Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the honourable the Speaker and Messieurs: Barber, Bertrand, Bourassa, Boyes, Butcher, Carmichael, Charters, Chevrier, Cotnam, Dubois, Dupuis, Factor, Ferland, Fontaine, Fortin, Fraser (Cariboo), Gagnon, Girouard, Guthrie, Hepburn, Irvine, Jones, Lafleehe, Larue. LaVergne, MacMillan (Saskatoon), McGillis, McGregor, McIntosh, Marcil, Peck, Perley, Sir George, Pouliot, Quinn, Rheaume, Short, Smoke, Stirling, Thauvette, Thompson (Simcoe East), Thompson 74726-36
(Lanark), White (London), Wright, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the select standing committee on printing, viz., Messieurs: Anderson (Halton), Bari'beau, Belec, Boulanger, Bourgeois, Brasset, Charters, Desrochers, Dubois, Embury, Esling, Factor, Fortin, Girouard, Gott, Gray, Hay, Heaps, Howden, Lucas, MacLean, Maloney, Marcil, Matthews, McKenzie (Assiniboia), McLure, Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Munn, Murphy, Parent, Peck, Perras, Pickel, Porteous, Price, Quinn, Rheaume, Rinfret, Roberge, Robinson, Rowe, Ryerson, St-Pere, Short, Simpson (Simcoe North), Spankie, Spencer, Spotton, Taylor, Tetreault, Yerville, Wilson, Woodsworth, Wright, will act as members on the part of this house, on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister) moved:
* That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the honourable the Speaker and Messieurs: Ahearn, Barrette, Black (Halifax), Carmichael, Garland' (Garleton), Hanbury, Howard, Howden, Lafleehe, Macphail, Miss, Mitchell, Mullins, Ryerson, Senn, Spankie, Spence, Sproule, Taylor, Thauvette, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption-Mont-calm) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table of the house a number of petitions from citizens, strongly protesting against a tax of 20 cents per pound on the sale of leaf tobacco. Attached to these petitions are resolutions passed by various muni-

Questions

cipal councils such as those of the parishes of St. Gerard Magella, St. Jacques de 1'Achigan, L'Assomption, St. Marie-Salomee, Epiphanie, Repentigny, St. Alexis de Montcalm, the city of L'Assomption and others. These petitions are signed by thousands of citizens from the parishes of St. Jacques de 1'Achigan, St. Henri de Mascouche, Epiphanie, St. Charles de Lachenaie, St. Esprit, St. Alexis, and other parishes of the county of L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is Mr. Edgar Boutet employed in the Post Office Department?
2.	If so:	(a) on what date and to what
position was he appointed; (b) what are his duties; (c) what is his salary; (d) has he passed the Civil Service Commission examinations; (e) if not, on whose recommendation, by whom and how was he appointed; (f) has he access to the files of the Post Office Department; (g) is he a temporary or permanent employee ?


Mr. DUPRE (for Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) and (b) 1st December, 1933, secretary to executive.
(c)	$2,100 per annum.
(d)	No. Unnecessary.
(e)	Recommendation of the minister; by order in council.
(f)	Yes.
(g)	Temporary.


TABLE OF PRECEDENCE
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Who prepares the list of precedence for Canada ?
2.	Is such a list prepared in Canada; if not, why not'3
3.	Is it the intention of the government to establish a list of precedence for Canada and have it prepared by Canadian authorities, taking into account the special conditions of our country?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	It is the prerogative right of His Majesty the King to confer upon his subjects in any of His Majesty's dominions such rank and place as to His Majesty "may seem meet and convenient."
The first table of precedence for the Dominion of Canada was prepared at confederation.
LMr. Seguin.]
A revised table of precedence, bearing date November 3, 1879, was published in the Statutes of Canada for 1880 (43 Victoria, p. xxii).
An amendment to the table of precedence, bearing date December 29, 1893, was published in the Canada Gazette of January 20, 1894, at page 1224.
The table of precedence as finally revised, bearing date December 3, 1923, was published in the Canada Gazette of December 23, 1923, at pages 2075 and 2076.
2.	I presume that in the preparation of the last revision of the table of precedence, bearing date December 3, 1923, the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister of Canada, had the responsibility of advising His Majesty.
This table of precedence applies exclusively to subjects of His Majesty resident in Canada. Subjects or citizens of foreign states, temporarily resident in Canada, have, in two instances, been given places, by courtesy, at government functions in Canada.
When an apostolic delegate of the Holy See was first sent to Canada in 1899, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier arranged for this delegate, by courtesy, a place next to lieutenant-governors of provinces and precedence over the prime minister of Canada.
In 1927 the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister, directed that ministers plenipotentiary, accredited to Canada by foreign states, should, by courtesy, have place next after the prime minister of Canada; and that the apostolic delegate of the Holy See should have place after ministers of foreign states. Since that date no change has been made in the table of precedence.
3.	This government, while holding office, must accept responsibility for advising His Majesty in the exercise of his prerogative rights in conferring upon his subjects in Canada such rank and place as to him "may seem meet and convenient."


PUGWASH, N.S., WHARF
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	How much money was received by the Department of Marine between May 1, 1933, and December 31, 1933, inclusive, for wharfage at the -wharf at Pugwash, Nova Scotia?
2.	What were the names of the vessels that paid this wharfage?
3.	Howr much money was collected and paid for wharfage to the Department of Marine during the season betw'een May 1 and December 1, 1933, inclusive, at Pictou, Nova Scotia?

Questions


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1. Gross collections, $905.07; remitted to the department, $609.95.
2.	Side	Top
	wharfage	wharfage
Svend Pii.. ..	.. $ 28 00	
Fidiclo	.. 46 00	$101 45Erland	50 00	38 44Solar	.. 12 00	66 57Siak	.. 10 50	40 93Biran	.. 9 00	37 48Filadgo	12 00	58 86Gwinlland.. ..	26 00 1	68 31Don	.. 24 00 {	M. Walton. ..	.. 27 00	95 14Julianne.. ..	.. 20 00	133 39$264 50	$640 57Total	
$905 073.	Amount collected by wharfinger, $2,358.02; amount remitted to Department of Marine, $1,788.75.


DISMISSALS OF TRANSLATORS
Mr. DESROCHERS:: 1.	How many permanent or temporary translators have been removed or dismissed from the public service since August, 1930, up to now, stating their names, the department or the house where they were employed, _ and their respective titles or ranks and salaries?
2.	How many of those removed or dismissed translators have been replaced by new translators, stating respectively the names, ranks, titles, and salaries of these new translators?


Mr. CAHAN:: Civil Service Commission-
1.	One-J. R. A. Baril, head examiner and translator, position abolished on December 1, 1932, salary $4,320 per annum.
2.	No replacement.
Finance-
1.	One-J. M. Lorans, principal translator, salary $3,000, died 1933.
2.	No replacement.
Immigration and Colonization-
1.	One-Miss H. Williams, permanent translator, salary $1,860 per annum, retired October 25, 1933.
2.	No replacement.
Interior-
1. Five.
Name-Classification-Salary
Miss J. Taillon, translator, $1,620; Miss M. Tremblay, senior translator, $2,400; Miss M. E. Reynolds, senior translator, $2,400; J. Schuller, principal translator, $2,760; J. F. Renault, principal translator, $3,000.
74726-36J
Miss J. Taillon was later employed as a temporary translator in Dominion Bureau of Statistics. She died November 5, 1931.
2. No replacements.
Marine-
1.	One-removed by death; Louis Paul D'Ornano, head translator, $3,420 per annum.
2.	No replacement.
Trade and Commerce (Dominion Bureau of Statistics-
1 and 2. H. P. Arsenault, temporary translator, salary $1,440 per annum, retired June 23, 1931.
Miss Josephine Taillon, temporary translator, salary $1,440 per annum, replaced Mr. Arsenault. She has since died.
Miss M. Drouin, permanent translator, salary $4,860, retired January 1, 1934; temporarily replaced by loan of Miss Y. Beaudry, of Agriculture department, translator, salary $1,560 per annum.
House of Commons-
1.	One permanent and five temporary as follows: Lemont, A., House of Commons, parliamentary translator, $3,480 per annum. Superannuated May 1, 1932, and replaced by E. J. Duchesnay, House of Commons, parliamentary translator, $2,640 per annum. Mr. Duchesnay was formerly a temporary translator at $7 per diem in House of Commons and had been released on February 1, 1932.
Temporary

Barrette, R., House of Commons, temporary translator $7 per diem. Released February 1, 1932.
Michaud, C., House of Commons, temporary translator $7 per diem. Released February 1, 1932.
Belanger, E., House of Commons, temporary translator $7 per diem. Released February 1, 1932.
de Martignay, P., House of Commons, temporary translator $7 per diem. Released February 1, 1932.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


INADEQUATE RELIEF FOR PENSIONERS
Mr. SULLIVAN:: 1.	Has a resolution of the non-affiliated veterans of Canada, No. 1 Branch, 1877 Wellington street, city of Montreal, relative to the matter of inadequate relief for low rate pensioners in the district of Montreal, been brought to the attention of the government?
2.	Has such a case of inadequacy been proven to the Deputy Minister of Pensions?
3.	Will the government call an investigation of the situation of the non-affiliated veterans of Canada?
Questions


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	An investigation has been made by departmental officials.


* CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-LOAN
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Before guaranteeing the loan of $60,000,000 granted to the Canadian Pacific railway, has the government inquired as to the purpose of this loan by the company, or to what end this loan was made?
2.	Has it inquired, or has it been informed of the amount due by the Canadian Pacific railway to the Bank of Montreal, and on what
date?
3.	Jf so, what was at that time the amount due to the Bank of Montreal by the Canadian Pacific railway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned that matter the other day in connection with a similar question. The observations I then made apply to this as well. Since then an order has been passed for a return of the correspondence. I do not think the question should be answered as it stands.
Question dropped.


