1928-05-19

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have just received a letter containing the report of the twenty-fourth conference of the Interparliamentary Union held in Paris from August 25 to 31, 1927.



PUBLIC WORKS ESTIMATES-QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. F. POULIOT (Temiscouata):: I
would like to ask a question, for the sake of information, with respect to the estimates of the Department of Public Works. The first few items under the Quebec vote were passed yesterday but I do not see them either in the votes and proceedings or in Hansard, so I would like an explanation of why these items do not appear as being passed.


Hewitt Bostock: This one vote includes
several items; progress was reported yesterday and when all the items under the vote are passed they will appear in the votes and proceedings. This rule is followed in connnection with all the provinces.
Importation of Asparagus



IMPORTATION OF ASPARAGUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of National Revenue to the contents of a message I have just received indicating that at Toronto the market gardeners who produce asparagus have lost their market by reason of importations which have been just received there on consignment from Washington. This message asks me to press upon the government the necessity for taking immediate action under the provisions of section 43 of the Customs Act to prevent their business and their anticipations of possible profit from their enterprise being completely destroyed.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I wonder if the consumers are complaining also?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My friend should have
thought of that when Right Hon. W. S. Fielding passed the statute.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 321, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Information or complaint within three years.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I should say that the Minister of National Revenue spoke to me the other day with respect to this measure. Notwithstanding the fact that the government had not intended to introduce further legislation, it was found in administration that there had been some error in the revision of the statutes, in fixing the period of limitations within which proceedings could be taken, and it was very desirable to protect the revenue by this amendment. I am strongly of the opinion that this should be passed at this session.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from May 14 consideration of Bill No. 73, respecting the inspection and grading of hay and straw-Mr. Mother-well-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
tMr. Speaker.]
The CHAIRMAN:: When this bill was
last before the committee we had advanced to section 5, and had adopted all the sections to that point.
On section 5-Tag to be affixed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister was going
to look into this matter.


Mr. NEILL:: I would like to point out
that this section will mean considerable expense to the consumers of hay and straw. In the trade it is the custom to buy this hay either tagged or untagged; when it is bought untagged it is shipped by the carload and weighed on the railway, so one can readily see the saving which would be effected in the handling cost, since each bale does not have to be weighed separately. As a result untagged hay can be sold for SI per ton less than the tagged hay. As a rule the dealers buy the tagged hay for the small trade and buy the untagged hay by the carload, very often reselling it in the car, in which case they are able to sell to the consumer at from $12 to $20 less per carload. This regulation, which will apply to all kinds of baled hay, will compel a dealer to have the hay tagged when he does not want that done, and consequently the price will be increased by about $1 per ton. I think the minister's purpose would be served if he put in a provision that it would only apply in less than carload lots.


Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Chairman, I have a
letter from the secretary of the Pincher Creek Co-operative Association, with reference to this bill. In part, this letter reads as follows:
We are in accord with the placing of an identification tag on every bale but are not in favour of that tag bearing the name of the baler. The name of the grower of the hay or straw should be on the bale, then he would have to assume the responsibility for the product. We have practically decided to compel our members to do so in the future, as we realize the necessity of identifying the hay in case of dispute as to quality. The placing of the baler's name would not be of any use and would only complicate matters. I doubt whether we could get men to undertake the baling if they were held responsible for the condition of every bale, considering that the hay might be left exposed to all kinds of weather before sale. It would also lead to endless trouble between baler and grower.
It will be useless to have the weight on the tag as hay may shrink considerably if left some time in the bale. We can also presume that the hay would be sold on the tag weight, especially in the case of small lots, and the purchaser would often pay for more hay than he had owing to the shrink. We allow for three per cent shrink on all hay and set up a reserve to take care of it. Nearly all hay is sold by weight and the tags would not be taken into consideration.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the contention of these growers is quite sound,

Hay Inspection Act
that if the name of any person is required to appear on the tag it should be the name of the grower rather than the name of the baler. I think the minister, or the advisers whom he has in his department, will agree that baled hay practically always shrinks after it is baled. Sometimes there is a shrinkage of four pounds to the bale, and the placing of the weight on the tag is unsound. I would ask the minister if he would not be willing to amend this section and substitute the name of the grower in place of the baler, as the name to be placed on the tag.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Chairman, I
understand that the departmental records show that this act has been on the statute book for nearly twenty years, it being included in the Inspection and Sale Act. When it was first drafted this section made it obligatory on the part of the grower to put his name on this tag for identification purposes. It very often happened that when the hay was baled it was out of the hands of the grower. About twelve or fourteen years ago this section was amended by substituting the name of the presser for that, of the grower. It was felt that the presser of the hay would be interested in the operation, and since that time it has been the presser's name together with the weight that appeared on the bale.
In the actual operation of this law it has been found very difficult to get the presser to put his name on the bale, especially when he is doing custom work and is being paid by weight. He goes around from place to place, as you would doing custom threshing, and bales hay at so much per ton. He is not concerned with what kind of hay goes into the bale, but is only interested in turning out as many tons as possible, 'because he is usually paid on that basis. Why should we hold the presser responsible for the quality of the hay? He will press anything the owner gives him.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not say the owner?


William Richard Motherwell: That is just what I propose to do. We have found great difficulty in getting anyone to put his name on a tag that certifies to the weight, because invariably hay is sold by the ton not by the bale. With these two difficulties this act has been practically inoperative in the past. When we took charge of it two years ago, I was told by the seed commissioner that not 10 per cent of the bales were being marked, because of the difficulty of getting a presser who would feel responsible for the quality of the hay, although he might be prepared to certify as to the weight. The result was that it became a dead letter.
I have a substitute to offer for sections 5 and 6, as a compromise between these two extremes. In the past there has been a disposition to pass on to somebody else the responsibility of putting the name on the bale, because there is no other form of produce which offers itself as readily to deception as does hay. I have never bought very much hay, but whenever I did buy any I always found some of the bales to be rather disappointing on the inside. You cannot expect the presser to put his name on the bale, because he has no interest in the hay except to bale it. You cannot expect the grower to put his name on, because it may be out of his hands altogether, and he has lost control of it. Therefore, I contend that it should be the name of the owner at the time of baling that should appear on the bale. The following is an amendment which I offer for these sections:
Every owner of baled hay or straw shall, before it is removed from the premises on which it was baled, affix to every bale of hay or straw sold or offered for sale a tag having thereon plainly written and legible his name and address. Such tag shall be securely fastened to the bale and shall be of not less than one and one-half inches in width and three inches in length.
This is not a very big thing to ask for, yet it is sufficient for identification. This section is the only compulsory section in the whole act. There should be some marking on the bale holding some person responsible for the quality of the contents, and it seems to me that the man who owns it at the time of baling is the one who can control the quality of hay going into the bale. He can see whether the top of the stack, or the bottom, goes into the bale when it is soiled. He is the man who pays the presser, and he is the man who controls it. He is the only man who is likely to be responsible and hold himself responsible for the quality of the hay. I would rather have one name, and nothing else, than try to have two markings and not get either. That is the way it has been in the past.


Mr. McMILLAN:: As far as our section of the country is concerned the law will be a dead letter unless you compel them to put the name on.


William Richard Motherwell: We have a case in court up in my hon. friend's part of the country right now with regard to another matter. If we have a law like this which is reasonable in its requirements then we can enforce it.


Alan Webster Neill: How are you going to deal with American baled hay? Will that hay be
Hay Inspection Act

given an advantage over our hay? The American does not have to tag his hay and he cannot be held responsible.


William Richard Motherwell: We are going to enforce this act, and there will be no preference given to American hay. The preference will be given to the hay that has a guarantee, and that is what we will have if we have a name on the bale to which we can trace back. The American hay will have to comply with these conditions, if it is contended that it is graded at all.


Alan Webster Neill: There is nothing there about grading.


William Richard Motherwell: That is in the section just before.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Has the minister any information as to the quantity of hay that comes into Canada from the United States? I understand that a good deal of American hay comes into British Columbia.


William Richard Motherwell: Some, not a great deal. There may be some in certain localities.


William Garland McQuarrie: I had a letter from the Delta Farmers' Co-operative Association in which they were complaining of the inequality of the tariff in Canada and in the United States. The tariff on hay going into United States is much higher than the tariff on hay coming from the United States into Canada and they are complaining very bitterly about that condition. Has the minister considered that matter at all?


William Richard Motherwell: No. This year our surplus hay, of which there has been a very Substantial quantity, has been exported to both Great Britain and the United States. We cannot deal with the question of the tariff at this time. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni will be interested in section 4 which indicates how imported hay will be dealt with as regards grading and such like in accordance with the provisions in the particular province into which it is imported.


Alan Webster Neill: The amendment proposed by the minister reads:
Every owner of baled hay before it is removed from the premises on which it was baled.
How can that be effected in the United States? There is no provision for the tagging of hay coming in from the United States.
If the minister is going to adopt the policy outlined in this amendment he will need to go further and say that United States hay will have to be tagged. It would be impossible to do this because we cannot control the premises in which the hay is baled. With 
regard to the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster I may say that a large quantity of alfalfa hay comes into British Columbia from the south.


Mr. CAHAN:: The minister might, by a slight amendment to the section, cover all the objections that have been raised. I am suggesting this simply by way of drafting. The sentence should begin:
Every owner of baled hay or straw shall, before offering the same for sale, affix or cause to be affixed-
And then go on with the rest of the amendment. That would apply to the foreign as well as to the domestic product. It would mean hereafter that before the owner offers hay for sale in Canada he shall cause to be affixed to the bale the information which the minister desires.


William Richard Motherwell: I was under the impression that section 4 was broad enough to cover that, but possibly it is not. Section 4 reads:
When hay imported into Canada is inspected, it_ shall be inspected and graded in accordance with the provisions of this act.


Alan Webster Neill: It does not say "tagged"?


William Richard Motherwell: That is right, it does not, but still the tagging is one of the provisions of the act. I think a reasonable interpretation of the section would cover the matter, but there is no reason why we should be running any risks.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the minister will find the words which I have suggested, following section 4 to which he has drawn attention, will cover both classes.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Section 4 reads: "When hay imported into Canada is inspected." That implies that it may or may not be inspected. If it is inspected, then the tag will follow. If it is not inspected, it does not come under the legislation.


William Richard Motherwell: I think that is right.


John Wesley Edwards: I would suggest that the minister leave out the word "when" and make the clause read:
Hay imported into Canada shall be inspected and graded.
If this is intended for the protection of the consumer in Canada, the consumer is entitled to protection as much against hay coming from the United States as against hay grown in Canada. If it is advisable for the protection of the consumer to have hay that is grown in Canada inspected and tagged, you cannot escape the logic of applying the same

Hay Inspection Act
provision to hay imported from the United States. It should not be optional in regard to imported hay and obligatory in regard to home grown hay.


William Richard Motherwell: The question of grading is quite optional wherever the hay comes from. The only compulsory feature of the legislation is that there must be some mark on the hay. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is remodelling the amendment to clause 5 and that will take care of the point of making it apply to imported as well as to Canadian hay. Section 4 is passed, and while there is no harm in opening it up again, unless some real object is to be gained I would rather not have it reopened. It is rather an involved question and when we have safely passed one shoal we are pretty well advised not to try to run it again.


Mr. MANION:: What is to prevent an unscrupulous dealer from importing hay into Canada and affixing these tags himself, or an unscrupulous dealer on the other side doing the same tiling? I do not know much about hay, but it seems to me that our laws do not apply to the dealer on the other side. He can affix any tag he likes. He can write down John Jones, Tom Smith, or any name he wishes. If the minister really wants to protect the Canadian consumer, the best way to do so is to have a proper tariff such as the United States impose against our hay.


William Richard Motherwell: We will refer that question to the tariff board.


Mr. FRASER:: I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William. The hay growers of British Columbia are suffering very much from the inequality in the tariff. As a matter of fact they have to accept two dollars a ton less for their hay to-day than they would receive if our tariff were raised to the same level as the United States tariff. The minister by this legislation is increasing the handicap of the hay growers of British Columbia in competing in the Vancouver market. He is imposing on the growers of hay in Canada a certain restriction which he is not imposing on the growers of hay in the Wenatchee valley in the state of Washington. That is an added handicap to the growers of hay in British Columbia. I submit that in this instance the regulations under which the Canadian has to sell his hay should be the same as those under which the American has to sell his hay.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: There is no
difference in the regulations as regards American or Candaian hay in this bill, and the act is entirely optional as to inspection. While it
might not be proper to discuss a tariff on hay under this bill, I think that as a general thing throughout this country the farmers would be very much against a tariff on hay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: What is meant by "every owner''? I suppose that means every original owner. The ownership might pass from one man to another.


William Richard Motherwell: Every original
owner would be the same as saying the grower.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: There may be a variety
of owners. Which owner has to put the tag on? Is it the last one?


William Richard Motherwell: The question of
identification by means of a tag is very important. Might I point out to the committee that two years ago when we were buying some supplies for the British government to be sent to Shanghai, we put in a very large order for hay with parties near Lethbridge. The British government mentioned the grade and kind of hay they wanted, alfalfa and other kinds of hay of such and such a grade. Now if we did not have grades, how could we carry out such an order?. It is very important to have the grade established and the identity marked on the hay. While this bill is not a very exacting one, it is necessary that we should have these grades and their identity established, especially now that our export trade in hay is developing. We shipped a very substantial amount last year overseas and to the United States.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But my point is that
there might be a variety of owners.


