1926-04-16

PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved:: That the first report of the joint committee of both houses on the Printing o-f Parliament be concurred in with the exception of the recommendation as to the printing of sessional papers Nos. 36, 84 , 88, 102 and 110.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I
beg to call the government's attention to an article which appears in this week's Financial Post and to ask a question with reference
thereto. The article to which I refer appears under the following headlines:
Offer Land on Hudson's Bay at Dollar an Acre to Cleveland Citizens.
Exploration Syndicate "Sponsored by Canadian Government" Seeks Memberships on Promise of Land Grant from Dominion-Radio Base and Aeroplane Station.
Will Raise no U.S. Flag on Discoveries.
I do not intend to inflict the whole article on the House but I should like to read some extracts from it. I quote:
"An organization of red-blooded Americans, cooperating with the Imperial Canadian government to encourage exploratory operations into Hudson's Bay and the Arctic Circle." This is the way "the Hudson's Bay Exploration Syndicate, Limited" of Cleveland, Ohio, describes itself.
The syndicate literature indicates that it is soliciting memberships at $2 apiece, and every member is promised an acre of land in the islands or territories contiguous to Hudson's Bay, "when, as if the intended land grants are made by the Canadian government to the syndicate."
The Hudson's Bay Exploratory Syndicate describes itsedf as an organization sponsored by the Canadian government and further sponsors for its operations, as listed, include organizations of much power and influence. They are:
"The Royal Geographic Society.
"The Ancient and Honourable Hudson's Bay Company.
"The Canadian Campfire Club of Cleveland.
"The Arctic Club of Cleveland.
"The MacMillan Polar Club.
"The National Geographic Society.
"The National Aeronautic Association.
"The Canadian-American Exploration Society, and many others."
Objects of the Syndicate
The objects of the syndicate are, by their literature, stated to be:
"To promote closer relations between two great Anglo-Saxon neighbours;
"To encourage the discovery of new territory in the Arctic Basin;
"To further co-operation between the United States and Canada in opening up to sportsmen the vast unexplored territory contiguous to Hudson's Bay;
"To establish headquarters an the Belcher Islands in Hudson's Bay for aerial operations into the unknown wilderness of the north;
"To secure accurate information relative to the Eskimos and Indian tribes;
"To found a permanent radio base in Hudson's Bay;
"To open a summer seaplane route from Cleveland direct to Hudson's Bay;
"To develop the spirit of exploration among its members and awaken a new interest in the possibilities of discovery and adventure throughout the largest remaining unexplored territory in the world, comprising upward of two million square miles."
"By special arrangement between the Canadian government and the Hudson's Bay Exploration Syndicate, Limited, a completely equipped radio station will be established by the syndicate on one of the Belcher Islands in Hudson's Bay," it is stated.	"Already plans are under way to acquire
title to the largest fresh water lake, christen the same 'Lake Cleveland' and erect a radio station and se#*-
C.N.R.-Coal

plane base thereon. The lake is 64 miles long, from one to five miles in width and shaped like a hairpin. It is known to abound in fresh seaJl, fish, fowl and game of many kinds.
"With permanent radio and sea-plane headquarters in Hudson's Bay, constant communication with civilization is certain. It will be the most popular hot weather station in America.
"Plans are now under way to secure for the syndicate valuable concessions in the Belcher Island group. It is a sportsman's paradise, comprising about five thousand square miles of wilderness almost wholly unexplored.''
Further with regard to the airplane rate, the promise is made that "By the summer of 1927 the new sea-plane route from Cleveland to Hudson's Bay will be open. Any member of the Hudson's Bay Exploration Syndicate, Limited, can hop aboard at the Cleveland station in the morning, fly across Lake Erie, stop at North Bay on Lake Nipissing for luncheon and arrive at the Syndicate Camp on the Belcher Islands in Hudson's Bay in time for supper."
"The flying distance is a trifle over a thousand miles and the average speed should be 120 miles an hour, making it a delightful and fascinating daylight journey.
"From the syndicate sea-plane base on Hudson's Bay numerous air trips can be made into forests, lake and river regions never seen by white man. The possibilities for the adventurer, the explorer and the sportsman ore beyond comprehension."
Will Raise no Flag
It is assured that:
"By arrangement between the syndicate and the Imperial Canadian government no jurisdictional claims will be made to territory discovered through the efforts of the syndicate or its members, and no attempt will be made to raise the American flag and lay claim to the land for the United States. The syndicate realizes that diplomatic relations with the official Canadian government are at all times essential to its success and therefore yields to Canada the right of possession and ownership to all new (territories resulting from its exploratory operations."
Canada is going to make extensive grants to the syndicate, they state, and it is mentioned tliat for the concession of agreeing not to plant any American flags on any territory "discovered" that:
"In return for this concession the Imperial Canadian government will undertake to grant to the syndicate several large tracts of lands, and groups of islands in the Hudson's Bay region with permission to allot portions of the same to the syndicate members, under and by virtue of a special act of parliament."
Are any such negotiations or proposed arrangements as intimated in this article under way? If not, have any steps been taken to restrain the improper use of the Canadian government's name for advertising purposes?


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: I was not able to follow the article as the hon. member read it, but I gathered that it referred to some suggested proposal in connection with air-craft exploration. So far as I know no information has reached the government regarding any such project, but I shall read my hon. friend'3 question carefully and advise him later.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: f attended a sitting of the Board of Railway Commissioners this morning when the question was discussed relating to rates on the moving of coal by the railways east and west. On March 15 last a resolution was passed by this House, appointing a committee to investigate the question respecting lake and rail transportation, as well as the mining and delivery of coal. A number of questions must necessarily be disposed of before this matter can finally be dealt with, and I would ask the government when we may expect the committee to which I refer to be appointed. It is essential that the committee be constituted before the Board of Railway Commissioners' hearings are concluded, in view of the fact that a number of prominent men are likely to appear before the committee. These men should be given an opportunity to discuss various phases of the question before that committee.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I shall have to look at my hon. friend's question as it appears in Hansard, and reply on Monday. I understand that the hon. member refers to some resolution passed for the appointment of a committee. If I am right in that assumption I may say at once that if such a resolution was passed and the committee has not yet been appointed the government will see to its appointment forthwith, provided the whips of the respective parties will confer on the question of membership.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: When will the standing committees
of the House get down to work? The session is getting on and so far we have had no meetings at all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The committees regulate
their own affairs and the government has no say in their arrangements. It is for the individual members of those committees to arrange for the sittings.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Autonomy.



PARKING ON PARLIAMENT HILL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I would
call the attention of the Minister of Public

Carillon Power
Works to the number of automobiles that are parked in front of this building. Can some other parking space be provided for these cars?


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: I am glad to say that the
department has provided parking space on both the east and the west sides of the parliament buildings, and it would be very much appreciated if those who use motor cars would take advantage of that provision. I think it would give a much better appearance to the front of the building, and the spaces provided are convenient. If hon. members concur in that, I will undertake to see that the general public do not park their cars in those spaces.



PELEE ISLAND CABLE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. Gott (South Eases):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) if repairs have been started on the Pelee island cable; if so, how far advanced are they; and if not, when may some action be expected?
James Horace King: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries
as to whether repairs have been started. I had the matter before me some weeks ago as the result of a question asked by my hon. friend. In November last the cable was disturbed by Ships anchoring in the vicinity, and ice having formed on the lake, it was impossible to repair the cable at that time. I know the department intend to make the necessary repairs as soon as it is possible to do so, but I will bring the matter to their attention.



MAIL MATTER-MARKING WITH RUBBER STAMP

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, yesterday
my hon. friend from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) asked a question as to whether a rubber stamped paragraph on an envelope which he sent over to me had the approval nr consent of the government. I promised to confer with the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Murphy) in regard to it. I find that this stamped statement, or whatever it is, was undoubtedly put on by the person who sent the envelope. It was certainly not impressed on the envelope by the Post Office Department in Montreal, where the letter originated, nor, so far as is known, was it placed there by anyone connected with the government service.
I would point out to my hon. friend that the Post Office Department has no control over an envelope passing through the mails beyond requiring that the space which is used for the address shall not be interfered with. The owner of the envelope is free to print or stamp any matter on it that he wishes; there is no regulation of the Post Office Department to preclude this. I presume that is how the stamped matter referred to appears on this envelope.
My hon. friend asked me to be sure to return the envelope to him. I should like the House to bear witness that I am doing so now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the Prime Minister that any person is at liberty to rubber-3tamp anything he pleases on the outside of an envelope going through the mails?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, there are
certain classes of matter prohibited by law, obscene matter and the like.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not mean anything
of that kind, but propaganda that any person or class of persons might desire might be put on the outside of the envelope?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think anything like ''Buv-made-in-Canada articles" might be stamped on envelopes and be perfectly within the law. Anything of that kind is permissible.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then I presume the Prime Minister means that if some person prepared a stamp-


Mr. SPEAKER :: Order.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will ask the Prime Minister if he intends to convey the idea that any person could prepare a stamp the reverse of this one and be at liberty to put it on envelopes?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite so.


An hon. MEMBER:: And make propaganda for the Orange lodge?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What did my hon. friend
ray?



CARILLON POWER DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) asked me yesterday if "any permits or licenses or leases had been applied for or granted involv-
Soldier Settlement Act

ing construction in the Ottawa river at Carillon or involving the right to export power." I have made inquiries of four of the departments that might be concerned-the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Railways and Canals. I am informed that no permits or licenses or leases have been granted for the purposes mentioned, though in one of the departments there is application with respect to approving the construction of some work on the Ottawa river at Carillon.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask from whom the application comes and if any protest has been lodged by the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec with respect thereto?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend will put his question in the form of a motion on the order paper and I will answer it. I have not the exact knowledge in my mind at the moment.



TWENTY-FOUR HOUR ELEVATOR SERVICE

James Horace King: Mr. Speaker, representations have been made to me by a number of members as to the convenience of having one of the elevators running for twenty-four hours in the day. I should like to inform them that the centre elevator to the left of the entrance will henceforth be running twenty-four hours every day.


Arthur Meighen: Were any of them members of the Progressive party?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: No, I think not.



MR. J. A. DONALDSON

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) as to newspaper reports that Mr. J. A. Donaldson, a prosperous business man in the town of Kingsville, who acted as returning officer in South Essex at the last election, has been appointed harbourmaster of Kingsville. If these reports are correct, on whose recommendation was he appointed?


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The inquiry should appear as a regular question on the order paper.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 13 consideration in committee of Bill No. 17 to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.-Hon. Mr. Stewart-Mr. Duff in the chair.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Mr. Chairman, while I have not been fortunate enough to reconcile all the suggestions offered in committee, I have done my best to get as near to them as I possibly could. I would much appreciate, Sir, if you would take the bill subclause by subclause. I may say that in clause 1 of section 68 I have made a slight change to make it clear that where the soldier has sold out his interest we are not dealing with that particular land.


Mr. CLARK:: How will it read now?


Charles A. Stewart: It is the third reprint we are dealing with to-day. For the information of the committee, I may say that we replaced the word "abandoned" with the words "who has not assigned or transferred." It was said the meaning was obscure, and we have changed the wording to make it absolutely clear.
On Section 1, 68 (1)-Revaluation of land sold to settlers.


John Arthur Clark: What particular settlers will be embraced by this section who were not embraced in the bill as it was formerly constituted??


Charles A. Stewart: None. Exception was taken to the word " abandoned," and to make it perfectly clear what we were endeavouring to do, we changed the wording. It embraces all those whose contracts are in existence; that is the point.


John Arthur Clark: Then those soldiers who were forced off the land, by reason of the fact that they could not carry the load, have no chance of getting back and having a revaluation of their land made?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, provided the land has not been allocated. I do not want to lead the discussion away from this particular section, but under -subsection (k), which has been added to the bill, that provision is made. For the information of the committee I might say that we argue that we have that authority under the bill, but there was a good deal of discussion about it and to put it beyond any question of doubt we drafted section (k).


John Arthur Clark: Then if the particular land which the soldier occupied has been disposed

Soldier Settlement Act
of in some way, as has happened in a great many cases, he has no chance of getting either a revaluation or another piece of land?


Charles A. Stewart: Practically
no. I have gone into that question rather thoroughly with the board, and there are innumerable difficulties in the way. He could not even come back as a new settler, and you could not transfer his payments. Where the land is still under the control of the board we can re-establish the settler and make an allowance for any payment on principal, or at least put him in the position he occupied before his contract was rescinded. That is the situation.
Ml-. CLARK: A couple of months ago I brought to the attention of the minister a report appearing in the press to the effect
that about fifty empire settlers had been brought into the Fraser valley and settled on soldier lands. Has the minister investigated that report, to ascertain just what degree of truth was in it and how many empire settlers have been placed upon soldier lands in the Fraser valley?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that approximately fifty are settled in that particular locality, under the scheme of empire settlement.


John Arthur Clark: The minister then proposes to do nothing whatever for the soldiers who were forced to abandon these lands, despite the fact that the empire settlers have been brought in and given the lands at a valuation much lower than that originally given the soldier settlers.


Charles A. Stewart: I am very much afraid that that is the situation. I would be very glad to be able to remedy it if I could, but unfortunately I cannot see any way by which that could be done, in view of the difficulties which present themselves. The board, of course, take the ground that they did not in any case force anyone off these lands, and I can only speak from the report which I received in connection with this matter. I will say very frankly to my hon. friend that there is absolutely nothing to be done in a case of that kind, where the land has been allocated to someone else.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does not the minister think the government is under a moral obligation to return to those people at least the ten per cent which the government took from them and placed in the public treasury?


Charles A. Stewart: I would very much prefer to deal with that matter apart from the question of the revaluation of the
lands. We have the problem now of the men who have stuck through thick and th;n and who are still on the land; there is no question in my mind that our first duty is to them. There are innumerable difficulties in connection with this matter, and I stated very frankly in the beginning that I did not see how we were going to meet every individual difficulty that might arise.


Peter McGibbon: I must submit, Mr. Chairman, that I think we should deal with that question now; the government, took the money from those soldiers and put it into the public treasury; non' they have taken their lands away and if the matter is not dealt with now it will never be dealt with.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask
my hon. friend if he would suggest that the government pay that amount back to the man who dissipated everything, and who got the government property as well? I just mention that to show how difficult it is to deal with this problem. My hon. friend will at once answer no. Then you have to meet the difficulty of the man who, perhaps through no fault of his own, lost all his money, as against the man who will have a thousand and one claims to the effect that it was not his fault that he lost his investment. I merely mention these to show my hon. friend how difficult it is to deal with a complex question of this character. _


Peter McGibbon: I admit that it is difficult, but it is the duty of the government to deal with difficult questions. When the government undertakes to deal with these questions they should deal with the entire question at once. A great injustice has been done to this class of soldier.


Mr. HANNESSON:: We have canvassed
the whole situation; some hon. members have said the whole scope should be widened, others that it should be restricted. This bill apparently goes as far as the government is prepared to go. We want to see relief given to the returned men on the land, so let us report the bill. The government have the responsibility; let us go as far as the government can go, because the soldiers should and must soon receive whatever measure of relief the government is prepared to give them. I am in favour of some extensions; I would like to see some things provided for which are not included at present, but we have covered the whole ground. The minister is not prepared to accept some suggestions; he has accepted some, so let us report the bill.
Soldier Settlement Act


George Gibson Coote: This question has been before parliament for three or four years, and has always been put off. If we accede to the wishes of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) I am afraid we will go on with this bill for another two weeks, with the result that, we will not get any revaluation for the soldiers. Let us proceed with this bill, and if these other cases should be taken up, the House can deal with them afterwards in a separate bill.
Mr. McGIBBO'N:	I think the hon. minister is more interested in the political side of the question than in doing justice to the soldiers.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not
a word to say in reply to a statement of that character. It is unfair and quite uncalled for.


Mr. McGTBBON:: I was not referring to
the minister, but to the hon. member for Macleod.


Mr. BURY:: Take the case of a soldier who has been put off the land through default in living up to his agreement, and whose land is sold to a new settler, and the purchase money of the new settler plus the money already paid by the soldier who has abandoned his land amounts to more than the original price of the land; does the soldier settler get any benefit from the resale of his land? What I am getting at is this:	Are there any cases
in which by virtue of the double sale of the land the government is getting more for it than it was originally valued at by the government? Let me put a concrete case:	Suppose a soldie;r purchases a farm for $5,000, and pays off $2,000 of that amount, and then makes default; I am talking of the principal. He is put off his land and his farm is put up for sale and sold to a new man who pays, we will say, $4,000. Does the government get the benefit of that extra $1,000? Does the soldier settler get any benefit from the resale of the land?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that that is done.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I understand that the government has about $600,000 profit from these land sales. If that is so, it is a scandal. They have no right to make money on the soldiers.


Charles A. Stewart: It is a new question to me, but the chairman of the board informs me that in coses such as my hon. friend has mentioned where more is received for the land than the soldier's indebtedness, he receives the difference.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not criticizing the minister in the least, because I know there must

be many things done under the machinery of the act that he is not personally familiar with, but what I am getting at is this:	I understand that there is about $660,000 of a profit as a result of these land deals in connection with the soldier settlers, and I would like this House to have the assurance that there is no soldier who is being exploited, either intentionally or unintentionally, by the government of Canada or by the Soldier Settlement Board.


Charles A. Stewart: Under the
provisions of subsection 4 of section 22 of the old act the board have 'been repaying the difference that I have just mentioned to the settler when his land is resold.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: One more question. I would like to know just what that $600,00 does represent. Where does it come from? It is a profit, and it must be capable of explanation. It must come out of the soldier somewhere.


Charles A. Stewart: While that
statement is made, I am informed by the chairman of the board that that amount is only a book-keeping surplus, because the losses incurred in the salvaging of the implements and stock more than offset that amount.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It is a profit on the land which is set over against the soldier's indebtedness on implements and stock?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is a profit in the case of any individual soldier set off against the loss in the case of another soldier, or does every soldier get the benefit of the profit that is made on the resale of his land?
Mr. STEW'ART (Edmonton):	Where the
settler is being salvaged and more is received than the amount of his indebtedness, the board do not appropriate that surplus, but pay it back to him, I can see the difficulty my hon friend has, and I frankly confess it is one that I would have had, but the chairman of the board informs me that while the land shows a profit of $600,000, probably owing to the 10 per cent that was contributed by the soldier, nevertheless the losses on salvaging the implements and live stock more than offset that $600,000, but that does not debar the individual soldier from receiving the difference I mentioned and the board have paid to the individual soldier the difference that arises in that respect.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: All I want to know is that
each individual soldier is treated on his own merits, as a separate book-keeping entity.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.

Soldier Settlement Act


Mr. MURPHY:: I would like to support
the stand taken by the hon. member for Selkirk. I have in my constituency about as many soldier settlers I think as there are in any other constituency, and some of them were settled on as poor land probably as there is in the Dominion. I do not want the committee to think that we have a lot of poor land in my constituency, but unfortunately some of these settlers were settled on poor land. The minister in this 'bill is, I think, endeavouring to meet the situation, and to do justice to the soldier settlers in so far as this House can go. There will be, no doubt, cases of injustice due to the individual circumstances in which these men find themselves to-day. But I believe on the whole the minister has tried to make a workable act which will be in the interest of the returned soldiers, and I would support the stand taken by the hon. member for Selkirk that we should report the bill.


William Garland McQuarrie: The bill provides that all applications for revaluation must be submitted to the board prior to October 1, 1926, and that they must be made by the settlers themselves. Would the minister consider adding a few words to clause (b) so that it will not be necessary for the settler to personally make application, but that application may be made on his behalf by someone else. If the application has to be sent in personally by the settler, there may be cases where owing to incapacity or temporary absence of the settler hardship will result. In my opinion either the date should be extended to the 1st of October. 1927, or such an amendment as I suggest to permit of applications being made on behalf of the settler should be made.


