a service which we purchased in 1873 and for which we paid highly. Why should it now be charged as a deficit?


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to have a statement from the minister. When we sit opposite him we get the impression that he understands the representations we make, and that he is in sympathy with us. If his name is identified with the construction of the Chignecto canal he will have shown his, administrative capacity and his control of his department.
The matter has been discussed today by hon. members from the maritime provinces, and I shall not be content with only a smile or a good-will greeting from the minister.
Supply-Transport

I want a statement from him in which he sets out his attitude toward the construction of the Chignecto canal, always keeping in mind the three or four hundred million dollars already expended in central Canada, and the further fact that in the estimates now before us there is an appropriation of $3,886,408 for the canal service. What is the minister's attitude toward the Chignecto canal?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member has inquired about two things. His first question was whether all the sum voted for canal purposes, operation and maintenance, is in respect of canals in Ontario and Quebec. The answer is yes, with the exception of a small expenditure of about $20,000 on the St. Peter's canal in the maritime provinces.
With reference to the Chignecto canal, the hon. member has made representations about this before, and he made them again this year on these estimates. Representations have been made also by the hon. member for Royal.
All I can say is that I have received many representations from bodies in the maritime provinces, and that I am sympathetic to these representations. No minister of transport who has at heart the opening up of transportation facilities could be anything but sympathetic. However I have to look at the position as I find it on the record. The hon. member unquestionably knows that down through the years many surveys and reports have been made concerning the advisability, the feasibility and the economic advantages and disadvantages of constructing the Chignecto canal. Surveys were made as far back as 1822, and I think there have been eight or ten altogether.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: When was the most recent one made?


Lionel Chevrier: In 1931. That was made by virtue of an order in council appointing a commission to inquire into the Chignecto canal project. I have the report before me, and the recommendation on page 11 reads:
Having regard to transport facilities already available in the maritimes area, we cannot see where any interest would suffer were the Chignecto canal project to be permitted to stand in abeyance until it can be further examined in the light of future developments in Canada's economic situation.


Percy Chapman Black: What is the date of that?


Lionel Chevrier: 1931. Of course that recommendation was not detrimental or opposed to the building of a canal; it simply stated as a conclusion that, having regard to Ml the circumstances, the commission could
rMr. Black (CumberHnd).]
not see where any interest would suffer if the matter were allowed to stand.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That was at the height of the depression.


Lionel Chevrier: That was many years ago, in 1931. It may well be that economic conditions have changed to such an extent that another survey would be warranted. The hon. member suggests that we begin construction immediately, but I think he will agree with me that, before that is done, we should look at it by way of a survey or investigation along the lines of that carried on previously and having regard to the position as it now is. I am not prepared to state that it is possible to do that at this time, neither am I prepared to state that we would not do it. However, I can say that I shall be glad to look into the matter again in the light of the position as we find it now. I would have to consult my colleagues in the government to ascertain whether it would be advisable to appoint another commission to see if, because of changed conditions, it would be practical to consider the construction of the Chignecto canal.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As one friendly to any proposal which will assist in the economic advance of the maritime provinces, I am glad to hear what the minister said a moment ago, that the matter of the Chignecto canal will be looked into again. He said it had been discussed since 1931, but it goes back much farther than that. I was interested in reading some of the reports made in the early days 'of the French regime. The French administrators strongly recommended to their government in Paris that a canal be cut across the isthmus.
A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of covering more or less all that area in company with the hon. member for Cumberland. There are many good vantage points from which one can see the isthmus, and I remember remarking at the time that the early French pioneers deserved a lot of credit for the vision they had.
There have been many engineering advances made since the last report was presented. I read over the report; in fact I took it with me on my last survey of the isthmus. While it would not be the easiest engineering feat to perform, it can be performed. Our United States friends had a somewhat similar problem in connection with the canal they cut across the Cape Cod isthmus. One of their main engineering problems was to keep the sides from falling in, but they overcame that. Another problem was caused by the six-foot tides. During one portion of the day there

Supply[DOT]-Transport
would be six-foot tides at the west end of the canal, while for the other portion of the day there would be six-foot tides at the east end.
They overcame all the difficulties, and that canal is now providing a fine service. It is a good commercial canal, and they have a couple of large bridges which lift up to let ships go through., but it is also of strategic importance. I doubt very much, if the United States had to do it over again, they would wait as long to build that canal as they did.
The Chignecto canal would not be only a commercial canal; it would be of strategic value to Canada. It would render great service to commerce in the bay of Fundy and to "the island." The hon. member for Queens will not listen to anyone who calls it anything but "the island." Everyone is supposed to know what is meant when you say "the island." It is a beautiful island. If the canal were opened up it would bring Charlottetown much closer to Boston and by a route that would be comparatively safe. Has the minister been across the isthmus?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would like to be there with him if he is going again.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member followed me quite closely on his last trip.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think we were there about the same time. It is an intensely interesting trip, especially to anyone interested in engineering. The Cape Cod canal is about fifteen miles long and it takes much larger ships than it is proposed would pass through the Chignecto canal. Then the United States propose building a sea-level canal across the Panama isthmus. Anyone interested in the building of the Chignecto canal would find many things of great value in the engineering works proposed for the new Panama canal. In order to take care of tides that run as high as tw'enty feet on the west side, they propose building a gigantic lock dock. On the west side, ships entering from the Pacific ocean, say on a twenty-foot rise of tide, would be lowered down to the canal level in the lock dock and sail to the east side of the isthmus; and similarly boats travelling west would enter the lock dock and remain until they could get out into the Pacific ocean. Some such lock dock as that would be necessary, I am satisfied, in connection with the Chignecto canal. If I remember correctly, an engineer-I have forgotten his name-did plan building a railway across the isthmus and he projected the route. I went over it, and I have nothing but praise for those who engineered that route, which was for the
purpose of taking ships across on a railway. The proposal was to build an entrance lock dock on the west side, into which the ship would rise up and go down with the rise and fall of the tide.
To close the argument, I assure the minister that I shall be glad to support any estimate he brings in for building the Chignecto canal and will be as much help to him and to whoever has to do with the proposed works as I can be. I am firmly convinced that a canal across the Chignecto isthmus would be a great thing for the maritime provinces. It would mean, for instance, that ships could load up on the bay of Fundy with Joggins coal or Springhill coal. They would not need to be ships of a capacity to go out into the ocean, but 2,000 to 5,000 tonners, which could load up on the bay of Fundy, sail through that canal and go right up to Montreal and Toronto. It would be a great thing for us, too, in the central provinces, because we would load the ships up with products to send back to the maritimes, so that there would be commerce both ways. I hope that the minister will look into the matter carefully and consider also the strategical angle. This country is becoming more and more interested in international affairs and if it ever became embroiled in another world war, just fancy what the Chignecto canal would mean to our warships and to United States battleships coming to assist us in the defence of the gulf of the St. Lawrence. The minister should take up that question with the defence department and invite them to come in and help build the canal not only as a commercial canal but also as a strategic canal.


Mr. HODGSON:: The Trent valley canal is more important today than it ever was dreamt of being forty years ago. I can show the minister tourist resorts along the Trent valley canal, in which a great deal of money has been invested and which are bringing more money into Canada in one year than w'as thought of as possible in ten years, some forty years ago. There is a lot of work to be done on that waterway. It is without doubt the greatest tourist resort of any place in Canada. The minister should think of it in terms of tourists rather than in terms of commerce. It is of great importance to Canada to keep these waterways open for tourist traffic, and docks should be built at different places. I do not know whether that would come under the minister's department, but probably he could requisition the public works department to have money spent all along the Trent valley canal at places like Cameron lake, Sturgeon lake, Blossom lake, lake Simcoe, and throughout all that area
Suppl y- Transpo rt

where tourist resorts abound by thousands, and thousands more can be accommodated there if his department does the things it should do.
During the war period I have no doubt that the department was busy with other things, but the war has been over now for three years, and we are looking for developments and for money to be spent along the Trent valley canal which will bring thousands of tourists to Canada, to the benefit of our own economy. If the minister would come up to that part of the country I should be glad to meet him with a boat and give him two weeks holidays in the greatest land of beauty there is in this whole dominion.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not want the hon. gentleman to think from any remarks of mine, and I am sure he did not get that impression, that we in the Department of Transport do not give the canal the attention it so well deserves. If my hon. friend will only look at the estimates he will see that we spend a considerable amount of money on the canal each year, and there is also a great deal of revenue coming to the department from the canal. We are spending $347,000 this year on operations and another $84,000 on improvements, which is far more money than is spent on some of the more eastern canals in Ontario. I can assure my hon. friend that we do not intend to neglect the canal, nor have we been neglecting it in any way.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I hope the minister will keep on spending money there for a number of years, because it is required.


Lionel Chevrier: We intend to.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I come back to the subject of weeds, in which the minister is not as much interested as I am. Weeds, although humble, have their uses and abuses. The minister has made a distinction that I do not think he will stick to. He has divided navigable streams into two categories; those on which what he called commercial vessels ply, and those on which other kinds of vessels ply. I have here a very large dictionary, and I am going to read a definition of what a navigable river is. It has nothing to do with the kind of ships that ply on it. The definition is: "A river fit to be navigated". These waters we are talking about would be fit to be navigated if the weeds were not allowed to accumulate through the negligence of some government department. I am not sure which department it is, and the question I want to ask the minister is this: Have these weeds in the past been cut by any department?

I understand that they have. Would the minister answer that first? I understand that these weeds have in times past been cut. The obligation to do so was recognized, and it is only of late years that neglect has arisen.


Lionel Chevrier: I should perhaps put the position a little more clearly. What I said a moment ago, and if I did not say it I certainly intended to convey that impression, was that there is a doubt in my mind as to the responsibility of the Department of Transport to cut weeds. My hon. friend would like me to make a statement that there is no such responsibility or that there is such responsibility.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to know one way or the other.


Lionel Chevrier: I will not say one way or the other. I am making the statement now that there is some doubt in my mind. I do not think I need go any further in explaining the doubt. It is a legal question. That perhaps might have some importance or not; but there is in my mind some doubt, and, that being so, I am sure that the hon. gentleman would not want me to make a statement in so far as the responsibility of the department is concerned which I could not later substantiate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want the minister to clear up the doubt now.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why not?


Lionel Chevrier: Because there is doubt in so far as the legal position is concerned. The weeds are there. Do they impede navigation? Do they impede navigation as we understand it in the Department of Transport? I am not familiar with the particular case to which my hon. friend refers and, without knowing the facts, I do not intend to make a statement on it.
I said to the hon. member for Peterborough West a moment ago that, in so far as the particular position was concerned, I would be glad to have it looked into. There are weed cutting apparatuses which can be purchased. I do not know what they cost. Perhaps they are fairly costly. I do not know what the position is. I cannot add anything other than what I have said, namely, that I shall be glad to look at the position from Keene to Rice lake, a channel of some six miles long.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: One mile.


Lionel Chevrier: I think there are one or two other places.

Sup pi y-Tra nsport


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And also Little lake.


Lionel Chevrier: There are one or two other places in the vicinity, but I cannot say more than that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister to leave us in this position? Is he to tell us that he cannot answer a simple question? He says there is a legal difficulty. What is the Department of Justice for if it cannot solve the difficulty? The minister also used this phrase, "Navigation as we understand it in the Department of Transport." As I understand the minister, he keeps that a closely guarded secret, and he will not tell us what it is. I have not been able to discover what the understanding of navigation is in the Department of Transport. I submit to the minister that it is reasonable for us to ask him to define navigation as it is understood in his department, because this is a matter of considerable substance to the people who live in the tourist areas. It is not academic. I am not hair-splitting. I have had people anxiously consulting me with regard to the same question. We are entitled to an answer on this. Surely the minister is not going to say that there is a legal difficulty. If he does not want to answer the question now, all right; let him answer it tonight or tomorrow or whenever he is prepared to do so. I do not think he should tell us that no answer can be given.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not tell the hon. member that no answer can be given. I have given my answer. I am telling him that there is some doubt in my mind as to the responsibility of the Department of Transport to cut weeds. My hon. friend asks what the Department of Justice is for. I suppose I could consult the Department of Justice. I have no objection to doing that; I shall be glad to do it. I cannot give a categorical answer to that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not suggesting that the minister should answer before he is ready. I am only asking him not to leave us in that position.
What is the division of responsibility between public works and transport in this regard? Is there some responsibility on public works?


Lionel Chevrier: The responsibility on public works is to build the wharves. Once they are built, we maintain and operate them, except for small expenditures of under $5,000. Public works is responsible for certain dredging, but I do not know that that would include the cutting of weeds, although I cannot speak for my colleague.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister mentioned weed-cutting machines. Some years ago the
Department of Transport did look after the weeds. They used to use the old chain method, which is efficient. That has been used for some time on the river at Keene. It used to be used on Chemong lake and was effective, and also in other parts of the Trent canal. The chain method worked very well, and it does not cost very much. They can do a long stretch in a day.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Did I understand the minister to say that the Department of Transport is responsible for docks under S5.000?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not put it in that way. I said the Department of Public Works constructs the docks and wharves, and we maintain and operate them; but expenditures on wharves or docks up to $5,000, I understand, are the responsibility of the Department of Transport. My officer corrects me now and tells me that- it is even lower than that. It is expenditure up to $50. There is an item of $5,000-perhaps that is how I got confused-for such repairs up to $50.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Perhaps I can add a word to help the minister arrive at a satisfactory answer to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. The Muskoka river which the hon. member has in mind is at the head of navigation. But not only that; the railway ends there, and the ship which navigates through the lakes is loaded at that point. It delivers all sorts of freight of one kind and another and takes it to various tourist points on the lake. If the weeds are obstructing that channel which is as sinuous as a snake, and it might be possible because of the turns in the river, although the water is otherwise deep enough that weeds would grow as they would do, if they are extending out into the channel, it should not be much of a job to clean them out. The weeds would be an obstruction, not only to a fair-sized boat but also to the power boats. Many power boats come into Bracebridge, load up with material and take it up the lake. I have often boarded a boat there myself for a tour around the lakes. It is an important tourist centre, an important tourist route, and an important tourist lake. If the minister is not familiar with it, perhaps he will take some advisement from me. If he does I am sure he will acquiesce in what my hon. friend asks for. If the weeds are there they should be cut.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister is going to let us know what he considers to be the responsibility in respect of those navigable waters, and also his defini-
Supply-Transport

tion of navigable waters, I am ready to let the matter go on that understanding.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall try to get the information on both counts and give it at eight o'clock. I do not know whether I shall be able to get it then, but I shall get it as soon as I can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
J/77. To provide for breaking ice in Thunder bay, lake Superior and other points deemed advisable in the interests of navigation, $30,000.
Percy Chapman Black: I have one matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. Perhaps we had better leave it until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Henry Golding: When the committee rose at six o'clock they were considering item 477. But the bon. member for Cumberland wished to speak on item 474 just for a moment.