William Richard Motherwell: We are getting at
the owner who sees the hay going into the bale, for he is the only owner who knows what the contents are.
Mr. CAHAN. The suggestion I have made is that section 5 should read as follows:
Every owner of baled hay oi straw shall before offering the same for sale in Canada affix or cause to be affixed to every bale of hay or straw before the same is sold or offered for sale a tag having thereon plainly written and legible his name and place of business. Such tag shall be securely fastened to the bale and shall be of not less than one and one-half inches in width and three inches in length.
I have simply changed the wording of the first sentence.


William Richard Motherwell: I am afraid that
my hon. friend's amendment omits the time at which and the place where it is to be
Hay Inspection Act

tagged. We say, "Before the hay is removed from the premises." That is omitted in my hon. friend's amendment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I say in my amendment,
"before the same is sold or offered for sale".


William Richard Motherwell: But it says here:
Every owner of baled hay or straw shall before it is removed from the premises"-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the minister will see
that baled hay imported from the south is baled in the United States, and we have no jurisdiction to compel them to put a tag on the hay when it is baled in the United States or before it is removed from the premises. But we can provide generally that every owner of baled hay or straw shall before offering the same for sale in Canada affix or cause to be affixed to every bale of hay or straw before the same is sold or offered for sale a tag, and that would apply both to United States hay and to hay baled in Canada. I am making the suggestion in good faith.


Mr. BROWN:: A little confusion might
arise from the words that have been used, as to who is actually responsible for the baling of the hay, good or otherwise. I think what is intended is that the man at whose instance the baling has been done, and who is really in actual possession of the hay, is the man who should be held responsible. That might, of course, be the farmer who grew the hay, and on whose premises the hay was baled. On the other hand, a case might arise where a dealer had made a contract with the farmer for the hay, and had himself become responsible for the baling of it. In such cases it would seem to me that the dealer at whose instance the hay was baled should be the one held responsible. It might be well to insert in the definition clause just what the word "owner" means. I think it ought to mean the man at whose instance the hay is baled.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The owner is the owner.


John Livingstone Brown: If you refer to removal
from the premises, that might place the responsibility on the farmer, and yet the hay might really be under the control and ownership of a dealer who had bought it from a farmer and was arranging for the baling of it himself.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George will entirely meet the situation.
It defines the man as the owner of the baled hay. There can be only one man who is the 
owner of the baled hay, and his amendment says that before the owner offers it for sale he must have t'he hay tagged. That covers the whole situation. It does not matter whether he is the grower or some subsequent owner. If he owns the baled hay, he must tag it before he offers it for sale.


William Richard Motherwell: I wonder if my
hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George will accept an addition of four words, so that it will read, "Every owner of baled hay or straw at the time of baling"?


Alan Webster Neill: What does that matter?
Mr. MOTHERWELL. Any time means no time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The only objection is that the words of the suggested amendment apply to hay that may be baled in the state of Washington and brought up to Vancouver. I am making it apply to every bit of baled hay sold in Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: I am afraid that
what we are trying to do is to embody two different questions in this one section. I suggest that we leave the amendment the way it was introduced, and insert another section dealing with imported hay. I believe it would be better to dissociate the two things; it would only spoil both if we embodied the two in the one section.	I
do not think that the draft suggested will be as good for Canadian hay, and that represents a very large proportion of what we are dealing with.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister will admit that it applies to every sale or offering for sale in Canada of baled hay, and the owner must put on the tag( before he offers it for sale.


William Richard Motherwell: He may have the
hay in a warehouse. Our inspectors come along and see that the hay is not tagged. The owner might say, "I have not offered it for sale yet', and in that way he would escape any penalty for not having it tagged, but if it must be tagged before it leaves the premises on which it is baled, that difficulty could not arise.
_ Mr- NEILL: How would you enforce that in the United States.


William Richard Motherwell: That is why I
think there should be two sections dealing with these two different questions. We are dealing here with Canadian hay, and afterwards we can deal with the imported hay.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: He might not sell the
hay; he might want it for his own use.

Hay Inspection Act


John Wesley Edwards: How many
inspectors are there of this particular class?


William Richard Motherwell: We took over this
service only about two years ago, and the inspectors we have under the seed branch, who are doing other work, are also taking over this work-for instance, the inspectors of binder twine, insecticides, seed, feedstuffs and fertilizers. So far we have been able to look after the work with the regular staff, although they are not sufficient in number to take care of it. We may require a few more to enforce the act properly.


John Wesley Edwards: I assume
that the minister would not undertake a matter of such tremendous importance without seeing that the inspection was effectively carried out. According to what he has just said, that means another small army of government officials. A while ago a tourist stopped at a farm house close to the road to get a drink of water. He saw a small army of men around the barn. He asked the farmer, "Are these your hired men?" "Oh no; that one over there is appointed by the government to see that my hay and straw is properly baled and tagged; that other man is an inspector of the turnip field to see that the turnips don't grow too large; that other chap's job is to watch the hens lay and tag every egg as soon as it is laid; the fellow with the scales prevents me from selling apples or vegetables to a wayfarer by the package; they must be sold by weight. I cannot sell onions without cutting off the tops, and other vegetables likewise." This army of government officials, the minister says, is to be added to in the near future, so when the next election comes around about every fifth or sixth man will be a government official.
Now, the minister said he had got safely past the shoals and shallows of section 4 and did not want to go back over those dangerous waters again. I presume he had in mind the chart supplied to him by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). That is the trouble; the Minister of Agriculture has got the wrong chart. We have evidence of this again and again. This bill is another crack at the Canadian farmer, another restriction placed upon him, another handicap, in that every possible facility is offered to his competitor in the United States. That competitor must not be annoyed, he must be given every advantage, while the Canadian farmer is subjected to every disadvantage. If there is a large crop of hay in the United States, and prices are low,
why, facilitate the bringing of that hay into Canada. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) interjected this afternoon: It is better for the consumer in the case of asparagus. That was his little argument. I caught it over here; I hope the reporter also caught it. That was his retort to the point raised by my leader in support of the Canadian asparagus grower: The consumer was getting the benefit, no matter how many others were being ruined there. You are imposing these regulations with respect to tagging, inspection, and so on, to protect the person who is buying hay from the Canadian farmer. I venture to say that practically all hay imported from the United States comes in baled.	Why should	it	not also	beinspected?	It would be	impracticable,	foryou would	have to open	up	every bale	totest the quality. There	is	no chance	of
getting at the American farmer; he has that advantage. In addition, he has the advantage of entering our market at the rate of $2 a ton when there is a surplus of hay on his side of the line; on the other hand the Canadian farmer is kept out of the American market by the high protective duty. My hon. friend is consulting the wrong chart-a chart that was put in the platform of the Liberal party for election purposes, and has never been lived up to since that time. It is a variable kind of chart and of no use to guide the political ship without a reliable compass.
I protest against all these restrictive regulations with respect to practically everything that the farmer has anything to do with. They are subjecting him to every possible inconvenience and are a serious handicap on his activities. He cannot go on the market or sell a few vegetables or fruit to- his neighbour without conforming to certain regulations, and have a government inspector tagging at his heels to see whether or not he is giving the public what he professes to give them. The public should be given credit for exercising judgment in what they buy. I think I will put a question on the order paper to ascertain the numerical strength of this army of officials which the government has for the protection of the consumer and as a handicap to the farmer. I should like to know how many there are to inspect eggs, butter, cheese, vegetables, roots, hay, straw, -a whole army of government officials, appointed apparently for the purpose of putting every obstacle conceivable in the way of the Canadian farmer making a success of his business. That is what it looks like to me.
Hay Inspection Act


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
whether my hon. friend was in his seat when I explained that these very sections were in force about twenty years ago; I have not yet been at the head of the department seven years. The very centre and essence of the bill revolves around the question of identification-who put up the hay. If my hon. friend had ever bought much hay he would want somebody to be held responsible for its quality. That is the only compulsory feature of the bill. I do not think he expects us to take his remarks seriously regarding the grading principle. It is conceded by all countries that if you want quality you must pay the price. The empire marketing board is gradually introducing the provision that all goods must be marked. That is becoming the . practice all over the world, and unless we want to be tailenders we have to do what we are endeavouring to do under this bill. We are trimming up a twenty-year-old measure to fit modern requirements. We have not, appointed any inspectors yet. Perhaps we were remiss in not doing so, but we thought we would first amend the old act so that it may be possible to carry it into effect. We will draft a special section to take care of imported hay which, after all, is not a very large amount. This bill went through the agriculture committee. It does not necessarily follow that it is now perfect, but that committee is composed largely of agriculturists.


Alan Webster Neill: Is the committee not largely composed of lawyers?


William Richard Motherwell: No; there are some professional men on it, but it is strongly agricultural. Let me appeal to my hon. friend now: if we had no grading system by which to designate hay, how could the British government have ordered by cable a large amount of hay for Shanghai?


John Wesley Edwards: That is all right; I am not objecting to that. Let me put myself clear. When Canadian produce has to compete in foreign countries, I recognize that you must take some steps to grade it so that it can compete successfully with the same produce from other countries. But in my opinion the application of the grading principle has been carried to a ridiculous extreme in Canada in our home market where there are a few dozen eggs to be sold, or vegetables, and so on. That is where the thing is overdone. I am not objecting to the proper grading of our produce sold in the old country or anywhere else. For instance, in the case of butter there must be grading

to compete with Denmark and New Zealand; I appreciate that. But the thing has gone too far at home. We are putting our own people to needless inconvenience and annoyance. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the idea I have.


William Richard Motherwell: Twenty years ago
only two items of information were required to be put on the tag, namely, the weight and the man's name. We have now reduced that requirement by half: only the man's name and address we require; we do not ask for the weight. So that in this respect we are asking for less. Regarding inspectors, does my hon. friend know of any other way of performing the service except through the medium of men- inspectors? How should I have it. done? Is there anj' other method of grading? I should like to get a mechanical method of grading, which would, not require the service of individuals. I should like some better way which would require fewer officials, and I should be glad if any hon. gentleman could point out to me one useless official in the whole country with whom I could dispense and secure the same service. If anyone would do that I should regard it as a favour; that would be better than merely complaining about the matter.


George Gibson Coote: Is it necessary to have inspection of hay in Canada itself. In 1919 we had a very hard winter in western Canada and owing to the crop failure of the year before we had to import hay all the way from Ontario. Some of it cost, laid down in Alberta, $60 a ton and I am safe in saying that in the case of some of that hay 50 per cent was refuse; not more than 50 per cent of it was good hay. The hay growers in southern Alberta are anxious to have some grading system whereby hay can be sold subject to inspection, thus obviating any difference between the buyer and the seller. As regards this section, after listening to the amendment suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Cahan), and without taking any exception to the four or five words which the minister wishes to add, I believe it would cover the situation very well, and probably the committee would be willing to accept it. I believe it would meet the wishes of those engaged in the business, and I should be glad to see it accepted.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
it has been arranged to go into supply at three o'clock, and as it is now exactly three I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.

