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

Mr. SIMPSON:: 1.	How much is the grant at present being given by the Department of Agriculture to the support of the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto?
2.	Is it the intention to give a further grant to this exhibition in addition to the above?
3.	Is any part of the amount appearing in the general estimates of the Department of Agriculture No. 52, Live Stock, intended for this purpose?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Main grant, $25,000 per annum; grant to fox show, $2,000 per annum; grant in lieu of supplying judges, $1,200 per annum.
2.	The matter is at present under consideration.
3.	No.


CHAMPLAIN DRY DOCK, LAUZON
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to put an elevator in the building next to the Champlain dry dock at Lauzon, for the use of workmen of that locality?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to have said elevator in operation next summer?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Since his appointment, in connection with the North Atlantic ocean freight rates question, has W. T. R. Preston carried on any negotiations, verbal or otherwise, for the sale or leasing, or chartering of the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine to any Norwegian, British or other European interest?
2.	If so, with whom and if in writing, will the government immediately table the correspondence?
3.	Has the government received any proposals from any source for the sale or chartering of a part, or the whole, of the fleet of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?
4.	If so, from whom?
5.	If any negotiations have been entered into, are they under consideration at the present moment, and is there any likelihood that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine fleet will be disposed of in the near future?
6.	If any negotiations are being carried on, are they contingent in any way upon the resolution now standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in approval of a certain agreement entered into with Sir William Petersen?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	It is not judicious or desirable at the present time that the details of the offer nor the names of the persons interested should be made public.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	No.



Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Have any of the steamers of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ever been sold?
2.	If so, what are the names of said ships?
3.	At what price were they sold?
4.	Have they been paid for in full?
5.	If not, what balance of the purchase money is still due?
6.	How is this balance, if any, secured?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 
VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the Board of Harbour Commissioners Vancouver, been authorized to purchase a new harbour boat? If so, for what purpose, and what will be the total cost?
2.	Will the cost of said boat be paid out of revenue of the harbour?
3.	Is the said boat being built under contract? If so, by whom ?
4.	Were tenders called for, and if so, how many tenders were received and, from whom were they received, and what was the lowest tender?
5.	Is the harbour commission in possession of a pleasure cruising launch which has in the past been used for patrol work ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5. The harbour commissioners are in possession of a service boat formerly the patrol launch Fispa.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT LIABILITY
Mr. CLARK:: 1.	What is the total liability of the Vancouver harbour commission to the Dominion government?
2.	What amount of the above total has been expended on the development of the north shore of the harbour ?
3.	What was the total amount voted the Vancouver harbour commission by the Dominion government during 1924?
4.	What amount of this total was specifically allotted for the development of the north shore of the harbour?
5.	What are the items for which the above allotment was made?
6.	What is the total expenditure of the 1924 allotment, if any, to date on the north shore.
7. What items do the total expenditures of the above allotment, if any, cover on the north shore, with cost of each item?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	At December 31, 1924, $10,136,900.
2.	None.
3.	$5,000,000.
4.	$581,000.
5.	Lumber assembly wharf, terminal railway development.
6.	Nothing. The work has been delayed consequent on the delay in completion of the Second Narrows bridge..
7.	Lumber assembly wharf, $317,000; Terminal railway development, $264,000.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS- DELEGATION TO ORIENT
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners appealed to the government for permission to send a commercial delegation to the Orient?
2.	If so, will such delegation carry with it the endorsement of the Trade and Commerce Department, or any other department of the government?
3.	Are the expenses of the said delegation or commission being paid out of the revenue of the Harbour Commission? If not, in what manner?
4.	Has the personnel of the said commission been decided upon? If so, who are they and what secretarial staff will accompany it?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ENGINES
Mr. SENN:: '
1.	Were any fire engines purchased by the management of the Canadian National Railways since the first of January, 1924?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	What were the prices paid?
4.	From whom were they purchased?
5.	Were tftey purchased by tender?
6.	If so, did the Bickle Fire Engines Company, Limited, of Woodstock or any other Canadian company tender?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	12.
3,	4, 5 and 6. Firms invited to tender were: American La France Fire Engine Company, F.ennet & Wright Company,
Bickle Fire Engine Company,
Booth, Coulter Copper & Brass Company, F.stey & Company,
Garth Company,
McDonald Manufacturing Company,
W. J. McGuire & Company,
Pyrene Manufacturing Company; and order was placed with the Canadian Brancn of the American La France Fire Engine Company who quoted lowest price for satisfactory machine of standard type for prompt delivery.


MARINERS' SICK BENEFIT
Mr. CHURCH:: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation this session to include seafarers in the coastal and inland waters of Canada in the Mariners' Sick Benefits? If not, why?
Questions


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: No. The men.
employed in the coastal and inland waters service of Canada are not seafarers and no sick mariners' dues are paid on their account.
MONEY VOTES-AGRICULTURE: UNEMPLOYMENT


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What votes were made during the past five years of record for (a) live stock; (b) health of animals; (c) other agricultural purposes?
2.	What votes were made for the relief of unemployment for each of the said years?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	(a)	'1920-	21	
$1,325,000	001921-	22	
1,000,000	001922-	23	
1,060,000	001923-	24	
1,230,000	001924- 25	
1,280,000,00
(b)
1920-	21	
1,320,000	001921-	22	
1,710,000	001922-	23	
1,886,410	001923-	24	
2,250,000	001924-	25	
2,000,000	00
These figures include the cost of meat and
canned food inspection.
(c)
1920-	21	
$3,121,000	001921-	22	
3,302,139	501922-	23	
3,423,600	001923-	24	
3,650,500	001924-	25	
2,694,000	00
Civil government items are not included in
any of these figures.
2,
1920- 21	 $ 500,000 00
1921-	22	
500,000	001922-	23	
1,300,000	001923-	24	
5,700	001924- 25	
Nil


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	To what extent has the Board of Harbour Commissioners, Quebec, overdrawn its appropriation as provided for by parliament?
2.	Is it true that the said Board of Harbour Commissioners of Quebec have overdrawn to the extent of $4,500,000? If so, how' is it proposed to provide for this sum?
3.	Have the said harbour commissioners of the port of Quebec paid interest on the amounts borrowed from the Dominion government under various appropriation bills? If not, what is the total amount of the said accrued interest to date?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	To no extent.
2.	No.

3.	Some payments have been made on account of interest and sinking fund on the old indebtedness incurred for expenditure made in the development of the harbour of Quebec, partly by the Department of Public Works and partly by the harbour commissioners, but all charged against the harbour commission. This old expenditure was prior to the organization of the commission on the present basis, in 1913. Since the commission was organized on its present basis a total of $8,426,800 has been advanced to the harbour commissioners for harbour improvements, and on which no interest has been paid. The accrued interest on the total advanced amounts at this date to approximately $1,980,000. Against this accrued interest the commissioners hold contra accounts against the Dominion government for services rendered which will largely offset the total accrued interest.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD STAFF
Mr. KNOX:: 1.	In the reduction of staffs of the Soldier Settlement Board, is it the intention of the government to give preference in the retention of employees to married men with wives and families dependent upon them?
2.	Is the government aware that in said staff reduction, men are being transferred from one office to another, to the detriment of men who have remained in that locality and who are compelled to give place to strangers ?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes. In reduction of staffs the principle is one of efficiency first. Other things being equal, men with dependents are given preference.
2.	The entire staff of the board is regarded as a unit. Efficiency, seniority and other qualifications are considered from a Dominion and not from a local point of view. Transfers from one office to another are therefore unavoidable and beneficial.


Mr. KNOX:: 1.	How many married men employed by the Soldier Settlement Board have been discharged between January 1, 1924, and January 1, 1925?
2.	How many unmarried men?
3.	How' many married men remained on the staff?
4.	How many single men?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	51.
2.	27.
3.	355.
[DOT] 4. 71.


AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Why has the Department of Agriculture to stop publication of the Agricultural Gazette which, among other sections included one dealing with institute

Questions
matters, confining its publication only to occasional special bulletin and annual reports?
2.	Have subsidies been paid to the press instead, and, if so, what have been the amounts of the contributions for each branch and to each named newspaper, during the last three years?
3.	What does it cost to publish the crop reporting information disseminated by the Institute branch?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	The Agricultural Gazette was originated at the time grants were first paid to the provinces under the Agricultural Instruction Act, and the publication of this periodical formed part o>f the whole scheme for assisting the provincial departments of agriculture in connection with agricultural education. One section of each issue of the Gazette was devoted to provincial activities assisted by the Federal grant.
When the Agricultural Instruction Act expired, and no further grants were paid to the provinces in this connection, one of the chief reasons for the publication of the Gazette no longer existed, and it was therefore decided to discontinue publication.
2.	No.
3.	Nil.


ADVANCES OUTSTANDING TO BANKS
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	What were the advances outstanding under the Finance Act to the banks on 1st March, 1925?
2.	What was the rate of interest paid on such advances on the said date?
3.	What was the total amount of outstanding advances by the banks to the Dominion government on the 1st March, 1925?
4.	What rate of interest did the banks charge on such advances on the 1st March, 1925?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	821,300.000.
2.	4i per cent.
3.	Nil.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total amount of salary paid to the Deputy Minister of Finance?
2.	What is the total amount of salary paid to the Secretary of the Treasury Board ?
3.	Why was it considered necessary to appoint a Secretary of the Treasury Board?
4.	Why was it considered necessary to provide an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Board at a salary of $4,500 per annum?
5.	Were the duties of Secretary of the Treasury Board not heretofore performed by the Deputy Minister of Finance on a salary of $10,000 per annum?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1. 2, 3, 4, & 5. Explanation of the items for Secretory of the Treasury board and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury board will be made
when the estimates of the department are under discussion.


WHARF AT COCAGNE CAPE, N.B.
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What was the total cost of the construction of a wharf at Cocagne Cape, Kent county, New Brunswick?
2.	What was the amount of contract?
3.	What amount was paid for extras?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	$13,832.43 final estimate including extras.
2.	$12,910, based on approximate quantities.
3.	$430.80.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-OFFICIALS' TRANSPORTATION
Mr. JONES:: When transportation is issued by the Canadian National Railways to officials of other departments of government is any charge made by the railway for the same against such departments?


George Perry Graham: No free transportation is provided government employees except as authorized by law; all other officials buy their transportation' in the ordinary way.


HOMESTEAD INSPECTORS
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	What homestead inspectors under the Dominion Lands Service at Edmonton have been discharged from the service during the past two years, and for what reasons were they discharged?
2.	What homestead inspectors have been appointed in the same district during the past two years and what are the dates of the several appointments?
3.	Were the last mentioned appointments made by the Civil Service Commission after competition from within the service, and
4.	If such appointments were not made by the Civil Service Commission after competition, how were the said appointments made and what are the dates of said appointments ?
5.	Have the persons so appointed reported for duty and are the said persons now engaged in the discharge of the proper duties pertaining to the said appointments?
6.	Has one Joseph Driscoll been appointed a homestead inspector?
7.	If so, how was the said Joseph Driscoll appointed, and if so,
8.	What is the date of his appointment?
9.	Is the said Joseph Driscoll now in the discharge of his proper duties as a homestead inspector?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	None discharged, but under reorganization of Dominion Lands Administration substantial economy effected by reduction of staff. All those retired received full benefits to which their period of service entitled them under the provisions of the Public Service Retirement Act.
Questions

Inspection service, Edmonton district, reduced by five inspectors:-3 retired under provisions of Public Service Retirement Act; 1 resigned; 1 transferred.
2.	No temporary or permanent appointments have been made, but to cope with emergent situations arising from unexpected rush of business, needed help, when not procurable by transfer from permanent staff, has been supplied by emergency engagements under Civil Service Act, Section 23 (4).
3.	Not necessary.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	One inspector, presently engaged for thirty-day period, as explained in answer to question No. 2 Understand he is performing proper duties.
6.	No.
7.	8 and 9. Answered by No. 6.


