[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act 
to extend the period of its operation and to vest in the minister authority to enter into certain agreements and to carry out and perform certain duties incidental to the operation of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Monday the 13th March next to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence on Mondays over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: Is this the motion to wipe out private members' day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Monday next.


Robert James Manion: If this carried, Monday next would not be private members' day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Robert James Manion: I wish to say a few words with reference to this motion. Let me make it clear that I have no personal objection to the wiping out of private members' days if there are any important government measures to come forward, though I have no doubt that some private members will have some objections. As I look down the list of government measures dealt with so far and compare those measures with private resolutions already disposed of and other private motions still on the order paper, it strikes me that the business proposed by private members is much more important than anything the government has brought down to date.
I have been intrigued on a number of occasions this session by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) lecturing the house about the importance of getting on with government business. Last Wednesday, for example, he rose and gave us a real tonguelashing because we dared to take up some of the time of the house in dealing with the munitions contract with the Janin company.
I have been wondering exactly what is government business this year. There are the trade agreements, for instance, and we have been accused of holding them up. Are they

Precedence jor Government Business
government business? I should think they are, and rather important business. Then there is the Bren gun contract and the Janin contract, contracts involving with other expenditures an outlay of some $63,000,000 this year-that is the total amount of the defence department estimates. Yet, both we and hon. members to my left were violently attacked last week by the Prime Minister because we dared to discuss the letting of contracts, not by public tender, not even from a selected list, but, so far as I know, to pets of the Department of National Defence, or at any rate, to pets of this government. When I listened to the Prime Minister last week getting so enthusiastic on his subject, attacking us because the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) brought up the question of the shell contract, let to one who is the builder of the post office here, a gentleman who is a contractor for the construction of public buildings-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this in order, Mr. Speaker?


Robert James Manion: I am discussing the reasons relating to whether we should go into government 'business or continue in private business on a certain day, and I think I am quite in order.
When I heard the right hon. gentleman even bring up the phantom of war, as he did the other day, to frighten the people, I suppose without any more basis for it than there is a basis for very much that the right hon. gentleman says; when he did that, and dodged the question that was put to him whether he favoured or agreed with the letting of contracts by the Department of National Defence without competition to pets and favourites of this government or of the defence department, I could not help thinking he was taking a rather serious attitude. I doubt whether the right hon. gentleman the other day, when he stood up in this house and implied or made a statement to the effect that we are possibly on the verge of war, had anything at all in the back of his head except the idea of evading the question put to him as to whether he favoured the giving of contracts on that basis.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I think the hon. leader of the opposition is getting rather far away from the subject of the resolution. The motion is to take away Monday as private members' day, from Monday next.


Robert James Manion: Well, sir, of course I accept your ruling. At the same time I say that to me the letting of contracts to spend $63,000,000 on defence is certainly of very much more importance from the point of view of 71492-1024
public business than a number of things that have been dealt with as public business.
I am arguing that the questions which the Prime Minister submits that we should not discuss in this house at all, which he is now ruling out by proposing to take away private members' day, are more important than the matters he calls public business. I am going to deal with some of these for just a moment, to show the difference. Here is a list of matters called public business dealt with so far this session; let us see how important they are. There was of course the speech from the throne. Then, supply. Supply comes in as a sort of filler-in; it is one of the measures 'brought in when we have not anything else to proceed with. When the government runs out of its regular business it brings on supply. While the estimates are in a sense public business, they are not important enough or urgent enough to have everything else sidetracked in order that they may be dealt with.
Then there was a bill amending the Food and Drugs Act, brought in by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, dealing with cosmetics and making a few other little changes in the regulations of that department -just the ordinary type of bill that every department tries to bring in from time to time. I have had enough experience in government to know that every department likes to bring in, every year or two, a few amendments to the act governing that department. That is the type of government business that was.
The next item I have noted here is the legislation authorizing the raising of $750,000,000 to meet loans and obligations, brought in by the Minister of Finance. Certainly it is important, but it is in fact just one of the things, perhaps the most important, that merely give the house an opportunity to discuss the inflationary ideas of the social crediters. Then there was the bill of the Minister of Justice relating to penitentiaries, perhaps one of the most important, though to my mind not so very important. This suggests a reflection. The penitentiaries bill was to set up a commission to govern the penitentiaries of Canada. I am just as humanitarian as my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) or any other hon. member. I believe in humanitarian treatment of prisoners. But I submit-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I think the hon. member is straying too far from the subject of the resolution. The resolution moved by the Prime Minister is to take away Monday as private members' day.
1618	COMMONS
Precedence for Government Business


Mr. STEVENS:: On a point of order, sir; perhaps the leader of the opposition would be diffident about advancing this point himself, but one of the most widely accepted practices in the House of Commons is that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition be given reasonable latitude when they are dealing with questions on the orders of the day or concerning the procedure of the house. Never in my experience in the house have I ever heard any leader of the opposition called to order on such extremely narrow grounds as this. Strictly speaking there may be some slight departure from the details of the motion, but the motion concerns the business of the house and the conduct of it, and I submit on that ground that the leader of the opposition ought to be allowed to proceed, upon the precedent and practice of this house.
In the second place I invite your honour to give special attention to this point: How can we intelligently discuss the motion before us unless we are allowed to review the measures which are government measures and those which are private, and to weigh the question whether or not private members have had reasonable opportunity to present their views?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: But not to debate the merits of those questions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all; but my leader was just reviewing the character of those measures. I do not like to use the word that has been used in the past in this house, more by my hon. friends opposite than by others, the word "gag"; it is an objectionable word, but it is very expressive. If we are to be confronted by an overwhelming majority applying restrictions of this kind, then the democratic liberties of parliament will indeed have been restricted. I submit that on grounds of practice and on a reasonable interpretation of the rules-your honour I am sure will agree that no rule can at all times be applied on its narrowest interpretation-there must be some reasonable latitude. I bespeak myself on behalf of the members of parliament that the leader of the opposition should on this occasion be accorded the ordinary latitude that has been given to the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition in this house from time immemorial.


Robert James Manion: May I say a word on
the point of order, supplementing the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens)? I am dealing with the relative importance of government business as opposed to private business, trying to show that the motions proposed by private members

have to do with more important subjects than the measures brought in by this government. That is all I am trying to show. I have attempted to stay within my rights, and I hope, sir, that you will so rule.


Walter Edward Foster: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to the point of order?


Mr. LAWSON:: I should like to present
one point, from a purely legal aspect, concerning the rules of the house. Standing order 15 prescribes that Monday shall be private members' day. It is now proposed to take that day away from private members. The motion is debatable. The only reasonable ground that the government can advance for taking this day away from private members is the importance of government business as Compared with private members' business. Therefore, the leader of the opposition is speaking strictly to the issue, namely, the comparative importance of government business as against private members' business, and I submit he is in order.


Mr. CHURCH:: The motion before the
house is that on and after Monday next government business shall have precedence over private members' resolutions. It is an extraordinary coincidence that the motion is made at the present time, because the opposition have had no resolutions so far. The time has been taken up largely with government business and motions by hon. members from other sections of the house. The motion at the head of page 12 of the order paper concerns any municipality in Canada, from Vancouver to Halifax. It is a motion relating to relief, municipal relief works and relief unemployment, There has been no declaration of policy on the part of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) as to what the government are going to do. The municipalities are now preparing their tax rates, but those rates cannot be struck until they know the policy of the government, which might be given in the discussion of this motion, which ordinarily would come up next Monday.
I want to direct attention to the rules of the house in this connection. If this motion is not discussed on a private members' day it remains on the order paper, and, by the rule of anticipation, it cannot be mentioned in this house on the estimates or at any other time. It is the most important resolution we have. What is to be done with these people who are on relief throughout Canada? In Ontario we get no help at all because the provincial government will not cooperate in the federal government's program of public works to relieve unemployment. It is true that the minister announced forty-forty-twenty as the

Precedence for Government Bminess
division of cost between the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities, but in Ontario they chiselled that down for January, February and March so that it was away below what the government announced.
I have been in this house since 1921, and ever since that time motions of this kind have received a very wide interpretation. After all is said and done it must be remembered that the private member is the only connecting link between the government of the day and the electorate; and when he ceases to function this ceases to be a free parliament. Before this motion passes I would ask the Minister of Labour to rise and tell us what he is going to do in reference to relief. That seems to cause a little laughter as between the minister and his learned colleague sitting beside him, who said the other day that if we took certain action it might bring about force. Well, I can tell him that we will not need force; the unemployed and the people on relief soon will be able to say it with ballots.


Mr. HARRIS:: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in this house since 1921, and I do not recall any occasion during that time when a motion of this kind was held to be not debatable. The rules of the house provide that it is debatable. Further, the motion contains the words, "government notices of motion and government orders-" All the observations made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) up to the present have been strictly within the confines of government notices of motion and government orders, as these are recited in the routine proceedings and orders of the day on our desks.


Walter Edward Foster: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?
I had no intention of saying the speech being made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) was not in order. He is quite within his rights in debating this motion, and I never had any intention of saying that the motion was not debatable. What I had in mind was that the hon. gentleman should not discuss the merits of the measures to which he was referring. Unquestionably he may discuss everything that comes within this motion, but he should not go into a discussion of the merits or demerits of government measures which are not now directly before the house.


Robert James Manion: I shall endeavour to keep within the rules of the house, as I usually do. I was not discussing the merits or demerits of the Penitentiaries Act, but I was going to say that among the resolutions of private members
there are many, which I shall mention in a moment, dealing with more important matters. The Penitentiaries Act after all deals with the people in our penitentiaries, numbering some 3,500 or 4,000. A private member's resolution concerning unemployment, on the other hand, deals with the four or five hundred thousand oeople in Canada who are out of employment and who have stayed out of the penitentiaries. Therefore to my mind it is very much more important that we should deal with these people who are out of employment rather than with the people who are in the penitentiaries.
I should like to mention the other government measures which have been presented to the house, to show how important they are.
I have mentioned the amendments to the Penitentiaries Act. The next had to do with the appointment of auditors for the Canadian National Railways, a merely formal measure of no very great importance. The next dealt with the city of Ottawa agreement, under which $100,000 is granted the city of Ottawa, which is another annual statute. Then there were the amendments to the loan and trust companies acts, permitting these companies to allow their employees to enter into pension schemes. Then there was the Technical Education Act, a little more important, but not much. Then came the act to assess the owners of obstructions to the ascent or descent of fish such annual sums of money as the minister might determine. Fisheries are important; I do not wish to belittle them, but at the same time that was not a very important measure.
I have named, Mr. Speaker, about a dozen government measures, only one or two of which are of any importance at all. But what about the ones the government are holding up? What about the amendments to the Pension Act? What about the defence purchasing board? That is another measure that has been passed over day after day. Why is it being held up?
Let me show, on the other hand, what the private members have dealt with so far this session. We had the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) bringing .up the loss of lobster traps and equipment on the western coast of Nova Scotia, certainly a very important matter from the point of view of the fishermen of that province. The hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Douglas) brought up the question of the distribution of seed wheat, an important matter for the prairies. Then there were the Bren gun contract and the Montreal construction company contract, both having to do with munitions and, as I have said, dealing with the $63,000,000 that is to be expended on defence this year. Yet those were the ones
1620	COMMONS
Precedence for Government Business
in connection with which we were particularly accused of holding up the business of the house. Then there was the question of unemployment insurance, which was brought up by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), also a very important question. There was the matter of a fixed price on wheat, and the matter of the government wheat policy. I have forgotten who brought that up, but if I am not mistaken it was during that discussion that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made his statement.


Mr. GARDINER:: No; that was on the
estimates.


Robert James Manion: Then there was a discussion on the condition of the live stock industry, and finally the debate on the Canadian flag. All these matters were of some importance. I do not mean any disrespect to my hon. friend who brought up the question of the Canadian flag, but I think that was one of the least important subjects that could have been brought up at this time, with all our other problems. However, it is a matter of some importance.
Now I am going to give a list of a dozen private members' resolutions which remain on the order paper, almost any one of which to my mind is more important than any of the government business with which we have dealt thus far. I made up this list yesterday morning, and the first item is old age pensions, a matter which was discussed yesterday. Then comes unemployment and unemployment relief, which has to do with the four or five hundred thousand people in this country who are out of work. Surely that is a very important thing. Then there is a resolution having to do with a program of flood prevention and water conservation, brought in by one of my followers, the hon. member for Davenport, Toronto (Mr. MacNicol). There is a resolution dealing with the declaration of war by Canada; another concerning the stimulation of the sugar industry; another having to do with the encouragement of the use of Canadian coal; another regarding stabilized wheat prices; another advocating national control of the armament industry; another concerning the relief of youth unemployment; another having to do with the preservation of the halibut fisheries, and finally a resolution concerning national scholarships. I would say all these are very important; more so, I repeat, than practically any of the matters which have been brought up by the government thus far.
This talk, sir, by the leader of the government on three or four occasions to the effect that we were holding up the real business of the government, when they actually bring

in such unimportant measures as I have listed to-day, is one of the reasons why democracy is being discredited in this country. I do not think the right hon. gentleman had any right to complain of what he called holding up the business of the house. We have never done that. At all times he had 180 members behind him; at any time he could have moved an amendment and gone into government business, even on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as he has done during the debate on the trade treaty. He could have done that at any time, unless he wished to abdicate his position as leader of this house. That is what the prime minister is, the leader of the house; and it is this bringing up of what to my mind are futile arguments of that sort against private members who are dealing with important subjects, while the government deals with unimportant subjects, that leads to the stirring up of feeling against democracy, to the leadership league of Mr. McCullagh and the new demagogism of Mr. Herridge. Those are the outgrowths of attempting to stifle public debate on important questions.
I say, sir, in closing, that so far as I am concerned I consider much of what the Prime Minister said on all these four times when he has got up and lectured the house about letting the government get on with public business is just so much claptrap and humbug. That is my opinion of most of what he has said about it. I challenge the government now to get down to business: to introduce, for example, legislation to deal with the great unemployment problem, or with the youth problem, or with national understanding, if you like, and with taxes and debt-to name only a few of the great problems. If he proceeds to deal with these important subjects, I think the right hon. gentleman would be well within his rights in asking the house to go on with government business, and for other hon. members to stop talking private resolutions. Until he does that, I think private members certainly have the edge on the argument, because the subjects with which their resolutions deal are very much more important than anything the Prime Minister has brought up thus far this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, if I were accustomed to addressing the house in the manner of my hon. friend I think I would say, with respect to the lecture which he has just sought to administer to me, that there was a good deal of claptrap and humbug about it.

Precedence for Government Business


Robert James Manion: You ought to know; you are a good judge.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have watched my hon. friend's tactics since he has taken the chair of leader of the opposition, and it has been apparent that nothing is too small to occasion a speech of some length from him, particularly if it will serve to delay proceedings a little longer.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order.
I would like it understood that after the right hon. gentleman speaks I have the right to speak again. This is his second speech.
I have the right to say a few words after he has finished.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter of fact I did not speak on the motion.


Robert James Manion: You moved it; that is the same thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I moved it, and I thought it was going to carry unanimously. It would have, but for the fact that my hon. friend got up and delivered his speech. That gave the cue to some of his following to join with him and help him to protract a little the proceedings of the afternoon.


Robert James Manion: We are not trying to protract at all.


James Earl Lawson: I rise to a point of order. I do not think it lies in the mouth of a prime minister-


Mr. DUNNING:: That is not a point of order.


James Earl Lawson: I will proceed, and you can hear it. It does not lie in the mouth of a prime minister to accuse a member of the house of protracting proceedings, when I merely spoke of the legal aspect of the question of order which was before the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the point of
order?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not quite see my hon. friend's point of order. However he has probably served his purpose.


James Earl Lawson: Mr. Speaker saw it, anyway. He ruled with me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before I do say a word in reply to what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has said, may I assure hon. members that the procedure which the government is following this session is not different from that which has been followed in other sessions, nor is it any less generous but rather more generous towards
private members' resolutions. May I give to hon. members the number of Mondays which have elapsed between the opening and the dates on which Mondays have been taken as government days. In the session of 1932-33 five Mondays had elapsed; in the session of 1934, five; in 1935, four; in 1936, five; in 1937, three; in 1938, six, and this year eight Mondays have elapsed.
I would point out the relative importance of government business and the business of private members, because I hold, notwithstanding what the leader of the opposition has said, that after all, government business is more important than private members' resolutions, however important they may be. The government is the body responsible for carrying on the business of the country, and it is the best judge of what that business is. But in order that hon. members may not imagine that most of the Mondays since the opening were taken up with the debate on the address and other debates which have been mentioned, may I place on record the number of Mondays actually given up to private members' business. In the session of 1932-33 there were four Mondays; in 1934, four; in 1935, three; in 1936, four; in 1937, two; in 1938. four, and in 1939, five. This session, therefore, more Mondays have been given to private members than have been given in any of the sessions since 1932. I mention these figures because they show that in every way the government has been considerate of the rights of private members.
My hon. friend has talked about the different measures we might have gone on with. May I point out that in the debate on the address I mentioned the first measure which would be taken up as a government measure would be the trade treaty with the United States. We regard that as a very important piece of legislation. I may say I do not think a more important piece of legislation has been introduced to this parliament at any time, unless it was the treaty of three years ago, of which in part this is a continuation and in part an addition. At any rate I made that announcement at that time so that hon. members would not feel it necessary when speaking in the debate on the address in reply to take up their time in discussing matters which would relate to the trade treaty. I wanted to give them the assurance at once that they would have that opportunity when the debate on the address was over.
I thought by giving that assurance we might shorten the debate on the address. I have given one reason why the government decided to proceed next with the trade treaty.
1622	COMMONS
Precedence for Government Business
But there was another reason, and a special one, why the government made the trade treaty the first important measure of the session. It was this: As hon. members well know, when the debate on the resolution respecting the trade treaty is completed we will then have to go into committee of ways and means to discuss the various items in the schedule. I imagine the discussion of those items will take a considerable time. Following the discussion of the items in committee of ways and means we will have to introduce a bill, the three stages of which will have to be passed by the house, including again discussions in the committee of ways and means. All that will take a considerable length of time.
I think it will be to the interest of hon. members in the house and to the country that the budget should be brought down as early this year as possible. Hon. members will know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) can hardly undertake to get his budget in shape for presentation until this all-important measure, the trade agreement with the United States is out of the way.
I say that is the reason why at the outset we gave the right of way to the trade treaty. We knew it would take considerable time to get the measure through, so that the path might be cleared for the Minister of Finance to bring in his budget at this session at as early a date as possible.
My hon. friend has spoken about some of the lesser measures which have been on the order paper. Among the number he referred to the penitentiaries bill, which is now before us. What was said about the penitentiaries bill at the end of the last session by many who were critical of the government at that time, and by no one more strongly than by the leader of the opposition in another house, when the measure was in that place? It was stated that the penitentiaries measure was one of the most important that any government could bring forward, but that we had left it to the very end of the session, and that therefore there was not the opportunity to discuss it in the detail which its importance merited. Well, the best answer to a criticism of that kind is to make a measure of that sort one of the very first pieces of business after the opening of the session. We do attach very considerable importance to the penitentiaries measure, notwithstanding the fact that the leader of the opposition has different views concerning it. The reason for bringing it up at this time is to permit it to be sent to the other house at as early a moment as possible, so that there may be no excuse, so far as the discussions in that place

are concerned, of its not having been presented in ample time. There have been some small measures, but they have taken very little of the time of the house. Time has been taken up with the debate on the address, with the debate with respect to defence contracts, with the Bren gun resolution and with the resolution moved the other day to refer another munitions contract to the public accounts committee. The remainder of the time has been taken up largely with the discussion of the trade treaty. As I have said, it was felt the smaller measures would not take up much time. It was thought advisable to have some of these measures sent to the other house so that they would be available for the consideration of members there when they assembled again, which I believe they are to do to-day. If these smaller measures, if you wish to so describe them, had not been brought forward, there would not have been as much in the way of legislation for immediate consideration in the other house as will now be the case.
The real occasion of delay this session has been the discussion with regard to the two contracts of the defence department. My criticism with respect to that discussion has been, not that there should not be full and ample discussion with respect to these particular measures or with respect to all measures affecting the department of defence, but that there is a time and place for all things. The time and place to discuss these contracts was in the committee of public accounts after they had been referred to the committee and again in this house after the committee had reported. If there had been any objection to referring them, then there would have been ample ground for opposition and discussion, but when the government was ready to refer them, the discussion that took place was I think completely unwarranted in the circumstances.
The leader of the opposition says that we have held back certain legislation. He referred to one measure which was important and which he says should have come on before this, the resolution with respect to the setting up of a defence purchasing board. That resolution was placed on the order paper on February 7, just a month ago. The intention of the government was to bring in the measure with respect to the defence purchasing board the minute we were through with the trade agreement, which we regarded as being the most important measure of all. That has been our intention all along. There would have been ample opportunity during the debate on that measure to discuss all questions relating to contracts of the defence depart-