Percy Chapman Black: I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to say a few words in connection with aids to navigation under the general heading of marine service. A large amount of money, namely, $3,387,234, is involved. We in Nova Scotia are greatly concerned in these services. We have many lighthouse keepers and these men are the guardians of our shipping. They are on duty day and night the year round in most instances. They perform a necessary and, in many instances, a self-sacrificing service. We have a great deal of sympathy for the mail carriers with respect to their duties and their remuneration. I feel that like consideration is not given to the claims of our lighthouse keepers.
I have in my hand a communication from one of them in my own county. He is Vance F. Barteaux, Cape d'Or, Advocate Harbour, in the western portion of Cumberland county jutting into the bay of Fundy where the tides are high with dense fogs and where there is heavy shipping to both Minas basin and Cumberland basin. This lighthouse keeper has been in the service for twenty-eight years. His station is partly isolated. Although he is on the mainland, be is a distance off the main highway. The roadway which serves this lighthouse is almost completely neglected. I appeal to the minister to have this case looked into, and have the roadway serving this light-

house put into a better state of repair than it is at the present time. The roadway serving the lighthouse is owned by the federal government, while the road leading up to it may be part of the provincial highways. Anyway, it has been neglected and should be placed in better repair.
Then I should like ho make an appeal to the minister, on behalf of this lighthouse keeper and all other lighthouse keepers, that more attention be given to their living quarters. They and their families must live in quarters, which have been more or less neglected. They should have bathrooms and sanitary facilities. They should have electric lights. There Should be an extension of the rural electric services; or if that is not possible, there should be some separate diesel electric systems installed for lighthouses such as these. A rural electric service has been established at Advocate Harbour, within a short distance of this lighthouse. I feel that the lighthouse keeper should have the advantage of this modem facility, and believe that it would be an added advantage for the protection of shipping.
While I am dealing with lighthouses in the province from which I come, I should like, to refer to the range light at Pugwash. That was burned down a number of years ago. At the present time there is just a stick or pole with an electric light. It has a most disgraceful appearance for a structure under the control of the minister's department. I am sure that if the minister saw it he would not tolerate it.


Lionel Chevrier: When was it burned down?


Percy Chapman Black: I think it was during the war.
I should also like to point out the necessity of improving the channel serving Pugwash harbour. I am pleased that the Minister of Public Works is in his seat at the present time. He will be equally concerned with the Minister of Transport in this matter. The Minister of Transport is responsible for shipping and transport., while the Minister of Public Works will have the responsibility of doing the actual work of widening and improving the shipping channel. I doubt if as much shipping, at as little expenditure of public moneys, has gone through any other harbour in Canada as has gone through Pugwash port, since confederation. In recent years, especially during the war, steamers plying in and out of that port have become larger, and are having more difficulty in navigating the channel. The channel is deep enough, but there are bends where dredging is badly needed. There should also be work done in deepening the outer

Supply-Transport
part of the harbour, at the bar. At the present time the harbour will take a steamer with a 22-foot draft. Ordinarily this is a safe harbour, but the captains and the pilots, who have a great responsibility, should have a better chance to give their ships safe entrance and safe exit. I therefore appeal to the Minister of Transport and to the Minister of Public Works to give this matter special attention. I have spoken to the Minister of Public Works and he has assured me that his department has it under consideration. I hope that some dredging can be done there this year. A large volume of shipping uses Pugwash harbour. This is an expenditure which is well warranted.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to give my hon. friend the assurance that I will look into the case of the lighthouse keeper to whom he has referred, as well as the condition, of the place in which he lives.
As far as the light at Pugwash is concerned, I have no information as to why it was not rebuilt and ,put back in proper condition. I presume the explanation is that during the war years it may have been found impossible to rebuild it, but I can see no reason why that should not be done. I shall look into the matter and advise my hon. friend.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I wish to support the views expressed by the hon. member for Cumberland, not in reference to any individual case but rather on the general picture as far as the lighthouse keepers on the Atlantic coast are concerned. I have already dealt with the difficulties under which they operate, and I should like to ask the minister whether there has been any reclassification of the salaries of these men. While the minister is saying whether or not there has been any up-grading of salaries, he might also deal with the question of the lighthouse keepers who do not come under the civil service regulations concerning pensions. I refer particularly to the lighthouse keepers in the lower brackets who, after serving for from twenty-five to forty years, are retired without any consideration whatever. On their behalf I make the plea that, instead of these men being retired without any provision for their maintenance, as is the case at present, some method should be devised by means of which they would be given a retiring allowance.


Lionel Chevrier: As far as lightkeepers are concerned, I have to tell the hon. gentleman there has been no general reclassification. But
there has been an upward revision in the salaries of most classes of lightkeepers.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Could you give us the salaries?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a long document to place on Hansard. Class 1 has been increased from a range of $3,000-83,300 to-


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It is those in the lower brackets I am particularly interested in, the men for whom no provision is made. The 83,000 man is entitled to superannuation.


Lionel Chevrier: I thought the hon. gentleman was dealing with two questions, first, in connection with the reclassification or upgrading of lightkeepers under the civil service and, second, as to what provision has been made for superannuation of others not under the civil service.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Then give us a couple of classes.


Lionel Chevrier: In class 1 there has been an upward revision from a range of 83,00083,300 to a range of S3,480-S3,780.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: May I ask how many would be in that class?


Lionel Chevrier: I can get that information in a moment.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Not very many, I imagine.


Lionel Chevrier: Then let me take class 3. where there has been an upgrading from a range of $2,280-82,580 to a range of 82,580- $2,880. In class 10 the up-grading is from a range of S900-S1,080 to 81,200-81,380; class 11, from a range of $540-8600 to S660-S720; class 12, from $480-8540 to S600-S660. As to the other question concerning those not covered by the civil service, I presume they would be part-time lightkeepers, and there is no provision for superannuation.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Do classes 10, 11 and 12 come under the civil service?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The $660 man comes under the civil service?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of the committee to direct a question to the minister in regard to item 468. We were galloping along so quickly just before the dinner recess that I missed it. I wanted to ask the minister to say a word in general as to whether studies are still proceeding in this connection, or just what we are continuing to do here. I take it that these expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal have to do with the portion west of Montreal.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Last year and again this year an amount has been set aside for the study of the St. Lawrence scheme in general. The explanation I have here is that it is to provide for the continuation of the work now under way in connection with the review of plans and estimates of cost of the various sections of the proposed deep waterway, as well as for the completion of the work now being carried on by the board of engineers for the Lachine section. That is a board which was appointed a short time ago. I thought it was this year, but I am told it was appointed in September of last year. The object in appointing the board was to ascertain whether the scheme of 1926, of the joint board of engineers, is practicable today; to ascertain also whether the scheme could be carried out as a joint navigation and power scheme, and what the cost of a separate navigation scheme would be as compared with a joint power development and navigation scheme; and further to bring the costs up to date and in line with the more recent costs of the international section of the waterway.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then would the minister answer just one further question. Are the changes which have taken place physical or other changes which might invalidate the previous report?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Chairman. The previous report recommended a navigation scheme only in the Lachine section, but not a power development; whereas in the international section it was a joint scheme. Recently in the international section costs were brought up to date by United States and Canadian engineers, and this board sought to ascertain whether it would be more practicable to have a separate navigation scheme and a separate power scheme, or a joint scheme; and they have not yet reported.


Mr. BURTON:: This item has to do with breaking ice in Thunder bay, lake Superior "and other points deemed advisable in the interests of navigation," and in view of that rider which has been tacked on, I want to ask the minister a question. What provision has been made for the keeping of records in connection with the possibility of having navigation into Hudson bay during a greater portion of the year? In discussing this question with the captain of the first ship to enter the strait during the past season, a number of us were told that when he entered the strait there was absolutely no sign of ice either to the naked eye or through the use of radar equipment, that everything was in such condition that he was satisfied he could have entered the strait much

earlier than he did. We also discussed the matter with some of the residents at Churchill, some of whom had lived there prior to the building of the railway. They told us that the mouth of the river was free of ice for a much longer period than that covered by the navigation season. So, if possible, I should like the minister to give us a little resume of any steps the department may be taking to help lengthen that navigation season, which, in view of my information, would seem warranted.


Lionel Chevrier: This item provides for the breaking of ice in Thunder bay and is not an expenditure for the Hudson bay area. If my hon. friend wishes to bring that up when we are dealing with the Hudson bay' item, it will be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
480. Life-saving service, including rewards for saving life, $191,285.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why is there an increase of 8124,915?


Lionel Chevrier: The reason for the
increase is the cost of two new lifeboats and the necessary equipment. One is at Bamfield, British Columbia, and the other at Little Wood island, New Brunswick.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are these both power boats?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
J/81. To provide subsidies for wrecking plants -Quebec and British Columbia, $65,060.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are those subsidies payable to dry docks?


Lionel Chevrier: They are contracts
entered into by the Department of Transport with the Quebec Salvage Company in respect of wrecks on the St. Lawrence, and the Pacific Salvage Company for wrecks on the Pacific coast.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that a sort of stand-by fee to have the service available? Is it necessary for the government to subsidize in order to have this service? Cannot the business carry its own load?


Lionel Chevrier: It is necessary to subsidize to the extent of entering into a contract. It is a form of insurance.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: For many years we had in Nova Scotia a company operating from Halifax, which at one time, if I remember cor-

Supply-Transport
redly, enjoyed a subsidy of $10,000 and, at another time a subsidy of $20,000, while on the Pacific coast the amount was $25,000, and Quebec had a subsidy of $40,000. Why was it necessary to do away with the subsidy paid to the firm in Nova Scotia.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I shall have to ask my hon. friend to let me get the information for him. My officers tell me the contract to which he refers is not within their term of office in the department. It must be some years back.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not know how long the officers have been with the department, but certainly, since I have been a member of the house, $10,000 was paid at one time to the Maritime Foundation Company. Because of the need for the service, the amount was raised to $20,000. I am not so much concerned about the amount as I am with the service for the Atlantic coast, particularly that portion north of Cape Breton through to Newfoundland. It is a dangerous section and one which should be serviced as carefully as other places in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I would ask the hon. member to allow me to get the information for him. If I can get it before my estimates are completed, I shall be glad to do so.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I shall be happy to allow the minister to look it up, in the hope that he will consider the request I am placing before him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
48}. Steamship inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $284,400.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are these inspectors kept in the same districts all the time, or are they moved from place to place?


Lionel Chevrier: Steamship inspection
officials are maintained at points such as Toronto, Montreal, Kingston, Midland and Collingwood, and, when required, they move from those centres to various other regions where steamship inspection is required.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I remember some few years ago a certain steamship was inspected. Not long after the inspection, I went aboard and I would not have put a dog in one of their lifeboats. They were not safe. The man who did the inspection is dead. I wonder if a proper check is made?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot comment on the particular case to which my hon. friend is referring.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that.


Lionel Chevrier: If in the hon. member's estimation there was a breach of regulation I should be glad to look into the matter. I do not know the details. However, the inspection branch of the department have regulations under which they operate, and by which they must abide. They must see that a ship is not given a certificate or allowed to sail unless it has the required equipment and is in seaworthy condition.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are these inspectors wholly employed by the government?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are not allowed to do other work?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Some inspections used to be made by men who were known as inspectors, but who at the same time had other occupations.


Lionel Chevrier: Not since I have been in the department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No; that was some time ago.


Lionel Chevrier: Probably so; I am not able to answer the question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
486. River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration

capital, $3,492,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the explanation of the large increase for contract dredging?


Lionel Chevrier: This is a contract which provides for the dredging of the St. Lawrence river from Montreal harbour to some forty miles below Quebec. The item appears by virtue of a contract which has been entered into, the provisions of which cover the widening of the channel to a certain width. It varies from 550 feet to, in some places, 1,500 feet, on the curve, and to a depth of thirty-five feet. The contract was entered into, providing for the expenditure of a certain amount of money over the years.
The reason for the increase is that it is expected for this year it will be possible to spend more money than last year, on account
Supply-Transport

of the fact that last year the company was late in getting started. The engineers of the ship channel feel that it would be possible for the company to do this amount of work in the coming season.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is a contract which is let out?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How much of it is administrative, and what is the significance of the expression "including cost of administration", when the contract is let out?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think any of it is administration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It says so.


Lionel Chevrier: It is by contract price.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps the minister will read it. It states:
River St. Lawrence ship channel; contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration.


Mr. WEBB:: Is this all the dredging that is proposed to be done this year on the St. Lawrence?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I am afraid I shall have to ask my hon. friend to allow his question to stand, and I will get the answer is quickly as possible.
Item stands.
Marine service-
487. River St. Lawrence ship channel-administration, operation and maintenance, $495,278.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The same question of administration arises. I am particularly interested because this is another item covering the river St. Lawrence ship channel, administration, while item 486 also includes the cost of administration. How much of item 486 is administration?