Reparations Claims-Mr. Ernst



SUPPLY-REPARATIONS CLAIMS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. - W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg): I move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark):
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor :
"This house regrets the refusal of the government to introduce legislation at the present session of parliament providing for the payment in full or in part of the various sums fixed by James Friel, Esquire, ICC., a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, as losses sustained by the civilian population of Canada during the great war."
It is perhaps unfortunate that a motion of this kind should have to be made as an amendment on going into supply, but the question is one of considerable importance, and this is the only practical way in which it can be introduced into the house. As will be apparent from the wording of the resolution, it refers to what are commonly known as reparations; and in order that we may understand the question, perhaps I might take the house back to the years of the war, back to the signing of the treaty of peace, the treaty of Versailles. That treaty was concluded in 1919. To that treaty this country was a signatory. The treaty was signed by all the allied powers with the exception of the United States, which concluded peace separately by the treaty of Berlin. Three sections of the treaty of Versailles have particular application to the phase of the question raised in the amendment; they are sections 231, 232 and 233. Article 231 of the treaty of peace reads:
The allied and associated governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the allied and associated governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
Section 232, which is the pertinent article, reads in part as follows:
The allied and associated governments recognize that the resources of Germany are not adequate, after taking into account permanent diminutions of such resources which will result from other provisions of the present treaty, to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage.
The allied and associated governments, however, require, and Germany undertakes, that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the allied and associated powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency of each as an allied or associated power against Germany by such aggression by land, by sea and from the air, and in general all damage as defined in annex I hereto.
Annex I sets out some ten categories as applicable to article 232. These categories, with the excepution of three, all relate to civilian property damage or to injury to the persons of civilians. The other three relate to separation allowances and pensions as computed on the French scale and the question of under-payment of labourers employed by Germany during the war, nationals of the allied countries. This was one of the provisions of the treaty of peace.
Article 233 provided for the setting up of a commission to be called the Reparations Commission, and I desire for a moment to sketch the history of that commission, which had a checkered career. The method whereby the claims against Germany were to be decided was this: The allied powers were to compute how much was due them under article 232, and having made that computation the Reparations Commission would arrive at the grand total due from Germany. As early as April 27, 1921, it was realized that this was impractical because of Germany's inability to pay, and on that date the Reparations Commission, of its own volition and not as a result of the Spa conference, as suggested in the return brought down by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), abandoned the method of computation theretofore followed. On April 27, 1921, it fixed Germany's liability at 132 milliard, gold marks. Shortly after that the allied powers made a further change and decided that the amount Germany was to pay should be fixed by negotiation and not arbitrarily by the allies. However, we still had two conflicting opinions; the allied powers wanted much and apparently Germany wanted to pay little. Things went from bad to worse; the Ruhr was occupied and in 1924, because of dire necessity, the allied powers called in a commission of experts known as the Dawes commission, which sat at Paris.
It is to be noted that any amount fixed had to be arrived at under article 232 of the peace treaty; that was the only clause under which we could claim one cent from Germany. Whereas we originally intended to collect for all damage done, Germany was in the position of a bankrupt creditor unable to pay one hundred cents on the dollar. The Dawes commission fixed what Germany could be expected equitably and justly to pay. The first of these payments was made in September, 1924. The Dawes commission fixed the amounts to be paid by Germany as follows:
1924- 25	 £ 50,000,000
1925-	26	
60,000,0001926-	27	
61,000,0001927-	28	
87,000.0001928-	29	
125,000,000
Reparations Claims-Mr. Ernst
The last mentioned amount is to be paid yearly for an indeterminate period; in other words, next year and for an unstated number of years Germany is to pay the allied powers the sum of £125,000,000. Of that amount of £125,000,000 the British Empire is to receive 22 per cent, and as her proportion of the share allotted to the empire Canada receives 4.35 per cent. According to returns tabled in the house by the government, to date we have received under the Dawes payments, together with some old reparations before the Dawes scheme came into existence, a total of $10,800,992.91, which money is at present in the consolidated revenue fund. Next year and in the following years we will receive the sum of $5,000,000. In other words, at present there is almost $11,000,000 in the treasury of this country which has been received from Germany, and we will receive each year hereafter an additional $5,000,000.
That, sir, is one side of the question; now let us look at the domestic side. I said the method of computation followed by the reparations commission was to be based on the amounts supplied by the various allied governments. On November 15, 1918, an order in council was passed under which advertisements were inserted in practically every Canadian newspaper of importance, calling upon persons who had sustained civilian property damage or personal loss through enemy acts during the war. to place such claims in the hands of the Under Secretary of State, in accordance with article 232 of the peace treaty. On July 5, 1920, quite independent of that order in council, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries sent a circular letter to all shipowners in this country asking what loss they had sustained and enclosing a form *which they were to fill out and return. Nothing further was done until 1921.
In passing, I ask the house to note that on April 27, 1921, the reparations commission abandoned1 that method of computation, yet in October of the same year the then Meighen government appointed Sir Douglas Hazen as a commissioner under the Inquiries Act to inquire into civilian losses and personal damage. He took no action; there was a change of government and in 1923 the Liberal government headed by the present Prime Minister appointed Hon. William Pugsley as commissioner. The order in council appointing Mr. Pugsley asked him to inquire into civilian property damage and personal losses during the war; and he went about the country holding hearings and inviting the people to come before him and prove their claims. A

large number of persons appeared before Mr. Pugsley, going to some expense to adduce evidence, and in some cases were represented by counsel in an endeavour to prove their claims. The order in council under which he was appointed was dated March 13, 1923, and reads as follows;
To investigate and report upon all claims submitted for the purpose of determining whether they were within the categories above referred to, in the first annex to section 1 of part VIII of the said treaty, and the fair amount of such claims, and to make such findings as may be of assistance to the government in determining which, if any, of such claims shall be paid, and the extent of payment thereof.
Mr. Pugsley died before he could complete his work, and in 1925 Mr. Friel of Moncton was appointed by the Liberal administration to carry on the work. The order in council appointing Mr. Friel was dated June 19, 1925, and reads as follows:
That a considerable number of investigations with respect to outstanding claims still remain to be made and it appears desirable that a commissioner be appointed to continue and complete the investigations made by the late commissioner.
Mr. Friel completed the task left unfinished by Mr. Pugsley; in all some 1,615 claims were submitted and according to returns tabled in this house this year some 1,613 claims were adjudicated upon by Mr. Friel, who fixed the compensation to which he thought these 1,613 claimants were entitled.
This report was placed in the hands of the government by February of this year at the latest. It was confidently anticipated, and the press encouraged that anticipation, that the report would be tabled in parliament this year and that legislation would be introduced to deal with it; it was even rumoured that a draft bill was in the hands of the minister. Be that as it may, the Secretary of State himself encouraged that anticipation. On March 5 I wrote to him personally as follows: Dear Mr. Rinfret:
I have had inquiries from several of my constituents respecting the amount of reparations payable on account of their claims. One of these relates to the schooner Lucille Schnare of Lunenburg, which was destroyer by a German submarine.
This claim was presented to Hon. Mr. Pugsley when he was holding a board of investigation at Lunenburg. Are you able to give me any information about it, especially as to whether any award is being made to the owners and if so, when payment may be expected.
On March 6 the Under Secretary of State replied as follows, apparently on behalf of the minister:
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, in which you ask for information as to the reparation claims

Reparations Claims-Mr. Ernst
of the persons interested in the schooner Lucille Schnare, which was destroyed by submarine, and to inform you that the report of the 09m-missioner appointed to investigate these claims is now before the government, and that it will be laid before parliament very shortly. It will then be a matter for the action of parliament, to vote moneys from which reparation payments may be made.
That is not the only letter of its kind; many of them may be found scattered all over Canada, holding out a definite promise that the Friel report would be tabled this year and that the necessary legislation would be introduced in parliament. Naturally those of us who are interested in the question were surprised when on March 30 the minister made the statement that the report would not be tabled and that no action would be taken this year.
Now, sir, before we ask what possible reason there can be for delay, let us examine for one moment the nature of the Canadian claim. This country is in a position perhaps unlike that of any of the other British dominions. We were situate on the north Atlantic and our shipping was open to the menace of the submarine campaign. New Zealand, South Africa and Australia were free from that menace, and suffered practically no shipping loss. In Great Britain all the shipping was requisitioned by the state at the beginning of the war, and was operated by the state, so that this question does not arise there. But in this country our ship owners continued to carry on the commerce of the nation, a commerce without which the state would have been hard pressed indeed. It was due to this submarine campaign that a great many losses were sustained, although some are personal claims for loss of life, and for exposure due to being torpedoed. The majority of the claims are shipping claims, and it is a significant fact that of the 1,613 claims adjudicated upon by Mr. Friel, 1,493 are under $5,000' each, the remaining 120 being made up of larger claims.
Of the 1,493 claims, many are the claims of people in necessitous circumstances. In a report brought down by the government last year, in answer to a question, it was admitted that many of the people to whom we allege these moneys should be paid are in necessitous circumstances.
Mr. IRVINE:: Does the hon. member know how much money is involved?


Mr. ERNST:: Yes; I am coming to that. Many of these people are in necessitous circumstances, and in some cases they are enduring actual hardship because they have not
been able to obtain this money. There is one such instance right here in the city of Ottawa, of which the minister must be aware, and there are other instances scattered throughout Canada. Why, under these circumstances, should these people not receive that which ia due them under the treaty?
Of the 1,613 claims, 752 are from the province of Nova Scotia, 350 of them relating to my own constituency of Queens-Lunenburg. They represent the losses of fishing vessels, due to the submarine campaign. There is a large number in the city of Montreal, a still larger number in the city of Toronto, a number in the city of Vancouver, some in Ottawa, and a large number in the city of Quebec.
The circumstances are that the government has practically 811,000,000 of German money, or had on the 10th of March when the return was made. The total awards recommended by Mr. Friel is $4,246,868.76. The interest to March 10th of this year amounts to $2,042,520.59, making a total of $6,289,389.36. In other words, we have received $11,000,000 from Germany; morally we owe $6,000,000 of it and we are withholding payment. Why? In an answer given by the Minister of Justice in 1925 or 1926 he said that these people had no legal claim for their money, and any payment would be a matter of grace. As a matter of law, I am willing to concede that legally they have no claim. If they had a legal claim they would have a way to enforce it other than through parliament. They have a moral claim of the highest type, due to the provisions of the treaty. Under the treaty, that money was paid for certain purposes. It is true that it was paid to the state, and the state owes no legal responsibility to the individual, but it owes a moral responsibility. That moral responsibility was recognized in England. Sir Austen Chamberlain, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking before parliament in 1920 on the British cases, *which are relatively less numerous than ours, due to the fact that their shipping was under the control of the state, said:
His Majesty's government have given careful consideration to the position of individuals in respect of whose losses reparation will be claimed by His Majesty's government. It must be understood that the claims to be made are claims by the British government in respect of a wrong done to the state, and not claims by individuals in respect of private wrongs, and that the government do not act as the agent of any individual to put forward his personal claim. Any payments that may be received from Germany are therefore the property of the nation, and no individual will have any claim in law for any sum which the British government may receive from Germany in respect of reparation.
Reparations Claims-Mr. Ernst

, But His Majesty's government recognize that in particular cases, while there can be no legal claim, a private individual may have a strong moral claim for compensation for sufferings or damage for which it will be the desire of parliament to make provision.
A similar case occurred some years ago in a case which is reported in Queen's Bench division, the case of the Queen vs. Rustomjee. This case arose by way of a petition of right concerning the payment of moneys made by the Emperor of China to the British crown for debts owing by Chinese nationals to British nationals. The amount was some $3,000,000, and in discussing that case, which is practically on all fours from a moral standpoint with the present ease, in the court of appeal, Mr. Justice Blackburn said:
I think there is a moral claim that it be given to the right person, which must be investigated in the manner in which Her Majesty is pleased to direct, and the ministers who direct it would probably be responsible to parliament if they did it unjustly.
Chief Justice Coleridge used words even more significant, as follows:
We do not indeed doubt that on the payment of the money by the Emperor of China, there was a duty on the part of the English sovereign to administer the money so received according to the stipulations of the treaty.
So I say that there is, under the treaty itself, apart from any other consideration, the strongest moral claim on the part of these persons who have lost property or have been injured in person during the war. But there is even a stronger moral claim. This government, or its predecessors for whose acts it is responsible, appointed a commissioner who went about this country inviting people to come before him and prove their claims. Does not the fact that he invited them to come and prove their claim involve an implied promise of payment to these people? What other justification can there be in asking people to go to the expense of proving their claims long after the reparations commission had abandoned the method of computation, unless there is involved an implied promise of payment? Further, what justification can there be for expending these public moneys on the appointment of a commissioner and the payment of his salary and expenses, unless it be that his findings are going to be acted on in some respects? I said there was no justification under the treaty, in so far as the method of computation was concerned, because the method of computation had been abandoned by the Reparations Commission before the first commissioner was appointed. The Meighen gov-
emment once, and the King government twice appointed commissioners to make inquiry What justification can there be for their appointment, for the expenditure of public moneys, unless it be that a report was to be brought in upon which this parliament could act.
Let us consider the question a step farther. There is a moral responsibility on this government to make payment. Consider it from another angle, and you must come to the conclusion that the government has irretrievably committed itself to a policy involving payment, and the people expect payment. Take the action of the government in connection with the promise they made when they appointed the commission; take it in connection with the peace treaty; take it in connection with the expenditure of public moneys, and, one step farther, take it in connection with the resolution of Mr. Copp. In June, 1925, Mr. Copp, who was then Secretary of State, introduced into the house a resolution reading as follows:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to make provision for the payment of claims for reparation for losses suffered by Canadian nationals during the late war, and to provide,
(1)	That the report of the commissioner appointed to inquire into and report upon the claims for reparation of Canadian nationals, upon approval by the governor in council shall be deposited with the Secretary of State of Canada in his capacity as custodian of enemy property;
(2)	That from time to time, as sums are received on account of reparation under the Agreement of London between the allied and associated powers and Gemany, bringing; into force what is commonly known as the Dawes plan, the amoiint thereof shall be paid by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to the Secretary of State as custodian, until such time as the aggregate of such payments is equal to the total amount of the claims for reparation as_ determined by the report of the said commissioner and approved by the governor in council.
(3)	That the Secretary of State shall, on receipt of such payments, from time to time distribute the same to persons found entitled to claims for reparation in the commissioner's report, by way of pro rata dividend;
(41 That the Secretary of State shall annually lay before parliament, within fifteen days after the meeting thereof, a' report of the receipts and expenditures under the proposed legislation.
That resolution was introduced by Mr. Copp on the 19th June, 1925. It is true it was withdrawn and it is true that the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was then leading the Conservative party, opposed it; but it is worthy of note that if we examine his remarks we shall find that his reasons for opposing it are these. He said: I do not

Reparations Claims-Mr. Ernst
approve of payment of public moneys in camera on the say-so of the commissioner. Public moneys should be expended only by the parliament of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Public moneys!