Charles A. Stewart: There are
several objections to that. In the first place, we cannot act without the personal affidavit of the applicant. Forms will be sent to them all. The only reason we make it October 1 is because, as my hon. friend will readily understand, the board will have considerable difficulty in making collections until this revaluation is adjusted, and that is one thing we had in mind. I would have no objection to extending it perhaps one month, but I think October 1 is ample time for everybody to make application, and even if somebody was missed I cannot conceive that because they were a day late in making application that their case would not be considered. But let us get the application in before the board and the adjustments made, so that payments may continue to come in. My hon. friend knows that interest has been suspended for
the past few years. We would like to get the soldiers who are on the land dealt with and their cases settled in a permanent way ir order that they make their payments to the board and carry on. Naturally it will not bt done until this adjustment is made. That is the reason I made it the 1st of October. J would not like my hon. friend to press foi any change in the provision as to the application. We want it to come direct from the soldier and to be supported by his affidavit.


William Garland McQuarrie: There does not seem
to be any discretionary power vested in the board to accept applications after that date.


Charles A. Stewart: Someone
may make an application a day or two late, but it is necessary to get the applications in as rapidly as possible.


William Garland McQuarrie: How could the board
accept the application if it was a day or two late? If some discretionary power was vested in the board to meet those cases I would be satisfied.


Charles A. Stewart: The bill states specifically that the applications must be in by the 1st October, and I would like very much to have that date remain because I want to get the matter settled. The thing will be unending if we do not get these cases dealt with. Therefore there should be a settlement in order to put the soldier settlers out of suspense and let them know exactly where they stand. There are a large number of soldier settlers who are waiting to see what kind of adjustment they are going to get in order to make up their minds wihether they art going to remain on the land or abandon it. Therefore, the quicker a settlement is reached the better it will be for all parties concerned. Consequently, I should not like to change the date fixed.


William Garland McQuarrie: I only wished to see
that suggestion ,met as to applications being made on behalf of the soldier settler. There could not be any trouble there.


Charles A. Stewart: The application and the affidavit must come from the man himself. I have gone into that point pretty thoroughly. A considerable length of time is allowed in which to do it, and naturally there is a great deal of publicity. Every man who is on the land will know the requirements and will govern himself accordingly.


Peter McGibbon: Will the widows and
children of deceased soldier settlers come unaer the scheme?
i512
Soldier Settlement Act


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. MULLINS:: I think this bill has been before the House long enough.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The bill as it has been amended and altered by the minister suits me as the representative of the constituency of Marquette and, I think, will suit the soldier settlers in that constituency also. I believe that I have as many soldier settlers in my riding as any other hon. member here, and I take the responsibility of supporting the bill in its present form. Now, let us report the measure and pass it.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I hope the two hon. members who have just spoken will forgive us for trying to get some further information. I do not think I have asked any questions so far in regard to the bill, and have not said one word about it. Therefore, I do not think it would be fair for these hon. members to prevent me from gratifying my eagerness for information. Did I understand the minister to say that surplus receipts had been paid to soldier settlers?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: In what provinces
do the ex-soldiers live who received surplus receipts?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that the chairman has not that information with him, but I can say that soldier settlers in several of the provinces received them.


Arthur Edward Ross: In what provinces may I ask?


Charles A. Stewart: The chairman informs me that of a certainty the answer applies to Ontario and British Columbia.


Arthur Edward Ross: Can he tell us in what parts of Ontario and British Columbia the soldier settlers are located?


Charles A. Stewart: No; we do not happen to have that information here.


Arthur Edward Ross: Can he tell us what the amounts were?


Charles A. Stewart: No; we cannot give the amount. I stated the amount was the difference between the sales price and what the soldier had paid.


John Arthur Clark: Can the minister tell us the total amounts that were repaid to the soldier settlers?


Charles A. Stewart: No. We
can get that information for the hon. gentle-

man and will be very glad to do so. My hon friend (Mr. Ross, Kingston) wanted the names of the provinces in which repayments had been made to soldier settlers and also the amount of such payment. We did not come prepared to give that definite information, but I will be very glad to obtain it and furnish it to my hon. friend.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not going to discuss the question, I simply wish to get information. It will be understood that many of these ex-service men have suffered. They had to pay 10 per cent of the whole amount that was paid them as a gratuity. A great many of them put up all their savings and then, on account of reasons applicable to themselves or to the department, they absolutely lost every cent they had. If the government has made $600,000 out of this arrangement there should be some money coming to those who have suffered in the way indicated.


Charles A. Stewart: I pointed
out a few moments ago that that $600,000 really did not exist because the loss on equipment much more than covered the amount paid on the land. What I want to impress upon hon. gentlemen is the fact that where an individual soldier had a balance coming to him he received it.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg) :: I want to
press for such a measure of relief for these returned men as the government is willing to give. I think all of us concede the principle that there should be a revaluation. That is acknowledged in the bill itself. Then the question arises: To whom shall the benefit of a revaluation of soldier settler lands accrue? The bill as originally drafted provides that the benefit of revaluation shall extend in the first place to those who are still on the land. That was a very practical measure of relief. As redrafted the bill now extends the privilege of revaluation to those who, having bought lands, left them because of the in-[DOT]flated value and whose farms have not yet been disposed of. The benefit of the bill has been extended in that regard by the insertion of sub-section (k). That is a further measure of relief. I am entirely in accord with that relief so far as it goes. I think that to a great extent it gives relief in a practical way to most of those who are desirous of carrying on on the land immediately.
It does not, however, grant relief in two other classes of cases and to these I wish to refer. First, the case of the soldier settler who has paid up in full. No relief under the revaluation by way of a re-

Soldier Settlement Act
fund is provided for him. I think that is unjust. Let me give two cases by way of illustration: X has a farm on one side of the road which he purchased under the soldier settlement scheme for $7,000. Y, on the opposite side of the road has also purchased a farm for $7,000. We will assume that both farms are of the same value. X has paid up in full. Y still owes $3,000. Both farms were originally bought for settlement. Under this revaluation plan, if Y's farm is revalued at $5,000 he will get a reduction of $2,000. But X, although he paid $7,000 'in full, whether by borrowing or otherwise, will not get any benefit. That is unjust. I urge that men in this class should be given the benefit of revaluation. But the minister has told the House that it is not the intention of the government to go that far. The question has been fully discussed, he says, and they will not go as far as that. Well, I am for accepting from this government what we can get and the responsibility for that injustice must rest upon them.
There is one other class of cases. Take the	men who abandoned	their
farms by reason of the fact that they were carrying too heavy a load. Subsequently their farms, having been salvaged, have been resold to empire settlers, civilians, or somebody else. Such a settler's farm having been sold he cannot come in under this scheme or secure another farm. Personally, I think he should be permitted that privilege. But the bill does not go as far as to take in that class of cases, and the minister has intimated that the government cannot extend that right to them. I take it that the government is prepared to accept that responsibility also. However, I am in accord with the bill in so far as it goes. The matter has been very fully discussed, and if the government, after having these other classes of cases pointed out to them, will go no further than the bill provides for, let us go ahead, make some progress and get such measure of relief as it is possible to obtain at the present time.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I understand we have discussed the' principle of the bill; we are now considering the re-drafted clauses and I must strongly object to the railroading of the bill through while we are considering these clauses.


The CHAIRMAN:: We are now considering the bill section by section and sub-section by sub-section, and I must ask hon. gentlemen to deal with the measure in that way.


Mr. STEVENS:: Which sub-section is now before us?


William Duff: Sub-section 1, 68.	(1).


Henry Herbert Stevens: I draw attention to the fact that sub-section 1 constitutes the whole of the bill. If the chairman would be good enough to call the sub-sections following, (a), (b), (c), (d) and so on, we could then keep to a specific matter. These sub-sections are all included in sub-section 1.


William Duff: I intend to read them, but I thought it would be necessary to read 68 first.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is all included in 68.


William Duff: Yes. Of course we are not passing the whole bill now, but we are taking it section by section.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would suggest that the Chairman read the paragraphs starting with (a).


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It would appear from the reading of sub-section (b) that three distinct documents have to be filed. Would it not be just as well to have one affidavit setting out the three different matters? A form of affidavit could be supplied by the board setting out the original purchase price of the land, the value of improvements and the soldier's belief as to the present value, his reasons, and so on. It looks as if he would have to supply three distinct documents.


Mr. CANNON:: No, the whole thing will depend on how the form is prepared. It is a matter of detail.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not dealing with that
point. I am dealing with the drafting of the bill. The bill provides that the application shall be supported by affidavit supplied by the board, and secondly by a written statement by the .settler, which is not necessarily an affidavit at all. I suggest there should be one affidavit, setting forth the whole of the subject matter that the settler is submitting as the ground for his revaluation.


John Arthur Clark: I endorse what the hon.
member has just stated; and furthermore I point out that the requirement that the affidavit shall be on forms supplied by the board puts the soldier to unnecessary inconvenience. The minister said that the board would send the forms to the soldiers. Many soldiers will not get them and many who get

2S14
Soldier Settlement Act

them will mislay them. Why could the section not read like this:
The application shall be supported by affidavit setting forth the settler's belief as to the present value of the land, his reasons therefor and the names of the persons whom he proposes to call as witnesses.
I presume that is all that is necessary. Why should there be a statutory requirement that the affidavit shall be on a form supplied by the board? It would not be so bad if the settlers lived in a city where they could go to the office and get the forms; but some of them are living perhaps a hundred miles away from the place where they could get the forms. It is not necessary to have the forms supplied by the board


Lucien Cannon: Unless the forms are supplied by the board the document referred to by my hon. friend would have to be prepared by a legal gentleman and there would be additional cost. Most hon. members who have spoken on this question have expressed a desire to reduce as much as possible
4 p.m. the cost inclined to the soldier.
Unless special forms are prepared by the board stating exactly what is required, these soldiers would have to go to legal men to get the forms prepared, and would have to pay costs. That is not desirable.


John Arthur Clark: My hon. friend has not got the point. I am not talking about the practice or what is going to take place. I am simply speaking in regard to the drafting of the bill. I am in accord with the suggestion of sending out forms to the soldiers, in accord with the principle of preparing a form containing everything that should be in it, and in accord with the principle of having the affidavit set forth everything the soldier has to do and dispensing with any additional written statement. I am suggesting there should not be a statutory requirement that the affidavit should be on a printed form. If the affidavit contained everything set out in the statutory foim, it should be sufficient. It should not be invalidated by reason of the fact that it is not on the statutory form.


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid my hon. friends are raising bogeys that will not exist. If we were going to administer the matter strictly from a legal standpoint and a man v.eie shut out for a technical failure to comply with any of the requirements, it would be a direct endeavour on the part of the government to deny the soldier what is undoubtedly his right, but I think hon. gentlemen will admit that a form duly prepared, with these matters set out in rotation, is the proper thing for the soldiers IMr. Clark}


John Arthur Clark: Did I not say that?


Charles A. Stewart: And due
precaution will be taken to see that he gets them, because there are supervisors in every part of Canada, in every province, and if he does not get them by mail, anyone who makes application by letter or otherwise for such forms will be supplied with them. It will be taken that the letter is an indication of his desire to be dealt with. I do wish my hon. friends would rid their minds of the idea that any soldier will be shut out from consideration because of some legal technicality in the draughtsmanship of the bill.


John Arthur Clark: But the fact is, notwithstanding what the minister says, that the soldier who does not send in his affidavit on a printed form supplied by the department will be debarred. He must comply with this statutory requirement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Arthur Clark: That shows how little hon.
gentlemen know about the effect of statutory requirements. The minister suggests that we arc putting up a legal bogey. No more ridiculous suggestion could be made. The principle of the bill having been decided upon, we must necessarily consider the draughtsmanship from the legal standpoint. We do not want the bill draughted by a farmer, and the sooner the minister recognizes as a sound constitutional principle the legal draughtsmanship of this legislation the better it will be for him and his department. I am not raising any bogey at all; I am suggesting something which I trust will facilitate the passage of the bill and at the same time assist not only the department but, as well, the soldier who wants to take advantage of this legislation. The suggestion I make is a. simple one. What possible objection could there be to having the soldier supply a declaration in some .form other than an affidavit if he should happen to lose the printed form supplied him?


Charles A. Stewart: Is the hon member arguing against the submission of the printed form proposed?


John Arthur Clark: The minister has missed the point I have raised three times already. I am in perfect accord with the suggestion that the department should prepare a form for submission by the soldier, but I suggest that if by accident the soldier should lose that form a declaration to the same effect be considered valid. That would preclude any possibility of his being shut out from consideration.

Soldier Settlement Act


Mr. FORKE:: I do not see why the minister should not accept the hon. member's suggestion. Possibly, however, the man in sending in his own form might forget to dot his i's and cross his Ps.


John Arthur Clark: Does my hon. friend want
to deprive any soldier of any right to which he may be entitled, simply because he happens to send in some other form than that supplied by the department?


Robert Forke: No; I do not want to shut
out any soldier.


Mr. BROWN:: The difficulty might be met by the use of some such words as these, "that the application shall not be considered invalid by reason of the use of some other form." I do not think any difficulty such as my hon. friend apprehends will actually occur, but the minister might accept this suggestion to set all doubts at rest.


Mr. BENNETT:: I do not think that in
this particular case an affidavit would be permissible; what is here required is a statutory declaration. My suggestion is that paragraph (b) be amended to read:
The application shall be supported by a statutory declaration setting out the original purchase price of the land.	.
As regards the other requirements as to a written statement and the names and addresses of witnesses, which particulars under the section as it stands are to be supplied on the printed form containing the affidavit, these are matters that could be made the subject of regulation as provided for in paragraph (j). I am sure the minister has misapprehended what my hon. friend (Mr. Clark) has said. There is no tendency whatever on the part of lawyers to be unnecessarily technical, but there is undoubtedly a tendency on the part of members of the committee to assume that when a lawyer makes a suggestion looking to the improvement of a bill he is doing so for the purpose of creating difficulties. That is altogether wrong. 1 would point out to the minister the danger to which the soldier is exposed under the bill as it stands. For example, paragraph (d) provides that all applications for revaluation shall be submitted to the board prior to the first day of October, 1926. Suppose some soldier should fail to send in his application before October 5: that application would be rejected under this provision. We ought, to fix a date late enough to avoid any difficulty of this kind, say November 1. I suggest that the minister amend the section as I propose; a statutory declaration and not an affidavit is what is 14011-160i
here required. Perhaps the Solicitor General will give his opinion on that point.


Lucien Cannon: A statutory declaration or
an affidavit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The cases in which affidavits are permissible are limited. In the present instance a statutory declaration would be necessary.


Charles A. Stewart: Did my hon friend refer to some other part of the section besides paragraph (b) ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. the written statement as to the value of the land and the names and addresses of witnesses would be a matter of regulation under paragraph (j).


Lucien Cannon: Perhaps the following
draft will meet the views of the committee:
The application shall be supported by a statutory declaration setting forth,
(1) The original purchase price of the land and the value of improvements effected since the establishment of the settler thereon.
2.	His belief as to the present value of the land and his reasons therefor.
3.	The names and addresses of any persons whom the settler proposes as witnesses to the present value.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Certainly; it is the suggestion
I made in the beginning.


Lucien Cannon: Would that be satisfactory?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


William Garland McQuarrie: I think the third is a
most unusual provision. Even on discovery in a civil case, as the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) is no doubt aware, the other side is not entitled to get the names of witnesses. Why is it necessary in this case? I submit that it is fundamentally wrong and unjust. I think the settler should put in his application and afterwards appear with his witnesses at the hearing.	.	.


Lucien Cannon: But this is exceptional
procedure and the provision is intended to make the soldier settler show that his claim is serious. As to the regulations which are referred to further on. something might be inserted there to the effect that if any witnesses have been omitted from the original declaration, later they may easily be brought before the board.


Mr. GEARY:: That is provided for under the Public Inquiries Act. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, the reason for this is that the man need not come himself; his whole case is given to the board, and the board may call the witnesses he has designated.
Soldier Settlement Act


Charles A. Stewart: It is really
to facilitate his getting his witnesses before the board. However, I have no objection to striking out the paragraph.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


George Reginald Geary: If you are preparing a form the notification should be put at the top.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: This third subsection apparently leaves it optional with the soldier to supply any names. To my mind this is a very important subsection. I recall when the resolution was before the House a few weeks ago I proposed an additional procedure on the part of the soldier to support his application. I did not get any reply from the minister at that time, and I have been wondering if he heard me. I am of the opinion that a great many soldier settlers are in need of having their land revalued, and every last one who is entitled to it should have this privilege; but I am also of opinion that there are quite a considerable number-and I am thinking of my own constituency when I say this-who are not entitled to a revaluation. There is nothing in this subsection to prevent such men making application for a revaluation. They have simply to give a written statement setting forth their belief as to the value of their land, If a man believes his land will be revalued for $500 or $1,000 less, he is likely to stretch his belief a long way. I have suggested, and I again suggest, that the application of the soldier settler should be supported by a resolution, duly moved and passed by the local municipal council. I should like to hear if the minister has any objection to the addition of a fourth subsection reading somewhat as follows:
4.	By a written statement of the local municipal council setting forth their belief as to (the present value and their reasons therefor.
I make this proposal because the municipal councillors know the land and know the settler and are in a better position to give a fair and impartial view than he is himself.


Mr. FRASER:: Before the minister considers that suggestion, let me point out that it would not work at all in British Columbia.


Mr. NEILL:: Hear, hear.


John Anderson Fraser: That part of the province
which is municipalized is very small, and a very large proportion of the soldiers are in the absolutely unorganized districts.


Charles A. Stewart: I agree with my hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) that one undoubtedly would get refMr. Geary.]
liable information from a municipal council. Perhaps no body of men know their locality better than they do. But the adoption of his suggestion would entail the expense of notifying them, and I think he will agree with me that if the local council reported against any revaluation they would be in a rather awkward position, and the soldier would have an everlasting grievance. That is one of the reasons why I felt it necessary to extend the privilege of revaluation to every soldier whether entitled to consideration or not. Our hope is that we will settle this once for all, giving every man a full opportunity to make has statement, and then the board will either agree or disagree with it. Naturally, in dealing with it they would seek their information from the very body that my hon. friend has mentioned.


William Duff: I will read the subsection as amended.
Moved by Mr. CANNON that:
Subsection (b) be amended to read as follows:
The application shall be su>p|x>rted by a statutory declaration setting o-ut:
1.	The original purchase price of the land and the value of the improvements effected since the establishment of the settler thereon.
2.	His belief as to the present value of the land and his reasons therefor.
3.	The names and addresses of any persons whom the settler proposes as witnesses to the present value.
Shall the subsection carry?


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: It was not intended by the minister originally that the whole statement of the settler setting forth his belief as to the present value of his land and the reasons therefor should be under oath. Why is it necessary to go further now and have all the material under oath?


Lucien Cannon: The amendment was suggested by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). It was stated that the clause as it read in the bill would mean practically the preparation of three different documents 'by the soldiers, and that they might have trouble in preparing them. In order to simplify matters this amendment is proposed. Under it there would be only one document, which would contain the particulars enumerated in the clause as it read originally. I do not think there is any serious suggestion that the settler should in a statutory declaration state his reason for a revaluation. If he is serious he will have no objection to putting that in a declaration.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It should all be under oath.


Lucien Cannon: That is my opinion.

Soldier Settlement Act


William Garland McQuarrie: Would the Solicitor
General agree to the addition of a provision at the end of the amendment to the effect that the settler may call witnesses who are not included in that list?


Lucien Cannon: In order not to complicate the clause I think my hon. friend should refer to clause (j) on page 3. The regulations, which are to be made by the Governor in Council, could cover these cases.


William Garland McQuarrie: Very well, if that is understood.


John Arthur Clark: What regulations are those?


Charles A. Stewart: All the regulations for the hearings.


John Arthur Clark: I think my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) has raised a rather important point. The settler may think he has given the names of all the witnesses he desires to call, but there should be some provision in the bill itself permitting the presiding officer to call additional witnesses if it is thought necessary.


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: Perhaps we could clear that up by striking out the reference to witnesses.


Lucien Cannon: If we did that we might
work a hardship on the soldier.


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite prepared to strike that out, because I anticipate that we will have trouble when the regulations come up.


Mr. BOYS:: I would like to support that. I do not want to make a speech again, but I feel it my duty to support what has been said about the names and addresses of the witnesses There, is no earthly reason for that. It is a very unusual thing; no man is supposed to disclose the names and addresses of his witnesses. Another and more serious objection is this: Is it really proposed that when this list is given and the matter is heard, the settler cannot call anyone else? If we are to have an amendment at all why not get rid of the whole thing, and set out the three things originally proposed, the original price of the land; the value of improvements and the present value of the land. I am going to make this suggestion, that those three items be given, and verified by affidavit.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Under the amendment proposed by the Solicitor General there must be a statutory declaration, and it cannot be done otherwise.