Lionel Chevrier: The St. Lawrence ship channel administration has its head office in Montreal. There is an engineer in charge with a staff, and his business is to supervise the dredging in the St. Lawrence. He also has certain other duties, such as looking after the signals service and crews of certain icebreakers and other vessels required in the maintenance and upkeep of the ship channel. That item includes the cost of administration and the operation of the ship channel fleet.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to follow that Rem of administration for 1947-48.
[Mr. Chevrier.''


Lionel Chevrier: The amount for administration for 1948-49 is $495,278, made up as follows:
Salaries and wages ....		 $142,096
Overtime 			 6.100
Allowances board 			 25,965
Printing and stationery		 1,000
Fuel 			 40.400
Materials and supplies		 21,000
Repairs and upkeep of equipment 49.800	
Sundries 			 6.692
Dredge maintenance ..		 200,000
Mr. MACDONNELL	(Muskoka-Ontario)
Might I have the figure for salaries for 1947?


Lionel Chevrier: Salaries, $128,235, an increase of $13,861.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is understood that this question of administration will stand over under item 486?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: I understood that dredging came under the Department of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: That is so, but this is a separate job that was delegated to the Department of Transport when dredging in the St. Lawrence was first started. It dates back some years. I do not know just when the first contract was given, but at first the channel was deepened to twenty feet; then it was deepened further until now it is thirty-five feet below the low-water level datum of 1894.


Percy Chapman Black: Could we
delegate the straightening of the Pugwash channel and its deepening in certain places to the minister's department? He has a large appropriation and, if the minister will assume that responsibility', I should like to assign it to him.


Lionel Chevrier: I would have no objection to accepting it, but I am afraid that is a matter still under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. I gave the reason why this was assigned to the Department of Transport. There was formerly a fleet of dredges under the department. I do not know that it would be proper for this department to take on dredging jobs elsewhere, because we would be interfering with the jurisdiction of another department.


Percy Chapman Black: I would not want to interfere with the Department of Public Works. I have had conferences with the minister, and he has assured me he will give this matter sympathetic consideration. I should like him to have the assistance of the Minister of Transport.

Supply-Transport


James MacKerras Macdonnell: To revert to what the minister said a moment ago, does the Department of Public Works disinterest itself entirely as far as St. Lawrence dredging is concerned? In other words, is this administered entirely by the Department of Transport, or is there dual control?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull) :: Perhaps I might explain that. The St. Lawrence ship channel was never under public works. It was under the old Department, of Marine, which had a fleet of dredges with which they carried on the dredging themselves. Some years ago those dredges were sold and the work was carried on under contract. The contract is renewed every three or four years in order to keep the ship channel dredged to a depth of thirty-five feet.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is entirely a matter for the Department of Transport?


Alphonse Fournier: Absolutely.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: There are one or two things I should like to speak about.


Alphonse Fournier: I was just giving a word of explanation.


John Ewen Sinclair: There is a river in British Columbia badly in need of dredging.


Alphonse Fournier: That could be dealt with when my estimates come up.


William Henry Golding: This item concerns the St. Lawrence river.


John Ewen Sinclair: With all due deference, Mr. Chairman, the St. Lawrence river has been dredged to a tremendous extent, and I do not think it is unreasonable that the great rivers in the west should also be dredged.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member can bring that up when we get to the item dealing with the west. This is not that item, and I think hon. members should confine their remarks to the item before the committee.


John Ewen Sinclair: There is no item dealing with dredging in the west, and that is the reason why we are having floods today. Since the Minister of Public Works was giving an explanation, I think I should state that the people of Vancouver are wondering when the half million dollars which was voted two years ago to clear Vancouver harbour will be spent, either for contract or government dredging. Would the minister answer that?


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if we could allow the Vancouver item to stand1 until we reach the national harbours board item?
May I answer the hon. member's question about the cost of administration in item 486? If he will turn to page 276 of the estimates he will find that the total vote is $3,987,278, from which has been deducted an amount chargeable to administration and operation, $495,278, which is the amount to .be voted under item 487.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I cannot follow that. First of all, the minister said this item of $3,492,000 included the cost of administration, and the minister explained that the cost of administration is $495,278, which is item 487.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and I added that if you look at page 276 of the details you will find there $3,987,278, from which has been deducted $495,278, which is item 487, administration proper. That is the explanation my officials give me now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: According to the information the minister has just given me, the $3,492,000 has no administration in it?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right; only capital.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But the words "including cost of administration" appear in item 486.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but I am informed they should not be there.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: One other question. What is the full amount of this contract? If I understand correctly, there is an over-riding contract, of which $3,492,000 is being worked out this year. What is the extent in time of the contract?


Lionel Chevrier: The amount of the contract is $14,697,764, and the work is to be completed in a period of five years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who is the contractor?


Lionel Chevrier: Marine Industries
Limited.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
J88. To provide towards the construction of a service vessel for the eastern arctic patrol capital, $1,100,000.
Mr. SKEY:: Would the minister explain this item and say whether this is a new vessel the department is building?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: It is a new vessel that is being constructed for the eastern arctic patrol. Previously much of the work of the Department of Transport, Mines and Resources, and other departments was done by the Nascopie, which, as the hon. member knows, foundered off Baffin island. The Department of Transport came to the conclusion that it would be in the interests of our service to have an arctic patrol vessel on the east coast, which would break ice when required and do patrol work along the east coast, and at certain seasons of the year proceed to the east half of the arctic circle and there service weather stations and various other depots of the Departments of Transport and Mines and Resources.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It seems to me that this is one very useful national service which could be well given over to the naval branch of the defence department. Surely, following the last war, it must have surplus ships which could perform this service, and the experience of servicing the eastern arctic and Hudson bay would be useful in giving the Navy further experience in seamanship. Has that been considered by the minister and his colleagues instead of the Department of Transport building a new vessel at a cost of over $1,000,000 to perform this service?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it was given consideration by the government, but if the navy were to take it over it would not serve the purposes that are required of this ship. The navy have no ships for icebreaking, and this is an icebreaking vessel. While I am not free to speak for my colleague the Minister of National Defence, I think if he were here he would give his view that he is strongly in favour of the service being performed in this way; in fact, my recollection is that the representations came not only from Mines and Resources but also in part from National Defence. This was some time ago and I should not like to be held too strictly to it, but that is my recollection.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: That is just the point. We are spending in Canada about one quarter of a billion a year on national defence. We all know it is a protective expenditure, but there is no reason why our defence forces, in all three branches of the service, should not perform nationally useful functions such as this and such as the great job they are now doing on the Fraser river in British Columbia. I think it is entirely wrong for the government to consider the navy as a body entirely separate from the rest of the government service. It should be integrated into our national life

in ways such as we have here, where it could perform a useful function and at the same time give additional experience in seamanship to the navy personnel. I would strongly recommend that the minister, if he sees any merit at all in my suggestion, ask his colleagues to reconsider the building of a new vessel and placing this service under the defence department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How much will the ship cost?


Lionel Chevrier: The cost is $2,273,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: To complete?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This is the second Canadian government ship that has been destroyed in the last few years. The first one was the Charlottetown, which turned out to have been destroyed as a result of great negligence. I never heard what punishment was meted out to those responsible for its destruction, except that I believe they were relieved of their command, but that is not sufficient punishment. The minister said the Nascopie foundered. The Nascopie was destroyed through being run on the rocks. Surely somebody was responsible for that.


Lionel Chevrier: The ship was not the property of the department, but was owned by the Hudson's Bay Company.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is the Nascopie?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I shall not pursue what I was going to say.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
J/89. To provide towards the construction of a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for the east coast (estimated cost $ 1,800,000)*-capital, $300,000.
Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: I see that the lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for the east coast is to cost $1,800,000, and the vessel for the west coast, provided for in item 492, is to cost only $700,000. I certainly know that the supply vessels on the west coast are none too good, and whenever we approach the department for some additional aids to navigation they tell us that they cannot service any more lights. I am curious to know what different types of vessel are being provided for the west and east coasts.


Lionel Chevrier: The vessel for the east coast, that is the lighthouse supply and buoy vessel, is a 250-foot vessel; whereas the one on the west coast is a secondary ship, 140 feet by 28 feet.

Suppl y- Tra tispo rt


John Lambert Gibson: What boat is it replacing?


Lionel Chevrier: It is replacing the Bimie, which is a secondary ship, as my hon. friend knows.


Percy Chapman Black: Where have these contracts been let? Have they been let to the shipyards in Nova Scotia, or to what particular shipyards?


Lionel Chevrier: The contract for the item we are on now has not been let, neither has the one for the lightship at Saint John. They have been advertised, but the bids are not yet in.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister said that the ship for the eastern arctic patrol would cost $2,273,000. Where was that contract let?


Lionel Chevrier: At the Davie shipbuilding.


Percy Chapman Black: Where was that?


Lionel Chevrier: Lauzon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
J/90. To provide towards the construction of a lightship for the port of Saint John, N.B. (estimated cost $850,000)-capital, $100,000.
John Lambert Gibson: This item really fascinates me. The proposed cost is $850,000 for a lightship for Saint John harbour. I certainly hope that is for the open sea outside Saint John harbour. All a lightship is, is a hull on which a light is put. It has to be seaworthy and not too large. It has to have good anchors and good anchor chains. Why in the name of heaven we have to build a new ship to pack a light on at a cost of $850,000 to this country when we have been giving corvettes away, supplying them at the cost of scrap, is something that I do not understand.


An hon. MEMBER:: What have we received for them?


John Lambert Gibson: Not very much, I gather.


John Ewen Sinclair: About $25,000.


John Lambert Gibson: I do not think we have received that much for them. Was consideration given by the department officials to the possibility of using one of these vessels?


Lionel Chevrier: Corvettes would not do for this sort of work. This vessel is for the Lurcher station, and it operates at the entrance
to the bay of Fundy. The present position is that the lightship in the Saint John area is over thirty years old. There are no spare lightships in Quebec or Saint John, and the spare lightship available in Halifax at the present time is so old that it could not be used for this purpose. I am informed that a corvette could not do this particular type of work.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What about some of these Park ships that were sold by war assets?


Lionel Chevrier: These are 10,000-ton cargo vessels. I am sure they would not be suitable as a lightship.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They certainly would be suitable.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not a deep-sea man like the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but with his encouragement I am certainly anxious to know a little more about this investment, because it does seem to me-I am not posing as an expert- that that amount of money is somewhat fantastic. I should like a short description of this vessel. 1 should like to have an idea of this vessel and to know a little about this investment, because I think the suggestions of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni are sensible.


Lionel Chevrier: The approximate dimension of this vessel is 128 by 30 by 21. The estimated cost of construction is $850,000, and the time to build it, provided that the materials are available, as expected, will be a little over a year. No plans have been made covering the construction. The new lightships which have recently been placed on the Atlantic coast by the United States coast guard, with minor modifications, suit the requirements at Saint John. The general arrangements, plans and specifications have been obtained from that service, and the lightship will be built somewhat along the lines of those to which I have referred. The plans and specifications have been sent out to various contractors. Bids have been asked for, but the tenders are not yet in.


John Lambert Gibson: It does seem to me strange, as it does to everybody, that the government can build ships in wartime; then private business comes along, obtains the ships and is quite able to convert them to commercial needs. It would seem to me that a lightship has to be seaworthy. It has to have a light on it and some auxiliary engines.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Always built in the centrp of the ship.
Supply-Transport


John Lambert Gibson: I realize that the minister cannot look after everything. I wonder whether he has discussed the matter with his officials. I am sure he is just as anxious to save three-quarters of a million dollars to the country as is any other hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: I can tell my hon. friend that I have gone over this matter very carefully with my officials. I discussed the whole building program of the Department of Transport at the beginning of the year. At that time a program of ship construction was mapped out for the department. In the Department of Transport there are some over-age ships, and the time has come when these vessels should be replaced and new ones built. There is a continual complaint in this house about the manner in which some of these ships are operating, their obsolescence, and the like. When one comes along with a progressive program, suddenly there is a desire on the part of certain hon. members that this program be not brought forward.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Explain.


Lionel Chevrier: If there is to be an up-to-date program of new ships to meet the conditions as we find them I believe the time has come to do it now. There is a program here for several million dollars. Instead of complaints and criticism, there should be commendation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, we do not have to sit here and take any lectures.


John Ewen Sinclair: The minister has not yet answered why these corvettes, which are only four or five years old, and which were built for real deep-sea work and are quite seaworthy, are not being used. We agree that these old ships should be replaced, but they certainly should be replaced by corvettes, which have been sold for from $10,000 to $25,000. These ships were built to operate in the very areas the minister has mentioned.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has pointed out, a lightship should be seaworthy and have sufficient auxiliary power to keep a revolving light in action. The minister has not yet told the committee why these corvettes, which were good enough to spend weeks on end out in the middle of the Atlantic, are not seaworthy enough and not good enough and have not enough power to keep a light flashing in Saint John harbour and the like.


William Henry Golding: Does the item carry?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Only under protest.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In spite of the minister's rebuke, I am going to carry on, because I agree entirely with the hon. member for Vancouver North. The points raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni have not been answered. I should like to know whether vessels such as corvettes, Fairmiles and frigates still remain unsold and in the hands of War Assets Corporation.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. If some of them have been declared surplus I suppose the minister responsible for that branch can tell the hon. member. Unfortunately, I cannot; but even if they were available the statement which I made a moment ago, and which I repeat now, still holds good. The information I have is that a corvette would not be suitable for this type of work.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Why, because it floats?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I confess I still find the statement of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni infinitely more convincing than that of the minister. I think we are entitled to more information. It seems to me that we have had no explanation at all. The minister speaks about having a program of building ships and that we must be up to date and so on. Of course that is true with regard to ships which are going to ply the ocean. What the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Vancouver North said about these ships is surely true. Anyone can see that all this ship needs to be is seaworthy enough to be able to anchor at sea and powerful enough to manipulate a light.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Let me bring this matter to a head if I can and ask the minister directly if either he or his officers have consulted with the Royal Canadian Navy and War Assets Corporation to find out if there are suitable vessels available which could be converted to this use at a much smaller cost than the $850,000 now asked for. Will the minister answer that question?