TOBACCO EXPORTS
Mr. SEQUIN:: 1.	What quantity of Canadian tobacco was exported to the United Kingdom, each year, during the five years preceding the Imperial conference?
2.	What quantity of Canadian tobacco was exported to the United Kingdom for the year since the Imperial conference?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1 and 2.
Canada's Domestic Exports of Tobacco in Pounds, to the United Kingdom; (a) Five Years Preceding the Imperial Conference, and (b) Year Since the Imperial Conference
Total	Unmanu-	Stems	Cigar-	Plug	AllPeriods	Domestic	factured	and	Cigars	ettes	and	otherExports	Tobacco	Cuttings	Twist	TobaccoPounds	Pounds	Pounds	Pounds	Pounds	Pounds	PoundsCalendar Years	(a) Five years precedin	g the Imperial conference	1927	5.859.472	5,859.120	-	84	76	1921928	6.141.064	6,133,481	6,100	111	1	1.069	3021929	5,812,602	5,809.207	2,900	180	60	2551930	4,021,719	3,976.017	45,300	88	3	4	3071931	6,223,165	6,220,917	2,100	4	12	20	112Calendar Year	(b) Year since the	Imperial	conference	1933	13,732,320	13,722,531	9,600	2	117	20	50



SCOTSBURN NO. 2 RURAL MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. URQUHART:: 1.	What are the names of the parties who tendered for the mail contract for Scotsburn No. 2 rural mail route, Pietou county, Nova Scotia, when the last contract was awarded?
2.	What was the amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded' and at what price?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1 and 2. Fraser Campbell, $800; Daniel M. McKay, $1,080.
3.	Daniel M. McKay at $798 per annum. Post office inspector visited district and found Eraser Campbell not suitable. His sureties refused to act. McKay later reduced his tender to $798.



PELAGIC SEALING TREATY

Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1. Has the Pelagic Sealing Treaty of 1911 between the United States of America, Great
.'Mr. Sullivan.]
Britain, .and Canada, expired by time limit?
2.	If so, what was the date of such expiration ?
3.	Has there been any action taken towards a renewal of such treaty on terms more favourable to Canada?
4. What was the approximate number of seals in the herd of 1912?
5. What was the approximate number of seals in the herd for the last available calendar year ?
6.	Did the United States pay Canada in cash last year or did Canada except raw pelts in payment of her claim for 1933?
7.	In what cities or markets of the world are the pelts sold or disposed of?
8.	Has Canada the privilege of either accepting the raw pelts or a cash remuneration?
9.	What cash payments were received by Canada for the calendar years of 1931-32, 193233, and 1933-34?
10.	What is the total amount received by Canada under the terms of the Pelagic Sealing Treaty from 1911 to the last calendar year of 1933, inclusive?
11.	What was the cost of the judicial inquiry which was appointed under Mr. justice Audette

Penitentiaries-Miss Macphail
to settle the claims of those who were engaged in the sealing industry?
12.	What was the total sum paid to such claimants by the award of Mr. Justice Audette?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: I.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	215,940 in the American herd.
5.	1,219,961 in 1932.
6.	Canada accepted the pelts.
7.	London.
8.	The treaty provides that Canada is to receive fifteen per cent of the pelts; but for a number of years prior to 1933 the arrangement with the United States Government was that it should process and sell all the skins and account to Canada for fifteen per cent of the net proceeds.
9.	1931-32,	$44,471.94;	1932-33, $2,583.53;
1933-34 (to date), $12,717.63 (fiscal years).
10.	Cash payments received from the United States government to December 31, 1933, $1,074,030.58.
II.	$35,546.93.
12.	$60,663.75.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	What is the name, headquarters, rank and
salary of all land officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted' Police, in Prince Edward Island, for the period, April 1, 1933, to December 31, 1933?	,,,
2.	What is the total amount of monthly expenses for salaries, uniforms, stationery, rent, travelling expenses, car repairs, gasoline, new cars, etc.?
3.	What officer or officers' family had medical
attention during the period, April 1, 1933, to December 31,	1933, and if admitted to a
hospital, what hospital, what amount w,as paid to same, what are the names of physicians attending, and what amount was paid in each
4.	W'hat is the amount received from the local government for local police work?
5.	What is the amount received by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers for mileage, serving summons and attending court in connection with trials?
6.	What is the amount received from prohibition commission in connection with prohibition prosecutions?



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special committee should be set up to investigate the
causes of crime and to determine whether the penitentiaries of Canada are doing all that could be done towards protecting society by the reforming of the criminal.
She said: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the Minister of Justice ((Mr. Guthrie) and the house for their kindness for allowing the resolution which stands in my name to keep its place on the order paper, contrary, I believe, to the rules of the house. I am not usually one who is interested in receiving special privilege, but in this case I am only too glad that the resolution is first on the order paper, in order that we may this year discuss this question, which is becoming each year more important. And I think if special privilege is to be extended by the house, there is no group to which it could better be extended than those who are hidden away in a little world of their own, a world that I think is sometimes too hard and too difficult.
Perhaps there has not always been the interest in the subject of our prison population that there should have been. As well as accusing others in the house of neglect in this matter I plead guilty myself to failure to take a sufficient interest in the fate of our fellow-citizens who are for the time being in penitentiaries. But this year there has been a considerable awakening of interest in the subject. Among the reasons for this is the fact that serious riots occurred in some penitentiaries in Canada, and, particularly following the riot in the Kingston penitentiary, rather spectacular trials were conducted, in which accused rioters were represented by W. F. Nickle, K.C., of Kingston, and Mr. Frank Regan of Toronto. Following that came the publication of a series of articles entitled The House of Hate in Maclean's magazine and a book, The Shackling of the Transgressor, first published day by day in the Toronto Globe and later in book form. I want to say that I feel a debt of gratitude to Maclean's magazine and to the Globe and to these two men, one a broker and the other a doctor, who had served terms in the Kingston penitentiary. I feel that, being men of education, having been one with us in the world outside; then serving a penitentiary term and telling their story to the world on coming out, they have done much for the inmates of the penitentiaries. I think there is another reason too why there is increased .interest,-although it is not very manifest at the moment, Mr. Speaker-and that is because the number of prisoners in Canadian penitentiaries is increasing. In 1923 the number was 2,582 and the cost of maintenance $1,995,760, while for the year ended December 31, 1933, the number of prisoners was 4,225 and the cost of maintenance $2,944,-
5G6
[Stage Direction]
Penilentiaries-Miss Macphail
400. So there has been a considerable increase both in number and in cost. Then people who are interested in youth are now distressed to find that a very large proportion of this number are very young, a large percentage,-I have not the exact figure but I know it is high,-are under twenty-five years of age. And when one thinks that on the outside there are great numbers of young people, perhaps one should say particularly young men, roving about without work, restless and discontented, one can see how concerned every one must be in the matter of the return to society of the youths who have been convicts in a better frame of mind than that in which they entered these institutions of punishment.
I worded the resolution as I did, asking that a special committee of the house should be set up to investigate the causes of crime and determine whether the penitentiaries of Canada are doing all that could be done towards protecting society by the reforming of the criminal, because I felt that if a special committee of the House of Commons were set up it would mean that quite a number of the members of this house would make a careful study of the causes of crime and of the administration of the penitentiaries. Having done so they would not lose interest in the subject, and since they would still be members of this chamber I felt that the interest that began in the committee room would be carried into the House of Commons and, I would hope, into legislation.
It is not that the condition of the penitentiaries has not been investigated. In 1914 a royal commission investigated Canadian penitentiaries because of great dissatisfaction existing at that time. They brought in a very excellent report, which I read through yesterday, and I am very sorry to say that many of the recommendations made by that commission as long ago as 1914 have not yet been implemented. Then, possibly because that was so, and because there was a great deal of dissatisfaction, a small committee that in its nature seems a good deal like a royal commission, was named in 1920 by Hon. Mr. Doherty, then Minister of Justice. That small committee, which was a roving committee and travelled extensively, had as members O. M. Biggar, K.C., W. F. Nickle, K.C., and P. M. Draper. They made a report, which is the best thing on penitentiaries that has ever been published in Canada. They gave a plan for the carrying out of the reformation of the criminal rather than only punishing him. I am sorry to say, however, that very few of the recommendations made

by them-some it is true-have been put into effect.
I do not intend to go into the subject extensively, that would be too much to try to do in forty minutes, and I do not feel quite equal to covering the whole field, but I want to open it in order to give members who are interested a chance to debate the question. One can say without fear of contradiction that the Penitentiary Act is founded on vengeance, and that while that is so the reforming of criminals cannot be accomplished by its administration. Admittedly the administration is better than the act; it was admitted both by the royal commission and by the Doherty committee that the administration of the act was better than the act itself, and that the act was often honoured more in the breach than in the observance. To substantiate that statement I should like to quote briefly from pages 10 and 11 of the Doherty committee report, and I am very sorry to say that so far as I have been able to find out this is the last copy of the report that is available.
The earliest attempts in the direction of a criminal procedure looked merely to the regulation of personal revenge. Later the state assumed the duty of avenging crime and forbade any direct intervention by those who suffered from it; but the revengeful character of punishment has persisted and the penitentiary system still bears the earmarks of its origin-
Again, on page 11 they say:
Almost all the inmates of the penitentiaries must before they die be returned to freedom, and each prisoner on his release will be called upon to live the ordinary life of a free man. Society therefore 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 associations. It is also true, of course, that the convict himself suffers, but that consideration does not for the present purpose appear to be of primary importance. He has been guilty of a crime which, if he had lived a century ago, he would probably have expiated on the scaffold. That there should be suffering is inevitable, but it is ridiculous that society should store up trouble for its honest members, weaken itself, and involve itself in large and unnecessary expenditures.
That is my attitude. I do not think we should expect that there would not be suffering on the part of the convict; there must be, but there is suffering that will be beneficial and suffering that will be a continual humiliation and irritation, which would not help the convict to come out of the penitentiary wanting to be a better citizen, but which would rather help him to come out with the feeling that he wanted to avenge himself on society.