POST OFFICES BUILT 1922-24
Mr. DESAULNIERS:: 1.	How many post offices were built during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively?
2.	How many were built in each province and what was the total cost of said post offices by provinces?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: l and 3.	1922, none; 1923, 1; 1924, 2.
2.	New Brunswick, 1, Sackville, $37,195.14; Quebec, 1, Terebonne, $36,598.59; Ontario, 1, Alexandria, $39,544.40.


ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY
*Mr. HANSON:: Has the government, as intimated in the Speech from the Throne of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick on the 12th instant, agreed to take over from the province of New Brunswick the St. John and Qubeec Railway?


George Perry Graham: I may as well answer this question now. Strong representations have been made time and again by the government of New Brunswick, as well as by members from that province, in regard to the advisability of the Canadian National Railways taking over the St. John and Quebec Railway. So far no agreement has been reached in the matter.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Hon. Mr. MANION (for Hon. Mr. Stevens):: For a copy of all correspondence "between R. E. Beattie,, or Fergus McDonald of Vancouver, and the Minister of Public Works, relative to the proposed retirement of Mr. Sam Prenter from the Board of Harbour Commissioners, Vancouver, British Columbia: also, all correspondence between any persons in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the Minister of Public Works, or any minister or official of the government, relative to retirement of said Mr. Prenter, or other members of the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners.


BRITISH ORIENTAL GRAIN COMPANY
Robert James Manion: For a copy of agreement between the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners and the British Oriental Grain Company, relative to the acquisition of No. 3 elevator, Vancouver, British Columbia, together with copy of lease or other documents pertaining thereto; also, copy of correspondence between the harbour commissioners and said British Oriental Grain Company.


PRISON REFORM
Mr. SPEAKER:: Miss Macphail moves,
seconded by Mr. McDonald (Timiskaming)-


Mr. MCDONALD (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am not seconding this motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Miss Macphail moves,
seconded by Mr. Shaw:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable in the administration of penitentiaries to provide:-
1.	Sufficient productive work to keep the inmates employed.
2.	That a share of the proceeds go to provide for dependents and in case of no dependents such share shall be held in trust until release.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, it is rather a bad start
possibly when the hon. member, who sits to my right (Mr. McDonald), so vigorously tells the House he is not seconding my motion.
It is my desire in this resolution to so amend the administration of penitentiaries as to provide: First, sufficient productive work to keep the inmates employed; and, second, that a share of the proceeds go to dependents, and in case of no dependents such share to be held in trust until release.
A very great change has come about in public opinion regarding penitentiaries, their use and administration, yet the Penitentiary Act to-day does not substantially differ from that passed in 1868. This was the conclusion reached by the committee of three appointed by the Right Hon.. C. J. Doherty, Minister of Justice, to advise upon the revision of penitentiary regulations and amendmnt of the Penitentiary Act, which committee reported on February 28, 1921. It seems to me that penitentiaries should serve two purposes: First, to protect society by confining within their walls those who have proven anti-social in outlook and action; second, to remake men, changing anti-social into social beings, and thus protecting society and adding to the fullness and joy of life. Productive work with pay I believe to be the chief remedy needed.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. There is too much conversation going on in the House. I can hardly hear the speaker.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Productive work with
pay I believe to be the chief thing needed

Prison Reform
to make the penitentiaries what they really should be. We must recognize that the prisoner is the logical outcome of ignorance and wrong thinking. We should therefore treat him as a patient and not as a victim. I believe that the state should be above vengeance. That opinion is held by eminent men who have had years of experience in dealing with prisoners and in penitentiary work. Thomas Mott Osborne, former warden of the Sing Sing penitentiary, speaking recently in Montreal, is reported in the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, February 18, 1925, to have said that:
In his opinion the principle of deterrent by fair treatment of the prisoner was the only principle of use in a penal institution. He thought that the great punishment that comes to a prisoner is the loss of his liberty and the stamp of society's disapproval. Retaliation by the state he condemned.
In the report to which I have already referred, made under the administration of the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty by a commission composed of Mr. Biggar, Mr. Nickle, and Mr. Draper, it is stated:
It is necessary to eliminate wholly the idea of vengeance, not on humanitarian grounds or because of its painful consequences to the individual, but solely because of its stupidity and on grounds of common
sense.
And again:
Almost all the inmates of the penitentiaries must, before they die, be returned to freedom, and each prisoner on his release shall be called upon to live the ordinary life of a free man. Society must inevitably suffer if during his term a convict's spirit has been broken, if his habit of industry, if it existed, has been suppressed, and to the extent that his morals have been corrupted by prison association. It is ridiculous that society should store up trouble for its honest members, weaken itself and involve itself in large and unnecessary expenditure.
That is the conclusion reached by the three gentlemen composing the commission. To that, may be added the testimony of very many eminent citizens of the United States. I shall give only a few. William H. Moyer, reporting on prison discipline to the Prisons Association of all the states of the Union held in New York in 1919, said:
It is now pretty generally conceded that one of the primary objects of imprisonment is reformation of the individual. If it is to succeed he must receive training instead of discipline, a careful and effective preparation for right living after release and the imprinting of an earnest and an honest desire to become a useful and law-abiding citizen. If we could more fully understand that the trouble in most cases is due largely to the lack of proper early training along right lines, we could more readily appreciate that what the offender needs is training not punishment for the lack of it.
Brigadier-General Hughes, Superintendent of Penitentiaries in Canada, in a letter to
Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Council of Canada, said:
From crude, crooked and waste materials the task of the penitentiaries is to turn out as their product good citizens.
The Prisoners' Welfare Association of Canada, through their secretary, John Kidman, believe similarly that we should try to reclaim the prisoner rather than punish him.
Again, General Hughes in his report of 1921, says:
It has also been demonstrated that seldom is a conversion to virtue obtained through punishment. Physical force can check or temporarily restrain various forms of evil, but usually at the cost of rendering them still more intense and permanent.
And again in his 1923 report he emphasized this by saying:
I have looked in vain for one example of true conversion to virtue through punishment.
I believe that in order to make good citizens in our penitentiaries we must have productive work, and that that work, when well done, should be rewarded. This is not a new thought; it too is held in common by the Superintendent of Penitentiaries for Canada, the wardens of the different penitentiaries and by the committee that reported in 1921. General Hughes in his report of 1921, page 15, says:
In order to make good citizens of the hundreds of young men now pouring into our penitentiaries, institutions should be provided for their proper segregation and classification, together with suitable government work in sufficient quantities to keep them continually and usefuly employed. It would be an easy matter in a very few years to make the penitentiaries not only self-sustaining but to pay each inmate a small wage for labour satisfactorily performed. Tremendous advancement has been made in the last two years, but it is only a beginning of what should be done.
Again he says:
Inmates must work if any progress is to be made toward making them better citizens. It is needless to attempt to reform them if they be kept in idleness or made break stone.
He stresses this over and over again, in sometimes quite strong language. He says:
Nothing ever written regarding the " stone pile " was to my mind sufficiently severe and I never look at the men at this work that I do not wish I could place those responsible for the necessity of its existence in their places. It is a matter of choice between idleness and stone piles, the lesser of the two evils, the stone pile.
The exact recommendation in regard to work with pay, made by this committee of three, is as follows:
The committee, therefore, most emphatically recommends statutory provision to provide productive labour for all convicts. . . . The mere provision of work is not, in the opinion of the committee, sufficient. That the heaviest penalty for a crime is paid not by the criminal
Prison Reform

but. by his dependents has been chiefly emphasized before the committee, not by philanthropists and charitable workers, but by judicial, police, and peni-tentiairy officials of good standing.
Their conclusion is:
If anything but evil is to follow from punishment by imprisonment for long terms it is, in the opinion of the committee, essential that such provision should be made as will allow the convict to earn at least something toward the support of his dependents during his confinement or of himself after his release.
The Hon. Albert E. Smith, governor of the state of New York, addressing this same American Prisoners' Association in 1919, said, on October 20 of last year:
If the state is interested in returning the man or woman to society as useful citizens it will never be able to do it unless during the period of confinement their minds are occupied by what they are able to do in life. We all know what work means, what satisfaction it brings to a person at the close of a day to say, here is what I have accomplished to-day. That is true of people in prisons just as it is of individuals out in the world.
I think it is very much truer of people in prison than it is of us who have our freedom, who have many other things to interest us and make each day worth while. If the men in our penal institutions were interested in some form of labour that would employ both their hand and their brain it would undoubtedly make the task of discipline a very much easier one. Authority after authority has come to that conclusion. I will quote one, Mr. Moyer, whom I quoted before. Addressing the American Prison Association, he said:
We believe that training both the mind and hands of the prisoner along useful lines offers the best and surest method of redeeming such as are redeemable.
The president of the association, Mr. F. M. Spurr, said:
Being a convict should not rob a man of his right to work, nor rob him of a fair recompense for his labour, after the cost of his maintenance is met. . . . Some fair pay given for their labour should so stimulate them as to make discipline fairly easy.
How can we expect to turn out from our penal institutions honest, law abiding citizens if we treat them in such a way as to make them feel we have not been strictly honest with them while they were there? The warden of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in his report in 1923 emphasizes very strongly the need of work and the need of recognizing good work with pay. The superintendent had mentioned the setting aside of a fund to pay a small sum to the working and deserving inmate, and the warden of the penitentiary emphasized this by saying:
In the case of a married man it would in many cases help to keep the fireside going and possibly prevent the ruination of his wife and family through outside influences over which they may have little or

no control. . . . The feelings or the state of mind of an inmate who has paid his debt to society and who on being discharged returns to his home and finds it ruined or in a state of chaos can easily be imagined. Can one reasonably expect that his incentive to become a better citizen would be strengthened?
Instead of requesting the appropriation by parliament of a fund, he suggests that work be given by the different government departments to the penitentiary service, and his experience has taught him that by so doing it will be possible to defray the whole cost of such an outlay or even to make a surplus. Conditions are very difficult for a family, the husband and father of which is in prison, because that whole family has to share with him in the disgrace, even though they have had nothing to do with the crime. It is exceedingly difficult for them to get work; they have to bear almost the full brunt of society's disapproval. That makes it even more necessary that they should be provided for, because they are not on a level footing with other people in the labour market, in the securing of any sort of work. The public, with or without reason, are suspicious of the family of a convict.
I want to quote further from the governor of New York state, Albert E. Smith, in regard to the earnings of prisoners. He says:
I feel strongly on that subject. It has been my experience not only since I have been governor, but al! the years I was in the legislature, that the real sufferers as a result of prison sentence are the dependent members of the prisoner's family. The prisoner is taken	over	by the	state, supported,	fedand clothed, and	his	children,	if he has any,	andunfortunately a great many of them have, and his wife are thrown upon the mercy of friends and relatives, or else become public charges. The most pitiful cases one can listen to are continually brought to the attention of the governor-stories of actual want and actual starvation as a result of the breadwinner being locked up in the state prison. Yet it is unfair to society to let them out of prison. Though the prisoner is where	he	belongs,	that does not takefrom the state the	obligation to	do something for	the
man's wife and children while he is in prison.
Many members of this House have received petitions from dependent families and wives entreating that the breadwinner be let out of prison, even though, as the governor of New York state says, that is where he belongs. I have in my hand a letter from Pathfinder, Alberta, which was sent to one of the hon. members in this section of the House, in which a woman entreats the hon. member for her constituency to do something to get the head of tne family out of prison. The letter was written on January 16, 1925. This woman has ten children, most of them very small, and the two older ones, who under ordinary circumstances might have been able to help, are mutes and therefore of no use in the