William Gordon Ernst: In other words he was asking for exactly what we are asking for this afternoon. That was the stand Mr. Meighen took against that resolution, namely, that the money should not be expended on the say-so of the commissioner. But the government committed itself irretrievably to a policy of payment. I notice the Minister of Justice remarks that I said "public moneys". I say "public moneys" because at the moment the Dawes money have been paid into the consolidated revenue fund. I am not contending that they can be disbursed without legislation, but I am contending that legislation ought to be introduced. Mr. Meighen's stand was simply against the distribution in Canada on the Say-so of the commissioner. The Minister of Justice may say: You are asking us now to distribute the money on the say-so of the commissioner. True, but not entirely on the say-so of the commissioner because there may be inserted in the act a provision with regard to distribution to the effect that if either the crown or the individual feel aggrieved by the award which has been made, an appeal may be made to the Exchequer court or some other court. It is not necessary that the money be distributed on the mere say-so of the commissioner; nor do we ad-[DOT] vocate that it should be, but we advocate that that should be the basis upon which we start and that legislation should provide for an appeal, at the instance of either the crown or the individual, to some court of finality.
That is the situation with reference to reparations in this country and it might be well to examine what has been done in other countries similarly situated. Let us take first Great Britain. Some five years go Great Britain set aside a sum of five million pounds which was devoted to the payment, first, of necessitous claims and, second, of all other claims upon a sliding scale. This was done at a time when her budget was in anything but a satisfactory condition, and I must confess that I admire the qualities of the English people who do not try to avoid a moral claim in order to balance a budget.
What has been done by the United States? The United States ease is more closely parallel to ours than any other. Only a few months ago the United States government introduced and had passed legislation providing for payment of their claims on the following basis. They had not enough Dawes money, if you may call it such, so they took some $50,000,000 of their own money; they took money out of the enemy property fund and they put it with the Dawes money so that they could pay all claims under $100,000 in full, all claims for personal injury in full, and all claims over $100,000 are being' paid in instalments as the Dawes payments arrive.
Canada is the only country so situated which has done absolutely nothing in the matter and which has neglected its people in that respect. Surely, it is time that we, having the example of these countries in mind, took action and paid our claims, not necessarily in full and perhaps never in full, because it may well be argued that the state is entitled to some portion of the money. At least, however, we ought to pay the claims in part.
In this connection in order to avoid confusion, let me draw attention to the fact that some people think because claims have been paid out of the enemy property fund, the other claims are also legally payable. The enemy property fund was a fund derived from the liquidation of enemy property in this country and debts owing by Canadian nationals to German nationals, and it is under the custody of the Secretary of State as custodian of enemy property. It is not available for payment under section 232 of the treaty, nor do we seek to make it so. It is available for payment on awards made by the mixed tribunal under sections 296 and 297 of the treaty, awards that are different in class and character from the ones under consideration, but not different so far as moral claim is concerned.
For instance, under section 297 of the treaty if property situated in Germany was taken possession of or destroyed during the war by the German government compensation can be claimed as a matter of right, de jure, apart altogether from section 232 of the treaty. An instance of that was the Massey-Harris Company whose plant was taken possession of by the German government during the war and which was handed back to them after the war in good condition, and they received a large amount of compensation. That was an award made not by any government but by a mixed tribunal under section 297. There is a certain doctor in Montreal who had in Belgium a property which was taken possession of by Germany during the war and completely destroyed.
Reparations Claims-Mr. Clark

From the legal standpoint this would not come under section 297 and unless such legislation as we are contending for is passed he will get nothing, while other people who are fortunate enough to come under section 297 are paid in full. I might cite for instance the Canadian Pacific which has property in Germany as well as Belgium. The Thompson Steamship Company had a claim for detention of ships in Germany during the war under section 297. Another steamship company surely has a moral claim of the highest character in regard to one of its ships which was torpedoed while doing business of the state on the high seas.
It is nothing new for parliament to recognize moral claims. We have recognized claims far less just than these claims. We recognized a moral claim in the case of the Home bank depositors. Why should we hesitate and delay to pay these people who are justly entitled to the award made by Mr. Friel and in some instances by the late Mr. Pugsley?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The hon.
member stated that there were 1,493 claims of $5,000 or under?


William Gordon Ernst: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What was
the total amount of the 1,493 claims?


William Gordon Ernst: I cannot give those figures
because they are available only in the report and I was fortunate to get as much information as I did, because the report was kept in the hands of the government. The total claim with interest is roughly $6,000,000.


Mr. RINFRET:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. CLARK:: Mr. Speaker, as I am the
seconder of the amendment if I do not speak now I may not have the right to do so, but I am quite willing that the minister should proceed if I am permitted to follow him.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Go on.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Speaker, after the very comprehensive and lucid statement of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) I feel that it will be quite unnecesary for me to detain the house at any length on this subject.
I should like, however, to emphasize the type of people who are suffering by reason of the government's neglect in this regard.
There are, first of all, the helpless dependents, the helpless women who lost their providers in the service of this country during the great war; those, for instance, who served in the merchant marine and perhaps were torpedoed. I have an instance in my own

constituenc3'- of a woman who is now seventy-nine years of age. She was invited to present her claim years ago by this government. She presented her claim. She has no funds. She is dependent absolutely for her livelihood upon charity to-day, and upon her prospective award from this fund. I have every reason to believe that an award has been made in her favour, but in the meantime she is allowed to suffer.
Then there is the other great class, the men who were disabled by reason of service in a civilian capacity during the great war. The moral claim of these people in my opinion is quite as strong as the claim of those who were casualties in military and naval capacities.
The last speaker (Mr. Ernst) has dwelt upon the policy of Great Britain. The policy of Great Britain has been characteristic of that country. It is typical of British justice. It is too late for this government to follow the example of Great Britain and to do justice in the true British style, but it is not too late for them to follow the example of the United States. Great Britain recognized that the moral claim in this regard was just as great as any legal claim. That has been one of the characteristics of that race, that there are occasions when they recognize that moral claims are even stronger than legal claims, and this they recognize as one. Without regard to the receipt of money, without actually receiving the money themselves, they advanced their own money to settle these claims, just as they advanced their own money to pay pensions to casualties of the great war. _ The United States were not slow to act in this matter when they received the money. They passed legislation this year, and it is not too late for this government to follow the example of that country.
1 should like to read some words from an editorial in the Daily Province, of Vancouver, published on April 23rd of this year:
The government, in a word, prefers to retain this money, which does not belong to it, and to allow the sufferers, some of whom have already been waiting a dozen years, to wait some more. These people suffered first from the illegal actions of Germany in time of war. Now, in time of peace, they are made the victims of an attitude on the part of their own government which can scarcely be regarded as either just or sympathetic.
The action of the Canadian government in regard to this question of compensation for war losses is in curious contract to that of the British government. In the old land, far from retaining the money due claimants after it had been paid by Germany, the government advanced sums from the public funds to those whose claims had been approved, so that claimants who were in poor circumstances received part of the money due them even before it was paid by Germany.

Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinfret
In view of the fact that this country has encouraged our people to expect payment, encouraged them to lay their claims and to go to the expense of having their claims presented before this commission, I think that action should be taken at this session of parliament to see that those claims are met.
Personally, I resent the propaganda that has gone around this house that neither party is anxious that this matter should be dealt with. I feel perfectly certain that so far as this party is concerned, at any rate, I can honestly say that we are only too anxious that this matter should be dealt with, and dealt with now. The only conclusion I can come to is that no action is being taken because of a desire on the part of the government to hold this money to bolster up another fictitious surplus.
I believe Mr. Speaker, that we may justly ask the government why provisions were made in the treaty to meet these claims, why a reparations commission was appointed, why an invitation was held out to these claimants, if there were no claims which could be enforced in this house. I sugest to the minister in charge of this department that his subcommittee should meet again, that recommendations be presented to the government, and that legislation be introduced forthwith; that, although it is late, the example of the American government should be emulated and that regret should be expressed to the claimants that we did not sooner attempt to do what the British have done in their traditional fashion, namely, British justice even to moral claimants.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, my first words will
be to express regret that we should be called upon to discuss this very involved and peculiar question on an occasion of this kind. I believe that if there is one problem with which parliament has to deal which should have been kept non-political, it is this very problem of war claims and reparations. I shall not take issue exactly with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) for introducing this question in the form of an amendment to a motion for supply, because he may claim that this is one of the few opportunities he may have had to discuss the matter at all.
I am not trying to place blame on anyone, but I do regret the circumstances most sincerely. Having given much time and study to the problem I regret that the hon. member should have brought the matter up in such a way that the house cannot pronounce upon it without, at the same time, according to the 56103-201
custom and rules of the house, expressing its confidence or non-confidence in the general policy of the government.
I say that this matter should be nonpolitical, first because it is a relic of the greftt war, and as such should be kept out of politics, and also because both parties, not in the sense of political parties, but in the sense of having held power alternately, are more or less connected with the question and responsible for its development. It was initiated in 1918, not by a Liberal government, but by the then Conservative government, which invited these claims in terms that I shall read in a moment. Three commisisoners have been appointed successively to deal with this matter, one of whom was a Conservative appointee, and the other two appointees of Liberal governments. One of the commissioners sat for three or four months when the party opposite held power in the famous year of 1926. Therefore while we on this side admit that we were responsible for the main portion of the development of the question in this country, we do claim that it is a nonpolitical question and one for which both parties alternately have taken their responsibility.
The member for Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) himself admitted that it was unfortunate that he had to bring forward the question in this form, and perhaps the house will keep in mind that this is not a question with respect to which any political advantage should be sought or any political blame apportioned. It is obvious that if this government sought merely political advantage, it would have been easier to grant the claims at once and make payments, because it is acknowledged that it is always more popular for a government to meet claims than to discourage them. That the government has not done so proves that it had the very best of reasons, and I shall try, even if at some length, to demonstrate the difficulties of this problem.
I cannot find fault with my hon. friend for his presentation of the facts. He has done so in moderate language, and has shown much study in the preparation of his case and remarkable skill in its presentation. I can meet him in many of the things he has said, and I congratulate him on the tone of his address. I would have been very sorry if he had made any attempt to direct his argument in political channels, and I am pleased to acknowledge that he has carefully avoided doing so. True, in presenting the facts he has sometimes, inadvertently I am sure, omitted certain points which give a different



Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinjret
interpretation to some of the documents to which he has referred; and occasionally he has drawn conclusions at which we have not arrived, and at which perhaps parliament will not arrive after it has heard both sides of the question.
On the first point I shall try to dispel the confusion which has often existed in the minds of practically all people who have approached the department to discuss this matter-the confusion between the different forms of reparations. Different articles of the treaty, as my hon. friend has made clear, relate to outstanding debts between Germany and the allied countries, to sequestrated property, and to these war claims which have been dealt with by our commissioners. It is very important to make this distinction. In the treaty of Versailles these three classes are dealt with under appropriate articles. As regards the outstanding debts between Germany and the allied countries, article 296 established a clearing office through which adjustment could be made. As to the sequestration of property in the different countries, this is dealt with under article 297, and it has nothing to do with the cases referred to by Commissioner Friel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The cases which were
submitted to the commissioner are dealt with in articles 231, 232 and 233 of the treaty. My hon. friend has read those articles, but perhaps the house will bear with me while I read them again. Article 231 is as follows:
The allied and associated governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the allied and associated governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
Article 232 is in these terms:
The allied and associated governments recognize that the resources of Germany are not adequate, after taking into account permanent diminutions of such resources which will result from other provisions of the present treaty, to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage.
The allied and associated governments, however, require, and Germany undertakes, that she will make _ compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the allied and associated powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency of each as an allied or associated power against Germany by such aggression by land, by sea and from the air, and in general all damage as defined in Annex 1 hereto.
As my hon. friend has pointed out, the annex enumerates a certain number of specific cases which come under this article.
(Mr. Rinfret.]
Now, to make clear the difference-and I think this is essential at the outset-between the sequestration of property, the settlement of outstanding debts, and these peculiar war claims dealt with in Commissioner Friel's report, let me illustrate by an example. Suppose, sir, before the war you were the owner of a ship. If that ship had been in one of the German harbours at the outbreak of the war, it would have been sequestrated'. According to article 297, after the war was over Canada could, out of the proceeds of German properties in this country, compensate you for the sequestration and the loss of the ship. That is the property clause. If you were the owner of a ship before 1914, and you had sold it to a German firm but had not been paid for it when war broke out, the amount owed you would be outstanding during the war, and you would come under article 296. Canada, through the Department of the Secretary of State, has collected German accounts in this country, and out of the proceeds	paid	outstanding	Canadianaccounts against Germans, and adjusted the whole thing	through the	clearing office.Again, that has nothing to do with the war claims which	have	been	dealt	with byCommissioner	Friel.	But if	your ship
remained your property, and during the course of the war suffered damages, then your claim would come under the articles which now interest us. The principle is very simple. My hon. friend has said-and here I take issue with him-that the Massey-Harris Company and other particular companies and individuals have received money. It is true, Mr. Speaker, all Canadians who held properties in Germany have been compensated by the proceeds taken from German properties which we held in Canada.