Lucien Cannon: I have no objection to
striking out the last part of my amendment, that is,
The names and addresses of any persons whom the settler proposes as witnesses to the present vaiue.
The statutory declaration would then apply only to the other two points.
Paragraph (b) as amended agreed to.
On paragraph (c)-How depreciation shall be computed:


John Arthur Clark: I would like to ask the minister why the improvements are included. I understood that this was a revaluation of land, and I also understood that there had been a rebate allowed in respect of improvements. Why are the two linked together now?


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend mean that there has already been a rebate for improvements?


John Arthur Clark: I am not sure whether there was really a rebate, but there was a bill before the House to that effect.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I take it that the improvements referred to would be part of the land. They are the fences, the wells, the breaking, the clearing and the houses, and when they are sold to the settler they are sold as part of the land. They are only distinguished from the land for the purposes of the land titles acts of some of the provinces. When you sell so many acres of land, with so much broken, so much cleared, so much fencing done, a well, a residence, a barn and so on, they become part of the land and are sold with it. Therefore if you leave out the words " and the improvements " you will cover everything.


Lucien Cannon: It means the improvements sold to the settler.


Charles A. Stewart: I am given to understand that the old act makes that definition. I quite agree with my hon. friend that the improvements are included with the land, but apparently those words were inserted to meet an objection raised in committee. In one case we might have a man who, by his action, had reduced the value of the land, while on the other hand his neighbour, by industry, had improved the value of the land by adding permanent improvements. It was to meet that objection which was raised in committee that these words were inserted, so that the settler would receive consideration for the improvements made while he occupied the land.
Soldier Settlement Act


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Still I do not see the point, because when the soldier buys land he buys it with so much clearing, so much breaking, so much fencing, so many buldings and so on, -and he buys it as land. For the sake of convenience a distinction was made between land and improvements, but he bought it as a farm, as land. If, when you come to revalue that, you take the difference between the value of the land you sold him, the price at which it was sold, and the present value of the land, you will get the same thing.


Charles A. Stewart: I may say that I argued in the same way, but I did not convince the committee that that man would be taken care of.


John Arthur Clark: I agree with the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) on the legal principle, but supposing a man buys unimproved land for 83,000. He then puts improvements on the land to the value of 81,500, and they become part of the land. They are called improvements, but they are really a part of the land, which makes a total value of $4,500. In other words, he has added $1,500 to the value of his property by his own effort. He is of opinion that the land has depreciated in value by fifty per cent. His land is therefore worth $1,500, but assuming that the improvements have not depreciated in value, the total value of his property will be to-day exactly what it was when he acquired it, namely, $3,000.


Charles A. Stewart: That is exactly what we cover in this subsection.


John Arthur Clark: Is that man entitled to a revaluation? Is he entitled to any consideration for the depreciation in land value, apart from his improvements?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: I confess that I cannot see at the moment just where that is provided for in this act.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought we were providing for that contingency; we made it very clear in the former drafts that improvements made by the settler would be taken into consideration. This covers the point just raised by my hon. friend. In that case the idea would be to give the settler full credit for the improvements placed upon the land by himself; the valuation would be made quite apart from those improvements, and a reduction made in accordance with that valuation.


Mr. STIRLING:: 
Charles A. Stewart: The amendment was introduced to cover exactly the cases cited by both hon. gentlemen, that is, where permanent improvements had been made, which, after all, apply to the land itself. I agree with my hon. friend that we had that covered, but in order to satisfy the committee we added those words, and every ease of that kind will be considered on its merits. The value that was contributed to the property by the soldier himself will be given consideration and not be included in the reduction in valuation, if any,-of the property.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I do not like to speak so
often but this is an important matter. What I am going to suggest to the minister is this: There are apparently now to be considered two factors in valuing the property which the settler purchased-the factor of the raw land, and the factor of the improvements worked into or put upon that raw land. When you come to revalue, I think you will have to revalue those two factors separately. I think you will have to take into account this question:	Has the value of raw land in this district gone down as raw land? If it has, the settler must be compensated or get a concession in respect of the reduction in the value of the raw land in that district. Then take 'the second factor, the improvements that he purchased at the time. He may have allowed those improvements to go down, or he may have added to them. For that reason I think you will have to keep these two factors separate-the factor of the raw land, and the factor of the improvement. In the revaluation you will have to ask yourself: what was the value of the raw land when that man purchased? One thousand dollars; the value of that raw land now is eight hundred dollars Very well then; the farm in respect of that factor has depreciated two hundred dollars. Then take the other factor, the improvements. What was the value of the improvements at the time he purchased? One thousand or fifteen hundred dollars. What is the value of the improvements now? It has gone up.

Soldier Settlement Act
Very well then, we need not bother in that ease. The value has gone down; then we must take into account the depreciation of the improvements. I do no<t know whether I have made myself clear, but I do not think you will settle this question until you keep those two factors separate and have a revaluation of the two factors.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it
is quite unnecessary that we should go into that detail in the bill, but undoubtedly that would have to be the basis on which the revaluation would be made, because there are the two factors here. We wanted to make it perfectly clear that if the soldier by his own labour and industry had improved the value of the property, he should be given consideration for that improvement.


John Arthur Clark: But this section does not
do that. As this section reads, if a man buys land and improvements through the Soldier Settlement Board, and adds to those improvements by building a barn or an addition 'to his house, 'he will not receive credit for those improvements under the section as drafted. They will be added to the present value of the land, and if the present value of the land with these improvements that have been made by the soldier himself equals the price which he paid for .the farm originality, he will not be entitled to any revaluation.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is hardly correct there. Take the concrete case he mentions, where the soldier adds a bam to the land and improvements that were sold to him at a fixed price, and he makes that improvement by his own industry or with money he has procured. Of necessity that improvement adds to the value of that particular farm. It may have depreciated from the day he built it, but the present day value of that improvement would be credited to 'him, and would not be taken into consideration in fixing the depreciation of the property. We are endeavouring to give credit for the improvements the settler puts in, for the improvements which were not made by the government, and which were not in existence when the settler took possession of the property. It is a little bit complicated, but that is the clear intention of what we are endeavouring to do here.


William Alves Boys: I think we are all in accord as to what is desired here, but possibly there is some room for doubt as to whether that will be accomplished by the wording as it stands, and if there is any doubt, I would like to suggest to the minister that he add in the
seventh line of subsection (c) after the word "board" the words:
In determining the present market value of the land improvements made by the settler shall not be included.
I think we all agree that that is the intention, but reading the section there seems to be room for some little doubt. Why not place it beyond peradventure? If you insert those words, the arbitrators are bound by that.


George Black: Why "market"
value?


William Alves Boys: That is the language that appears here. I am right when I assume that that is the intention of the minister, and unless we are all agreed that there is no doubt about this section, by adding the words I have suggested, we can set the matter at rest, In other words, when the soldier got the land there was no barn on it; he has put up a bam, say, worth $500. Now in determining the present market value, it is not fair to value that bam because he never got it from the board; that is his own work. So I say the value of that improvement shall not be included.


Charles A. Stewart: That is precisely what we thought we were doing.


William Alves Boys: The minister has apparently
not understood what I said at first. All I am saying is that if there is any room for doubt .as to whether that intention is being accomplished by the present wording, we can set the matter at rest at once by adding the words I have suggested. Possibly it would be tautology; I do not say it would not. I am inclined to agree with the minister that the wording he has got perhaps does what he intends, but I do not think it is free from doubt, and we might just as well set it at rest.


Charles A. Stewart: Frankly I
do not think it is required, but if you want to put it beyond any doubt, I will accept the amendment.


Charles Murphy: Improvements apply not
only to the buildings but to the land itself. A farm would be improved if additional acreage had been brought under cultivation.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it would. Anything that was contributed by the settler himself to improving the property would be included. I accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Soldier Settlement Act


Lucien Cannon: I move:
That after the word "board" in line seven of .subsection (c) there be added the words: in determining the present market value of the land improvements made by the settler shall not be included;


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph (c) as amended agreed to.
On paragraph (d)-Time for application.
Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I should like to move that the subsection be amended by adding these words:
Provided, however, that the time hereby limited for the submission of such application may be extended under the regulations made hereunder.
My reason for suggesting this amendment is that as the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has pointed out no regulations can change the clearly expressed language of the act itself. The regulations are only made to carry out the purpose of the act, they are only machinery for carrying out that purpose. The moment a regulation goes beyond the language of the act it becomes ultra vires of the Governor General in Council and is utterly useless. There is no use in saying that you are going to give a power to the minister or to the department to extend by regulations the time in the act where that time is expressly fixed.


John Anderson Fraser: I want to point out the
necessity of the minister having a more flexible provision than that contained in this particular subsection. In British Columbia there are districts far removed from any county court judge into which that judge makes but one trip a year. Therefore, soldier settlers in such districts might not be able to make their application to, or appear before, a judge before the first of October.


Charles A. Stewart: It may be
that there are districts where such cases might arise but they would not occur in the territory to which my hon. friend refers. There are no settlers in that territory on purchased lands, they are all on crown lands. Perhaps, for the purposes of simplification, we might strike the subsection out altogether and leave it to the regulation of the board, or simply say that the final date for receiving applications will be fixed by the board.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The objection I see to that
is that when you have a date fixed under an act it is a final notice to all the world that applications must be in by that date.


Lucien Cannon: Would my hon. friend
not be satisfied if we were to add the words "or any further date fixed by the board by regulation?"


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What I had in mind was not
the regulation fixing the date but the provision that the board might, in the event of an application coming in after the first of October, accept it.


Charles A. Stewart: At their
pleasure.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I suggest
that the point my hon. friend makes is covered here with very much less wording.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: No, it is not covered. Under the statute an application must be .in by October 1. Now, if one comes in on the 2nd of October and is accepted it is open to anybody to upset the revaluation made at that hearing because it was made without authority under the statute. It was made in respect of an application that did not conform to the requirements in the statute. There is no use laughing about legal technicalities, that is the law.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: How would it do
if you added the words:
Except as otherwise provided by regulations.


Lucien Cannon: I think the amendment
suggested by t'he hon. member for Rimouski would meet the idea we all have in mind.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Except to this extent:	It
is better to have a definite date in the act because it is a warning to the soldier settler that the application must be in by that date.


Eugène Fiset: What I suggest
is the usual wording in such cases.
Amendment (Sir Eugene Fiset) agreed to. Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraphs (e) and (f) agreed to.
On paragraph (g)-Expenditure.


John Arthur Clark: I think I pointed out the other day when this subsection was under review that no per diem allowance could be paid to the arbitrators except out-of-pocket expenses for the day. For instance, you might pay their expenses, but you could not pay them a salary or a per diem allowance by way of remuneration.


Lucien Cannon: Does my hon. friend not
think this matter should be left to be settled by the Governor in Council by regulation, instead of putting it in the bill? I think the suggestion made by my hon. friend was very good, but it will be very hard to provide in the bill for every detail.


William Alves Boys: Has the minister considered
whether or not, in the event of the applica-

Soldier Settlement Act
tion being successful, any allowance is to be made to the soldier for the expense he has incurred? I do not want to say for one moment that the board should be given power to allow counsel fees to lawyers, but I wish to urge that where the settler makes an application in good faith and is successful, the board should have power to award him reasonable and actual disbursements for himself and his witnesses in establishing his case.


Charles A. Stewart: I have given some thought to that suggestion, and I feel that some assistance will have to be given to the settlers, whether they are successful or not. I doubt whether you can discriminate between the man who fails and the man who is given a reduction.


William Alves Boys: Why not?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I think you can, if you give your arbitration committee the power, where a man has without justification applied for a revaluation, to penalize him by refusing to pay his costs. That is very often done.


William Alves Boys: I feel very strongly on this point, and I cannot see any reason why a soldier who has a good case and establishes it should not get his disbursements. If you do not make such a provision you are depriving him of that much money. Suppose the award were S400, his disbursements might amount to $50, $75 or possibly $100. The distances are great. He will have probably five or six witnesses, and it does not take long to eat up $50. I suggest that the costs be confined to the man and his witnesses, with no allowance for counsel fees, the matter to be left to the discretion of the board. You can limit it if you like; you can provide that the amount in any individual case shall not exceed $75. I think you should give the board that discretion.


Charles A. Stewart: I have never thought otherwise than that some help would have to be given to the men.


William Alves Boys: Why not insert the provision in the bill?


Charles A. Stewart: We will
have to cover innumerable details in the regulations.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But this is a power which should be provided in the act.


William Alves Boys: I do not argue that you should put a whole lot of procedure in the act in regard to the matter covered by subsection (j), but you have a distinct section reading as follows:
(g) Expenditures necessarily incurred by or in connection .with any district arbitration committee abail
be paid out of moneys appropriated from time to time by parliament to soldier land settlement.
Surely that could not be extended to give the right to award something to the soldier settler. That is expenditure incurred by the district arbitration committee; in other words, the per diem for the committee and their travelling expenses. It does not mean anything else. It does not refer to costs incurred by the soldier. If it did I would be quite satisfied, but I think a change is necessary if you wish to make it apply to the settler.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps we could meet that difficulty by striking out the words:
Expenditures necessarily incurred by or in connection with any district arbitration committee.


Lucien Cannon: Make it read "under tms
act."


William Alves Boys: You get away then from what I think is so important, the question of discretion. I do not go so far as to say that the settler, whether successful or not, should be entitled to make a demand for any expenses he has been put to. It is well to have a check on the expenditure, so that if the settler has not a case which he feels sure he could win, he will not make application. But if he has a good case and wins, why should he not get expenses? The Solicitor General must appreciate that.


Lucien Cannon: I do appreciate that, but the point raised by my hon. friend was that under the clause as it reads, on 5 p.m. account of the words " or in connection with any district arbitration committee " the board would not have power to grant those costs.


William Alves Boys: Quite so.


Lucien Cannon: But the clause might be amended to read:
Any expenditures incurred under this act shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament.
Then if regulations were made to meet the case my hon. friend puts, the board would have discretion. I think the Federal Appeal Board has such discretion.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If you make it read so as
to cover expenditures in connection with or under this act, then the expenditure of a soldier applicant who fails are as much expenditures under the act as the expenditures of a soldier who succeeds, and there is no suggestion that you should go that length.


William Alves Boys: If you add at the end of this
clause words to this effect:
And in every case in which an applicant is successful ftihe board may in its discretion award him a
Soldier Settlement Act

reasonable sum to cover h-is actual expenses, not including witness fees,


Mr STEWART (Edmonton):: I would very much prefer if we could do what my hon. friend suggests, but avoid putting it in the act, because immediately you make such a provision and the board grants even a moderate sum to a successful applicant, there is a precedent established at once.


William Alves Boys: I do not understand what the minuter means by establishing a precedent,


Charles A. Stewart: John Smith is successful and obtains a favourable decision. His 3ale price is reduced by $1,000. He has brought five witnesses and travelled perhaps thirty miles. His expenses are $35 or $40, and the board grants those expenses. At once a precedent is established.


William Alves Boys: I am arguing that every successful settler should get such an allowance.


Charles A. Stewart: That soldier is getting a consideration. He is getting a reduction of $1,000 which is a considerable sum to him. True, he had to go to a lot of trouble in getting an award, and it may be argued that he has suffered injury in that he should have got that allowance long ago. But he took upon himself the responsibility of purchasing the land in the first place; it was not forced upon him and now he is reimbursed his expenditures. On the other hand, another applicant is not successful, and we say to him, "We will do nothing for you." He may have been just as sincere in his application and may have spent just as much money; yet he discovers he is not getting a reduction, and he has to pay his own costs. None of us knows when we go into matters of this kind in all good faith and honesty of purpose what is going to happen, and I am afraid in this case there might be some trouble. We may safely be trusted to exercise reasonable judgment in dealing with the soldiers, not particularly in discrimination against the one who fails.


William Alves Boys: There should be a distinction between the settler who has suffered and the one who has not. A man who is unsuccessful in his application to the board has not suffered, whereas the very fact that a soldier is successful in his claim proves the injury he has sustained. I am not suggesting for a moment that the minister is trying to deprive the settler of anything, but I do want to see that the settler gets his desserts. Fifty dollars would probably pay witness fees; certainly $75 would.


Lucien Cannon: I move that the paragraph be amended to read:
Expenditures necessarily incurred by or in connection with the administration of this act shall be paid out of moneys appropriated from time to time by parliament to soldier land settlement, as may be provided by regulation.
As regards the suggestion of my hon. friend to fix a maximum of $50, it is absolutely impossible to embody every detail in an act; a good many things must be left to regulation. This is done in the case of the Federal Appeal Board.


William Alves Boys: I am not sure, but I think in that case it will be found that the board has power in the matter of costs. There is, however, nothing in this section to provide for the payment of costs.


Lucien Cannon: That is why I propose the amendment.


William Alves Boys: That is the difficulty. The Solicitor General is proposing to amend the section in regard to something that is not contemplated at all. The section contemplates the naming of a fund out of which the money is to be paid, whereas the proposition I make is totally different. I propose to give the board the power to pay certain expenses incurred by the settler. Apparently there is a desire on the part of the minister not to make this feature of the bill public lest it be abused.


Charles A. Stewart: That is correct.


William Alves Boys: That appeals to me to some extent, although I cannot see why if a man has been successful in his claim he should not get the relief to which he is entitled. You are giving the deserving man certain relief with one hand while you are taking away from him with the other a percentage thereof, which will be measured by the expenses to which he has been put. However, so long as I am assured that the minister will make the necessary regulation to cover the point I am satisfied. Certainly I do not want to see an arbitration committee given unlimited power in the making of awards in connection with expenses, without fees, and so on.


William Duff: Carried.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: As amended?


William Duff: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: The section as amended is not clearly worded. I suggest that it be made to read:
Expenditures necessarily incurred by or in connection with .the administration of this act, as may be

Old Aye Pension
provided by regulation, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated from time to time by parliament to soldier land settlement.


Charles A. Stewart: That is satisfactory.


Lucien Cannon: I move that the paragraph as so amended be agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraphs (h) to (k) inclusive agreed to.
William Duff: Shall the preamble
carry?


Alan Webster Neill: We have not passed section
1 yet.


Lucien Cannon: It is all section 1.


Alan Webster Neill: We have passed subsections
(a), (b), and so on, but we have not passed section 1. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) raised the point.


William Duff: It was the understanding that we would carry the subsections separately and then the whole section would be taken as carried.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Shall section 1 carry?
Section 1 as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be
read the third time?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Next sitting of the House. Some hon. MEMBERS:	Now.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the
House.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Publie Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, respecting old age pensions.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this bill printed?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, this is
unnecessarily rapid. I notice on the order paper the bill is not shown as printed at all, at least the letters "EE."-English and French-are not noted.


Hewitt Bostock: Quite so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not desirous of
obstructing the government's progress, but we are proceeding at a pretty rapid rate.


Hewitt Bostock: I said "carried" because
I understood the House was anxious to go into committee. I am informed that the bill was printed this morning and distributed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was guided in my
remarks, Mr. Speaker, by what I found in the orders of the day.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I notice the Yukon
Territory is included in this section. 1 presume the Northwest Territories should also be included?


John Warwick King: Yes. My understanding was that in the drafting of the bill the Northwest Territories would be included.
I think they should be.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They apparently are not
included. Should you include them, another point would have to be considered. That is, there would be no provincial authority to contribute one-half the cost, so that the federal government in that case ought to bear all the cost. Consequently it would be scarcely proper to include either Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories.


George Black: Mr. Chairman,
although the minister informed me when the resolution was before the House that the bijl would be drafted to apply to the Yukon territory, I cannot see by its terms how the bill can possibly apply. The mere statement in paragraph (d) of section 2 that the word "province" includes Yukon Territory does not make the bill workable by any means. For instance, section 3 provides that the Governor in Council may make an agreement with the lieutenant governor in council of any province. Suppose you read the word "territory" there, there is no such thing as a lieutenant governor in council in Yukon Territory.
Section 6 mentions the Northwest Territories and provides that as soon as agreements under this act have been made with two of the provinces adjoining the Northwest Territories, the commissioner of the said territories may submit to the Governor in Council for approval a scheme for the administration and payment of pensions therein. If you are going to treat Yukon Territory in the same way, you will find

Old Age Pensions
there are no two provinces that do adjoin that territory; it adjoins British Columbia only.