Lionel Chevrier: I am unable to answer that question. I have sent for one of the officers who, I presume, will be here in a moment.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: During the war we were able to build a 10,000-ton ship for one million dollars. It now costs $850,000 to build a ship of the size described by the minister. Why is that so? I think the cost is terrific.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: 
Lionel Chevrier: It is a lightship. It is not a cargo vessel. The size of it is 128 by 30 by 21 feet.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister does not know the tonnage?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


William Henry Golding: Perhaps we might allow this item to stand.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The hon. member has asked for some information which I have not available at the moment.
Item stands.
Marine service-
To provide towards the construction of a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for the west coast (estimated cost $700,000)-capital, $100,000.


Mr. PEARKES:: I wish to ask for some information regarding this vessel, because I wonder whether it is good enough for the job it has to do. I believe we have only two vessels on the Pacific coast which are carrying out the duties of servicing the lighthouses and the lightships and also are looking after the life-saving duties on that coast. Has this vessel any life-saving duties to perform?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it has not.


George Randolph Pearkes: Not very long ago 1 remember questions were asked about the possibility of establishing a life-saving service on the Pacific coast. At that time in a previous debate it was pointed out that we had a number of serious ship wrecks on the coast of British Columbia during the last year. I was under the impression then that vessels of the Department of Transport were available for rescue work. Are there other vessels besides those available for that work?


Lionel Chevrier: The statement I made at the time covered certain of the vessels of the Department of Transport that were available, as well as aircraft and other services on the Pacific coast. But there is no life-guard service as such.


George Randolph Pearkes: I realize that. Am I correct in saying that there are only two vessels of the Department of Transport employed in servicing lighthouses and lifesaving duties on that coast?


Lionel Chevrier: There are four vessels of the department on the west coast. Two are larger vessels and two of them are secondary vessels. This amount is a portion of the vote covering the cost of replacement of one of the secondary vessels.


George Randolph Pearkes: Where will the vessel be stationed?


Lionel Chevrier: At Victoria.


George Randolph Pearkes: Only yesterday we heard that another service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which had boats which were also included in this life-saving service, had only two small boats which could not put to sea in heavy weather, but could only be employed in the calm waters between Vancouver island and the mainland. Will this vessel be able to go around the west coast of Vancouver island?


Lionel Chevrier: It will be able to go the same range and distance on the coast as the Bimie which it is replacing. I understand that the Bimie-


George Randolph Pearkes: I know the ship.


Lionel Chevrier: It will be on the same run as the other ship.


George Randolph Pearkes: I feel that it is totally inadequate for the services which are required. We should have a much better vessel than one just to go around and recharge a certain number of batteries and supply services to a few lighthouses. What we require is a vessel which can combine those duties with life-saving duties when there is an emergency on the Pacific coast. I cannot help thinking that a vessel such as the one the minister describes is totally inadequate for the work which so urgently needs to be done. Can the minister give us some hope that another vessel will be provided to carry out more important duties than are to be performed by this vessel which is to replace a small ship which goes around and just leaves supplies at a few lighthouses? I feel that this is a big question. I consider that we are overlooking the necessity of providing a life-saving service. We are like an ostrich; we are putting our heads in the sand and saying that we are having a vessel which will service lighthouses and will be available for relief in case of shipwrecks when we know full well that this vessel cannot carry out those duties at all.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course the point that my hon. friend raised is one which, while it is connected with this item, is a separate one, namely, whether or not the department should set up coast-guard services or life-saving services on the various coasts of Canada. This vote provides for the construction of a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for the west coast. Its main duties are not coast-guarding or life-saving, although incidentally they can
Supply-Transport

be. There is provision in the estimates-and we dealt with it this afternoon-for a lifeboat on the west coast at Bamfield at a cost of $65,000 or $70,000. That was mentioned in the course of the afternoon.


Thomas Langton Church: I am glad to see the minister doing something for the east and west coasts in regard to these marine services which have been somewhat starved because of war and other conditions. I want to call his attention to one point. I believe the time has come now when these services should be extended, when we have this vast transportation system for advancing the grain to the seaboard from the upper lakes. I am glad to see the east and west coasts get these services; but I believe the time has come now, after a great war like the one through which we have just come, when these services should be extended.
I call the minister's attention to the need of further marine services of the same type on the upper lakes where these storms occur in October, November and December, when the ships are taking the grain crop to the seaboard. At the present time I am glad to see something done for Parry Sound in connection with the boats there; it is badly needed in Georgian bay. But in lake Huron, Georgian bay, lake Erie, parts of lake Ontario, and lake Superior, there are practically no modern aids to navigation in the way of marine services. So much is that the case that if an accident happens to one of these Canadian vessels of transport, as a result of having no proper aids to navigation on the upper lakes, the vessel must sound its siren until some kind of United States aid to navigation in the form of marine service comes to its aid. That should not be the case.
I am in favour of the principle of confederation for all the provinces and not just for some. I believe there should be equality of treatment from the gulf of St. Lawrence up through this great chain of lakes to the upper lakes. They have been overlooked in the years gone by. I hope that between this session of parliament and the next, the minister will look into the situation in the upper lakes. Many men have been lost there. It is a wonder to me why some of the members from Ontario representing the constituencies in which lie Owen Sound, Collingwood and other places on the shores of lake Huron and lake Superior, where there have been several disasters, do not ask for the same marine services as are given in other sections of the country, and in time a great lakes marine commission to develop water-borne traffic.
I.Mr. Chevrier.]


Mr. CASE:: I should like to make an observation here; and I am very glad the hon. member for Broadview has referred to the upper lakes.


William Henry Golding: Order. This item is to provide for the construction of a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for the west coast.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-
493. Administration, $134,306.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister tell us briefly the functions of the Canadian maritime commission and how long it has been in existence?


Lionel Chevrier: The maritime commission was set up only recently, in November or December of 1947. Since its establishment, the commission has had many duties to perform. It has made recommendations to the government on many problems faced by Canadian shipping and shipbuilding industries. Its main problem has been that of modernizing the Canadian fleet to enable Canadian ship owners to meet foreign competition more effectively.
The Canadian fleet now consists of the war-built ex-Park ships, sold by the government to private Canadian shipping companies on liberal terms, with a restrictive flag transfer clause prohibiting their being resold with transfer of registry. Many ship owners now require faster, newer and more specialized ships for their services, and the commission is carrying out a tonnage replacement plan which makes it possible for Canadian ship owners who need new tonnage to sell their ex-Park ships to foreign purchasers, on condition that the Canadian owners discharge their mortgages before sale and deposit the sale proceeds in escrow for the building of new ships in Canada. Up to the present time, eight ships have been sold under this plan.
Another duty of the commission is to inquire into and report upon practical problems affecting Canadian shipping which may be referred to it from time to time by the government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: For example?


Lionel Chevrier: For example, it has investigated and made recommendations upon the carrying of cargoes under ERP in Canadian bottoms. Another of its duties and responsibilities was to review the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act.



194S

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
In carrying out its work the commission has had to confer with other departments from time to time. There is what is known as the knock-for-knock agreement between Canada and the United States, which during the war years was administered by and under the jurisdiction of the Department of Munitions and Supply. Those duties are now transferred to the maritime commission. It has further undertaken the control and direction of two government agencies dealing with shipping matters; that is, the steamship subsidies branch, which is more particularly dealt with in the estimates and which was formerly a part of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and Park Steamships.
Gordon Benjamin Isnor: We on the extreme east coast were very much interested in the creation of this maritime commission, and I think that applies equally to those on the west coast. We were hopeful that a long-range program would be drawn up and made public with respect, to the duties of this commission.
The explanation given by the minister with respect to the disposition of the present fleet, with the object of purchasing new ships, does not entirely satisfy us as far as the duties and objects of this commission are concerned. I believe the minister should make a further statement as to the long-range policy or plan of the government in reference to the carrying of cargoes in our own Canadian bottoms to all parts of the world. To set up such a system, I believe it is necessary to have, not men who come from one particular section of Canada but men who will represent the whole of this country, men who are familiar with both east and west coasts as well as the ports of Montreal and Quebec. I have nothing to say against Quebec or Montreal in regard to their shipping facilities; but, speaking more particularly for the east coast at the moment, I say we are aiming for greater export trade and greater shipping activity.
To repeat what I have frequently said on the floor of this house, during the war period Canada made great use of the eastern ports. They were busy spots, with ships going in and out. We had ships sailing even- four minutes to make up convoys totalling from sixty to one hundred vessels. So it was very busy at Halifax, Saint John and the other ports. Today there is not the same activity. When the maritime commission was set up we hoped it would inaugurate some program which would bring back those prosperous times as far as our ports were concerned.
For a moment I want to deal with the personnel of the commission. I do not know 5849-316
the gentlemen who compose it, but I am advised that the chairman is a lawyer, no doubt a man of ability and outstanding in his own profession but with no practical experience as far as shipping is concerned on either coast. I may be wrong in that statement, and if so, the minister will correct me. I am told that the other member of the commission comes from central Canada. We on the east coast are asking that you select a man from the maritimes, who will be familiar with shipping matters on the Atlantic.
The minister did not enlarge upon the matter of steamship subsidies or upon the question of coastal trade, which is an important question in the three maritime provinces and an important question in the duties of the maritime commission. I repeat, we feel we should have on the commission a man from the maritimes who is familiar with that subject. The officials of the minister may be efficient men with a certain amount of training and experience in connection with subsidies, but with all respect to the gentlemen sitting in front of the minister, I say their experience is limited. We have men down east who have grown up in the steamship business and in coastal trade, and who have all the qualifications necessary to make a real contribution to this particular work. We are asking that the minister give favourable consideration to naming as a member of that commission a man from the maritimes. We strongly urge this upon the government. If the minister thinks it over, the name of this commission itself indicates that its duties relate to a great extent to the east and west coasts, and for that reason I ask him to give this suggestion his very serious consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should follow my hon. friend's suggestion and enlarge somewhat upon the statement I made a moment ago concerning the maritime commission. Canada's wartime shipbuilding program produced 441 cargo ships totalling approximately 3,810,000 deadweight tons. These vessels were all built in Canadian yards by Canadian labour. I need not dilate upon the value of the service which these vessels rendered during the strenuous war years, because my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce has already dealt with that at some length in a statement he made in the house on June 16, 1947, which can be found at page 4195 of Hansard.
I might remind the committee, however, that the Park fleet, which was composed of 176 vessels, cost the government the sum of approximately $277,500,000; and in spite of the
'/Ig**'-.,
Supply-T ransport

fact that they were regarded in the same light as munitions of war, nevertheless the government succeeded in recovering the sum of approximately 8199,500,000, being seventy-two per cent of their original cost, through the operation of these ships and their sale to private operators after the end of the war.
In order to maintain a Canadian flag fleet, the government has sold practically the entire fleet to Canadian operators, including seventy-eight vessels still on charter to the British ministry of transport, which vessels are now in process of being returned to Canada. One of the conditions of sale was that no owner is permitted to apply for transfer out of Canadian registry without permission of the Canadian government.
After making preliminary studies, the Canadian maritime commission has advised me that the restriction against transfer of flag is leaving the Canadian fleet in a static condition. While the vessels built for war purposes are suitable in some trade as bulk carriers, they are not competitive with new tonnage which has been and is being built in other countries. If the Canadian flag is to continue on the high seas, it must be maintained by a well-balanced fleet consisting not only of bulk carriers but of faster and more modern units with refrigerator capacity able to compete with vessels of other flags on scheduled services.
The Canadian shipping industry is in its infancy. Prior to the war, Canada did not have a fleet of ocean-going dry cargo vessels. While there is no doubt that government policy has stimulated the shipping and shipbuilding industry, there is no doubt that the Canadian shipowners must be afforded at least an opportunity of selling vessels which are becoming obsolescent, in order to acquire efficient units.
To enable Canadian owners to acquire such vessels to modernize their fleets, the government, on the recommendation of the Canadian maritime commission, has now adopted a policy of. permitting sales of ex-Park vessels for' transfer, to foreign registry. Any owner desiring to sell must apply to the maritime commission for permission to do so. The commission investigates the circumstances fully and determines whether or not the sale of an ex-Park vessel and replacement by modern tonnage will be to the advantage of Canadian trade.
In so doing, it * takes into consideration in particular the competition with which the vessel is faced in the specific trade in which it is engaged. If the commission decides that it is advantageous to secure replacement, the owner is given permission to sell to any pur-

chaser approved by the commission, subject also to the approval of the commission as to price and terms of sale.
The owner is required to discharge fully any indebtedness due to the government in respect of the purchase of the vessel from the government, and then must deposit the proceeds of sale in escrow with the commission to secure replacement by modern tonnage. The commission reserves the right to approve the plans of the new ship and the terms and conditions for her construction, and the new ship must be maintained under Canadian registry.
It is anticipated that ships built under this scheme will be constructed in Canadian yards, provided that costs of Canadian shipbuilders are kept within reason, and if not, the commission may, under special circumstances, allow owners to acquire tonnage abroad. It is not expected, however, that this will be the case, and it is hoped that the escrow fund will provide a backlog for shipbuilding in Canada for some years to come.
A number of rumours have recently been circulated to the effect that Canada's fleet is being put on the auction block or that transfers are being permitted to enable Canadian owners to take advantage of low-cost labour in foreign countries. This is definitely not the case.
There will be no great volume of sale in the near future, and modernization of the Canadian fleet will be a matter of gradual development. The original Park fleet being built for war purposes, the accommodation for seamen in some cases leaves much to be desired, and there is no question that the building of modern tonnage will improve the living conditions for all seamen. The replacement policy will afford employment for Canadian shipyard labour, and the new vessels to be constructed will not only further Canada's overseas trade but be a credit to the Canadian flag.
The senior hon. member for Halifax referred to subventions being administered by the department. I have a lengthy statement on not only that, but other activities of the commission. I gave my statement briefly in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, when he referred to the personnel of the commission.
Of course, when one is setting up a new body such as this it is almost impossible to have on it representatives of all interested groups in the country, those interested in shipbuilding, seamen, operators, exporters, and importers on the great lakes, and the like.