Penitentiaries-Miss Macphail
A very interesting study of youthful offenders or research has 'been made in Canada, the olosest 'thing we have had to a scientific studjr of the question. The report is published by the Canadian Council on Child Welfare, but it was written by Frank Sharpe, Estj. I do -not want to take time to give the names of the very eminent people who served on this research committee, but they worked in conjunction with Brigadier General Hughes. They chose fifty-six boys who bad been sentenced to penitentiaries prior to the end of the twenty-second year of their life. This is a very interesting pamphlet, and in their conclusion they say:
Our old methods were founded on vengeance, and it is only so far as we frankly acknowledge that this is still their foundation that they have the slightest claim to our respect. If it be vengeance we are after then let us go ahead as we are. It can then matter little whether we injure society or not, for vengeance must always be blind to other interests. But then if we are to continue with these methods let us give over our hypocrisy; let us stop talking about the reform of the prisoner and the protection of society.
The names of those who served on the committee are outstanding; they cover a wide range, including psychiatrists, trained social workers, a professor of psychology and so on.
In my opinion crime is a disease of society, and it is not fair to wreak the whole results on the head of the criminal himself. Many, and in fact most, I think, of our criminals are either badly born or badly reared or both, and they have had very little chance to make good. I think heredity and environment determine what we are, and we have been luckier than they. I remember that when I visited Kingston penitentiary I was invited to address the women prisoners. I may have told you before that this was the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life, but as I faced those women I did not feel myself different from them; I simply felt that I had been in much more fortunate circumstances. I feel, too, that economic conditions play a great part in determining whether we will have a large or a small crime problem. This royal commission of 1914 used a remarkable sentence in its report; it said:
The fact is that the more closely the treatment of the prisoner approximates the treatment of the free man, the less likelihood is there of individual or organized outbreaks of violence.
I think that is true; I think if from 1914 on the Penitentiaries Act, the regulations and the administration had been woven around that central idea we would not have had the penitentiary riots which we did have last year.
Now I am going to take a short time to point out some of the things that obviously must be done, things that we all know and as to which there can be very little argument. One is that when a prisoner is entering the institution there should be a very careful examination made not only in regard to his physical and mental health but also to determine his interests and training, if any. Then an effort should be made, using sound educational principles and starting from where the prisoner is, to lead him out into a better place. I do not think that can be done by unskilled people. It does not make any difference what splendid intentions the warden might have; unless he or someone acting with him is a trained psychiatrist, a skilled doctor, knowing something about criminology and sociology, there is very little the warden can do to save the prisoner from himself.
Another point is one which I have argued in the house already; it was accepted by the house, but was never acted upon. It is this: Once the prisoner is received and classified 'by someone who understands the why of human behaviour, then he should have work, not only monotonous and uninteresting work but work that he likes to do, and if he does not like to do any work every effort must be made to induce him to like some sort of work. ' Some years ago I argued in this house that prisoners should be paid for their work, that the cost of their maintenance should be taken out of their pay and the balance either allowed to accumulate for the prisoner on his release or go to maintain his family during his term in the penitentiary. That position has been taken by the Canadian Bar Association; I have in my hand the report of the committee on the administration of criminal justice, which report was adopted by the association. The same position was upheld by Brigadier General Hughes in report after report, which I placed on Hansard previously. Year after year, starting in 1919 and continuing until he retired, General Hughes took that position. The same attitude was taken by Alfred E. Smith when he was governor of the state of New York and by the superintendent of the United States federal institutions that correspond to our penitentiaries.
There is no doubt at all that the man who is in a prison and is no longer in any way responsible for his family is apt, if he is a good type, to feel disgraced and, if he is not a good type, to feel relieved. In either case it is very much better for him if the responsibility for his family remains his own, and if he knows that by his own work he can discharge it. I recall how often in this House of Commons it was said that organized labour
[Stage Direction]
Penitentiaries-Miss Macphail
was against such procedure. That is not eo, as is shown by a long statement written by Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and addressed to Brigadier General Hughes. I am not quoting from it, because I have done so on a previous occasion, and any hon. members Who wish may obtain it and read it for themselves. On the occasion I debated this subject in the house I had letters from mayors and heads of municipalities who said they hoped very much that not only would the house adopt the resolution, but that it would implement it, because they were always asking to have prisoners released not because those prisoners had not committed a crime but because the municipalities did not want to foe saddled with the responsibility of caring foir a prisoner's family. I have a letter in my possession, one which I prize very much, which was smuggled out to me from the penitentiary at Kingston immediately following the last debate on this subject in the House of Commons. One paragraph of the letter is as follows:
It is peculiar to note that in such institutions as the Ontario reformatories at Guelph Mid Burwash a wage is paid to the men although the revenue produced by these institutions is negligible while the penitentiaries, which do produce considerable revenue and eould be made to produce a great deal more, pay no wages at all but turn a man loose with only $10 dollars with which to face the world in his uphill fight for rehabilitation. What is this to a man who has no place to go, and not so much as an extra collar or handkerchief to his name? He must obtain employment, not through outside assistance but by his own unaided efforts, and the very clothing he wears which stamps him indelibly as an ex-convict is an impediment to his success. How much greater his chances would be if he had a small sum of money as a result of his own labour with which to provide himself with suitable clothing and thus restore his self confidence without which failure is .almost inevitable.
In the reports of both the commissions to which I am constantly referring, namely the royal commission of 1914 and the Doherty committee of 1920, work with pay was recommended, and the Doherty committee went so far as to say that if action were not taken there were certain circumstances, taking into account the time of year, under which a prisoner should be given $25 instead of $10 on release. Any hon. members who have read Shackling the Transgressor by Doctor Withrow, will notice that he as well has dealt with this matter. That is all I am going to say about work with pay. I feel the subject does noit need to be argued before an intelligent body such as the House of Commons of Canada.

Then, may I say a few words concerning the health of convicts. I have talked to a great many men who have served sentences in the various penitentiaries. Particularly those who come from Kingston say, and are saying up until the present time, that men who are clean and those who are unclean have their clothing washed at the same time and place, and that the men who are in good health are always terrified lest they should catch some loathsome disease from those who are not. They say that .in the barber shops there is no real effort made to sterilize the instruments used and so to save the healthy from the unhealthy. It is true, also, that tubercular patients are allowed to mingle with their fellow convicts. I am expecting this statement to be denied, but may I say that it need not be because I happen to know very well a man who is sentenced to a five-year term in Kingston penitentiary, a man who is a one hundred per cent pensioner, is very ill from tuberculosis, had hemorrhages as long as three or four years ago and for several months after that time was in a military hospital. He is a man with a fine social outlook and very much better than a great many people I know who are not in the penitentiary. I know him well.
Mr. JACOBS:: Will the hon. member give
us the names of those she knows who are not in?


Miss MACPHAIL:: It would take too long;
I want to finish in forty minutes. Anyone who is familiar with the construction of penitentiaries, or has visited one of these buildings, knows how bad a place it is for those suffering from tubercular trouble, because it is very difficult for them to get direct sunlight and almost impossible to get fresh air-probably I should say more or less fresh air. As the cells are constructed the windows are at such a distance from the floor that fresh air and light are of very little use to the sufferers and this was the condition in the case I have mentioned.
Probably the matter I am about to discuss should not come under the heading of health, but I shall discuss it from that viewpoint. I remember very well when the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) was Minister of Justice I asked him a question regarding shackling to the bars. On that occasion he told me that at that time when a prisoner was shackled to the bars his hands were never placed higher than his waist. I feel sure Mr. Lapointe believed in the accuracy of his statement, just as I would believe that the present Minister of Justice was sincere if his answer were the same. It just happens however that that is not true. Shackling to the bars means

Penitentiaries-Miss Macphail
shackling the prisoner to bars with his hands anywhere from a point waist high to stretching them as far above his head as they can be stretched. More often they are high above his head than on the level of his waist.
To prove that point may I quote from the report of the Doherty committee. I realize I do not need to do it, but probably some hon. members may think I should. At page 47 I find:
Again, the committee was assured by one warden that the punishment of shackling to the cell gate was never executed with the hands higher than the waist, and was indeed informed that it was so limited by regulation, but instances were found of convicts who had undergone the punishment with their hands fastened as far above their heads as possible.
That was told me by oonvict after convict who came out. I would have believed it anyway but I must believe it when I read it here, read it again in the report of the royal commission and in Doctor Withrow's book. So there is no use saying that it has not been so up until now; whether or not that condition exists now we may possibly learn later.
I am noit going to take time to deal with paddling other than to say that I think the right that the warden has enjoyed, and this seems a curious word to use when we think of paddling, has been abused, and thait the wardens have in far too many cases, and in many of our Canadian penitentiaries, paddled prisoners for very slight offences. In fact, paddling has been given for acts which were hardly offences at all. Then, anybody who has read this book will remember about the poor fellow who had the withered arm. The prison authorities wanted to take his arm off, but he did nolt want them to. He said it was his arm and that he did not want it off. Because of that he was paddled. After all, paddling has been given for offences much less than that.
At this time there is supposed to be no dungeon in Kingston-it disappeared very suddenly. There was one for a long time, and then suddenly we find there was not one. The superintendent of penitentiaries made the statement that there was no longer a dungeon. That statement was discredited by Mr. Nickle, Junior, of Kingston, who went with the superintendent into the dungeon. He found that when the door was closed it was a dungeon, but not when the door was open. Since the doors open so that they are right along the wall and might not be noticed by a person who was not familiar with the construction it might be that some of the ministers who went there and said there was no dungeon could
have been mistaken. They should have gone in, closed the door and tried staying there for twenty-four or fonty-eight hours' time. Probably at the end of that time they would have changed their minds.
Then, may I make some comment concerning bread and water, or starvation as a means of punishment. The Doherty committee made a report in this connection, and from page 47 I read the following:
For example, the regulations limit the diet of broad and water to "not exceeding twenty-one consecutive meals," but the committee found one instance in which a convict had been kept upon that diet for several weeks, only one full meal a week being given him, the rule thus being observed in the letter but flagrantly broken in the spirit.
I talked to one of the lawyers who defended the convicts after the recent riots, and he told me that a man who in the papers was reported to have been in solitary confinement for twenty-three years was an object of such terrific pity that the lawyer, after seeing him and trying to hear him-because his voice had almost gone and he could hardly be heard- almost despised mankind, and thought it could not be possible for a human being to be reduced to such a state. And that is not a long time ago; it was just last summer. To use the lawyer's own words, this man was "a poor broken thing."
Another thing that helps to break the spirit of the strongest and the best in the penitentiaries, and I do not think it is even used as punishment, is the long, long hours of confinement in their own cells, from five o'clock on Saturday through Sunday night with almost no break at all except possibly half an hour for religious service. Conditions may be slightly better in that respect now, and I shall be glad to learn that they are. Both these reports from which I have quoted say that all the penitentiary authorities agree that the men on Monday morning showed the suffering through which they had passed. I will quote one or two sentences:	,
The committee has been impressed by the unanimity of penitentiary officers on the^ subject of the depressing effect of long continued confinement of convicts in their separate cells. Many of them have referred to the hardship imposed by the continuous solitude between four or five o'clock in the afternoon and six or seven o'clock the following morning, and the superintendent stated that, when this confinement was continued from Saturday over an intervening Sunday and a following public holiday, it was easy on the Tuesday morning to observe the markis of suffering. At some penitentiaries half a day's labour is done on a statutory holiday following a Sunday, but this is not universal, and the following general regulation is consequently recommended.