Precedence for Government Business
ment and hon. members knew that when they were debating the motions to refer specific contracts to the public accounts committee. The house chose to discuss those particular references when we might have been going on with government business had we not been thus precluded. We regarded the resolution to set up a defence purchasing board as one of great importance and the only reason why we have not been able to reach this measure before this is the amount of time that has been taken up in discussing other measures, including the two motions respecting a reference of defence contracts to the committee of public accounts.
Let me say this in passing with regard to some of the discussion that has taken place. I do not share the view which seems to be held in some quarters that parliament should cease to be a deliberative assembly, that it is not necessary to have the government informed by hon. members from different parts of Canada of the conditions existing in their constituencies and in their parts of the country or to have public opinion moulded in a deliberative and careful way. I regard parliament as being essentially a forum in which progress can best be made by reasoned discussion, not by snap-hasty judgment and quick decision without any opportunity of weighing the merits of measures pro and con. I regard it as being the one great bulwark that is left to a free democracy to-day, and left only to those countries where parliamentary institutions still exist. These free institutions have been wiped out largely in most parts of the world, but the essence of our parliamentary system of government is the opportunity it affords to discuss very fully the pros and cons of what has taken place or is taking place in each part of the country. Hon. members should be allowed to talk frankly and freely with respect to conditions as they know them in different parts of the country.
My hon. friend has mentioned the discussion of unemployment and other problems. I wonder how a greater facility could have been afforded by the government to every hon. member to discuss unemployment than was afforded during the debate on the address? Hon. members took ample advantage of that opportunity and they gave to the administration their views with regard to the situation as it existed in their parts of the country. There are going to be further opportunities. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition made another extraordinary remark. He said that he did not think that supply was of much concern, that it was something that came up on Friday nights to fill in. I have always thought that the voting of supply was
one of the most important of all the functions of parliament. Without supply being voted government itself cannot be carried on. Moreover when supply is being discussed is the time above all times when hon. members have an opportunity to discuss anything they wish, to take up any concrete problem, to discuss any matter of public importance and to take part in debate to an extent which is not afforded to them in like measure at other times. As my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has just mentioned to me, there is not a single resolution on the order paper the main features of which could not be discussed very fully, either when the government was going into supply or when the house was in committee of supply.
The leader of the opposition probably is somewhat new to his office, but if he had the duty of leading the house-I do not think it is at all probable he is likely to have-he would then find that these matters had to be thought out. not as he is accustomed to doing by quick reasoning and snap judgment but rather by looking ahead in connection with the business of the country generally. I see my hon. friend is looking at me rather sharply. I do not know whether I have said something which has offended him. However, he has said something this afternoon to which I wish to refer more particularly.
The leader of the opposition said that I had sought to alarm parliament by talking about war. I do not think any hon. member will find the word "war" mentioned in anything I have said. I did say that I thought there were more important matters which we might be called upon to consider at almost any time and that we would do well to get on with the work of the house. I suppose there is no more difficult position in which a leader of a government can be placed than to know just how far it is advisable to go in warning members of parliament or the country of a situation as it exists, or how far it is wise to remain silent.
I remember last September that members of the Conservative party in this country were pretty strong in their attacks upon myself. They said that knowing that a situation which was coming along was going to be very critical, I should have taken the country more into my confidence and told the people to be prepared for an emergency. As I say, it is a very difficult position in which a leader of an administration is sometimes placed, because one has great responsibility. However, there are ways of seeking to meet it. While one cannot always take the entire house into his confidence, parliament has provided a means of courtesy whereby the leader of the

Precedence for Government Business
government, should he regard a situation as being serious, may call in the leader of the opposition. I did that with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition since this house opened this year. Some dispatches which I was receiving were of so serious a nature that my colleagues and I felt that they ought to be shown to the leader of the opposition. I asked him if he would come to my room and allow me to show him what the government and I had received with respect to conditions as they were developing in Europe, and what we must be prepared for in the event of matters taking a certain turn. How my hon. friend, in the light of the information he then had, could chide me this afternoon for having made the remark that I did the other day to hon. members with respect to hurrying on with business because we might have some more important matters to consider, I have yet to understand. I say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that I question very much if he would have wished to receive dispatches which were more serious than those which I showed to him. Since I showed him the dispatches I did, I have received others, perhaps a little less serious, but nevertheless of a character to cause the government to view with great concern matters which were happening in other parts of the world. I am happy to say that, more particularly in the last day or two, the skies seem to have cleared very considerably. During the earlier period it was still doubtful how the civil war in Spain would end: in all the capitals of Europe there was, I believe, very great fear as to how the situation might develop over the whole of Europe. But certainly, since that situation has cleared up to the extent it has, there has been very great relief in, I believe, all the foreign offices of Europe. I cannot say more than that. I am not going to seek to influence in any way the judgment of this house. What I said the other day I still adhere to as something which I think it was proper I should have given to hon. members, all the circumstances considered.
I might go on and speak of the importance of some other measures, and let me just add this. I have never known an administration to place all of its important legislation on the order paper at once. I have noticed, following business in this parliament during the years I have been in it, that the invariable practice has been not to begin except for special reasons with the most important measures but with some of the minor measures until parliament, so to speak, got under way with its work. Apart from that, the fact that the government has not been holding back 
important measures is evidenced by the order paper itself, which contains more than one bill that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition says is important. I might add to those mentioned the bill to amend the Pensions Act. That bill has been on the order paper since January 18. The measure I have mentioned, to create a defence purchasing board, has been on the order paper since February 7. Another important bill, a measure of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has stood there since February 10. and the resolution with respect to the loan under the consolidated revenue act has been on the paper since February 3. It is simply childish to speak about the government's business not being important because the order paper is not laden up with measures which there is no possibility of reaching at the present time, and which would be kept there and called day after day, taking up space on the order paper and the time of parliament in the calling of measures which it is known cannot be reached for some little time to come. I hold that the government has evidenced full circumspection as respects both the business of the house and the consideration shown private members. I am not surprised, however, that my friend the leader of the opposition, feels it necessary to seek to make out some sort of case for himself and his following with respect to the amount of time they have been responsible for wasting this session.


Robert James Manion: I shall not take up very much more of the time of the house. I notice that, although the right hon. gentleman has a habit of lecturing us on how much of the time of the house we occupy, he talked on this occasion a good deal longer than I did, and dragged in a lot of extraneous subjects which have no bearing on this matter, besides reading me a lecture as to how I should lead the opposition. The right hon. gentleman led oppositions for quite a long time and perhaps he knows something about them. At the same time I am afraid I shall have to follow my own course as to how I shall lead the opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we shall have to form a leadership league.


Robert James Manion: I agreed, and so stated as soon as I got up, with going on with government business, and I suggested that the government bring forward business of some importance.

Precedence for Government Business


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What could be' more important than the trade treaty?


Robert James Manion: We have been dealing with the trade treaty, but the right hon. gentleman has been shelving it for other measures. We have been led to understand since the house opened that they were about to bring in a measure for a defence purchasing board. Why have they not brought it on?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I dealt with that.


Robert James Manion: The right hon. gentleman objects to our discussing the Bren gun contract and this other munition contract which stink to high heaven of favouritism and patronage. As he objected to that, so he would have objected if we had brought forward the matter while discussing the defence purchasing board; he would have said that as these matters were to be referred to a committee we would have no right to discuss them. His tactics are to draw a red herring across the trail. That is what he did the other day with regard to this supposedly terribly critical world situation-a situation no more critical than it has been for months and months, but he knew that by so doing he would distract attention from the fact that he had not given any answer to the question whether he supported the idea of giving to pets and favourites of the government these high-priced munitions contracts.
In regard to the business, I read a list of government business which has been dealt with, and a list of private members' resolutions, and I repeat that the private members' resolutions have to do with much more important business than anything with which the government has dealt this session.
I merely wish before I sit down to touch one other point. The right hon. gentleman has told the house and the country that he did me the honour of calling me in to see some dispatches from overseas. He did call me in about six weeks ago, on January 20, some four months after the September crisis. I noticed that at the time of the September crisis in England, the Chamberlain government called in the leader of the opposition and the leaders of all the parties. He even invited Mr. Churchill, who is not the leader of any party: Mr. Chamberlain called them all in. But the right hon. gentleman waits four months before calling me in or calling on any of the rest of us, although the country was facing a crisis which might at any time have led to war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to the hon. gentleman that at the time of the
September crisis he was not the leader of the opposition, and he had not a seat in this house?


Robert James Manion: I was leader of the Conservative party at that time. My hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth) was at that time the leader of his party and was a member of this house. The leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore) was in exactly the same position. In England it was not necessary that a man should be the leader of a party; he was called in if he was a person of prominence in the country. At that time I was leader of the Conservative party. I will now say what I intended to say on some other occasion when the question of the September crisis comes up to be discussed -and I think it should be discussed in the near future; I hope the right hon. gentleman will bring it forward as early as he likes. What I intended to say was that the right hon. gentleman neglected his duty to this country in not calling in the leaders of all parties. He should have invited the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the leader of the Social Credit party and myself; we should all have been called in, to share the responsibility if for nothing else. In that regard I was fairer to him than he was to me. I played the game fairly and well as a Canadian and offered no criticism at that time. But he waits until January 20- I give the date from memory, but I think I am right. He called me in one day and showed me some of the dispatches. He has not called me in since. I know his tactics: he wanted to be able to stand up in this house and say that on one occasion he called me in. That is his slippery way. I know his tactics, his slippery tactics; I know them just as well as he knows my tactics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Edward Foster: The word "slippery", used by the hon. gentleman, is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


Robert James Manion: I withdraw the word "slippery," but I cannot think of any other word that takes its place.


Walter Edward Foster: I must ask the hon.
member to withdraw the word unqualifiedly.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word.
As regards his leadership of the house, the right hon. gentleman has made quite a little speech to us this afternoon on the painful duties which fall to him in leading the house. But he does not lead the house. The right

Precedence for Government Business
hon. gentleman has not been in this house ten per cent of the time this session. That is how much he has led the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made the statement quite clearly, I think, in a previous debate that, having the duties which I have as Prime Minister, I have many things to attend to as well as to follow the debates in the house. I can follow debates in Hansard. I cannot in this chamber attend to many all important matters and follow the debates at the same time; I made it clear that I would be in my seat whenever the question hour was called and when there were matters under discussion for which it was expected I would be here. Hon. members will realize that I must have some time while parliament is in session, apart altogether from the House of Commons, to attend to the duties which belong to the office of prime minister. I made that perfectly clear, and my hon. friend knows that I cannot be expected to be in my seat here all the time. I have able colleagues who are responsible for their different departments and matters relative thereto. I may say that, in being here part of the time, and being part of the time out of the house in attending to the business of the country as prime minister, I am only following the example of those who lead the government in Great Britain as they have led it for many years past.


Robert James Manion: I point out again that the right hon. gentleman has not been in this house more than, on an average, about fifteen minutes a day. He stays until question time and then goes out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not leave this house one hour while the debate was on with respect to the defence matter. I was here throughout all the time of discussions. Nor did I leave the house during the great part of the time of the debate on the trade treaty and the debate on the address. Whenever I knew that an hon. gentleman opposite who had been a member of a former administration was to speak, I have tried to be here in order to pay him that respect, and whenever I thought the leader of the opposition would be here and would have something to say which he might wish to direct to the attention of the government, I have sought to be present to hear his remarks. I intend to follow precisely that practice from now on.


Ernest Lapointe: May I be allowed to say just a word to 'bring back the question to our domestic affairs instead of international matters. While this discussion was going on I sent for the Hansard of the session of

1932-33, after the empire conference at Ottawa, when there had been a very important agreement which might be compared to the one that is before the house at the present time. On that occasion the session was called earlier for the purpose of having parliament ratify that agreement. As a matter of fact we were called to meet on October 6, 1932, and on October 12 the then prime minister moved the ratification of that agreement. The house sat continuously discussing the agreement and the division on the third reading took place on November 22. The house discussed the agreement continuously, and, as I have said, the session had been called earlier for that purpose. No other business was taken up or discussed, and I may say that the then opposition rather cooperated with the government for the purpose of bringing the debate to a close.


An hon. MEMBER:: What?


Ernest Lapointe: Well, the dates are there. After one month of discussion the third reading of the various agreements took place. Now, however, we find that the house has been in session almost two months, since the beginning of January. The trade treaty is not even in committee; it is being discussed on the resolution. We have not been able to make any progress with it.
I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) when he protests against the comments of those outside the house who claim that parliament is doing nothing when discussing the trade agreement. Those leadership leaguers should understand that on very important business such as this, parliament not only has the right but it has the duty to discuss everything that is relevant-and that is doing the business of the country. When members of the house are discussing the treaty they are doing the business of the country, and it is therefore useless to publish a blank space and indicate underneath that parliament has done nothing. Surely, however, an end must be reached in the discussion of the trade treaty as well as in any other discussion, and I say with all due deference to my hon. friend that while he protests against the statements of Mr. McCullagh and the other gentleman who criticized parliament about the business that is being carried on, he gives them material by helping to some extent to prevent the business of the house being done.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) the other day, when Wednesdays were taken by the government, said-and he was right-that the government is always in control of the house; the government can always control the business of the house. That

Sudeten Immigrants
is what the Prime Minister wants to do to-day, and surely the leadership leaguers ought to be pleased to think that he wishes to take all the time of parliament to carry on the business of the country.
So far as supply is concerned, I hardly think that my hon. friend is serious when he says that it is merely a matter of routine which is taken up on Friday when the house has nothing else to do. Supply, the voting of money for public business, is the main work of parliament, and as the Prime Minister has said, with respect to every one of the resolutions on the order paper, the subject involved may be discussed in supply. The leader of the opposition says that there is unemployment in Canada and that we have not been able to discuss it. Well, there are items in the estimates relating to unemployment which are there for the very purpose of curing unemployment. If the estimates are prevented from being reached and supply cannot be voted and unemployment cannot be discussed, surely under such circumstances it is not the fault of the government.


Robert James Manion: We have practically never refused to allow the government to get into supply-practically never.


Ernest Lapointe: We could not go on. We wanted to have the trade treaty disposed of, and surely it was only the natural and normal thing. It had been announced that the main business of the session, the business which it would be the first duty of parliament to deal with, would be that trade treaty. Under the circumstances I do not believe that there can be any objection to the motion being carried. No one would suffer in consequence of the government taking every day to dispose of the business of the country, and private members will certainly have every necessary opportunity to ventilate any grievances they may have.


Mr. WALSH:: I do not want to delay the proceedings unnecessarily-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Allen Walsh: If that is the tenor of the house I am willing to sit down.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to. SUDETEN IMMIGRANTS



SETTLEMENT IN CANADA OF FAMILIES FROM CZECHOSLOVAKIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: I wish to direct a series of questions to the
Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), on the basis of an announcement by officials of that department to the effect that some 2,500 refugees from Czechoslovakia are to be established in the Peace River and in northern Saskatchewan.


Walter Edward Foster: That is a question that ought to be put on the order paper.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I believe the minister promised to answer the questions.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member may proceed if there is an agreement with the minister.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The questions are:
(a)	Has the minister been in contact with the various provincial governments concerned?
(b)	Are such statements allegedly made by high departmental officials to be considered government policy? (c) Under what authority will the government establish these settlers on provincial lands?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: The hon. member advised
me a short time before the sitting that he intended to ask this question. As far as I am aware, no official of the immigration branch has made any statement such as that upon which he bases his question. I shall have to check up on this and will endeavour to give an answer to-morrow, but of course if I am correct in my statement, and I think I am, then the rest of his question falls to the ground.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Is the minister in a position to answer the question which I directed to the government yesterday, namely, whether or not the department intends to place the responsibility for the settlement of families from the Sudeten area of Czechoslovakia upon the colonization departments of the railway companies?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Unfortunately I was indisposed yesterday and not present in the house, but my attention was drawn shortly before the opening of the sitting to the question that the hon. member for Vancouver North asked yesterday. I shall look into it and hope to make a statement to the house in reply to-morrow.



VALIDITY OF ALBERTA STATUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Earl Lawson: On February 16 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), in reply to a question put by me,
Radio Licence Vendors

intimated that we might anticipate an announcement from his department as to allowance or disallowance of certain Alberta legislation. Will the minister kindly indicate now when we may expect the announcement?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. KUHL:: I rise to a point of order.


Ernest Lapointe: I did
not know I was out of order.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The point of order is that if we are governing ourselves according to the British North America Act, in my opinion this house is not competent and has not authority to discuss the disallowance of provincial legislation. To substantiate my point I should like to quote a few sentences from sessional paper 116 of 1876.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: This is since the passing of
the British North America Act.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. There is no point of order in this.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a
point of order.


Walter Edward Foster: The point of order is not well taken. I do not think the hon. member can raise this question now.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The point of order is that
the house has not authority to discuss this matter.


Walter Edward Foster: It is not a proper way to raise the question.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: In what way has this house
authority to discuss this matter?


Walter Edward Foster: I do not think the point of order is well taken. If the question raised by the hon. member is to be discussed, it should be in some other manner.


Ernest Lapointe: The point of order being disposed of, I wish to tell my hon. friend who asked the question that I am very busy just now in preparing to give him a definite answer in a very few days.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
^Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport): Yesterday the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) asked me to make a statement with reference to any changes in the collection of radio licence fees. Having looked over the

file I find a letter addressed to myself from J. R. Bowler, general secretary of the Canadian Legion, and copy of a circular sent out by Mr. Bowler to all branches of his legion setting out the agreement arrived at between the committee of returned men and the officers of my department in this connection. The memorandum makes it quite clear that there is no change in the method of collection other than that all house to house canvassers shall be returned soldiers. It was emphasized by the legion and by the officers of my department that it was not thought wise to make any change other than that, having in mind the responsibility of the Department of Transport to collect the funds required by the radio broadcasting corporation and the responsibility of the legion in recommending house to house canvassers.
I may say that only about thirty-four per cent of radio licence fees are collected by house to house canvassers, about twenty per cent are collected by dealers, and the rest is collected largely through the post offices. That being the case it has been the practice since 1932 to ask members of parliament to organize their ridings as to the number of house to house canvassers required. That practice has been maintained through the years, and discussion with the returned men indicated that they did not wish to change the practice.
Mr. MacNICOL:: The minister says that since 1932 members of parliament have been asked to organize their ridings in reference to the matter. I know of nothing like that.


James Earl Lawson: Nor I.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister mean present members of parliament on the government side and defeated Liberal candidates?


Mr. HOWE:: I think it is customary for the head of a department to call for the advice of members of parliament who are like-minded with himself.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Are the defeated Liberal candidates in the constituencies responsible? In my constituency returned soldiers are being directed to the defeated candidate in the last campaign. I have never been consulted.


Walter Edward Foster: Orders of the day.


Charles Grant MacNeil: It is a fair question.


Robert James Manion: Is there any change in the percentage allowed to the collectors?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None whatever. It was set somewhat higher in 1932, reduced to the present level in 1933, and there has been no change since.

Wheat Board-Grain Shipments



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). According to a news item appearing in the Vancouver Province of March 2, a direct charge has been made by the mayor of Vancouver that the dominion government, through the wheat board, has discriminated against Vancouver by ordering grain shipments to move east instead of west. In view of the seriousness of the matter to the Pacific coast ports, I think some statement should be made by the minister.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I should like to make my reply to that question just as emphatic as possible. Perhaps it is unnecessary to say that the government never at any time interferes with the operations of the wheat board, either with regard to purchases or sales or the manner in which the wheat shall go forward to the markets of the world. I asked the chairman of the board as to this charge and he says that there is absolutely no favouritism in regard to routing the grain, that it is routed eastward or westward according as it is to the financial interest of the board and of the country.



TABLING OF WEEKLY REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Daum Euler: The hon. member for
Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) asked the other day that the weekly auditors' reports of the wheat board be, not laid on the table, but placed among the sessional papers so that they might be examined by members of the house. He advanced as a reason for his request that this was done last year and therefore should be done this year. I stated yesterday that while that was the practice last year it was only during the period when there was really no wheat for sale; and that now, since wheat is for sale, the practice has been discontinued. Perhaps I might read into the record what was said last year. The then leader of the opposition, Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, had asked on March 3 that there should be deposited with the clerk of sessional papers the
weekly auditors' report of the operations of the wheat board. I replied on March 14 as follows:
On March 3 last the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) requested that there should be deposited with the clerk of sessional papers the weekly auditors' report of the operations of the wheat board. These reports have now been received from October 12, 1935 to February 24, 1938, and will be so deposited to-day. As each report is received from week to week it also will be deposited. Perhaps I should say that the time might conceivably arise when it would no longer be advisable to follow this practice.
I should like to direct attention to the fact that during the period when these reports were placed in the sessional papers, the board was not buying wheat. At that time we had a regulation providing that unless wheat fell below ninety cents a bushel none should be purchased, and the board did not acquire any wheat. At the present time, however, the board is purchasing and selling wheat, and in accordance with the practice followed prior to the time when no wheat was being purchased, we have not given out the information, believing, with the chairman of the board, that it was not in the public interest to give details as to the purchases and sales of wheat by the wheat board.


Mr. PERLEY:: In reply to the minister's statement-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Halsey Perley: I think I am in order. This is a matter of considerable importance.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. gentleman may not ask questions except with the consent of the minister.


William Daum Euler: I have no objection to answering a question.


George Halsey Perley: I should like to ask whether it is not a fact that while the 1935 wheat board was taking wheat from the farmers there was a report made of the sales, the amounts on hand, and so on, and whether that report was not made public.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member is out of order.


George Halsey Perley: And the amount on hand at the end of each week.


Walter Edward Foster: This is not the proper time for a discussion of this kind.


George Halsey Perley: I do not know when we are going to get a proper time for this discussion.