Supply-Transport
In order to do that, we would have to have a body of perhaps seven or eight. The government came to the conclusion, however, that a commission composed of three members would answer the purpose.
The chairman of that commission, Mr. Clyne, is a man of wide experience, experience which he has obtained on the west coast. He has been handling maritime matters, legally and otherwise, for the greater part of his adult life, and he is well equipped to fulfil all these duties.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: What is his profession?


Lionel Chevrier: He is a lawyer.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: A lawyer?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The other member of the commission was in the Department of of External Affairs for some years. He was an officer in the navy during the war, with a distinguished career.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Who is the third one? There are three members?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The chairman and two commissioners?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Who is the third one?


Lionel Chevrier: The third one is Mr. Rahlves, who was president and manager of-


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: "Is" or "was"?


Lionel Chevrier: "Was." I was going to say in a minute that he had resigned. He was general manager of Park Steamships during the war and had a wide experience in the operation of ships.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The minister did not tell us where the second member resided or lived.


Lionel Chevrier: The second member lives in Ottawa.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Ottawa?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: One from the west coast and one from Ottawa; is that right?


Lionel Chevrier: One from the west coast and one from the central part of Canada.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Now hon. members will appreciate the point I am trying to get at, that we should have one from the eastern maritime provinces, as a third member.


Percy Chapman Black: I wish to support the senior member for Halifax. I thought, 5849-316i
when this commission was first set up, it would operate in place of what was known as the maritime rights commission for the benefit of the maritimes. There is no part of Canada more interested in maritime matters to which this commission would give attention than are the maritime provinces. I agree wholeheartedly with the senior member for Halifax when he says that one of the members of the commission should come from the maritime provinces.
While I do not want to be too definite about it, I still have doubts about the necessity for this commission. The Department of Transport is well officered. I think it should be able to administer the duties placed in the hands of this commission to at least as good satisfaction as would the commission, at great saving in costs. I have great respect for the officials in the minister's department, and most of the higher officers in the civil service. I am under the impression that they could carry on the duties assigned to this commission at a great saving to the taxpayers and with at least as great, if not greater, efficiency.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What was the exact reason for setting up this commission in 1947? Had some other organization disappeared and was there a gap that had to be filled?


Lionel Chevrier: It did not replace any other organization; it was a new body that had been requested during the war years by various groups in Canada. When the matter was debated in the house there were many strong supporters on my hon. friend's side, particularly the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: All parts of the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is as it may be, but I do not remember. The minister says this did not take the place of any body that had existed before. As far as I could make out from what he said, there was no new work that they had to take up. As far as I could follow what he said, it would seem to me that the work must have greatly decreased since the war years and the immediately subsequent time.
However that may be, I want to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Cumberland. After listening to what the minister has said as to the duties, I cannot for the life of me understand Why the people in his department could not carry them out. It seems to me that this 19 just another of these commissions set up for the purpose of spoon-feeding people and holding the hands
Supply-Transport

of people whose hands do not need to be held. I notice that they have bo approve contracts, investigate this and give judgment on that. I do not know whether they are competent to do so, because I do not know the gentlemen; I am not offering any opinion on that, but when I look at this item of $134,000 I wonder whether it is going to make a single extra dollar for the people of Canada. I would gravely doubt it.
When I look on this building of commission on commission it seems to me that we have a mania for this kind of thing. I was astounded at a figure given the other day, I believe by the Winnipeg Free Press. However, upon reflection I am afraid that it must be true. They stated that the various taxing bodies in this country are taking something like one-third of our national income. They went on to state, and I think it was fairly stated, that that is higher than in any other country in the world. I am quoting those figures subject to correction, but I believe they were put forward by competent people and are absolutely true. Again may I say that I doubt very much if in his heart the minister will disagree with the statement that the $134.400-


Lionel Chevrier: I disagree most heartily.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister can speak for himself. Nothing that the minister has said tonight makes me feel that this $134,000 will add a single dollar to the wealth of this country or that the services which are being performed can not be performed by the perfectly competent people in his department. We have a list here, as long as your arm, of engineers and competent people of various kinds. I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce wishes to speak.


Mr. HOWE:: In addition to carrying out duties that were not performed before, this commission is taking over the duties of the Park Steamship Company, which at the height of its career operated some 200 Ships for the government. The commission is carrying on functions which were held over from the Park Steamship Company. It is operating boats that are only partly paid for, and it is discharging functions that were formerly carried on by the Department of Trade and Commerce, namely, those having to do with steamship subsidies.
It seems to me that this commission has onerous and continuous duties. I suggest that, if anything, it is under-staffed rather than over-staffed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand that Park Steamship Company is now being operated by private interests.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Whom is it being operated by?


Clarence Decatur Howe: By the maritime commission. The Park Steamship Company is a crown company. Some of the ships which were formerly operated privately through the Park Steamship Company have been sold, but there are continuing functions of the Park Steamship Company still being carried on.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did it not have an adequate staff to run its affairs? Was it not carrying on before 1937?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no Park Steamship Company today, but the duties are being carried on by the commission.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not understand the minister. He says in one breath that the duties are being carried on by the commission, and in the next breath he says the ships are being operated by a crown company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The crown company has been disbanded.


Lionel Chevrier: May I add just a word? The hon. member for Cumberland has suggested that there is no function for this organization. There is a similar organization in the 'United Kingdom and in the United States. The object of the commission is to protect shipping for the country. If we were to follow the same steps we followed during the last war we would lose all our ships. The commission is to interest itself in a shipping program for Canada. By the amalgamation of the operations of the Park Steamship Company with those of the maritime commission, there has been a saving of $80,000 a year.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I want to commend the minister most highly for his endeavours to build up a shipping fleet in this country and to maintain it at something like efficiency.


Mr. WINTERS:: Could the minister provide a little information on some of the aspects of the operations of this commission? I understood from what has been said tonight that it is largely concerned with ocean-going steamers of 10,000 tons or thereabouts, but recently it has embraced in its scope fishing boats and fishing schooners. An advisory committee has been set up to advise on small boats and sailing vessels.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Another commission.


Robert Henry Winters: So far as I know, there is nobody with any practical experience or knowledge of fishing boats on this commission.

Supply-Transport
My attention was directed to that point by the remarks of the senior member for Halifax who asked that someone with practical experience in maritime matters generally be placed on the commission. I receive letters almost daily from people in the fishing industry who ask what the Canadian maritime commission intends to do about the fishing industry and in what respect their boats come under the commission. I have also had letters asking me to indicate who with any knowledge of fishing boats will be on the commission. To date I have not been able to find out very much about this, and I should like the minister to make a statement.
There is another uncertainty creeping into this picture. In the Halifax press and, I presume, in the press across the country, there was a story that three ocean-going transports were being tied up at Halifax because they could not compete with ships of other nations. Then, on the strength of the announcement made by the minister that our merchant ships are being sold, the presumption grows that they will be sold to competing nations who can operate them with mariners at lower rates of pay, and thus put us in an unfavourable position. The sale of our ships is likely to aggravate the situation and also the status of fishing boats, in the harbour at Halifax. I wish the minister would take a minute or two to clarify that situation and also the status of fishing boats.


Lionel Chevrier: There are several matters which the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg has brought up. First, he asked whether the operations of the maritime commission cover only foreign-going vessels. The answer is generally yes: but it also has to do with other duties such as I outlined in the statement I made when we took up this item, such as subsidies for coastal vessels, the administration of steamship subventions, and generally advising the government on policy.
The hon. gentleman asks if there is anyone with experience or knowledge of the fishing boat industry. The answer is no, there is not, because that is not directly a responsibility of the commission. However, under the Maritime Commission Act provision is made to set up advisory committees, and one of the advisory committees that has been set up in case it may be necessary for the government to seek advice is represented by the fisheries council.
My hon. friend feared that these vessels which were sold might compete with our own vessels. That is what we are trying to avoid by setting up the policy of the transfer of flag in certain cases. It is to bring our ships up to the highest possible standard, to streamline and modernize our fleet, so that competition will not overtake us. We are beginning to notice that other countries are building bigger, faster and more modern ships than our Park vessels. In order to compete we have to do likewise, and we have accordingly adopted the policy set out in the memorandum I read a moment ago. The policy was adopted just to obviate and counteract the situation to which my hon. friend referred.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Would the minister be good enough to answer these questions? How many ships were operated by the Park Steamship Company during the war; how many ships were sold, and how many are being operated at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: The following ships were sold to Canadian companies for operation under the Canadian flag: one hundred and fifteen 10,000-ton ships; twenty-two 4,700-ton ships, or a total of 137.
The following Canadian-owned ships are still on charter to the United Kingdom ministry of transport: twenty 10,000-ton ships. They are being returned from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948 for delivery to Canadian purchasers; also, fifty-eight 10.000-ton ships, which will remain on charter to the United Kingdom ministry until 1950, when they also will be returned for delivery to Canadian purchasers.
The United Kingdom ministry will retain for an indefinite period seven 10,000-ton "stores issuing" ships and eight 10,000-ton "maintenance" ships.
Canada's fleet of ocean-going ships of over 500 gross tons therefore consists of 229 dry cargo ships, with a total deadweight capacity of approximately 2,100,000 tons.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario); Who operates those?


Lionel Chevrier: These are ex-Park vessels which have been sold to private operators. Some of them have been sold on terms and have been chartered. Those that have been chartered are still being administered by the maritime commission in its capacity of successor to Park Steamships.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoha-Ontario) r What does the minister mean by administered? Operated?


Lionel Chevrier: No. Park Steamships
is out of operation altogether. I mean collecting charter hire.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do you need a commission costing 8134,000 to collect charter hire?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: No, my hon. friend did not understand me, or perhaps I did not make myself clear. I do not want to be offensive at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think we- shall get on better now that your . colleague is away.


Lionel Chevrier: The duties of the maritime commission with reference to Park Steamships are only a very small portion of its functions because Park Steamships is being gradually, if not entirely, wound up. It did operate these ships during wartime and they are gradually being sold. The commission has taken over those that remain and will soon wind up the operations of Park Steamships.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is grand. You have torpedoed what your colleague said and now we are getting the facts.


Lionel Chevrier: I have tried not to be offensive, but if my hon. friend wants to take my colleague to task in that manner I am afraid he and I will not get along. I do not think it is fair for my hon. friend to say that I have torpedoed what my colleague said or that he has torpedoed what I said. I am tiying to be helpful.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think you are.


Lionel Chevrier: I am doing the best I can, but if my hon. friend wants to be critical-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not being critical of you.


Lionel Chevrier: -I am quite prepared to put up with it. If my hon. friend wants to know what the duties of the commission are I have already put them on the record once and have explained them twice. The duties of the commission are of an advisory nature. I am positive that the commission is doing a very fine job. The House of Commons approved the work of the commission when it passed the bill last year. The bill was debated at great length, and was supported, if my recollection serves me aright, by all parts of the house and by many hon. members from that side of the house. It was then conceded that it was necessary, in fact urgent, to have the maritime commission established. Many members from my hon. friend's side of the house had been continually advocating the formation of the commission long before action was taken and, indeed,

took rny colleague the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to task for not having moved earlier. So I do not think it is a nullity in the department. I think the commission is very necessary and is performing a good service, without which we could not have a shipping industry to compete with those of other countries.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I started this question. It was a fairly simple question, and I think the minister can answer it one, two, three. How many ships were operated-I am not talking about their size or anything else

during the war by the -Park Steamship Company? How many ships have since been sold; how many are at present being operated and come under the direct control of the maritime commission? These are three simple questions.


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the first question, how many ships were operated by Park, is 238 approximately. The answer to the second question, how many were sold, the same number. The answer to the third question, how many operated under the commission, none, except for the purpose of completing the charter hire and collecting the money under the charter hire.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Now we have the answer. No ships are being operated by the maritime commission. What are their duties?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to thank the minister for getting us part of the way on. AVe have now got rid of the idea of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this is an operating unit. The minister has made it clear that, so far as operating Park Steamships is concerned, what it does is receive payments. It does not need a 8134,000 commission to do that.
The minister has said, and on this I should like further information, that the commission advises and is apparently to keep up the level of our shipping, is to consider our foreign trade and the kind of ships we should have. It seems to me that on that we are entitled to a little further information. I am still skeptical. I still do not see why it is that when you establish a business someone should come along and tell you what to do. I am glad to see that the senior hon. member for Halifax is with me. I would like to know if the minister can go a little more fully into what the functions of these gentlemen are. So far as I am concerned, I am completely in the dark. If I may add something. I am carrying it in my mind that the minister has competent, scientific, expert advisers, who, with all due deference to the profession with which I had once

Supply-Transport
a bowing acquaintance, seem more competent to advise him on these technical questions than a lawyer.


Lionel Chevrier: I have already said what the commission's work was since its establishment. Perhaps I can summarize it again. The main problem that the commission has to deal with is, as I said a moment ago, that of modernizing the Canadian fleet to enable Canadian shipowners to meet foreign competition more effectively.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister permit a question there?


