1. Is there an official route across Canada serving the purpose of or called a trans-Canada highway?

2. How much money, since 1931, has been

granted by the federal government in construction costs, etc., by provinces for (a) the trans-Canada system; (b) other highway construction; (c) bridges; (d) railway overpasses or subways ? .

3. How many miles of paved highways in each province can be construed as being part of a trans-Canada highway?

4. Were road construction grants made by the dominion government to each province since April 1, 1944?

5. If so, what grants and on what terms or conditions was each separate grant made?

G. What highway or bridge building grants to each province are included in 1947-48 estimates of the federal government?

1. How many active and reserve army officers and other ranks are on the instructional establishments or staffs of each university C.O.T.C.?

2. How many days or hours of duty were carried out during the training season 1946-47 to date by each reserve army member of such staffs or establishments?

3. (a) For how many such days or hours of duty were the reserve army personnel paid;

(b) was there during the fiscal year 1946-47 any change in the maximum number of days' pay authorized for such reserve army personnel;

(c) if so, what was such change?

1. What are the names of Canada's ambassadors and ministers in foreign countries?

2. In countries where we have no diplomatic representatives, what are the names of trade representatives?

3. What was the education, training and experience of these various representatives at the time of appointment?

4. What is their length of service since appointment, and in what places?

Mr. REID:

'

1. What ports and harbours in Canada are now' managed, operated and controlled by the National Harbours Board?

2. What ports and harbours in Canada are not operated by the National Harbours Board?

3. Has there been any change made by the National Harbours Board in the financial arrangements or in the financial policies which have applied to the said ports and harbours referred to in questions 1 and 2?

4. In what amounts have the said ports referred to in questions 1 and 2 been relieved of their respective debts either as to interest or principle or both, indicating the name of the port and the amount of debt from which each respective port has been relieved?

5. What total expenditures have been made in each of the said ports since inception of the National Harbours Board?

6. What are the revenues from each of the said ports, showing in full and in detail the rates, charges and other levies imposed by the harbour authorities on ships, cargoes, foreshore and land rentals and any other rates, levies or charges made, or revenues secured in each of the said ports and harbours?

7. What is the total indebtedness of each of the said ports?

Inquiries of the Ministry

1. What is the detailed military record of J. A. Gagnon, supervisor of counselling and vocational training, Department of Veterans Affairs, at Quebec?

2. What is (a) his education; (b) his experience to fill such position?

Mr. J. W. MURPHY (Lamb ton West):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. In view of statements in the press today to the effect that the drop in the price of crude rubber may affect operations at the Polymer Corporation, is the minister prepared to make a statement to the house at this time? I learned about this just before three o'clock.

Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):

Mr. Speaker,

I have seen only one press report of the kind referred to and that was in the London, Ontario, Free Press, reading as follows:

Ottawa, June 1. Despite a break in the price of crude rubber, reflecting a rebound in production, operations at Polymer Corporation at Sarnia, a crown-owned synthetic rubber plant, will be unaffected.

During the past ten days or so, prices on far eastern natural rubber have slipped sharply, and this gave rise to reports that the great Sarnia industry would be closed down.

Today an official government source said flatly that any such stories were untrue.

Admittedly the decline in the price of crude had affected that of the synthetic product, but, said the official spokesman, Polymer still could face competition from natural rubber.

The break in crude had been expected this year, but it had not been anticipated that it would come quite so soon. Unless cut-throat price tactics developed, there was little to fear in the market trend, it was stated.

The Polymer concern is operated in the manner of a private company, but comes under the jurisdiction of Right Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Reconstruction. This coming week directors of Polymer are expected to confer with the minister. Doubtless the market trend will be discussed, but the Free Press was assured that the meeting was to be "entirely routine."

I did not prepare this press report, but I would consider it wholly accurate.

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):

Mr. Speaker, when consideration of this measure was adjourned on the 26th of May I had just commenced to speak on penitentiary reform.

I was dealing first with a few suggestions in connection with penitentiary reform, and my first was that the system now in effect requiring regular reports to be made each month should be discontinued in so far as it requires reports to be made almost indefinitely. Some restriction should be placed on reporting, limiting it to a period of, say one year, and so far as those who have served in the armed forces are concerned the requirement in that direction should be removed.