John Warwick King: The proposal, I
think, is that the northwest provinces or districts and Yukon Territory will be qualified under this legislation to make an agreement with the federal government in the matter of pensions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But we want the minister to inform us how that is to be done; it does not appear in the act.


William Alves Boys: It seems to me that what has been stated by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) has only to be heard to enable the minister to see at once that a change in the wording of this act is necessary. Let us just apply it for a moment, to see whether or not that is an exaggerated statement. I understand the intention is to cover, among other portions of Canada, the Yukon Territory, and that the minister seeks to make the act applicable to that territory by explaining the meaning of the word "province", whidh is supposed to include the Yukon Territory. With that before us, let us turn to section 3:
The Governor in Council may make an agreement with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of any province-
There is no such person as the lieutenant governor of Yukon Territory, and therefore you could not make an agreement with the Yukon Territory.


John Warwick King: They have a
council, and I am not sure that you could not make an agreement; I think you could.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: But surely the minister does
not suggest that the council of the Yukon is the lieutenant governor?


John Warwick King: No.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Or that the council could, by any process of reasoning or any stretching of words, be made to come within the meaning of the words "lieutenant governor"?


George Black: There never has
been a lieutenant governor of the Yukon. Formerly there was a commissioner but there is only a gold commissioner now, so the words are not at all applicable.


Mr. HEAPS:: Could not this clause be
amended so as to include a representative of the Yukon?


William Alves Boys: It is not suggested that it cannot be amended, but it is not correct now. It may be said that we who happen to be of the fMr. George Black.]
legal profession make these suggestions for the sake of a bit of fun or as a means of obstruction or something of that sort. I think hon. gentlemen see, however, that there is more than that in our suggestions; we are endeavouring to make this act effective and applicable to the Yukon Territory. Unless there is a change made, in my humble opinion it will not so apply.


An hon. MEMBER:: What change does
my hon. friend suggest?


William Alves Boys: I do not know that in ten
seconds I could give the appropriate language, but all one has to do is read the present wording to see that it is not correct.


John Warwick King: If what my hon.
friend states is correct we will certainly consider the matter, because we want the act to apply to the Yukon Territory and the northwest provinces. If that has not been worked out, it will be looked after.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: It is quite apparent that
the word "province" is intended to include the Yukon Territory; it is quite evident from section 6 that the Northwest Territories are not to be so included, and that agreement must be arranged separately. It is probable that after the words "the Governor in Council may make an agreement with the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province" there should be inserted "or with the commissioner" or whatever the title of the head of the government of Yukon Territory may be. I suggest that some amendment to that effect be worked out.


William Alves Boys: I absolutely agree with the
minister.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If that is done the definition
of the word province will have to be cut out, because the definition of province includes the Yukon Territory. Then it is proposed in section 3 to say "The Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province" which, by the definition, already includes the Yukon Territory, but by this proposed amendment you say it does not include the Yukon Territory.


John Warwick King: It might be made to read "make an agreement with any province," and the word province includes the Yukon Territory.


William Alves Boys: That would be a good deal
better.


William Garland McQuarrie: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the government is dropping into a very slovenly and careless practice in regard to these bills. Surely there is some

Old Age Pensions
properly qualified official of the government to whom bills should foe submitted before they come before this House. We had a bad example in the last bill, and now we have another. This bill is impossible in its present state, as anyone with a knowledge of bills can see. It seems to me that the government should submit this bill for redraughting to someone who knows something about that work.


John Arthur Clark: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Elliott) has suggested the substitution of the words "gold commissioner" for "Lieutenant Governor in Council." Would the gold commissioner have power to make an agreement, on behalf of the Yukon, to pay one-half of the moneys required for the carrying out of this act?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing now with section 2, I suppose; why not 3trike out subsection (d) of section 2? We could then go ahead with section 3.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not make that
motion?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: While the
minister is considering the point in question,
I would like to ask who undertook the drafting of this bill.


John Warwick King: Colonel Biggar is the gentleman who draughted the act.


William Garland McQuarrie: He had better try
again.


John Warwick King: He is a very good draughtsman.


William Garland McQuarrie: Who tinkered with it
afterwards?


John Warwick King: There was no tinkering afterwards, it is being tinkered with now.


William Alves Boys: It is evident that the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Labour, and the Solicitor General, who would naturally speak with authority, all agree that this bill will not do as it is now.


John Warwick King: It is not clear.


William Alves Boys: Some of these criticisms seem
to be well founded. I know if I have to have my anatomy attended to I do not go to a farmer or a lawyer; I go to a doctor, who should know all about it. It does seem to me when it comes to a matter of this kind a lawyer perhaps should be given the opportunity of expressing his view's. That is what we are trying to do. If this is to be considered at any length, would not time be saved by calling it six o'clock and the minister getting his legal officials to redraught this clause for submission at eight o'clock?


Edward Joseph Garland: Would it not be better to go through the other clauses first? We may find some other clauses that need redrafting.


John Warwick King: I did not know
that this bill would be taken up this afternoon or I would have had Colonel Biggar here. I would prefer to let this section stand for the present and go on with the bill.
Section 2 stands.
Section 3 stands.
On section 4-Term of agreements.


John Arthur Clark: The minister has said that we can go on and consider the agreement, but sections 2 and 3 lay the whole foundation for the act, and we cannot very well consider section 4, which deals with the agreement, when sections 2 and 3 stand.


John Warwick King: In all probability the sections will require amending. We are only asking for time in order that the amendment may be drawn properly. There is no reason why, with that understanding, we cannot go on with the other sections.


John Arthur Clark: You cannot go on with section 4 until you settle sections 2 and 3.


Lucien Cannon: That is frequently done. We often postpone consideration of the preamble of a bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is always done, but that is a different matter.


William Alves Boys: Section 4 provides that the.
agreement made pursuant to the preceding sections shall continue in force, and so on, and my point is that you cannot very well consider that section until you have settled the main principle of the act. But if the minister insists upon going on with section 4-


John Warwick King: We will let it stand.
Section 4 stands.
On section 5-Approval of administration scheme necessary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the clause I spoke of last night, and I again desire to bring it to the attention of the committee and of the government. I will pass over the objection which has been raised by my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard, and which applies equally to this clause. Clause 5 reads:
Before any agreement made pursuant to this act comes into operation the Governor in Council shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions
Old Age Pensions

proposed to be adopted by the province, and no change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the Governor in Council.
I really want to impress on the government once again what to my mind is the hopelessness of this bill with the existence of that clause. Let me try to illustrate my point. We will assume that upon the passing of this legislation one of the provinces, British Columbia, if you like, at its session next year passes legislation formulated in harmony with the wish of this government, and that legislation receives the approval of this government. It becomes law, and British Columbia receives the benefit of this act. Then the government of .Alberta, which made some very advanced suggestions in its letter to the committee last year, says: We want to come in too, but our legislation must be contributory. The legislation in British Columbia, we will suppose, provided for a non-contributory scheme, and then Alberta passes an act which is contributory. Is the Governor in Council going to approve of that second act, approve of a contributory scheme in one province and of a non-contributory scheme in another? I have merely to state the case, I think, to show how hopeless it is to have this legislation made applicable throughout the Dominion without a previous conference and understanding with the provinces on the general principles of the legislation that will be passed by the provinces. I want to be acquitted now of obstructing or opposing the principle of old age pensions, but I cannot allow this to pass without most emphatically protesting against proceeding in this way, and impressing upon the committee and upon the government the hopelessness of the legislation as at present draughted in the absence of an agreement with the provinces after conference.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think there could
be a stronger argument in favour of thi3 clause than the one that has just been made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. It is because of the very possibility he has stated that this clause is in the act. He suggests that British Columbia may have a non-contributory scheme and Alberta a contributory scheme. It is just because of that, that we have this clause in the act to get uniform legislation throughout the Dominion. If you are going to have half a dozen provinces each with a different act, the thing will be unworkable as between province and province


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is what I have been trying to tell my hon iriend.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And it is for that very reason that this clause is in the act, so as to get uniformity. If each province were allowed to choose its own act, I do not suppose there would be two acts alike. Suppose, to carry the argument of my hon. friend a little further, the province of Alberta decided to make certain exceptions in the act; suppose that instead of #20 a month they granted $15, and that British Columbia decided to make it $25. Right away you would have two different acts, one province providing for a pension of $25, and the other for a pension of $15 a month. Then one province might make the pension payable at 70 years of age, and another at 75. LTnless you have some central authority with some form of control over the acts passed by the different provinces, the result will be a condition of chaos. This is one of the most important clauses of the bill, and the argument that has just been made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is one of the strongest arguments that could be made in its favour.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There would be much in what my hon. friend says if he was correct in this point. He uses the words: The provinces should not be allowed to do so and so. This parliament has nothing to do with the allowing or disallowing of a province's course. My point, which my hon. friend has utterly failed to appreciate, is this: The provinces are sovereign within their own jurisdiction in passing whatever legislation they desire, and we cannot impose our will on any province What is more, no province will allow us to impose our will on them, and that is why this legislation is going to fail. Suppose an agitation grows in some province for an old age pension. All the government of that province has to do is to say, yes, we will give jmu legislation, and then pass legislation that would be inconsistent perhaps with this act or inconsistent with the act of some other province.


John Warwick King: Then they would not get the benefit of this act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly, that is the very point. Immediately they escape the responsibility of providing effective legislation. I again emphasize-I may be unhappy in making myself clear, but certainly it is clear in my o-wn mind-that to pass this legislation before bringing the provinces together and getting them into agreement on a uniform act, is simply passing an act that will be abortive and useless.


John Warwick King: I do not agree
with my hon. friend at all. Undoubtedly

Old Age Pensions
throughout this country there is the necessity and the need for an old age pension.
Mr. STEVEN'S: We are not disputing that.


John Warwick King: May I remind my hon. friend that there has been an expression of opinion in favour of this legislation from all groups in the House. It must be remembered that at the present time those persons who have attained the age of seventy years and are unable to earn a living are being taken care of by the provincial governments and by the municipalities. The Dominion government, realizing the importance of having some uniform scheme that will provide for these people, have seen fit to introduce legislation under which the Dominion treasury will share in the cost of caring for these people to the extent of fifty per cent. If any province should say that it does not care for the legislation there is no obligation on its part to adopt it; it may stay out. But the adoption of uniform legislation throughout the Dominion in regard to this matter through the instrumentality of the federal government will do a great deal to solve this question in a proper and fitting manner, and many advantages will result from it. Unless I am mistaken it will be found that all the provinces will take up the scheme, and in that event there is no doubt that uniform legislation will go into effect throughout the Dominion. We know that in regard to other matters demands have come from various public bodies for uniform legislation. Here we have a bill in regard to old age pensions which is likely to bring about uniformity. It is quite true that the provinces cannot be forced into enacting legislation, but no one is trying to do that in connection with this matter. All we are doing here is passing an act which will be very advantageous to the people of Canada if it is adopted generally.


William Garland McQuarrie: With respect to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Heaps) what objection could there be to any of the provinces making a larger contribution towards old age pensions than is provided for in this bill if they so desire? For example, British Columbia might consider that the allowance should be larger. There would be some argument in favour of that, because $20 a month will not even meet the cost of keeping an old person in one of the provincial old people's homes.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is there anything in the bill to prevent the amount being increased? There must be a certain minimum, but I do not think there is any provision against increasing the grant.


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes, but the minister says he wants to have uniformity, in which case we must have the same allowance in every province.


Mr. HEENAN:: It is quite true that the section we are discussing provides that no change be made in the scheme by a province without the consent of the Governor in Council. The bill is based on the understanding that the Dominion government will contribute $10 out of the $20 that goes to each pensioner, but I think the idea is that this amount shall be the minimum. The**, is nothing to prevent any provincial government, as I read the bill, from increasing the amount of its grant by $5 or $10. I hope some of the provinces will do so. The federal government would hardly raise any opposition to their taking that course.


John Warwick King: Should any province desire to increase its contribution I do not think there is any question about the Dominion government agreeing to it.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then what the minister meant was a uniform minimum contribution? May I ask the minister what provinces have intimated that they agree with this legislation?


John Warwick King: As a matter of fact section 9 of the bill fixes $240 as the maximum. I do not think the question of the provinces contributing a larger amount has been considered. At any rate it is not dealt with in this legislation. At present we are engaged in drafting a bill which we hope will be acceptable to the provinces, and the question as to what should be done in the event of the provinces wanting to increase their contribution may properly be a subject of future discussion.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister did not answer my question; perhaps he did not hear it. I asked how many of the provinces have intimated that they will contribute towards this scheme.


John Warwick King: I suggest that we would make better progress if we confined our discussion to the clause under consideration. I do not know whether my hon. friend was present yesterday, but the subject of the correspondence which had taken place with the various provincial governments came up and was fully discussed. If my hon. friend wants information on that subject he will find it in the report of the parliamentary committee. If he has not a copy at hand I will send one over to him.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: On this section I wish to
reiterate the position I took when the reso-
Old Age Pensions

lution on which this bill is founded was under discussion. This section shows quite clearly that it is foolish to try to force this bill through until an attempt has been made to get uniformity of action on the part of the provinces. We are all agreed as to the necessity of an old age pension scheme; any argument on that is merely wasting time. We are all agreed as to the necessity of uniformity of legislation, and any argument on that also is wasting time. It is entirely a question of how best to attain uniformity. I wish again to state my view that you will never get uniformity until you have got the provinces together and found out how far they are prepared to go. The very question of contribution or non-contribution lies at the whole root of the possibility of uniformity. The first thing the government ought to do is to call a conference of provincial representatives and ascertain whether they are willing to come in on the one scheme or the other, on a contributory scheme or on a noncontributory scheme. Let that be settled first. Until we get this expression of uniformity from the provinces we do not know where we are. Yesterday when this matter was being discussed, the Prime Minister said the reason why he wished this bill to go through was, that he might have something to submit to the premiers of the different provinces. Unless you have a concrete set of proposals to submit to the provinces when you call them together, it will be almost impossible to get anywhere. There is no reason in the world why the Prime Minister should not draft his scheme as he conceives it should be. submit a bill-this bill, if you like, as it now stands-to the representatives of the provinces, get them to discuss it, and as soon as they have discussed it come back to parliament and submit to parliament the bill as agreed on by the provinces. I say again that by adopting the present method you are inviting the provinces to make the retort that they should have been consulted in the first instance.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 13, respecting a patent owned by The John E. Russell Company.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).

Bill No. 19, to incorporate The Agents Insurance Company.-Mr. Malcolm.
Bill No. 20, respecting The Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Clark.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 21, respecting old age pensions,

Hon. Mr. King (Kootenay)-Mr, Duff in the chair.
William Duff: When the committee
rose shortly before six o'clock, section 5 was under consideration. Shall the section carry?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The committee had discussed the section at some length, and I gathered that the minister hoped later on to enlighten us further on the question it involved. Is he in a position now to answer some of the questions brought to his attention?


John Warwick King: I cannot agree
with hon. gentlemen opposite who think that this legislation wTill be ineffective and will fail to make for uniformity. I believe that uniform legislation throughout Canada will follow the enactment of this bill.


Charles Marcil: I have not before spoken
on the principle of the bill, having taken it for granted from the very outset that inasmuch as advanced legislation in the matter of old age pensions had been adopted in all of the leading countries in the world a similar measure if introduced in this parliament would meet with general approval. Some question has been raised by certain remarks made by the Premier of Quebec, but I am of the opinion that, when this bill goes through, not only the premier of that province but the legislature and the people of Quebec generally will be prepared to give it full consideration.
Considerable emphasis has been laid on the suggestion that this legislation is likely to be of most value in the cities in assisting the working classes. I dissent from that opinion; I think the provisions of the bill will be most beneficial in the outlying districts. In the province of Quebec we have large institutions in the cities to take care of the -aged, while there are no such places in the outlying parts of the country, and it is in these places that this old age pension scheme will be most appreciated. I am satisfied that the bill when it passes will receive the careful consideration as well as the support of the province of Quebec, and for that reason among others I am glad that the government is persisting in putting it through the House.


Mr. ARTHURS:: In this matter, as in
several others which this government has

Old Age Pensions
undertaken, I believe we are beginning wrong. The government should 'have approached the various provinces and ascertained their views before introducing the legislation we are now considering, for it i3 manifest that the bill can be of no value unless advantage is taken of it in the provinces. For that reason the opinions of the various premiers should have been consulted. The hon. member (Mr. Marcil) believes that in the province of Quebec legislation of this kind would be most effective in rural communities. In Ontario, I may tell him, we have in a great majority of the counties 'homes for aged people kept at the expense of the province, and these homes, I fancy, will be more or less affected by this legislation. I think the legislation should have been preceded by a conference of the government with the provinces.


Mr. FISH:: The Object of this bill is dear to my heart, as it has always been, but the scheme in its details does not approach my ideal of an old age pensions law. In the older parts of Canada the provinces have always provided very well for those who are unable to support themselves. In my own province there is an estimable system of caring for the aged, and for the young as well when these are unable to take care of themselves. We have county homes there. Formerly they were called poor houses and the people who lived in them were known to the public as paupers. Happily the condition suggested by these names no longer exists; we are more enlightened to-day and we have very good institutions which are described by the less disagreeable name of county homes. The inmates are well treated and have a home where everything is provided for them. They are not obliged to work, but they can enjoy themselves at gardening and so forth, and the product of their labour is always at their disposal. While that may not be the intention of this bill, it is not to my mind doing very much better. Twenty dollars a month will not go very far in providing for an aged couple, for I gather that only the husband would be entitled to a pension. I may be wrong, I hope I am, but if only twenty dollars a month is available, how far will that provide the necessaries of decent living for a couple both over seventy years of age? In the institutions in my province with which I am acquainted it costs $5 to $5.50 a week to provide for each inmate, and this does not take into account anything for rent or Shelter. That is one fault I have to find with the bill- the pension is insufficient.
A still greater defect in my opinion is that we are seeking to impose on the provinces 14011-161
something without knowing whether or not they are in favour of it. In fact, it seems to me to be an attempt to interfere with provincial rights. Above all else, it is of vital importance to cultivate a spirit of harmony in the relations between the federal government and the various provincial governments. If the bill was based on the mortuary tables and the contributory principle adopted to the extent of a half or a quarter of the amount of the pension, the government providing the balance, then I think we would have a scheme that the people would be proud of, and no one availing himself of its provisions would feel that he was being spoon-fed. The government might establish such a scheme on a fair basis by a vote of one or two hundred thousand dollars, or more if necessary. I would make the terms very lenient to those who might fall behind with their payments so that it would be possible for them to clear off their arrears as opportunity offered. But before we can be assured of any success with this bill we will have to secure the co-operation of the provincial governments. I have no authority officially to say so, but it seems to me-and my impressions, of course are gathered from the daily press-that it is not reasonable to suppose that the government of my province will be prepared to undertake new7 liabilities at the present time. Our province is just recovering from a splurge of bad government, so bad, indeed, that w7e are obliged to resort to direct taxation, something we never imagined would ever be necessary. I hope the federal government will hold their hand until such time as they have secured the co-operation of the provincial governments in this proposal.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Chairman, it is very
gratifying to those who are interested in the welfare of humanity to find such splendid sentiments expressed here in regard to this bill It does seem to me, however, that there is a tendency to say to our less fortunate brothers, be warmed and fed, and yet not give them those things which are needed. In a scheme that has to be worked out by the Dominion in conjunction with the provinces, necessarily some difficulties are involved in making a start. Now, if we held a conference with tlhe provinces we would probably find a great deal of difficulty in getting unanimity of opinion among them, and no start would be made. Here are two parties to the contract, the Dominion on the one hand and a group of provinces on the other. One party or the other has to make a start, and in my judgment the quickest way to secure unanimity of opinion in the matter is to pass this bill.