William Gordon Ernst: I did not mean to imply
that it was a matter of policy that they had been paid. I said they had been paid de jure under 296 and 297. I took care to distinguish between cases falling within those articles and cases coming under article 232. I said I was not dealing with article 296 or 297.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I know my hon. friend
is not confused in the matter; but I am sure he would not wish that someone else should become confused because of his speech. That is my reason for insisting on the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be no clearer
now.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: These persons referred to have been compensated because the}' held

Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinfret
properties in Germany, and under another article of the treaty they were allowed to be compensated in Canada by German properties held by us. The treaty provided for that by article 297.
Another class of Canadians have been compensated. They held commercial debts against Germany. We have collected in Canada debts owed by German nationals to Canadians, and we have also prepared a list of outstanding accounts by Canadians to German nationals. These have been brought together and paid, one out of the other, and an adjustment made through the clearing office, an adjustment which has not been quite completed, but practically so. But these had nothing to do with the war claims with which we are now dealing. Very often we hear someone asking, "How is it that although Mr. So-and-So has been paid his claims I have not been paid mine?" The answer is that the claims are of a different nature, and it is easy to understand the principle on which this distinction is arrived at in the treaty of Versailles. The explanation is that it was considered that any claim which existed before the war, even though the payment of that claim had been intercepted by the war, should be recognized as a private claim when the war was concluded. On the other hand, any damage resulting from the war-the sinking of a ship or the destruction of property, or any loss of that character-was considered to come under articles 231 and 232. The treaty of Versailles did not provide that these should not be paid. In article 231 it is stated very clearly that the allied and associated governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility for such damages. But what follows? It follows-and this is the teaching of the war-that on both sides it had to be agreed that whilst undoubtedly Germany owed the money, she was not able to pay it and therefore these damages must be treated differently from claims that pre-existed the war. Such claims, existing before the war, are not regarded in the same light as are damages suffered during the war, for which Germany is responsible, but the claims in respect of which she is unable to pay. That is the situation.
I do not interpret the treaty as my hon. friend has interpreted it, that-after disposing of article 231 which deals with the general responsibility of Germany and her allies

article 232, wherein Germany undertakes to make compensation for damages sustained by civilians, should be considered to mean that such civilians and only such civilians shall secure the money paid by Germany. Far 56103-201J
from it. My interpretation, which is also the interpretation put upon the treaty by the British government, is that the reparation for damages done to civilians, which was the only portion that Germany could accept, inasmuch as she could not pay the rest, would form the basis of payments by Germany to the allied countries. But it does not follow that, because the allies could not be recouped for all classes of damages suffered in consequence of the war, they should deal only with one particular class of payments and distribute to that class of the population the entire payment by Germany.
It is quite important to distinguish between property sequestrated during the war, outstanding commercial debts, and the war claims with which we are now dealing. And we may as well dismiss at once such comparisons as have been made this afternoon-as, for instance, that Massey-Harris having been paid, therefore all claims should be settled. The fact is that they are in different classes altogether and should not be confused. But after the agreement of Versailles was made in the manner indicated by articles 231 and 232, the plan was abandoned and another method resorted to. It was at first contemplated that Canadian claims should be heard, not by a Canadian commissioner in Canada but that they should be sent to London to be heard by a mixed German- British commission together with representatives of the British Empire. That proposal was however changed, and in 1921, at the conference of Spa, instead of taking as the basis of payments by Germany to the allies the amount of damages sustained by civilians, a fixed amount was arrived at of 132,000,000,000 gold marks. That was considered to be the sum for which Germany would render herself responsible to the allied countries.


William Gordon Ernst: That was not at the conference of Spa; that was decided upon by the reparations commission. My hon. friend is wrong.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps we do not agree. However, at the conference held at Spa in May, 1921, the amount of reparations to be paid by Germany was fixed at 132,000,000,000 gold marks, and there was no necessity for assessment of these claims by the reparations commission. The fact I wish to emphasize is this, that instead of requiring Germany to act upon these claims it was agreed that Germany should pay that sum I have mentioned, namely, 132,000.000.000 gold marks to the allied countries generally for distribution in certain proportions. Therefore these claims

Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinjret
were not heard at all before the mixed commission in London to which I have referred. As I say, that plan was altogether abandoned. Perhaps I should place on Hansard at this point the apportionment of this 132,000,000,000 gold marks among the allied countries. The percentages are as follows:
Per cent
British Empire	 22
France	 52
Italy	 10
Japan	75
Belgium	 8
Portugal	75
As regards the balance it was agreed that:
6.5 per cent shall be reserved for Greece, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene state, and for^ the other powers entitled to reparation which are not signatories to this agreement.
In the month of July, 1921, a conference of representatives of the dominions and of the British treasury was held for the purpose of apportioning among the United Kingdom and the various dominions the 22 per cent of the reparation payable to the British Empire. Several conferences were held. Subsequently the amount payable to Canada was fixed at 4.35 per cent of the 22 per cent apportioned to the British Empire. The apportionment was as follows:
Per cent
Great Britain	 86.85
Minor colonies	80
Canada	 4.35
Australia	 4.35
New Zealand	 1.75
South Africa	60
Newfoundland	10
India	 1.20
I submit these figures in order to show that the original proposal, for the allied countries to present, before a mixed commission, their claims for war damages, had been gradually abandoned and ultimately replaced by an agreement whereby Germany was to pay a fixed amount, to be distributed in certain proportions amongst the allies, the apportionment to Great Britain to be again distributed in fixed proportions among the different dominions. Later on the fixed sum of 132,000,000,000 gold marks appeared too considerable for Germans' to pay and the Dawes plan superseded that agreement. And it is under the Dawes plan that we have received, upon three successive o.ccasions, amounts which now aggregate $10,175,071. On this point I wish to be thoroughly understood. In the first place, in the treaty itself it was never contemplated for one moment that the basis agreed upon by the allied couhtries and Germany for the payment of reparations should be binding upon every state; and because Germany was unable to meet a part of the 3Mr Rinfret.]
reparations for the damage she had caused the allied countries to suffer, it was decided that when any of the allies should secure reparation in the form of money they were not bound to employ that money in any particular way but might use it for the general welfare of such country. Further than that, in other stages of the negotiations between Germany and the allied1 countries following the plan of the treaty, if there was a doubt as to the meaning of article 231 and article 232, that scheme was abandoned and a new basis was fixed; under the new agreement the reparations were to be divided among the allied countries. Germany could not meet the whole claim for reparations, but the proportion which Germany was able to pay was to be employed by the different countries for the general welfare of each particular country, and the money was not to be distributed especially to any one class of claimants.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I ask a question just there? In so far as the treaty expressly reserved the right to recover for loss and damage from Germany, only and exclusively for loss and damage suffered by the civil population, is there not thereby imposed upon the government receiving compensation for loss to the civilian population an obligation to see that the civilian population are compensated to the extent to which the government have received money as their share of the reparations?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is where we differ. I have tried to explain that by article 231 Germany admits and the allies affirm that Germany is responsible not only for the loss suffered by civilians but for the general damages caused by the war, military expenditures and everything else. However, by article 232 the treaty says that since Germany cannot pay for the total loss the allies will be satisfied if she pays' a portion of it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, it provides for the payment of the losses sustained by the civil population.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to illustrate the point in this way: If he had a set of creditors and a set of debtors, could he say, "Because I have not been able to collect more than a part of the money owing by my debtors I am bound to pay only a certain class of creditors"? That is where the difference lies between my hon. friend and myself.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is the clearing house scheme.

Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinfret


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: 
William Gordon Ernst: I did not so contend.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Well, I am speaking in a general way. Now let us examine the other side of the question, to see what has taken place in Canada. As my hon. friend said, on November 15, 1918, an order in council was passed by the Borden government which read as follows:
The committee of the Privy council have had before them a report dated the 14th of November 1918, from the Secretary of State, stating that during the period of the present war persons residing and carrying on business in Canada have been subjected to loss and pecuniary damage, _ and have claims arising from the destruction of life and property through the illegal warfare of the enemy, and that, through the operation of the consolidated orders respecting trading with the enemy, persons residing and_ carrying on business in Canada have been subjected to claims for damages for breaches of contract, which contracts they were prevented from carrying out owing to the operation of the statutory list of persons in neutral countries with whom they were prohibited from trading, and that it is advisable that a list of all such claims should be prepared, for such action as may hereafter be considered advisable.
The minister therefore recommends that Thomas Mulvey. Under-Secretary of State, be appointed an officer to take such steps as may be necessary to obtain a complete list of:
(a)	Claims of persons residing or carrying on business in Canada who have been subjected to loss and pecuniary damage arising from the destruction of life and property through illegal warfare of the enemy; and
(b)	Claims for damages to which persons residing or carrying on business in Canada have been subjected for breaches of contracts, which contracts were prevented from being carried out owing to the operation of the statutory list of persons in neutral countries with whom such contracts were declared illegal, and examine and report upon all such claims as aforesaid.
I he committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
Immediately following that order in council public notice was given, to the newspapers,
317-i

Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinjret
as my hon. friend also said, inviting claims under these two classes and the advertisement added:
Persons having such claims should immediately file the same. Instructions respecting the method of filing and the proof to be furnished may be obtained from the undersigned. The filing of a claim does not imply an undertaking on the part of the government to put forward such claim at the termination oi hostilities or any assurance that the claim, it put forward, will be paid. It is advisable, however, that claims should be made promptly, so as to enable the government to put them forward if occasion arises for doing so.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I am at liberty to state that this was initiated by a former government, a government belonging to another party. In November, 1918, in the advertisement that was put out through every paper, and to which my hon. friend referred, it was stated clearly that the purpose was to file claims, and produce them if necessary, but that the government did not take any responsibility whatever, or did not guarantee that they would be paid. That is a very important point.
Sir Douglas Hazen was appointed commissioner on October 31, 1921, and later on was made a judge in his own province. On May 21, 1923, the Hon. Mr. Pugsley was appointed commissioner, but he only heard a very limited number of cases before he died. It was only on June 19, 1925, that Mr. Friel was made commissioner, and had the opportunity to complete the consideration of the 1,615 cases which were submitted for examination. It was unfortunate that this work could not have been completed by Commissioner Hazen, but I think the house will agree with me that the government of to-day is not responsible for Sir Douglas Hazen's accepting an appointment to the bench and occasioning the first delay. When Commissioner Pugsley died after hearing a certain number of cases, it occasioned another delay. It was only in the month of June, 1925, that Commissioner Friel was appointed by the King government, and began the very extensive work which carried him from one end of this country to the other. He was forced to hear evidence and to pronounce on cases which were greatly involved and which differed in character.
It might be said at this point, "Why carry on this work if it was not intended to make payment?" In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I will say that this government has never indicated that it was not willing to make any payment, but has indicated that it has not sufficient evidence before it to warrant a further declaration of policy. The house will appreciate that although this work was started
[Mr Rinfret.l
by order in council in 1918, it was practically the month of June, 1925, when Commissioner Friel took charge, before any practical work was accomplished. He not only had to hear a great number of new cases, but, in many instances, he had to go over the cases that had been started by Commissioner Pugsley but had not been decided.
I would like to say right here that I think Commissioner Friel deserves the very highest praise for the work that he has done. He had practically nothing to guide him outside of what had taken place in other countries, and in no two countries were the conditions absolutely analogous. He had to follow his own judgment and his own guidance to a great extent, but, nevertheless, he has carried the work through, and just on the eve of the present session we had his report before us for our own personal study and perusal.
I would like to put on Hansard some of the opinions that were given by hon. members, not only of the Conservative party, but also of the independent third group we had in this house when Hon. Mr. Copp's resolution was introduced in 1925.
It will be argued and asked, "Was it then the intention of the government to proceed with these payments if a resolution of this kind was introduced?" Upon the day Commissioner Friel was appointed, the resolution was introduced; it was a permissive resolution which would allow the Secretary of State to proceed. Although I was not a member of the government at the time, I would think that it was a resolution brought before parliament in order to find out if there was any sympathy for such a proposal in the House of Commons. I might say that the resolution met with very little approval, in fact with such rebuke that the then Secretary of State thought it advisable to withdraw it. My hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) has read the resolution, and I will not read it again. I would like to point out some of the objections that were made to the principle of the resolution.
The member for Queens-Lunenburg has stated somewhat lightly that Mr. Meighen objected to the thing being dealt with in camera, or something of the kind. He presented objections of a very serious character, and if those objections are still entertained in the minds of the hon. members they will have as much strength to-day as they had three years ago.
One of the objections offered was that the money belonged to the nation and that it should go into the treasury of the nation and

Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinfret
should not be paid to any individual. Another objection was that we should not take the dictum of one commissioner appointed by one government. He might happen to be partisan and we should not be satisfied with the decisions of that commissioner, as to how the money would be distributed. Another argument produced was that the report was not available, and that parliament could not pronounce on it until the report was presented.
On this last point, my hon. friends may contend that we had the report and we should have tabled it and given them an opportunity to study it, but I do not think my hon. friends have any idea of what goes with the report. The report is only a schedule of names, with a certain number of arbitrary amounts estimated by Commissioner Friel to the best of his knowledge. I admit that this has been done with great ability, but it is still the dictum of one man, as was put up to us in 1925. To deal with the report properly means that we must study a number of judgments covering 1,615 cases, and, more than that, very bulky evidence piling up higher than this table that is before me.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that all the arguments presented by my hon. friends on all sides of the house on June 19, 1925, still retain all their strength. I will be frank enough to say that this was one of the reasons for the. present Secretary of State dealing very cautiously with a matter on which parliament, representing after all the sentiment of the nation, had pronounced so clearly only three years ago.
Let us see what was said on that point by different members in June, 1925. Mr. Meighen, then leader of the Conservative party, stated as follows, Hansard, page 4519:
I do not know what the nature of these claims is. I do not doubt some of them are good. I am not going to speak arbitrarily on the priority right of these claimants. It may be they have it; I doubt^ it. I want to say now, 1 doubt very much if special claims for damages due to the war are in priority to the state it-sed the damage of the state. Reparations are not paid in respect of the special damage of the individuals of a country; they are paid in respect of the damage of the nation itself.
I pause to comment on the usual conciseness of statement which was then characteristic of the leader of the Tory party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister thinks much more of him now than he did then.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I would not want my hon. friend to think from what I have just said that I would reproach him for lacking clarity
of expression, but he usually surrounds his statements with an environment of cheerfulness which was lacking in his predecessor. As reported on page 4524, Mr. Meighen said:
I should not like to say finally and definitely that they should not have some priority, even priority as is set forth in this resolution until I see what is done by other countries. But there is nothing to put them ahead of the state's claim for pensions, and this resolution, if it passes, gjves them the first place all round. Until their claims are fully satisfied, all else has to stand aside.
The hon. member for Fort William, as reported on page 4519 said:
Hon. R. J. Manion (Fort William and Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, it certainly does seem strange that the money we get in our first reparations should be paid out to individuals, no matter who they may be. I must confess that I had the impression that German property which we held in this country was to he used for that purpose. It is absolutely new to me that the reparations which we get for the calamity of the war, for the catastrophe through which we have passed and the suffering which we had sustained, should be handed out to any individuals, be they ever so deserving. It would seem that the money we get in reparations is for the benefit of the taxpayer generally in this country. I say it subject to further thought, because I must say I had not read this resolution until to-da3', but it seems to me we should use that money for the benefit of the general taxpayer rather than for any individuals who may have suffered losses and yet who may have been able to stand them a great deal better than those who lost their limbs or were otherwise disabled and perhaps are getting a very small pension, to say nothing of those who lost their lives. I believe the government would be well advised, in a matter of this importance, while accepting the money, of course, to hold it until parliament has had further time to discuss the whole question.
On page 4524, the same hon. gentleman put the matter even more clearly and strongly, as follows:
Would the hon. member consider for example that the mother of a couple of boys who went over there and were killed, who is barely living on a pension, having a difficult time getting along at all, "whereas before the boys went over there she was in good circumstances, has not a better right to get something of this than a shipowner who lost a cargo of grain, who did not happen to have it insured, and who has a claim against Germany ? There are thousands of such cases in this country.
That was a good argument and I still believe there was strength in it. I am not reading this at all for the mere sake of having a little pleasure at the expense of some hon. gentlemen opposite, far from it. I want to show that at that time there was an opinion presented in the parliament of Canada by the Conservative party against not only the immediate payment of the money but the very principle involved in paying individuals out of money collected from Germany for

Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinjret
war damages. I am glad to bring forward the opinion of a man for whom I have much respect and esteem, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). who stated his case rather clearly on that occasion. I am reading from page 4517 of Hansard and again I say there was much strength in his argument:
Mr. Woodsworth: It has been stated that when these claims were filed the purpose of the department was to secure some sort of an estimate as to the amount upon which a claim by Canada could be based, and that it was not originally the idea that these particular claimants should receive anything.
That is the very argument I made a minute ago.
That is, that the amounts should go to the government of Canada, remain with the government and not be passed out to the individuals who had filed claims for reparations. Am I right in my understanding that that was the original idea at the time the claims were filed?
Mr. Copp: My hon. friend is absolutely right.
That states pretty clearly the position of the government in 1925:
Mr. Copp: My hon. friend is absolutely right; the claimants had no legal claim upon the government of Canada for the payment of any of these reparations. These moneys are due to Canada as a whole; but we felt that as there were so many poor people, fishermen and others among the citizens of Canada who made claims, and as reparations to a certain extent were being paid by Germany, claim of those who suffered loss or damage should be paid.
Other hon. gentlemen joined with the leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Fort. William, and my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to oppose the resolution. I find that the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) is reported on page 4518 of Hansard as stating his opposition in these words:
Mr. Spencer: I do not see why the taxpayers of Canada should be taxed to collect debts for individuals, when the whole people of Canada in many ways lose so heavily from the war.
I could quote the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) who was then sitting for East Calgary, and who as reported on page 4522, also made his case very clear in these words:
Mr. William Irvine (Bast Calgary): If we have to depend on receiving reparations from the countries of Europe, I do not think we will be overburdened with moneys to distribute. But even if we were, it does not affect the principle at all; I do not think it is possible for any body of men to arrive at a sure and just decision as to who should be reimbursed for losses during the war. If there are millions to come under the Dawes provisions, I think that money should go against the national debt. If it does not fit in there, there is another place where it would fit in admirably; it should go to augment the pensions of the wounded soldiers and war widows.
[Mr Kinfret.l
And so on. I could quote the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), who is reported on page 4519 as taking this stand:
Mr. Coote: I do not think this house is justified in paying out all the money they may receive from reparations to individuals whose claims have been allowed by this commissioner. At this late stage of the session I do not think there is any use wasting a great many words over it, but there is a question of principle here which should be decided, and speaking for myself I am very much opposed to the principle set forth in the resolution.
I think I have made it abundantly clear that in 1925, when the government presented a resolution to feel out the opinion of the house on the matter, there was strong opposition as regards the very principle of paying to individuals reparation money that in the opinion of these gentlemen should remain in the treasury of the country. Objections were also raised on another point, namely, that the dictum of a commissioner could not be accepted as a decision in regard to distribution. Mr. Meighen also made that very clear as reported on page 4517. That was his first objection:
Mr. Meighen: Does the minister propose that on the report of the late Hon. William Pugsley, he is to be permitted to distribute assets amounting to millions of dollars in cash among those whom Mr. Pugsley thought the money ought to go to?
A couple of pages further on, page 4519, Mr. Meighen says again:
This is merely requesting the government for authority to pay out millions of money as a first charge on reparations, on the mere say-so of him -who, unfortunately, now has passed away, but who was for many years a close associate of the government themselves. It is a measure of far-reaching consequence-
And so on. As reported on page 4523 Mr. Meighen once more comes back to the same line of argument. He says:
If I remember rightly, the pensions as respects all the dominions were taken on the French scale it did not matter what scale they were on, so long as they were all on the same scale; the French scale was adopted in order to see how one country compared with another in pension liability. Many more elements entered into the estimate of what the war loss was with a view to each getting his proper share of the reparations. It seems to me astounding that we should now go on the say-so of a commissioner or of anybody else, even of a court, and authorize priority to individuals over the position of the state.
On that same point I could also quote other hon. gentlemen, but I think I have quoted enough to show that strong objection was taken in this house three years ago, not by Liberals, not by members of this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, but by hon. gentlemen opposite, by the very leaders of that party,

Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinjret
and also by representative members of the group of independents in the far east comer of this chamber against, first, the principle of paying that money to individuals, and in the second place, of taking the dictum or say so, as Mr. Meighen put it, of a commissioner, and being satisfied with that distributing the money on his decision.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that I was right when I said at the outset that this question is very involved and presents many aspects that should be dealt with, not in a political spirit at all, but rather in a national spirit, in order to try to arrive at the proper conclusion, and that all parties were more or less responsible, both for introducing the question into this country, and later on for blocking its progress. Those are the true circumstances that cannot be superseded by any attitude taken in the House of Commons.
I come now to the pont where this report reached us on the eve of the opening of the session, and as I have said, not merely the report, but a mass of judgments, and a bulk of evidence requiring the most careful study, a study which could not be given to the report at that time when we were occupied with preparing the work of the session. I regret as much as any other hon. member of this house the delay to which we have inevitably been subjected in dealing with this matter, but I am sure that the house will admit, after the exposition of facts which I have made, both as regards the principle of the whole question and the facts which have surrounded it in this country, that the government could not possibly base a policy upon merely a superficial study of the report, merely upon the presentation of a report which required the most intent and careful study. I might add that that delay has been general.
My hon. friend has alluded to the United States. That is twice in so many days that we have had members from the other side of the house pointing out to us the example of the great American republic. First it was on naturalization; now it is in connection with the payment of these claims. I think my hon. friends will admit at last that all the American spirit in this house is not on this side.


John Arthur Clark: We referred to that because we thought you would understand it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the distribution was
made in proportion to the merits of the claims as decided by that commission.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: 
William Gordon Ernst: I do not for one moment ask that the whole of this $6,000,000 should be paid out. The resolution reads, "in whole or in part".

Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinjret


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will admit that my hon. friend has been very vague in his conclusions. He is in favour of going on a report that he has not seen, and it is indifferent to him whether we pay in full or in part. I do not blame him for being vague, because I know the amendment is not his. I have sat on the other side of the house and I have moved amendments myself that were put in my hand. At the same time the hon. member must take the responsibility for it. My hon. friend'3 stands is this:	I have not seen the report,
but I should accept the report in full or in part, whether it means the expenditure of $6,000,000 or $10,000,000 or $500; I am not concerned as to that; we should pay something.
My stand, Mr. Speaker, as a responsible member of the government, is that on account of the questions involved in the report, we are not yet in a position to recommend the proportion of payments to be made, and that perhaps, although we have presented the facts very much in the same way, although on many points we are agreed, is where we differ absolutely as to the com elusions. Instead of taking the attitude taken by my hon. friend, who, not knowing what is in the report, is willing to recommend anything at all, we take the stand that until we have studied fully the report and the evidence in connection with it, we will not as a responsible government make any proposal to the parliament of Canada. That is the stand we take.
My hon. friend has insisted on the fact that we have received a little over $10,000,000. May I pause here to say that that is merely a drop in the bucket when compared with the huge expenditure that has been left to us as a legacy from the war. That amount would not pay one-third of our yearly expenditure on war pensions alone. It would not begin to pay the monthly instalments on the interest which we now have to meet on the public debt of this country. If my hon. friend takes the stand, as he did, that the whole of this money must go to pay these special claims, then he can say: We have more than we need. But that is a stand that I positively refuse to take. It has not been taken in the British parliament. It was not accepted by this house in 1925, nor by any hon. member, not even by the minister who presented the resolution. We take the stand that the money accruing from the Dawes payments belongs to the nation, and in my opinion it is but a very meagre and feeble compensation for the huge legacy of debt that the war has left to this country.

Again I say, it will not be one-third of the war pensions for a year, it will not be one month's interest on the national debt. It is a mere drop of water, and should be so considered if we look upon not only these claims, which are a side issue of the war lagacy, but upon the intolerable burden that has been placed upon the Dominion by our very heavy war expenditure-an expenditure for which Germany accepted responsibility, but which she has been unable to meet in full. And surely because Germany has been able to meet only a very small portion of that expenditure we should not disregard the main portion when we deal with matters of this kind. Perhaps after all it is a lesson of the late war that we should not forget, that in modern times with all the intricate equipment that invention has rendered possible, war is not only a castrophe for the vanquished, but it also involves very serious disadvantages even to the victorious country. It may not be altogether out of place in a debate of this kind to say that it would be well for Canada to ponder over the fact that war as it is staged under modern conditions is disastrous for all the belligerent nations. And when we deal with war claims, instead of devoting our sympathy to a single class of claimants, we should not forget that the whole nation has suffered and should receive consideration.
But, Mr. Speaker. I feel I must conclude, although I have a mass of evidence before me that I have not yet dealt with.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Now, what was the
course open to us? Taking into consideration the fact that this money undoubtedly belongs to the nation, and that although there has been delay in dealing with the matter through the appointment of successive commissioners, yet we are still without sufficient data to introduce a policy for the acceptance of parliament.


Mr. QUINN:: May I ask the minister a
question? He has impressed upon the house the great burden resulting from war. This being so, why is the government so lavish in voting ten million dollars for the beautification of this city and a million and a half dollars to repair the citadel of Quebec?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not admit that the
government is lavish, but I do admit that the government will continue to function. I for one am always ready to commend the policy of any government that leads to the

Reparations Claims-Mr. Rinjret
expenditure of the taxpayers' money on works of peace, on the development of the country along sound lines, rather than feel overenthusiastic in regard to expenditures thrust upon us by a world-wide catastrophe.
Now, what could the government have done when this report was before it in February of this year? We could have presented the report to the house and endorsed in the full the recommendations made by Commissioner Friel; but, as I have said, I believe this would not have been a good policy to follow, and in this view I am confirmed by the opinion of parliament in 192i5, which made it very clear that it would not consider the word of a commissioner as sufficient in itself with respect to the distribution of these funds. It might have been possible to table the report and introduce a measure recommending payment of the claims as awarded by Mr. Friel, and also allowing those claims which had been dismissed by him or entertained in part to be reconsidered by an appeal commission. But my hon. friends will at once admit that this would have given to the whole matter a kind of legal recognition by the government. Besides, it must not be forgotten that the amount of the claims put before Commissioner Friel totalled $56,000,000, without interest, which would mean another $20,000,000. We did not deem it advisable to throw open the whole matter again by allowing appeals. Then we could have disregarded payment altogether. In this respect I wish to assure parliament, if it needs reassuring, that we are perfectly willing to stand by the attitude taken by the British government. We do not acknowledge any legal right on the part of these claimants, but in certain cases we are willing to admit a moral right to recognition. But Commissioner Friel's report contains nothing that would allow us to proceed along those lines immediately, and therefore we have decided1- and I think our decision will appeal to the judgment of the house and also to that of the country-we have decided to give the matter further study during the recess, to look into the mass of evidence and judgments which accompany Commissioner Friel's report, in order to be in a position next session, not in any haphazard way, not basing our action on the recommendations of the commissioner, but by a very careful study of each one of his decisions, to recommend legislation to this parliament on the basis of the British award. That is to say, not to acknowledge any legal right in any such claims, but as an act of grace and on compassionate grounds to recommend awards to certain classes of claims for a certain amount
that we will best be in a position to determine when we have given the question the study it deserves.
That, Mr. Speaker, is our position. I repeat, I think it will commend itself to the good judgment of the house and of the country, and certainly it will bear comparison with the attitude taken by the official opposition, which is equivalent to saying: We do not know what the report is, we have not even seen it, but still we are willing to recommend that payment in full or payment in part, either one or the other, or both perhaps if this course can be entertained, be acceded to by the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is neither clever
nor ministerial.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am willing to admit, Mr. Speaker, that the quality of my wit is not at all on the same level with that of the leader of the opposition; but as to that I will leave others to judge.