Mr. NEILL:: The hon. member quoted a letter to the effect that prisoners were given a suit of clothes which stamped them as exconvicts. Does the hon. member know that of her own knowledge?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Several people who have seen them have told me that that is the case. I am speaking of knowledge which is three years old and I do not know what has happened in the meantime.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, there was a discussion last year of this matter and as there is a penitentiary located in my constituency and another which is close to the border, to me the subject is an interesting one and has been a matter of personal study for the last twenty-five years. After reading all the literature I could get upon the question, I am satisfied that no person can offer a hundred per cent solution for the problem. I am not a sentimentalist or a sob sister, nor am I opposed to punishment. According to my own view, the punishment may be changed a little, but that does not make it any better.
For many years I have taken an interest in this question and I cannot understand why criticism should be levelled against those who have expressed opinions and made statements in regard to it. Prison reform is a matter of long standing in Canada as well as in other countries, and will continue to be of vital importance just as long as we have crime and institutions for the punishment thereof. I should like to read a letter dated at Kingston, June 24, 1848, which will give the house some idea as to the length of time such matters have been of vital importance in Canada. The letter reads:
Provincial Penitentiary, Commission room,
Kingston, 24th June, 1848. Sir:	.
I have the honour, by desire of the commissioners appointed by His Excellency the Governor General to inquire into the management of the penitentiary, to intimate to you that the commissioners commence their investigations in the courthouse heTe on Monday next.
The commissioners are desirous to avail themselves of your information on the subject of their inquiries, and will be happy to receive you at two o'clock on Monday, should that hour be convenient for you.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient servant
Geo. Brown,
Secretary.
This letter was addressed to Dr. James Sampson, one of the first physicians to attend the penitentiary. As long back as 1848 the question of investigation was before the public.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in a statement he made to the press some time ago, gave a good definition of the function of a penitentiary. He declared that penitentiaries were, first, for the punishment of those who had disobeyed the law; second, for the deterrence of others who might break the law in the same way, and, third, for reformation. I think the Prime Minister has summed up in his own unique way the function of penitentiaries. We must consider whether the penitentiaries are to-day performing the functions which the Prime Minister stated they should perform. I intend to outline several points in this connection. I intend first to give the reasons why they have failed; second, to deal with the reports which have been made and, third to deal with the disposition made of the young.
In my opinion this country must adopt for the young a different punishment from that which has been used in the past. A penitentiary is not a place in which to put young people. The punishment meted out in the past to the young has provided a gradual, graded ascent to the highest type of criminality. A boy is sent to a reformatory, he becomes lonesome and runs away. What punishment is given? In the province of Ontario it is two years in the Kingston penitentiary. Boys from fifteen to eighteen years of age have done six years in Kingston penitentiary for a six months' commitment to a reformatory. I ask the house and the public generally: Is that a proper way to treat these young people? I am not speaking in a partisan way, nor am I criticizing our ministers of justice. I know both the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and I am confident that if the minister had the proper information before him he would not for one moment approve of such treatment. When these boys have completed their two-year

Penitentiaries-Mr. Ross
term in the penitentiary they are sent back to the reformatory to complete their six-months' sentence, and very often this return is by way of a gaol. This is not a matter well known to the public. The former superintendent of Kingston penitentiary told me that he had handled as many as ninety boys who had been sent to him from the reformatories. The penitentiary administration may well say that this is not their fault, that they have to punish them according to the law; but if that is so, the sooner we appoint some body to review the whole system, the better for the young people of this country.
I should like to make certain recommendations in regard to this matter. Let us consider in what way the penitentiary administration has failed. I think the first cause of failure is its desire for secrecy. Guards have been placed across the street from my home to watch and see what officials or guards of the penitentiary came to see me. Reports were made and I have heard indirectly that those who came to see me were dismissed. There is also an order in the penitentiary that a guard having a complaint must not approach a member of parliament, upon pain of dismissal.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: May I
ask who issued that order?


Arthur Edward Ross: tions were showing favouritism to classes. Perhaps that deals sufficiently with these "incorrect" reports as far as they go.
I want to say in the second place that many things have been done this year. I want to give credit where credit is due, but these things would not have been done had certain events not happened. Perhaps I am going a little too far, perhaps the minister would have done things; I think he would if he knew. Reforms have been carried out, but many of these reforms during my twenty-five years' experience have been the result of outside interference and outside pressure. Let me refer to some of them.
A great deal has been said about the hole. I admit right now that I have not read Maclean's magazine and I have not read the Globe. I spent five or ten minutes at the hearing of these trials; I think they were a great mistake. As far as I was concerned there was only one case I was interested in, that of the boy, Bailey, I referred to. I want to give you the history of that hole. Before the war there was a commission appointed and it made an investigation. They found what was known as the dungeon or the hole. Some people think it is a deep dark place down under a stone castle. Porget that. But any place where light is restricted and ventilation precluded to me is a hole, one member of that committee was a doctor. He visited what was then known as the hole, which was under what was known as the insane ward of the prison, and it was absolutely dark. Men were running in that place on their hands and knees-this doctor is yet living and can confirm or refute me if he
likes, but these are his own words to me__________
men were running on their hands and knees m that dungeon, and clubs and sticks had to be used to keep them from biting, as the investigators went through. As a result of that investigation that dungeon was done away with. Then a second dungeon was put in operation; it has been visited by some in its present condition. This dungeon as it existed just a very short time ago, later than the trials, is a cell somewhat over five feet underground, with restricted light, admittance to which was by a wooden door. That door contained three or four one inch holes which admitted the only light. That place was dark, damp, ill ventilated-the only ventilation yet I think is the pipe up to the keeper s Quarters. But thanks to outside influence, investigation, interference, the wooden doors have been removed. Now why lead the people to think that was the condition that prevailed there all the time? Only recently was the change made, only a short time before

my hon. friend made his visit. I cannot see any reason for refusing to consider these tilings. Let us say we will improve them. These things are wrong, they are not in accord with the civilization of the present time, they might have been sanctioned in times past but civilization now sets a higher standard and does not tolerate such things. That hole was there with that wooden door, and guards had to examine it frequently because the hinges got rusty from the damp and it often needed lepair. It is better now; our administration of the present day has done that much. But in this report they refer to many things that were done about twenty years ago, and seem to be taking credit for them. So much then for the dungeon, and the good done by outside interference, outside investigation. Now let us pass to another feature.
In 1919 an investigation was held and there was much criticism in regard to hospital conditions. Nobody has taken any notice of the report. It has been left dormant. I want to show you what has taken place in connection with hospital conditions in the penitentiary, again through outside interference. This is a letter written by a very celebrated surgeon of Kingston:
JLHUUiv OL.,
Kingston, Out.,
riv,. T! v *[DOT] itt , December 1, 1919. lo: the Acting Warden,
Kingston Penitentiary,
Portsmouth, Ont.
Having been called to the Kingston penitentiary on Thursday last, Nov. 27th, in connection with an operation to be performed on a convict at that institution, 1 made most torcible objections to the so-called operating loom at that institution and with your permission I beg leave to place in writing the substance of these objections.
in thus voluntarily thrusting myself into the mternal economy of your institution I am satisfied that you personally have not the slightest responsibility in the matter. I am also firmly convinced that if this state of affairs be brought to the attention of Gen. Hughes it will receive consideration and action thereupon, because I am of the opinion that he will be only too pleased to have his attention called to anything in his department needing improvement.
Possibly someone not conversant with the facts might think there was some political or other object influencing any arrangement of the medical or surgical administration of the institution. Permit me to say that I am perfectly indifferent to either shade of politics, excepting as a citizen of Canada; that I have been professor of surgery in Queen's university for many years and consultant and surgeon Queen's military hospital; that I am not in general practice confining myself to surgical consultations and operations. I mention the above facts in the hope that these positions at the very least will lend weight to my unsolicited report.
I might further say that I have been doing surgical work for over thirty years, and that