William Daum Euler: I suggest that my hon. friend put his question on the order paper, and he will receive an answer.
Penitentiaries Commission



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 34, respecting penitentiaries-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 10-Appointments of wardens, etc.; salaries.
Thomas Langton Church: I understand that this commission is to be under the control and management of the minister himself; that is, it is to be a departmental commission under the minister. This section is the same as section 20 of the old act, and I should like to ask the minister what is being done in order to obtain guards, deputy wardens and wardens of the proper type. You cannot learn this business in a day. The warden and deputy warden are the chief officers, and in the absence of the warden the deputy takes his place. Is any system proposed for the training of these men, or will they just be brought in from their private occupations to act as wardens, deputy wardens and so on, and have their salaries fixed by the commission?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend refers to the new system we want to inaugurate, the guards who will be appointed by the commission will have to undergo training and will be appointed only after their qualifications have been fully approved and recognized. Then they will be given the opportunity to show their capacity, their character, their ability to manage, and so on, and the intention is that deputy wardens and wardens will be appointed from among the men who have made good in the various services of the penitentiaries.
Up to the present nothing of this kind has existed. I know how difficult it has been in the past for ministers of justice to find the best possible men to put at the head of the various penitentiaries. When men already in the service could be appointed, after they had proved that they could assume the responsibility, they usually were appointed. Otherwise it is a difficult task for the authorities to find the best available men. As a matter of fact at the present time there are one or two vacancies, and I have the various officers of the department at work trying to find the best possible men to appoint. I believe that with the system which will be organized it will be possible to obtain trained men. It is even the intention to have a training school under the commission-of 
course on a smaller scale-such as they have in England, which has proved to be such a valuable institution in furninshing men qualified to administer penitentiaries.


Thomas Langton Church: In other words we may expect that the old system will be followed; that people will be appointed by the governor in council as wardens and deputy wardens with no training for the work except what they may learn by experience.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Thomas Langton Church: Yes, they will have to learn in practice by experience, as they have in the past.


Ernest Lapointe: My statement was exactly to the contrary.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to go just a little further in reference to the appointment of guards and others mentioned in subsection 1 and referred to again in subsection 2. Do I understand from what the minister says that it will be the intention in Canada to follow the system which has been established in the old country?


Ernest Lapointe: That is what we have in view. That is the purpose I have in mind in having this change effected, and I think my hon. friend will agree that if we succeed in doing so, it will be a great improvement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am heartily in accord with it, if that is the intention, because it means that somewhere, probably in one of the penitentiaries, the commission will set up a school in which those who may wish to become guards, sub-wardens and so on may undergo thorough inspection, training and education. Then these men will be selected, not for permanent appointments but for trial?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe that system has been found very satisfactory in the old country, where I understand they have one school, at Wakefield. So I am to take it that in Canada the intention is to follow that system, which really takes the appointment of guards, deputy wardens and wardens out of the political sphere?


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am heartily in accord with anything along that line, because in

Penitentiaries Commission
the old country politics are wiped out, as far as I could ascertain, in everything connected with prisons.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to say a few words in opposition to the procedure adopted by the government with respect to this section. The government has decided to appoint a commission, responsible to the minister and parliament, to administer the penitentiaries. The other day, speaking to the committee, the minister said, in effect, that when appointed the committee would be composed of individuals in whom the people of Canada could have complete confidence.


Ernest Lapointe: That is my hope.


Angus MacInnis: And that they would not be selected because of political bias. I am sure every hon. member appreciates that statement, and I believe the commission will be as the minister has suggested. In my opinion no one should have a greater desire than the minister that the commission be composed of men of the best possible type. But it seems to me the government is making a mistake when, after appointing a commission responsible to the government, it then undertakes to appoint wardens, deputy wardens and other administrative or executive officers who must operate under the commission. I suggest that the appointment of the wardens, and the wardens only, might be left with the commission. As the commission is responsible to the government for the administration of the penitentiaries I think it should be permitted to select the persons directly under it. But w'ith the exception of the wardens, all the other employees in the penitentiaries should be appointed by the civil service commission.
I see no reason why we should set up a civil service commission and then leave appointments to other persons. Let me quote the words of the present Prime Minister on this subject, when he was leader of the opposition. On March 30, 1933, the then leader of the opposition was speaking to a resolution which had been introduced by the former minister of justice with respect to the appointment of penitentiary officials by the governor in council, a provision similar to that now before the committee. The right hon. gentleman is reported in Hansard for 1032-33 at page 3544, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, this resolution involves the introduction of a bill which means a departure from the merit system and a return to the discredited patronage system with respect to appointments in connection with the penitentiaries of our country. In a word, it will make 71492-103
political machines out of the penitentiaries, and I want therefore to take very strong exception, at the very outset, to the passage of this resolution.
I submit that that is strong language from the present Prime Minister. But he went farther, and said:
To begin with it will have an unsettling effect upon the whole civil service of Canada. If this important branch of the civil service is to he withdrawn from the operation of the Civil Service Act, and the control of the Civil Service Commission, it will be but the thin edge of the wedge, the introduction, in other words, of a policy on the part of the administration to withdraw other services from the control of the Civil Service Act. Hon. gentlemen opposite were in office. I believe, at the time provisions of the Civil Service Act were extended to cover some of the outside services, and they will recollect the difficulty there was in getting the measure through the house and the necessity of backing up their efforts by strong public opinion throughout Canada.
And then he goes on:
I said that before, some time ago, and what has happened since bears out the truth of my statement. That a group of gentlemen, none of whom has any special training or the expert knowledge required in determining the qualifications of a warden of a penitentiary, should undertake such appointments, is a course of procedure certainly open to question.
It is only fair to add that with respect to the appointment of wardens he went on to
say:
All things considered I believe that concerning important technical positions requiring certain special personal and other qualifications, the minister himself is perhaps better able than the commission to make appointments. ... I just wish to stress at the outset what has been recognized by the press of all political parties since the resolution appeared on the order paper to be a distinct step backwards and a great misfortune. I was hoping the minister was going to allow the resolution to remain on the order paper until the close of the session, since it had been there already for so long a time.
I believe the leader of the opposition of that day was on strong ground. It is my opinion that this government would be making a mistake if it were to adopt the section as it now stands.
As I said before, I believe the appointment of wardens should be left to the commission, but that deputy wardens, other administrative or executive officers and all other employees in the penitentiaries should be appointed by the civil service commission. I hope the minister will take these points into consideration before the bill receives third reading, with a view to bringing in an amendment along these lines.


Ernest Lapointe: As my
hon. friend and members of the committee

Penitentiaries Commission

know, I was in charge of the Department of Justice between 1923 and 1930. During that time all the appointments to the penitentiaries and in the penitentiary branch were under the civil service commission. Speaking in the house in 1925, I said the following, as reported at page 1284 of Hansard:
I am responsible for what happens in the
fenitentiaries of Canada at the present time.
am responsible if there are evasions; 1 am responsible if there is a rebellion in a penitentiary anywhere; and I think it is not fair that the wardens and the deputy wardens, the main officers, and even the guards in the penitentiaries, should be selected under a system of [DOT]competitive examination. It is absurd. I think that penitentiary work should be compared with the work of the mounted police or even of the militia. In the penitentiary the work that is to be done by the guards, and very often their lives are in jeopardy, depends for its success more on the character and the temperament of the man than on what they may happen to know about geography or arithmetic or anything else. This conviction I have formed during the year and a half in which I have been at the head of the administration of the Department of Justice. I believe in control by the Civil Service Commission when it is a case of appointments in connection with ordinary departmental work, but I do not think they are qualified to select the men to conduct the penitentiaries.
Up until 1930 while I was Minister of Justice no change was made in the system of appointments. Three years after he had taken charge of the department, my predecessor in office, Hon. Mr. Guthrie, introduced legislation for the purpose of taking away from the civil service commission the appointments to the penitentiaries. That is the law as it exists to-day. My hon. friend has read what the then leader of the opposition said, but he should also read my words when I spoke on that bill. I supported the bill because I thought Mr. Guthrie was right in taking charge of the appointments to the penitentiaries. This is work of a special character, comparable to the work of the mounted police, or even the army. However, I objected to that part of the bill which dealt with the stenographers and clerks employed in the branch, and Mr. Guthrie agreed to change the bill and not apply its provisions to those engaged in clerical work. If my hon. friend turns to page 3652 of the Hansard from which he has just read, he will find that my leader agreed with what I had stated. He approved the bill as it referred to wardens, deputy wardens and those in charge of convicts in the penitentiaries.
One has only to consider the matter to realize that this is not something which could be done by the civil service commission. As I said the other day, the Minister of

Justice is responsible when things go wrong in that difficult branch of the department. Under the new system which I want to establish, the permanent officers will have to go through a training period, as I told the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). They will then become specialized in their work and the prison commission will be in charge of appointments. The appointment of wardens and deputy wardens will be kept under the governor in council, but no appointment will be made without the recommendation of the commission. I would have no objection to adding those words to section 10 if it is thought desirable that they should be added.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: I wish to congratulate the minister upon introducing this bill. I find myself in agreement with section 10, but I should like the minister to explain what procedure would be taken in case a complaint was laid against a deputy warden, for instance. How would that be handled if the appointment were made by the civil service commission, and how would it be handled under the section as it now reads?
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East); An investigation would be made by the commission.


John Charles Landeryou: Under section 10, if a complaint were laid against a deputy warden, the minister would have to deal with it directly?


Ernest Lapointe: Under section 10 the governor in council appoints wardens and deputy wardens, but under other sections of the bill the commission would have to do with administration, discipline and other matters.


John Charles Landeryou: If the deputy warden were appointed by the civil service commission, the complaint would have to go to them.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and I do not know what experience they would have.


Miss MACPHAIL:: If the minister is willing, I should like to have the words "on the recommendation of the commission" inserted. I am quite sure that the desire of the minister is to have the commission recommend appointments from their own trained employees to the positions of warden and deputy warden.

Penitentiaries Commission


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I move that section 10, line 33, be amended by inserting after the word "may" the words "on the recommendation of the commission approved by the minister."


Thomas Langton Church: This amendment would
lead to dual control and dual authority, one of the things condemned by the report of the commission. The warden or deputy warden will say, "I have no power, I am interfered with or overruled by the governor in council or by the commission." It will lead to confusion and a division of authority, which is a bad thing in institutions such as these. There should be someone in absolute control. If the governor in council is to have certain powers and the commission other powers, it will not work out. There should be someone in absolute control. It is the only way you can have efficiency and economy.


Ernest Lapointe: There is practically no change from the law as it was approved by my hon. friend. The only change in this section is the one suggested by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Maephail), which I have accepted. The only change in section 11 is from "superintendent" to "commission." I do not see how there can be any complaint.


Mr. BROOKS:: I understood the minister
to say he was following the English system. Are the wardens and deputy wardens appointed by the commission in Great Britain, or by some other department of the government?


Ernest Lapointe: I think in a general way the employees of the penitentiaries are appointed by the prison commission. I do not know whether the wardens are appointed by the home office or by the king in council, but I shall find out.


Angus MacInnis: I am not satisfied with
the amendment. If that is all the minister will concede, we shall have to take it and be thankful for that much; but there is a principle involved which I cannot overlook. Whether the appointment is made with or without the approval of the commission, it will be, as the section now stands, a political appointment.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh.


Angus MacInnis: If the minister recommends somebody, I can hardly conceive of the commission refusing to accept the person recommended. I do not think the minister can conceive of the commission saying that they will not have a person who has been recommended by the governor in council.
71492-103i


Ernest Lapointe: My friend then will find, if he has that in mind, that I am a pretty weak minister. I would advise him to go to the head of the mounted police and ask him if I as minister in control of the force ever asked him to appoint one man upon the force.


Angus MacInnis: I have not said that the minister has.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member said it would be a political appointment.


Angus MacInnis: I did not. I was referring to what is in the bill. The bill says that the wardens are to be appointed by the governor general in council; and the governor general in council, in this case, will be acting on the advice of the Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: Well then, the Minister
of Justice will make the appointment, and so I do not see the commission saying-


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend does not need to get excited.


Angus MacInnis: When the minister says that I say things which I have not said, I have a right to get excited.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member said it would be a political appointment, and I deny it again.


Angus MacInnis: I still say it will be a political appointment.


Ernest Lapointe: I still say the hon. member is wrong.


Angus MacInnis: The position will not be advertised. Only a small number can know that an appointment is being made. That small number will be restricted to a certain political party, and the rest of the community, where there may be just as much talent, just as much ability, will have no opportunity to make application for these positions. That is the principle involved, and that is why I insist that this should be under the civil service commission. As I look across to the government side of the house, I see a number of members who rose in their places in 1933 and denounced the bill as introduced by the former minister of justice. I should like to see them get up now and state their position as they stated it then.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I feel disposed to support the clause, having heard the minister say that the intention of the department is to follow the custom now followed in the
Penitentiaries Commission

old country. I suppose it will take some little time to work it out. I am now going to speak of it as it has been in operation. I took particular interest in it while I was at Leeds, and also-and particularly-at Bar-linnie prison, at Glasgow. The acting warden then in charge at Barlinnie had been deputy warden at Wakefield, and during his term of office at Wakefield had been in charge of the [DOT] school. I went to particular pains to learn how the appointments were made, and whether they were in any way political, and he assured me that so far as he knew they were absolutely non-political. If a position becomes vacant in any prison, the authorities-I assume, the home office-are notified at once. Having ascertained that a position is to be filled, the home office would then communicate, as I understood, with the person in charge of the school.
Although I may be wrong, not being very familiar with that kind of administration, the inference I drew was that the appointments were wholly non-political, made on recommendation of the authorities at Wakefield, and from the school at Wakefield officers were sent hither and thither to all the prisons of England. If I am in error in that assumption perhaps the minister can correct me. If that system is followed I cannot see that there is anything political about appointments. That is what the deputy warden told me: he got his own appointment without any political pull. He had no politics; he had been trained in the school, graduated therefrom, obtained a position and worked his way up in a certain number of years to be deputy warden of one of the chief prisons of the old country. Personally I am strong for civil service commission control, but I do not see how it could control this. The administration recruits are to come from a school which the government is to set up for the training of all these officials who are required.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If that is followed out here with the same purpose they have in the old land, it cannot fail to render satisfaction.


Angus MacInnis: When the hon. member
for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) compares the civil service in Great Britain with the civil service in Canada he is comparing two things which are not comparable, because political patronage has entirely disappeared from the *civil service in Great Britain. Sir Francis Floud, when he appeared before the civil service committee last year, made the statement in answer to a question that a recommendation from a member of parliament would be IMr. MacNicol.]
an obstacle rather than an aid to the securing of a position in the civil service. This afternoon we heard a minister say that appointments in a certain department were to be made on the recommendation not of a member of parliament but of a candidate who had been defeated, in whom the electors of the constituency had showed they had no confidence. He is the person who in certain cases will make appointments. It was drawn to my attention last year in the house that the recommendation of an hon. member in another province carried far more weight than that of the elected member in the constituency in which the appointment was to be made. I heard the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) say that this could not be done under the civil service commission. There was a civil service committee appointed in 1921. An attempt was made at that time to take some of these classes from under the civil service commission, and the then superintendent of penitentiaries, General W. S. Hughes, was a witness before the committee. In reply to a query by a cabinet minister as to whether he would prefer to have the selections made by the civil service commission rather than by himself, General Hughes said:
I would prefer they would do it, very much.
Q. Why?
A. Under the system in which they appoint them, it gives our warden practically full control over them, because it gives our warden an opportunity to see whether they are satisfactory to him or not, and if they are not he has only to let them go. Under the old system, if we were saddled with a bad man we would have to keep him. We had no power to dismiss him.
I am not saying that the minister would interfere with the dismissal of a man whom the commission found unsatisfactory, and I am not saying that if we had the machinery they have developed in Great Britain for these appointments, the suggestions made would not be all to the good. But we have not that machinery. Political appointments are made in all departments, and unless we provide that these appointments shall be made by the civil service commission, they will continue to be made politically, no matter what the minister or anyone else may say.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps
I should rather keep silent. My hon. friend likes always to have the final word. But may I tell him that, even though the civil service commission in England is the perfect instrument he says it is, these appointments are not made by that commission. Appointments of prison officers are made by the prison commission. So that the argument of my hon. friend falls to the ground.

Penitentiaries Commission
With regard to the former bill of 1933, the system which we shall have is quite different, because the superintendent will not be merely an officer in contact with the minister, and no evil-minded person will be able to suggest that the minister exercises influence over him. That will all be changed. The members of the board will be appointed for ten years. They will be independent of the government and will be responsible for the making of appointments. My hon. friend says that if there is a recommendation to dismiss an employee the minister may exercise some influence over the commission.


Angus MacInnis: I did not say anything of the kind.


Ernest Lapointe: What did the hon. member say?


Angus MacInnis: I have tried to tell the minister w'hat my opinion is.


Ernest Lapointe: The superintendent of penitentiaries is here and I can assure my hon. friend that I have never attempted to interfere, and never will, with any recommendation of the superintendent for the dismissal of an officer by reason of bad conduct or anything else, apart from signing and approving the report. My hon. friend is wrong when he thinks of his fellow men, whether they be ministers of the crown or other persons, as having always some evil design or as being always willing to work only for party advantage. I may tell him that he is wrong. More than that, this is intended exactly for the purpose of removing the administration and management of the prisons of Canada as far as possible from any control by party government. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should put so many obstacles in my way. I am trying to organize a reform that has been asked for by many people in Canada, many reformers, and I had not expected him to put so many obstacles in the way.


Thomas Langton Church: The whole plan of this reform for the control of these institutions hinges on the principle involved in subsections 1 and 2 of section 10. It seems to me we are getting merely the form and not the substance of real prison reform. In the first place the key men in the penitentiaries will be those appointed by the commission. The men who will actually be in control of human beings are to be appointed by the commission. On the other hand, we have the governor in council, and the governor in council is always regarded as a political agency. I do not say
that it will be so in respect of the present Minister of Justice, but under section 10 the appointment will be made by the governor general in council on the recommendation of the commission. The commission will be a lot of figureheads with power merely to recommend the heads and chiefs. Who are the key men the governor in council appoints? They are the wardens, deputy wardens and other administrative officers, including, I suppose, teachers and medical officers, bookkeepers and technical men. They are to be appointed by the government on recommendation of the commission. The governor in council will be in Ottawa, the commission will be in Ottawa, while the men really at the head of the institution will be on the scene of battle. In my opinion the proposal before us will lead to inefficiency, lack of responsibility, divided control and lack of proper supervision of these institutions.
The 800 men in Kingston penitentiary, for example, will be regulated and drilled by officers appointed by the commission. In other words, you will have an agency up here appointing key men whose duty it will be to maintain control over 800 men in that institution. It seems to me that the whole bill is top heavy and will soon be on its way to be upside down. I have had a great deal of experience with commissions of various kinds and J know very well what difficulties and complications are going to be met with under this bill when the commission is set up. Mr. Brockington was before a radio committee of the house the other day and he intimated that he was beyond the control of parliament and could do as he liked over the head of parliament. In the same way, if you pass section 10 of this bill, you can say good-bye to any further control by parliament of our penal institutions for the next twenty-five years, and we who sit here will be responsible twenty years from now if we find by that time there has been no progress or no substantial reform has been introduced. The same policy that has been pursued in connection with the radio commission, the railway commission and similar bodies will operate here, and you will find that this commission will be top heavy. It is going to be a sort of regular standing army with its key men, guards, teachers, mechanics and others who will be actually in charge of the inmates, and to these commissioners we are going to hand over powers which we have never dreamed of giving to our judges. These officers will be able to make rules and regulations which even a judge presiding outside in a
Penitentiaries Commission

court of justice cannot promulgate, and to give to these rules and regulations the force of statutes.
The policy itself has been condemned by the court of appeal of the province. Without this parliament's knowledge or consent, these officers and warden's courts may extend a man's term and impose penalties which even the judge who sentenced the prisoner had not the power to impose. Yet we sit here handing over to a commission of this sort the power to appoint a certain class of men to these important positions. It reminds me of Coxey's army, with all the array of brass hats. Everybody of importance will be a general or a brigadier or a brass hat, appointed by the governor in council. When it comes to the men on the ground, the captains, the lieutenants, the sergeants and the corporals, they will be appointed by some gentlemen known as the commission; and when any trouble arises in the * west one of the commissioners, I presume, will travel with a staff and retinue, all over the country, just as if he were in the army, and with no results.
Nothing is said in this bill about reclamation and prevention. We all know what prevention in hygiene and medicine and public health have done; yet in this most important piece of legislation dealing with such an important problem, no provision is being made to reclaim the inmates of our penitentiaries or to prevent crime, nor are there any'prevention measures in it. The hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) the other day spoke words of wisdom when he discussed certain conditions in our penitentiaries. He dealt with the social and medical problem in its relation to public health, and what he had to say in that regard might well be heeded by the minister. The minister is a gentleman in whom I have the utmost confidence and whom I respect, and I would rather see him in control. Let him appoint the superintendent and the other important officers himself and retain control. I think it would be far better. In England the Home Secretary has a central board, and he gives these people a free hand. This section may have been drafted by lawyers, but you are just divesting yourself forever of any authority.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: 
Angus MacInnis: I must protest against
the accusations of the Minister of Justice that I am putting obstacles in his way. This bill has been before the committee to-day for less than an hour, and I have taken up possibly fifteen minutes of that time. That is all the time I have taken in speaking on this bill since it appeared on the order paper, yet the minister says I am putting obstacles in his way. Is a member of parliament supposed to state his views in this house on any subject that comes up, or is he to take it that when the minister brings forward a bill he is infallible and nothing further need be said about it? As far as I am concerned I am not taking for granted the infallibility of anyone; I am prepared to say my say when I think I can contribute something to the debate, just as the minister himself would do.
He says that by this bill he is trying to remove the administration of the penitentiaries as far as possible from political or governmental influence. Well, I am trying to assist him in doing that, and I do not like to be told that I am putting obstacles in his way. I am not. I am trying in my way to improve the bill. If he cannot accept my suggestions, then despite any obstacle I can put in his way he can carry the bill. There is too much of the high and mighty attitude, that only one or two people are entitled to speak, based, I suppose, on the supposition that only one or two have all the wisdom. If they have all the wisdom, the mess we have been in during the last few years indicates that more wisdom is needed.