Mr. STEVENS:: Will the minister permit a question? He will recall that on two or three occasions I asked him when the report would be available. He will also recall that he promised the house that immediately the report was received by the government it would be laid on the table, on one occasion intimating that he expected it in a day or two. Now, I ask the minister: Does he consider that he is justified in taunting us with not having seen the report when we have had no opportunity of studying it?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have tried very hard this afternoon to explain the whole matter. It was unfortunate that we should discuss that matter to-day and in such an atmosphere, and I am willing to withdraw from my speech any word that may have offended any hon. gentleman opposite. It was not in my mind at all, and indeed it never is, to give offence. The reason why the report was not tabled I will state. When we found that we could not possibly base legislation upon the report we thought that it was not only useless but inadvisable to table a report which would indicate to 1.600 different persons that they might be awarded certain sums which in the long run they might not receive. That is why we did not table the report. We will table the report when we are in the position to intimate at the same time what we intend to do with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How can the minister
justify his condemnation of us for our position in the absence of the very report which enables him to make that statement?

Reparations Claims-Mr. Cantley


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am not condemning the
opposition, I am merely comparing the attitude taken by the two parties respectively. My hon. friend (Mr. Ernst) might have moved an amendment reproaching the government with not having tabled the report, or with not having dealt with the matter. But the amendment goes further; it declares that we should pay even in full. I say that this is a very dangerous attitude to take on a question of this kind. I admit that it is not the fault of the opposition if they have not all the required information. At the same time, however, as they have not that information, surely I am at liberty to say that their stand is rather radical. If they had seen the report and realized just what it means perhaps they would be more inclined to share our views in the matter.


John Arthur Clark: Is it a fact that this report has been furnished to the press or to a section of the press?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Not that I know of. So far as I am concerned, I may say that a few copies only have been printed for use of council.


John Arthur Clark: I mean of course with instructions not to publish it until-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No. In the first weeks of the session some hon. gentleman put questions on the order paper and was given some information, though not in detail, as to the total number of claims, the total amount claimed and the total amount awarded. That information was given officially in the house, and all that I have read in the press has been based thereon, with comments added by the press on its own behalf and for which of course I accept no responsibility.
Now let me sum up. In the first place, reparation money undoubtedly belongs to the country; and in the second place the report of a commissioner, in the opinion of the house itself as presented three years ago, in 1925, cannot be taken as a basis for distribution of any money. Therefore, as I have said, it is our intention during the recess, when the labours of the session are over, to give that report, the judgments and the evidence the fullest care and study in order to be in a position at the beginning of next session to introduce legislation. I cannot now foresee exactly what that legislation will be, but I can say that- in principle it will be shaped by and based upon the policy adopted in the British parliament by the British government. It will not admit any legal rights, but. the government is willing to meet some of these claims on compassionate grounds and

as an act of grace. And I hope that this policy will commend itself to the good sense of the parliament of Canada and of the country.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I will ask the house to bear with me for but a few minutes. I was not much interested and less convinced by the lengthy speech made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) on this matter. I go back to the resolution before the house in 1'925 in which it was declared to be expedient to make provision for the payment of claims for reparations in respect of losses suffered by Canadian nationals during the war. That resolution went on to provide for the appointment of a commission. Those persons interested were asked to submit evidence and they did so at great length and at considerable expense.
I would point out that some of the people of Nova Scotia suffered very greatly. An important corporation in my county lost a large proportion of its fleet, and several other Nova Scotia companies suffered in the conflict. One company in particular, the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, lost close to forty thousands or so of modem high class steamer tonnage sunk by the Germans. Evidence in regard to that matter was submitted to the commission, by whom an award was made. That award was made by Commissioner Pugsley some years ago and is a matter of record. I would point out further that all these vessels, at the time they were torpedoed by the Germans, were engaged in conveying material of one class or another used in prosecution of the war. Early in 1915 a company in New Glasgow entered into a contract to supply the Russian government with 2,000 cars, delivered on the tracks at Vladivostok in working condition. They proceeded to build the cars and the first steamer that sailed for that Pacific port with cars proceeded down to the Panama canal. She arrived there just as an accident had closed the canal to all traffic. That boat was diverted via the Cape of Good Hope and the second boat left, scheduled to go through the Suez canal. She was torpedoed south of the island of Crete and we lost both ship and cargo. The men were thrown into the water on a cold morning in November, their boats were shelled and one capsized, and they were two days adrift. Finally they were able to work their boats to shore at the south end of the island of Crete. That is only one case. We lost a large amount of tonnage of that character.
Several of our Nova Scotian captains lost their ships by torpedo and gunfire; some of
MAY 19, 1928	3igl
Reparations Claims-Mr. Woodsworth
them spent several years in German prisons; they lost all they possessed and suffered much in health and estate, and they demand and deserve recompense.
Now the government has received $11,000,000, and some $5,000,000 of claims are admitted. I am not now making any claim on legal grounds; no one on this side of the house has done so, though I will not admit we have no legal claim. But if it were not intended that some compensation should be made, why the resolution, to which I have referred? And why did the government act and appoint a commission? Why did we ask people who suffered losses to come forward and give evidence of their losses?
There are hundreds of cases of hardship in regard to which the minister has evidence. He has the report but he refuses to disclose what it calls for. But he asks us to be patient. We have been patient, but he has no right to hold the money. The minister should make payment and I ask him that he do so and meet the reasonable conditions laid down in the resolution, introduced in 1925 into this house, upon which action was taken by the government and a commission appointed. I do not suggest that these claimants have no legal standing; and in any case certainly there is another and a higher claim than that of legal right. I am not prepared, I am not able to follow the Secretary of State in his long' speech of technicalities and legal quibbles. I am not interested in that; I care nothing about that. I appeal to the house and to its sense of British justice. The government has received the money for a definite purpose. Let them give to those who suffered losses some proportion of those losses. And let them do it at once.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I congratulate the government on coming to a much more reasonable position than that which is shown by the resolution as introduced in 1925. Very few members of the house will find fault on the whole with the position taken by the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) in the very admirable speech which he has made. Undoubtedly it is difficult to apportion the losses due to the war; I think that is one of the outstanding considerations which we must keep in mind. There were enormous losses of life; there were men who came home permanently disabled; there were homes broken up; there were very large property losses and there is the enormous debt which we must carry to-day. Who is to say just how much each man or each home lost through the war? I should like to urge, however, that property losses have no priority
over losses of other kinds sustained by other sufferers; the danger is that in connection with matters of this kind we should think in terms of property lost. A ship may have gone down or it may have been driven ashore on the coast; I can quite understand how keenly such losses were felt by many in the maritime provinces. On the other hand a home in the interior of the country may have been ruined; who is to say that the loss sustained by that home, which is deprived of a relative, perhaps a breadwinner, is less than that sustained by the company which lost a ship? So I think in deciding claims of this character it should be laid down as a fundamental principle that property losses have no prior claims whatever.
The Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that any claims of this character should not be granted as by right. Undoubtedly the whole legal argument is well sustained that payments from Germany which are due in this connection to this country under the treaty are the property of the state. However, it may be very well that there are certain claims which should have special consideration. I would take it that the general principle should be laid down, and indeed has been laid down by the Secretary of State, that claims should be granted on the ground of compassionate allowance. That, 1 fancy, would limit very decidedly the scope of the claims which could find any justification.
There is one other position which I should like to put forward-and I am glad to say that I occupy the same ground I did several years ago-that is, that grants of this character should be made only by vote of parliament. I should not like to think that we were giving any plenary powers to a government commission to make large grants in respect of these claims; there should be the most careful scrutiny of all claims, and parliament should pass upon them. I recognize that with a very large number of claims and with a great mass of evidence this may be difficult, but at the same time we are all capable of judging in accordance with general principles. We should have the whole situation very clearly set forth before any definite plan is evolved by the government for the payment of any such claims.
These are matters which I hope the government will take into consideration. As yet we are not committed to any scheme and it seems to me well that now we should carefully decide upon the principles on which any such scheme should be founded.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think we all agree that in the
strict sense of the term these claims which

Reparations Claims-Mr. Cahan
have been filed and proved before the commissioner appointed by the government are not legal claims in the sense that they can be enforced against the government in any court of law. The position is exactly the same as that which arose when, owing to certain depredations of the steamship Alabama, claims were made against England and computed on the basis of the damage and loss caused American citizens by that ship. That loss and damage was recovered by the government of the United States, acting on behalf of the state, and in a similar way we have had many instances where this has been done by the British government. For instance, there is a case now pending in the United States where British citizens have suffered owing to a riot in one of the southern cities which caused loss of life. The British government may press for damages on that account, inasmuch as the damage or loss sustained by individuals can be only recovered by the British government as a government, and when recovered by that government the legal title to the sum so secured is vested in the crown and the money is the property of the crown. But nevertheless the British government have always recognized the principle that they have a responsibility to use such funds so recovered, at least to a certain extent, for the compensation of those British citizens whose loss was the subject of the international negotiation which resulted in the payment of the money.
I think the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) rests under a misapprehension, by reason of the emphasis he gives certain sections of the treaty of Versailles. He referred to certain offsets arising from the sequestration of German property in Canada and the sequestration by the German government of Canadian property in Germany, which were adjusted through a clearing house, if I may say so. That, of course, is not the sort of reparation with which we are dealing in this debate. This reparation arises solely and exclusively under article 231 and the following articles of the treaty of Versailles. Article 231 says:
The allied and associated governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the allied and associated governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
That is a recognition of Germany's liability to pay the entire costs of the war, but that was not the basis on which the final agreement was reached. Let me read article 232.

The allied and associated governments recognize that the resources of Germany are not adequate, after taking into account permanent diminutions of such resources which will result from other provisions of the present treaty, to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage.
Therefore a great volume of the war claims which the allied governments otherwise would have had against Germany were waived. But the claims which were to be paid by Germany out of her reduced resources are set out in the following paragraph:
The allied and associated governments, however, require, and Germany undertakes, that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the allied and associated powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency of each as an allied or associated power against Germany by such aggression by land, by sea and from the air, and in general all damage as defined m annex 1 hereto.
Annex 1 sets out the various classes of damage to the civil population. Subparagraph (1) reads as follows.
Damage to injured persons and to surviving dependents by personal injury to or death of eivilitms caused by acts of war.
It was not the losses of the men in the field, but of civilians. Subparagraph (2) reads as follows:
Damage caused by Germany or her allies to civilian victims of acts of cruelty, violence or maltreatment.
And then subparagraph (3) reads as follows:
Damage caused by Germany. . . to civilian victims of all acts injurious to health.
I am not quoting these sections in full, to save Hansard. Subparagraph (4) reads as follows:
Damage caused by any kind of maltreatment of prisoners of war.
And then the final clause, subparagraph (9):
Damage in respect of all property wherever situated belonging to any of the allied or associated states or their nationals, with the exception of naval and military works or materials. which has been carried off. seized, injured or destroyed by the acts of Germany or her allies on land, on sea or from the air, or damage directly in consequence of hostilities or of any operations of war.
This clause covered damages to property owned by civilians. Therefore when this treaty was made, and Canada, as one of the signatories of the treaty and one of the dominions of the British commonwealth engaged in the war, w'as entitled to reparations, those reparations were largely confined to loss to civilians, and there was also the payment of pensions, which