Penitentiaries-Mr. Ross
in all my experience I never saw such a so-called operating room as I did in the Kingston penitentiary on my visit on Thursday last. I could not realize that it was an operating room, as the only furniture it possessed was an antique metal table of four legs and a flat top, apparently supposed to be an operating table, but if so of the type that had been discarded from our dissecting rooms over a quarter of a century ago. This was the only furniture in evidence, surgical or otherwise, in the room. Sterilization, a great necessity in every operation, major or minor, seemed to be unknown or unappreciated, as the only sterilizing apparatus I could discover was a small tin dish and the only method' of sterilization with this was apparently a kitchen range. Asepsis was apparently unknow-n, there being a total absence of sterile dressings, in fact an absence of the knowledge of the need of such dressings. Of surgical instruments I could discover none, excepting a small hand case with a few minor instruments in it. Fortunately for the above operation the medical officer in charge had brought a complete sterilized outfit, instruments, gowns, towels, etc., from a nearby hospital. The whole outfit would have been a fit subject for the pen of Dickens, who wrote of the deplorable state of the nursing and medical services in his day.
Without being unduly harsh, in my opinion the operating room of the Kingston penitentiary and its contents are a disgrace to the administration of justice in Canada, as well as to the twentieth century of aseptic surgery. It would also seem as though if a convict received a serious injury and was admitted to the operating room lie could lay aside all hope of surgical asepsis.
I understand that in the case of any convicts having required operations in the last few years the same had been transferred to the General hospital or the Hotel Dieu, but as this is contrary to law and it is altogether likely that out of six or seven hundred convicts more or less surgical operations are required, I submit the above facts in the hope that at least, in this modern day of surgery, some attempt at the best surgical fittings should be afforded these unfortunates, and I am satisfied that the cost of the provision of such necessary surgical fittings is only a matter of minor importance, especially as it is quite possible that much of the outfit required may be secured from the militia department, which, no doubt, has a surplus either left over or returned from overseas.
That report was made in 1919, but no action followed. On March 22, 1920, a second surgeon was called, and I want to say that the letter I am about to read was sent first to the warden; no action. Then it was sent to the superintendent; no action. Finally it was sent to the minister, but still no action. I should like to read it, to show the view taken by the second surgeon:
Although I am but temporarily employed as surgeon to the Kingston penitentiary, and although I have acted in that capacity for but a short space of time (yet long enough to know whereof I speak). I feel it incumbent upon me, feel it my bounden duty, first as a doctor and
secondly as a citizen to bring to the attention of those responsible the grave defects in the system (if system it may be called), of caring for the sick in this institution.
I am quite aware that a man, when he becomes a prisoner, forfeits his rights of citizenship, but I maintain that he does not forfeit the right to humane treatment when, in custody, he becomes ill. I am going to prove that under the now existing conditions it is impossible for the sick to receive the minimum of care whch present day medical standards demand.
It is not my intention to deal in this report with detail, but merely to point out a few of the outstanding features which must be remedied at once, not only for the sake of those who are obliged to be treated under such circumstances, but also for our own sakes, if We are to lay any claim to justice and humanity, in the treatment of our fellowmen.
One of the oustanding defects is lack of proper system, and to this may be laid many of the faults which I will speak of later.
Then he goes on to speak of the hospital staff, whom he describes as inexperienced, inefficient and untrained.
There is no adequate equipment for the treatment of oases, no clinical charts for bedside notes, no means of keeping records or daily notes on eases, no record of treatments or medicines given. In many cases I find treatment is neglected. There is great delay in filling prescriptions and getting patients started on prescribed treatment.	Example-a post
operative case for whom I ordered constant applications of heat and other treatment, received no such care from 9 a.m. on the day of the operation, until 4 p.m. the following d?y, other than a little nourishment at breakfast and dinner time, on the day following the operation.
In the cases of two tuberculosis patients, with severe coughs, I ordered certain medicines for them, this is the third day since the prescription was ordered and so far it has not been filled, despite my daily inquiries. . . .
I find great difficulty in placing responsibility in carrying out my orders in the intervals between my visits. These orders are taken in an unmethodical, haphazard way, and I find in many instances they are disregarded altogether, and in other eases carried out in a manner which best suits those in charge. . . .
The operating room is such in name only. One operating table, and sink (with hot and cold water) are its only equipment. There is no sterilizer, no sterilized goods for operations or dressings, no gowns, gloves-in fact, it is impossible to do even a minor operation under proper conditions with the equipment at hand. A short time ago I had occasion to operate on one of the prisoners and found it necessary to bring everything required from a local hospital.
The hospital attendants have absolutely no idea of technique, and it is impossible with the present facilities to do a dressing aseptic-ally. . . .
There are a number of men in this institution suffering from syphilis in different stages, and there are also eases of gonorrhea. No attempt has been made at segregation, and therefore there is no protection for the unaffected inmates. . . .
Tuberculosis patients of which there are at least four serious cases at present, in hospital,
Penitentiaries-Mr. Ross

do not receive anything like the treatment necessary^ for such condition. I found these men confined in bed in their cells, which are dark and poorly ventilated.
I think that is enough. In spite of complaints from the inside staff, no action was taken. To-day, as a result of outside interference, we have there a splendid sterilization plant, but it required forcible outside influence to get that equipment into the penitentiary. To-day, however, I think we have reached the stage when something further should be done. To-day the cases are treated in cells, just as they were treated then. The hospital is a large block with cells running back to back down the centre, and no matter how severe the illness, unless a change has been made in the last few months, the patient is treated in one of these cells. At the time this report was made it was an order that no attendant, medical or otherwise, could gain admission to that cell no matter from what illness the man was suffering, pneumonia, typhoid, or anything else. The only thing that could be done by the man in charge was to put some medicated tablets on a saucer and slide them across the floor to the convict.
These cells are there to-day and that is the treatment given. I wish I could impress upon my good friend the minister that this is not what our present civilization wishes. I know that we do not all appreciate the difficulties in the administration of a penitentiary; it is one of the most difficult jobs a man could be given, but no matter how inexperienced a man may be. when he is made superintendent or warden, within a week or two he seems to know everything about the institution and can upset what has been done in the past, whether it be good or bad. It takes a man some years to get acquainted with the problems which exist in the administration of a penitentiary, and I do not know whether he would thoroughly understand the question if he remained there a lifetime. But no matter how inexperienced an official may be, his word goes with the officials who administer the department, and I do not think that is sound.
I think the recommendation that these cells should be retained is very wrong. I cannot see where there would be any great difficulty if the cells were taken out and that section of the institution made into a ward. With the cells as they are to-day, on one occasion five men took the clothes off a doctor and the attendants, dressed themselves in the garments of the doctor and officials and almost walked out the gate. They could not

do that if there was an open ward. They locked the poor doctor and his attendants in the cell.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: When was that?


Arthur Edward Ross: That was before the war. I believe I have shown the difficulty of dealing with this matter when we do not receive correct reports. There is great difficulty even when dealing with the inmates and the guards. So far as the inmate is concerned there is always the possibility of parole and in ninety per cent of the cases he is not going to tell you the exact situation for fear the information he gives will interfere with his parole. With the guard there is always the possibility of his being thrown out, he cannot even speak to a member of parliament.
The point I am making is this, that very often an upheaval, such as the one which took place recently, is required to get some kind of action. I have before me the list of the people who were examined as mental cases following the last riot. The one great fault I have to find is that there is no attempt to separate these people according to their mentality. I am not referring to the simple mentality, but to something different. The report shows that during the trial one inmate claimed that he had been twenty-three years in close confinement. Of course, right off the bat I believe that is ridiculous. The history of this case is shown and I do not think anything could better illustrate the failure of the system than the publication of the circumstances concerning this man. The superintendent's report states the following:
He first entered Kingston penitentiary on November 30, 1904, having been convicted of murder, arid sentenced to be banged, which sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. His sanity was questioned in May, 1905. He was kept under observation, and pronounced insane on September 15, 1905, and kept in the insane ward in Kingston penitentiary until he escaped in May, 1907. At that time, he was at large for two weeks. On his recapture he was again confined in the insane ward, and constantly under medical observation. On June 25, 1915, he was transferred from Kingston penitentiary to the prison for the criminal insane at Guelph, on the closing of the ward for the insane in Kingston penitentiary. In August, 1917, he was transferred to the asylum for insane at Hamilton, Ontario, escaping from that institution on August 31, 1917, and was at large until rearrested on February 6, 1918, charged with passing counterfeit money.
May I add that this man can saw a steel bar with a paper saw. The report continues:
He was returned to the asylum on February 9, 1918, and from there escaped on June 15, 1919. He was at large until May 12, 1920, when he was rearrested in Boston, Massachusetts, for breaking and entering. He was

Penitentiaries-Mr. Guthrie
convicted and served seven months in Boston jail. He was at large from the expiration of that sentence until June 22, 1921, when he was convicted at Suffolk Superior Court, Massachusetts, for robbery while armed, and sentenced to six to nineteen years in Massachusetts state prison. On August 12, 1921, he was transferred to the Bridgewater insane hospital, Bridgewater, Massachusetts, from which he escaped on September 10, 1924, and was at large until rearrested and convicted on January 20, 1923, at Montreal, on a false pretences charge. He was returned to Kingston penitentiary on February 3, 1923, and from there transferred to the Ontario asylum at Guelph, on February 5, 1923, and from that institution escaped on December 28, 1926, being returned three days later. He was eventually pronounced sane on April 29, 1929, and returned to Kingston penitentiary, in which institution he is still serving.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he has spoken forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Arthur Edward Ross: I wish to say only this: I would have no Object in saying that amy one set of officials could conduct this institution better than another. I do say however that our system as wrong. The fault may not he at the door of the penitentiary, but the system should be revamped, and evidence concerning it should be reviewed by someone. I have one particular object in taking part in this discussion and doing what I have done in the past, and that as to bring about some system whereby we may prevent the young people from going to our penitentiaries. Today the penitentiary has been defined, so far as its functions are concerned. What is it? It is a large pot into which everything is dumped-thugs, murderers and convicts of all kinds. There may be some decent fellows, and there are boys of fifteen, eighteen and twenty years of age. No distinction is made between them. There is no line drawn between the good and the bad. My recommendation in regard to these boys will be made at some other time.
The condition in which they are in there, Mr. Speaker, is pitiful. I dio not care how many people will deny my statement when I say that from the time those fifteen year old boys enter our penitentiaries they come under the influence and force of 'the worst moral perverts to be found or which could be found anywhere in Canada. For years back guards have told me that every boy of fifteen 3'ears who enters the institution is at onoe the object of moral perversion. Only the other day a boy of fifteen years came from Windsor. He was without socks, was wearing shoes that a ipig would not wear, a eoait which looked as though the dogs had 'tom it, and was wearing 74726-37
a collar but no shirt. What attitude and disposition must that boy have to society? Is there no hope? Can we not hope that some strong influence will bring a change?


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, the discussion on the
motion now before the house has taken such a wide range that in the time allotted to me I shall not be able to touch more than the fringe of some of the questions that have been raised. At some later time in the session, therefore, when a better opportunity will be afforded to do so, I shall take occasion to discuss many of the matters that have been raised here to-day and which I cannot deal with in the forty minutes allotted to me.
There are one or two observations of a preliminary nature which I should like to make in regard to the whole penitentiary question. There is a genesis to the agitation which has been carried on for the last year and a half in regard to penitentiary administration, and that genesis will be found in the conviction of eight communists in Toronto about two years ago, at which time we were indirectly warned that we were inviting trouble for ourselves in the penitentiary if these men were treated as ordinary prisoners.
From that time on, a very active propaganda has been carried on throughout Canada by such organizations as the Canadian Labour Defence League, the Workers Unity League and other organizations of the same kind, which are all more or less tainted with communism. When I tell the house that the communications which have been sent directly to me during the past year have numbered over fifty thousand from all parts of Canada, one can see at a glance that there is some directing force to the whole propaganda that is being carried on, and that is centred in the city of Toronto. The most recent communication that I 'have had was in the nature of a Christmas seal which was placed on express parcels during the recent Christmas season, and which I exhibit now only as a curiosity. It reads:
Mr. Guthrie who ordered' the attempt on Tim Buck's life.
That is the Christmas seal that was put on express parcels in Toronto during the month of December last, in addition to the fifty thousand odd communications that have been addressed to me by way of postal card, circular, letter and petition, to which, I need not tell the house, I did not take the time to reply.
The most recent letter that has come to me came to-day, and I might take time to read it. It is an intercepted letter addressed to