Mr. MARSH:: I was not in the house
when this bill was in the resolution stage. If with the indulgence of the chair and the minister I may be allowed to comment on the bill as a whole, I shall doubtless take up less time than if I have to speak on it item by item.	*


Ernest Lapointe: I should
be grateful to my hon. friend if he would wait until the sections are carried. Every speech made before the sections are carried has the effect of delaying the bill.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie, Vancouver), agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 11 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-Annual report.


John Charles Landeryou: How much a month
does it cost on an average to keep male prisoners?


Ernest Lapointe: The usual charges for food and other things required every day are from about S12 to $15 a month. That does not cover overhead, wages of guards, cost of buildings and so on; it covers merely the maintenance of the prisoner.


John Charles Landeryou: Could the minister
give an estimate of the actual cost including administration ?


Mr. McCANN:: It is all in the annual
report.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps
we might proceed, and I will give the information to my hon. friend later.


John Charles Landeryou: This $12 to $15 a
month includes just food and whatever clothing they may get?


Ernest Lapointe: Maintenance, medical care, clothing and everything of that kind.
' Mr. CHURCH:	This section is the very
same as section 4 of the old act. It is all very well to say that these commissioners shall make an annual report. An annual report about what? We have had this annual report made to this parliament this year and for the last fifteen or twenty years. There is a recommendation at page 268 of the commission's report referring to Dorchester, where the new warden got fine reforms, but the deputy warden was said to be of the old school and incompetent. This annual report will be just the same as under the old statute; it will not contain any of this information for the guidance of parliament; it will give just the amounts received and disbursed, with such other information as may be deemed desirable. I would ask the minister whether this annual report will provide for any study, or any changes along the lines suggested, for example, by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) regarding prevention and that kind of thing. Will it be the same type of report that one gets from the other commissions?


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member will find that under section 15 the minister will receive from the commission a report which will contain all possible suggestions for improvements.


John Charles Landeryou: May I ask why the cost for food, clothing and medical attention should be from $12 to $15 a month when the
Penitentiaries Commission


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Charles Landeryou: Here we find the cost of maintaining these criminals just about double that amount.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will forgive me if I do not discuss that phase of the matter. These prisoners are sent by the courts to the federal establishments. We have to take care of them, and I am simply telling my hon. friend the cost; that is all.


John Charles Landeryou: 
The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


John Charles Landeryou: I suggest that the unemployed would be better treated in gaol than they are out of it.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
On section 16-Construction and repairs.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Under this section the construction and repairs of buildings and other works in the penitentiaries are under the control of the commission. Would that be through the Department of Public Works or under the commission itself?


Ernest Lapointe: The commission itself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the commission receive tenders and let contracts?


Ernest Lapointe: Even at the present time repairs in the penitentiaries come under the penitentiaries branch and are done largely by convict labour.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
On section 28-Duties of assistant commissioners.
John Ritchie MacNicol: The assistant commissioners are to receive salaries also, I assume?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The assistant commissioners will be permanent officers. The commissioners are appointed for ten years, as my hon. friend will remember, but the assistant commissioners will be permanent appointments. As a matter of

fact, their duties will be those performed, at the present time by the inspectors of penitentiaries, and I suppose the first assistant commissioners will be the inspectors.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.
On section 31-Wardens to have executive control.
Thomas Langton Church: Under this new commission is it intended to retain these illegal warden's courts, which sometimes impose penalties which even assize judges or the chief justice cannot impose and which parliament has never sanctioned? These warden's courts are absolutely illegal, and I think we should have a stated case to the supreme court in regard to them. Some of the findings of these courts are made without proper trial, on hearsay evidence of some biased witnesses, a practice which was condemned by the royal commission.


Ernest Lapointe: As I said in the beginning, the changes to be made in the law will be made later on the recommendation of the commission which is to be appointed ; and the commissioners themselves will have power to make rules affecting these so-called courts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 32 to 44 inclusive agreed to.
On section 45-Privileged visitors.
Thomas Langton Church: This section would not
permit inquiries to be made by grand juries. Surely the grand jury on the authority of the judge at the assizes should be enabled to visit once or twice a year at least, these institutions in the town where the assizes are held, but I do not see any provision for that here. The judge presiding at the assizes, which may be held once or twice a year, should be able to direct the grand jury to visit any institution and report thereon. The grand jury system is an important factor in the administration of justice in Ontario, as in other provinces, and I believe the judge presiding at the assizes should be able to have these inspections made. In 1935 a bill of mine dealing with this matter was before parliament. The grand juries have the power to visit provincial and municipal institutions, where they pounce upon a great many defects. So much has that been so that a royal commission in Ontario has condemned some of the older gaols as being unfit for human habitation. I think grand juries would be far better than some Of those preferred visitors.

Penitentiaries Commission
who never or seldom visit, who are named in this section, which gives this permission to the following:
-the governor general of Canada, the lieutenant-governor of any province of Canada, any member of the king's privy council for Canada, any member of the executive council of any of the said provinces, any member of the parliament of Canada, and any judge of any court of record in Canada or in any of the said provinces-
I venture to say that hardly any of these people have been in one of these institutions. Grand juries have had certain powers since time immemorial, and they are the bodies to inspect these places. They can summon anyone in the prison before them for information, and such visits would not interfere with the discipline of the institution at all and be no expense. This is one way in which we can find out what is going on. Do not forget that these federal prison institutions have been conducted as closed shops since confederation. The public did not know what was going on in them; otherwise we would have had reforms years ago. In England the grand juries have had these powers, so why should they not have them in Canada? Are we behind the mother country in the matter of law reform?


Ernest Lapointe: The grand jury is, of course, entirely a provincial organization over which we have no power, authority or control. Apart from that, in most of the provinces grand juries have been abolished. I believe in Ontario they still exist, but not in Quebec, British Columbia or several other provinces. However, I do not see why any exceptions should be made there for men who may be employed provincially in the prosecution of the assizes. There is really no justification for making them different from any other citizens. Apart from that, the commission will have power to make rules with regard to visitors. I understand in England they have what are known as visiting committees. I believe the amendment suggested 'by the hon. member is not necessary.	,


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would the minister explain the limitation with respect to members of the executive council of any of the provinces. Would he consider the advisability of allowing members of provincial legislatures to visit penitentiaries during business hours and at the pleasure of the wardens, provided they are agents of inmates, and that they may have been asked to deal legitimately with some business of the inmates. That frequently occurs with regard to men in prison, and particularly in connection with violations 71492-101
with respect to unlawful assembly or rioting. It refers particularly to men who are without next of kin and, so far as representations to be made on their behalf are concerned, are deprived of contact with the outside world.
At the same time I would ask the minister whether, in the event of a member of the House of Commons visiting a penitentiary, any restriction would be placed upon him in a discussion with an inmate in connection with a matter such as an appeal to the crown for clemency?


Ernest Lapointe: That is all a matter of regulation. However, I fancy a member of parliament is at liberty to talk to prisoners on business when visiting a penitentiary. It is a matter of regulation, and I should like to leave those items of detail for the consideration of the commission, in the light of their study and experience.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would the minister consider favourably the idea of extending the provision to include members of the provincial legislatures?


Ernest Lapointe: The suggestion will be considered.


Charles Grant MacNeil: It is now limited.


Ernest Lapointe: I should not like to put it into the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: I suggest that the new section 45 is, with the exception of a few words, the same as the present section 40. These institutions have certain privileged visitors who rarely visit. Rightly or wrongly, these institutions are managed by the crown, and I say there should be some proper public and independent inspection of penitentiaries by grand juries.
The late Chief Justice Meredith presided at the assizes in Ontario for over forty years. Speaking to a grand jury in the county of York in 1930, he made reference to a bill which was before this house seven or eight years ago and which gave power to the grand jury to make public inspection. Reading the amendment to the grand jury he said, in effect, that federal and provincial institutions, whether rightly or wrongly managed, are managed by the crown, and grand juries as representatives of the public should during a period of the assize courts have the right to visit any of those institutions in the town where the assizes are held. They would obtain their authority from the judge presiding at an assize court.
That privilege has been in existence in England for years. Over there the grand or

Penitentiaries Commission

other jury insists upon inspection of institutions. Under the provincial system a grand jury visited an asylum and found several sane men in it. Yet there were officials of all kinds in that province. Although there is inspection by the officials mentioned in the section, in my humble opinion many of them are just figureheads, and they do not make a public inspection. It is no inspection at all.
The late Chief Justice Meredith was on circuit work for forty years, and was one of the ablest judges who has ever served in Ontario. He wondered why the principle of inspection, one which has been found in the British criminal law for many years, could not be carried out here. The section under discussion provides for certain visitors. There may be visits when the officials know you are coming. Those visitors will come by train, bring their aides-de-camp, and all that sort of thing. Under those circumstances they will learn a lot, won't they! But if a grand jury were permitted to make a visit, I suggest it would not interfere with the discipline of the institution or cause any expense. If we had had that system years ago, the deplorable conditions which are described in the report would not have existed. We learn of juveniles of sixteen years of age in those institutions, and practices which are opposed to all the known principles of proper dealing with the unfortunate.
In my opinion the minister should be prepared to accept an amendment to the bill permitting a visit from a grand jury. I see no reason why his officials should oppose such legislation. That just shows how much reform one can expect under this new commission, when the department will not accept the principle of the law of England whereby they have a central board, and further the principle whereby a grand or other jury may visit these institutions. These institutions are under the control of the crown, and the crown may do what it likes in connection with them. There are warden's courts within the jurisdiction of the institutions, and they may pass rules and regulations with which even this parliament would not have power to interfere. Yet we are denied the privilege of adding grand juries to the list of visitors.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course the hon. member knows there are grand juries in all the assize court districts. Does he mean that a grand jury sitting at Windsor or at Port Arthur would visit the penitentiary at Kingston? Who would pay the expenses? To whom would that grand jury, a provincial institution, report? There is a great difference in England, because over there the prisons are all under one government, and they are

institutions over which a grand jury may have some authority. But certainly the grand juries in the various districts of Ontario have nothing to do with federal penal institutions.


Thomas Langton Church: Assize courts are held at Kingston twice a year, and non-jury courts three times a year, and the grand jury in attendance there should be permitted to visit the institution without any expense whatsoever to the government. That is what the chief justice meant. He was referring to a public inspection which would not involve any expense.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Does the hon. member for Broadview know that the grand jury in England does not exist to-day? He has been saying that in England the grand jury has a right to visit institutions. I would point out to him that it was abolished some years ago.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I ask the minister
under what authority are those regulations dealing with visits of next of kin or blood relations promulgated?


Thomas Langton Church: There is a jury in England of the kind I have described. It may not be called a grand jury, but there is an assize jury which visits these institutions. I have reports from Great Britain in my desk which have been prepared by the Home Secretary. Those bodies may not be called grand juries, but they are public bodies with the right of inspection, and represent persons other than the crown.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: The hon. member must have an old report.


Thomas Langton Church: I had a bill before parliament about ten years ago with respect to this matter of a jury inspection, and in that bill the law of England was laid down. I proposed then a similar inspection for Canada.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: That was ten years ago.


Thomas Langton Church: The bill was considered for two or three nights here.


Ernest Lapointe: In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), may I say that it is certainly somewhere in the bill. Section 7 states:
The commission, subject to the approval of the minister, shall have power to make rules and regulations for
(a) the administration, management, discipline and police of the penitentiaries;


Agnes Campbell Macphail: One of the many recommendations of the royal commission was that there should be a board of visitors for every

Penitentiaries Commission
penal institution. Would the commission to be set up under the authority of this bill have the power to institute a board of visitors?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, they certainly would.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 46 to 51 inclusive agreed to.
On section 52-Warrant for removal.
Thomas Langton Church: I referred to this section the other day. This is practically the same section as is in the old bill, the change being from the minister to the chairman.


Ernest Lapointe: In answer to a question asked by my hon. friend I gave certain information the other evening, but he was out of the house at the time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 53 agreed to.
On section 54-Commutation of death sentence.
Mr. POULIOT:: Will this commission also act as a parole board?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: That will be distinct?


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 55 agreed to.
On section 56-If certified incorrigible, may be transferred to penitentiary.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I would be inclined to oppose the transfer of a juvenile offender from a reformatory to a penitentiary. In the old country prisoners similar to those described in this section are not transferred to the regular penitentiaries, they are transferred to a juvenile penitentiary or to a penitentiary where first offenders are kept. It would seem to me to be a backward step to transfer a juvenile offender from a reformatory to a regular penitentiary where he would be mixed up with all sorts of prisoners. After all, the boy or girl who is found to be incorrigible may be that way because of years of the most shocking and impossible home conditions. I visited a penitentiary in Scotland to which this type of offender is sent, and I found that immediately they set out to reverse the whole training of the incorrigible person. They made an effort to bring back respect for society which he might not have had at
71492-104J
home or in the reformatory to which he had been sent. I think there ought to be some stipulation as to the type of penitentiary to which these offenders would be sent.


Ernest Lapointe: There is much in what my hon. friend has said. However, I should not like to make any change in the law until the whole matter has been considered fully by the commission to be appointed. I can assure my hon. friend that his remarks will be submitted to the commission and full consideration given thereto.


James Earl Lawson: In case it should lend any weight to the representations made by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) when they are being considered by the new commission, I suggest that consideration should be given to transferring these young or first offenders to a preferred class penitentiary, if they are to be transferred from a reformatory. On more than one occasion it has been my privilege to visit the preferred class penitentiary at Collin's Bay, and I was greatly impressed with the effort being made there for the reformation of these offenders. I was impressed with the advantageous conditions that prevail at that penitentiary compared with Kingston penitentiary.


Ernest Lapointe: The whole question of the young offender will have to be fully considered. Still greater attention is being given to this problem in the old country. There is being presented at the present session of parliament in Great Britain a bill known as the criminal justice bill, which deals with young offenders in a special way. They have what are known as remand centres to which young people awaiting trial are sent instead of being sent to the regular gaol and thus having a blot placed upon their character. Of course, such a system would be a tremendous change from what we have in this country, but there is no doubt that great care should be taken in dealing with this phase of the matter. Young boys and girls should not be led to a life of crime because of the surroundings under which they are forced to live, or because of what may be only mistakes on their part. I can assure my hon. friend that I am entirely in sympathy with him in trying to solve this question in the best possible Way.


James Earl Lawson: That brings up another thought. The remand centres referred to by the minister are fine things, but this function is admirably taken care of in the urban centres of Ontario by the Salvation Army. It may be that the new commission could
Penitentiaries Commission

work out some plan whereby financial assistance could be given to the Salvation Army for the marvellous assistance they are giving in this regard.


Ernest Lapointe: The
Salvation Army officers have proved useful in the suggestions they have made with regard to this question.


Thomas Langton Church: This section is the same as section 51 of the old act. I was in hopes that the minister would free the federal institutions of the care of juveniles, but apparently he proposes to adopt the old system under which it is possible to transfer a juvenile offender from a provincial to a federal institution. In connection with this we must not forget that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have no system of provincial institutions, which means that the other provinces have to stand the cost of providing such institutions for those provinces.
The other night I referred to certain returns which had been made. The percentage of juvenile offenders in these institutions is seventy-five to eighty per cent, according to statistics to the end of September, 1937. This is a book of 218 pages issued by the Department of Justice, in which is contained information about inmates of that age. There is another return covering the provincial institutions, and yet another with respect to municipal institutions. In answer to my hon. friend who was speaking a few moments ago, it may be that the grand jury is not what it used to be in the old country; in some instances it may have been abolished. I will not here refer to the charge of Chief Justice Meredith. But I may say that I was in hopes, in view of this report, we should see an end to the incarceration of persons of that age in these institutions. The practice is condemned on page 178 of the report, where it refers to the fact that poverty brings them there, also defective family relationship- poverty resulting in overcrowding, semistarvation, and the absence of facilities for recreation at home. These are some of the reasons why we should rid the federal institutions of this type of inmate:
The causes of delinquency outside the home are mostly to be found in the character of the street and neighbourhood in which the child lives. They are composed of the influences that affect him beyond the circle of his family life; his companionships at school, or at work, or during his leisure hours. Such influences may be direct or indirect. The companions may be of the same age or adult companions.
Then the report goes on:
Among the most important and direct causes of juvenile delinquency is the demoralization of the present day. The slackening of religious

influences, the loosening of family ties, licentious pictures, publications, and magazines which glorify immorality or crime, are incitements to imitation by youths and juveniles.
The commission believes it is imperative that the authorities should go into these matters. It then deals with the functions of the juvenile courts.
Surely, if we are to make any progress in this particular reform, there should be some way of providing an institution like the Borstal system for this type of inmate. Instead of that, I venture to say that under the commission system it will be twenty or twenty-five years at the rate we are going before we instal the Borstal system. I believe that something should be done at once to provide a proper institution for persons of that particular age.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 57 to 65 inclusive agreed to.
On section 66-Clothing. Food. Bedding. Separate confinement.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Just a moment until we get a little explanation. Perhaps I might include sections 66 and 67, because they refer to the same thing, and are the old sections 61 and 62. I was hoping that the new measure, if it is going to specify conditions of work with reference to hard labour and hours and so forth, would follow the Borstal system, which we all hope is to be installed.


Ernest Lapointe: That will come later.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Section 66 refers to
clothes. I hope to goodness that the clothes for the male prisoners will not consist of a uniform of which the trousers will be one black leg and one white leg, or one yellow leg and one red leg.


Mr. SPENCE:: Give them dress suits!


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is not the plan they follow in the old country. Clothes in the prisons there are not, of course, the same as the rest of us wear or dress suits, but they are not so conspicuous that one can see them a mile away. I hope, since I see the minister nodding his head, it is the purpose of the commission to introduce into the operation of these two sections the same type of humane construction and human reform as is employed in the old country.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, in a general way. I would not say that they will have trousers with one leg of one colour and the other leg of another colour.

Criminal Code-Sweepstakes


John Ritchie MacNicol: No. That is not the style in the old land. In the old country the clothes are practically all the same. When I spoke of one black leg and one white leg I was referring to the uniform in this country.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps the minister was replying to the suggestion of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence), who suggested that they might have dress suits.


David Spence: Why have prison clothes
at all?


Thomas Langton Church: These men will probably have to work outside in severe winter weather. They should have proper overcoats, not the sort of scant clothing they have in some institutions when the weather is forty below zero as it is up north.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 67 to 82 inclusive agreed to.
On section 83-Act repealed.
John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask one question before we get right to the end?


Frederick George Sanderson: Section 83?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. This is practically the whole act. I was going to ask the minister if it is the intention to introduce some system of making allowances to prisoners for good conduct and for merit, as they do in the old country.


Ernest Lapointe: We have that already to some extent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I mean, payment of money.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, even that. Of course it is not a big salary. But the commission will have full powers to increase it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Just before this passes: I am not in agreement with many of the sections which went through, but was silent, upon the understanding that when the commission is appointed such changes will be made in this act and in any others as are necessary to carry out the reforms recommended by the royal commission.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 84-Coming into force.
Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friends will allow this clause to carry my good friend the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh) might make his remarks, unless he has questions to ask. If
it is a speech, at nine o'clock this evening I will move the third reading so that my friend can make his remarks.


John Allmond Marsh: I have some observations to make on the bill which will take a little while. I thank the minister for the opportunity to speak.