Prison Reform
labour market. This is an extreme case, but there are many others, that I am sure other hon. members could cite many examples which show that while men who have broken the law should be kept away from society for the sake of societ}7, still, great numbers of people are suffering unduly on that account.
I should think that if the family of a prisoner were getting some support from that prisoner while he was confined they would have an added respect for society; because they themselves were not to blame for the deed and they would feel that society was treating them fairly and not heaping upon their unfortunate heads the payment for a crime committed by someone else. I think, too, it would give them an added respect for themselves, and the most terrible thing that can happen to any of us is to lose our self respect, because when we do that we become entirely reckless and care not at all what we do. So I think it would help to hold the children who are to become citizens of the country high in their place in the social scale, and to keep the wife in. that position, if they were made to feel that they were at least respectable, law abiding members of the community.
It would also have a tremendous effect upon the prisoner himself if he felt that he was still of some account, that he still had responsibility; because often it is true of us -and it must be true of those who are confined in prisons-that responsibility will hold us to a task when nothing else will. It would make the prisoner feel he could get a new grip on life, and would help him strive once more to climb to a worthy place in society. All that the Superintendent of Penitentiaries has asked for in his many reports and requests for work with pay is government work; that is, work to be done for the different departments of the government. He sets that out in detail in his report of 1921.
The inmates of the .penitentiaries are the wards of the Dominion government, and there is no valid reason why goods required for state use, and state use only, should not be made in so far as possible in the penitentiaries. The government spends many thousands of dollars yearly for furniture, furnishings and equipment of various kinds, a small portion of which could be made in the penitentiaries-
A large portion of which I think could be made in the penitentiaries. Brigadier-General Hughes told me just some few weeks ago that with the equipment they now have in the penitentiaries they are doing only one-tenth of the work of which they are capable, and that if they had the equipment such as he would like to have, they would be doing one-twentieth of which they were capable.
I have here, but I do not wish to quote it
at length, a document prepared by the secretary of the Prisoners' Welfare Association, of which I believe the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) is the honorary president. They give strong support to this resolution, saying that there is no time so difficult for a man and his family as immediately after he leaves the penitentiary. He is feeling the lack of respect, the lack of confidence in himself. He is possibly clothed in rough clothing that makes him almost a marked man, and, as well, possibly his changed complexion and other things show him for what he is. He comes out of the penitentiary with almost no money, and very often with no skill for any trade, and it is difficult for him to get back into society. This embitters him, and the result very many times is that the man in desperation in the first few weeks after his release turns back to crime.
It has been said by people who oppose work with pay in the penitentiaries that free labour does not want the prisoners to have work and be paid for it. But that argument can no longer be advanced. In 1920 Brigadier-General Hughes wrote a very lengthy letter to Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress, in which he set forth the need of work and the need of pay for it, and his desire that Labour should support him in that respect. The Congress recommended concurrence in this scheme, and further recommended that the entire penitentiary system of Canada be investigated, and further that the question of prison labour and the disposal of its products be thoroughly inquired into and reported on by a commission, and that a representative of the Trades and Labour Congress should be included on that commission. That commission was appointed the next year, in 1921, and I have quoted at some length from its report. Labour dropped all its objections to that particular thing that Brigadier-General Hughes was asking for, work with pay, and they went further, because in 1924 at their last annual congress they accepted the whole report, which goes into very many other prison reforms that I am not touching upon to-day, and they hoped that this whole report, which consists of about seventy pages, would be put into practice. So, there can be no argument that free labour is unwilling to have work done in penitentiaries and the prisoners paid for their labour. But, even if that objection still existed, what influence would the labour of 2,500 prisoners in the penitentiaries have upon one and a half million of workers, even in times of stress?
Prison Reform

The number in the penitentiaries is so small that the objection never was a weighty one.
If we carry this resolution to-day, and if the government helps the Superintendent of Penitentiaries and the wardens to put it into effect as soon as possible, there is no doubt in my mind that it will effect a tremendous material saving, apart altogether from the lives of people, which to me is of very much greater importance than the material gain. But, quite apart from the remaking of the men and the earing for their dependents, there will be a very great material gain. The net cost of all the prisoners in Canada in 1923 was $1,441,900.93, or a per capita cost of $558.44. When you add to that the cost of the average conviction for crime, which is about $1,200, you will immediately see that if work with pay for prisoners could be so extended as to make the penitentiaries self-sustaining, and at the same time reclaim the men, we would save what it costs to keep these inmates in the penitentiaries, and over and above that, what it costs to reinstate them in the penitentiaries when, under the present system, they find their way back there as the easiest way out.
This plan of work with pay has been tried in very many places with successperhaps I should not say in very many places, but certainly it has been tried, and with very great success. There are two states that have made it a paying proposition, one of them Minnesota. I am quoting again from this account of the Prison Association convention in 1919. Mr. C. E. Vasaly, speaking for the Minnesota Penitentiary Board, says:
We make a great deal of money, but we make something in the prison much more important than money, and that is the making of men. We would have no excuse whatever if we did not lend our industries sucessful as they have been, and still more successful as we hope they will be, to the making of men rather than the making of money. In the first place, our prison earns its support; it saves the state something like $360,000 a year in that respect. In other words, the prisoners are earning their board, which they would have to do if employed outside in industry, so I consider that nothing particularly to criticize. In addition to earning their board in that form of saving, they received in wages last year over $100,000. and will receive over $125,000 this year. What is that per capita? The earnings would be about $366 per capita. Prisoners earn from 25 cents to $1.50 per day, and it is our purpose to increase that. The prison made a profit which goes into a revolving fund, which is in fact the capital account.
I find by later reports that that revolving fund has reached the sum of $6,000,000, and out of that they buy the raw materials with which to work. He also says that they write off depreciation on the buildings, and that the yearly profit, after all expenses,-wages to

prisoners, hospital fees, and so forth,-are paid, is devoted to the welfare of the institution and its inmates. He goes on to say:
In that connection let me say that I know of no greater aid to prison discipline than wages. . . . The prisoner is contented, first of all, because he is working. He is contented because he is earning something for his family. . . . Those things put together have great effect on discipline, and make the prisoners more content and make them feel much more hopeful than they could otherwise be.
It seems to me any system of prison labour, no matter what it may be, that does not take into account that side of things, the creation of contentment and hopefulness in the prisoner, not only with regard to himself but his family, is a mistake.
The other state that has made a success of it is the state of Michigan. The most notable success in administration was achieved by Warden Jackson, of Jackson penitentiary. At that institution they pay in wages from 10 cents to $1.50 a day, to which must be added shelter, clothing, food, medical attendance, dentistry, and so on. Por the year ended June 30, 1917, a net profit of $156,000 was shown at the Jackson penitentiary, and this result was accomplished after paying all the expenses of the institution, making proper allowance for the depreciation of buildings and machinery, paying wages to the inmates and providing them with food, clothing and other necessities. The next four months following the end of the year referred to, namely, July, August, September and October, showed an increase in the profits, amounting for that period to $300,000. This was an addition to the material gain represented by having no idle men, by a general improvement of health, and the employment of twenty-five per cent of the inmates on farms who were practically free men and not under guard at all.
The other state which has tried the system, but in a lesser degree and therefore with less success, is New Jersey. At that institution only a small wage is paid-not more than 30 cents a day; but interesting work is provided for the convicts, and it has been found very beneficial to the men in maintaining discipline, developing their character, and so on.
In presenting the foregoing facts I have not disclosed the adverse side of the situation. However, in all the works on this subject that I have read, and I have all that I could obtain, I do not find an adverse side. Nor could I find any argument against giving profitable work to prisoners. On the contrary, all the facts that I could discover favoured such a programme; and those institutions where it is not in operation were praying that they might soon have it. Therefore experience shows that it is the one great thing the

Prison Reform
penitentiaries must adopt before they become the kind of institution which public opinion wants them to be-a re-maker of men.
It seems to me that we in this House, who really are the guardians of these wards of the Dominion government, must find in our treatment of this resolution a test of our own intelligence and our own humanitarian instincts. Surely, we in this generation should crystallize into legislation, and into the administration of these institutions, the best principles we can. If we do not do that we are not fair to succeeding generations and succeeding parliaments. We are not taking advantage of our privileges if we do not adopt the best features in penitentiary administration which past experience has developed and put them into operation. If it is possible for all the hon. members of this House to help in the re-making of men, to save suffering to those who have really caused no harm to the state, to sweeten the lives of very many people, and over and above that to effect a large economy in public expenditure, why should we not pursue a course that will bring about these happy results? I leave the matter in the hands of hon. gentlemen feeling that they are reasonable men. If I am right in that opinion, if hon. members are the reasonable and sane individuals I believe them to be, they will support this resolution.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (Westmount-St. Henri):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution of the
honourable member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) mentions a fact which deserves to be studied and is partially realizable. I have always believed that convicts were employed in sufficient productive work to keep them occupied; and, as a matter of fact, if one consults the official reports of our penitentiaries, he finds that the inmates are kept busy. They learn a trade which shall permit them some day, when they return to social life, to become again citizens who will generally work with others for the welfare of the community.
I understand the good motives of the hon. member for Southeast Grey in bringing before this House this resolution. She sees the abandoned families as the result of the condemnation to gaol of their heads; she pities the bewildered youth treading the rosy but risky path of life who has been sentenced to a reformatory after a second or a third offence and is now confined there; she pities other condemned men; left without a soul in this world, undergoing their sentence. She remembers also that sooner or later they will all alone leave their prison, and although free, must tread the public highway with justice shadowing them and the police officer at hand. We certainly
sympathize with the hon. member for Southeast Grey. On the other hand, we shall not forget that this government, as others in the past, through the Minister of Justice, has acted on the principle that it is by sufficient work that the culprit is regenerated. By this means he .has the chance to become again worthy of occupying his former place in society, following at last the path of honesty and integrity. When convicts are taught the elements of an industrious life, they discover finally, that they can be useful to themselves, to their relatives and to their fellow citizens. In this way the state endeavours to profitably preserve a convict for society. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, society is a community submitting to the very same natural laws as the family itself. The Chaplain of the Health department in Paris, Abbe Geispitz, in his noted book Sous les Verroux enunciates these sentiments:
(Translation): "At aill times there has existed and there will alwaj*s exist daring, venturesome, whimsical and strange people. They have in the past made up the host of warriors, sailors and explorers. These fearless energetic and dauntless men these "dare-devils" often shedded much glory upon their country.
Perhaps, by remaining at home this too great activity would have turned to evil deeds, and their career abruptly ending with a rope around the neck. While being thrown in a larger sphere, without stifling laws, they had the opportunity of being of service both to their country and themselves."
And this man of experience in prison life to proclaim:
(Translation): Should we not ask ourselves if, today, we could not find some outlet for all this population too energetic to live in this stifling atmosphere and especially to prosper therein.
We share the opinion of this outstanding writer. We do not perceive in what way these words proclaim an Utopia. If one reflects upon this very vital question, consults the wardens of penitentiaries, asks the advice of judges and crown attorneys, the voices of experience, he will get the following answer: "Remove from the great centres of population these convicts, either for a certain time or for a definite period; set them to work like any other free men and the best results will be reached." Thus, we shall be able to prevent recidivism and to reduce the number of prisoners which is continuously increasing at the expense of t'he country.
Canada owns immense territories, almost boundless. She is anxiously waiting for immigrants and settlers. These prisoners, desiring to work, should find there a new life, perhaps a happy home with their families, if the state decides to adopt a policy providing for their support until such time as they are able to maintain themselves. Then they
Prison Reform