Again, when we discharge men from the penitentiaries they go out equipped with a suit-

Mr. TUSTIN:

A suit which everyone

recognizes.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

A suit which everyone recognizes, as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin) points out, and a pair of shoes which can be identified by all. The result is that the man goes out into civilian life ostracized by his own appearance, with the mark of Cain definitely upon him. Why not equip these men with a suit of clothes and a pair of shoes that will not reveal the fact that they have but shortly before been discharged from the penitentiary? I have spoken to men who have expiated their crimes, and that is one thing they have asked for above everything else, the opportunity of going out into society without being branded by their appearance.

I have taken occasion, as hon. members in all parts of the house have, to read in Hansard the debates during the last fifteen years dealing with the question of penitentiary reform. The hon, member for Broad view (Mr. Church) throughout the years has made a great contribution and has repeatedly asked that the grand jury have the opportunity and privilege of visiting penal institutions on each occasion prior to the assizes. The grand jury does not exist in many parts of our country, but there should be some form of inspection.

Over the years the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has made his contribution, and as I read the records I think of one who, over the years, made her contribution. She is no longer a member of this house. I refer to Miss Agnes MacPhail. All these members, and many others who are here today but who were not here ten or fifteen years ago, have made their contributions.

Penitentiary Act

Never was I more impressed with the necessity of there being some form of inspection than by the information which I have received in recent weeks regarding one Canadian institution which does not come under the control of the Department of Justice. I am referring to detention institutions. If the information brought to my attention in respect of one of these is in accordance with the facts it deserves the earliest possible inspection by a man like the gentleman who now presides over the penitentiary service. I refer to Nacnab island near Halifax. It is a naval and army detention institution. The information I have received reveals depressing stories of severity which deserve inspection and consideration by our penail authorities. I should like to see this institution inspected by General Gibson. He should be allowed to go through the place and interview all those confined there as is the case in the other detention camps. He should be permitted to do it confidentially, so that each individual will feel free to report on the conditions that he wishes to report on without having his identity revealed by the fact that he was interviewed by General Gibson.

There was a matter mentioned the other day that had to do with a question asked by a most distinguished practitioner at the criminal bar, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). In the course of his speech he asked the question whether or not consideration was being given to a law such as is to be found in the state of New York where, after four convictions for a definite type of crime, a man is removed from circulation. To this the minister replied:

The hon. member will find that consideration was given to that recently.

I do not know what the result of the consideration was but, having regard to its operation, I hope the answer was in the negative, although the answer given by the minister would indicate that favourable consideration had been given to it. To accept the necessity for a measure such as that at this time when the work of reformation has not been given a chance and the new plans as set out by General Gibson have not been experimented with, if you like, would be a retrograde and defeatist attitude. It is true that that law is in effect in the state of New York. It is known as the Barnes law. In Britain as well there is a similar law known as the Habitual Offenders Act, but it was brought in only after about twenty-five years of reformation having been undertaken, when it was definitely assured that, so far as

repeaters were concerned, there was no hope of reformation, regardless of what the state might do.

In any event, my reading of Cohen's Criminal Cases in Britain reveals that the court of appeal views with the utmost care the application of that law. I find, too, that when juries come to realize that a conviction for a fourth offence will mean imprisonment for life, or, as in Great Britain, for a period of ten years, they do what they do everywhere in the world when they realize that a law is unfair and unjust; they interpret that law, not in the light of the law, but in the light of their desire to carry out the principles of justice. Regardless of the evidence, they will, in the circumstances, acquit.

If the minister has looked into this question I suggest he will find that now is not the time for such an act. We are twenty-five, thirty-five, forty years behind in Canada in comparison with other parts of the world in the matter of penitentiary administration. In a large proportion of the cases we have failed to provide reformation. I mention the inspection because, after all, inspection shows what can be done. I mentioned that the other evening. But let us first bring in this new system that General Gibson suggests. Then, after a period of ten or fifteen years, if it is found that reformation will not operate in certain cases, consideration might be given to bringing in an automatic life-term forfeiture piece of legislation.