Ernest Lapointe: It will be best to do so on the third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend is here at nine o'clock, after we have disposed of the public bills I will move the third reading and he will have an opportunity to make his remarks.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



LORD'S DAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain) moved the third reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Lord's Day Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques-Cartier) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the criminal code.
He said:	Hon. members will no doubt
remember that this same bill was introduced at the 1938 session by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand). They will also remember that an interesting discussion followed; that great interest was taken in that bill by the people of Canada; that newspapers referred to it upon numerous occasions, that a considerable amount of correspondence was directed to the members upon its merits; but that, alas, no vote was taken on it and the session was concluded without the House of Commons and the Senate having an opportunity of expressing their approval or otherwise of this important measure. This lack
Criminal Code-Sweepstakes
[Stage Direction]
of a decision last year renders it necessary that the bill be reintroduced this year, and its sponsor of 1938, having to go to England this winter, could not present the bill himself owing to the uncertainties of the day and hour when he could perform the task. Since I had strongly supported the bill last year, he asked me to take charge of it on this occasion, a request to which I readily acceded.
The arguments advanced last session in favour of this amendment to the criminal code are just as good this year. They have not been weakened in any way whatever. The hospitals and universities in Canada are still in need of funds. Without going into details, let me just remind hon. members that the usual campaigns in aid of charities were held last fall; the needs of these worthy institutions were just as great and pressing as previously, and there is no sign on the horizon indicating an improvement in that situation.
Just as I did in last year's debate, I wish to pay a tribute of deep admiration and gratitude to the thousands of generous people who have helped our universities and hospitals, doctors, nurses and others on hospital staffs, the staffs of the universities, and those great silent workers of the religious congregations whose self-forgetful devotion to their fellow-men and women is beyond description, beyond appreciation and beyond adequate recognition. In spite of the help generously extended ,by benefactors great and small, in spite of the support and cooperation given by the public, and in spite of the sacrifices cheerfully made by those noble souls in charge of such institutions, there is still a financial gap to bridge.
A plight of this sort is not, I assume, limited to Canada. It is not a purely local trouble. But even if other countries encounter the same difficulty, that does not improve conditions in Canada. While we are not conversant with the means taken by other countries to correct this unfortunate condition, we are aware that one country holds a public lottery called sweepstakes, for the benefit of its hospitals. That country is Eire, formerly known as the Irish Free State. We know also that tickets for these sweepstakes are sold in Canada, notwithstanding the prohibition contained in our criminal code against their sale. Let me ask whether or not we consider as criminals those of our friends and acquaintances who purchase such tickets. Of course not. I admit that some of the buyers of these tickets are possibly little interested in the hospitals themselves and buy the tickets as a sporting chance in
£Mr. Mallette.]
the hope of winning something. Nevertheless the fact remains that they do buy these tickets, the prohibition notwithstanding, and therefore whatever money is risked in that way is lost to Canada and Canadian institutions. Should we not admire the wisdom and sagacity of those Irish gentlemen who understand human nature well enough to capitalize upon one of its little weaknesses and turn it to the advantage of charity-because that is precisely what happens through the operation of sweepstakes in aid of Irish hospitals. Those Irish gentlemen, with that keenness and kindness which are foremost among the many fine qualities of the Irish people, saw an opportunity of reaping benefits for the hospitals in that country in the hope of profit that lies dormant in the minds of most men and women who are prepared to take a chance. They saw that opportunity and cleverly took advantage of it. The response has been tremendous. Why should we not do the same for Canada? The answer is in the hands, or, rather, in the votes of the members of this house and the senate.
In case some hon. members are under the impression that sweepstake tickets are not sold in Canada, I quote for their information the heading of a news item that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 25, 1938, which reads:
64-year-old miller in Kenora wins $150,000.
Further down, referring to sweepstakes, the article itself says:
Buyers paid $13,730,010 for their chances to get rich quick.
Winners were paid a total of $8,057,600. That left a balance of $5,672,410.
I have here also an extract from La Presse of Montreal of August 16, 1938, giving a list of the winners of what they call the sole Canadian sweepstakes. They refer to the Dominion Rifle Association sweepstakes. People wonder why this sweepstake is allowed and others are not.
Again, I have here an article that appeared in La Patrie of October 23, 1938, which states:
Eight hundred Canadians have won consolation prizes in the Irish sweepstake.
There is a given list which is too long to insert in this speech, and anyway it has no bearing on my argument.
Without wishing to be personal, I believe that if I were to send a questionnaire to hon. members requesting information as to their investments of this kind for, say each year during the last ten years, the replies would be interesting provided the whole truth were told-and that from lawmakers, notwithstanding the law prohibiting the sale of such

Criminal Code-Sweepstakes
tickets. However, I will not perpetrate such a cruelty. Why should a law which is not respected, which is not obeyed and which is not advantageous to the country, be kept on the statute books?
This bill provides that such sweepstakes be permitted only when organized by the government of a province by or under a law of the legislature of such province. Any provinces that do not want to permit such sweepstakes do not have to. Where a province desires to do so, the adoption of a bill will allow the legal holding of sweepstakes. The people of Quebec, I am sure, favour the present bill, and I hope that hon. members from other provinces will give their opinion due consideration inasmuch as the holding of sweepstakes would be optional. No province would be bound to hold them, and that in itself is a valid reason for the adoption of this bill, because it would permit the willing provinces to hold sweepstakes, while it would not compel unwilling provinces to act. Surely that is a fair interpretation of British fair play.
As an example, some twenty years ago a great wave of sentiment swept over most of north America in favour of prohibition, in the hope of achieving total abstinence from the use of alcoholic liquors. The leaders of the movement were undoubtedly sincere in their ambition, and if they had succeeded the world would be different from what it is today. But they counted without allowing for human nature, and every hon. member knows the results. At that time, when governments were falling over one another in the rush to adopt prohibitory legislation, there was one Canadian province which stood aloof, the province of Quebec, home of good, sound common sense. Its government knew that nowhere can men and women be made or kept good just by passing laws. The government of Quebec adopted at that time state control of the sale of alcoholic liquors, and that policy has since been copied everywhere in Canada and even beyond our frontiers. I cite this example, in case hon. members may think this demand to legalize the sale and purchase of sweepstake tickets might be as far as Quebec is concerned a mere whim.
I have a better proof here than just my own opinion. On April 20, 1934, a law was assented to in the Quebec legislature entitled "An act to authorize the organizing of a lottery for education and public charitable purposes." At the end it states:
The power given to the lieutenant-governor in council by section 1 shall be exercised only if a lottery of the nature of that contemplated by this act is not prohibited by statute of the parliament of Canada.
Moreover such power shall not be exercised if the parliament of Canada authorizes the Canadian government to organize a general lottery in the whole of Canada for purposes similar to those contemplated by the preceding provisions.
And those purposes were recited in clause 2, which reads:
The proceeds from the lottery, after deducting the amounts fixed for the prizes and those required to pay the expenses of organization and of selling of tickets and other incidental expenses, as well as the salaries of the officers and employees appointed under section 3, must be employed exclusively for educational or public charitable purposes carried on in the province and designated by the lieutenant-governor in council.
I wish to add that one of the important political parties in Quebec, L'Action Liberale Nationale, has in its platform a clause approving sweepstakes for such purposes as I am now covering in this bill.
I have discussed the principle of this bill with that well known public character, the man on the street. In every case I have had an expression of approval, coupled with some surprise that the dominion government does not recognize the absurdity of prohibiting Canadians from holding their own lotteries and the consequent disappearance from Canada of-the money risked by Canadians on such ventures. The average man wants to know why the sale of sweepstake tickets is prohibited, while stock exchanges are allowed to operate and sales on margin are tolerated. Mr. Average Canadian also wants to know why the sale of sweepstake tickets is prohibited, while grain exchanges are in operation where one can trade in grain on margin, and why gambling in mining shares is permitted and betting on race tracks is tolerated. Let us be logical-just logical, but let us be logical. The average Canadian citizen objects to being stamped as a criminal because he risks a few cents in the purchase of a sweepstake ticket, or even shares in the purchase of such a ticket with members of his family or his fellow workers, while anyone can speculate in the stock market, the grain market, the mining market or horse races. He feels that there is hypocrisy about a law of that kind; he buys sweepstake tickets year by year, thereby engaging in transactions prohibited by law, and the profit on those transactions is lost to Canada. Is it to be wondered at that Mr. Average Canadian thinks this prohibition of the sale of sweepstake tickets is foolish, especially when the profits might go to Canadian hospitals? I share his views.
Some hon. members may claim that there are many ways of helping these institutions besides holding sweepstakes. Surely there
Criminal Code-Sweepstakes
[Stage Direction]
are, I agree. Here is a small list of them: raffles, tombolas, dances, bridge parties, soupers d'habitant, soupers du bon vieux temps, strawberry festivals, door-to-door canvass, sales of work, bazaars, kermesses. theatricals, drawings, oyster suppers, pilgrimages, old boy's reunions, euchre parties, bingo'. If hon. members want to know anything more about bingo I advise them to read one of the leading Ottawa papers, Le Droit, and every evening they will see on page 4 an invitation to go to Hull to attend bingo games for the help of a parish. I am not aware that that has been stopped. I was told around Montreal last Sunday that in some parishes they were told not to hold bingo games and bingo games were stopped. Instead of calling them bingo they called them jumbo, and the same thing goes on. In this list I have said nothing of imposts, levies, assessments, rates, taxes and other equally agreeable opportunities of raising money.
There is another element to be considered. Through the adoption of the present bill, by the sale of sweepstake tickets issued under the control of the provincial authorities, these authorities would be able to eliminate the racketeering which we suspect has been going on in the clandestine sale of tickets. We never knew positively whether the sums invested in the sale of sweepstake tickets all reached the management of the sweepstakes. Who could tell whether the tickets offered for sale, bought and sold, were genuine or forgeries? Should the law be amended in accordance with the present bill, the racketeers will not be able to compete with sellers duly authorized and doing business in the open. I have never heard of cut prices in the sale of such tickets, and tickets certainly cannot be adulterated as some other merchandise can be, such as Scotch whisky or other alcoholic liquors for instance.
Speaking of racketeers and racketeering, if hon. members will consult the Montreal papers of Thursday, February 9, 1939, they will read of a seizure of tickets having a face value of $750,000 for the Irish sweepstakes. Think of it, three quarters of a million dollars, 300,000 tickets!
I have received a good deal of fan mail in that connection, containing valuable information as well as divers suggestions. It would be too bad if these were lost to posterity. Among the contributors was L'Union Nationale des Veterans, with head office at 4616 rue Christophe-Colomb, Montreal. They would like a lottery to be organized for granting 
bonuses to veterans under any arrangement fixed by the federal government. They do not object to the principle of lotteries, but would like a dominion law for that purpose. I have not the least objection.
I have also received a proposed plan for monthly sweepstakes in Canada for the benefit of public health services, the first draw to be in Nova Scotia, the second in Prince Edward Island, the third in New Brunswick, the fourth in Quebec, the fifth in Ontario, the sixth in Manitoba, the seventh in Saskatchewan, the eighth in Alberta, the ninth in British Columbia, the tenth in the Yukon, the eleventh in the Northwest Territories and the twelfth for the benefit of the sweepstakes operating costs. I am not going into the details, but I thought hon. members would be interested in knowing about that.
Then I have a letter from a gentleman in Penticton, British Columbia, strongly favouring sweepstakes. He very kindly sent me four newspaper clippings with his letter. I should like to quote these clippings, but will refrain from doing so because they do not indicate their source, and I remember that some weeks ago an hon. member quoted from a newspaper clipping in the afternoon and in the evening it was found that the quotation did not come from the newspaper to which it had been attributed.
In addition to these and many other letters, however, the Financial Post of Toronto was good enough to refer to this bill. Of course I have not the slightest objection to the Financial Post or any other newspaper referring to this matter; very much to the contrary. In its editorial columns of February 4 the Post carried its comment under the heading, "The Sweepstakes Mirage." Again, so far as the title goes, I have no objection, but I do object to the six words at the beginning of the second paragraph: "Apart from questions of public morals-"
If that does not beat the Dutch, the Financial Post talking about public morals because sweepstakes are a mild form of gambling! I ask hon. members what would be the circulation of that same publication if a large part of it were not consecrated to stock gambling. They call it "investing." Of course we must expect some lectures from Toronto on the morality of this matter, since this great city shelters a number of selfappointed keepers of the public morals.
I do not intend to mention every letter I have received, but there is one in particular

Criminal Code-Sweepstakes
which deserves special mention. It comes from Fred Howlett, J.P., city clerk of Vancouver, addressed to myself, and reads:
I beg to notify you of the following resolution which was adopted by the city council on the 13th instant:
"That whereas, on the 24th day of January, 1939, in the House of Commons of Canada, the honourable member for the Jacques-Cartier of Montreal riding, Mr. Mallette, did introduce bill No. 10 entitled an act to amend the criminal code of Canada to legalize sweepstakes, to be organized by, and under the control of the legislature of a province of Canada and the net proceeds of such sweepstakes to be utilized and divided among hospitals and universities;
And whereas such bill did receive its first reading on the 24th day of January, 1939, in the House of Commons;
And whereas the legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia did, on December 9th, 1938, resolve on motion that the said assembly go on record as being in favour of sweepstakes conducted either by the dominion or any provincial government for the benefit of hospitals, which resolution did receive the unanimous approval of the legislative assembly;
And whereas the citizens of Vancouver did express themselves most forcibly when, on December 14th. 1932, by a vote of 25,735 in favour and 9,774 against, they showed themselves in favour of provincially controlled sweepstakes and the net proceeds thereof to be devoted to hospital purposes;
Therefore be it resolved that this council do reaffirm the expressed views of the people of the city of Vancouver and humbly petition parliament to so amend the criminal code of Canada to permit the operation of such sweep-takes for hospital purposes under provincial governmental or municipal control, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all honourable members of the dominion cabinet, to all honourable members of the province of British Columbia, and to the Honourable Mr. Mallette, member of the House of Commons representing Jacques-Cartier riding."
Lotteries are nothing new. Hon. members wishing further information on this important matter are invited to read a book entitled "Lotteries," by H. M. Muller, which can be obtained at the parliamentary library, when I have returned it. At page 22 thereof they will find that lotteries have been organized: first, for facilitating the raising of state loans; second, for reducing the capital of, or interest on, the national debt; third, for raising money for projects not connected with the supply or debt services and, fourth, for raising money as revenue. In 1566-69 Queen Elizabeth authorized by royal proclamation a lottery for improving English harbours and "other publique good workes." The Virginia lotteries of 161215 and 1618-21, for financing the settlement of Virginia, were launched under letters patent. In 1661 the royal fishery lottery was authorized by a proclamation of Charles II, and in 1694 a lottery was authorized by act of parliament. On this continent Harvard college
for a while raised approximately 815,000 a year by lottery and other institutions, such as Dartmouth and William and Mary, raised somewhat lesser amounts by the same device.
A tablet placed on Stoughton Hall, at Harvard, states that it was built in 1805, aided by a state lottery.
I	do not want to make too many references to newspapers, but I should like to quote something which appeared in La Patrie of February 12, signed by Mr. Louis Francoeur who, if I remember correctly, was a candidate of the reconstruction party in the last election:
II	est bien triste pour la province de Quebec qu'elle soit soumise en cette matiere _au pro-hibitionnisme puritain. _ Et l'on continue de s'etonner que Ton fasse ainsi violence 5 l'opinion reflechie de la province, exprimee de la fagon la plus claire possible, par ses parlementaires.
I will translate this roughly as follows:
It is very sad for the province of Quebec to be submitted in this matter to puritan pro-hibitionism, and we continue to be surprised that no account is taken of the considered opinion of this province, expressed in the clearest possible manner by its parliamentarians.
I do not suppose anyone would say money was not needed for education. If there is any doubt about it, let me just remind hon. members that during the last few days we have been swamped with postcards, of which I have some thirty, reading as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am convinced of the vital importance of careful attention being given during the present session of parliament to the need for a national system of university scholarships.
Canadian youth is faced with demoralizing insecurity and it is imperative that the many brilliant matriculating students be permitted to cultivate their exceptional talents. This is important not only from a humanitarian viewpoint but in addition it is indispensable that their potential insights be utilized in the solution of our pressing Canadian problems.
There are few expenditures by our federal government which would be of more value to the whole nation than would be a scholarship grant. Please be assured of my sincere support.
In French we have this, from Montreal students:
(Translation)
Dear Sir,-
Convinced of the need of national scholarships, I beg you to give serious consideration to the matter during the present session.
The complete intellectual development of many gifted young Canadians is impeded by unsurmountable financial obstacles. Permanent scholarships would permit our brilliant young men to devote themselves more effectively to the progress of Canada.
In my opinion, the government could scarcely make a more profitable investment. You may count on my whole-hearted support.
Well, if this question comes before parliament we shall be faced with two things.
Criminal Code-Sweepstakes
[Stage Direction]
In the first place we shall hear that education is a matter for the provinces, which is true; and, second, we shall be asked where the money will come from, because I believe the amount that has been suggested is $500,000. Well, the money will come from the pockets of the ratepayers, as usual, but there is a painless way of getting it; that is through sweepstakes, and I am sure sweepstake tickets for such an end would sell readily. I am convinced that it would be better to keep the money here in Canada than to allow it to either fall into the hands of racketeers or to be exported for the benefit of similar institutions elsewhere.
I have not bothered much with figures; I have spoken simply with regard to the principle involved, because to me it is a question of principle, and I know that those members with whom I have discussed the matter, whether they have been for or against it, also consider it as a matter of principle. I do not know just how much money it will mean, though others have made studies along that line. We know veiy well that such tickets are sold in Canada by the bushel, year in and year out, and that the profits go out of the country. I have tried to explain my point of view, with moderation. I hope it will meet with the approval of at least a majority of hon. members.
Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: 
Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member cannot place it on Hansard without reading it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I abide by the ruling of the chair, and shall quote only one or two paragraphs:
The Ottawa Journal, convinced that sweepstakes are an economic vice, would welcome official action that would make the publication of sweepstake winners illegal and close the mails to foreign papers carrying them. Whether the dominion government has power under the present law to enforce such a ban we do not know. Probably it would require an amendment to the criminal code which makes lotteries themselves illegal-with unimportant exceptions. Such a ban certainly would reduce the present illegal sale of lottery tickets, because it would end the display of examples of sudden wealth that lead the unthinking to consider the rare winner and forget the tens of thousands who pay and do not collect.
Then, there is this quotation in the editorial:
"Any state that legalizes lotteries will have a new source of income, but must also be prepared for these consequences:
It will gain a few thousands of dollars at a cost to its people of millions. It will increase its own relief problem. It will encourage new rackets and racketeers. It will not be able to frown upon other forms of gambling. It will do incalculable, harm to the morals of its children and its adult irresponsibles. It will increase public disrespect for government."
I do not need to quote more editorials. Hon. members will recognize the sentiments expressed in them. I might quote from another distinguished paper, namely the Timcs-Journal of Fort William. The editor of that paper is noted for character and ability second to none in Canada. I might also quote from the Port Arthur paper, which of course comes second to that of Fort William. I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) is not in the house. I might quote from the Belfast News Letter. In addition to editorials, we know that groups of people throughout Canada have been sending resolutions to members of the house asking us to oppose sweepstakes. Those people are not foolish. They are not people who are out simply to better their own interests. On the contrary they are Christian men and women who believe that sweepstakes would be injurious to Canada.
It has been shown that the hospitals in Dublin have not received very much benefit from sweepstakes, and it is my view that sweepstakes afford a very poor way of raising money for hospitals, universities or anything else.
The biggest business in Canada, namely the churches of this dominion, have more property, more buildings, more directors, more managers, more workers than any other business-and they are better paid. I do not
say they are paid in cash, but they are paid in something that is far ahead of cash. Where is this money for the churches found? It is found in the cottages and the shacks stretched across Canada from Cape Breton to the Pacific coast, from the United States border to the far north. The influence of our churches reaches to every last corner in Canada. How is this money obtained? It is obtained by free-will offerings, by duplex envelopes, by weekly envelopes and other forms of contributions. I may be asked if I have ever been up against it, if I have ever been in need of money. Let me tell hon. members that there has been many a time when I was so straitened for money that I thought of writing to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for a subscription. Then I thought perhaps I had just as much money as he. At least in the words of Ralph Connor, I had just as much money as I could properly take care of and spend.
To those who think we should raise money by sweepstakes, by lotteries and by raffles, let me say that anyone who tries to raise money by that method is slapping the face of the Great Giver who said to us, "Ask and ye shall receive." I should like to tell those who want to raise money for universities and hospitals how to do it. Many hon. members in this house came from the farm, as did I. I know how difficult it was sometimes to get water from the pump in the morning, especially if it was a cold morning. You had to prime the pump, or, as our hired man used to say, you had to soak the sucker. Let me give an example. I heard of a house-to-house canvasser who had been very successful in his work. He was asked to what he attributed his success, and he replied that it depended on the first six words he used when the door was opened. One of his opening remarks when a woman opened the door was, "Madam, is your mother in?" That is an example of priming the pump.
I call to mind that great university in Montreal, the buildings of which are still incomplete. Close by is another beautiful building, that put up by Brother Andre. I ask any hon. member from the province of Quebec: How did Brother Andre raise the money to pay for that place, to keep it in shape and to pay his staff?


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: The provincial government had nothing to do with it, but the-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: My hearing is not very good on my left side. I know how Brother Andr6 raised the money. He was able to raise the
Criminal Code-Sweepstakes

necessary money because the people loved him, because he knew how to prime the pump. They gave money to him because he gave them something which they prized more than money. Why do you give money to the church to which you belong? You give because in your heart you feel that you would like to have a hand in changing some life, whether it was the life of one who is down and out or one who is up and out.
How did Doctor Grenfell raise the money for the magnificent buildings he put up in Labrador? How was he able to equip his hospitals and pay his nurses and doctors? He was able to do that because he knew how to prime the pump. He showed the world, and especially Canada, the wonderful work he was doing. What a disgrace it would have been if he had had to resort to sweepstakes to finance that work! How did Doctor Barnardo finance his great work? He would take a boy who was down and out, with no father, with no mother perhaps; no home-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did he have a grandfather?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I was not there just then. Doctor Barnardo would take one of these boys and then show a picture of him when he started out, and another picture after he had been reclaimed. That was priming the pump. Barnardo homes are to be found all over England, and many of these boys have come out to Canada. I must admit that some of them made mistakes, just like other humans, but Doctor Barnardo did a great work.
How did General Booth raise the necessary money to keep the Salvation Army going? That was raised by voluntary subscriptions, by showing people men who were down and out, women who had gone to the devil. He showed the world the work of the Salvation Army, and he was able to get support all over the country. How do we get our money? I think of one man connected with our own church in the city of Toronto. He would make a fine minister of finance and he would carry out that work with the greatest dignity. He would know where every dollar came from, and where every dollar went to. That is a good characteristic for any minister of finance to have. That man is capable of handling large amounts of money. He knows where the need is, he sees what work must be done, and then he gets the money.
What do we need more than money? What do we need more than taxes? We need moral rearmament against the things that are spoiling us, with which we are all familiar. My

time seems to be passing faster than usual to-night. I gave three reasons last year why I was opposed to this resolution and, like a youth, they seem to have grown since that time. A system of sweepstakes would be bad economics. The great concern of all sensible people to-day is the creation without violence of a sound economic order. The basis of such an order must be sought in wise planning, general productivity and a reasonable distribution of the goods produced. It is utterly impossible to build a sound economic order on anything which has the semblance of gambling. It kindles the adventurous spirit in men, it detaches them from their daily tasks and creates a fraternity of men who are not, in any real sense, of value economically. The late Ramsay MacDonald said that gambling is marked by an impatience with the slow process of legitimate accumulation and by a revolt against the discipline of steady growth and sustained action. Any one who wishes to understand must realize that when you spend $2.50 to buy a sweepstake ticket, you cannot hope to see anything come back. There may be a very, very slight hope, but it is 400,000 times deferred. Therefore, I say it is bad economics.
I should like to give the house just a word along this line from another source to show that it is bad economics. In France they tried sweepstakes for five years, and at the end of that time they withdrew them, for at least two reasons. One was that 3 J per cent only of the sweepstakes went to the purpose for which they were collected; 96J per cent of the money raised by lottery went some other place. The French chamber of deputies saw that the boys and girls of France were being exploited; they were being used by racketeers. Therefore, they said, lotteries were not fair to the young people of France, and those lotteries, which at one time seemed to have a fine prospect of making good, have been withdrawn. Why are there not lotteries in the United States to-day? They have been withdrawn long since; the last one was in Louisiana in 1894. Why was it abolished? Because the odour of those sweepstakes became so obnoxious to the better people of the United States that they could be tolerated no longer.
I said last year that you do not find any Hebrews buying sweepstakes, because they know what good business is and what bad business is. You do not find many Scotchmen buying sweepstakes, because they see it is bad business.