Lionel Chevrier: Will my hon. friend allow me to answer his question? This means that Canadian ship operators have to meet keen competition because new, more modern and faster ships are being put onto certain trade routes, so that our ship operators who are doing business with ex-Park vessels, that is 10,000-ton freighters, 4,700-ton freighters and certain tankers, find themselves at a disadvantage. Therefore the commission has adopted a program whereby it will allow some of these operators to sell their Park vessels, but not to sell them unless the purchase price is deposited in escrow, and the money used for the purchase of new ships, of the type necessary to compete on the trade routes, to be built in Canadian shipyards. That in itself is a man-sized job.
Then, as I said a moment ago, the commission has inquired into and reported upon several practical problems. One of them I gave to the hon. gentleman. It has investigated and made recommendations upon the question of the role of Canadian shipping in the European recovery program. The Canada Shipping Act, which was amended and passed in this house, was given attention by the commission. As a central agency, another of the duties of the commission is the administration of shipping matters. The commission has given assistance to Canadian ship owners in many fields. The commission has a responsibility for investigation, certification and settlement of claims in the knock-for-knock agreement. It has undertaken the control and direction of two government agencies, steamship subsidies and the remainder of the activities of Park Steamships.
The commission has not yet been in existence for a year, and it still has other duties to perform. The future commission expects it will take about six months to complete a survey of the shipbuilding industry. In carrying out this survey, the commission will obtain and consider the recommendations of ship owners, ship builders, labour organizations, exporters, importers, manufacturers, primary producers
and other Canadian interests and other organizations affected by shipping policy. That was the object of appointing the advisory committees authorized under the act. I do not know that I can give the hon. gentleman any more complete details than that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not going to pursue the matter further. I just want to say this, without wishing to be in the least offensive to the minister. I think what he said was just a lot of words. I would be much happier to have the minister make these decisions himself, along with some expert person with whom he might consult from day to day. I would far rather rely on that than this commission which is spending tens of thousands of dollars on things which, to me, are just a lot of-I do not want to use extreme words. I think the whole thing is unreal.


Mr. BAKER:: I want to support this item of $134,000 for the administration of the Canadian maritime commission. I supported the resolution which preceded the bill and I still support it. I have some knowledge of marine matters. I fully realize that if we do not have the maritime commission, or some equivalent body, our merchant marine will go down to what it was before. At that time it was practically negligible. Canada had one of the largest merchant fleets in the world in the old sailing ship days when Nova Scotia, Quebec, New Brunswick and the maritime provinces generally owned so many ships. They dwindled down to practically nothing.
This maritime commission is in its infancy. Hon. members can criticize it now and criticize it justly. I think the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg has brought out some pertinent points. The commission has to be broadened in its scope. It has to get more men with practical knowledge of marine matters than it has at the present time. The commission is just growing up. I support the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg and also the senior hon. member for Halifax. I think they brought out some useful points, but we must have this commission.
The company with which I was concerned prior to going into the army in 1939 imported from the old country. Most of our cargoes came in Scandinavian bottoms. The reason was that our Canadian ships and the British ships could not compete with the Scandinavians. The maritime commission may be able to help out in that regard. If we are to have a merchant fleet we may have to subsidize under certain circumstances, but we must have a body of specialists who can handle this. The Department of Transport as such
Supply- Tran sport

cannot do it. I am quite positive of that. They must have an advisory body. I do recommend that more men with practical marine experience be brought in and that the scope of the commission be broadened. I particularly want to see the fishing vessels and the smaller craft brought in here. I think we would be making a great mistake if we did not support this item. This body is just in its infancy, and in the years to come hon. members will realize that they have been wise in having established a maritime commission.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is not a case of supporting the item; it is a case of trying to find out something about it. What is meant by "Professional and special services, $25,000''? No amount was voted for this item last year, but we are asked for $25,000 this year.


Lionel Chevrier: It is provision for audits in connection with steamship subventions.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: 


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How much do they audit?


Lionel Chevrier: Let me take a minute to explain this to my hon. friend.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I wish you would.


Lionel Chevrier: There has been a demand for increased subventions. That demand is because of increased costs; and the government has felt that before increases were granted, there should be an accounting of the books of certain of the applicants. That is a sensible thing to do. Before you pay out money, it is logical to ascertain whether those who claim that conditions require increased subsidies, are correct in their statement, and whether their figures can be verified. An audit has been made in a number of cases, and this item is for that purpose.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: These are subsidies that are paid out from the minister's department?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: These are subsidies for mail, mostly, are they not?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; the items following, in votes 495 and 496.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just following this up, does the treasury department not make audits of this?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not catch the question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister's own department not make audits of this?


Lionel Chevrier: We have, no auditors in the Department of Transport. There is in fact an auditor or two in the board of transport- commissioners, but their work has to do with railway matters. There is no auditor in the Department of Transport.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You mean to say that subsidies are given without any check-up on them?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what it looks like.


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly what it is not; and that is exactly what I am telling my hon. friend this provision is for.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister stated that this has been set up for only about a year.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I did not say that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said that this commission had been set up for only about a year.


Lionel Chevrier: But not steamships
subventions. Those have been in existence for years.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; but evidently there was no audit.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon.
member for Grey North.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The port of Owen Sound.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The minister says there has been an application for an increase in subventions. As I review the details of the services at page 276 of the estimates, it would certainly appear that there has been a tremendous demand for an increase in salaries. Just let me review this matter to some extent. For the chairman of the commission there is an increase from $5,000 to $12,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: For part of a year.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Yes. There are two commissioners at $20,000 a year. Why could not the scope of their administration be enlarged? From listening to the discussion and the answers given by the minister, I cannot understand how these men are fully employed in the task which he has outlined, because it would appear that their responsibilities are less. I am thinking now that a maritime or marine commission could administer the affairs on the great lakes in which I am particularly interested. The. city of Owen Sound has, I think I can say without fear of contradiction, one of the finest harbours on the great lakes. It is the last to freeze up in the fall and the first to open in the spring. That

Supply-Transport
can be verified. For years the board of trade and other public bodies have appealed to the Minister of Transport to allow the lightship St. Heliers to be in the port of Owen Sound. The mariners have also appealed, because markers are put out early in the spring and then in the fall. We have not been able to get anywhere with that suggestion. I have had an opportunity to review some of the correspondence between, the minister and the board of trade and between the board of trade and the minister, and I cannot for the life of me understand why, when you are putting lightships there, those ships should be wintered in Midland.


Lionel Chevrier: We are past that item.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I am speaking of the advisability of enlarging the duties of the commission, so that the minister's estimate of $134,300 might be more properly justified. I rose a while ago to discuss this item and I was told I was wrong. I may be wrong now. I should be glad if the minister could tell me now why the present procedure is necessary, and why we have not the advantage of one of these lightships placing markers for the benefit of mariners for life-saving and so on. It means a great deal to them as they ply the great lakes and the boats go down from the head of lake Superior, from Port Arthur and Fort William, with their cargoes late in the fall and leave the port early in the spring. If it would not be asking too much, I should like to have the minister say why we have not one of these ships in the port of Owen Sound.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is not asking for too much. I can tell him that the maritime commission has absolutely no jurisdiction over the subject which he raised a moment ago. The St. Heliers lightship is a matter that comes under marine sendees. I know the position fairly well. I had representations from my hon. friend. It is certainly not a matter over which the maritime commission would have any jurisdiction.


Mr. MacNAUGHT:: I wish to support the remarks made by the senior member for Halifax, which were to the effect that when appointment is made of a successor to Mr. Rahlves on the Canadian maritime commission, consideration be given to appointing a man from the maritime provinces. I have the utmost respect for the chairman of the commission, Mr. dyne, and his associate, Captain Audette. I think they are both competent and capable men. But in matters pertaining to the east coast, I submit that we should have a man of experience in matters pertaining to that coast. This is more particularly true, because 5849-317
a large number of the ships owned and operated by Park Steamships was sold to Atlantic Shippers with head office in Halifax. At the moment three of their ships are tied up in the port of Halifax. For these reasons I submit that great attention should be paid to the remarks made by the senior member for Halifax, and that every avenue should be canvassed in trying to get a suitable man from the maritimes to take the place of Mr. Rahlves.


Lionel Chevrier: I can assure my hon. friend! that every consideration has been and is being given to that matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-
49-4. Administration, $19,949.
Percy Chapman Black: I should like to bring before the committee and the minister the matter of the subsidy on a service across Minas basin. This was for a ferry service which was established forty-five or fifty years ago to serve the people in Annapolis valley and Cumberland, and, in more recent years, to serve the tourists. In about the year 1926 a special boat was built to operate on that service. It was called the Kipawo, a name which is formed from the first two letters of the ports at which it called, namely Kingsport, Parrsboro and Wolfville: Kingsport in Kings county, Parrsboro in Cumberland county and Wolfville in Kings county. We made the sacrifice of allowing that ferry boat, which carried cars, to be taken over by the naval department about 1942, with the expectation that it would be restored to the service. This was one service that was subsidized by the federal government and by the provincial government. I think the federal government gave $4,500 or $5,000 a year and the provincial government the same amount. That boat was taken over by the naval service and finally transferred to Newfoundland. At the end of the war it was sold by war assets for $26,000, fully as much as was paid for it in the first place; it was not a large boat.
The people of that section of Nova Scotia were much annoyed and put out by the action of the department in not restoring this boat and this subsidy. The provincial government supported it and offered to pay its portion as before. It made representations to the federal government. At that time shipping subsidies were under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I believe the then minister was sympathetic; because it rvas the only subsidy in all Canada that was discontinued, notwithstanding the fact that this ferry service had been in operation for more than
Supply-Transport

forty years. Boards of trade in the maritime provinces and interested people made repeated representations. Hundreds of boats were acquired by the government in the naval service and the Park Steamship Company, mentioned by the minister, but not one was made available to renew this ferry service.
During the war, motorists had to go 150 miles further. Gasoline wyas scarce; it was almost impossible to get tires, but our people made the sacrifice and were willing to continue to make it as long as necessary, as Nova Scotians did in every phase of the war effort. But they did expect this service to be re-established at the end of the war; they did expect this boat to be brought back, but it was sold and the proceeds held by the federal government.
I request the minister to look into this grievance and have the service restored. It is only about nine miles from Parrsboro to Kingsport, and about fifteen miles to Wolf-ville. An improvement might be made by having direct connection from Parrsboro to Blomidon, the nearest point in King's county, which is only three and a half miles away. If a wharf were built there it would be only a short service from Parrsboro across the Minas basin. It would land at a point on Blomidon, which is being advocated by the government of Nova Scotia and by many people as the site of a national park.
Now that the subsidies come under the minister's direction, I would ask him to deal with this matter. I do not believe the people in any other part of Canada would have been subjected to this treatment. We in Nova Scotia are long suffering or we would not have put up with it. This was the only subsidy discontinued in all Canada, just because we sacrificed our boat in order to be of service during the war. I believe this ferry should be re-established as a service to the local people, as a service to tourists, and as a matter of pride for the whole countryside. The destruction of this service is another sign of retrogression, and the people concerned are very much grieved and hurt. I ask the minister to give this matter his personal attention.


John Ewen Sinclair: I should like to speak on this general item-


Percy Chapman Black: I wonder if I can get a statement from the minister concerning this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: My bon. friend has raised two points; the service between Blomidon and Parrsboro and between Parrsboro and Hantsport and Windsor. The position

is as he stated, that the service was taken off during the war; but, as I understand the duties of the steamship subventions branch of the commission, they do not include establishing a service, but rather deciding whether or not a subsid3? is necessary for the operation of a service.


Percy Chapman Black: But in this case-


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to continue? If someone makes an application to operate a ferry service between these points, unquestionably the commission will have to give the matter its attention, I would even go a step further and say the commission can and will look into it and, after doing so, they may decide to intervene. But it is not the business of the commission to institute service. It may be that some injustice is being done to the citizens of these points, but that is not a matter with which the commission is directly charged. I take it that there is no service between Blomidon and Parrsboro, and my information is that there is no wharf at Blomidon, so that I suppose there would be some considerable expenditure before such a service could be considered, since a wharf would have to be built. I do not want my hon. friend to think we are not prepared to give the subject he has raised every consideration. I shall ask the commission to look into it and see if something can be done to assist the people in that area.


Percy Chapman Black: I want to thank the minister for going as far as he did, but I point out to him and to this committee that we are not asking the government to establish a newT service. The government destroyed the service which was there for forty or fifty years, so that they have a very real responsibility to see that the service is re-established. They took the boat which was specially built under the authority of the province of Nova Scotia when I was provincial minister of highways, and which operated there from 1926 or 1927 until 1942. That boat was taken over by the naval department and sold by war assets; and we have been denied that, service ever since.