Penitentiaries-Mr. Guthrie
one of the eight communist prisoners in the penitentiary whose name I shall not give, from the Workers Unity League, and is dated February 7th instant. It reads:
Dear fellow-worker:
AVe offer you our heartiest revolutionary working class greetings on your 43rd birthday -the second birthday that you are forced to spend locked up behind the cold steel bars and stone walls of the Bennett government.
Fellow-worker, we know that you are with us in spirit at every step of our struggle, we feel your power and strength in every phase of our work. The great work that you accomplished in the Canadian Labour Movement was and is the granite-like foundation upon which we are building up the revolutionary industrial unions. We are doing our level best to carry on your work, trying to carry out in life all of your policies and aims.
You will be glad to know that our movement is steadily forging ahead, winning new sections of the workers to our revolutionary program and struggle-and that, although the ruling class dealt us a truly heavy blow when they tore you away from us, nevertheless they have failed to halt us as they planned and expected. As you and Tim Buck predicted-our cause advances!
Tens of thousands of Canadian workers will greet you on February 11th as the leader of the revolutionary industrial unionism, as the stalwart and unshakea'ble symbol of all that we hold dear, of all that we fight for. Hold firm dear comrade! We are fighting hard for your release. We need you back in our ranks. We will win you back to your rightful place-at the head of the revolutionary industrial union movement of Canada.
With our warmest working class greetings, Thomas Charles Sims,
On behalf of the
National Executive Board.
My object in bringing this to the attention of the house is to show that there has been an active propaganda in regard to penitentiary matters. I would also point out that it was all fixed upon one institution. There are eight penitentiaries in Canada. They are all operated under the same government, upon the same principles, and under the same regulations, but the whole agitation has been directed to Kingston penitentiary where the eight communists are confined, having been sentenced to fairly long terms by the highest court in the province of Ontario. Why was there no attack on the other institutions? The management is the same, the regulations are the same, the conditions are the same; but the whole attack has been focussed on the Kingston penitentiary where the eight communists are confined.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: May I ask a question? I hope the minister is not attempting to link my interest in the penitentiaries with the communists who have flooded him with letters and petitions?	.
fMr, Guthrie.]


Hugh Guthrie: No, I was not referring to my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macpbail) in any way. I am talking about the whole agitation which has been going on for the last twelve or fifteen months and which everybody knows about, an agitation developed by reason of the fact that the Canadian Labour Defence League not only supplied all labour organizations, trades and labour councils throughout Canada, with a most lurid account of conditions in Kingston penitentiary, unfounded, untrue in the statements that were sent out, but petitioned and memorialized to the various churches of Canada. Then the matter got into the press. Then certain former inmates who had been liberated on ticket of leave and the like saw the . opportunity of carrying on a campaign in the newspapers, publishing books and letters, and the Toronto Globe in its publication of the Withrow letters certainly added fuel to the flames.
A greater overstatement of conditions was never contained in any volume than I find in this book Shackling the Transgressor. It is unfounded in every respect. It is an exaggeration in every subject with which it deals. A great many of the instances referred to in this volume are absolutely untrue, and I refer to it now only because the hon. member for Southeast Grey has referred to it.
Withrow was a convict in Kingston penitentiary. He apparently is a man of education and some refinement, and I can well imagine, and we can all realize, that to such a man the daily monotony of prison life is a terrible punishment. As he says in his book, the click-click of the looks, the tread-tread on the corridors of the other prisoners, got on his nerves. A term of imprisonment in a penitentiary is a terrible punishment to a man of refinement or education. Of Withrow's experience in the penitentiary, which began prior to my having anything to do with the penitentiaries and ended in October 1929, I cannot speak with as full information as I would like as to the conditions which prevailed there. I have not that intimate knowledge of the conditions which prevailed in those days, but from the files in the Department of Justice I have been able to look up certain statements contained in the Withrow book, and I know that they are absolutely false and unfounded. The grossest kind of exaggeration has been indulged in. I shall give only one or two instances as I have not time to give more. Here is a sample taken from page 114 of this book, Shackling the Transgressor:
The chaplain looks upon Red-[DOT]

Penitentiaries-Mr. Guthrie
That is a prisoner in the institution-
-as his curate for my friend sees to it that none of the religious rights of their faith are neglected by the Roman Catholic patients. On the first visit of the new archbishop to the prison it was requested by His Grace that "Red" should read the address of welcome. My friend came to me and asked if I would help him in the preparation of this address. I agreed and Catholic and Protestant wrestled with the proper wording and I typed the final draft. Though the committee selected the work Of another inmate, "Red" was the orator on the special Sunday and I have always felt a glow of satisfaction at being associated with "Red" Ryan in such a bit of service.
His Excellency the Archbishop of Kingston called on me a short time ago and called my attention to that paragraph and said, "Mr. Guthrie, that is untrue." I did not like to use anything that had been conveyed to me in a private conversation by His Excellency the Archbishop, and so a few days ago, on January 27 last, I wrote him a letter and in reply he authorized me to make use, if I saw fit, of his statement in parliament. He wrote me as follows:
You are at perfect liberty to use as you see fit the remarks I made about the address presented to me on the occasion of my first visit to Kingston penitentiary. These are correctly contained in the second paragraph of your letter to me, viz.:
" I understand that Your Excellency was not consulted in regard to this matter at all, and that you did not request Red Ryan either to prepare or present the address in question, and that as a matter of fact, he did not read the address."
I absolutely requested no one either to write or present an address to me, nor did I know anything of it until I was about to go to the penitentiary.
So much for that statement in the Withrow book. Let me mention just one other.
He referred to an unfortunate happening in Kingston penitentiary in the year 1928 or 1927, I am not sure which, when a prisoner, McCloskey, killed a guard. He was subsequently tried, convicted and hanged. According to Withrow this prisoner was a quiet, well-behaved young fellow with no ill will to anybody, and he further says that he did not receive a fair trial, that he was really a mental case, and that had he been properly defended he would not have been hanged. Now without any solicitation on my part the lawyer who defended this man on his trial- he was tried twice as a matter of fact-has communicated the facts to me: that the prisoner had no excuse for the terrible act he committed, that he killed that guard, that he had no provocation any more than that he did not like the guard. The guard was a man whom everybody, even the prisoners, liked and respected. The prisoner had two trials, 74726-37J
was defended at the cost of the attorney general of Ontario, and was convicted at both. All these facts were written by this lawyer to the Toronto Globe when it published this article from Withrow's book, but the Globe refused to publish the lawyer's letter. I have the lawyer's letter here but I shall not take the time to read it, although I may do so on a subsequent occasion. If I had the time I could analyze the Withrow book, but that book pertains to a time when I was not Minister of Justice. However. I am satisfied that the conditions pictured in Withrow's book were not true of the administration of my predecessor. The whole thing is an unfounded insinuation and an attempt by Withrow to get even with the system under which he was punished.
May I touch upon a matter rather personal to myself. This concerns am interview published in the newspapers on December 1 last. I happened to be arriving in Quebec city that day at half past seven in the morning. As I stepped off the train I was accosted by a newspaper man who asked me about conditions in the penitentiaries and whether or not there was to be an investigation. I told him that upon two occasions last spring deputations from the Canadian Labour Defence League had come to Ottawa asking that an investigation be held under royal commission and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) had made a decided statement to bath deputations that there would be no investigation by royal commission. Lest it should be thought I was hiding anything, I told the newspaper man that conditions in Kingston and the other penitentiaries were perfectly satisfactory and that so far as the penitentiaries and headquarters' staffs were concerned, they would welcome an investigation. But I said (there was not to be an investigation by royal commission. Unfortunately it was stated in the headlines that I wanted an investigation by royal commission but that the Prime Minister had refused. This was an entirely erroneous statement and I have given the house just what occurred.
Prior to the outbreak of the riot in October, 1932, there was an attempted outbreak in August, 1931. This has been referred to by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) who produced some dangerous looking weapons -I would call them knives or daggers-to the view of the house as though they were some simple tools for use in the factory. The history of this matter is rather interesting. These weapons were made surreptitiously in one of the shops at Kingston and were hidden there for the purpose of assisting in a revolt
Penitentiaries-Mr. Guthrie

in that institution. It was stated by someone that they had been taken from a knitting or other kind of machine and sharpened up for the purpose. The hon. member for Kingston said that they were files, but it is evident they had been manufactured into weapons of offence of a very dangerous kind.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not want to interrupt, but for the sake of clarity I might say that those things were there for twenty years and the challenge had been made to investigate.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not the report of the occurrence which was laid before me. Some five or six men were implicated in this contemplated riot, which was to be a very murderous affair. One or two days before it was to be pulled off, one of those concerned got cold feet, as the saying is, and told one of the officials of the penitentiary. All those implicated were promptly locked up in their cells. Word came of where the weapons were concealed. If they were ordinary tools belonging to the shop, why were they concealed? After a considerable hunt they were found, and I believe there were six or eight of them. According to the man who informed the guards, the outbreak was to take place at or shortly before the noon hour when a certain truck usually arrived with goods. The men on the truck were to be seized and the truck was then to be driven at full speed against the gates. They realized that possibly some might be killed but they were willing to take their chances. If they got to the main gate, they thought they could overpower the guard and get out. Those men were punished and the man in charge of that shop was let out of His Majesty's service in the penitentiary staff at Kingston. As the saying is, he was let out in order to promote efficiency. I am sorry that he happens to be a friend of the hon. member' for Kingston. I do not like to have him displeased but the evidence and recommendations placed before me left me no alternative. I had to act and I did act accordingly.
There was a change made in the staff shortly before the riots. General Ormond became superintendent of penitentiaries on August 1, 1962, three months before the riot in Kingston penitentiary. General Ormond had a long career as a military man and I believe at one time had been in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He was accustomed to handling and managing men. He had been in the department only three weeks when he had a preliminary discussion with me in regard to both Kingston and St. Vincent de Paul penitentiaries. At that time he elaborated to me

certain suggestions by way of reform in these institutions which he promised to work out and let me have in detailed form at an early date. Some of the reforms he proposed would take some time to develop and both he and I considered it necessary that he should consult more of the wardens before instituting them.- I think that at least ten or fifteen reforms were carried into effect shortly after the discussion in August, and some time before the dot, when there was no trouble in Kingston penitentiary, they were well under way. After the riot the time of the superintendent was taken up with the consideration of conditions at Kingston and the straightening out of the difficulties. On January 1, 1933, the new regulations, which were considered by most people as being rather sweeping, were brought into force. I know that from one end of Canada to the other I have received commendation from men in high places of the reforms which have taken place in the penitentiary system of Canada since January 1, 1933. The superintendent has been very diligent, working on an average of fifteen to sixteen hours daily. He has been reasonable, his suggestions have been sound, and he has made a more intensive study of the whole penal system than I thought would have been possible in the time at his disposal. He has visited a number of similar institutions in the United States; he has made comparisons and examinations of methods which prevail in that country and such experience as he has had and such knowledge as he has gained, he has brought to bear in regard to penal institutions in Canada which are under his charge. He has worked a tremendous reform and anyone who takes occasion to read the report which I laid on the table a week or ten days ago will see those reforms carefully noted on one of the pages. The house will be amazed at the changes which were inaugurated and carried into effect by General Ormond within five months of his appointment as superintendent.
But he has not stopped there. In this very report he discusses fully most of the questions which we are considering in this debate. He deals very fully with the question of segregation of prisoners, with the hospital situation, with the question of juvenile offenders, with the question of payment of wages to prisoners, which he likewise favours. He recommends the institution of training schools for guards and staffs in the penitentiaries. He is very strong in his recommendation for a psychologist in each penitentiary in Canada in order that a prisoner on being received into the prison may be carefully examined as to his circumstances, his past life, his adaptability