would be entitled to receive pay for their work. Their labour would not only give them the opportunity of getting rich but would enrich our land, Moreover this is the principle successfully followed in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. This, in my humble opinion, should meet the [DOT] wishes expressed in the resolution of the honourable member. The. Department of Justice, it seems to us, Mr. Speaker, could easily carry out a policy of improvement on land lately opened to colonization and in doing this utilize the labour of our penitentiaries. In so doing, we will be acting charitably towards these unfortunate inmates and they will be actuated by feelings of remorse and repentance.
I would have supported the resolution if it had tended to that end. I do not imagine, Mr. Speaker, that it is a good thing or sound public policy to remunerate convicts for the kind of work they are actually doing. This work is now useful to themselves only and no profit whatever comes to the state which pays heavily for their betterment. These prisoners should avail themselves of the opportunity to improve their minds and thus develop the talents which, because of their criminal tendencies have remained dormant in their hearts and brains; so that when released from the penitentiary, they will derive immediate benefit, and will look to the future with a hope and confidence they had never experienced before. This opportunity, be it remembered, will be provided at the expense of the nation.
We do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to oppose the idea suggested by this discussion. The resolution of the honourable member should be graciously received and studied: it can assuredly do much good, if it is properly applied not only to the convicts but to their afflicted relatives.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote a page, admirably written, in French, and to the point in this debate, from the work already mentioned in this speech and entitled Sous les Verroux of Abbe Geispitz:
(Translation) "The convict population is costly to the country; it can, it must be productive. France will rise in one's esteem by taking away from all citizens the right of doing wrong under the plea of dire necessity, it is within her power; her territory is vast enough to feed the whole population and to provide for these riotous energies an outlet. It can subsitute to the army of criminals who to-day burden her finances without any benefit whatsoever, an army of pioneers and colonists who will mend their ways with these brighter possibilities of life before them and gather wealth for themselves as well as bring wealth and glory to their country. It can, and will perform such a duty.
Let us meditate over these words, Mr. Speaker, and apply them to Canada in the near future, if that is feasible.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: The matter
which has been brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) is in my judgment one of such importance that I would not like to cast a silent vote in support of the proposition. There is no more serious blot on the history of the past than the treatment of those who, through misfortune or faults of their own, come under the ban of the law. One cannot read that great masterpiece of Victor Hugo's without being profoundly impressed with the fact that many who might otherwise have been eminent citizens in the community by no fault of their own have been brought into circumstances where they have been compelled to hide from the minions of the law. Indeed, many of our great masterpieces of literature concern themselves with the treatment of those who have been inmates of penai institutions. We are happy to believe that to-day there 4 p,m. is a different outlook upon those problems, and happy to believe that those who are in charge of our penal institutions are not brutes in human form that we read about in some of those pieces of literature. It has been my good fortune to come in contact with some of those who are at the head of our penal institutions, and I have been greatly impressed with the thought that they were men who were Christian and humanitarian in all their outlook upon life, and I am happy to believe that these men are doing all that lies within their power operating under the laws as they exist, and that they are doing all they can to better the conditions of those unfortunates who are placed in their charge.
There are three aspects to this question of crime. There is the aspect of prevention, and of punishment and of reform. We cannot over emphasize the necessity of doing all we can to prevent crime. It is recognized now in the medical world that the prevention of disease is perhaps more important than the cure. Certainly it is of equal importance. In regard to our attitude towards crime, society cannot hold herself guiltless altogether in regard to crime as it exists. Many of those who are to-day in our penal institutions are there because they are victims of conditions for which they were not altogether responsible. Society as a whole cannot hold itself innocent in regard to this matter. Then we come to the question of punishment. We cannot perhaps altogether refuse to recognize the fact that the criminal must be made to realize some of the consequences of his misdeeds. We cannot perhaps altogether allow him to forget that the way of the transgressor is hard and that the man

Prison Reform
who sins against the laws of nature and the laws of God must in large measure bear the consequences of his misdeeds. At the same time, as has been well pointed .out, we must banish from our thoughts the idea of revenge. Whatever we may think of the relative importance of punishment and prevention, there can be no question in our minds, that as regards the question of reformation that that is one of the most important things we can undertake and one of the most necessary. It may not be always possible for us to see our way clearly. Possibly we will still, in our attitude towards the criminal, have to explore many by-paths, perhaps make many mistakes, and perhaps sometimes we will be discouraged when we think that the courses we have pursued with great hope of success have not been as successful as we thought at first they might be. But there is one step it seems to me we can take with perfect certainty, and that is the step that has been indicated in the resolution that has been brought before the House. It seems to me it is sound from every viewpoint.	It is sound morally, it is
sound socially and sound economically. It is sound from the standpoint of the individual, from the standpoint of his dependents and from the standpoint of the state. I do not need to labour the point further. It has been already well emphasized that from the point of view of the individual good honest work is to his advantage. We are not so sure that labour is a curse as perhaps we have thought it to be in the past. Good honest hard labour is indeed the foundation on which all society rests and upon which human progress is built; and if there are men who are averse to labour, if it is true in a large measure that many of the inmates of our penal institutions are unwilling to exert themselves, they are there because they have never learned the dignity of labour, or because they were placed in such circumstances as made them disinclined for employment. If that be true, one of the best things we can do for such men is to teach them something of the joy as well as of the material value of substantial, honest toil. Perhaps one of the greatest evils we have to face to-day is just the disposition on the part of men to get an easy living without honest labour. So that from the standpoint of the individual nothing can be said against but everything in favour of the proposition that he should be given sufficient work of a useful kind to keep him actively employed.
The old idea, the stone pile and the treadmill which Charles Reade describes in one of bis novels, must be abandoned; and if 82
we are to give men work to do in our prisons it must not be simply physical employment for the sake of keeping their muscles in trim; it must be useful work in which the labourer will see that he .is accomplishing something. Is there any reason why that work should not be paid for? None that I can see. There is no valid reason why the man who performs such work should not be paid for it, or why society should not receive the product of his labour. The fact that the state has seen fit to take him in charge does not imply that the man should not 'be allowed a proper recompense. Certainly the idea is commendable from the standpoint of the dependents. We know it is all too true that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation, there are certain inescapable consequences that follow wrongdoing as naturally as night follows day. But that is no reason why society should heap further penalties on the dependents of the wrongdoer. And yet that is what we have done. We have visited them with our disapprobation relegating them to an inferior place in the community and we give many manifestations of our displeasure. And besides all that we have withdrawn from these people the means upon which they depended for their subsistence. Why should we continue to 'heap on their dependents burdens other than those which naturally follow from their wrongdoing?
I say, further, that the proposition is sound from the standpoint of the state. The state in its own interests has felt it necessary to take the law-breaker under charge. As has been said, he has been anti-social in his outlook and he must be brought to a proper view of his relation to society. He would not work voluntarily of his own initiative; he would not work under his own guidance; he must therefore work under the guidance of the state. But if the state in its own interests and for its own safety, assumes that responsibility towards the law-breaker, it does not thereby follow that the state should be put to unnecessary expense in punishing him. It does not follow that society, because a certain individual has broken its laws, should be further burdened with the care of him. There is no sound reason, then, that can be advanced why the criminal in our penal institutions should not be allowed to earn wages that will pay for his maintenance and at the same time assist his family; and if there is anything left over I do not see why it should not be given to him as a fresh start in life. I know that arguments have

Prison Reform,

bean used in the past against this; but I am only too happy to believe that the attitude of organized labour towards this question has changed, if that is the fact, as I hope it is.
We have regarded the product of prison labour, thrown upon the community, as a wrong against society. Why should we so look upon it? We shall have to change our point of view in considering those who are thus engaged in productive enterprises. Too long we have been under the error of thinking that those who contribute something to the wealth of the state are injuring the state or somebody else. We must get rid of that notion and take the view that those who produce wealth in any form, whether it be the product of free labour or of prison labour, are doing something for the general wellbeing. When we look at the matter in that light I think we shall be prepared to change our attitude towards the product of labour. It has been suggested that the goods produced by prisoners should be made use of by the state itself. To some extent that is being done now; I believe that at the penitentiary at Stonewall large sums of money are being saved to the government in the repairing of mail bags. What may be done in other penitentiaries I am not aware. And those who are incarcerated in these institutions make their own clothing and so help to some extent to relieve the state of the burden of their maintenance. But I would not limit their activities to producing goods for the benefit of government departments. There is no valid reason to my mind why the goods produced in penal institutions should not be put upon the market.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I am afraid my hon. friend would then come into conflict with organized labour.


John Livingstone Brown: That may be, and I am quite prepared for the conflict. I had hoped from what my hon. friend (Miss Macphail) said that organized labour had changed its attitude.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but they are in favour of prison labour being used for governmental purposes.


John Livingstone Brown: 
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, after the very comprehensive and forceful address by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) I do not know that it is necessary for me to spend a great deal of time in endorsing the views w'hich she has set forth. It seems to me that in a great many ways the public generally is in advance of the penitentiary officials in this matter as in a good many others. I suppose

Prison Reform.
possibly those who have charge are apt to get into a routine, and since the unfortunate victims of our judicial system have often no one to plead their case, the injustice and wrongs that they suffer do not come before the public as they might in the case where the interests of other sections of the community are concerned. My attention was called only this morning to a rather interesting news item on the front page of the Citizen, which shows that some of our local magistrates are taking this question into consideration. The item is headed and reads as follows:
Sentenced to jail, still at his job
Unusual parole is given married man with large family in Kingston.
Kingston, March 18.-To be allowed to work in the day time at his job in a local factory and to return to the county jail at night was the unusual parole granted to a Kingston married man, who was a few days ago sentenced to two months in the county jail for stealing tickets and selling them at the Jock Harty arena, where he was employed as a ticket collector. He has a wife and several children to support, and this is the first time he was ever in trouble. His former employer gave him his job back again.
It seems to me that if a private employer has sufficient humanity and common sense to be willing to trust a man in this way and to see that his family is looked after, the government of the country surely ought to follow his excellent example.
Sometimes some of us in this corner have been accused of seeking to travel rather too . fast in attempting to bring in reforms, but I would urge that the question of prison reform has been before the public again and again throughout a great many years. I remember very distinctly the sense of shock that came to a great many people in Canada back in 1914 when there was issued the report of the Royal Commission on Penitentiaries. The member for Southeast Grey has referred to more recent documents. I go back to that earlier report in order to show that for that length of time a great many people have been urging reforms in our penitentiaries. I had occasion several years afterwards to visit the Kingston penitentiary when I noted that comparatively few of the reforms suggested by the commission had actually been put into practice, and I am advised that the major reforms have not yet been introduced at that penitentiary. May I read a few paragraphs from this report?
Solitary imprisonment, labour and religious instructions have been the only agencies employed for the reclamation of the unfortunates. The first of these three has always been a prominent feature of the discipline. Probably in no prisfcn on the continent do the working population spend as many hours alone in their cells as they do in our Dominion penitentiaries.
82i
They leave their cells to work and they return to them to eat and meditate and sleep. On Sundays the single break in the monotony of life in the cell is the hour of divine service, and when a holiday falls on Monday that hour is the only relief enjoyed for two whole days and two nights.
Again:
Labour, the second corrective influence stipulated in the act, has always been rigidly insisted upon. Years ago when there was a system of productive industries in the penitentiaries, the intention of the act to pro* vide "well-regulated labour" was, no doubt, fairly carried out. The abandonment of these industries has made it physically impossible to employ the population at "well-regulated labour."
And again:
The industrial conditions in the penitentiaries of Canada are a disgrace to the Dominion. An honest attempt is made by the officials to keep all the prisoners employed at something, but it is only an attempt. As far as your commissioners could learn there is not a single well-equipped well managed, continuously busy shop in the whole circle of prisons.
I may say that I have had confirmation of this from the wardens of the penitentiaries, who themselves are very keenly interested in seeing that something should be done in this regard. The report goes on:
The reason for this state of things is not far to seek. There are no goods to be made, and if goods were made, there is no place to market them. The blacksmith shop at Kingston was running nicely when the commission made its visits. Steel gates for a new prison in the west were being turned out. When that order is completed, the management will be hard put to find employment for the men in the blacksmith shop. The tailor shop, carpenter shop, painters' and tinsmiths' shops are operated merely to meet the requirements of the institution.
Reference 'has already been made to the stone pile. That institution' is, I believe, still in existence at Kingston as it is at other penitentiaries. Let me read the words in which this occupation is characterized by the report of these commissioners:
The conditions in the workshops were found to be fairly satisfactory. Like the rest of the buildings they are old style structure and their lighting and ventilation could be improved. The ceilings are high and there was no evidence of congestion of workers in any particular shop. To this statement, exception must be made in the case of the stone-breaking shop. Every feature of that department was bad. The atmosphere was charged with stone dust and there was apparently no adequate provision for carrying it away. The closets, situated at one end of the buildings, were poorly constructed and foul-smelling.	Over seventy
prisoners, some of .them mere boys, were at work in this department when the commissioners made their visits. They were arranged in rows, facing each other, and the stone to be broken was piled in a long heap between them. As the raw material was reduced to the required size, fresh supplies were wheeled in by tenders from the yard. There was perfect order among the men. Not a word was spoken. But the monotonous raps of the hammers, the sullen, whitened faces of the forms, half crouching over their unhealthy, unprofitable, degrading tasks, were a mute but powerful denuciation of the system that permitted, or rendered necessary, such an outrage. Nothing has
Prison Reform