Old Age Pensions

I do not think any province would fail to pass the necessary implementing legislation if this House clearly put itself on record as being in favour of tihe principle of the bill, and instead of merely giving utterance to a lot of pious wishes, translated' those wishes into something concrete. I repeat, I am firmly convinced that the quickest way to secure action is for parliament to pass this bill.
New, a good deal has been said somewhat wide of the mark respecting the relative merits of a contributory or a non-contributory scheme. I am heartily in sympathy with any move calculated to encourage thrift among our people, and 1 should like to see the provisions made for annuities brought more forcibly to their attention; but it seems to me that we will have simply to follow the course that has been fallowed in other countries. In England the pension scheme began in a non-contributor y form. In my judgment it is the only way it can be introduced, and I fully anticipate that if this non-contributory scheme is launched, within a very short time we will find ourselves entering upon a contributory scheme. That is the natural evolution of any pension legislation; I do not see how it can be otherwise. We cannot take care of the immediate necessities by any contributory scheme tlhat can be mentioned, but in course of time that can be built up, and in the meantime we will have a measure such as is now proposed that will be taking care of the immediate requirements of our aged poor. So I do not think we need be alarmed because some person points to England and says: They began in such-and-such a way, and they were compelled to do so-and-so at a later day. It seems to me that that is only what we may expect. Mr. Chairman, I feel thoroughly convinced that if we are to get action at all the onl;' way is for that body which can act as a unit to put its concrete proposal before the provinces.


William Garland McQuarrie: The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) is rather inconsistent, for in one breath he says we want something positive, and in the next he says we should put through this bill. There is nothing positive about this bill; on the contrary, it is very uncertain indeed and depends upon receiving the approval of the provincial legislatures. I submit that if there is a responsibility upon this House to do something positive, we should pass a bill to establish old age pensions. If we want to do that, but think the total obligation involved is too much for the country to shoulder at the present time, although it is very prosperous according to the statement of the Minister of

Finance, then we might divide it up. We admit our responsibility of $10 a month; we are prepared to give that amount provided the provinces do likewise, but if the provinces do not contribute the old people will not. receive anything at all. If we admit our responsibility for $10 a month should we not put through a positive bill and provide for the payment of at least that amount fo the aged in any event? I submit that that should be taken into consideration, as well as the further question whether or not this parliament should undertake the whole responsibility of $20 a month.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Chairman, I just
want to say a word about this bill.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; are we not considering clause 5 of the bill.


William Duff: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Should we not confine ourselves to the actual clause under consideration, instead of going all through the bill?


William Duff: I do not want to compel hon. members to speak exactly to the clause; they should keep as close to it as possible. I notice that those who have spoken have always come back to the question of the provinces contributing, so I will not ask the hon. member to stay too closely to the clause under discussion.


Peter McGibbon: I had not started when the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) presumed to take the lead of this House. In opening, I would like to put myself on record as being in favour of civilized countries looking after their aged poor, but I want to bring to the attention of the committee one or two points in connection with this matter. We are a young country; we have to-day resources greater than many other countries; we have the largest amount of agricultural land per capita; we have the greatest mines, the greatest forests, the greatest natural resources-and we have a population of about nine million people. Are we prepared at present to put eveiyone on the pay roll of the country? It seems to m* that we are getting the habit in this parlia' ment of going-I was going to say " mad "-iv. the way of legislation.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have not pissed any as yet.


Peter McGibbon: We have not passed any, but we have a certain clique, of which the hon. member is one, which desires to fasten every responsibility, whether municipal or

Old Age Pensions
provincial, on the Dominion treasury. This government should either have enough courage to say, " We are going to have an old age pension scheme, and we will take the responsibility of putting through the legislation and of bearing the financial burden," or else this bill should not have been introduced i'-t all.
What is going to be the result? The government are trying to fasten this responsibility upon the provinces, without having consulted them. Presuming that this bill passes, what will be the result if the provinces do not agree to it? Supposing a province does agree for a few years and then, after getting a number of people on the pension list, sees fit to withdraw from the scheme; where is the responsibility to rest? What is this government going to do? I asked the Prime Minister last night if he was willing to take the responsibility of establishing a scheme of old age pensions, with the Dominion, bearing the financial responsibility, and he said no. Is this a scheme to assist the establishment of old age pensions or is it not? The Prime Minister has not as yet answered that question, a question which should be answered before proceeding with this legislation.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) read last night the answers received from every province, and without a single exception they did not agree to this legislation. I would like to ask the minister what he is going to do if the provinces continue to disagree. What then will be the object of this legislation?


James Arthurs: To secure the votes of
a couple of members.


James Wright McGibbon: I quite agree; it is a
political scheme to get votes in this parliament, and nothing else. I ask the Prime Minister again whether he, as the head of this government, is willing to take the responsibility of introducing an old age pension scheme into this parliament and of bearing the financial responsibility for such a scheme. I ask the question, and pause for a reply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been
done already, in this present bill.


Peter McGibbon: The Prime Minister says it is done already . I wish he would explain how he is taking the sole responsibility of the financial obligations under this bill. Will he now explain?


William Duff: Shall the clause carry?


Peter McGibbon: I asked the Prime Minister a question.
14011-161J


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have answered the question.


James Arthurs: At the risk of being
tedious I again call the attention of the government to the fact enunciated by the hon. member for Fort William, namely, that none of the provinces have agreed to this legislation. I further call the attention of the Minister of Public Works, under whose direction this bill is introduced, to the fact that in many of the provinces, particularly in Ontario, we already have a scheme for the care of the aged. Apparently no effort has been made by this government to ascertain the opinion of Ontario, or that of any other province which has a similar scheme; or if any such attempt has been made the reply has not been in favour of the principle of this bill. As pointed out by the hon. member for Muskoka, even if a province did accept the principle of this bill for a time but withdrew from it later, the Dominion government would be in a quandary. I think we are perfectly right in stating that our position should be either yes or no. Are we in favour of old age pensions or are we not?


Abraham Albert Heaps: We are.


James Arthurs: The hon. member for
North Winnipeg says we are; then we should assume the whole responsibility and the Dominion of Canada should be responsible for the entire financial burden. Why divide it up in this way; why pass a bill of this kind when we know that most of the provinces will not assent to it as it is now before parliament?


John Warwick King: We do not know that; the hon. member is guessing. .


James Arthurs: We know it by inference; the provinces have not accepted the principle so far, and the probability is that they will not accept it, Even if it is accepted, there is nothing which would compel them to continue in that acceptance. We are starting at the wrong end, as I said before. Let the government say, "We are prepared to put through a measure of old age pensions," or "We are trying to shove the responsibility on someone else."


Peter Heenan: It would be a mistake to shut off debate on this bill, because as the debate goes on members are appreciating more and more the importance of old age pensions, and we see that if in the future we have to introduce a scheme of this kind under which the Dominion government must take full responsibility, we will receive support from those whom we thought, at the
Old Age Pensions

beginning of the debate, were against such a measure. At the beginning of this debate I recall that there were some members on the other side of the House who took the position that the country could not stand this expenditure, but now they contend that we are not spending enough, and that we ought to give another twelve million dollars towards old age pensions. So I think the longer we discuss this subject the better we shall get along.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if we are really sincere in trying to put an old age pension bill through, instead of arousing antagonism on the part of the provinces by speeches here to the effect that we are attempting to force something on them, if this bill is satisfactory in other respects- as to the amount of pension payable, and the conditions upon which it shall be granted-[DOT] we ought to get together and pass it and leave it to the provinces either to accept or reject it. The provincial governments are composed of men of sound business ability, men who wish to do the right thing by their province, although I find that even the Premier of Ontario has been trying to make a little political capital in connection with this matter. Not so very long ago he was asked on the floor of the Ontario legislature if he was considering an old age pension scheme for Ontario, and he said yes: that is, Ontario was considering an old age pension scheme for that province. But after there had been a certain amount of debate on this scheme in this House and the Premier of Ontario saw that some members on the Conservative side were opposed to it, he made the statement to the effect that the old age pension'for Ontario, if it was to be given in co-operation with the Dominion government according to the terms of this bill, would be too expensive. In other words, he was considering an old age pension plan for Ontario whereby Ontario would have borne the whole cost of an old age pension for that province; yet when the Dominion government proposed to pay fifty per cent of the cost, he said that this scheme would be too expensive.
I noticed in the Free Press the other day a quotation from the Vancouver Province, and the Free Press went on to say that here was the Dominion government introducing a bill that was nothing more than a sop.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: 
James Arthurs: If the Ontario government, justly as the hon. member claims, and as I believe, put into force the mothers' allowance, why should they not take care of their aged in the same way? Or if the Dominion government is disposed to pay fifty per cent towards the cost of this pension for those of our population who are not able to sustain themselves after seventy, why should not the Dominion government also pay fifty per cent towards the cost of the mothers' allowance?


Peter Heenan: I am glad my hon. friend has asked that question, because I was coming to that. But let us look at this thing in a practical way, and not have any hypothetical questions or indulge in imaginations regarding it. Let us see how it will work out in practice. The provinces are now responsible for the maintenance of their aged people who are not able to take care of themselves,and how do they look after them? By putting them in houses of refuge or poorhouses, where in many cases an old couple will be separated from each other. Is that the proper way to look after our old people?


Peter McGibbon: They do not do it that
way.


Peter Heenan: There are some people who do not know everything in this world, and I am speaking to one of them now. The Labour men of this country have been to the provincial government as well as to the federal government asking that an old age
pension scheme be put into effect, and some of the provinces have said that it would be too great a burden upon them and they could not do it, that it was the Dominion's duty. In other words, we have been passing the buck for a great many years on this question. In former days when the Dominion government or the provincial government were asked to shoulder the responsibility for such legislation none of them wanted to do it.
Mr. ARTHL'RS:	And this government
does not want to do it now.


Peter Heenan: You do not know; you
only think that. Now, the present Dominion government say this to the provinces:	We
know you have a burden on your shoulders at the present time in caring for these people. In order to bring about an old age pension we are going to lay down certain conditions and if you accept those conditions it will be possible for us to do something. I think the conditions laid down are fair because they have been investigated and recommended by a committee of this House, a committee composed of representatives of all parties. I am quite sure that the members of the provincial legislatures are just as reasonable as the members of this House, and they will be prepared to do what is right. The Labour people have discussed this matter and have made certain recommendations. The present bill, I think, carries out the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, almost to the letter. Very well; the Dominion government said to the provinces:	We will provide machinery
and we will contribute fifty per cent of the amount needed in order to help you to maintain aged people. As to the amount of pension, if an amendment were moved to increase the amount from $240 to $300 I would be willing to support something along that line, but if this House agrees upon the amount mentioned as reasonable, why not let us get together and put the law into effect? Instead of trying to suggest what the Senate may do with the bill, or to antagonize the provinces or to see who can get the most political prestige out of it, why not let us get together, make the very best arrangements we can, and then say "This is the very best we can give for the present and encourage the provinces to take advantage of it."


James Arthurs: Why does the hon. member say "this is the best we can give"? In saying that does he speak for the Minister of Labour, or for himself?


Peter Heenan: I was speaking of all of
us as members of the House, including my hon. friend.
Old Age Pensions


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: It was not my intention to take part in this diseussion, but the remarks of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) tempted me to get on my feet for a few moments. . I heartily approve of the principle of this bill, and I think this measure is long overdue. Those of us who have had the opportunity on many occasions to meet old people in our professional work must surely recognize the fact that there are many cases of parents who have given sons and daughters in great number to this country but who, through some misfortune have found themselves in the latter years of their lives dependent upon charity. I am quite sure that my hon. friend (Mr. McGibbon) as well as the other medical men in this House, have met cases of that kind. That being so, why Should any medical man oppose a bill which will bring relief and comfort to aged men and 'women who deserve so well of their country?


Peter McGibbon: Does the hon. member
think for a moment that any man is going to get relief from this bill? I am opposing it because I know they will not.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: My hon. friend made an observation towards the close of his speech to the effect that this legislation was intended for political effect.	That is what
I take great exception to.	I invite hon.
gentlemen opposite to join for once the rest of the members of this House in putting through one bill of a humanitarian character. Let us unite in such a good work and if any political advantage is to be gained at all, let us all share in it.


James Wright McGibbon: May I ask my hon.
friend another question?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Certainly.


Peter McGibbon: I ask him as a gentleman, and I know he is one, to be accurate when he quotes me. I made no such statement.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Well, if the hon. gentleman did not mention "the political effect" of this bill, my ears deceived me. Certainly he said a moment ago that he does not think any man will get relief from the bill. I quite agree with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) that if we pass this bill and make a certain amount of money available for the desired purpose there will not be one province in Canada that will not take advantage of it. It will only be a very short time until all the provinces will be availing themselves of this legislation and then the aged people who come under its provisions

will be getting some help in their declining years. It is a lamentable thing to see old men and women in receipt of charity. If this bill passes they will not be in receipt of charity; no such stigma will be attached to the enjoyment of the pension granted under this bill. If we pass this measure we shall all have occasion to feel proud of ourselves; for by the enactment of a bill based on such humanitarian principles this parliament will have done something greatly to its credit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to call your attention to this fact: We have been waiting for an approach to a consideration of some of the sections of the bill because we have certain suggestions to make. My hon. friend opposite, and particularly the last two speakers, while professing to talk on the principle of the bill, have been introducing some rather sharp criticisms of our position. We certainly have suggestions to make with respect to this bill and we propose to make them; but I submit that the best way for the government to make progress with the measure is to ask their own supporters to keep within the bounds of specific clauses so that whatever discussion takes place may have some point and some effect. I am giving notice to the government now that with respect to some of the clauses we are approaching I have suggestions to make which I hope will be constructive and useful; but if we go on with a general, desultory discussion of this character for two or three hours it will not assist us to rush through all the sections without discussion at all. We may as well approach the real matter of these sections as carry on a discussion of the kind which has taken place for the last three-quarters of an hour. I make these statements as I do not wish to be charged later on in the evening with obstructing the bill.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether
the draughting of this bill is very important or not. It may be, but I question whether it is worth a very detailed examination. I do not apprehend that the bill is going to come into effect until we will have had a lot more opportunity to review it. But if it is, I must say that to me it is a masterpiece of draughting. Take this section, for example. The criticism I have to make here is not as serious as I think can be made with respect to some other features of the bill. The main feature of the bill from this point of view is that it is principally an authority to pass an act. It is not an act. If hon. gentlemen will look at section 19-

Old Age Pensions


John Warwick King: We have not
reached that section yet.


Arthur Meighen: But in order to speak
of the draughting I have to mention it. Look at the length of that section and the authority it gives to the Governor in Council as to regulations. The bill is going to be drafted under that section, some time, somewhere, by someone. The whole alphabet, or almost the whole alphabet, was exhausted in the mere enumeration of the sections which the Governor in Council uses for the purposes of draughting the bill, and the matters referred to there are the very sum and substance, the very life and fibre, of the whole thing. Nobody knows what in the world this bill is going to be. I suppose the government knows as little as anybody else, but it is going to be draughted under clause 19, if it is ever draughted at all. Section 5 says:
Before any agreement made pursuant to this aot co-mes into operation the Governor in Council shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions pro-posed to be adopted by the province, and no change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the Governor in Council.
In draughtsmanship, what is a " scheme " and especially a scheme for the administration of an act? I understand the purpose of the draughtsman is to make the provincial act subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. If that is the purpose it should say so, and not say " the scheme for the administration of pensions proposed to be adopted by the province." Who is going to tell what part of the act is included in this scheme for the administration of pensions? Is the provincial authority to decide, or is it the federal authority? I have an idea what the draughtsman wants to say, but he has not said it. In the next clause the same word comes in. I have never seen before in the phraseology of any statute a " scheme " to provide for the organization. It seems to me to be far simpler and better to say the provincial act shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.
Hon. members have said-and I was almost moved to tears by the eloquence of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) on this subject-that the great object of this movement is to relieve the aged and the distressed, to remove them from the shadow of the poor-house, and to take care of them in their old age in a manner consistent with their dignity and in a way which comports with what old age really demands. I cannot see how anybody is going to come out of the poorhouse under this bill, if it ever goes into effect. Who can come out of the poorhouse on $240 a year? If I were arguing that we ought to set
to work to get everybody out of the poorhouse, I would say we should have a bill that would do it. This bill will not do it. I am not arguing however, for that purpose; I am simply saying that those who think this is a plan to bring that about have only to read the clauses of the bill. If one looks ahead he will see that the Governor in Council is going to be able, under the regulations, to provide that the provinces pay their share to the workhouse. That is how they will do it. How else can they do it when they only pay half? There is no other way. All we are going to achieve by this bill is to help the provinces keep up the poorhouses, assuming the provinces come into the scheme. Is that an unfair statement of the result?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that the position in the other countries where old age pensions are in effect?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know. This is a federation, the other countries are not a federation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Australia was somewhat in
the same category.


Arthur Meighen: No; and anyway if we provided a larger amount-although I am not arguing for it-there would be some hope of taking the old people out of the poorhouse and putting them in their homes. But when we confine it to this proposition it is pure hypocrisy on our part to throw out the signal to the aged people of Canada that the shadow of the poorhouse is no more about them and that we are going to keep them comfortably in their homes. Can the hon. member for North Winnipeg suggest any way on earth by which an old person can live on $240 a year?


Miss MACPHAIL:: If there are two old people will they not receive $40 a month? One old person would not care to live alone, and if they lived together, one perhaps as a paying guest, I think they could be taken care of on this amount.


Arthur Meighen: If it was a case of man and wife they might, but I doubt if it would be possible even then; they would require to have their health and be able to look after themselves. But there is the difficulty with old age; old people cannot look after themselves, consequently it is the home that looks after them. If they have their health and are able to look after themselves, a man and his wife might live on $480 a year, but I do not know. Erom what I have seen of efforts to do it I would rather see them living in a comfortable home such as they have in Portage la Prairie.
Old Age Pensions


Mr. YOUNG (Weybum):: Would my right hon. friend refuse to give them anything at all because he could not give them everything they want?


Arthur Meighen: No, that is not the point I am malting at all. There may be places where the provinces and municipalities- and those are terms we can use synonymously here, for one is under the other-might be able to take care of them in some way and keep them comfortably. If there are, I do not know where to find them. I am not denying that there may be some, but I know it would not be in Manitoba. I know something about the home there. I do not say there is not something, of course, in the nature of humiliation in going to what we call a home, but it is not a penal institution. There are hundreds of men in these places, and no person could live more comfortably than they do there, though they might live more luxuriously; but the home is open to all. I venture to say that of all the occupants of that home there are very few who are man and wife. There might be some, but I never ran across such a case; they are nearly all old single people, old brothers, or something of that sort. You cannot for the sum of $240 maintain these people elsewhere with anything like the comfort by which they are surrounded there. It may be wise for us to come to the relief of the provinces-although I do not know that we have been asked to do so-in order to elevate the standard of these places. I do not think very many members of the House would feel reluctant about endorsing such a proposition. There may be places where the standard is not as high as that with whidi I am acquainted in Manitoba; it is probably lower in other places. I would like to see the standard raised everywhere, and I think the provinces can well afford it. But when we are talking in this committee about getting rid of the poorhouses, as we would like to get rid of the gaols, we are only raising a hope soon to be shattered, because we cannot do it by means of this measure.
The hon. member for Lisgar says we must go through the same process as others have done who were in the field earlier than we were. There have been other countries in the field earlier than we, but hon. gentlemen must remember that great indus-9 p.m. trial countries necessarily reach this stage sooner than a country like Canada or the United States. If they learn by experience, by what process of reasoning does it follow we must commit all their errors to get the Same experience? I would

like to hear the argument behind that contention. It is said that you have got to start without contribution. Why? Must we start without contribution because we cannot make those over seventy years of age contribute? Is that any reason why those under seventy need not do so? None whatever. In a word, if we are ever to start the contributory principle it is never going to be as easy to do it as it is now-certainly it never will be easier. Any difficulties in our way now will certainly be in our way when we think of commencing again. It is true you cannot start with those who are called pensioners under this act, but you can make a start with prospective pensioners, and give everybody the right to come in and earn; and you may have the system graded according to age. There would be no difficulty whatever, in carrying out such a proposal. These are simply suggestions I offer touching the details of the measure. My opinion on the measure in genera! was offered to the House last night for whatever it was worth.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I agree with the suggestion
of the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) that we confine ourselves to the section under discussion; we are now considering section 5, which has nothing to do with a contributory scheme. That will come under another section and in my opinion consideration of it might very well be deferred.