Penitentiaries-Mr. Guthrie
and the possibility of improving him while he is there. All these things are discussed in this report of the superintendent; it contains on these subjects fuller information than we have had before the house on any previous occasion,
I am aware that some recommendations contained in the report of 1914 were not adopted, as was also the case with some contained in the report of 1921. Why my predecessors in the Department of Justice did not see fit to adopt those recommendations, I cannot say; but I think with two exceptions they are all in force now. In one of these reports there is a recommendation that the prisoners should not be fed as they are now, on the cafeteria system. At present every man passes along a counter with his tray, receives his food allowance and carries it to his cell. He eats his meal there. One of these reports states that that system, known as cellular feeding is all wrong and recommends that dining rooms be established in order that the prisoners may mix with one another at meal hours. That is a highly debatable question. Many of our prisoners object to the common dining room. They do not want to be subjected to close association with some of the men beside whom they may have to sit. They prefer the cellular feeding; they say that it gives them more time; they have time to rest, to reflect. Some prisons in the United States have adopted the dining room system; some in England have done likewise, but all have not done so and it is a debatable question which is the better system so far as penal institutions are concerned.
It is also stated that we should have some definite scheme of segregation in our penitentiaries, and I entirely agree with that suggestion. I believe the best discussion on the subject is that contained in the superintendent's report and also in more lengthy reports which he has submitted to me, compiled from practically all modern prisons in the world. The question of segregation is a difficult one. Many leading men in the various churches of Canada have discussed the matter with me, and when I have asked them on what principle they would base segregation, they would immediately say: Age; keep the young men apart from the older ones. Well, when I pointed out to them that some of the young men are about the worst offenders we have, they immediately began to change their view. Others will say: Keep the first offenders by themselves. That is also a reasonable suggestion, but we sometimes find that a first offender is guilty of a very serious crime of violence; he is a gunman; he may be guilty of manslaughter. Would you let a gunman, if you have caught and sentenced him only once, associate with other first offenders? The problem is complex; in no country has it yet been satisfactorily settled. But the superintendent is certainly developing what appears to me to be a very satisfactory arrangement. He proposes to form within the penitentiary itself a local court to consist of the warden, the chaplain, the schoolmaster, the keepers and some of the other officials, where they will examine a prisoner on his entrance with a view to seeing what he is best adapted for and what his history has been. Then he suggests that there be attached to the staff of each penitentiary a psychologist, a man competent to inquire into the convict's past and present and into his future possibilities, and that on the report of that board he be placed in either class one, class two, class three or class four according as the prison may permit of segregation into two, three or four classes or more. The scheme which he elaborates is a complicated one, but I think, in the end, it would prove very useful in our institutions. You cannot have segregation satisfactorily carried out on the principle of age. Many of our young offenders have had four or five convictions, so that you cannot have segregation along the line of first offences as I once thought it might be carried out. There are other considerations, but I think with the scheme now presented by the superintendent, a more satisfactory result will be obtained than anything that has been hitherto achieved in regard to Canadian penitentiaries.
The next point that has been brought directly to my attention by the superintendent is the question of a new parole system. I believe he likewise deals with that in his report, but whether he does or not, he has elaborated his ideas very fully to me in another document which I am considering at the present moment and which I think I shall be able to discuss more fully when the estimates are before the house. If the hon. member for 'Southeast Grey, instead of devoting her time to the reports of 1914 and 1923, would make a careful study of the suggestions contained in the most recent report in regard to the matters she has discussed, I am sure she could then form a better opinion; and if she will communicate with me the ideas she has formed, I shall be glad to take them up with the superintendent and see if they can be used in the plan which he is about to recommend to the department.
Let me say this in regard to the hon. member for Southeast Grey: she is an exceedingly
Penitentiaries-Mr. Guthrie



SS4 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Penitentiaries-Mr. Guthrie
well as inmates in hospital, show that prisoners are well cared for and have medical, surgical and dental services regardless of cost. The men throughout the prison seem in good condition, and those who have had "solitary"
[Stage Direction]
That is solitary confinement.
-were ready to repudiate claims of inhumanity.
The chapels and school are older buildings with wooden floors. Provision is made for education of all illiterates: and good results at entrance examinations are noted. The schoolroom itself needs to be changed, being too drab, and' the Protestant chapel is obviously not as well loked after as the Roman Catholic. Interviews with the Roman Catholic chaplain, "Very Rev. Dr. Kingsley, shows him to be exceptionaly well fitted for his task: and as the Protestant chaplain is but newly appointed no opinion can be expressed.
In short, we felt strongly that the whole prison is being administered with a firm but fair hand; the warden is accessible and complaints are attended to-the men seem to appreciate his evident desire to be fair. They said unequivocally that the square shooter got a square deal.
The female prison is beyond reproach-and one could be envious of the regard the prisoners expressed for Miss Robinson-the women are getting a training in decent living and their bedrooms, handwork, and tasks prepare them at least to make decent housemaids-and "Doris" is a splendid example of what can happen even in a penitentiary-as "Red Ryan" is in the other section.
We saw the "paddles" and "cats" old and new and throughout-there was no evidence of any desire to evade and we saw the prison operating on usual schedule. Our party is convinced that to bring on an investigation at present would be to make for restlessness and to impede a good work being done. This warden is highly appreciated and his views are those of a man trying his best-and in view of the complexity and difficulty of the material he works with-he has accomplished much. The men appreciate the new tobacco (smoking in morning and afternoon) regulations-and the playing of softball and talking during recreation. It would be bad for discipline to reverse the policy.
The conditions under which visits to prisoners are made seem fair-and the only real complaints we could uncover were about the relative merits of men who got parole-an undercurrent that "offenders against persons" were given preference over "offenders against property." This we did not attempt to investigate -but the records would show. Some feeling that there might be an enlargement of the parole system to release exemplary prisoners was expressed. Several men said "What is there to be good for?"-meaning that "inside good conduct" was not as powerful as "outside influence." Personally I felt there was plenty of incentive to good conduct-and that your own address at last session of parliament after the riots was explicit on the working of "parole."
In all, after having specifically looked for evidences of brutality, vicious conditions, bad sanitation and the like, we are compelled to 
report that the institution will bear inspection -confident that others like ourselves-will find the same result and endorse the administration.
We feel there is something wrong when publications can make such a disturbance in public opinion by what to us must be regarded as maliciously distorted reports. The public would be satisfied if it knew and I am prepared at any time to tell the story if it will help to bring out the facts.
Again thanking you for the opportunity- and I will report to the church headquarters what I have seen and heard.
That was a oommisgion of three men who undertook an investigation on their own behalf. I am going to reserve other reports for another time. I have here reports from the same church at SpencerviHe, from the Kingston conference of the United Ohuroh, from the Prisoners' Welfare Association of Montreal, and a very elaborate report from the Social Service Council of Canada. I am going to read just one line from the letter of the chairman of that council.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not want to interrupt the minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carry on.


Hugh Guthrie: I realize that I will have another opportunity, and to-day I cannot deal with the matter as I should like. However, I should like to read a few lines from a letter written by the chairman of the Social Service Council of Canada, an institution which was highly commended by the Toronto Globe when it said that since the social service council 'had taken up the matter there must be a royal commission. I have the full report, but I will read the letter only:
The criminology committee of the Social Service Council of Canada desire to express to you their appreciation of the permission granted several of their members to visit the penitentiaries throughout the dominion.
The impression gained by the visitors as to the management of these institutions was distinctly favourable; the reforms introduced under your administration had effected a great improvement in the whole atmosphere, while the members of the staff, especially those highly placed, seemed to be of excellent character. We believe that more improvement has been made in the last year or two than in any similar previous period and for this we express our cordial gratitude.
We understand that the government has under consideration yet fuller reforms. We hope that, broadly speaking, these will follow the line suggested in the annual reports of the superintendent of penitentiaries during the last twelve years.
The report of the criminology committee wihch has just been passed by the council, and which will be issued shortly, will be sent to you for your information without delay.

Penitentiaries-Mr. Mullins
I have the report before me as well; it is too long to read to-day, but I will read it on a subsequent occasion. With a single exception all those who have gone through . these institutions, all men of high standing, have reported favourably. The single exception is a man who, I am afraid, from his attitude and the remarks he made while in the institution, is friendly to the Canadian Labour Defence League.


Mr. HEAPS:: I should like to ask the
minister if all these reports refer only to the Kingston penitentiary.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister take just one moment to deal with the statement that is being quite assiduously circulated in certain circles, that the government gave instructions to shoot Tim Buck?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot speak on that
question because it is a matter which is under investigation by the courts in Toronto. This I will say, however; I knew nothing of it and heard nothing of it until I read about it in the Ottawa Citizen a few mornings ago. The matter is entirely in the hands of the attorney general of the province of Ontario, without any knowledge of the matter on,my part. I have the papers here but I shall refrain from discussing the matter, because it is before the courts.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: 
Mr. VALLANCE:: You have been there, eh?