John Ewen Sinclair: I should like to speak on this general item. The hon. member for Cumberland has just said the people of Nova Scotia are long suffering and hard done by. The senior hon. member for Halifax was complaining that, because of the lack of a maritime provinces man, on the maritime commission he thought, the people of the mari-times were not getting as fair a break as other

Supply-Transport
parts of Canada. But looking at pages 72 and 73 of the estimates, I would suggest that the maritimes are doing extremely well, as far as .mail subventions are concerned. For the west coast of British Columbia we have three items totalling some $79,000. For the maritimes we have a page and a half of items totalling about $1,150,000.
As I pointed out a little earlier this session, during the debate on the Canada Shipping Act, coastal shipping on the British Columbia coast is of much greater significance than that on the east coast, because of our total lack of north and south roads. A tremendous volume of traffic moves up and down the coast. There is a small subsidy for the service on the west coast of Vancouver island and a small subsidy for service between Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte islands, but my point is that there has been a very great difference between the subsidies paid on the west coast and those on the east coast.
My second point is that, since the end of the war, a condition has arisen which makes the need for these subsidies on the west coast very much greater. Before the war, we had three services on the west coast: the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and a small coastal line known as Union Steamships, which called at all the small ports. It was a slow service but a good service, in that no logging camp or fishing village was too small for Union Steamships to push in, drop off the mail and push on. After the war, quite a number of naval veterans thought they should enter this coastal trade. They bought some of these war vessels, which apparently the department thought very little of, but which these people thought a great deal of. Then they reconverted them. In my riding alone there are four of these coastal lines. These lines decided to service only the bigger points of Gibsons Landing, Sechelt, Pender Harbour, Powell River and Britannia Mine. They picked the cream of the trade, leaving the Union Steamships calling at the smaller points, in which they have mail contracts, thus losing the business out of the big points.
As a consequence, the only thing the bigger company could do was to begin to drop their service to the smaller points. I am sure the maritime commission will know the points I am referring to-Halfmoon bay, Lang bay, Lund and Egmont. These little points are all along the coast. Their only connection with Vancouver is by sea. There is no road and no rail connection. No subsidy is paid to this new line, and certainly insufficient subsidy to the Union Steamships to justify that service. So they have dropped the service.
The unfortunate member of parliament for that district, the hon. member for Vancouver North, gets the full complaint: "Why is this happening?" Most abuse is against the steamship company, the residents not realizing the situation which the company has to face.
For the entire mainland coast of British Columbia, from Vancouver to Stewart, which is about GOO miles direct and about 5,000 miles by coast line, we have a subsidy of $37,000 which, I suppose, is divided among the three lines, the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and the Union Steamships.
I now look at the eastern coast and I say- and I would be corrected if I am wrong- that every single coastal steamship line of the maritime provinces, and certainly of the St. Lawrence river, is paid a subsidy. These lines on the St, Lawrence river will be operating only part of the year, and they also have rail and road communication; the wafer is not their only means of access.
This raises one other point of great interest. The reason we have such a high freight rate is not only the mountain differential, but also the lack of road and bus competition which you have in the east. The result is that we have to pay the full traffic. Before we start with the 21 per cent increase, or the 25 per cent mountain differential, the people of British Columbia have good cause to resent subsidies for coastal traffic along the St. Lawrence river which results in cheaper sea routes and cheaper transportation along the St. Lawrence, which in turn must result in lower railway fares.
So apparently we are in the business of subsidizing coastal traffic in the east, despite the fact that rail traffic rates are lower, with the result, of course, that the prairies and British Columbia take up the slack.
I would ask the minister the reason for this amazing difference between $79,000 for British Columbia and $1,160,000 for the east coast, when most of these points are already serviced with either rail or road. You may have this new line servicing these little points making an application for a subsidy along the scale of that permitted in the St. Lawrence and Nova Scotia. If so, will they be given, shall I say, careful consideration, or favourable consideration?


Lionel Chevrier: To answer the first
question, one of the reasons is that the operators on the west coast are perhaps more capable of supporting themselves. Another reason is that there is a substantial amount for west coast services in the supplementary estimates. I am not in a position to say what
Supply-T reimport


George Randolph Pearkes: 
Lionel Chevrier: The reason for the subsidy of $65,000 is that there are three vessels, and they operate three services. May I add that one of these vessels travels 472 miles?


George Randolph Pearkes: That may be true, but what is the population served? The population of British Columbia has increased in the last three years by twenty-seven per cent, a greater increase than in any other part of Canada. Large numbers of people have moved in there.
I say it is the service rendered, not the number

of vessels rendering the service, which is important. Was the vessel running out of Owen Sound built by the government?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: Was the building of it subsidized by the government?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: Has it an exclusive
monopoly for the carrying of mail?


Lionel Chevrier: No. But referring to the service to which my hon. friend referred on the west coast, one point which must not be forgotten is that the $10,000 to which he referred is given by the Canadian Pacific, and that railway is a pretty substantial organization and well able to look after itsblf. It is true that if they can show that amount is required for certain purposes, the steamship subvention branch will grant it. But, to compare the small vessel operating at Owen Sound with the Canadian Pacific-well, they are two different things.


John Lambert Gibson: The minister is right in some ways. I believe the basis upon which they must calculate these subsidies must be that if a company like the Canadian Pacific in British Columbia has some lucrative runs, they would also be asked to take on some of these less profitable ones.
However I agree with what the hon. member for Nanaimo has said. On the west coast the}' have about a 600-mile run in open ocean, and they receive a subsidy of $10,000. I understand that they lose $50,000 or $60,000 a year on the operation to the mainland.
I was recently interested in the operation of a company which was in there and tried to compete by providing a service twice weekly up the west coast. I can tell the committee that they lost approximately $30,000 in the operation in one year. How would that company have gone about obtaining a subsidy? Would it have been considered favourably, if it has provided the necessary service?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not sure whether they would be considered favourably, but any application is considered in the light of necessity and losses. If a company in receipt of subsidy can show that its costs have gone up and will submit to audit, the commission will give the matter consideration. But I cannot say that the application will be granted.


John Lambert Gibson: The minister said there would be another $300,000 in the supplementary estimates, and I thank him for the information.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member permit me to make this further observation? The commission could not possibly subsidize two people for the same service.


John Lambert Gibson: Then there is no chance of a section of the country which is now receiving inadequate service receiving better service?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not say "no" to that.


John Lambert Gibson: That is what it amounts to. If the present company is not willing to provide better service than the present inadequate sendee some other company would have to step in.


Lionel Chevrier: It is part of the contract that is entered into that adequate service will be provided for the subsidy that is given.


John Lambert Gibson: The contract was made forty years ago.


Lionel Chevrier: It would be reviewed every year. Any other company could make application.


John Lambert Gibson: Is it not true that during the war we had a Commodities Stabilization Corporation which handled some of these subsidies?


Lionel Chevrier: I think what the hon. gentleman has in mind is the stabilization fund that was operated by the Department of Finance. That was done away with on January 1 of this year.


John Lambert Gibson: Has that made necessary increased subsidies?


Lionel Chevrier: That is responsible for the increased subsidies which will be included in the supplementary estimates.


John Ewen Sinclair: Did I understand the minister to say that they would not pay a subsidy to competitors on the same run?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


John Ewen Sinclair: Would that mean that if a second steamship starts in operation the subsidy would be removed because, if there is competition, there is no need for a subsidy?


Lionel Chevrier: The first remains until the year is out, when it can be reviewed. The competitor may make application if he is operating at a loss. If he is operating at a profit he is not entitled to a subsidy.


John Ewen Sinclair: I would think the new man entering a field would be more likely to be operating at a loss than the chap who
has the subsidy. Would not it be better to provide a subsidy for the two?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that that would be impossible to do.


Mr. STANFIELD:: I should like to add my support to the hon. member for Cumberland in connection with the ferry service across Minas basin. For some years the S.S. Kipawo plied across this basin, but when the war came along it was taken away for war service. That was perfectly all right but the people there naturally thought that after the war the Kipawo would come back and the service would be restored. However, when the war was finished the Kipawo was sold and has never been brought back.
I would point out that it is some 200 miles around this bay, which is a long piece for a motorist to drive when he is in a hurry or for a truck driver to drive when he is moving freight back and forth between points on each side of the bay. I think it is only fair to the people in that part of the country that that service should be restored. I understand that the subsidy was not large, and it would be a great help in having produce moved back and forth. It would also aid tourists and motorists who wanted to get around the 200 miles in a short time.
It would not be necessary to build wharves or anything else at Parrsboro, Wolfville or Hantsport, as these places already have good docking facilities. I suggest they should call at Hantsport as well as Kingsport, as Hantsport is on the main highway and more convenient for motor traffic. I would ask the minister to give consideration to having this service on the Minas basin restored.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: in order to give improved service, is there any possibility of a subsidy being considered if an application is made?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do I understand the minister to say that one of the conditions of granting a subsidy or subvention is that efficient service is being rendered? There are isolated points along the south and west coasts of Vancouver island where the mail is delivered by steamer only once in ten days. The steamer leaves Victoria, goes up the west coast, turns around and comes back, the round trip taking about ten days. Under modern conditions, to receive mail only once every ten days cannot be considered as efficient service. When passengers have no opportunity to go out to do their shopping or their business in Victoria more often than once in ten days it is not efficient service.
Surely if the subsidy were increased a more efficient service could be rendered. I know the Canadian Pacific is a large company and there are only small people who live out in these villages. I wonder if this large company is not trying to cover up its losses by charging high rates for freight and passenger service in an effort to make lip the lack of assistance that it receives?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think I was using the word "efficient" in the sense that ray hon. friend understood it, or if I was, that was not my intention. I am informed that one of the conditions of granting a subsidy is that the service is essential for the economic needs of the community. It need not necessarily be an efficient service as my hon. friend understands it. He has referred to a service once in six, seven or eight days, but it is not on that basis that a subsidy is granted. It is granted on the basis of the economic needs of the community.


John Lambert Gibson: It seems to me that I smell a badly decomposed rat. The minister says he has taken over from the Department of Finance the operation which was carried on during the war to keep fares down and to meet advanced costs.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot allow my hon. friend to say that. I did not say any such thing. I said that during the war the Department of Finance operated a stabilization fund which went out of existence on January 1. Since then and because of that, applications have been made for increased subsidies. That is not what my hon. friend is saying.


John Lambert Gibson: The necessity for increased subsidies must be due to the

fact that the stabilization fund has been discontinued.


Lionel Chevrier: And higher costs.


John Lambert Gibson: During the war we endeavoured to keep fares down, and that was a worthy object, but because of that we are paying higher subsidies. We pay subsidies to some companies, while other companies do not get a subsidy. How is a company that is just starting in to compete with a company that is subsidized? Actually it is not just $79,000 but close to $400,000, because the minister brought in supplementaries amounting to approximately $350,000. This means that $400,000 went to these selected companies on the Pacific coast, Union Steamships, Canadian National Steamships-


Lionel Chevrier: Not Canadian National but Canadian Pacific, and Union Steamships.


John Lambert Gibson: Just two companies. But there are many smaller companies operating and providing a vastly improved service, which have to compete with these large companies which the taxpayers are subsidizing to the extent of $400,000. That is not fair to the smaller companies.


Lionel Chevrier: If there is any company which feels it needs assistance and can establish that it is operating at a loss it can make application and it will be considered, but if the company does not make application, my hon. friend would not suggest that we go out and give it a subsidy?


John Lambert Gibson: No; what I am saying is that you are subsidizing these two large companies to the extent of $400,000, which probably allows them to charge less than a proper fare.


Lionel Chevrier: They are not subsidized on that basis but on the basis of an operating loss, and we make sure, through a firm of auditors, that they are operating at a loss and need the subvention in order to make receipts balance with expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- Eastern local services-
496.	Baddeck and Iona, service between, $12,-
000.
Campobello. N.B., and Lubec, Maine, service between, $3,000.
Chester and Tancook island, winter service between, $2,640.
Dalhousie, N.B., and Miguasha, P.Q., service between, $12,000.
Deer island, Campobello island, arid St. Andrews, N.B., service between, $2,000.
Grand Manan and mainland, service between. $85,000.

Supply-Transport
Halifax, Canso and Guysboro, service between,
[Stage Direction]
Halifax, LaHave and LaHave river ports, service between, $3,000.
Halifax, Sherbrooke, Spry bay and Torbay, service between, $11,200.
Halifax and ports on west coast of Cape Breton, service between, $6,000.
Isle aux Coudres and Les Eboulements, service between, $3,500.
Isle aux Coudres and Quebec or Levis, service between, $4,000.
Isle aux Grues and Montmagny, P.Q., service between, $2,500.
Mulgrave and Arichat, service between, $25,-OOO.
Mulgrave and. Canso, service between, $64,000.
Mulgrave and Guysboro, calling at intermediate ports, service between, $14,000.
Murray bay and north shore of the St. Lawrence, winter service between, $50,000.
Owen Sound and ports on Manitoulin island and Georgian bay. service between, $65,000.
Pelee island and the mainland, service between, $11,000,
Pietou, Mulgrave and Chetieamp, service between, $11,000.
Pietou, Souris and the Magdalen islands, service between, $60,000'.
Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, service between, $54,000.
Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, service between, $100,000'.
Quebec, Natashquan and Harrington, service between, $127,500.
Quebec, or Montreal and Gaspe, calling at way ports, service between. $90,000.
Rimousld. Matane and points on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, service between, $75,-
000.
Riviere-du-Loup and St. Simeon, and/or Tadoussac, service between, $21,000.
Saint John and Minas basin ports, service between, $10,000.
Saint John, Westport and Yarmouth, and other way ports, service between, $31,500.
Sydney and Bay St. Lawrence, calling at way ports, service between, $35,009.
Sydney and Bras d'Or lake ports, west coast of Cape Breton, and Prince Edward Island, service between, $22,500.
Sydney and Whycocomagh, calling at way ports, service between, $20,500.	*
Yarmouth, N.S., and Boston, Mass., service between, $28,667.
Total, Canadian maritime commission, $1,315,756.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Who are the contractors for the Pietou, Souris and Magdalen islands service, and do they set their own rates on all freight? I would also ask the same question with respect to the Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland service, which runs from Charlottetown to Newfoundland, and also takes in Montreal and other ports. This Newfoundland service is of great benefit to the farmers of Prince Edward Island. We are the only-island province in the dominion, and for that reason are more interested in transportation than any other province. We find that this Prince Edward Island-Newfoundland service
is one of our greatest assets for the shipping of goods by our farmers. Who are the contractors on that service?
The Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia service, which is called the Wood Island-Cariboo service, has been built up within the last few years and is operated by Northumberland Ferries Limited. No one can dispute that it is giving an excellent service to Prince Edward Island. One of the few things in connection with this service which the contractors do not have to look after is the docks. The docks at Cariboo are fair, but the docks at Wood Island are far from adequate to take care of the shipping that is done there. Most of the freight originates at Wood Island. I would ask the minister to give that matter his careful and sympathetic consideration.
As I said, transportation is the most important thing to our island province. I do not see an item in these estimates, but I hope there will be one in the supplementaries for a subsidy to a new ferry which I understand will be established between West Point and Buctouche. That is one of the parts in the western end of our province which has been sadly neglected, and I hope that some consideration will be given to it.