Thomas Reid: They sell them.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I know of some others who
buy sweepstake tickets once in a while. I

Criminal Code-Sweepstakes
do not say that we should not do so. That is not my business to-night. But it is a different thing when it becomes a matter of public policy. I know that a couple may sit down and have a game of cards. In fact, four may sit down and play, it may be at cribbage, or-
Some lion. MEMBERS:	Pinochle.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Poker.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -a game of bridge, and it has no nip in it unless they play for a copper a point. Those men can do that if they like. If they think it is good business for them, they can do it. But when it becomes a matter of public policy, it is different; when a fifth man comes in and says, "Put up the poker bid and give me a percentage of it," it becomes a racket, and those four men who were playing had better get out.
I say to the hospitals that they have not any business, even from the economic point of view, to try to raise money by this means.
I say also that it is bad morality. Some say that our churches are busy raising money in this way. I do not know what all the churches do, but I know what mine does. There is no gambling in connection with our church. We do not need it. If our ministers and clergy are on the job; if they, with the laymen behind them, are heart and soul interested in following the Man of Nazareth, they will get all the money they need. I should like to state the opinion of our general council in 1938:
The general council reaffirmed its opposition to gambling in any form-"whether in stocks, wheat, at the race course, the card table, in connection with sport, lotteries or raffles," and especially deplored resort to gambling devices to secure funds for religious or benevolent purposes. It expressed the opinion that gambling carnivals sponsored by service clubs and other organizations have an injurious effect upon public morals and are especially harmful to the mind of youth.
That may not be popular doctrine. All sane people welcome a bit of fun. I like a bit of fun, and I like to see a good, clean game. Unless something important is in progress on Thursday night, I might go with some other hon. members to a fine game of hockey, because I believe that "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." You must have fun; but fun must be clean, it must be out in the open, and it must be in keeping with the plea that you, Mr. Speaker, put before this house every day.
Again, raising money by means of sweepstakes is bad morality. The tenth commandment says: "Thou shalt not covet," and I defy any man to buy a sweepstake, for $2.50 or $5 or $25, and not want to get the
increase that comes from the other man's sweepstake. When I buy a ticket, do I want nothing but my $2.50 from the fund away out yonder or down in Montreal? I want the profit which comes from sales of sweepstake tickets all over the country; I am coveting the other man's share. "Thou shalt not covet." That is the law of God, the God who is over this parliament and the God whom we are going to abide by.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member wants all the money to go to Ireland.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I say it is bad politics. It is the worst kind of politics. In 1906 an act was passed in England prohibiting bookmaking, betting and wagering in the public streets. It was found to be bad politics in the United States. It is bad politics even in Ireland to-day, where they would be glad to be rid of their sweepstakes. And it will be bad politics in Canada. If this house should stoop to the standard of morality which is set up by leaders in some other places, and pass sweepstakes, when I go back to the constituency of Fort William I would have to bow my head in shame and say that, while the government of Canada has done many very fine things-notwithstanding some people's criticisms-I would be ashamed that they had approved sweepstakes, and I would not get many votes from a certain class of people-


An hon. MEMBER:: You'd be surprised.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -when they found I was a party to the passing of a sweepstakes bill.
There arc many other arguments which could be put forward, but in closing-and I have a minute left-let me say that the university of Montreal will not need this money. According to news reports, the legislature of Quebec will pass this session a three or four million dollar capital grant and an annual grant of $600,000 for the university of Montreal. Then why bother about a sweepstake? I say that it is a disrespect of any institution, an excuse to which none of us would care to stoop, to argue that one has to go to sweepstakes to raise money. I hope the government of Canada will never sink to the level of raising money by such means to provide for our war veterans, many of whom went overseas and risked their lives. I am convinced that the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) will say that assistance for the veterans is not to be obtained along these lines. I am sorry that it is now nine o'clock.
1652	COMMONS
Penitentiaries Commission-Mr. Marsh



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 34, respecting penitentiaries.
John Allmond Marsh: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill, with which I agree in general although I take exception to some of the clauses in it. The bill is at least broad enough to include many things, under the operation of the commission which will be the resultant creature from this bill, that are at least new to Canadian life.
Prison reform cannot take place in a day. A hundred years ago there were scores of offences for which a man could be hanged. That is not the case now. I think we have learned over a period of years to differentiate between several things; first of all, to differentiate between the anti-social mind and the criminal mind. We have learned to differentiate between punishment as a deterrent to crime and punishment as fitting the criminal to be punished. I would not say that Canada lags behind the rest of the world in penitentiary reform, for the reason that there has been evolved no right way to punish crime, no right way to deter a criminal, no right way to rehabilitate a criminal, no right way to prevent crime.
I would say, however, that we in Canada have been backward in making any effort toward solution, and I believe that this bill may be the means of our progressing as a nation towards penitentiary reform. Furthermore, I see no reason why Canada cannot lead the way. Up through the years governments have been hampered by well-meaning though uninformed, I will not say unintelligent, people. Unbridled sentimentalism born of pity, the stirring up of the emotions, the heart speaking loudly and the brain and mind not at all, have created plenty of mischief in the way of penitentiary reform.
There must be no mollycoddling of prisoners, and any action we take must not of necessity be from the sympathetic point of view but must be from the point of view of common sense. The real case against the prison system is that it is not effective. It is unproductive of results rather than necessarily too humane. Until recent years the penitentiary systems at large in Canada were, I believe, cruel. I do not think any member of this house or any Canadian would care to see us go back to the nineteenth century, when the deterrence of crime occupied such a large place in the minds of people, when very, very cruel and long sentences were

imposed. Therefore it is quite natural to expect that research along the improvement of penitentiary control should be logically along humane lines. But our penitentiary system stands or falls, is a success or a failure, according to its effectiveness. The only rational alternative is a prison system that is directed towards making those who go to prison come out better men than when they went there, and with all our reforms we are still very far from that goal in Canada. But I would say that this bill may be the basis of broad treatment toward success.
There are to be appointed three commissioners and perhaps three deputy commissioners, the commission having power to add to their number; and if the commission fails to make a study, first, of crime prevention and, second, of the rehabilitation of the prisoner, with a reasonable amount of aftercare, then it will not have achieved the end that is possible. Such changes as will make our prisons real centres for the training of the law-breaker in social responsibility constitute the need.
The bill provides for the establishment of a commission to control the penitentiaries. I submit that their duties under this legislation can very well be widened to take care of those two phases of crime that I have mentioned. As regards crime prevention, they might act perhaps through the family court, the juvenile court; and the rehabilitation of prisoners should start first of all within the walls of the penitentiary and then outside.
I was surprised to learn, though I need not have been, that the family court, that timely and valuable innovation in Canadian law and justice, had its beginning in the city of Ottawa right within a stone's throw of this chamber- and when I say a stone's throw I am visualizing a throw by Babe Ruth rather than a throw by the hon. member for Hamilton West, because I could not throw so far. I have said that Canada can lead the world in penitentiary reform, and in view of the fact that the family court started in Ontario I think I can reiterate that statement.
A few days ago when this bill was in the resolution stage the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) made an observation, quoting from the report of the royal commission from which this bill has been evolved. He stated that 1S8 prisoners, repeating criminals, recidivists, in Canada had cost the dominion $4,500,000 or $25,000 per criminal.
I suggested that, in view of this, crime prevention has a real place in the activities of this commission, and that $4,500,000 would go a

Penitentiaries Commission-Mr. Marsh
long way toward such. It would be a case of a stitch in time saving nine, to quote an old, hackneyed truism.
In reading the report from Judge McKinley, who I believe is the founder of the family court-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


John Allmond Marsh: -I find that eighty per
cent of all those found in penitentiaries come from broken homes where there has been more or less trouble between man and wife, homes where there has been friction, homes where there has been separation or divorce. I suggest, therefore, that the family court, going in as it does with its helping hand, within the four walls of the home, has a great contribution to make to Canadian life in the prevention of crime. Any program of crime prevention should take into account the evidence that most criminals show of definite tendencies of antisocial behaviour early in childhood, and while it cannot be definitely concluded that any one type of crime prevention is necessarily superior to any other, I would commend that steps be taken by the commission to study the problem of youth education and crime.
I would be derelict in my duty if I did not point out the responsibility that we as parents have in the home training of our children. We have listened to a fine sermon from the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor)-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I rise to a point of order.
The hon. member misinterpreted what I said; it was not a sermon. But a good sermon is always better than an address.


John Allmond Marsh: I had no other intention
than to pay the hon. gentleman a sincere compliment.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


John Allmond Marsh: I was going to say that
the hon. member will not disturb me at any time if he quotes from the good book. The responsibility of parents in the home is a real thing in Canadian life to-day, and we as parents are not living up to that responsibility. It has been said from platform and pulpit-and I was guilty of saying the same thing myself not many weeks ago-that the church has failed. I did not mean to say that the church has failed, but we as church members have failed to live up to our obligations to the church. Our municipalities have been quickened in the last two decades in their responsibility towards the youth of our cities. They have opened recreation places and playgrounds; they have built beautiful parks in order that our children may be taken off the streets.
The churches on the other hand have fully lived up to their responsibilities. The church has socialized itself to meet physical as well as spiritual need. It has taken the boys and girls off the streets and put them in church gymnasiums where they have opportunities to play basketball, badminton and other worth while games good for body and mind. But we as parents have neglected the training of children in the homes; we have neglected the family altar and have not lived up to the heritage which is ours, the opportunity to teach -the youngsters how to live, to get along with their neighbours and to take a place in life. In that connection I should like to quote from the annual report upon prisons and reformatories, 1936, over the signature of the Hon. Harry Nixon. In that report it is stated:
It is quite evident that many parents are not successfully training their children and the many organizations engaged in working among and assisting the youth of the province have not been entirely able to counterbalance the evident deficiency in home training.
With that idea in mind I should like to draw a' comparison in respect to crime between times of affluence and times of depression. It has been said that crime increases in times of distress, that depressions create crime. On that I should like to give a few figures. In 1930 -there were in Ontario 3,366,000 people. The number committed for trial in that year was 29,126. There were 21,421 persons sentenced to prison. That was in a year of great prosperity, when everyone had money, when conditions were easier, when it was easy to make a living. In the depression years of 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, we find the population of Ontario increasing, but the number of persons committed for trial dropped steadily and those sentenced to prison became fewer and fewer. The following are the figures for persons sentenced to prison for those years:
1931		 18,127
1932		 15,804
1933		 14,538
1934		 13,509
Meanwhile the population of Ontario increased and business became worse. So it is not true to say that crime is less in times of prosperity and increases in -times of distress. But despite the fact that fewer young men and young women, as well as older men and women, were working; despite the fact that our service clubs, churches, municipalities were doing everything in their power to take boys and girls off the streets, the home did not keep pace. The sanctity of the home must find a real place in the life of our nation.
1654	COMMONS
Penitentiaries Commission-Mr. Marsh
I point out that modem city life intensifies opportunities for friction and crime. It increases the need for regulatory laws as well as opportunities for their evasion. Not only do these things make for increased lawlessness, but the irritation they cause also tends to reduce respect for law, which many still attribute to some mysterious ethical organ in the soul of man, but which in fact is the result of complex conditioning factors. City life tends to sharpen and dramatize economic inequalities. Side by side with the luxuries displayed * in shop windows, crowded slum dwellings make wholesome life exceedingly hard to maintain, children seek the streets, gang life is stimulated. The rewards of urban criminality are very much greater than they were when you, sir, and I were boys. There is ten times the temptation for youth to-day than there was in our boyhood. Not for a moment would I criticize our merchants for their manner of displaying merchandise, or say that they should change it, but I instance the counter of the five, ten and fifteen cent stores where merchandise is displayed attractively to excite longings in the minds of boys and girls. It is really wonderful to me that our boys and girls are as honest as they are.
Let me now say a word or two about the rehabilitation of criminals. If rehabilitation and aftercare are not undertaken, the majority of imprisoned offenders will again find their way back to prison. From an economic standpoint it would be cheaper to keep habitual criminals in prison than to let them out to break the law again, be brought again before the bar of justice, be prosecuted and defended by lawyers at the cost of the taxpayer. Nevertheless we cannot sentence a man to life imprisonment for an offence not calling for that sentence. It is cheaper still to cure criminals, if it is possible to do so. If methods of prevention fail, treatment in prison should be directed towards correcting the anti-social or criminal viewpoint. I have not quite made up my mind whether men and women are more susceptible to heart appeals than to appeals to the pocketbook; but whether we regard this matter from the point of view of humanity and justice or the materialistic viewpoint of dollars and cents, we must come to the same conclusion, that care must be given to the rehabilitation of the ex-criminal.
I think it is natural for all of us, as the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) brought out quite clearly this afternoon, to be more concerned about finding jobs for the lawkeeper than the lawbreaker. That is human nature, and we shall probably continue

to feel that way; but I submit-and here I hark back to the holy book-that this was exactly the point of view of the elder brother of the prodigal son, and it was not the right point of view. Strongly as we feel that we must work for the young fellow who observes the law, we must not be oblivious to the need for rehabilitation of the criminal from the viewpoint either of the pocketbook or of the man himself. The graduate from a penitentiary finds it doubly hard to get employment for the following reasons:	First,
he has been out of touch with world events and the progress of society, so that sooner or later he will disclose the fact that he has been absent from society for a prolonged period. Second, he has become accustomed to irresponsibility, has been told what to do, lias been fed, clothed, relieved of the responsibilities of life, and therefore he is not fit to take his place in an employment line-up and get himself a job. Third, sooner or later it becomes known that he is an ex-convict. Even if his employer is willing to keep him, other employees probably go to the employer and say, "We will not work with that man;" consequently he' loses his job. Here a process of education of the man on the street must be followed. Canadians must be made to realize that not only should they help in restoring that man to civil life, but if they do not, they as Canadian taxpayers are paying to keep that man in an institution. Fourth, competition is too keen in the labour market for anybody but a skilled tradesman to get employment. It may so happen that within the penitentiary walls a convict has been trained to take his place with the best of artisans, but in the main he is less well fitted to take a job. Fifth, ex-convicts have insufficient resources to keep them over the long period which is often necessary before they can secure work. Sixth, ex-convicts cannot afford to be homeless, because if they are picked up by the police for vagrancy their record stands against them. Further, the public generally will not accept them into society.
What does after-care consist of? As soon as a man has been convicted and before he is sentenced, his case should be looked into by the representative of the commission for that district, who has followed the trial, so that knowledge of the cause of his criminal action may be of aid to the judge in passing sentence. At any rate the data thus obtained should be available to the penitentiary warden, for three reasons: One, it will help the warden to determine the trade for which the prisoner is fitted; two, it will aid the warden in deter-

Penitentiaries Commission-Mr. Marsh
mining the type and amount of discipline that he needs to fit him for civil life again, and the means whereby his anti-social tendencies may be corrected. Then, of course, his mental and physical condition should be reported upon. Based upon this data, the prison authorities should plan that man's path back into society; the start should be made within the penitentiary walls and continued through an agency or a person appointed by the commission. The cost of after-care is less than the cost of the repeating criminal, the recidivist, and there will be no further cost from the criminal activities of the man who becomes rehabilitated. He will become a producer, a contributor to society, instead of a non-producer and a liability.
I should like now to say a word about the parole system and the system of remission. I think the remission board definitely and entirely should be under the direction of the penitentiary commission. I do not think there is any room whatever for dual control in that regard, and I do believe the parole system and the indeterminate sentence, as practised in Ontario, should receive the attention of the dominion government and of this commission. In Ontario ninety per cent of those paroled successfully completed their parole and were absorbed into private life without further offending the law. I would also direct the minister's attention to the fact that in Ontario two prisons have been closed, largely as a result of the parole system and the indeterminate sentence. In Ontario a man cannot be released on parole unless he has a job awaiting him. How long does he keep that job? Well, recently a check was made of those paroled within the previous eighteen months, and ninety per cent of them were found still working at their jobs. That is accounted for by the fact that the relatives and friends of that man do their best to rehabilitate him into civil life. He comes out of prison with' a job to go to, and it is the particular care of these people that he be kept at work. They play big brother to him; they open up avenues that otherwise would be closed to him, and I suggest that we might well take advantage of this agency.
In that connection I should like to quote from the report on the prisons and reformatories of Ontario which I hold in my hand, over the signature of the Hon. Harry Nixon, provincial secretary. According to this report, in 1935-36 the parole board held forty-five meetings, investigated 2,339 cases and authorized parole in 1,421 cases. There were 1,067 paroles put into effect; eleven prisoners were recommended for deportation; twentyfour disappeared while on parole; seventy committed crimes while on parole and were reconvicted, while seventeen were returned to reformatory, their paroles cancelled. So it will be seen that in almost 1,200 cases paroles were granted, and only 111 failed to make good. Of those 111, some seventy were reconvicted of crimes and returned to gaol, so they were not turned loose upon society to commit further crimes. This report goes on to make this comment:
Many of these prisoners paroled are heads of families, and too often with the breadwinner in custody the family must be dependent on charity or public relief. By the one process of granting parole the family is likely to become self-supporting and the province is saved the cost of maintaining the prisoner in the institution.
I have investigated many of these parole cases and have found that in some instances years after the man has served his sentence, years after he has been reinstated in private life, he has returned to his parole officer for advice, guidance and counsel, which speaks well for the personal element, the humanitarian element that enters into this problem.
I should like to say a word also with regard to the parole and probation system as it is operated in Hamilton under Magistrate Harry Burbidge, who has made a special study of this question and has been signally successful. The parole and probation system has worked out very well, probably because in some degree Magistrate Burbidge punishes those who break parole.	[DOT]
We must not, of course, lose sight of the fact that we have in our penitentiaries incurables who are a menace to society, who must be watched closely after they have served their sentences. There are also those who should suffer lifelong incarceration, but that does not excuse us from paying attention to those who may be rehabilitated. It must be borne in mind that 188 recidivists cost this country $4,500,000, or $25,000 each, so from the viewpoint of economy as well as the viewpoint of common sense and humanitarian-ism we must pay attention to the rehabilitation of the criminal.
To sum up very briefly what I have said, Mr. Speaker, in the first place the penitentiaries commission to be created under this act should include among its duties: first, penitentiary reform based on constructive rather than sympathetic grounds; second, the study,, of the family court, of juvenile delinquency and crime prevention; third, the rehabilitation of the criminal, including probation and parole along national lines; fourth, more intelligent study and treatment of
1656	COMMONS
Penitentiaries Commission-Mr. Dupuis
chronic alcoholics. I would ask the minister and hon. members this: When a chronic alcoholic offends against the law, what do we do with him? We put him either in gaol or in an insane asylum. That is not right. He is not a criminal; he is anti-social, and some special provision should be made for his case. I am speaking, of course, of the apparently incurable alcoholic.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we should have the absolute removal of penitentiaries administration from party patronage and politics. This afternoon the minister assured us that this was to become a reality. In conclusion, if crime prevention and rehabilitation of the criminal are not undertaken by this commission, what body is there capable of undertaking that work or empowered to do it?


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: I just wanted to add my humble contribution to the discussion on this bill. What I am most interested in is the treatment accorded the officers and employees of the penitentiaries in Canada. That does not mean, of course, that I am not interested in the welfare of the prisoners, because afteT all they are human beings who have had the misfortune to commit what we call crimes. I am one of those who believe that in the treatment of prisoners we should apply the laws of psychology. I sincerely believe that in these days, when there are wonderful developments of science, there should be a way of bringing these citizens back on the right path, by the application of the law of psychology. I have witnessed the cure of the bad habits of children when, while they have been sleeping, right thoughts have been introduced to their minds, and that procedure has had the effect of correcting wrong habits which, according to common knowledge, had followed them from birth.
I believe the same laws should apply to prisoners. While I am expressing my views with respect to the treatment of criminals and the possibility of bringing them back to civil life, I take occasion to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh) upon his well prepared observations. I am deeply interested in the treatment accorded officers and guards of the penitentiaries. I find at page 353 of the report of the commission a recommendation that the pay of officers be brought up to a reasonable level, having regard to the type of service performed. We find that section 11 of the bill states that:
The commission may appoint such guards, trade instructors and other subordinate officers, employees and servants as are necessary for the service of any of the penitentiaries.