Mr. FOSTER:: Section 5 provides that before any agreement made pursuant to this legislation becomes operative the Governor General shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions proposed to be adopted by the province. The first three words of this paragraph presuppose an agreement with a province or with provinces of the Dominion. Now, it is possible that some ideas which may occur to one in connection with this section might more properly have been stated when the resolution on which this bill was founded was under consideration, but I venture to think that the word "agreement" here will warrant the views I have to offer. At the present moment I can see no possibility of Nova Scotia entering into an agreement with the Dominion government on a fifty-fifty basis of contribution to a scheme of this kind. Even taking the sum mentioned of $240 a year and assuming the aggregate contribution to be evenly distributed over the provinces, it would call for practically one million dollars to meet the pensions required in Nova Scotia. So that if that province were forced to raise its share of $500,000 towards the provincial contribution it would mean that my own

Old Age Pensions
constituency, as one of the fourteen which would be taxed in the province, would have to provide something like $35,000 in addition to what we are already paying to take care of the poor people of Nova Scotia.
I want to aseure the committee that the poor of the province are being reasonably well taken care of at present. If Nova Scotia does not participate in this scheme, and if only one province in the Dominion takes advantage of the act, then we in Nova Scotia must still pay our proportionate share to provide for the poor in that one province that does come in. That certainly seems an unfair proposition, to me at any rate. The deduction from this would appear to me to be that this government should assume the entire responsibility for a pension scheme. The government ought to be willing to go far enough to make it a national undertaking, relieving the provinces and the municipalities of the work which they are at present doing, and substituting therefor a better performance on the part of the national administration of Canada. Someone may ask me why I make that suggestion. Well, the suggestion may be justified on the ground that, according to the information which has been given us, this country is at present in a prosperous condition. If it is in a prosperous condition, and if we have been able to raise twenty-five or thirty million dollars more in the way of taxation than we were able to secure the year before, then on that hypothesis alone the government, it seems to me, ought to assume full responsibility in this matter.
The people of Nova Scotia are to-day fairly well taking care of their poor, particularly in my own constituency; and I rather fancy that the major good of this bill, if it passes and if some of the provinces adopt similar legislation, will be to provide for certain poor people in industrial centres where the indigent at present are not being cared for as well as they ought to be. With the desire to take care of these people I am in perfect accord. But unless the whole country is to bear the responsibility, unless the scheme is to be made Dominion-wide and a national undertaking, I certainly do not feel that we are justified in proceeding with it on the basis of one province or more being obliged to contribute whether or not they benefit. I think I am expressing in this the views held generally by the people of my constituency.
During the last five or six years we have had to shoulder in one part of my constituency $55,000 of extra taxation as a result of maladministration in that county alone, and in Nova Scotia generally we have exhausted practically all our sources of revenue. The
outgoing government left the province in debt to the extent of $1,800,000 odd and the incoming administration, despite all its economies, is still unable to balance its budget. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the municipalities themselves are bearing a heavy burden already, I do not feel like supporting another measure which will require them to contribute thirty-five or forty thousand dollars to such a scheme as this. I may have something later on to say with regard to changes which it may be desirable to make in some of the other clauses of the bill, but in what I have just stated in a general way I believe I am but representing the views held by the people of my constituency.


Mr. BARBER:: There is probably one point on which we all agree, and that is that something is necessary in the way of old age pension legislation. Section 5, now under discussion, is of importance. It practically declares that this shall be a non-contributory scheme, and this is the one thing upon which there will no doubt be disagreement between the provinces. For this reason, I think, it would have been wise for the government to have consulted the representatives of the several provinces before draughting and introducing this legislation. It is questionable whether this is the wisest form of legislation for a young and growing country like Canada. Is it advisable, in a young country such as this, to create by means of an act of this kind the impression that individual provision for old age is unnecessary because the government will provide it? The principle, I think, is wrong; and this is the argument which I believe some of the provinces will put forward. In my opinion it would be better to seek a method of inducing people to provide from their earnings for protection of old age. In this regard I believe clause 5 will fall down. Had the provinces been called together in conference some system might have been adopted that would work satisfactorily; and in any case such a conference should have been called. Personalty I am inclined to favour the scheme suggested by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) the other evening, that of adopting a scheme of old age pensions, and such a scheme instead of being separate might be made a part of the existing annuities system. Under this system a man can very easily set aside during the earning period of his life sufficient funds by small payments which at the age of seventy will provide for him an annuity equal to or much better than the pension proposed in
Old Age Pensions

this legislation. I think our Annuities Act should be studied by every member of the House. I must admit that until the hon. member for West Calgary drew it to my attention I was quite ignorant of aill the benefits to be derived from its operation. I believe that probably seventy-five per cent of our people are not aware of the provisions of that act. If that system of annuities was better known I think it would fee taken advantage of to a far greater extent, and in that way would help to relieve the very situation we are trying to provide for under this measure.
Now, at the present time we know that from all over the Dominion there is a call from many aged people for immediate relief, and I am of opinion that the source of that relief should be the federal government by working out a scheme of old age pensions in connection with out annuity system.
Let me point out wherein I think this proposed legislation falls down. I do not wish it to be understood that I am opposing the principle of old age pensions. I should like to get together with the other members and work out some scheme that would be in the interests of those people who require relief and at the same time keep in mind the interests of the country generally. Each of the provinces is expected to co-operate in carrying out this legislation, and after it is enacted the right hon. Prime Minister has stated that it will be submitted to the provinces in order that they may take it under consideration. If any province decides to pass the necessary complementary legislation naturally some delay will follow before the legislature takes action. So my first objection is that this scheme will bring no relief for at least two years. From w'hat I know of public opinion in the several provinces respecting this proposal-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the whole of this principle was settled last night. Do we have to reply to the arguments that are being advanced to-night at such length and which have been reiterated again and again and again? In short, Sir, I rise to a point of order. Are we not on clause 5?


Harry James Barber: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to refer to clause 5 to show that I am perfectly in order.


William Duff: Does any hon. member desire to speak to the point of order? I do not want to make a ruling at this stage, but I *think the committee will agree with the hon.

member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that many hon. gentlemen are straying too far from the clause under discussion. I did not interrupt the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) because he is a new member. I must ask him from now on to keep within the four corners of clause 5.


Harry James Barber: Clause o, Mr. Chairman,
provides:
Before any agreement made pursuant to this act comes into operation the governor in council shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions proposed to be adopted by the province,-
I am referring to that part of it'he clause now. This is essentially a two-scheme proposal, and that is what is going to cause trouble, because I know some of the provinces are in favour of a contributory system. The clause continues:
*-and no change in such scheme shall be made by the province without the consent of the governor in council.
I do not think all the provinces will accept this proposal because Ithey will not all agree to a non-contributory system. Therefore, as the scheme will not be general throughout the Dominion, it will be unfair to the taxpayers of those provinces not participating in it because they will be contributing towards pensions in the provinces that decide to cooperate with the federal authorities.
I came to this House, Mr. Chairman, with the full intention of supporting legislation in the nature of old age pensions, no matter where it originated, whether with one of the smaller groups or with the government. If this measure has been introduced at the demand of one of the smaller groups, I must compliment them on the influence they exert over the government, but I cannot compliment them on the scheme brought down, I feel I cannot go back to my people and say:	I supported the
enactment of a measure to provide old age pensions, and the whole thing is settled satisfactorily. The first question some of the old people who are looking for such relief would put to me would be:	When are we going to
get (those pensions? I cannot tell them, and there is no man in this House can tell them when they are going to get relief under this bill.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Application of act in N.W.T.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, before
we go to that section, although it does not make much difference which Clause ilt is on, I should like to have some explanation of the phrase "scheme of administration." Who

Old Age Pensions
is going to tell what clauses of the provincial act are to be immutable because they are part *of the scheme of administration, and what other clauses the provincial legislature can Change if desired because they are not part of the scheme of administration? Which authority decides between the two classes of clauses?


John Warwick King: I think my right
hon. friend will see that a provincial government might pass an act that would leave entirely in the hands of the lieutenant governor in council the scheme to be worked out under regulations. The act would coincide with this act in the amount of payment and the period, but as to the scheme, that might nolt be in the provincial legislation at all; it might be left entirely with the lieutenant governor in council.


Arthur Meighen: That is the same thing.


John Warwick King: Yes, and their
scheme must be approved by the governor in council. Surely that is simple and proper.


Arthur Meighen: It does not matter a
fig whether the whole is passed by the legislature or whether the governor in council has authority to pass the balance by regulation; that does not affect my question in the least. My suggestion was, first of all, that instead of saying "the scheme of administration", they should say that the provincial act should be subject to approval. The draughtsman has chosen to say the scheme of administration shall be approved. Now, the scheme of administration will be either the whole provincial act, including the regulations passed under it, or only part. Who is going to say which of these clauses, whether of regulations or of the original act, are part of the scheme of .administration which the provinces will not thereafter have the right to alter, and which are the clauses forming no part of the scheme of administration, which the provinces will have the right to alter? Who is the authority to decide? No one has that authority; consequently the phrase is loose, and is not a proper phrase at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the word "plan" suit my hon. friend better?


Arthur Meighen: No, that would not be
better. Just say "provincial statute."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The provincial statute might not contain it at all. '


Arthur Meighen: It has to contain it,
either the act or the regulations.


John Campbell Elliott: I would like to call attention to what seems to me the clear intention of the clause. Here is a statement contained in this act of what the Dominion is willing to do with each of the provinces; the provinces can avail themselves of that plan, and the proportion in which the Dominion will contribute is stated. It is left to the province to formulate its legislation, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has suggested, by giving to the lieutenant governor in council power to make an agreement which will be satisfactory, and the result of clause 6 is to enable-


Arthur Meighen: Clause 5.


John Campbell Elliott: We are dealing with clause 6 now, and it says clearly:
As soon as agreements under this act have been made with two of the provinces adjoining the Northwest Territories, the Commissioner of the said territories may submit to the Governor in Council for approval a
scheme for the administration and payment of pensions-
Here is a scheme by which we are willing to pay a certain amount; the commissioner of the Northwest Territories submits this scheme to the Governor in Council, and they arrive at an agreement. There is nothing hard and fast about it; it must give to the Governor in Council the power to make an agreement satisfactory to the Dominion. This is exactly the scheme worked out in nearly every case where one power is assisting some other power by way of contribution. We in Ontario are familiar with the assistance given in the building of highways. The province says to the oounty, "In the case of county roads we will pay you so much if they are built according to a plan or scheme approved by the engineer of the public works department." This is following exactly the same principle. There is a certain amount of elasticity in it; it enables a scheme satisfactory to the territories to be put into an agreement with the Governor in Council, before aid is given. If they cannot agree upon a scheme it does not take effect, but as soon as the scheme is agreed on between the two parties it goes into operation.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister had kept his mind on the preceding clause he would have seen my point more clearly. I know that in the Highways Act the specifications for the highway must be approved by the federal government before the grant applies. There is no difficulty in telling what the specifications are; the specifications are made out each time with respect to each highway. There is no difficulty in telling where the specifications begin and where they end. But
Old Age Pensions

this is entirely different; this is a scheme of administration. A province passes an act; there are clauses numbering from one to thirty, then a clause saying that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing it, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to make an agreement with the federal government. Then those regulations are made pursuant to that act and the whole becomes a statute. Within that there must somewhere be a scheme of administration, 1 suppose. It may be partly or entirely in the regulations, or it may be partly or entirely in the old act. Who is the authority to say which part of the complete act, regulations and sections, is the scheme Of administration, and which part is not? That is very important.


John Campbell Elliott: Both parties must agree
to it, and so long as they agree that is the scheme.


Arthur Meighen: It does not say they
must agree upon it at all.


John Campbell Elliott: The agreement is the basis.


Arthur Meighen: Read clause 5:
Before any agreement made pursuant to this act comes into operation the Governor in Council shall approve the scheme for the administration of pensions-
When the Governor in Council approves the scheme for the administration of pensions, that scheme must be a portion of the original act passed by the province. That is its only place. This statute says that the province cannot change that act so far as it relates to the scheme of administration. Who is to say which portions of the act comprise the scheme of administration, and which do not? The province says, "We will alter this section, because it is not part of the scheme of administration", but the Dominion says, "No, you cannot alter it; we regard that section as part of the scheme of administration". Who is to decide? Why not put it, "the whole statute"?


John Campbell Elliott: The statute may be so
rigid that it will not enable the local authority to come to an agreement with the federal authority. The agreement is the basis of it all. The scheme is proposed in the provincial legislature and it must be satisfactory to the federal representative before they can be compelled to pay any money.


Arthur Meighen: The scheme is in the provincial legislature?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Will there be certain
clauses entitled "scheme of administration"?


John Campbell Elliott: It will be between the act and the regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my horn
friend will consider the manner in which pensions are dealt with by the federal government he will see what is intended by that clause. This government pays pensions in some cases to the civil servants, in some cases to ex-members of the militia, and there are the pensions of the men who served overseas. These pensions are administered in different ways. The pensions paid to the men who served overseas are administered by a board will full powers of its own without control by any department of the government. The pensions to ex-members of the militia are paid by the Department of National Defence, while the Department of Finance, I understand, has to do with the pensions of excivil servants. My hon. friend will recall that some provinces have departments of labour, while others have not. Provinces having departments of labour might have the pension scheme under that department, either administered by the head of the department or by a board appointed for that purpose. Other provinces would probably have the scheme under the provincial secretary, who has to do with the administration of charitable and eleemosynary institutions. It would be for each province to decide the particular scheme which would best suit its purposes. The only object is that the scheme adopted by any province should be submitted to the federal government for approval before contributions are made by the federal government. I think that is the reason the word "scheme" is used, and if it is understood in that sense it removes any difficulty.


Arthur Meighen: I quite agree there has
to be a scheme, and more than that, there has to be a whole method of administration; that is very clear. But what I want to get at is, who is going to decide what section of a provincial government statute, or of a regulation made under it, goes to administration and what does not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The province itself will indicate that, and submit it to the federal government for approval.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, the province will in some way say:	Here is this
clause-clause 2, clause 6, clause 10, and so on-which is part of the scheme of administration, and this clause we shall never change.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The province
says:	Here is our scheme in its essential

Old Age Pensions
features. Then if they should wish to change any of those features they ought to bring them to the attention of the federal government, because they might change a very material clause, a change which had it been suggested originally would not have been acceptable to the federal government.


Arthur Meighen: All I can say is I think
it would be a whole lot better if you would say the act. It is not only the administration that has to be made satisfactory; it is the very purpose for which the pension is paid; it is the method of payment, and all the Test of it. It is not a matter of administration; it is a matter of the very principle of the act itself. The whole thing has to be agreed to by the federal government, and I do not see why that phrase should be used. I suggest that for clarity, for effect, and everything else, the provincial statute should be adopted.


William Duff: Shall the clause carry?
Mr. MEIGHEiN:	For the life of me, outside the point I have raised, I do not know what clause 6 is going to lead to. It says:
As soon as agreements under this act have been made with two of the provinces adjoining the Northwest Territories, the commissioner of the said territories may submit to the Governor in Council for approval a scheme for the administration and payment of pensions therein, and upon the approval of such scheme, the same shall stand, in all respects other than its duration, in the same position as an agreement with a province.
One would think the method of paying the pension was the only thing there would ever be any trouble about. In the territories, who is going to raise the money to pay the territories' share of the pension?


John Warwick King: In the Territories the government would have to supple-'ment the fifty per cent which is to be paid by the provinces by another fifty per cent, and make that payable through the commissioner, under a plan which he submits, and which is accepted by the government. In regard to duration, any province can if they wish come out from under the jurisdiction of the act by giving notice. Here, in the matter of duration, it is entirely within the control of the Dominion government as to whether this scheme shall contiue or not.


Arthur Meighen: Then we have got this
far, that the Dominion pays the whole pension in the territories; none of it falls upon the local people at all. Is that going to be the case in the Yukon too?


John Warwick King: 


Arthur Meighen: Then as a matter of
draughtsmanship I just call attention to this: What the clause says is that the scheme- that is to say, some plan that is to be devised by the Governor in Council-shall stand. Surely it ought to go further and say that it shall be given effect to by payments. I do not think there is anything in this bill to authorize payment of a dollar in the territories. It says the scheme shall stand; it will not do much good by standing. I know what the intention is, of course-


John Campbell Elliott: Shall stand in the same
position as an agreement with a province.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it stands in that
position, but the bill should say that the Governor in Council or somebody may pay out money according to that plan. I call attention also, although I do not suppose it amounts to much, to the fact that the Territories are not included in the original definition.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-When payments to provinces to be made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the form of this clause:
All sums payable to any province in pursuance of any agreement made under this act shall be payable from time to time-
Now I call attention to what follows:
-on the certificate of the Treasury board out of any monies belonging to the consolidated revenue fund of Canada not otherwise appropriated, and the Governor in Council may borrow from time to time such sums as may be required for the purpose of making such payments.
There are two important objections, I think, to this clause. In the first place, the sums required are to be paid on the certificate of the treasury board out of any moneys belonging to the consolidated revenue fund, instead of out of moneys appropriated by parliament for that purpose, which is the usual method of handling expenditures of this kind. In the second place, I personally object to this provision that the Governor in Council may from time to time borrow such sums as may be required for the purpose of making such payments. The Governor in Council has the right to borrow, under its general powers, for the needs of the country. My submission is that this clause should be amended to make the payments subject to appropriations granted by parliament from year to year. That would enable parliament to keep at least some control over the situation, and that is the proper
Old Age Pensions

method. In the second place, I submit that there should be deleted from this clause .the special borrowing powers conferred upon the Governor in Council. The government should not have any rights specifically granted under this act to borrow, but let them come to parliament in the usual way for an appropriation for these payments. I am not saying this with any criticism of the government as such, but I do not think it is desirable to change the general method of handling the financial obligations of the country in this bill, as distinct from any other obligations of the government, and I submit to the minister that this change should be made.


John Warwick King: This section was placed in the bill at the request of the Finance department. As will be readily understood, it would be very difficult to estimate the amount that would be required and place an appropriation in the estimates. My hon friend said1 this afternoon that no money at all would be required, because the act would not be workable.
Mr. STEVEN'S:	I do not want the minister to get captious in his remarks. I am trying to offer constructive criticism, and 1 am not meeting him in a captious spirit at all.


John Warwick King: Quite right. In
regard to borrowing money from time to time, this I think is the usual provision in statutes of this character. We have many statutes that permit of payments being made under the statute instead of in the ordinary way out of appropriations voted by the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That reply of the minister certainly does not satisfy me; in fact, I do not think it is a reply at all. Will the minister tell me what objection there is to submitting an appropriation to parliament?


Eugène Fiset: What does my hon. friend suggest? If a vote were to be put in the estimates before it is known which provinces are going to agree to the scheme, you would have to put in an estimate for the total amount, $12,000,000. On the other hand if you have a Governor General's warrant as provided for in the section you can lay a statement on the table of the House every year; you know exactly what has been provided for. And if the scheme is adopted by one province at a time, parliament will know every year what amount has been spent under these warrants. In the absence of that, pending the approval of each province, you would have to provide for an estimated amount of $12,000,000 yearly. I see no difficulty in the provision.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend was long: enough practically the head of a department to know that what he is saying now has not been in accordance with the practice.


Eugène Fiset: We have to provide for an exceptional case, that is what I had in mind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Every session estimatesare brought before parliament of what may be required when the total payment may be ten times as much as the estimate. The government uses its wisdom and brings down what it estimates will be required; it may not be all required. Now then let me go a step further. My hon. friend says it is better to-provide that the payments shall be met by a Governor General's warrant. But Governor General's -warrants are open to the government any time they exceed the estimate. That is within their right.


Eugène Fiset: But what estimates-would you provide?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Bring in an estimate to parliament that a certain sum will be required next year. You may estimate any expenditure of say a million dollars, or two million dollars, or five million dollars, as the case may be-whatever the government is able to estimate, using the word in its broad sense, is required. Then if there is need to use a Governor General's warrant it is quite within the power of the government to issue-one without the reference in the statute. But to say in the statute that the money shall be provided by Governor General's warrant, or whatever is the equivalent of it, is, I submit, contrary to the usual practice followed in this parliament.