been said, nothing can be said, in defence of this twentieth century reproduction of the unceasing moil of the galley slave.
It has been suggested to me that if some members of this House could by any stretch of imagination be forced to spend even a few days in such an institution their attitude toward this problem would be altogether changed. Most of us are busy; most of us are not brought into direct contact with these questions, but if it were otherwise I am sure there is not a man in this House who would wish to see such conditions tolerated for another year.
Another point to which I should like to direct attention is the lack of any proper alienist in connection with most of our penal institutions. Any student of social problems must recognize that a very great amount of our crime is directly due to mental deficiency. One cannot visit a penal institution without noting that a very considerable number of the men are subnormal, and one's own opinion in this regard is corroborated by talking with the medical doctors and with the wardens. A very large number of the inmates of our institutions are distinctly subnormal, yet we treat them as if they were fully responsible for the crimes they have committed. It does seem as if we cannot go on indefinitely in this haphazard, unscientific manner. We all recognize that crime is very largely the result either of some hereditary weakness or of some maladjustment in our social life, and we ought to take steps to see to it that we do not allow those who are mentally deficient to propagate their kind, and on the other hand that we do not permit those social maladjustments to continue which are responsible for turning out an increasing stream of criminals.
I do not wish to dwell upon another question which is closely related and to which the commissioners called attention, that of the punishments inflicted for the infringement of the rules of the prisons. The most severe punishments have in the past been frequently administered. When it is considered that a great many of those punished are actually mentally deficient, the full horror of such punishments begins to dawn upon one. Surely before we hand over these matters to the discretion of guards who are not fully trained in questions of this kind we should inquire very carefully indeed as to the exact physical and mental condition of the prisoners.
I should like also to urge the absolute necessity of a much better classification of the prisoners. Young and old are very largely placed in the same gaols. It should be quite feasible to make some arrangement under which the young offenders would be placed in

one particular set of institutions and the old hardened offenders in another. At the present time, as the authorities have frequently pointed out, we have an arbitrary method of placing the short term offenders in our provincial gaols, which are often very much inferior to the penitentiaries, and placing the long term offenders, two years and over, in the federal institutions. It would seem reasonable that we should judge of this matter not according to the character of the crime but rather according to the character of the criminal. In some instances the offenders, although they may have committed what is called a serious crime, may be youthful-in fact, in many cases it may be their first offence; while in other cases the hardened criminals may be committed to a penitentiary for committing a comparatively insignificant crime. It seems to me that there should be a careful classification.
Further, within these institutions a great deal of latitude should1 be granted to those in authority in the treatment which they accord to the prisoners. In the hospitals we have many kinds of wards; we have a great variety of treatment for the different kinds of disease. So I take it that in our penitentiaries, which one day will be regarded much more like mental hospitals than they are to-day, there ought to be permitted a varied treatment for the inmates, in every case remembering that *the view of leading criminologists is that the punishment administered by the state-or the treatment, shall I say, given by the state-is not so much penal as reformative in character.
With regard to the payment which js advocated in the motion, I should like to go back to this report of 1914, simply because it is the view of another set of people and was given as long ago as eleven years. I quote:
It has been, strongly urged upon your commissioners that prisoners should be paid wages or that a portion of their earnings be devoted to the maintenance of their families. At the present time, the prison population of Canada, far from earning anything for the state, costs the government tor maintenance over $300 per head per year.
According to the figures given us to-day, that amount has advanced until it is considerably over $500 per head per year.
Even if a well-selected circle of state-use industries were established and successfully operated, it is not likely that they would ever make our prisons selfsustaining. They should, however, very materially reduce the annual burden on the country and at the same time provide a fund for the remuneration of prisoners or assistance to prisoners' families. Any wages' system must include all prisoners in its operations.
I should like to stress this point because I know there are some who, feeling the need of caring for families, are inclined to say, "Well,

Prison Reform,
give payment in cases where there are dependents, but otherwise give no payment." This is the recommendation of the commission on that point:
Any wages' system must include all prisoners in its operations. If married men, or men with relatives dependent upon them, alone were paid, other prisoners, equally skilled and equally industrious, would justly complain. Even the fact that the earnings were given, not to the prisoner, but to his family, would not lessen the discrimination. The only prisoners who can fairly be left off the wages or reward sheet are those under the ban for bad conduct.
The system of rewards or payments to prisoners, according to their efficiency and industry, has been adopted in many of the institutions of the United States and in a few houses in Europe. As an incentive to labour and good conduct, it is invaluable. Men work with much more heart when they know they will be sharers, even to a small degree, in the product of their labour. In fact, their increased output under such a stimulus, it has been shown, goes a long way towards covering the wages fund. An idea of the outlay which the wages or reward system involves, may be gleaned from a survey of the pay sheet at Stillwater, Minnesota. Stillwater, as we have already seen, returned to the state, $362,000 .profit on its industries last year. The money paid the prisoners at Stillwater is termed " over-work allowance." In the month of October, 1913, 24 hands working full time, 27 days, received an " over-work allowance " of $282.57, or an evarage of $11.77. There was quite a disparity in the amounts received by the men. One bench hand got $22.89 for his month's work. The earnings of four others were between $15 and $20, and seven were under $10.
As things are at present.
The payment of prisoners, under the industrial conditions that at present obtain in our penitentiaries, would be a question of charity rather than administration. The question is: Should the distress that exists in the homes of many of these men and the sufferings entailed upon their innocent families, be left as at present to the care of local charities, or should their relief be made an additional charge upon the penitentiary appropriation?


Mr. EULER:: Would the hon. member
say whether or not he is in favour of the product of prison labour coming into competition with the product of free labour?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was about to
pass to that point. Since reference has already been made to the stand of organized labour, I am inclined to think that taken as a general proposition, I should have to agree with the stand taken by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). If we had anything like a proper system of production, and I should add of distribution, there would be no cause whatever why we should hesitate to allow the product of prison labour to go out on the open markets; but unfortunately we have not a proper system of production and distribution. Under the existing circumstances Labour has been afraid lest the products of the penitentiaries or prisons, which are made without any competition, and which
may be made below the normal cost of production should be put out in competition with the products of free labour.


Mr. GOOD:: If there were no cutting of
prices, would the objection hold?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not to the same
extent, and I think that that perhaps has been having its weight with labour men in their consideration of this question. May I suggest that labour men have given a good deal of thought to this matter? They have taken by no means an arbitrary or narrowly selfish standpoint. With regard to the prices, if the prices were the normal prices, it would help considerably, of course, but it is still true that under the existing economic system there would be difficulties. To-day there is over-production. Now that over-production is not absolute. I would rather put it that there is a greater production than the people have the purchasing power to secure for themselves. This is the fundamental trouble that confronts us at the present time. We know that on every side we are finding difficulty in obtaining markets. The manufacturers of this country are coming to this House begging that they should be given protection, lest they should come into competition with the lower paid labour of Europe, and into' competition with the mass production of the United States. Well, if our great manufacturers feel the need of protection, it is not much wonder that labour that is earning wages that are very little higher than the amount necessary to maintain men in the penitentiaries should fear to have the competition of the penitentiaries, and should ask for protection. Thus we can understand the reason why labour has been a little bit hesitant on this question and why it has been anxious to safeguard the interest of organized Labour. On the other hand, I would like to say that Labour is intensely interested in the welfare of the prisoners. Indeed to no small extent, unfortunately, the men who have actually been caught, and who have suffered most severely at the hands of the law have frequently come from the ranks of labour. There seems unfortunately to be some way in which the high-grade criminals escape the most severe penalties. Labour is interested intensely in the welfare of prisoners, and is willing to endorse any arrangement whereby the interests of these men can be protected during the time they are within the penitentiary walls.
In passing may I venture to call attention to the anomalous situation that faces us at the present time the world over, when we are
Prison Reform

afraid of producing too many goods. I wonder if it might not be possible for us pending the alteration of our whole system of production and distribution that we could arrange that the unemployed across this country, the hundreds of thousands of unemployed in Canada to-day, could be furnished with the necessities of life from these institutions, this, until such times as the state could find work for them. I am not putting forward this suggestion as a solution of our economic problem; I am advancing it simply to suggest that an experiment of that kind might bring home to us the anomalous position in which we find ourselves, and might drive us to reorganize our social life in such a way that we would produce not simply for profit, but for the needs of the people. I have no desire, however, to enter this large field of discussion this afternoon.
After the decisions which have been arrived at by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, after rather mature deliberation of this question, the government need not hesitate, I think, in endorsing and adopting the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). When we have this productive work, and the payment of prisoners, it will require only minor adjustments to safeguard the interests of Labour in this matter.
Let me urge that the time has undoubtedly come when in this matter of prison reform we should give a great deal more attention to the scientific aspects of the question. We have inherited old ideas with regard to the criminal which are not at all justified by modern social study. I could hope that our Department of Justice could possibly be induced, even though it might involve a little bit more expenditure, to add to their staff a few men who had devoted considerable attention to these questions. Then when the recommendations of these men came in I could hope that these recommendations would not be pigeon-holed, as has been done so often in the past, but even in the midst of all the strenuous political life in which the major officials must spend their time, that they would consider a little more the human side of this question, looking more towards the welfare of the men and the women, and less towards the institutions in which they are housed.


Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):: li is not my intention to enter at any great length into the consideration of this resolution. It seems to me that a certain portion of it is simply intended to be an incentive to crime. A

person who probably is no good commits a crime. He is convicted and sent to prison. If this resolution carries, particularly the last portion of it, such a person may be sent to the penitentiary for three or four years. There he is compelled to work and that is quite proper because he is placed in the institution and kept there for three or four years as a punishment for his crime; and should be made to do actual physical work. He is compelled to work and the government of the country holds for him in trust the money he has earned until the time comes for his release. In these days of unemployment when there is a certain element in the country which is always agitating and preaching bolshevist ideas there is a lot of people who would probably go to the penitentiary. If they were outside they would not save for themselves, they would not have any money, and so they would go from pillar to post. But after such a man, being in the penitentiary and being compelled to work, on his release is given probably one thousand or fifteen hundred dollars, his earnings, it is said, the result is the man enters upon a new career of crime.