Subsection 2 is in these words:
The guards, trade instructors and other officers, employees and servants so appointed shall be paid such salaries as are approved by the governor in council.
I am pleased to see that provision in the measure. It does not imply that the guards and other officers were ill-treated, but I am under the impression that some improvement will be highly appreciated. Nevertheless I do not see anything in the recommendations with respect to the hours of labour of guards. If my information is correct, the guards are on continuous duty for twelve consecutive hours. I do not believe that a guard who performs such strenuous and tiresome work, and who must shoulder the responsibilities they have to carry, should be bound to work that length of time consecutively. I believe the recommendation of the international labour office with respect to the eight-hour day should be in force in penitentiaries as it is in other fields of activity.
I am sure the body which will be responsible for the administration of penitentiaries in Canada will attempt to improve the situation of officers and guards in the same way as they are going to improve their wages. I am satisfied that this action will be taken when, under this measure, the commission is appointed.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish on the third reading to detain the house for more than a few minutes. What I have to say, however, arises out of what was said this afternoon with regard to inspection. About ten years ago I placed a bill before the house, and on this occasion I should like to read from page 2760 of Hansard for 1930. On that occasion I quoted Chief Justice Meredith regarding the necessity of public inspection of these institutions. At the Toronto assizes, in reference to the bill then before the house, the chief justice said:
Such inspection is in accord with that great principle in the administration of justice which for centuries has been applied and was confirmed by Magna Carta, namely, that the people shall have a large share in the administration of justice in criminal cases.
Whether penitentiaries are well or ill managed they are managed altogether by crown officers; and the management of them is a thing of much importance in the administration of the criminal laws, so much that assuredly the people should be entitled to some means of learning for themselves what the crown officials are doing and how it is being done.
The grand jury, representing the people of the judicial district, can most conveniently, and at no cost, perform for the people the duty of visitation.

Penitentiaries Commission-Mr. Church
Right after those views were expressed, the chief justice stated:
In Hamilton, two sane men for several years were in the asylum and in one case in York county girls were found without food and shelter, in a dungeon below ground, this being a punishment for some minor offence.
These are the views which show the necessity for the grand jury to visit institutions.
Under the bill the governor general, the lieutenant governor of any province, judges, members of the House of Commons and some others are named as visitors. But that type of visitation is merely nominal, and is performed in very few instances. The suggestion of the chief justice did not involve any expense. The assizes grand jury for the county of Frontenac, sitting in the city close to which Kingston penitentiary stands, could visit that institution twice a year. I hope the minister and the commission will consider an amendment to be brought down at the next session. No doubt he has made up his mind to pass the bill, and I do not wish to detain its passage for more than two or three minutes longer. On the contrary I wish him success in his venture, because I realize the administration of his duties are a heavy burden upon him.
On April 4, 1935, the same matter was discussed in the house. These questions were asked by me:
1.	The number of juveniles under eighteen now detained in the penitentiaries of Canada, where, and how many sixteen or under, seventeen, eighteen and nineteen years of age?
2.	Whether it is the intention of the government to give effect to the recommendations for years of grand juries and public bodies to provide separate institutions for these cases; if not, why?	*
3.	Whether it is the intention of the government to so readjust the rules of these institutions so that juveniles and first offenders will have preferential rules and also a better classification consideration to those of repeaters?
4.	Whether it is the intention of the government in the recess of parliament to appoint a royal commission or committee of the house to go into the whole question of prison reform in Canada as suggested in the debates in Hansard, 1922; if not, why not?
Following that return no action was taken by the government, but it showed that there were sixty-four prisoners of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen years.
I have referred to what Lord Chief Justice Hewart said in his book entitled, The New Despotism, with respect to the powers to make rules and regulations. He said that, if imposed, many of the rules and regulations of this commission would have the force of
statutes, and that they often go beyond the powers of parliament, and certainly beyond the powers of the officials or members of the commission. He states as follows:
But, vital as the independence of judges has always been, there never was a time when it was more manifestly important than in these later days, when the effect of so much that the executive does or permits is to render it difficult for the courts to maintain the rights of the individual.
Then he goes on to condemn these acts which give the governor in council power to make these regulations. After all is said and done, they must have men in these institutions as officials. One cannot expect a teacher to be able to teach unless he is properly trained. One cannot expect a man to run an engine without having the proper training. I know of no work that can be done without the necessary training. They say they are going to have a training school. These men will be trained for a few months, but their real training will be from experience, as the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Maephail) has said.
The Conservative party are the authors of prison reform in Ontario. We see the reforms instituted by Sir James Whitney and Hon. W. J. Hanna at Guelph, Mimico and on Yonge street, north of Toronto. They were the first administration in Canada which tried to do something along these lines. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh) has referred to the Borstal system. I believe if that system were put into force, it would do a tremendous amount of good. We are handicapped in Canada because of dominion, provincial and municipal jurisdiction, which they do not have in Great Britain. Ten years ago a petition was forwarded asking for the establishment of the Borstal system in Canada. This was supported by the following:
The Primate, Church of England in Canada.
The Moderator of the United Church of Canada.
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
The Salvation Army in Canada.
The Church Army in Canada (Anglican).
The director of Catholic charities.
The Catholic Big Brothers.
The Protestant Big Brothers.
The Jewish Big Brothers.
The Catholic Big Sisters.
The Protestant Big Sisters.
The Jewish Big Sisters.
Judge H. S. Mott, juvenile court, Toronto.
Four judges of the county of York.
The magistrates of the city of Toronto.
The crown attorneys of the city of Toronto.
1658	COMMONS
Penitentiaries Commission-Mr. Church
Then, in a speech from the throne a few years ago under the present government, I find the following:
My government has under consideration the adoption, throughout the penitentiaries of Canada, of a system similar to that which is known in England as the Borstal system and is making investigations as to its operations.
That was many years ago, but nothing was done. We have heard of the hardships being faced by our youth. Practically every hon. member has seen these young people travelling round the country because they can find no work to do at home. They sometimes get into difficulties because their pride will not permit them to sit idle at home, and sometimes because support for the whole family has come from a relief agency and it has been wholly inadequate to feed the younger children properly. Evidence has been conclusive that these people are not of the hobo or criminal type. This is what I said ten years ago on prison reform here:
What is happening to these unfortunate youths is most distressing. Accustomed to decent standards of living these people go for days without taking off their clothes to sleep at nights. Through this manner of living they become dirty and unkempt. In winter they suffer from exposure and hardship.
They do not wear dress suits, as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) suggested this afternoon. I continue:
A number of wandering families, unattached men and women and boys and girls vastly exceeds those of former years, and the make-up of these groups has changed radically.
The traditional single transient in earlier years was the seasonal labourer, the knight of the road, and the occasional runaway boy or adventurous youth. To-day young men and boys who would normally be at work or in school predominate in this migratory army. Men and boys swarm on every freight train in such numbers that the railway police are helpless to keep them off.
I hope the minister will consider these suggestions.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to what has been said by the hon. member for Hamilton West. I should like to read a letter written by the Rector of the Anglican church at Sydenham, Ontario, because it states a concrete case. It reads:
In the arrest, trial and imprisonment of the two would-be robber brothers, Owen and Gordon McNeil, I feel it to be a profound sense of duty to protest strongly the judgment meted out to them.
It is only about three years ago that I saw these lads almost daily going to and from the public school, happy and care-free. On Sunday afternoons they attended my Sunday school and my Sunday school superintendent with me taught the lesson and the divine principles upon which

Christian character is founded. These two boys were always timid and shy, reserved, intellectually subnormal through no fault of their own.
For many years their father, a war veteran, was in Christie street hospital and is now in hospital in Quebec. Just over three years ago, I baptized both Owen and Gordon, and prepared them for confirmation. Of their mother I have no knowledge.
A cruel post-war world created the problem of these two lads. Personally I think they never will be criminals. It was when they departed from a Christian environment, thrust out into the world, hungry and cold, "riding the rods" to Vancouver and back in company with a criminal element, that some hereditary pressure overcame and led them into shame.
Concerning the trial of Gordon, counsel said: These young lads present a serious problem." The magistrate replied: "All I can do is to impose sentence." Alas, here is Canadian justice jacking in mercy. What the crown requires is a Christian psychologist to support counsel in such cases; at least, that is my humble opinion.
The church council of social service, the Canadian legion and service clubs, should bring some pressure to correct the sentences imposed, these two boys should not be separated, but should in all fairness be show'n mercy.
The minister, however, takes the responsibility in connection with this commission, and I wish him success.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be too bad to let this bill pass without saying a word or two of praise for some of those who pioneered in introducing the prison reform question in this house. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) gave a great deal of study to this question, and she did a great deal of travelling in order to investigate different institutions. She made her own investigations and presented her findings to the house. I believe the late Harry Anderson, a former editor of the Toronto Globe, rendered perhaps the greatest assistance outside the house in bringing about the results which we hope will accrue from the bill introduced by the minister. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has always been a staunch advocate of prison reform. I think the house should give credit to the three persons I have mentioned, as well as to others whom I have not mentioned but who have rendered assistance in this effort.
I only have a few observations to make. The greatest reform which should be the objective of any bill of this type is to keep people out of prison. But a bill, of course, cannot do that. Folks go to prison for several reasons. Perhaps the first main reason springs from the impossible homes that some children are ushered into. Those who give part of

Penitentiaries Commission-Mr. MacNicol
their time to surveying what it is that misdirects children find frequently that some homes are simply impossible. Some parents themselves take no interest whatever in their children. I am not going to elaborate upon what can be done in that regard. Economic conditions are another reason why so many have to go to a place of detention. Perhaps another cause is lack of opportunity for sports. In the last few years a great advance in that regard has been made in Canada, but still too many hundreds and thousands of children are compelled to play on the streets instead of having some better place of recreation. There are many parks, but not sufficient. Perhaps more along that line might help to decrease the prison population. Those who have travelled in the old land know that all over that country there are great commons. One day I went to one outside London. I am sure there must have been fifty to seventy-five thousand young people, girls and boys, who had gone there over the holiday, taking their bicycles and tents, and were staying there a day or two. In Canada we have nothing of that kind. There is hardly any place for one to park outside the cities. If one takes his car outside Toronto and parks alongside some farm, he is frequently ordered away. There is no place where a man could slip over the fence and find accommodation such as is provided on the commons of England.
The second main objective should be to eliminate the repeater. I believe the minister has that object in view. Particularly do I believe that because of his being so strong for the Borstal system. I made a fairly exhaustive investigation into the operation of the Borstal system in the old country. I have in mind one prison where it was being operated. When I was there, three or four offenders came up to the gate. The man at the gate is not in uniform. One young lad came up with his head in the air and his hat on the back of his head, in a spirit of bravado. Another seemed to be dejected. But no matter what their demeanour was, the man inside the gate would at once start to treat them as though he were their father.
After they were a number of hours in the prison I was amazed at the fashion in which they were treated. They begin at once to teach them to "play the game," and all through their prison life they are taught not to let the prison down. If they come back again, of course, they let the prison down. In their sports the prisoners themselves put the younger lads through their paces. They drill them and train them. If one young lad is out of step or does not move lively or
quickly, the prisoner who is training him tells him, "Now, don't let your squad down; stick up for your squad; you are competing against another squad." They are always reminding them not to let their fellows down, with the final purpose that they shall understand before they leave for the world again that they must not let their prison down. They are lined up in all sorts of teams and play, not only inside but outside the prison walls.
After they have been there for a while they are trusted and put upon their honour not to let the prison down. About seven miles from Wakefield is a three hundred acre farm. When a first offender is approaching the limit of his detention period, he is sent to that farm with others who are in a like position. There they are under supervision, mostly of other prisoners, with only a few guards. They are put on their honour to go to work away from the prison on this big farm, not even returning to the prison at night, and if they have proved that they are faithful to their prison and not likely to let it down, when their time comes they go away quite happily.
Another prison had a very large farm forty miles distant. Here again the supervision was mostly by other prisoners, with only a few guards in attendance. That is part of the Borstal system. They had gymnasia, and to my amazement the deputy warden himself was wrestling and boxing with a number of the prisoners. I saw no firearms anywhere, and no attempt to cow or submerge the prisoners. At all times they were being taught to try to recover their manhood and not to let down the institution from which they would before long return to society.
I have just one further word to say. In 1936 there were 8,462 male prisoners in the prisons of the old land. Of these 688 had been Borstal boys. That is a very small number out of the total, approximately 13,300, that had been trained in the Borstal prisons from the inception of the system in 1908 or thereabouts. It represents only about 5-1 per cent. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh) referred to the good results we are getting in Ontario from the parole system, and mentioned that only about ten per cent had failed. Well, according to these figures, only 5T per cent of those whom the Borstal system has tried to rehabilitate have failed.
In conclusion, let me say that I have every confidence in the minister. As long as he holds his office I will support him as well as I can towards realizing the objective he has in view.
1660	COMMONS
Penitentiaries Commission-Mr. Massey


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: I do not purpose delaying the passage of this bill through its third reading, but as I did not delay it at all in its second or first reading perhaps I might be permitted just a word here.
We are told in the explanatory notes that the general object of this bill is to establish a commission with power under the Minister of Justice to control and manage the penitentiaries. That is a tall order. We fully realize that as a result of the conditions of the past ten years many are inhabiting our penal institutions who would never have been incarcerated but for the circumstances under which they have been compelled to live, very often through no fault of their own.
To control and manage a penitentiary is one thing, and to control and manage or attempt to have some part in managing the future lives of those who are the inmates of that penitentiary is another. So it evolves that the commission which will be set up under this bill has given to it a serious and grave responsibility. The bill of itself is not perfect. There are phases of it which some of us would like to see slightly altered. On the other hand, in the main it is good. The report of the royal commission to investigate our penal institutions is full of recommendations, many of which are good; and as I understand it from the minister, the now commission is to consider the report of the royal commission and govern itself upon the recommendations as it sees fit.
The report of the royal commission itself had its genesis many years ago, and society in Canada owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) for her excellent work in making this report possible.
Those of us who, as a result of our vocations or even avocations outside this house, have dealt with youth for the past twenty years, realize that one of the most important phases in connection with our penal institutions is the way in which the young lad is let out. He may have the advantage of being placed in one of the better penitentiaries; but after all, when he leaves, he is still in the minds of many an outcast from society. He finds it extraordinarily difficult to become reestablished, and if it so happens that the crime for which he has been put in gaol was committed in a location far removed from his home, if he had one, he is sent back to that place from which he was committed to prison, and left to drift. As a result of the interest which many sterling men and women have taken in these young men, legion is the name of those who have been reclaimed for society. But in great part this has been, not because of the penitentiary in which they were placed

but in spite of it. Therefore it seems to me that one of the most important jobs that this commission has to perform is to see to it not only that it controls and manages the penitentiaries, but that it makes sure that when the man is released there are agencies as far as possible to look after his future to the fullest and best end.
I shall watch with a great deal of interest the progress which this commission makes, because my interest in this whole matter is exceedingly keen. I sincerely hope, as does the whole of Canada, that the minister will exercise that rare judgment of his in the appointment of this commission and make sure beyond any possible doubt that there cannot be even any suspicion of a political tinge in the choice of those who become its members. If there is any matter in this dominion that cuts across party lines, it is the one that we are now considering; and I am fully confident, knowing the minister as I do, that he will make sure that the commission is not handicapped at the outset by the stigma of partisanship.
There is much that I should like to say at this point. I may associate myself fully with the remarks so ably made to-night by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh), and, as I have said, I shall watch with much interest and expectation the progress of the commission.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): I am sure the passage of this bill will please the minister, but before it carries I wish to say how much I appreciate the gracious words of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). It is a triumph for democracy that the hon. member for Davenport and I should find ourselves in agreement. I can remember that many years ago, when we were both new in this house, the respect and regard, and something close to affection, which we now feel for each other, were conspicuously lacking; but through the years it may be we have changed and now we have come to the place where we are saying identical things on this great social problem. I do appreciate his kindness in referring to me. The kindness of the hon. member for Greenwood is not so remarkable, since our friendship has been so well known from the beginning.


Denton Massey: I think I should rise to a question of privilege.


Mr. POWER:: It is a privilege.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has seen the struggle for reform of our penitentiaries from the time I

National Film Board
have been here, from 1921, and I am sure that it is a great satisfaction to him to be at the point of having the bill carried, setting up the commission. We know that this is not the end but the beginning, and that much, in fact everything, depends upon the commissioners and upon the assistance we can give them, as well as the guidance that will be accorded them, in thought at least, by the Minister of Justice.
I congratulate the Minister of Justice upon his persistence in following through the subject which has interested him for many years. He has had many trying times, and I am sure he will be happy to have a commission that will carry a part of the burden for him.
In agreeing to this bill we are just starting the commission on its way with our very best wishes for its success.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to create a national film board empowered and directed to review and report on government film activities and to discharge such other duties as the governor in council may request; and to authorize the governor in council to appoint, and determine the salary of, a commissioner, to be the chief executive officer of the board. Also to provide for the appointment of an interdepartmental committee to centralize government film distribution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister explain how the board will fit in with the motion picture bureau? What type of films are produced by the bureau at the present time?


William Daum Euler: The purpose of the bill which is to be founded on this resolution is fairly, if briefly, described in the resolution itself, but I might add something to acquaint the committee with the purposes of the bill. Perhaps primarily the reason for the framing of the bill is the fact that the film has become a very important and powerful factor in the dissemination of information, the production of entertainment, and for publicity purposes generally and it is growing constantly. Various departments of the government-I need not
mention them particularly, but at least five or six departments of the government-have had in the past their own film activities entirely independent of one another. It must be evident that the matter of films has advanced to the stage where it may be often in the national interest to prepare films which will serve national purposes as distinct from those of any individual department.
As I have stated, various departments have been preparing their own films-and this is not a criticism of any department-but the preparation of these films has been conducted in a more or less haphazard way, no one department cooperating with another, with the result that there has been a good deal of overlapping, consequent lack of economy, and also of efficiency. Believing that, the government feel that it would be a step in the right direction to coordinate the various film activities of the different departments by creating what is called in the bill a national film board, which shall have control of the film activities of the various departments of government, not entirely assuming their responsibilities, because each department will still have power to initiate its own films, but these films will be approved by the central board.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then where will the economy come in?


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend will allow me to proceed for the moment, I think the fuller discussion of the bill itself will come in committee. While there is no definite intention on the part of the government at the moment to enter upon a broad development of national films, that I think should be borne in mind, because of the fact that, as I stated before, the film is in itself becoming such a powerful medium for the dissemination of information and publicity. In order to bring about coordination and provide against the overlapping of which I spoke, it is proposed to form a central organization which must give its approval to every proposal for film production on the part of any department. If it be found that any one department is going through exactly the same process of preparing a film as another department, that can be checked and corrected. I might say that in the past there have been instances where two departments have been proceeding in one province to take practically the same sort of films, with consequent overlapping.


James Earl Lawson: Two dominion departments, or one dominion and one provincial?
National Film Board


William Daum Euler: Two dominion departments. The purpose then is to set up a national film board, to consist of eight members, two of whom will be members of the government, one of those being the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who will be the chairman. In addition to these, there will be three members drawn from the civil service and three members drawn from the citizens of Canada. I might say tentatively that possibly one might be from the press, one from the radio and one from the schools or colleges or other educational institutions. But that is merely by the way; that has not been definitely decided.


Robert James Manion: To act with or without pay?


William Daum Euler: None of these men will receive any pay. Their expenses of course will be provided for, such expenses as may be necessary for their travelling and any work they have to do, but they will not be in receipt of any salary or honorarium of any kind. There is also provision for an executive officer of the board, who is designated in the bill as a commissioner. He will be the only paid official. It will be his duty to act under the instruction or supervision of the board in its practical work of coordination and that sort of thing.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is he to be a member of the board?


William Daum Euler: No.


Joseph Henry Harris: Who, then, is the eighth member?


William Daum Euler: There are to be two members of the government, three from the civil service and three from outside.


Joseph Henry Harris: Who is to be the second member of the government? The minister mentioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce as one; perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will be the other?


William Daum Euler: Well, that might be quite
all right; they seem to work together pretty well. I did think my hon. friend was serious in his question, but I see he was not.
I have spoken then of the composition of the board, providing for a commissioner who will be the executive officer of the board. In addition, there will be an interdepartmental committee. It might not be necessary to include that in the bill, but it is thought well to give that committee an official standing. The members of that committee will be drawn from the departments which have film activities, the chairman to be the commissioner himself. Then, of course, we have the

government film bureau which is operating under the Department of Trade and Commerce. I may say in passing that according to those who know, the film bureau which we have now, is as well equipped in its rather small way as any such plant in north America. It is, of course, the intention that the films which will be made for the government shall as far as possible be produced in the government film bureau now in the Department of Trade and Commerce. That, however, is not obligatory; it may be found that a department or a minister may wish to have a certain kind of film produced which could better be prepared by some private organization, and if he receives the approval of the film board that may be done.
I should perhaps add, because there seems to have been a certain amount of uneasiness in regard to this, that the bill does not provide in any way for supervision or control of private film organizations. The primary and really the only purpose of the bill is to provide for improvement and efficiency in the preparation of government films, whether prepared by the bureau or by outside film concerns.
The purpose is to provide also for efficiency in distribution. There is room for a great deal of improvement in the economic and efficient distribution of these films, both in Canada and more particularly abroad, where Canada is being advertised in so many ways.
I may add, in conclusion, that this board is not being established with the intention of providing jobs for anybody. There is really to be only one paid man in the organization.


Joseph Henry Harris: How much will he be
paid?


William Daum Euler: That is not set out in the
bill. It is provided that the governor in council shall make the appointment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He might be taken out
of the civil service.


William Daum Euler: He might, conceivably.


Joseph Henry Harris: He is more likely to be
taken out of the house.


William Daum Euler: That would be out of the
service too.