Henry Alfred Mullins: I happened to visit that Scotch gaol on one occasion some years ago
5S6
Penitentiaries-Mr. Mullins

when I was visiting Glasgow, and saw the prisoners fed on bread and water. I saw them picking oakum. Then, I saw prisoners in Pentonville prison where they were working on the treadmill. When I walked into Kingston and saw how the prisoners were living I was convinced that they were treated much better than were the prisoners in old country gaols.
Commencing my trip through Kingston penitentiary, I said to the warden, "I want to see what I want to see, not what you want to show me," and for that purpose I had a list made out. First I went into the supply kitchen and viewed the food supply. With one exception it was the very best, and concerning that exception I came back and complained to the minister with the result that I believe he has since remedied the condition. I looked into the conditions in which the men were living in their cells, and I found them just as the minister has explained,-comfortable quarters. If some hon. members in this house had pioneered out in the west they would have had to live under tougher conditions than do those inmates of Kingston penitentiary.
As the minister has stated, in the cells there are wash basins, lavatories, and a bed with a comfortable spring mattress leaning up against the wall. It was much better than the condition in Pentonville prison where the prisoners had to lie on boards with only small blocks for pillows which they put under their heads. I must say however that the men in Kingston were comfortable and they had warm blankets. They had books on their shelves, and had access to the library from which they could get any book or magazine desired.
I was very anxious to see this hole we hear so much talk about, to which reference is made in the Toronto Globe and about which so much is said in Doctor Withrow's book, and I found it below the officers quarters. I asked, "Where is this paddle? Get the paddle until I see what it is like." I do not know what the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) has in his hand; I do not know whether it has three cornered or round holes in it. The one I saw had round holes. I said to the guard, "If you wanted to administer this instrument a little strenuously, or if you had a grudge against a prisoner you could give it to him to a degree a little stronger than tapping." The guard I interviewed said he had administered this strap for fifteen years. I said, "You should know something about it; show me the one that has the square holes." I was referring to the one about which there is so much talk in the Toronto papers

and in Doctor Withrow's book. I said, "I want to see the one that has diamond shaped holes." His reply was, "We never use that; this is the paddle that we have used here." Then he got the other instrument called the cat-o'-nine-tails,-but what a difference between the one I saw in Pentonville prison and the one shown to me in Kingston. The one I saw in the Kingston penitentiary was made of a few strips of soft rope which had no knots in them, and it did not look as if it would inflict great injury upon or hurt any man very badly. In the hole where they gave prisoners the paddle there was a table similar to the bench in front of me. The process was described to me as follows: They placed the man's feet in position and strapped them, then they put his hands in position and administered the paddle about which the hon. member for Kingston City has spoken. It did not look to me as though it would hurt badly, I cannot agree with the statements made by Doctor Withrow or the Toronto Globe. I did see in the hole something which I did not like, and upon my return home I reported the condition to the Minister of Justice. There was a man there who was criminally insane, and I agreed with Mr. Cameron that he should be moved. I understand from the minister that that man was moved to Guelph and is now being taken care of under different conditions. I went through all the shops and interviewed many prisoners. I came across one prisoner whom I had known in Manitoba as a school teacher in the northern part of the province. I asked him what the conditions were. I said to him, "I knew you when you were a school teacher in Manitoba. What are you doing here?" He answered, "I am doing ten years." I said, "That is not what I asked. What brought you here?" "Insanity," he said. "What do you mean by insanity," I asked, and he replied, "I forged four cheques in Winnipeg and then four more in Toronto, and I was insane for doing it. I have ten years to put in here."
I interviewed a good many of the prisoners and tried to find what was wrong, and they told me, even Norman Ryan himself, that conditions were -all right now, that the boys had cigarette papers. I did not know anything about the riot, but I want to say to this house that I went there on behalf of the inmates, and intending if I saw anything wrong that I was going to try and get it put right by going to the minister or bringing it up in the house.
All the propaganda that has been carried on by this man Withrow in my opinion is absolutely unfair to the Minister of Justice or the

Penitentiaries-Mr. Mullins
previous government. After looking over that institution at Kingston as carefully as I could to see if anything could be done for the betterment of the men, I went over to the women's department, like the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) did, and I saw the women that were there. I had afternoon tea there. I saw the way they were living and how they were taken care of. I found one woman there that came from Manitoba and I thought I could find out from her if there was anything wrong. I sat down with her and said, " Tell me what is wrong here. What is there that we can remedy?" She said, "Nothing at all. Look in those cells and see what you find wrong there." I looked in those cells, and this was the sight I saw. A splendid bed, with a nice counterpane on it, a nice dresser with all the toilet requisites that a woman uses. I could not see anything there to complain about. There was nothing to complain about in the food: it w'as the very best. I left that institution with my friend, whom most of you know, one of the most outstanding preachers in the city of Toronto, the Reverend W. A. Cameron, and I said, " Mr. Cameron, I cannot see much to complain about in this institution except that one case, and I am going to remedy it." I made a trip to Ottawa and I interviewed the minister, and that case was looked after.
Leaving Kingston penitentiary and coming to the province of Manitoba, while I was addressing a meeting in Winnipeg one day I said to the warden of Stony Mountain penitentiary, " I want to see your institution." He said, "When will you come?" I said, " I will come to-day." He said, " No, tomorrow." I said, "No, you are not going to do any wdndow dressing for me. I want to see what is wrong with the institution." I motored out that afternoon to the penitentiary and I spent from one o'clock until seven looking over that institution very carefully. I could not see anything there that enlisted my sympathy except one poor chap that was lying very ill on a cot. I brought his case to the minister's attention and he moved right away to release him, but unfortunately the poor chap died before he was released. I also saw in that institution the cell in which a friend of mine who had lived in the city of Winnipeg had just passed away. I was aware that we would have been criticized if we had tried to get him out because it would then have been said from all comers of this house that there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor. I saw the cell that man died in, a man I had known in the city of Winnipeg for close to half a century. Looking carefully
through that institution I could not see anything wrong to report. I am not discussing this question from the point of view of party politics at all. I went there to do what I could on behalf of the men, to see if there was anything wrong that could be remedied. There was nothing whatever. I can say emphatically to this house and the country that the institutions I visited are administered under the very best conditions.
I would, however, say to the Minister of Justice, and here I agree with the hon. member for Southeast Grey, that a little more money should be given to these men when they eoime out of the institution. Ten dollars is a very small amount.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is five dollars.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. member says five dollars, but I understand that it is ten dollars. I understood from one prisoner that he got ten dollars, but that is a small amount for a man to start out with after being in there for a number of years, and I think a little more money should be given them until they become established and find a position.
There is another matter I wanted to mention. After visiting the institution at Kingston a man telephoned me one day and said, "I would like to see you. Is it possible to have an interview with you?" I said, "Yes, I will meet you." I did not know what his business was; he 'did not tell me, and I did not know what he wanted. I met him on Bay street in the city of Toronto. I did not know ait that time that I was sitting in a room with the worst criminal that had been in penitentiary. He came to me with his story. He said, "You were down through Kingston. I 'have just 'been released." I asked him, "Whlat were you there for?" He said, "Manslaughter." I asked him, "What did you do? Where did this happen?" He replied, "I had been out to a press meeting and had taken some liquor. I was driving a car and killed a woman, and I was sent to Kingston for three years." That was a deliberate lie, absolutely. He said that he had worked on several newspapers in the city of Winnipeg, on the Tribune, for one, and he enlisted my sympathy. I felt for him. He said that he bad walked that morning from Barbdale down to Bay street and that he hadn't a five-cent piece. I said, "Can't you get a position?" I told him that I would try and get him a position somewhere in the city of Toronto. He said, "I cannot get a position because I have to tell every bonding company where I have been1 for the last two years, and immediately I tell them I have no chance
5SS
Penitentiaries-Mr. Mullins

at all-I have just come from the T. Eaton Company and they 'have refused to give me a position." I felt very sorry for him. My sympathies were enlisted, and I said, "I am the director of a bonding company and probably I can help you out if the circumstances are as you say." When I arrived in Ottawa I went to the department and told them that I thought it was bad to have detectives shadowing these poor chaps when they came out of the penitentiaries. This man told me that when released from the penitentiary he had been given ten dollars and a suit of clothes. He stated that there was not a detective from the Atlantic to the Pacific who would not recognize the suit of clothes he was given. I told him that he must be wrong because I had looked at the clothing being made in Kingston and I could mot find any distinguishing marks. I asked him how a detective would recognize the suit and he told me that the breast-pocket was put on the right-hand instead of the left-hand side. This was a deliberate lie. I told him that I had not looked close enough to find that out, but later on in Stony Mountain I asked the man who was cutting the clothing where he put the breast pocket. He told me that it was always put on the left-hand side. I asked him if this was always done, and he said it was. He told me he bad been there for five years and before that had been located in Kingston, always as a cutter. This former inmate told me that he had sold his suit of clothes in Kingston for a mere pittance. He told me of other conditions which existed, of how he got in things from the outside and so on. I gave him all the money I had in my pocket, but he had told me a deliberate lie. This was his system. I was informed in the department that there were eighteen convictions against this man. When I found out that his story was a lie, my confidence was shaken. I have nothing but kindly feelings for the men in the institutions and I want to be of as much service as I possibly can.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman know that that is the same person who supplied information to 'Campbell whose articles appeared in Maclean's?


Henry Alfred Mullins: Perhaps he is. I know
I interviewed a magazine in Toronto where this chap had been trying to sell some articles, but he was turned down. I admit I was deceived. I felt very sympathetic towards him because he said he came from the city of Winnipeg and had been a reporter on the Telegram, an old Conservative paper which

we used to have out there. He stated that he had later been on the Tribune, but I found out later that he had not been connected with either of these papers.
I think that many of the attacks which have been hurled at the minister have been instigated by this type of man. I do not know anything about the brokers about whom we have heard but if they are these chaps who put out watered stock and floated companies, I would not like to see them. Many of us here have had something to do with watered stock and our sympathies would not go out to those chaps. I knew some of them and I was sorry to see them sent there, but if they were treated in the manner stated by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), I do not think there can be any complaint. Perhaps I would have treated them a little more harshly.
When I went to Kingston the warden told me he was glad to see me and that outside of the hon. member for Kingston, I was the only member of parliament who had been there since he had been appointed. Hon. members should go to Kingston to look into these things themselves. I think they will find that everything possible is being done for the men who are there. I visited both institutions with an absolutely open mind and if I had found anything detrimental to the inmates I would have brought it up on the floor of this house.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 15, 1934