John Livingstone Brown: Do jrou think the possibility of his starting out on a new career of crime will be greater or less by reason of his having $1,000?


Mr. JACOBS:: He will have more capital.


Lewis Herbert Martell: He will have the necessary capital to start out upon such a career.


John Livingstone Brown: With no capital he would not be a menace at all I suppose?


Lewis Herbert Martell: If he has been corrected and taught a trade to that extent he has been benefited. Moreover he has been put in the penitentiary in order to protect society. Now if you permit that man who perhaps, is a single man to get money for the work he has done, it is held in trust for him by the government. WThile he is in the penitentiary he has no opportunity of spending any money and he goes out with his thousand dollars saved. That is an incentive to a man to commit a crime in order to go to the penitentiary because you are going to make the government of the country the means of his saving the money.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Is my hon. friend contending that when a man is put in the position of a capital' :t it is an incentive to commit crime?

Prison Reform


Lewis Herbert Martell: No not in the least, that is not my contention at all; my hon. friend has failed to grasp what I am contending. Capital of course is necessary in this country. My hon. friend himself knows that if conditions had been more prosperous in that part of the country from which he comes he need not have left his district.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was going to ask
if, under this suggested case, a man came out of the penitentiary a capitalist whether that would not be a very good safeguard against bolshevism.


Lewis Herbert Martell: No; the man would probably go from one extreme to the other. I say that the reason the man was put in the penitentiary was to protect society and also to punish him for his crime. Now you are going to punish him by giving him as good pay, if not a little better, than he would get outside; you are going to reward him by paying him wages for the work he has done in the penitentiary. That amounts to an invidious distinction against the poor man outside, who is honest but unfortunate, who is endeavouring to do an honest man's work with brain and hand, and probably has not been able to save any money. The criminal has been sent to the penitentiary and has been kept there at the expense of the state. And the state when his sentence has expired gives him back a certain amount of money which it is claimed he has earned in the form of wages.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is given a premium.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Yes it is putting a premium on crime. I would almost be opposed to the whole motion, but I think the innocent children should not be compelled to suffer. I believe a man before he commits a crime should reflect upon the results which are likely to flow from his action.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Would my hon. friend
apply his remark that innocent children should not suffer to the children in his own riding?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Certainly, all over the
country.


Samuel William Jacobs: There are some innocents in his riding.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The children in my riding are all innocent. The remark, I am afraid, is not applicable to all the children in my hon. friend's riding. I trust I made my meaning clear, and I am going to move an amendment:
That all the words after the iword " dependents " where it first appears in the second clause of the resolution be struck out.
That will not prevent the state from aiding the children or dependents; but where a man has no dependents I do not think there should be any premium put on his crime by giving him a reward when he comes out of the penitentiary.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I had not intended to delay the House by taking any part in this debate, and I would not have done so had not the hon. member for Hants spoken as he did and introduced the amendment that he did. I congratulate the hon. member for Southeast Grey upon having introduced this resolution and also upon the manner in which she supported it. She approached the question at first from the humanitarian angle, and I think that is the angle which has largely governed the reports of the Department of Justice on this matter.
Let me, in passing, suggest that the hon. member for Hants would hardly have brought in the amendment he did had he attached the weight to these reports which they are entitled to receive. Possibly he has not read those reports in which event I may find it necessary to quote one or two extracts from them, i think, Mr. Speaker, that the highest ideal embodied in the resolution is to reform and not to punish the criminal. That I tihink is the intention, at least of the mover of the resolution.
It is suggested in the reports of the department that you cannot reform criminals by punishment. The proposal in the second part of the motion, is if a single man or a man without dependents, is imprisoned he is to be placed at productive work. He earns something, and a part of those earnings will be devoted to the cost of his upkeep in the penitentiary and the maintenance of the institution. What is to be done with the balance of those earnings? To whom does it properly belong? In my opinion it belongs to the convict himself, and the proposal I would submit is that if the sum be large it be turned over to him in a bulk sum at the end of his prison term but that the warden of the penitentiary should be placed in the position of a trustee. The convict should be called before him prior to discharge, and a discussion entered upon for the purpose of ascertaining the prisoner's plans for the future, so that the warden may advise him-in much the same fashion that, our wardens, the bankers, advise ug-with a view to helping that man towards re-establishing himself for the future in life. The whdle sum of the man's net earnings need not be paid out at once; it could be paid out from time to time as the development of the
Prison Reform,

man's particular trade or occupation necessitated. So far as the first portion of the resolution is concerned I do not think there is any question as to the advisability of carrying it out.
I have heard no objection taken, but possibly as some hon. members may not be aware of some of the details in connection with the misery created, I will call attention to a letter which I received on January 31 of this year from a miners' union. This by the way may answer the question of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) as to the possible attitude of labour on this question. The letter is from a miners' union, telling of one of its secretaries, a man fairly well respected and placed in a responsible position. He decamped with the funds of the union, fled to Seattle, was caught there, brought back to Canada and put in gaol for three years. At the end of a year the very men whose money he had taken circulated a petition pleading for his release, not because they wished in any way to condone the crime, but because his unfortunate wife and family were in dire distress and serious suffering. That was the attitude of a labour organization on this question. They wanted the man released because his wife was suffering. It may be said, "Yes, they wanted him released rather than given remunerative employment in gaol," but what would he do after he came out? He would at once commence competing in the labour market; he would at once go into the mines in all probability and get a job there, competing with these very men in their own field." Yet after all, what difference is there whether he competes in their own field in the labour market or competes inside the prison wall? There is no difference, and I do not think labour will raise any serious objection to this resolution. In the report of the Superintendent of Penitentiaries for 1922 I find the following:
Conditions of all penitentiaries have been greatly improved,
And properly so. Amongst the improvements introduced are the following-and this is what I would call to the attention of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell)-
the abandonment of the idea of handling all men by rule of thumb and substitution therefor of the personal study of each inmate and treatment of him, as his temperament and disposition would warrant.
Further on I find the following:
Tlie endeavours now put forth by penitentiary officers to secure employment for inmates on discharge.
A quotation is found further down from a former inspector of Canadian penitentiaries, as follows:

Society has found by terrible experience that her gaol or prison system has too often turned out to be the largest factor and the most successful machine in the fabrication of the evil it was seeking to destroy.
I find in another report a comparison between the effects of treatment as a whole in different countries. And I take the statement on page 14, as follows:
In England the severity of former years has been abandoned, and much more sane and humane methods now prevail. There is no criminal laxity however, in either the enforcement of the law or management of those convicted of crime. It would appear, therefore, if good and sane results are to be obtained in Canada we should study the English systems with a view to adopting what they have to offer by way of amendment.
The following from the Philadelphia Public Ledger is most amazing and most convincing:
Mention has been made of Raymond B. Fosdick's book, American Police Systems. Some of the figures in it almost stagger belief. For example the arrests in Boston in 1918 exceeded the total number of arrests in London by 32,520, a falling off you see of the number of arrests following up the lightening of the punishment of criminals.
That hardly bears out the argument of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell). Philadelphia arrests in 1919 exceeded the arrests in London by 20,005, and Chicago's arrests exceeded London's by 61,874; New York arrests in 1918 exceeded London's by 111,877. In 1919 there were 5,527 automobiles stolen in New York, in London only 290, in Liverpool only 10. In 1918 Chicago had 22 robberies for every one robbery in London, and 14 for every one robbery in England and Wales. Los Angeles in 1916 had 64 more robberies than England, Scotland and Wales combined. Liverpool is one-third larger than Cleveland and yet Cleveland in 1914 reported thirty times as many robberies as Liverpool. It may be argued that there were other factors. I believe there were other factors that tended to the development of the situation, nevertheless the fact stands out that under a more generous treatment that tends to develop the best in a man, rather than to treat him with rigid discipline, we find more favourable results ensue.
I should like to make one other point. About sixty per cent of those sent to the penitentiaries leave them without having suffered punishment. The more punishment inflicted in a prison, the stronger the probability that the place is poorly managed. I quote now from the 1921 report of the Superintendent of Penitentiaries:
It ^has also been demonstrated that seldom is a conversion to virtue obtained through punishment. Physical force can check or temporarily restrain various forms of evil, but usually at the cost of rendering them still more intense and permanent.

Prison Reform
If that be true in the case of physical force, surely any evolution of a higher, saner and more humane method of treating the men at the time of their discharge and during the time of their re-absorption into civil life would tend also to improvement.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) will not carry in this House. Our idea certainly ought not to be the mere punishment of crime. It ought to be the prevention of crime, and if as I believe this resolution will go a long way towards this by giving a convict more respect for himself and giving him an opportunity to meet fairly those with whom he will have to compete after leaving the prison, then I think every member should regard with favour the resolution.


William Daum Euler: I
have very little to add to what has been said and probably will not adduce any new arguments at all, but I would like to declare my sympathy for the principle of the resolution as introduced by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I think she is to be congratulated for bringing this matter to the consideration of the House for practical action. The resolution is a credit to her head and to her heart because it seems to me what she suggests is economically sound and a credit to her humanitarian feelings. But I am afraid I cannot follow her in one suggestion that she made, and that was that crime is almost entirely a disease. Possibly that may be true to some degree, but if we recognized that to the full as being true I am very much afraid that if we had not our penal and preventive laws, we would have a very great increase in crime. It has been said that people are not to be sent to prison and punished for purposes of revenge. I am quite in accord with that. It is not the purpose of humanity or of society to exercise revenge. The chief motive for sending a man to prison, apart from the preventive feature, is to punish him, and if possible to reform him. I am in favour of the first part of the resolution, providing for steady work for convicts while in penitentiary. Its wisdom seems to be evident on the face of it; these men should be fully employed while they are held in confinement. That was impressed on me not so long ago when I had not the pleasure, but the somewhat depressing experience, of going through the penitentiary at Kingston and seeing what is being done there. The prisoners were not all busy and they would have been a great deal better off had they been fully employed. So that the first part
of the resolution is hardly debatable. The second phase of it perhaps gives some room for a difference of opinion, although I cannot possibly follow my hon. friend (Mr. Martell) in the statement that if men knew that they would be paid for working in the penitentiary this knowledge would be an incentive to them to commit crime.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member must
have misunderstood me. I said that men would not regard the penitentiary sentence as a deterrent if they knew that they did not run any risk of leaving those dependent upon them absolutely unprovided for.
Mr. EULERI cannot agree with the hon. member even now. To my mind the great deterrent is the fact that men know that if they commit crimes they will lose their liberty and be disgraced; they know that when they come out they will be the object of the sneers of the world. And the payment of convicts for what they may do while in prison has no bearing on the question as to what constitutes a deterrent to crime. The great punishment is that the criminal is deprived of his liberty, and people have only to see the convicts at Kingston or in any other place of confinement to realize the truth of this.


Lewis Herbert Martell: After a man has served
his time in penitentiary and comes out he becomes a citizen of the country and no one can call him criminal with impunity. Those who call him so are subject to damages for defamation of character. The discharged convict, in other words, resumes his civil status, and although there may be some scorn attached to him, the probability is that he would not suffer to any very great extent if he came out of prison with money in his pockets.


William Daum Euler: Technically perhaps the hon. member is right.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the
hon. gentleman say that the social position of the criminal was as good after as before his incarceration?


William Daum Euler: I was coming to that. No
doubt my hon. friend (Mr. Martell) is right in the narrow legal sense; after a man has served his time he is technically washed clean, so to speak. But surely no man in this House will say that he has precisely the same standing among his fellow citizens as he had before he went to gaol.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If he comes out with
money he may have a better standing.