Eugène Fiset: But after all it is a specific payment. You know the sum which, is paid to the individual, you know exactly what you are doing. I do not see what harm there is in doing that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will tell my hon. friend what harm there is. The voting of estimates is the one way by which the people's representatives have a hold or control of a government-and please dismiss from your mind that I have any special reference to this government. I am not now attacking this particular government. Any government submits estimates or appropriations to parliament and then we can, although not necessarily, criticize the amount or say to the government "Now then, what is being paid? How is your scheme working out?" My right hon. leader has just pointed out how the govern


Old Age Pensions
ment are given power to provide for certain schemes. Well, when your appropriation is before parliament some hon. member may not be satisfied as to the way the government's scheme is working out. He or I or anyone else can then say to the government, "We want an accounting of this thing; we want an explanation of the scheme that has been adopted in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario," or anywhere else. And here on the floor of parliament we are able to review and discuss the action of the government. That is the reason I submit to the committee that in respect to this proposal an estimate, or an appropriation should be submitted to parliament in the usual way under the Appropriation Act.


John Campbell Elliott: May I say what occurs to me with respect to the absolute necessity of having this provision as it is worded? My hon. friend's proposition, I think, would be correct if this were an ordinary grant. But in this case the money is to be paid under an agreement. Once the agreement is entered into between the province and the Dominion, the latter has no option about paying it; it is going to pay the money it agrees to pay. For that reason the draughtsman of this bill has made, I think very wisely, the provision we find here:
-the Governor in Council may borrow from time to time such sums as may be required for the purpose of making such payments.
For the reasons I have given I think that is the proper way to work the matter out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Whether the minister
leaves in or takes out the words "the Governor in Council may borrow " does not make any difference, because the government have that power now. I make very little reference to that. If the government have not enough money out of the appropriation they borrow. Whether it is for this or any other purpose, they have the power to act under a general statute. What I am complaining of is the principle that has been departed from of bringing before parliament an appropriation or estimate so that we may review year by year the progress made under this bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must say I agree very largely with' what my hon. friend has been saying. Personally I should like to see something added to the bill which would help to ensure the object that he has in view. Section 17 reads as follows:
On or before the thirtieth day of April in each year the Minister of Finance shall make a full report to parliament of the operation of the agreements made pursuant of this act and of the moneys of Canada paid to the provinces under each of the several agreements entered into pursuant hereto.
By presenting that report parliament will have a knowledge of what agreements have been made and what amounts shall be required for subsequent years. I think that wherever an agreement is made, it would be wise that the minister should be required to ask parliament for the grant of money that may be necessary year by year for the purpose; but until some agreement is arrived at I think it would be premature to ask the House to appropriate a sum which cannot possibly be estimated in advance. Take for example this year: were we to seek to make provision by an estimate we would be utterly at a loss. Between now and the next fiscal year it would be quite impossible to say what amount will be required; but once a province has come to us and asked us to make an agreement, and an agreement has been entered into then, I think, thereafter there ought to be some obligation on the government of the day to see that parliament has an opportunity of considering the necessary appropriations and unless there be good and sufficient reason to the contrary of voting them annually. I do not like the House to get away from the annual vote if that can be prevented.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me just suggest a
change in the wording and then place my further argument. I would suggest a substitution-I am not moving this, Mr. Chairman, I am merely suggesting it-to this effect:
All sums payable to any province in pursuance of any agreement made under this act shall be paid out of moneys appropriated from time to time by parliament, for that purpose.
That is following almost precisely the wording of a bill we passed this afternoon in regard to another matter. Now, there is no possibility of any demand being made this year. The legislatures of the provinces will not meet until next winter, or next fall, so that no act can be passed by them until just about the same time as this parliament will be again assembled in its next session. No province, therefore, need be worried about this year. But between now and next year the government, we will say, enters into some agreement with a province. Then it can come before parliament next year with an estimate. In the interim should a contingency arise where money is required, the power having already been given, the government can issue a Governor General's warrant for the necessary amount. I would not expect there would be any need whatever to do that between now and next session, but it is the-principle that I am contending for. I know the same principle is quite dear to the heart.
Old Age Pensions

of the Prime Minister, and I submit the point with good faith to him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be well if this section were permitted to stand, to permit of a conference with respect to it with my hon. friends opposite. There are one or two points that probably have escaped my own notice in regard to the wisdom, from the point of view of the co-operation of the provinces in the matter, of not leaving any uncertainty with regard to what the federal government or this parliament will do as to voting sums from year to year. I think my hon. frien'd would wish that there should be no doubt in that regard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed that that was the main reason why the section was draughted as it stands.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We yearly vote sums, what we call statutory amounts. I think the heading in the estimates is "Called for by statute."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, you can do that in some cases where the amount the federal government is expected to give is approximately known, but such is not likely to 'be the case with the old age pension scheme. For example, in the case of technical education, agricultural instruction, highways, and other schemes where the federal government has contributed, that is the way the money has been voted, but the government has had knowledge in advance of what in all probability was likely to be required. Until the several provinces come in under this act it is impossible to say what those amounts will likely be. But I would say, having regard to the point I have just mentioned as to the reason which actuated the draughtsman of the measure in this regard, that it is better to let that section stand for the present, with the hope of ultimately meeting the object hon. members on both sides have in view.
Section stands.
On section 8-What persons are pensionable.
Mr. McQUARR-IE: The important feature of this clause is in regard to the age of the pensioners. In this connection I have received a letter from one of my lady constituents, and as the ladies are taking a good deal of interest in what is going on in this House, I am going to ask the privilege of quoting from it; I will not read the whole letter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Leave out the personal part.


William Garland McQuarrie: The letter reads:
The terms of proposed old age pension are too hard. The age of pensioners should be sixty-five. Who that needs it can get work after sixty-five? And $20 is a very skimpy amount to live on in Canada, much less than the government could keep old folks in homes with a paid staff to attend them. As twenty years have passed since Ottawa named her first commission, it is to be hoped the members will have pluck enough to bring it to materialisation in 1926. Think of all the money wasted on commissions during said twenty years on friends of governments in lieu of the poor. To xnow that New Zealand has been paying old age pensions for nearly thirty years while Canada who can afford millions for graft is still talking about it, is, surely a disgrace to all politicians past and present. Before Premier King took his seat I wrote him asking to bring matter forward. Like his predecessors he would but forget the poor once he was in the saddle. During past sixteen years I have written about 250 letters on subject. Well, do your best during present session for the aged. It is comforting to know you are one of the very few who does some strenuous work at Ottawa.
There is something in the point that the age of seventy is perhaps unreasonable. If we are going to do anything, why not make it applicable, as suggested by this lady, at the age of sixty-five?
There is another matter which I think should be covered in this section. Something should be done in regard to returned men. It may 'be said, of course, that the returned men are taken care of by the soldiers' pension scheme, but we all know there are cases where men who served their country overseas are not receiving pensions-although they are more or less nothing better than
10 p.m. human wrecks-because they cannot prove that their disability is due to their service overseas. There are men who served overseas who become aged before their time; they become old men at an earlier age than those who have not served overseas might be expected to do. In this connection I have a resolution which was passed by the Great War Veterans' Association of Canada at Victoria, British Columbia, and I wish to take this opportunity of placing it on Hansard. It reads as follows:
Resolution passed by the Victoria command of the G.W.V.A., duly convened in general meeting; on this 18th day of March 1926.
That whereas the federal government is now considering an old age pensions bill;
And w'hereas it is common knowledge that many men who served iin the late war have, by reason of hardships endured, become prematurely aged;
And whereas the Ralston royal commission in its report recommended that some special provision should be made for such men;
Be it therefore resolved that in the opinion of this branch of the Great War Veterans' Association provision be made in the Old Age Pension Act that the age limit for veterans be "fifty-five" years of age,

instead of seventy years of age, further, that men who served their country during the war be considered as eligible regardless of time of residence in Canada prior to the war and that the act be also applicable to men receiving small pensions, without any interference with such service pension;
This Association moreover is of the opinion that if these provisions are embodied in the act will they go a long way towards solving many of the difficulties already considered by the Ralston report and other special Parliamentary committees and for the solution of which it has been advocated that the government should establish soldiers' homes.
Then I have another resolution from The Canadian Legion, Victoria Post, No. 1, which reads:
I have the honour, by direction, to forward to you the following resolution, passed at a general meeting of members of this association on Wednesday, March 17th.
"Whereas it has been published in the press throughout Canada, that an old age pension bill has been presented to parliament.
And whereas it is common knowledge that many exservice men, on account of war service, have become prematurely aged.
Be it resolved that provision be made in the proposed old age pension scheme that certain preferences be extended to all ex-service men as follows:
(a)	Preference as to age. Recommend that the age limit be 55.
(b)	Preference as to length of residence in Canada. Recommend that all men who served their country in the late or other wars be considered eligible regardless of length of residence.
(c)	Recommend that the act expressly state that no reduction be made in the old age pension for war disability pension."
It is felt that if the above recommendations are made effective it will go a long way towards the solution of many difficulties recognized by special parliamentary committees and the royal commission on pensions and re-establishment, for the solution of which recommendations have been made for the establishment of soldiers' homes in Canada.
There are matters referred to in these resolutions which should receive the consideration of this House. There are cases in which special treatment should be accorded the returned man, and that principle has been recognized by this parliament time and time again when preference has been given him, as for instance in the civil service. It may be that these resolutions go too far, although for my own part I do not say that. I certainly think that some concession should be granted returned men, at least in necessitous cases.


Henry Herbert Stevens: According to paragraph
(d) provision is to be made for the payment of a pension to anyone who at the date of the proposed commencement of the pension- -has resided in the province in which the application for pension is made for the five years immediately preceding the said date.
What useful purpose will this paragraph serve? Some province, in its wisdom, might 14011-162
Old Age Pensions
consider it desirable to fix the period at ten years. The draughtsman admits the principle of a set time, the bill providing a period of residence in Canada for twenty years. That period is satisfactory to the federal government so far as residence in the Dominion is concerned, but why should not the province have the right to determine the period of residence within its own limits? The province, in order to protect its own revenues, might want to fix a period of ten, fifteen or twenty years even; but if it decided upon, say, ten years, its legislation would not conform to this bill. I do not see what purpose is served by including among the provisions of section 8 any reference at all to residence within the province. Why not leave that altogether to the province?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are later
clauses relating to the migration of pensioners from one province to another.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely the province should have the right to determine what length of residence within its own limits shall be necessary to entitle a pensioner to the benefits of this scheme. I am as anxious as anyone else to have an old age pension scheme of some kind provided, but we must realize that we in this House cannot impose our will upon the provinces. We should therefore omit from the bill all such verbiage, if I may use the term without offence, as is not absolutely necessary to protect federal interests, giving to the province as great latitude as possible to determine its own conditions.


John Livingstone Brown: Does the hon. member
recognize the necessity for a uniform period in all the provinces?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know that
uniformity is absolutely essential. We are fixing in this paragraph a period of five years as the length of residence in the province necessary to entitle the pensioner to come under the scheme. That is a comparatively short time in a matter of this kind. If. one, two or three provinces come into the scheme, there will naturally follow a gravitation of persons approaching old age to such provinces, where they will take up residence with a view -to obtaining pensions after five years.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the hon. member read
section 10?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not read it in
conjunction with this one.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Section 10 covers the point.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Sections 10 and 13 relate to transfer of residence and they cover the point which the hon. member is making.

Old Age Pensions


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not see any necessity for paragraph d). We are providing in paragraph (c) that (efore anyone may obtain a pension he shall have resided in Canada for the twenty yeurs preceding the date at which the pension begins. Very well; that protects the interests of the Dominion. But why should we invade the provincial sphere and decide for the provinces the period of residence that shall be necessary? Why not leave that to the provinces themselves?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does not this provision refer to the administration of the act? When a pension is granted to anyone who has been only five years in the province, the other provinces in which he has lived are asked to contribute their share.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the provision in this paragraph.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You will find it in later paragraphs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not see why (d)
should fix a period of five years rather than ten or fifteen. The paragraph is not necessary.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Unless a man has been five years in the province he cannot file his application for a pension.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say that the clause is wholly unnecessary and should be deleted.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Suppose, as the hon. member suggests, one province should come under the scheme and a large number of prospective pensioners began to gravitate to that province 'for the purpose of getting the pension: that province might decide to make the period of residence two years and there would be nothing m this bill to prevent it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We may trust to the
province to look after its own interest in that respect, and that is the very reason why I am arguing that we should leave it to the province to decide upon residence within its own boundaries. But suppose all the provinces were willing to fix the period at two years; why should the Dominion government worry ?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would you likely get uniformity if you left it to the provinces to decide the question themselves?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know that you
require uniformity in respect of the period of residence within the province. Let the provinces determine that. As long as this parliament cares for the main principle of a twenty year residence anywhere in Canada, I do not care where, that is all it is concerned

in. We are going into partnership with the provinces; let each province, therefore, determine within its own borders what the residence shall be there.


John Livingstone Brown: If it was decided that uniformity was not necessary, I would be prepared to agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, but I am yet unable to see how you can dispense with uniformity.


Mr. BAKER:: Clause (c) provides:
(c) has resided in Canada for the twenty years immediately preceding the date aforesaid;
That is, he must have arrived in Canada twenty years before reaching the age of seventy. Is there not danger in that clause to the welfare of Canada? I presume the whole purpose of this legislation is to reward those who have worked for the welfare of Canada. I think we all agree that this is desirable. Unfortunately the working people of Europe by the time they have reached the age of fifty are pretty well broken down. I have seen hundreds of them and know what I am talking about. If they come here at the age of forty-nine years and eleven months, and are not in a physical condition to give any labour to Canada between that age and seventy, they might live to the age of ninety, and although owing them no reward the Dominion would be paying them a pension for that period. That is the only bad point I see.


John Warwick King: Replying to the
statement of my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) regarding the resolution he submitted from a returned soldiers' organization, I think it would be well not to complicate the bill by making special classes. If .parliament is disposed to deal with returned men I am quite in sympathy with such action, but I think it would be a mistake to interfere with the uniformity of old age pensions under this bill. As to the time of residence, in Great Britain, the British Dominions and the United States, and I think in some of the South American countries and also the European countries twenty years residence is generally accepted as sufficient. If people broken down in health come to this country at the age of forty-nine or fifty, they probably would not live to be seventy anyway, and I doubt very much whether they would get by the Immigration authorities.


Richard Langton Baker: I have known people to
come to Canada after they have passed their fiftieth year.


John Warwick King: So have I. But
I think to extend the period of residence beyond twenty years would defeat the desire

Old Age Pensions
of those who are in favour of this legislation. Now, residence of five years in a province is a matter of degree.


Richard Langton Baker: Are we not to pay pensions after five years?


John Warwick King: I repeat that five
years' residence in a province is a matter of degree and judgment. In framing the bill it was thought there should be at least some period of residence required in a province, and it was decided that five years would be fair. To leave this to the provinces would not lead to uniformity. Provision is made in the bill that where, say, a person has resided for five years in Ontario, ten years in Alberta and finally five years in British Columbia, and there makes his application for a pension, the provinces concerned would each pay their proportion according to the term of residence within their boundaries-of course, provided that those provinces are in the scheme.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Suppose those provinces
were not in the scheme, would not British Columbia in the case cited have to pay it all?


John Warwick King: Fifty per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the point I am
raising.


John Warwick King: I quite agree with, my hon. friend as to the desirability of a time limit, but it was felt that five years would be sufficient protection, because after all that would not prevent people gravitating from a province where the scheme is not in effect to one where it is.


Richard Langton Baker: My suggestion would be to
make clause (c) read:
(c) has resided in Canada since the age of twenty
years.
This would ensure to Canada the benefit of the labour from the age of twenty to the age of seventy, when the person would be rewarded with a pension.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: 
Milton Neil Campbell: I was trying to point out that under the present system a person could have an income of $360 a year, whereas under the British system he could not have more than $260.


Abraham Albert Heaps: New Zealand and Australia, and allow the pensioner to earn a higher amount than is here specified in paragraph (f). I would urge that upon the minister; I think it is a point worthy of consideration.


John Warwick King: Considering that this is our first attempt at an old age pensions scheme I think we should advance carefully. We have made provision for 820 a month. That is not a large sum, but in the aggregate it will involve a large expenditure. To increase the allowance one might have from earnings or from income seems an easy thing to do, but I think at present we could very well afford to be careful and fairly conservative. After the scheme is in operation, if it is successful, and if from experience we find that it might be enlarged and that we might be more generous, then would be the time to consider the matter. At present I would prefer, and do suggest to the committee, that we should not depart from the provisions as set forth in the act.


John Livingstone Brown: I would suggest that we take clause 8 section by section, and get somewhere.	.


Mr. DICKIE:: With respect to subsection (d) it seems to me a difficulty might arise. In the event that Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta declined to come in under this scheme, every man approaching the age of sixty-five in these three prairie provinces would immediately migrate to British Columbia, which province would doubtless come into the scheme. Although we in British Columbia venerate age we do not want our province to become an old men's home. What would prevent all these old men approaching sixty-five years of age from coming to British Columbia?


John Livingstone Brown: Suppose Manitoba adopts it and British Columbia does not?


Charles Herbert Dickie: Manitoba shows no intention of adopting it. Alberta shows no such intention nor does Saskatchewan, but British Columbia undoubtedly will come in.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In a case such as
that mentioned by my hon. friend there is provision made in clause 10 for the distribution of the burden.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I quite understand that, but we have no senate in British Columbia; we do not want to make it an old man's home.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend is unnecessarily alarmed. The class of individuals who will receive a pension

under this act have not the means for transporting themselves.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Their friends would assist them.	.


John Warwick King: Possibly, but it would be discovered shortly and an end put to that practice. The only difficulty would be with the province of Alberta, where they would simply have to step over the line, but the pension board would soon become familiar with a situation of that kind.


Charles Herbert Dickie: But we would have no redress.


John Warwick King: If that occurred a means of redress would be found. The five-year period is, I think, sufficient to prevent such a thing. The delightful climate of British Columbia is attractive, I know, but I think the class who would come under the provisions of this bill will hardly be travelling very much at the age of sixty-five, in order to get located for this scheme.


Alan Webster Neill: I ithink the objection of my
hon. friend is fully met by section 11. If a man is getting near the age of sixty-five in Alberta, where there is no pension payable, and goes to British Columbia and stays five years his pension-
-shall be reduced by the same proportion as the dura-t on of the pensioner's residence in such other province bears to twenty years.
The man would only get a proportionate pension, so no advantage would be gained by going to British Columbia except that of living in such a delightful province.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Thalt would conflict with
section 10, then, which provides that no matter what part of Canada the man has lived in, if he came to British Columbia the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta would have to pay a portion of this pension, but we would have the old gentleman wilth us.


Alan Webster Neill: Section 10 deals with the
case where the previous province pays a pension, while section 11 deals with the case where the previous province does not pay a pension.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is one class
whose claims mi^ht be considered before passing this section; I refer to those who presented a petition the other day for [the blind. I do not know whether it is possible to make provision in this act for them. We all recognize that people with such a disability are in need of an old age pension earlier than are other people, because it is much more

Old Age Pensions
difficult for them to obtain work. I do not know whether it would be possible to have an amendment to subsection (b) to provide that in the case of blindness the age might be reduced by five or ten years. In one or two of the other acts such provision is made. Ideal disability insurance should perhaps be dealt with by a special act, but in the case of blindness comparatively few would be affected, and the expense would not be very heavy. I would at least suggest to the minister that an amendment might be made to subsection (b), to make it read:
-has attained the age of seventy years or, in the case of the blind, the age of sixty years;
Or whatever age might be fixed.