I cannot quite understand why the government saw fit to depart from one of the major recommendations of the Archambault commission, namely, that of a commission of three. On May 3, 1939, the hon. member for Broadview asked the then minister of justice, the late Mr. Lapointe, what action would be taken to appoint a commission under the law in that regard which received royal assent on April 25, 1939. The answer was that it would be constituted in due time. Well, years have gone by. During the war the excuse was that a war was on, and I am not saying that it was not a good excuse. That was the explanation. Then, by an amendment to the Penitentiary Act, we set up a commission to reinvestigate what a commission had already spent a long period of time investigating. It recommended that the royal commission which heard evidence all over Canada and throughout various parts of the world and based its recommendation on a commission of three, should be departed from. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) that this is not the time to make such a change. The commission

Penitentiary Act

of three, composed of outstanding men, one of whom is today the Chief Justice of Ontario, trial division, Mr. Chief Justice McRuer, apparently has not changed his mind in that regard. However, the recommendation is to be changed.

I suggest that even yet the government should return to the principle of a three-man commission rather than adopt that of a one-man commission with two assistants, whose work will be of a scientific nature. Some say to me, what difference does it make? The other day the minister asked my hon. friend what difference it would make whether it was a one-man or a three-man commission. What the minister is trying to do is to lay the foundations for a new and better penological system than we have ever had before. With one in charge, in the nature of things he is more or less hampered by the attitude of the department or the minister. With three, there is a division of responsibility. Three are in a position to say, "We are going to carry out what, we think is right. We are being placed in charge and we are going to administer the system." But with one man, the responsibility falls on him; and whatever his views may be and however desirous he may be of carrying out the best system and bringing into effect the latest in scientific penological knowledge that is available, over and above him he has a stratum which he must break through, namely a group of individuals who have been administering the law over the years. All of us, being human, believe that what has been good enough for the last twenty or thirty years should not be changed all at once. I suggest to the minister that he give consideration to that matter and place before the house and the country in the fullest possible way the reason why he has seen fit to depart from a recommendation which has been made by the Archambault commission and which has been generally accepted everywhere in this country by gaol and penitentiary welfare associations, by penitentiary chaplains who are close to the problem, and also by the wardens of the several penitentiaries.

I now pass on to the next phase. One of the recommendations which the hon. member for Davenport has pressed for over the years has been the bringing into effect of the Borstal system. He has visited the great gaols in the United Kingdom. He has studied the operation of the Borstal system. He has added the weight of his authority and experience to the recommendations of the commission. But we are today no nearer having that system than we were in 1938. Of course the reason for that is that under the British

North America Act there is a division of power regarding penological institutions, whereby gaols and reformatories are under provincial jursidiction and penitentiaries are under federal jurisdiction. But the Archambault commission recommended that the Borstal system be brought in. That recommendation must have been made after consultation with the attorneys general of the various provinces. That recommendation could be earned out by agreement between the federal authorities and the provinces. When the minister replies, I think he should frankly tell the house and the country whether he has been in communication with the provincial attorneys general and what has been done in this regard; because it is a matter of only a few years ago when- according to Mr. McRuer, K.C., as he then was, and as I understand the speech that he made-without exception the various provincial authorities were willing that this be carried into effect.

This is one of the matters which should have come before the dominion-provincial conference in any event. If the government or members of the opposition realized that this was a problem, the solution of which would have a bearing on determining the number of votes, more attention would be given to it. Under those circumstances, this would have been a problem which would have come before the dominion-provincial conference. Apparently it never did. It is true that it concerns the welfare of some 3,600 convicts, but they are human beings too. We talk about recidivists and how they keep coming back three, four and five times. But, sir, where the kind of treatment is accorded which can be given by a warden who is moved by humane feelings, the number of recidivists is always greatly reduced.

I personally have had some little experience over the years with regard to criminal jurisprudence, and I have not seen, in my experience, one instance of an individual who was either convicted and sent to the penitentiary or acquitted after being charged, who ever again became involved in the commission of crime. I think it is a matter of the personality of the individual. There is a difference in wardens.