William Daum Euler: I would support the resolution not so much because its adoption would enable
Prison Reform

even a single man to come out of gaol with some money, although I believe that it would be well for such a man to have something to start with. What appeals to me is that we should do everything in our power to prevent the suffering of innocent women and children as a result of some man's crime. We see that principle recognized in the Ontario law: men who have been sentenced for more or less lengthy periods are allowed out on parole, the declared object of that practice being that they may go to work and provide for their dependents.
That briefly is my chief reason for supporting the resolution. It seems to me to be fair and I think that parliament should do everything possible to minimize the unmerited degradation and suffering that comes to those who are not responsible for the crime. I will go further than that; I think I can support the whole resolution just as it is. I believe that even a single man, seeing that he has been deprived of his liberty, might very well be compensated for any work he did so that he might have something to enable him to begin life anew and not be forced to resort once more to unlawful means of making a livelihood. We should do what we can to prevent him from entering again on a career of crime. These are my reasons for supporting the resolution.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I do not want this opportunity to pass without expressing1 my appreciation of the speech made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and endorsing the resolution she has brought forward. I have not had much experience in regard to penitentiaries but I do not think there is a gaol in Manitoba the inside of which I have not seen, although fortunately I have been always on the right side of the bars. Now, I have listened with a good deal of attention and satisfaction to the remarks made by different gentlemen who have dwelt on this matter, and I realize that we are moving in the right direction in our treatment of criminals. Let me say, however, in passing that we should not altogether lose sight of the aspect of punishment. The thug who knocks down an innocent traveller and robs him of his money may deserve careful treatment in the way of reform but we should not forget that there is some punishment coming to people of that sort. Crime has been rapidly increasing along many lines, and it has not been increasing altogether among the mentally deficient. Banditry and a great many similar crimes have largely increased during recent years and there must be some cause

for this. I think therefore that we might well look into that phase of the question.
As regards the consequent suffering of the innocent, that perhaps is one of the saddest facts in human life; it is regrettable that no one can commit a wrong without endless misery following in its train and bearing along with it all those connected with the criminal. I do not think that society has been very just in this matter; it visits the misdemeanours of the individual on his whole family. But that is the fact and we cannot help it; we recognize its injustice, but it exists nevertheless. Perhaps more could be accomplished in the way of mitigating the full force of crime in the country. I do not think that after a man has passed the meridian of life as a criminal there is very much hope of making a first-class citizen of him. Do not think that I despair of reforming anyone; I believe in the story of the thief on the cross. But it seems to me that our great hope lies with the young people; we must inculcate right ideas in them, and a great many of our amusements to-day are I am afraid little calculated to raise the ideals of the younger folk. If more stress was laid upon the dignity of labour, if more education was given to our young people to help them understand what really constitutes right living and the joy of life, there would be less crime. The wrong idea is abroad, the idea of having what is called " a good time." We were told long ago by One who came to walk upon this earth that He came so we might have life more abundantly. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think probably that is what everyone is seeking to-day, to make the most of his life, to get all he can out of it. I think that is the idea of the criminal. I think we should teach our young people what constitutes the great, grand and noble things of human life, the things that will bring most happiness to them individually and to humanity. I am quite in line with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Southeast Grey. I congratulate her upon bringing this resolution before the House, and I intend to support it.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to join with
my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) in expressing to the mover of the resolution-


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Our sister member.


Ernest Lapointe: Our sister member, as
my hon. friend very properly describes her- I desire to join with my hon. friend from Brandon in expressing to her the gratitude of the House for having brought this resolution

Prison Reform
i
to our attention. It deals with a worthy subject, and the time of the House has not been wasted in discussing it. I think we all agree that the prisoners in our penitentiaries should be kept working; nothing could be worse for them from every point of view than idleness.
There are two schools of thought on prison reform. The views of one school were expressed by my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Martell). They believe that the prisoner is indebted to the state, that he should give his labour in return for his debt, and that the penitentiaries should be made profitable institutions. The other school takes the position that reformation is the primary function of state prisons, and that careful segregation should be made of prisoners in order that the larger number of them may be reformed. The work to which they are assigned is really accessory to this main object of reformation. I may say immediately that I share the views of this school; I think that reformation is the main aim to be kept in view. I may say also that, speaking personally, I am going to vote for the resolution as it is.
I agree, though, with my hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Euler) that we should not overstep the mark and proclaim that crime is really a disease. There is a point which could not be overstepped without some danger, and I am led to say that by something I was reading a few days ago in a bulletin issued by the Chicago Crime Commission. Crime has increased in Chicago at such a tremendous rate that the Association of Commerce has been compelled to form a special commission called the Crime Commission, and the following words are from a speech by the chairman of that commission. Referring to the many crime factors, he said:
A fourth and equally insidious factor has been the development of a perfectly meritorious movement for the study of crime and criminals from sociological and psychological standpoints, and the endeavour to build up reconstructive or reformative treatment that shall restore the criminal to the class of the law-abiding. But whatever of merit or progress any or all of these factors may contain, certain it is that active and diligent organized crime has availed of every possible weakness they develop in the enforcement of the law. When with the best possible intentions there has been created a disposition to deal with crime from a psychological and eociological standpoint-the result has been to minimize the effect of individual responsibility of the criminal himself, and to develop sources of weak sentiment towards a specific crime in a specific case.
No doubt there is considerable truth in these words. The other day, being in New York, I read an interesting paragraph in the New York Herald-Tribune. Judge Alfred J. Talley, addressing the talesmen at the general sessions in New York in January, dosed his talk by describing high life in Sing Sing:
There are movies every night, baseball on weekends, vaudeville once a week, and Broadway shows once a month, with radio a constant feature of prison life. The result is that the average criminal has a better time in Sing Sing than out of it.
Well, I am a prison reformer, if this title means something, but I would not go as far as adopting for Canadian prisons the system which is in force in Sing Sing according to Judge Talley. So there is as I said, a point which should not be overstepped; we should not go too far in this direction. But with that reservation I agree with the principle of the resolution and with what it proposes should be done.
By way of information may I submit to the House what work is being done at the present time in our various penitentiaries? In the New Westminster penitentiary very little work is being undertaken at the present time for other government departments. Entire reconstruction of dilapidated shops, cell blocks, kitchen and so forth, as well as the construction of a wall surrounding the place, is now being prosecuted; workshops are being made fireproof; farming operations on a small scale and clearing of bush land are also being carried on. The internal requirements of the penitentiary, such as tailoring, Shoemaking, tinsmith work, machine shop work, black-smithing, painting, carpentering, baking, operating of gravel pit, and so forth, are being prosecuted.
In the Saskatchewan penitentiary, which is a new institution practically, begun in 1913, already two cell wings shops, hospital, new boiler house, isolation prison and administration building, containing offices, churches, school, library, kitchen, officers' mess, and .so forth, have been built by inmate labour, as well as a residence for the warden and deputy warden. About 488 acres of land have been cleared and placed under cultivation. As at all other penitentiaries, tailoring, shoemaking, blacksmithing, tinsmithing, painting, carpentry, machine shop work, baking, and so forth, are being done, always for the use of the penitentiary. At present only a small amount of work is done for outside departments, in the manufacture of harness, tin utensils and some small orders of woodenware. There is also in operation ait this institution a brick making plant, where all the brick used in construction work at the institution is manufactured.
At the Manitoba penitentiary we have all the usual trades in operation, as in the other
Prison Reform

penitentiaries, for the maintenance of the institution. There mail bags for the four western provinces are repaired. A large building programme is being carried on, together with a remodelling of old antiquated buildings, the construction of a new cell block, a stable, granary, implement shed, root house, and the installation of a waterworks system. A large farm is in operation there also, with about 500 acres under cultivation.
In Kingston the penitentiary has all the trade necessary for internal upkeep, together with a large canvas manufactory, where all new mail bags are made and old ones are repaired; also tents, tarpaulins, bags and other such articles required by other government departments.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Can the minister
give the House any idea of the number of bags made and the number repaired in a month?


Ernest Lapointe: I have not the information at hand, but I will give it to my hon. friend later. Boots and clothing are made at Kingston for the Indian department, as well as some clothing for the Canadian National Railways. Barriers for all other penitentiaries are made there. A large farm is in operation at this institution, as well as a quarry and stone-cutting department. So far as stone-cutting is concerned, it is done for the purposes of construction and repair work. Broom making is also carried on at Kingston, as well as tin and iron work for other government departments. An extensive construction programme is in progress, including the building of a new female prison, sewage disposal plant and remodelling of old shop buildings. There is also a printing department.
At St. Vincent de Paul, in addition to all the usual trades, the penitentiary manufactures leather goods such as leather folders for magazines used by the Canadian National Railways and hotels, portfolios for government employees, saddles, and so forth. Large quantities of hickory handles of all descriptions are turned out, together with small quantities of clothing and boots for other departments. There is a cannery at this institution for canning the goods for the penitentiary. A large farm is worked by the prison inmates. A new cell block capable of accommodating 208 inmates is almost completed, also the construction of a new entrance to the prison, together with a remodelling of many Of the old shops and buildings with a view to making them fireproof and suitable for present needs. Bookbinding is another industry of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.

At Dorchester we have all the shops similar to those in other institutions, required for general maintenance purposes. In addition, mail bags for the Maritime provinces are repaired. Clothing is made for the mounted police in the Maritime provinces and a very extensive building programme is carried on, including enlargement of wail; building of new hospital, school room, library; new cell block; remodelling of old cell wing; fencing and clearing of farm, of which about 400 acres are already under cultivation.
Prior to 1921 organized labour was opposed in principle to prison labour even for the requirements of the federal departments. Since 1921, however, organized labour have changed their view in that respect; in their conventions and otherwise they have expressed themselves as favourable to prison work, the products of which go to meet the requirements of the government service. But let me tell the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) that not only in this country but in the United States, where, I am told, prison labour is carried out on such a large scale, organized labour is opposed to prison labour coming into competition with free labour. It would certainly be a matcer of great difficulty to apply that system in our penitentiaries. But it is not necessary to do it. I am convinced-and I think it was also the conviction of those who prepared the report of 1921-that the work in connection with the making of articles needed by the government should be sufficient to employ all the labour in the penitentiaries and to keep the inmates busy all the time. Both organized labour and such institutions as chambers of commerce have made representations in this connection. For instance, the garment manufacturers have passed strong resolutions against what they call the unfair competition to which their products are subjected by prison labour. But manufacturers as well as workmen in the United States are in favour of prison labour to meet the requirements of the states. If the articles produced by the penitentiary are not bought and used by the state in which the institution is situated, then they suggest that an agreement should be arrived at with other states whereby these articles will be purchased and used by them. If this system is accepted and applied in Canada there is no reason why some agreement could not be entered into by the provinces under which they might also acquire goods produced in the penitentiaries.
Let me indicate the classes of goods which might very easily be made in our penitentiaries and for which the penitentiaries are

Prison Reform
well equipped. All classes of canvas goods, such as tents, tarpaulins, flies, nose-bags, water pails, packs of all descriptions, and so on.; furniture of all descriptions, in wood; all classes of galvanized iron and tin goods; clothing and the manufacture of uniforms- military, mounted police and other such; leather goods, including harness; book-binding; boots and shoes; hickory handles of all descriptions; blacksmith shop work; machine shop work; stone cutting; and broom making. I can include boots and shoes without being afraid of any adverse consequences in Quebec East, because I have been told by the manufacturers of boots and shoes there that they have never had the opportunity of working for the government.


Mr. HALBERT:: Will it be permissible for members of parliament to get their supplies there?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know. Perhaps they might do so by paying for them.


Samuel William Jacobs: When they go to the
penitentiary.


John Livingstone Brown: Are any of the articles made in the penitentiaries put on the market, or are they all for the use of government departments?