Ernest Lapointe: Is the
hon. member an applicant?


William Daum Euler: That has not been considered. But the only other paid official might be a clerk or a stenographer. It is not a board or organization that is going to require the expenditure of a great deal of public money. The purpose is simply to coordinate what we

National Film Board
are doing now, to make it more efficient, perhaps less expensive, and to see that the distribution of films is done to better advantage.


Robert James Manion: Will the minister promise
that this board will not be built up into a large new department?


William Daum Euler: I will promise it as far as I am concerned.


Robert James Manion: It is a hard thing to stop
once it starts.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has suggested that parliament should look to the future and be thinking of national films. As I read the reports of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the films that we are producing at the present time are used largely for promotion of trade and of our tourist business. I suggest to him that provision should be made now for making and distributing national films, designed to help Canadians in all parts of Canada to understand the ways of living and the problems of Canadians in other parts. Perhaps every hon. member must have been impressed by two facts:	first, that it is
difficult for Canadians in one part of Canada to understand what is going on in other parts of the countiy, and, second, that moving pictures are having a remarkable effect on the Canadian people, particularly on the children and young men and women.
I see by "Canada 1939," issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, that the motion picture continues to be the most popular form of amusement in this dominion. Figures for 1937 show 1,047 motion picture theatres, with a total of 134,374,061 paid admissions. We all know how the children flock to the moving picture theatres on Saturdays and other holidays and, in fact, on every occasion; I would ask the minister whether there is not some chance of this national film board, some time within not the distant but the near future, making and distributing films showing Canadian life, and making arrangements with the moving picture theatres across Canada to show these pictures once they are made.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I have not made myself quite as clear as I had hoped. One of the purposes we have in mind in establishing the film board is the very one mentioned by my hon. friend, the making of a national film along national or perhaps instructive lines, or even by way of amusement, if you like, but for the general cultural development of the children of this country. That, I think the committee would admit, is hardly possible while the film activities remain under the control of more than one department. Cast your mind now over the various depart-71492-105
ments of government which issue films. Is any one of them qualified, or is it the duty of any one department, to prepare, issue or distribute a film along national lines? I would say not, and that is one of the reasons for the establishment of this board, which not only can concern itself with reviewing and passing upon requests for films coming from the various departments but can of itself, as the funds become available-which of course must be voted by parliament-initiate films of the national character referred to by my hon. friends.


Howard Charles Green: Will it be possible to make arrangements with moving picture theatres to show these films once they are made?


William Daum Euler: Quite so; that is one of the things in which perhaps we have not been as efficient as we could have been. These films should have been distributed much more widely than has been the case in the past, and we think that by the creation of this board that purpose will be much better served than formerly.


Howard Charles Green: The theatres will use them?


William Daum Euler: I think that is quite probable.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The minister stated a moment ago that there were various government departments at present engaged in making films of various kinds. I wonder if the creation of this board and the consolidation of this work will lead to the displacement of any considerable number of workers at present engaged in that line of activity?


William Daum Euler: I think not. As a matter of fact, if we concentrate the work in our own film bureau in the Department of Trade and Commerce, it will give employment to people there. In the past, for instance, if one department has had its films prepared by some private organization, that work will be transferred to our own bureau, so where work ceases in one place it will begin in another. I do not think there will be any net reduction in employment.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Then I take it from the remarks of the minister that this will not affect any large number of jobs. My next question is, what cooperation, if any, will there be between this new board and the various extension departments of the universities throughout Canada? I understand many universities make films of this kind, and I should like to know if it is the intention that this film board will cooperate with those extension departments in order to prepare films on various subjects which might be to the general advantage of the people of Canada.

National Film Board


William Daum Euler: The primary purpose of the bill is to coordinate government activities. Beyond that certainly there will be plenty of scope for the board itself to cooperate with any other interest, whether it be a university, a theatre, or anyone concerned in the dissemination of information and general publicity for Canada. I am afraid I cannot go so far as to say that at the moment any definite arrangement is contemplated to cooperate with the universities. That is all in the future, but I think it is quite within the compass of the activities of the board and quite within the bounds of expectation as to what the board may accomplish.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am glad to hear the minister make that statement, and I believe this will fill a long felt want in the country. My last question is this: We now have a board controlling broadcasting and another controlling the marketing of our wheat. I should like to know if this new board will be responsible to parliament. Apparently the other boards are not responsible to parliament, and their work may be, if not criticized, at least discussed in this house at certain times. I think in connection with an educational matter of this kind we should have an opportunity of discussing these questions from time to time. For that reason I am wondering if this board will be responsible to this parliament.


William Daum Euler: Any work done by the board on its own initiative, for instance in preparing a national film, would necessitate the expenditure of money. That money must be voted by this parliament, and there is no reason in the world why all the activities of that board should not be discussed here. The . board itself, of course, is responsible to the government; in fact, the government can veto anything it wishes. I think it quite sufficient to say that the board will be under the control of the government and consequently under the control of this parliament, as will be seen if the committee considers the make-up of the board. Two of the members will be ministers of the crown, of whom one will be chairman. Three of the members will be civil servants, while the other three will be from the outside. I think the mere fact that the board will include two ministers and three civil servants will indicate at least that the board will be pretty thoroughly under the control of parliament and the government, and of course the funds must be voted by parliament. Therefore, discussion of any phase of the work of the board can take place here.


James Earl Lawson: May we have the assurance of the minister that, when the bill is brought down, it will provide that parliament must

vote the necessary funds? In connection with the broadcasting commission, as I understand it, we are in the unfortunate position, so far as this parliament is concerned, that we have a completely autonomous body, separate and distinct. The Department of Transport collects the licence fees from the people and deducts what it considers the cost of collecting, turning the balance over to the board without the yea or nay of this parliament, so we have no say about the matter. I do not want parliament to be in a similar situation in connection with another body.


William Daum Euler: There is no great similarity between the two cases.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I think the advantages and benefits to be gained by the distribution of films of this kind are very much to be desired. Having in mind the work that is done to-day by the national research council and the aid it has given industry in one way and another, I would urge on the government that when this film board is set up, not only should it have in mind the benefits to be derived from the circulation of films of this kind but should look at the matter from the commercial point of view as well. If these films are properly and carefully made, I am sure a demand will develop for them, and I do not see why this should not become an enterprise which not only will spend government money but may return a considerable revenue to the country.
If one were to go to the city of London, England, he might see one, or two, or half a dozen of these places where only newsreels of one kind or another are shown. Many of the pictures shown there are of national interest. I do not see why the same thing cannot be developed in Canada. At this time pictures of one kind or another are brought from other places. I believe there is no reason why, if we develop good reels of national importance, they could not be leased to these companies in a commercial way.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the resolution carry?


James Earl Lawson: No; I am just waiting for everybody else to finish, because there are a number of things I want to say.


Denton Massey: I listened with a good deal of interest while the minister recited to us the personnel of the proposed film board. He suggested that he would be chairman, and that another minister would be associated with him. There would be three civil servants and, as I understood it, perhaps a school teacher, a pressman and a business man, or three private citizens of some kind.

National Film Board.


Charles Gavan Power: In that case I shall not be on the board.


William Daum Euler: That was merely a suggestion.


Denton Massey: I was going to suggest that, after all, if we are going to produce films, the presence of a showman on the board is highly to be desired.


James Earl Lawson: No one has thought of the moving-picture man.
. Mr. MASSEY: The moving-picture business is a complicated one, and, with all due deference to hon. gentlemen opposite who occupy the treasury benches I see no one who has the ability of a P.T. Barnum or a Cecil B. deMille.


William Daum Euler: That is a compliment.


Denton Massey: It seems to me that political ability and the ability to produce an excellent motion picture film are two entirely different matters. Accordingly, I heartily commend to the minister the idea that among the three private citizens he selects for his film board he go as far as possible to obtain showmen for those positions.


James Earl Lawson: I understood the minister to say that different departments of government were producing their own films. Surely that cannot be correct. Has the government, or any department of it, any facilities of any kind to produce motion picture films, other than through the motion picture bureau in the minister's department?


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend must have misunderstood what I said. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. When I say that the various departments have in some instances produced their own films, I mean they have had their films produced on their own initiative. They have given power, perhaps, to private concerns and perhaps to our own film bureau, but there was no restriction or any injunction on the part of the government that they must produce their films in our own bureau. That now will be the case. Ordinarily every film desired by any department must, if it passes the scrutiny of the board, be produced in the government bureau, except if it is thought by the board it can be produced better in some other way. It may be quite necessary for the film board itself, in the case of a national film or in the interests of any one department, to use some producing medium other than our own bureau. I do not know about that. Generally speaking, it is hoped that we shall use our own
71492-105i
bureau as much as possible. That is only natural. But it is quite possible to go beyond that.
One hon. member made some observations with respect to our making a commercial proposition of the matter. That is not the intention of the government. As I said, it is to do our own work, and to do it as efficiently as possible. It is quite possible that when we produce good films we may receive certain revenues from them, but I may also say for the information of the committee that it is not the intention through this medium to enter into competition with private business.


James Earl Lawson: There is one other matter- and the minister may refuse to answer if he desires. The government has the motion picture bureau. The man at the head of it has been there for some time, I believe. Is it in contemplation that that man shall be the commissioner, or is it thought that some one is going to be brought in in addition to the man already there?


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I am wrong, but it would seem that the hon. member asks his question because of a certain statement made in that connection. A suggestion as to who might be commissioner appeared in the press a few days ago. I should like to say to the committee that no consideration whatever has been given so far as to who the commissioner should be. There was no ground for the publication of the article as it appeared in the press. I am quite frank when I say that any statement as to who he might be would be quite out of order, because no consideration whatever has as yet been given to the matter.


James Earl Lawson: Mr. Chairman, I had in mind expressing several thoughts in connection with the resolution when I saw it on the order paper. Frankly, however, the minister's statement to-night has indicated to me that when I read the resolution I may have had a misconception of what was contemplated. Therefore, in the main I am going to withhold any opposition I may have or any contributions I may wish to make to the debate until the bill is in committee. It might be well, however, if at this time I indicated quite clearly to the minister the line of thought that is in my mind in connection with this proposal. There is nothing political in it; it is just an ordinary, everyday matter of business. It so happens that I think I know something about the motion picture business-at least I should. I was in it at one time, and after I became a lawyer-


William Daum Euler: This is not an application for a commissionership, is it?
National Film Board


James Earl Lawson: No, not at all. Nothing could induce me to take the job. Since that time I have in my legal activities at different times represented many phases of the motion picture industry. This is what I have in mind: In every province there is a motion picture bureau which, generally speaking, is an adjunct of or is in some way connected with the board of censors of that province. In every province the object of the film bureau is to produce pictures advertising the products of that particular province. Their objective has always been alleged to be the distribution of that film.
The first question I am going to raise when the bill is in committee, is that this is a duplication of what is being done by the provinces throughout Canada. Unless the minister can satisfy me that the board is going to accomplish something that is not being accomplished by the respective provincial motion picture bureaux, then I am going to oppose the measure on the plain, pure and simple principle that it is just another case of duplication of public services, the cost of all of which will ultimately come out of the pockets of the taxpayers. In the provinces, in the main, it comes out of the motion picture industry, because it is taxed in that way.


William Daum Euler: May I ask a question?


James Earl Lawson: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Is the hon. member referring to the provincially operated picture bureaux in the various provinces?


James Earl Lawson: Yes. Every province has what is known as a motion picture bureau. There is one in Ontario and another in Que-bes. I am not so sure about New Brunswick, but there is one in Nova Scotia and one in British Columbia.


William Daum Euler: May I ask another question?


James Earl Lawson: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Is my hon. friend of the
opinion that when the dominion government desires to issue a film, it should go to a provincial organization to have the work done?


James Earl Lawson: Not at all. I suggest that it should go where on at least two occasions dominion government departments have gone. They went there because they found they could get a film produced much more economically by this private enterprise. I do not want to' be contentious because I know the minister is terribly sincere in connection with the affairs of his department. All I am doing to-night is to ask him to familiarize himself 
with the subject matter before the bill is presented, and to indicate the questions which I shall ask at that time.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member is really
discussing the merits of private or public ownership.


James Earl Lawson: I do not want to go into
that field at all. Long ago, when this motion picture bureau was in its infancy, I questioned the wisdom of such a bureau. On one occasion at least, I made representations to the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the government of which I was a supporter. His views and mine did not coincide, but that is beside the point. I still hold to the same contention. I expect the minister to be able to deal with these questions when the bill is in committee, and I think it only fair to advise him ahead of time of what I am going to ask so that the necessary data and information may be available to him.
First, before I support this bill I want to be satisfied that there will be no duplication of provincial services. Should the dominion government want a film produced which could not or would not in the ordinary course of events be produced by a provincial motion picture bureau, I want to know why that could not be produced by calling for tenders from the two extremely efficient motion picture producing agencies. These companies put out news films and other films of a kind which this bureau would contemplate using.
Second, the minister has stated that the dominion motion picture bureau has the most efficient equipment. I ask the minister to satisfy himself on that point before the bill goes into committee. If they have the most efficient equipment, I should like the minister to inquire why within the last eighteen months when the wheat board, I think it was, wanted to produce a film they engaged a private company to do the work. I think it was the Associated Screen News of Montreal which was called in to take the sound effects and produce the sound record. Again I must say that I do not know whether my information is correct and I have not inquired into the situation, but I am told that this was done because that company had more efficient and up-to-date equipment for the purpose of recording sound. I am dubious that the present motion picture bureau has the latest and most-up-to-date equipment. If it has not, I warn the minister that he will have to spend thousands of dollars for the purchase of such equipment. It would be much more profitable to have any motion

National Film Board
pictures required made by the Associated Screen News or the other concern, the name of which I have forgotten.
The next matter I am going to speak about is this advisory board. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) has mentioned this. When the minister was speaking, it struck me as most amazing that in establishing a board for the purposes suggested, apparently no thought is being given to having as a member a practical motion picture man.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps the commissioner
will have that qualification.


James Earl Lawson: Do not misunderstand me. I have no criticism to make of the gentleman who is at the head of the motion picture bureau; I cannot even recall his name for the moment. I have no criticism of any kind to offer; it is merely a thought that I have in mind. I do suggest to the minister that he should take some advice from people skilled in the motion picture business.
Some mention was made of distribution in theatres and making it a profitable enterprise. I think the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) dealt with that phase of the matter. Let me say to the minister that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, no country in the world has ever been able to get a distribution of film on a revenue basis, that is, film which would be produced by a government motion picture bureau. It just cannot be done.


William Daum Euler: That is not our primary
purpose.


James Earl Lawson: That has not been possible, either in Canada or in the United States.


John Charles Landeryou: Why?


James Earl Lawson: For the simple reason that motion picture film is distributed by organizations known as exchanges. These people distribute film all across Canada. The basis of distribution is to rent film to the owners of motion picture theatres for so much money. Naturally the owners of motion picture theatres want to rent only those films which will draw people into their theatres, which will attract people who will be willing to pay admissions at the box-office. I am afraid that the number of people who would pay to see a film about the growing of wheat, about the bottling of milk, about certain health matters and so on, would not be sufficient to pay the small weekly salary of the man who operated the motion picture machine. You simply cannot distribute this film on a commercial basis. I will admit that if you can connect up with the proper distribution agencies, they may be able to get a measure of distribution for you by sending this film
out as a filler to small theatres which can afford to pay only a small weekly sum for their films for the week, whether it be two or three changes a week.
Another problem enters into the question of distribution. It is important that there should not be confusion in this matter. One must not think of distributing film in motion picture theatres in the same terms as one would think of distributing film in schools, public halls and so forth for educational purposes. The same film cannot be distributed in both cases. The film used in the motion picture theatre is what is known as 35 mm. film. This type of film is highly inflammable and powerful light must be used in projecting it. The projection machines cost at least S700, and sound equipment and photo-electric cells cost much more money. Every province in Canada has the most rigid regulations as to the type of room which shall be used as an operating room for the projection of such film. The 35 mm. film can be distributed only to motion picture theatres.
When one comes to talk about halls and schools, one must consider another type of film. This is a non-inflammable film known as the 16 mm. film. It can be projected with the use of an ordinary electric bulb, and it creates no fire hazard. If one is going to distribute to both sources, one must make two films. As a matter of fact, until within the last two years there was not any organization in this country set up to distribute the safe film or the 16 mm. film. Now there is, so I think any thought of putting this on a commercial basis might just as well be disposed of now as any other time. You can never get a demand from motion picture theatres for this kind of film, and I do not think you can ever get a revenue.
I point these matters out to the minister because, when the bill comes up, I should like him to be prepared to deal with them; and I seriously suggest to him that in the meantime he inquire as to the actual necessity of having this film board for government films, of setting up this organization with eight members of a board of governors, or whatever you want to call it, with a commissioner superimposed on top of the organization which you already have, and which I am frank to say in my opinion is just another burden of debt on the taxpayer of this country, duplicated in a large measure at the present time by the provincial bureaux. In any event, I suggest to the minister, everything that can be accomplished at the present time by his motion picture bureau and by the set-up he proposes could be accomplished, by any department which felt that it needed a film for distribution to advertise some-
National Film Board

thing of Canada in foreign lands, by their simply going before the treasury board and satisfying it as to the necessity of an expenditure for the purpose, and then going out and calling for tenders for making that film, from the companies now in business in Canada.


William Daum Euler: Who would initiate, for
example, a national film?


James Earl Lawson: What does the minister mean by "a national film?"


William Daum Euler: A film which might be of an educational nature intended for all the people of the whole country, and which would not touch the particular interests of any one department.	.


James Earl Lawson: All right. Such a national film, I would say, might be initiated by the minister of any department.


William Daum Euler: But it would not be his particular business.


James Earl Lawson: Well, suppose it was not
his particular business; let me put it in this way. The Department of Trade and Commerce, for example, is charged, is it not, with extending the trade and commerce of the Dominion of Canada? All right. In order to advance the sale of Canadian goods, or something of that kind, in foreign countries, the department decides that the best way to do it is to have a motion picture film made. Then what on earth is to prevent the minister from calling for tenders from private enterprise, the motion picture companies, to manufacture a film, asking them to submit a scenario or what he proposes should be in it, and having received the prices, to go to the treasury board and say, "Here is the amount of money I propose to spend and here is the purpose I hope to accomplish"? If treasury board thinks it is a good idea, they authorize it; if they do not think it is a good idea, they do not. Might I in turn say to the minister, who initiates any national films now?


William Daum Euler: Nobody. That is just the point.


James Earl Lawson: Well, then, what has the national motion picture bureau been doing during these last seven or eight years, if they have not been supporting something of that kind in this country?


William Daum Euler: It has been doing work for the various departments. It is a branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce; but the Department of Trade and Commerce has never thought that it was its particular

duty to produce films that had anything to do with any activity other than applies to its own department, namely the promotion of business and sales. There might be a cultural film that the film board might think was quite proper for dissemination throughout the whole of Canada. It is not the particular duty of the Department of Trade and Commerce to initiate a film of that kind. It would not be the duty of the Department of Natural Resources or the Department of Agriculture. Nevertheless it would be in the interests of the country that it should be done. Who is going to do it; who is going to initiate it, if not a body such as this, which has a national view as well as doing the work for the various departments? That is what is in my mind with regard to it.


James Earl Lawson: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but it does seem to me that if there existed a national necessity for a national film, there would be many people in Canada urging that it be produced; it occurs to me that there would be many ministers in any government who would be anxious that it should be produced, and it could be initiated by any minister and could be submitted to the treasury board or some similar body. I say with great frankness that I look upon this as just another one of these things that constantly increase expenditure and the burden of taxation in this country and cannot justify its existence. I am sorry if my view differs from that of the minister. I can be no fairer than to give him ample warning of what I have in my mind, and ask him to prepare his brief and submit it to the house when he brings down his bill.


William Daum Euler: I am not objecting to it for a moment.


James Earl Lawson: I cannot do more than that. I feel we are just piling up another government organization on top of the tremendous number of organizations we already have.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In connection with this board, I have urged that if they were going to set it up they should do it so that to a certain extent they would have something come out of it; it would be commercial. For instance, in connection with the coming visit to Canada of the king and queen, who is to have the rights of taking these pictures in various places? Can private enterprise, for instance, be sold the rights, or are our own government bureaux to take these pictures?


William Daum Euler: The question has been considered, but I am not in a position to answer it to-night.


Denton Massey: It seems to me highly to be desired that in connection with this board the

Questions
splendid service that Mr. Frank Badgley has given to the dominion motion picture bureau should be recognized in a distinct and specific way. I had the good fortune to be associated with Mr. Badgley some years ago in the matter of the production of a moving picture, and so had occasion first hand to judge of his abilities in this regard; and when the minister made the statement he did a few moments ago in regard to the equipment we have on hand here, I am sure he was referring not only to the physical equipment but to the personnel as well. We are to be congratulated I think, upon having such a man as Mr. Badgley, and I would earnestly urge the minister that in setting up this board full consideration be given to this phase of the question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a matter about which I wish to ask the minister. I was called out of the house while he was speaking, and he may have covered it. If so, I am sorry. As far as I am concerned I have nothing but the highest regard for Mr. Badgley and the motion picture bureau. I think they have done excellent work. It is eleven o'clock, and I think we might as well report progress because I have a few questions to ask.


William Daum Euler: It would not be possible to get the resolution through?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am prepared to proceed and ask my questions.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is eleven o'clock.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask the questions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the resolution carry?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If you are going to do that, Mr. Chairman, I will go on, but it is eleven o'clock.


William Daum Euler: I have no objection, Mr. Chairman. I am quite ready to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 8, 1939