W'hen you take prisoners from one jurisdiction and move them into another, the statistics of the jurisdiction into which they are moved do not show the true facts.

With regard to the Saskatchewan penitentiary, amongst the convicts from those two provinces who have come into that institution there have been few recidivists. When you place dangerous criminals and repeaters in

[Mr. Diefenbakcr. i

Penitentiary Act

those institutions, you not only undermine the discipline of the place, but also destroy the possibility of reform on the part of many with whom the experienced convicts come into contact.

Now is the time to call a dominion-provincial conference in this regard, so that once and for all we may settle this problem, and the dominion may go as far as it can in carrying out, in association with the provinces, the recommendations of the Archambault commission. Unless you bring that system in, you are building from the roof down. While you may be able to build some kind of place in that way, you can never build as you could if you laid a foundation. You are starting in on the superstructure and using the old foundation. But you cannot hope to achieve the results that could be achieved if you started out once and for all today to bring in a system which has been recommended and which has been found successful in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, the United Kingdom tried this thirty-nine years ago. They brought in a new system. They departed from the Old Testament principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Cruel and unfair punishments were abolished 100 years ago, but unfairness still continued, and cruelty was perpetrated on prisoners. Then came the new era and the result has been this. There have been few recidivists, and 17,000 individuals who committed the most serious offences against the criminal law of Great Britain have in the last twenty-five years been completely reformed and become first-rate citizens in that country.

I am just advancing suggestions that have come to me as a result of my own small experience. You put a man in jail; he serves his term, and the mark is on him. At the end of his term he comes out, and over the years his record comes up. These men become cowards, fearful of a revelation being made. If they go to an employer, unless they have assistance from some organization, and tell of their prison records, they are under suspicion. If they are discharged from prison and have to report regularly, finally they have to let the employer know. There is no one to care for them after they leave the penal institutions. Sometimes that information being given an employer results in the dismissal of the individual, and he is on his way back to another penal institution because there are few reformative institutions available to him. That brings me to the next point. Our criminal code is, in large measure, outmoded. The last major amendment was in 1892, when codification took place. Punishments totally out of keeping with present-day conditions are still provided. Modern scientific developments in psychology, psychiatry and sociology have no place in the administration or application of the criminal code. The law of insanity is still tire law of 104 years ago. In the report, reference is made to provision for taking mental cases out of the penitentiaries and sending them to mental institutions. That may be so today, but it was not a fact two or three years ago; for in Prince Albert penitentiary there was a criminal with homicidal tendencies, mentally deficient, who the authorities were warned over a considerable period of time was dangerous. He was kept there; the authorities did not pay any attention to the objections raised. Finally he brutally stabbed one of the warders, Mr. Charles Chisholm, who was saved by one of the lifers who was prepared to give his life for the warder. After that a change was made; but I could name a prisoner, though I am not going to, who was found to be mentally deficient and dangerous fifteen years ago, but who is still confined in that institution along wdth the other prisoners.

I suggest that each prisoner, as General Gibson has stated, should be carefully examined and, where there is serious doubt-not assumed doubts-he should be transferred to the care of an institution where psychiatrists will be able to study his case and perhaps bring about a restoration of his mental faculties. In the mental hospital at North Battle-ford great work is being done in that regard. Today when we were speaking of immigration I thought of the man there who, under the leadership of Doctor Nelson, is doing that work. He was a Czech refugee in 1939, and started a system of psychological experimentation. He was educated in Vienna under Freud, and has brought back quite a number to a realization of their wrongdoing and a desire for reformation, through the removal of fears which originally drove them to the commission of crime.

I spoke about a start. I suggest to the minister that the criminal code be amended to provide that no man may be imprisoned by reason of his poverty, because of his inability to pay a fine. I have spoken about this on previous occasions. One sees it regularly. You have seen it in your practice, Mr. Speaker; every member of this house who is a member of the bar has seen cases rvhere fines are imposed with jail terms as

Penitentiary Act

the alternative. An individual who is unable to pay because of poverty is liable to imprisonment, and in many cases suffers imprisonment for this one reason.