Ernest Lapointe: None go on the market now, though that was done years ago.


John Livingstone Brown: They used to make binder twine at Kingston.


Ernest Lapointe: The contract system- that was the name given to it-was so objectionable to labour in Canada and was the source of so many difficulties that it was abandoned. No goods which are the product of penitentiaries are at present being sold on the market.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is the suggestion
of the minister that these articles he names would be manufactured?


Ernest Lapointe: I say they could be
manufactured; I do not say they will. I know there would be objection to some lines; but my hon. friend will always keep in mind that what I advocate would be the making of products for the use of the departments only, not for sale on the open market.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Would the minister
be in favour of public works being done by prison labour? In some countries, for instance in South Africa, when I was over there last summer, I found that they were building a
dry dock with practically all prison labour, and in the diamond mines they were using prison labour for a shilling a day, and so forth. Prison labour is used to a very great extent over there. Would the minister be in favour of the same policy being adopted in this country, and if so, would he use prison labour on public works done by the Dominion and provincial governments as well?


Ernest Lapointe: That is another very
difficult question. I believe that if the prisoners in our penitentiaries were doing the work necessary for the production of the articles which I have mentioned, for the use of the various departments, they would be kept busy not only most of the time but all the time. The suggestion of my hon. friend might be considered, but I do not think it is necessary to consider it at the present time.


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not wish it to
be inferred that I am in favour of such a policy at all; on the contrary, I am opposed to it.


Ernest Lapointe: I would not like that to be inferred of me either. As far as wages are concerned, this also is a difficult question; -not the principle of it, because I do not agree with some hon. members who believe the prisoners should not get anything. Others have suggested that only the dependents of the prisoners should receive some compensation for the work done by the inmates; nor I would not agree with that. I think that the principle embodied in the resolution rather conforms with my own views in that respect; but it ought to be done as it is done in the state of New York, for instance, to which my hon. friend from Southeast Grey has referred. A sum should be deducted, first of all, representing the amount which the state expends for the upkeep of the prisoner in the penitentiary, and the proportion that might come to the prisoner would be only of the amount which would be over and above what the state had expended with regard to that particular prisoner. The amount would not have to be very large either. I heard one hon. member mention the sum of $1,000 or $1,500 which the prisoner would have on coming out of gaol. I do not think that would ever happen. In the prisons which have a system of this kind the amount of wages paid varies from l\ cents a day to 25 cents. If you also take into consideration the fact that when a prisoner is guilty of an infraction of the bylaws of the penitentiary, the usual punishment consists in a fine, which is taken off the
Prison Reform

money which is being kept for him, and further, that when any latitude is allowed him, smoking, for instance, and things of that kind, he has to pay for the tobacco and other articles he uses out of the money which is coming to him in the form of wages, there is no fear of any big fortune being made by an inmate of a penitentiary. On the other hand, I think that to a deserving inmate, a man who wants to make good-and there are some of them in the penitentiary-to be paid something for his labour would be a great incentive to good behaviour. Besides, it seems perhaps rather unwise to send a man out of the penitentiary after he has served a term of say six or seven or ten years with only what we are giving him at the present time-a suit of clothes and five dollars-and turning him on the street without any work. I think it would be in the interests not only of the inmate but of the community as well if a man who is deserving in other respects could have some little amount of money that would permit him to look around for other work, and to try and build a new position for himself in organized society.


William Garland McQuarrie: Would the same policy apply to prisoners who are to be deported at the end of their sentence? For instance, the dope peddlers and people of that kind.


Ernest Lapointe: That would have to be considered; but to introduce discrimination in the penitentiary would be a dangerous system to adopt. I think all those who conform to the bylaws and regulations of the institution and do work properly and according to the regulations assigned to them, should be treated and dealt with in the same way.


William Findlay Maclean: Has there been any increase in this allowance since the high cost of living?


Ernest Lapointe: Unfortunately, no.


William Findlay Maclean: Now is your chance.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. I see that time
is passing rapidly; I have only one word mors to say, and in this I am afraid I shall not meet with as much approval as my other points have met with so far. I honestly and sincerely believe that the Penitentiaries branch and its work ought to be taken away from the Civil Service Commission, just as is done in the case of the mounted police and the militia. It is not work of the usual departmental nature. I am responsible for what happens in the penitentiaries of Canada at the present time. I am responsible if there

are evasions; I am responsible if there is a rebellion in a penitentiary anywhere; and I think it is not fair that the wardens and the deputy wardens, the main officers, and even the guards in the penitentiaries, should be selected under a system of competitive examination. It is absurd. I think that penitentiary work should be compared with the work of the mounted police or even of the militia. In the penitentiary the work that is to be done by the guards, and very often their lives are in jeopardy, depends for its success more on the character and the temperament of the man than on what they may happen to know about geography or arithmetic or anything else. This conviction I have formed during the year and a half in which I have been at the head of the administration of the Department of Justice. I believe in control by the Civil Service Commission when it is a case of appointments in connection with ordinary departmental work, but I do not think they are qualified to select the men to conduct the penitentiaries. In that respect the report of the commission, which was alluded to iby my hon. friend from Southeast Grey, has stated that the present system is certainly defective. That report suggested that the Civil Service Commission ought not to be bound by any regulation in the selection of the men to who i the work of the penitentiaries is to be entrusted; that they ought to be allowed to go out anywhere and select a person who seemed to them best qualified.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the
minister any complaints with regard to the present wardens or officials of the penitentiaries? I mean, what good argument has he against taking the appointments of these officials from the Civil Service Commission? Are the present officers not quite efficient?


Ernest Lapointe: I prefer not to answer
that question; it is rather a delicate matter when it "comes down to brass tacks" as we say. I would rather not give any specific instances, but I should think that even the principle for which I am contending should appeal to my hon. friend-that the work in the penitentiaries is of such a special character that the appointment of qualified officials should not be entrusted to the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who selects them
now? What principle governs the selection?


Ernest Lapointe: The Civil Service
Commission makes the selection.

Prison Reform


Arthur Edward Ross: Is not this the
process followed?-the recommendation is made by the warden to the Superintendent of Penitentiaries and then the Civil Service Commission makes the appointment?


Ernest Lapointe: No, unfortunately not.
That may be the procedure in most instances but not always. I might perhaps inform my hon. friend that there is a position vacant in my department which should be filled, but has not been filled, because I have refused to accept the man whom the Civil Service Commission tried to impose on me.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who recommended this man to the Civil Service Commission?


Ernest Lapointe: Not the chief of the
branch because that officer gave me his opinion that the man selected by the commission had not the proper qualifications to do the work. The non-acceptance of this man is not due to any whim on my part in any way; it is because the officials of this branch in my department gave me their opinion that the man whom the Civil Service Commission recommended and wanted to appoint had not the qualifications for the sort of work the position demanded.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the minister give a preference in filling vacancies to the mounted police?


Ernest Lapointe: I think I would.


Mr. SHAW:: I rise to a point of order. I
do so because I am interested in seeing a conclusion reached in this matter, and I cannot see what the action of the Civil Service Commission has to do wdth the debate on this resolution?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is right,
but as all or most of the hon. members who spoke this afternoon took such latitude in giving their view on the general improvement of the penitentiaries I thought I could do the same thing with reference to the Civil Service Commission. I know it is a delicate subject as far as my hon. friend is concerned, but I had forgotten that fact when I touched the question. I congratulate again my hon. friend from Southeast Grey. I am sure the discussion in the House this afternoon will have a very good effect, and in order to conciliate the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) for my allusions to the method of making appointments I may assure him that I will vote for the resolution.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I
rise to support the resolution and to join in the general chorus of approbation which our
fair member has so admirably and fully won. I want, however, to endorse one thing said by the minister, and that is that our attitude here is not at all an attitude of sentimentality; it is not a question of the sanity or insanity of the prisoner, it has to do with what ought to be the real object of these institutions-and that is to try and do something which shall make society as a whole better; and to do something with the raw material, bad as it very often is, which is put in our hands. We are all agreed that an idle life captivity is the worst thing that any man could experience. Next, a man should be kept at something which is not unproductive and barren of results. Those are the two outstanding features in connection with prison reform. If there is anything which we must do it is to see that these institutions which we maintain at great cost shall perform some useful function. That is the first duty incumbent upon us. The next thing-and I must hurry if I would conclude my remarks before six o'clock-is that if we are going to have productive work, in expecting the criminal to give society a square deal we must adopt the idea of giving a square deal to the criminal. Then, the least we can do is to look after his family. I was a crown attorney myself for years. If there is a terrible time in the life of any man it is when the time arrives for him to enter a gaol for a greater or less period, without friends, with no one to whom he can turn, feeling that as a result of his incarceration his family will be turned out into the street. That is a most depressing feeling.


Lewis Herbert Martell: What is complained of in connection with the resolution is that it seeks the enactment of a law which would enable a criminal to receive wages exactly as if he were competing with an honest fellow citizen outside.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is wrong in his idea that the man in gaol is going to receive the same wages as a worker outside. That is an impossible provision, it cannot be carried out. The whole idea of the resolution is to give the convict some chance at least of starting again; and I am going to ask my hon. friend to withdraw his amendment and allow the motion to go through as it is. I can assure him that there is no possible chance of any large sum being earned by the inmate of a penitentiary. Even if that were possible the poor fellow has been a long time down and out and has pretty well earned what he would receive.
There are several other points I should like to refer to but I shall not do so because I have no wish to delay this resolution. I will,

Prison Reform
however, repeat this observation: If there is one thing more necessary than anything else it is that the man when he is discharged from the penitentiary should at least have in his possession some means to enable him to make his way in the world again.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the amendment.


William Garland McQuarrie: (New Westminster) : Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us have a vote, do not bury the resolution.


William Garland McQuarrie: As has already been stated this is an important resolution-


John Livingstone Brown: Therefore we want to vote on it.


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes?


Mr. LOGAN:: You are burying it.


William Garland McQuarrie: I want to vote on it but J want to do so in a proper way. We should not be forced to vote on a resolution of this kind without being afforded an opportunity of discussing it if we so desire. That is my point. Yeiy well. If the debate on this resolution is not concluded to-day, it does not mean that the matter is closed. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is in favour of it and will support the resolution, it is open to him-and the proper course for him to pursue-to bring in legislation as a government measure, which no doubt he will do.


Ernest Lapointe: We will have to convince both the government and parliament.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Parliament is ready.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Parliament is not ready.


William Garland McQuarrie: Surely this government is strong enough, with the support of my good friends to my left to put through any measure which they consider right and proper.


Ernest Lapointe: I thank my hon. friend for the information.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would ask my hon. friend if he is strong enough to bear on his shoulders the weight of the responsibility for the defeat of this resolution for the purpose of hearing himself talk?


William Garland McQuarrie: I am quite sure all hon. members have tried to be nice to the lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphait) and far be it from me to say anything of an unkind nature.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the remark of the hon. member for Southeast Grey is uncalled for. Every hon. member is entitled to speak and should not be interrupted, as the hon. member has just been. The hon. member is speaking on the question and is exercising his undoubted right.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have a penitentiary in my town. I have not been in as many penitentiaries as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) but I know something about the matter.


Robert Forke: I never was in one.


William Garland McQuarrie: I apologize, but I understood my hon. friend to say he had been
in all the penitentiaries in Canada. I stand corrected. I have been in the penitentiary at New Westminster and I was able to get out the same day. I have had the privilege of going through that institution, and had the privilege quite recently, shortly before I came to attend this session. I was invited by the warden to come out there and see what improvements had been made. He took me through the institution and showed me the work that had been done. I think there is enough work to keep the convicts busy for some years making improvements to the institution itself. There is a great deal of necessary work to be done.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 19, 1925