Milton Neil Campbell: I might suggest to the
hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) that in such a case as he suggests it would not work such a hardship on British Columbia, because the prairie provinces would be paying their proportion of the Dominion tax. British Columbia, would be deriving some of the benefits, while the prairie provinces would have none. So that even in the extreme case mentioned, and I do not for a moment admit it would work out even in that case, British Columbia would be benefited.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I think the clause quoted by the hon. member for Comox-AIbernd absolutely covers the point which I raised. I do not at all agree with the hon. member for Mackenzie. The sum of $20 a month is not going to support these old people, and we are not going to see them want if they come to British Columbia. But clause 11 absolutely covers the objection which I raised.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just
going to say to my friend from Winnipeg North Centre in regard to the case of the blind, of whom he has spoken, that I imagine there is no class in the community for whom we would desire to do more than for those who are deprived of their sight, but I think the matter of blindness ought to be considered independently of the matter of old age. This is experimental legislation at this stage, and I am afraid that if we burden it unduly by adding to old age other features, we may have difficulty in getting the general support we would like to have for this legislation. I would be inclined to think that any suggestion of that kind had better be deferred until after the statute is enacted, and if the provinces wish to make that proposal themselves in their own legislation, there would always be the opportunity if it were deemed advisable, to have our legislation amended.
There is the further fact that the federal government at the present time is appropriating some money, not a great deal, specifically for the blind. I have in my hand a copy of the estimates, and one item, under Miscellaneous, refers to a vote that we expect to get from parliament for the blind-Grant to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $10,000. If I recollect aright, there was some other vote for the blind we did appropriate in a previous year. I think we had better not at present introduce a new feature in this legislation.


Richard Langton Baker: Is there any clause here
that would prevent a person of seventy who has a little capital from doing away with it for the purpose of getting a pension under this legislation?


John Warwick King: If he was discovered doing that, he would not be qualified for a pension.


Richard Langton Baker: Does the bill say so?


John Warwick King: Yes. Paragraph
(g) provides that if he has not made any voluntary assignment or transfer of property for the purpose of qualifying for a pension, he is eligible; if he has done so, he is not eligible.


Richard Langton Baker: It would not be too difficult to prove, would it?


John Warwick King: I think not.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Maximum pension $240.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Subsection 2 of section 9 refers to the transfer to the pension authority of the property or house in which the prospective pensioner may live. I cannot quite discover from a casual reading what becomes of the property after the death of the pensioner. Is it returned to his heirs less a certain amount retained for charges, or what becomes of the property?


John Warwick King: If it is shown to
the pension authority that his people have contributed1 a reasonable amount, the property may go to them. That is provided in subsection 3.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Distribution of pension burden among provinces.
Charles Herbert Dickie: Suppose Alberta and Saskatchewan do not come into this scheme; could the federal government force the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan to contribute the amount which is set forth here?


John Warwick King: No.
Old Age Pensions


Henry Herbert Stevens: The federal government
could not force them under any circumstances. Section 11 covers the point my hon. friend raises.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On section 19-Power to make regulations.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is perhaps the main clause of the bill. Under this clause the regulations are to be made which will govern the agreement, and really the nature of the agreement. I think we are entitled so far as this clause is concerned to a pretty full explanation or interpretation of it from, the minister in charge, having particular regard to this question: Is it intended that the agreement shall be strictly limited to the terms of this clause, or, as I apprehend i9 the case, are the powers of the government in draughting the agreement to be rather elastic and fairly broad? We ought to have some idea of how broad these powers are, and to what extent it is contemplated to go. I think the paragraphs of this section ought to be read one after the other so that we could follow them with some care. This is undoubtedly the main section of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, read the section paragraph by paragraph.
On section 19, paragraph (a)-Regulation as to the time preceding the attainment of pensionable age at which applications for pension may be made.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I was not in when section 9 was under discussion. I do not want to discuss it, but I want to call the attention of the minister to the fact that under it a pensioner may leave his property to another pensioner and thereby escape all liability for reimbursing the government. Furthermore "pensioner" is described in the definition clause as "an applicant for a pension". The effect of that would be that if a man wants to defeat the purpose of the act, lie can get his proposed legatee to apply for a pension whether he has any right to it or not, and then immediately leave his property to him. The fellow being an applicant is then a pensioner under the act and the government is done out of its money. The paragraph merely needs correction, and it should be corrected.


John Warwick King: I think my right hon. friend is correct. We will return to that question before we go out of committee.


Charles Marcil: May I ask a question in regard to the effect of subsection (2) of section 
S, which declares that pensioners are not to be disqualified from voting. Does this constitute a disqualification from voting at any provincial or municipal election?


John Warwick King: There is no
disqualification under the Dominion law. There is in the laws of some of the provinces.


Arthur Meighen: Have we got the right to say who shall vote at a municipal election or who shall not? I do not see how we have that right.	.


John Warwick King: We are not taking the right.


Arthur Meighen: The subsection says the receipt of a pension shall not be a disqualification. Supposing the municipality says it shall? The subsection simply should not be there. We have nothing to say as to who is or is not qualified to vote at a municipal or provincial election. It is presumption on our part to say whether this is a qualification or disqualification. The municipalities or the province, as the case may be, have the full right to say what the provincial or municipal franchise 3hall be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we should have the right to say that these pensioners should have the right to vote at a provincial or municipal election, because we are contributing fifty per cent.


Arthur Meighen: We have nothing to do wdth that. We cannot authorize a province or a municipality to grant the right to vote.


John Campbell Elliott: Suppose the provincial act provides that they shall be disqualified.


Arthur Meighen: Surely the minister does not intend to suggest that we will bring any pressure to bear on a province in that regard.
* Mr. WOODSWORTH: Why not? We want to recognize that a pensioner has certain rights and should retain his citizenship. I do not see why vre should not put that as one of the stipulations.


Arthur Meighen: Are we to say to the province "unless you are ready to let these people vote who are in receipt of this money you have got to be out of this thing altogether and stay out"?


Alan Webster Neill: I am rather inclined to agree with the point raised by the leader of the opposition that this does interfere with the provincial franchise, and some of the provinces are very sensitive on that score. We claim that we have the right to regulate our own franchise, in fact that is our right under the British North America Act. The ques-

Old Age Pensions
tion comes home particularly to us in British Columbia because it indirectly relates to our right to exclude orientals from voting. Under this provision there is a possibility that we shall be setting at naught something to which the province attaches very great importance.
I know the right hon. leader of the opposition laid down in the course of a debate some years ago that the provincial franchise was not to be interfered with by the Dominion.
I recall that he said on that occasion that any disability under the provincial franchise would have to be translated into the Dominion federal franchise.


John Anderson Fraser: Has there not been a decision by the Privy Council holding that the province of British Columbia has a right to prohibit the names of Chinese and Japanese from being placed on the voters' list?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
On section 19, paragraph (b)-Time at which payment of pension shall commence.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know how in the world you are going to fix the time for application, because there may be all sorts of inquiries. The provision does no harm, but is should be worded somewhat differently, perhaps. Just say "the time at which" and leave out the words "after application therefor".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The phraseology is copied from the British Act.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that you leave out the words "after application therefor".
Paragraph (b) agreed to.
On section 19, paragraph (c)-Definition of residence.	*


George Black: Would that apply to the resolutions read to the House by the member for New Westminster yesterday, from the Soldiers' associations? Would the Governor in Council have power under this paragraph to make the regulations include the class of persons referred to by the hon. member?


John Warwick King: No.


George Black: Is it not desirable
that they should be included?


John Warwick King: I said a moment
ago that I did not think it desirable to bring it in under this bill as a special clause. If it is necessary to give returned men special consideration, let it be done by special legislation, but do not bring them as a class under this bill. I think that would be a mistake.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister explain clause (c):
The Governor in Council shall have power. . . to provide by regulation, for. . . the definition of residence and of the intervals of absence from Canada or a province by which residence therein shall not be deemed to have been interrupted.
We have already gone through several clauses dealing with the question of residence.
I would take it that clause 19 gives an added power which may vary the provisions of the other clauses that have been already passed.
Is that correct ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to
all these sections, my hon. friends will realize that it is impossible to anticipate the hundred and one different. matters that will come up, and all that has been attempted, by outlining the different matters specially mentioned, is to make it clear that it is desirable to note in advance as many as possible, but at the same time to leave room for additional phases of the question which may have to be the subject of regulation. In reference to a question asked as to residence, I can answer it by giving an illustration. Take the case of trade commissioners, who might have occasion to spend four years in Africa, Australia, or some country other than Canada. They would be absent from Canada for four years, and nobody is going to think of their case until the time arrives when the question of pension has to be settled. That would be one of the cases which would come under this provision. The Governor in Council would have power to provide by regulation for the definition of residence, and of the intervals of absence from Canada or from a province by which residence therein shall not be deemed to have been interrupted. The applicant is supposed to be five years in the province and twenty years in Canada. During that period he might be four years abroad on the business of the country, and under this clause regulations could be made to meet that case. I understand that all these paragraphs set out here are taken in large part from the British legislation, and they are included in order to anticipate matters of that kind which it is impossible to cover in a general clause.


Lucien Cannon: Clause 19 says that the
Governor in Council shall have power to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the act.
Paragraph (c) agreed to.
Paragraph (d) agreed to.
Old Age Pensions

On section 19, paragraph (e)-Determination of income.


Arthur Meighen: In view of the very
complicated clauses we dealt with previously as to turning over the pensioner's house to the pension authorities, the renting of the house, its sale after the pensioner dies, and so forth, I think it would be much better to give the pension authority power to assess the annual value of any residence owned by the petitioner instead of having all these complicated provisions about taking it over. Surely we do not want to become the custodian of a lot of dwelling houses and pay the taxes on them. I would just take arbitrary authority to assess what the property is worth by way of rental. It would be infinitely simpler than this.


John Campbell Elliott: That is exactly what is
done in Ontario by the municipality in the case of any property owned by an occupant of the House of Refuge.


Arthur Meighen: That is very simple.
There is a 'legal provision in regard to it. We do not want to keep track of property all over the Dominion, keep the houses in repair and pay taxes. We do not want to assume that burden.
Paragraph (e) agreed to.
Paragraph (f) agreed to.
On section 19, paragraph (g)-Under treatment in public institutions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: During the previous discussion some hon. member, speaking with authority stated that it was the intention of the government under the provisions of this act to make an agreement with the province that would enable the federal authorities to pay this pension to the province on behalf, we will say, of institutions like poorhouses or old men's homes, such as we have in British Columbia. Is it the intention of the government to do that? Will the government disclose what it had in its mind when this clause was draughted?


John Warwick King: This would probably cover cases where the pensioner required to go to the hospital for treatment, or to some public institution of that kind, in which case a portion of his pension would be payable to the institution. I think that is a matter that would have to be worked out pretty well by the pension authorities. The province might be able to maintain some of these pensioners at less cost and to greater advantage to the pensioner in an institution like 
an old men's home, in which case the pension could be partly used for his maintenance.


Arthur Meighen: This is the most important clause of the bill.


John Warwick King: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: This is the clause that
will really be operative if the bill ever becomes law. The provinces have these institutions; some of them are very fine ones, and the provinces are not going to scrap them and then assume the burden of helping to maintain these people.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is it the intention of subsection (g) to provide for the payment of the pension or any part of it to the institution in which the beneficiary is placed?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It does not say so in the
clause. It says, "the circumstances in which pensions may be paid for the benefit of persons supported or under treatment in public institutions." If- you are paying the money to the person himself, you are paying it for his benefit. The clause says, "supported or under treatment in public institutions." There is nothing in the clause to provide that the pension be paid to the institution.


John Campbell Elliott: That is broad enough to cover everything, I should say.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Too broad. Surely the wording of the clause is consistent with payment to the person, and does not neces-
11 p.m. sarily imply payment to the institution. You should expressly say in the clause that there is power to pay it to the institution.


John Warwick King: We pay over our money to the province. It may be that under certain circumstances the province will find it to the advantage of the pensioner, to the advantage of the province and of the whole scheme, to pay part of the pension to the public institution in which the pensioner is placed. It depends on the circumstances.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If the intention of the clause is to empower the federal government to pay either to the individual or to someone else, the language does not seem to convey that intention.


John Warwick King: We pay only to the province.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is a different matter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there anything in this paragraph in conflict with section 16, which provides that no pension shall be sub-

Old Age Pensions
ject to alienation or transfer by the pensioner or to seizure in satisfaction of any claim against him?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend may as well be clear on that point. As I read paragraph (g) the meaning is that the money will not go to the individual at all, but to the institution in which he happens to be living.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is the very question I asked, and I was told that the money did not go to the institution at all, but that it rested with the province to say to whom it should go-


John Campbell Elliott: The federal government pays only to the province.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is not answering the question dearly; my hon. friend (Mr. Bury) gets one understanding and I another. The straight question is this: Is it the intention to provide in these regulations that the federal portion of the pension may be paid to the province on behalf of an institution just as well as on behalf of the individual?


Arthur Meighen: As I understand it, our share goes to the province, but the regulations will provide the circumstances under which the money shall be paid by the province to the institution rather than to the pensioner. I repeat, it is the most important clause in the whole act; it is the one which will really work if the act goes into operation. We shall! be helping to keep the poor in the homes.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If it is intended to incorporate in the bill power on the part of the federal government to direct where the money shall go, whether to the beneficiary or to the institution, this intention is not being expressed clearly enough in the phrase "the circumstances in which pensions may be paid."


Arthur Meighen: The pension may be paid by the province for the benefit of the individual.
(Mr. BURY: When you pay the money to the province you are not paying it for the benefit of the individual if the province hands it over to the institution.


John Warwick King: The Dominion
government pays the money directly to the province, and the province may decide under certain circumstances that it is to the advantage of the pensioner that the payment should be made to the institution for his keep.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Then what is the use of paragraph (g) at all if you pay the money to the province and allow the province to do as it likes with it?


John Campbell Elliott: The scheme must be approved by the federal government before the agreement is entered into.
Paragraph (g) agreed to.
On section 19, paragraph (h)-The mode in which pensions are to be payable.


George Black: What does this
mean?


James Horace King: Kootenay): This is a matter of regulation.


George Black: Does it mean that the pension may be payable by promissory note, by cheque or in cash?


John Warwick King: We hope that the Post Office Department may be utilized in the payment of the moneys. The necessary arrangements will have to be worked out.


George Black: I take it, then, that it refers to the department of government through which the pensions will be paid?


John Warwick King: It merely provides for the machinery through which payment will be made.


George Black: So far as the Yukon and the Northwest go I have no hope at all that this act will apply to them, notwithstanding the assurance of the Minister of Public Works that it is the intention of the government that it shall. Certainly, as the bill is worded, there is no evidence that such is the intention.


John Warwick King: It was intimated this afternoon that there would be an amendment to clear up any doubt my hon. friend might have in this regard. Before we go out of committee to-night we shall move an amendment for the purpose.
Paragraph (h) agreed to.
Section 19, paragraphs (i) to (m) inclusive, agreed to.
On section 19, paragraph (n)-Recovery of pension payments made by reason of nondisclosure of facts or innocent or false representations.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is this not an encroachment upon provincial property rights? If you try to recover from a man in Alberta or Saskatchewan a pension wrongfully paid to him by reason of misrepresentation or concealment of facts,.
Old Age Pensions

are you not thereby trenching on provincial rights? It seems to me that you are dealing with a question that lies purely within the purview of the provincial legislature, and you are doing so by order in council.


Lucien Cannon: The provinces will have to agree.


Arthur Meighen: But there is the whole trouble with the very conception of this bill. The Governor in Council cannot make regulations to govern the recovery of pension payments, with or without interest, for the simple reason that, as pointed out by the hon. member (Mr. Bury), the government of Canada cannot recover. But the Governor in Council can take the stand that it must first be satisfied with the provincial statute. The suggestion I made first of all, therefore, should have have been accepted, that the provincial statute must be approved by the Governor in Council. Then the provincial statute will not be approved until it so provides. But you can never by regulation of the Governor in Council provide for something which only a provincial government can do. In a word, this is a conglomeration borrowed from a statute which cannot apply because we have a federal system, and they have not.


Lucien Cannon: The provinces can always delegate their powers to the federal government.


Arthur Meighen: They are never going to do it.


Lucien Cannon: They might do so.


Arthur Meighen: Does the Solicitor General imagine the provinces are going to authorize the federal government to come in and recover pensions that the provinces have paid?


Lucien Cannon: I do not say they would, but from the legal viewpoint they could.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose from the legal viewpoint they could authorize Mars to do it; but it is inconceivable. What is the sense of suggesting that the Governor in Council may make regulations for the recovery of money when only the province can recover it? The province can provide by its bill or by regulations under its bill, and those regulations should be approved by the Governor in Council here. That is a suggestion I made in reference to clause 5, but the ministry brushed it aside. If they had done that they could take a knife and slash out about two-thirds of the clauses under 19. As it is, there they are, just surplusage.


John Campbell Elliott: Does it not strike my right hon. friend that the provisions are to be made by the Governor in Council as to the circum-stnces under which these payments should be recovered? For instance, he says to the other party to this agreement: You shall recover from a certain pensioner payments made to him by reason of false representations. In other words, this government does not propose to allow the pensioner who obtains a pension under false representations to retain it, and under certain circumstances it shall be recovered. It is all part of the agreement.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, if it is part of the agreement how can it be a subject of regulation?


John Campbell Elliott: The Governor in Council
says by one of his regulations:	This is the
agreement you make, you must recover pensions that were obtained under false representations.


Arthur Meighen: The agreement is something signed between the two governments, and once it is signed no regulation has anything to do with it. I can see how that came to be put in there, and the minister ought to acknowledge it. It is in the British act. That act says that the King in Council can make regulations for the recovery of pensions which they paid. That is why it is there. But there is no place for it here because we cannot recover the pension. It is true we can say the provincial legislature must pass such and such a law. That is all provided for by section 5, or should be, by the simple assertion that a provincial statute and the regulations thereunder shall be satisfactory to the governor in council.
Paragraphs (n) to (r) agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.


Arthur Meighen: There is no use making
a suggestion. These most anomalous clauses indicate that the government never expect them to go into effect.
On section 20-When regulations come into effect.


Arthur Meighen: It is harmless.
Section 20 agreed to.


John Warwick King: Now the amendments.


Arthur Meighen: May I suggest that whatever amendments the government have to offer might first be proposed, then we can adjourn and consider them.

Opium and Narcotic Drug Act


John Warwick King: The first amendment, I think, will not require very much discussion. It deals with the Yukon Territory. It is proposed to amend section 2 (d) by adding the words:
-in respect to which "commissioner" shall be read for "lieutenant governor in council".


Arthur Meighen: The amendment is to
bring that about?


John Warwick King: Yes, I think it
covers that without any difficulty.


George Black: Mr. Chairman, the
minister will have to go a great deal further than that to make this 'bill applicable to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories; in fact, even ,to make it workable anywhere in Canada. Stemmed up, this bill simply means that the Dominion government pay back to the provinces fifty per cent of the amount they pay out on old age pensions to the persons enumerated. The Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories with their scattered population are not going to enact any legislation under which they will pay out old age pensions and come back to the federal government under this bill for fifty per cent of those payments.


John Warwick King: Then they are
not in the scheme.


George Black: No. In the last
campaign the government candidate in Yukon Territory, a personal friend of the Minister of Public Works, made a great point of saying to the electors:	The government has
in view an old age pension bill. Not an old age pension bill that would not apply to the Yukon, but a bill that would; and evidently the government did have that in mind. Formerly one of the main reasons why this old age pensions legislation could not get ahead was because the government of Canada could not get co-operation from the provinces. As regards the Yukon and the 'Northwest Territories they do not need any co-operation, because the federal government governs those territories regardless of any provincial governments, they are typically federal territories, and if this government is sincere in wishing to put into effect old age pensions there, why not go ahead and do it? Do not hamper any such scheme with the provisions wrapped around the provinces. The Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories are federal territories, not hampered by provincial governments. You either want to give them old age pensions or you do not. I say to the minister, if he wishes he can make this bill applicable
to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories and give them old age pensions. This bill will never apply there; it will be inoperative. It will not even catch any votes-it does not go that far.


John Campbell Elliott: Nobody is concerned about votes under this bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I think
we have had a pretty prosperous evening; we have gone through this bill very carefully and have allowed several clauses to stand. I would suggest to the minister in charge of the bill and to the Prime Minister that the amendments which might clear up the misunderstandings in the first four or five clauses should be prepared carefully and presented at another sitting, when they can be dealt with.


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman. I
move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.23 p.m.
Monday, April 19, 1926.