Lionel Chevrier: The operators of the service between Pietou, Souris and the Magdalen islands are the Magdalen Island Transportation Services Limited. The operators of the service between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are the Inter Island Steamship Company, and for the service between Wood Island and Cariboo, Northumberland Ferries Limited. A service between West Point and Buctouche is under consideration.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Do they set their own rates?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do the docks at Cariboo come under the control of the transport department?


Lionel Chevrier: They certainly do not come under the control of this particular branch, the maritime commission. I am informed that they come under the Department of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-
497.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway ears under the jurisdiction of the department, $64,000.
Lawrence Wilton Skey: Would the minister take advantage of this item for railway cars t-o make a statement to the committee on rolling stock, with special reference to passenger rolling
Supply-Transport

slock of the Canadian National and state whether anything is being done to replace and perhaps modernize the sleeping accommodation so as to give a little better service to the public, now that we have passed through the difficult war years?


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend will look through the first discussion that took place on these estimates be will find a statement there, although it is not a full one. My recollection is that I said something like this. The Canadian National, and I am sure the Canadian Pacific as well, were continually moving in the direction of modernizing their equipment. Boxcars, which is an important part of the equipment of both railways, are being built. Both railways have a program for the building of boxcars, refrigerator cars, ore cars, diesel switching locomotives as well as coaches. Extra coaches are being built in the various shops. For the year 1948 the -new equipment program contains twenty sleeping cars, twenty-five air-conditioned coaches, and a long list of other equipment, 2,000, 50-bon boxcars, 700, 50-ton boxcars, 140 boxcars. The list is interminable. I can assure my hon. friend that the railways have an up-to-date new equipment program.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: If they are building only twenty sleeping cars and twenty-five coaches -this year one might as well say that the passenger facility program is waiting, pending the transportation side of the business, the boxcars and the [DOT]working equipment of the railway.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
Item agreed t-o.
Railway service-
*498. Hudson Bay railway-construction and improvements, capital, $88,000.
-Mr. FRASER: I note that the word "capital" appears ini this item. Hoes that mean improvements to some of the buildings?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Or is it rolling stock?


Lionel Chevrier: It is for the building of a new freight -office a-t The Pas, M-anitoba, at a cost of $80,000. The $8,000 is for installation of two new culverts -and extension of The Pas station- platform.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-
499. Hudson Bay railway-to provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1949, not exceeding, $500,000-.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has there been some
improvement on this line in the amount of

revenue, because at Churchill we have a United States detachment of 300 or 400 men?


Lionel Chevrier: There was a decrease over last year, a deficit of $25,000. During the
war years, of course, the operation was profitable for one or two years.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There are United States men there at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The movement of passengers, because of the airport, would not affect the revenues greatly.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The freight rates on that line are so high I wondered if there was an improvement.


Lionel Chevrier: They were put into operation recently, if the hon. member is referring to the 20 per cent increase.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, I did not mean that. The rates were high before the increase.


Lionel Chevrier: They are on the same level as the prairie scale; the same scale, not any higher.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member -is right; they are high.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It costs a lot of money to use that line.


Lionel Chevrier: I suppose relatively
everything is high.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, the sky is the limit. To get an automobile over to Churchill from The Pas costs so much that it is almost out of sight. It costs almost the worth of the car to get it there. Because of the United States forces at Churchill, I wondered whether the revenues did no,t jump up a bit. Of course the cost of maintaining the line would jump at the same time.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the revenues did jump up, but the cost overtook them and the deficit is about the same.


Mr. MOORE:: Do the station and the freight shed at The Pas belong to the Canadian National railway or to the Hudson Bay railway? What rental is paid by the one who makes use of the property to the one who owns it?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the station belongs to the Hudson Bay railway.


Ronald Stewart Moore: What is the rental paid?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: What rent is paid by the Canadian National to the Hudson Bay railway?

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: For the operation of the whole line it is 81,000 a month. I would have to get the information with respect to the use of the station.


Ronald Stewart Moore: Will the minister find out for me what rental is paid for the use of the four miles of track between The Pas and Flin Flon junction? I understand that it belongs also to the Hudson Bay railway and is used by the Canadian National.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall have to get that information for the hon. gentleman; I have not it here.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister know offhand the number of millions of bushels of grain that was shipped from Fort Churchill last year to the old country?


Lionel Chevrier: Speaking from memory, I think it is 5,000,000 bushels.


Mr. COLDWELL:: How many ships came in?


Lionel Chevrier: About nineteen.


Edward George McCullough: There is a decrease in this appropriation. I should like to know the reason for that. Is consideration being given to the whole matter of using the Hudson Bay route for the export of wheat? As the minister knows, western farmers have made representations to the government asking that this port be used to the fullest extent, because it will mean that farmers will get from six to eight cents a bushel more for their wheat. Because of the knowledge gained by the government during the war regarding the use of that port, we are anxious that full advantage be taken of it. I suggest that in the future the government make plans to have grain shipped there, so that we can have a real test of the Hudson Bay port and find out whether it is feasible to use it for both export and import, for cargoes coming into and going from western Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member asks why the decrease. It is because of the increased cost of operation. There was a difference of $25,000 between last year and this year. On the question of traffic moving, I have already dealt with that on two occasions, and my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealt with it the other day.
With reference to grain, all I can tell the hon. gentleman is that the chairman of the wheat board has advised the officers of my department that he hopes to fill the elevator with 2,500,000 bushels of the old crop. Any additional movement of the new crop would
depend on crop and harvest conditions at present unknown. I do not know what the position is with regard to lumber. It was thought at first that some lumber could be shipped, but it is doubtful if that can be done. With regard to incoming cargo, I expect that it will be greater this season than last season.


Ronald Stewart Moore: A year or two ago the present Minister of Trade and Commerce informed the house that the capacity of the shipping route in one season from Churchill would be approximately 20,000,000 bushels. It was argued at that time that if 20,000,000 bushels could be shipped from Churchill in one season-


William Henry Golding: Order. This item reads:
499. Hudson Bay railway

to provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1949, not exceeding $500,000.
That is all the item says.


Ronald Stewart Moore: That is the very point I was coming to. Since the property at Churchill is largely owned by the federal government, we would like to see some policy adopted by which the government would make use of these facilities to ship -through the port the amount of grain for which it was designed to handle in one season. If that were done the railroad could be made to pay the cost of operation.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot add any -more to what I already said when the hon. gentleman spoke on this before, namely, that it would require about 25,000,000 bushels of grain to make this a profitable operation. It has not been possible for the wheat board to do this in the past. Actually the wheat board has been asked to move as mudh wheat as it could, and the opinion I have is that it is hoped to fill the elevator to capacity with 2,500,000 bushels this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we have two short bills. I am told they are not contentious.


John Horne Blackmore: We cannot hear what the minister is saying. Will he speak a little louder?


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall take up two short bills at the outset.
Suppl y-Justice-Transport

The first one will be Bill No. 339, to amend an act respecting the national battlefields at .Quebec. The second one will be Bill No. 335, to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings). Then we shall go into supply in the departments of-


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the third bill?


Alphonse Fournier: The second bill is Bill No. 335.


John Horne Blackmore: What are the items in supply?


Alphonse Fournier: I shall be there in a minute. In supply we shall take the following departments. We shall continue with transport, then take Secretary of State, trade and commerce, reconstruction and supply, veterans affairs and national health and welfare, though not necessarily in the order I have indicated.


Edward George McCullough: May I ask the minister when we may come to the resolution on the international wheat agreement standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Alphonse Fournier: I could not say tonight. I will inquire.


Lionel Chevrier: I was asked the same question last night. I brought it to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and I think he would like to go on with it as soon as possible. However I think it is the intention to deal with these bills first.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply.]



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
116.	Departmental administration, $235,350.
117.	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 $17,100 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, $65,741.
Administration of justice-
118.	Miscellaneous expenditure, $10,000.
119.	Expenses of litigated matters, $25,000.
120.	Annual contribution to the Canadian Law Library, London, England, $500.
Supreme Court of Canada-
121.	Administration, $100,665.

Exchequer Court of Canada-
122.	Administration, $74,381.
Yukon Territorial Court
[Stage Direction]
123.	Administration, $5,040.
124.	Payments of gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office, $15,000.
126.	Bankruptcy Act administration, $30,935. Office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-
127.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $25,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the governor in council, $193,711.
128.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies, equipment and livestock; maintenance, discharge and transfer of convicts; compensation to discharged convicts permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $5,936,108.
Pensions and other benefits-
129.	William Tatton, $564.
Demobilization and reconversion-
130.	To provide for expenses in connection with prize courts, $10,000.

[Stage Direction]
463.	Departmental administration, $690,670. Administration of the Transport Act-
464.	Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-administration, maintenance and operation, $463,736.
Canals service-
465.	Canals service-administration, $61,500.
466.	Canals-operation and maintenance, $3,212,748.
467.	Canals-construction and improvements (revote $51,000), $579,660.
468.	To provide for expenses in connection [DOT]with St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, $30,000.
469.	To provide for the carrying out of flow measurements and other expenses connected with the department's supervision and control over the hydro electric power development of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, $2,500.
Marine service-
470.	Marine service administration, $34,988.
471.	Administration of floating equipment, $29,680.
472.	Nautical service administration, $77,190.
473.	Marine service steamers, including icebreakers-maintenance, operation and repairs, $2,608,331.
474.	Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $3,387,234.
475.	Agencies-salaries and office expenses, $338,897.
476.	Maintenance and repairs to wharves, $5,000.
477.	To provide for breaking ice in Thunder Bay, Lake Superior and other points deemed advisable in the interests of navigation, $30,000.

Supply-Transport
478.	To provide for Canada's share of the cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol, $20,000.
479.	Administration of pilotage, including authority for temporary recoverable advances; contributions, and the operation and maintenance, as required, of necessary pilot vessels in certain pilotage districts, $249,360.
480.	Life saving service, including rewards for saving life, $191,285.
481.	To provide subsidies for wrecking plants -Quebec and British Columbia, $65,000.
482.	Grants of $300 each to the Royal Arthur Sailor's Institution at Port Arthur, Ontario, and the Welland Canal Seamen's Institute, $600.
483.	Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping, including grants towards schools of navigation at Queen's university $500, Vancouver, B.C. $2,790 and provision to settle claims by the Board of Trade, London, England, for expenses incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen of British ships registered out of Canada, $89,300.
484.	Steamship inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $284,400.
485.	Marine signal service, $132,717.
486.	River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration-capital, $3,492,000.
487.	River St. Lawrence ship channel-administration, operation and maintenance, $495,278.
488.	To provide towards the construction of a service vessel for the eastern arctic patrol- capital, $1,100,000.
489.	To provide towards the construction of a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for the east coast (estimated cost $1,800,000)-capital, $300,-
000.
490.	To provide towards the construction of a lightship for the port of Saint John, N.B. (Estimated cost $850,000)-capital, $100,000.
491.	To provide for the construction of a general service workboat to be operated out of Parry Sound, Out. agency-capital, $30,000.
492.	To provide towards the construction of a lighthouse supply and buoy vessel for the west coast (estimated cost $700,000)-capital, $100,-
000.	-
Canadian maritime commission-
493.	Administration, $134;300.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-
494.	Administration, $19,949.
Western local services-
495.	Prince Rupert, B.C,, and Queen Charlotte Islands, service between, $32,000.
Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia, service between, $37,000.
Victoria and west coast Vancouver Island, service between, $10,000.
Eastern local services-
496.	Baddeck and Iona, service between, $12,-OOO.
Campobello, N.B., and Lubec, Maine, service between, $3,000.
Chester and Tancook Island, winter service, between, $2,640.
Dalhousie, N.B., and Miguasha, P.Q., service between, $12,000.
Deer Island, Campobello Island, and St. Andrews, N.B., service between, $2,000.
Grand Manan .and mainland, service between, $85,000.
Halifax, Canso and Guysboro, service between,
[Stage Direction]
Halifax, LaHave and LaHave river ports, service between, $3,000.
Halifax, Sherbrooke, Spry Bay and Torbay service between, $11,200.
Halifax and ports on west coast of Cape Breton, service between, $6,000'.
Isle aux Coudres and Les Eboulements, service between, $3,500.
Isle aux Coudres and Quebec or Levis, service between, $4,000.
Isle aux Grues and Montmagny, P.Q., service between, $2,500.
Mulgrave and Arichat, service between, $25,-
000.
Mulgrave and Canso, service between, $64,000. Mulgrave and Guysboro, calling at intermediate ports, service between, $14,000.
Murray Bay and north shore of the St. Lawrence, winter service between, $50,000. _
Owen Sound and ports on Manitoulin Island and Georgian Bay, service between, $65,000.
Pelee Island and the mainland, service between, $11,000.
Pictou, Mulgrave and Chetieamp, service between, $11,000.
Pictou, Souris and the Magdalen Islands, service between, $60,090.
Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, service between, $54,000.
Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, service between, $100,000.
Quebec, Natashquan and Harrington, service between, $127,500.
Quebec, or Montreal and Gaspe, calling at way ports, service between, $90,000.
Rimouski, Matane and points on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, service between, $75,000.
Riviere-du-Loup and St. Simeon, and/or Tadoussac, service between, $21,000.
Saint John and Minas basin ports, service between, $10,000.
Saint John, Westport and Yarmouth, and other way ports, service between, $31,500.
Sydney and Bay St. Lawrence, calling at way ports, service between, $35,000.
Sydney and Bras d'Or Lake ports, west coast of Cape Breton, and Prince Edward Island, service between, $22,500.
Sydney and Whycocomagh, calling at way ports, service between, $20,500.
Yarmouth, N.S., and Boston, Mass., service between, $28,667.
Railway service-
497.	Repairs and expenses'in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $64,000.
498.	Hudson Bay Railway-construction and improvements-capital, $88,000.
490. Hudson Bay Railway-to provide for the difference between tbe expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1949, not exceeding, $500,000.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, June 10, 1948