Reparations Claims-Mr. Cahan
came in under another clause. Canada collects that money as compensation for loss and damage to civilian property, and as compensation for certain pensions paid by her. It seems to me, therefore, beyond any question of doubt, that the government of Canada collecting that fund is morally responsible to see that the fund is appropriated and distributed, not to defray the ordinary expenses of carrying on the war, but for compensating the loss or damage to civilians and civilian property in respect of which Canada recovered these funds from the German state. I think there is a moral obligation. I do not imagine that we shall ever recover from Germany sufficient to pay the loss or damage coming under these various clauses in annex 1 to article 232 of the Versailles treaty.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How does Germany pay
her debt to Canada, in gold?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: She is paying it under the
Dawes plan.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Through goods sold?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, with gold.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Services or goods?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The money is received by
the Canadian government in the form of bills of exchange at the current rate, representing gold coin in this country. But I am not dealing with that.
It was natural, therefore, that the Canadian government should have asked the civilian population of Canada, who had met with loss and damage within the terms of annex 1 to clause 232 of the treaty, to prove their claims, and that they should assume it was the intention of the government to make certain recompense to them for their loss and damage, in so far as the government might recover compensation for such loss and damage from the German government.
I would call attention to the statement made by the Secretary of State on April 11, 1927, in answering certain questions put by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). In replying to these questions, the government, as represented by the Secretary of State, said:
. The commissioner was appointed to investigate and report upon claims of persons residing or carrying on business in Canada who har e been subjected to loss and pecuniary damages arising through the destruction of life and property through the illegal warfare of the enemy.
If my hon. friend had said "loss and damages suffered by the civil population", with that modification I think his statement would
be more correct. He then went on to deal with losses arising from breach of contract, and he concludes that the commissioner was appointed to investigate and report:
-for the purpose of determining whether they are within the category set out in the first annex to section (i) of part VIII of the treaty, and the fair amount of such claims, and to make such findings as may be of assistance to the government in determining which, if any, of such claims should be paid, and the extent of payment thereof.
When I heard that statement from the hon. gentleman on April 11, 1927, I assumed that to be a pretty clear statement on behalf of the government that, while they were not committed to the payment of any particular percentage of these claims, they were nevertheless committed to the policy of recognizing the claims and making some recompense in respect thereof. The minister emphasized the fact that there was no legal claim against this government, on the theory that each state itself must make claim for damages caused to its citizens by foreign states. In claiming damages from the foreign state each government asserts such claim as for loss and damage to itself, but its claim is really based on loss and damage to its. civilian population and to their property. Nevertheless, in closing his statement on that day, the Secretary of State said.
The view held by the Canadian government is that claimants for losses above referred to have no claims against either Canada or Germany.
Then he proceeded:
If there is any claim it is in the right of Canada against Germany under the treaty, and this right is being enforced as set out in answer to questions 8 to 12. This view is also held by the government of the United Kingdom. The Canadian government has under consideration the making of gratuitous payments .to claimants, and if it is so decided, parliament will be asked to make an appropriation for that purpose.
Therefore more than a year ago this house was convinced by this statement of the government that the government had the clear intention to make some compensation, which it has since declined and neglected to do. In view of the fact, as the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg has pointed out, that there are some hundreds of claimants in his electoral district, people who can ill afford that their claims should be held in abeyance, it seems that the government has been entirely negligent in its duty in not presenting a decided and considered policy of making payment to those people whose moral claims are undoubted, and particularly so because of the very fact that this government, as one of the

Reparations Claims-Mr. Fraser
allied nations, based its claim against Germany and is receiving recompense from Germany- not by reason of the cost of the war to us, because it has renounced any claim for the cost of the war-but solely on account of and by way of compensation for loss and damage suffered by our own civilian population.


John Anderson Fraser: I should
like to make a few remarks, not that I have anything to say in regard to the legal aspect of the ease, but because of a matter which has been brought to my attention by a person living in my constituency. This is a very hard case and I want to put on the record the particulars of the claim. The first letter which I have received in connection with it is dated December 17, 1926, from Lillooet, British Columbia, and reads as follows:
Pardon me for writing to you, but being resident in your constituency I thought you might be able to help me. I was a passenger on the Lusitania when she was torpedoed on May 7, 1915, I was in the water two hours and suffered injuries which neither time nor doctors have been able to cure. I put in a claim against the German government in the year following and since then have sent in certificates and affidavits substantiating my claim. Some weeks ago in reply to a letter, I heard from the commission that my claim had been assessed (they did not mention the amount) and that the matter was to be brought up at the next session (or now). A compassionate vote I believe they call it.	.
I cannot get to know anything definite, and as I am even now waiting for an operation on my knee, and the trouble is serious and gets worse every day, I thought perhaps you would be good enough to let me know if the .vote passes. "Compassionate vote for war claims". I should be more than grateful, as if I could show I would be paid soon, I might be able to borrow the money to take me to the coast for my operation. May I beg of you to return me the enclosed cutting, which I thought might interest you. My husband has gone away to try and get work. He was laid off the roads two months since. Thanking you in anticipation.
Sincerely yours,	.
Inez Wilson.
I took the matter up with the department and this is the reply dated Ottawa, March 7, 1927:
Re Mrs Inez Wilson
I have the honour to refer to the matter of the claim for reparation concerning which you had an interview with me this morning.
I am directed to advise that the commissioner has given this claim his consideration and has assessed it. I regret that I am unable to disclose the result of his finding until such time as the commissioner's report is made public.
For your information I may advise that the commissioner filed an interim report with the Honourable the Secretary of State, some two weeks ago, which report has not as yet been made public owing to the fact that the department is giving consideration to the schedules thereto as some rearrangement of them may be found
[Mr. Cahan.l
necessary. It is expected, however, that the policy of the government with reference to these matters, will be declared shortly.
I return herewith the correspondence left with me by you.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. A. Duffy,
Secretary.
The first letter she wrote was dated Decern-ber 17, 1926, and this was the reply. I received another letter from her dated March 15, 1927, as follows:
I received your letter of the 8th, to-day, and I am more than grateful to you for your efforts on my behalf. I appreciate them all the more as you are so busy. I have just been given an opportunity of medical treatment (through friends) in Los Angeles, but I am afraid to go for fear of losing the money. Could you possibly tell me if it would be safe for me to go? I mean that I would not have to come back to Canada to get the money, before my operation on the leg? I am rapidly losing the use of my leg and delay now is dangerous, but I could not go all that way and come back again.	.
What I wish to know definitely now is, now that my claim has been assesed, would it make any difference where I was residing at the time the claims were paid? If it was to be shortly, I would try to be as patient as I could, but if it is still a long time ahead, I might lose my leg altogether, or at the very least the use of it. You will I hope understand how serious this is for me, and please forgive me for again troubling you in such a busy season, but if it can be managed, I want to feel absolutely safe in going.	#
Thanking you again for your kindness, I am, Faithfully yours,
Inez Wilson.
Then on November 7, 1927, I have another letter addressed from 972 Palm avenue, Sherman, California, where the lady had gone to receive the medical treatment which she said she might avail herself of by the help of friends. She writes:
Doubtless you will remember me asking your help in Lillooet. re my claim for Lusitania disaster I heard from Ottawa that the matter would be settled, they thought this winter. Does that mean before Christmas or after? I would be very grateful if you would tell me as far as vou know when parliament dissolves and if anything at all has been done and also when the house meets again.
I never see a Canadian paper here, and they do not print any Canadian news much, so I cannot tell if anything is being done or not. I am badly in need of the money, I am better than I was, but have to have a major operation on my leg, and unless I have the money. I cannot have it done. I want to return to Lillooet when I am able and have the means. You were so good to me before that I feel sure you will help me now. Could you possibly (in confidence) tell me if there is really a chance of settlement? This suspense and anxiety is very wearing and I would rather know the worst. Thanking you in anticipation, I am, Faithfully yours,
Inez Wilson.

Reparations Claims-Mr. Stevens
Then I have another letter dated January 16, 1928:
May I trespass upon your time and kindness, to ask you if you could possibly give me a review of my ease and the standing of it, with the Canadian government re my Lusitania claim? Just recently the American Lusitania claimants have been settled and will be paid within the next sixty days. That is why 1 am asking you again to help me; I am in great need of the money; I require it for a further serious operation and I'm afraid to have it done, unless by a specialist. It is all caused by injuries received in the Lusitania.
They told me it would most probably be settled this last winter, but I've heard nothing further. If you could give me any idea of when the claims will be settled, I would be very thankful. I do not get any Canadian papers here, so I do not hear any parliamentary news. I am grateful for your past interest and remain Faithfully yours,
(Signed) Inez Wilson.
There is a further letter dated April 30th, 1928, as follows:
I am writing to advise you of my change of address, and also to thank you for your extremely kind efforts on my behalf.
Thanking you again,
Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) Inez Wilson.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the record of a case which I thought it was only reasonable to put before this house. So far as I am concerned I must say that it seems to me a monstrous thing, in view of her circumstances and the length of time she has been waiting, to keep this woman waiting for the reasonable reparations to which she is entitled. She has been undergoing medical treatment ever since the Lusitania went down. She has used up her own resources and is now dependent upon friends to receive the necessary medical treatment to keep her alive. I repeat, it seems to me a monstrous thing for the government at this time to be refusing to satisfy claims of this kind. I have two or three other cases of exactly the same nature.
It seems to me that the whole trend of the remarks of the hon. Secretary of State this afternoon was that, notwithstanding the fact that there were claims which should reasonably be met, hard cases and all that kind of thing, although the total amount of these claims was $6,000,000 and we have already received from Germany $11,000,000, the government can still go on refusing recognition to these claims, and at the same time spend millions of dollars in beautifying Ottawa and on other schemes of that kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I desire to say a few words in regard to this matter. I shall not traverse the ground covered so admirably by the hon. member for S6I03-202
Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) in presenting this case, nor shall I follow the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) in his lengthy resume of the history of the matter. I wish, however, to reply to some of the observations made by the hon. Secretary of State.
In the first place, the hon. minister taunted the members of the opposition with moving an amendment on going into supply, expressing regret that this subject should have been made, a.s he termed it, a vote of want of confidence. Then he went on to say that one of the reasons why the government had not acted was because they were unable to come to a decision without a lengthy study of the report. At the same time, during the last two years he has repeatedly assured parliament that in the course of a few days this report would be laid upon the table for the perusal of the members of the house so that we might intelligently study it and take the position upon it which our judgment might dictate, but up until this time, within a measurable time of the end of the second session of the discussion of this subject, we have not yet been vouchsafed a view of the report at all. Then what other recourse is there for the opposition, when they are placed in a position of that character, than to bring it to the attention of the government on a motion to go into supply-the old historic method, constitutional, and indeed, sir, the only method left open to us.
There are certain facts to which I desire to draw attention. In the first place, there is this fact, and the Secretary of State did not attempt to reply to this phase of our grievance, that the government have in the consolidated revenue fund an amount in the neighbourhood of $11,000,000 or $12,000,000 for the purpose of paying the claims of the civilian population of Canada. They have coming this year, so they tell us, some $5,000,000 odd from the Dawes plan, the regular annual payment. Then also for many, many months they have had this report, which sets forth in detail, according to the statement of the Secretary of State, the proven claims of a large number, some 1,600, of Canadian nationals in regard to war damage. Now our position is this: The government being in possession of this fund, why do they not settle these proven claims? That is our question, and we are being importuned on all sides to bring to the attention of parliament not only one but hundreds of claims which are being ignored, as they express it, and they are asking us as their representatives in parliament to demand from the government a recognition and settlement of these claims.



Reparations Claims-Mr. Stevens
The minister made a very lengthy argument, if I might so style it, to demonstrate that this money was primarily the property of the state. That was the whole burden of an address occupying an hour and a quarter. I want to read to the Secretary of State and to call to the attention of the government the statement made by the government a year ago in regard to this matter. I placed upon Hansard a series of some twenty-five questions dealing with this subject in a fairly exhaustive manner, and in answer to question 4, the government stated in Hansard of 1927, page 2219:
The right of the Canadian government to reparation is set out in the answer to question
1.
Now what was the answer to question 1? The answer to question 1 was to refer to article 232 of the treaty of Versailles, which reads as follows:
The allied and associated governments recognize that the resources of Germany are not adequate to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage. Germany undertook to make compensation for all damage done to the civil population of the allied and associated powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency.
That is the basis of the payments by Germany to this country and to other countries, and it is on that basis that we are appealing to the government to settle these claims. I submit that the government cannot escape from the responsibility to disburse this money, through the medium of a vote in parliament, to the claimants from this source to which they refer in this reply they made last year.
I want to refer the government to another position which they took. This was in the year 1925, when the hon. Minister of Defence at that time, Hon. E. M. Macdonald, dealing with this whole question and with the famous resolution referred to a moment ago, known as the Copp resolution, made this statement, at page 4522 of the Hansard of June 19, 1925. Bearing in mind the position which the hon. Secretary of State has taken to-day, and that he is reflecting the present attitude of the government, here is the position which was taken then by the government through the Hon. Mr. Macdonald:
The moneys which come from the Dawes commission, so-called, are payable under the terms of the treaty of Versailles for certain definite purposes. They cannot be put into the treasury of the country and appropriated for other purposes than those for which they are paid.
Then he gives a series of paragraphs, nine in number, quoted from the treaty itself, and indicates their purpose, to which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. 
Cahan) and other hon. gentlemen have referred. Now our point is this: The Dominion government having received these millions of dollars, more than double the amount required, and with another $5,000,000 coming along this year, and another $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 payable next year, we submit that these claims should be satisfied.	.
The hon. Secretary of State says: We want carefully to study the findings of Mr. Friel; we are not satisfied that those findings are fair, and we want to study them carefully, and next session we may bring in a measure to pay these claims. A year ago the minister had a still different view. Speaking officially for the government a year ago, he said, and I am quoting from page 2219 of Hansard:
The policy of the government will be decided when the reparation commissioner has completed his report.
It may be said that that was a vague answer. At the time I did not take it as such, because the minister had repeatedly said, in answer to questions on the orders of the day, that they were expecting the report hourly, and the moment it was received action would be taken on it. Furthermore, the government had itself asked for and received an interim report, which dealt with what might be called non-contentious claims, which were obviously fair and should be settled. The government had that interim report in its hands over a year ago, but no action has been taken. How can the government justly complain of the position that the opposition is now taking in regard to the delay in introducing justifiable measures on behalf of these claimants?
What we are asking is this. In the first place, we ask that the report be laid on the table. This may seem a strong statement, but I make it advisedly: I submit that the government is guilty of a dereliction of duty to this house, indeed it is guilty of a lack of respect, in not long ago tabling the report. The report is not secret; the government must produce it sooner or later in its present form. The government may attach to it whatever it likes, but the parliament of Canada is entitled to the report. The minister says: Oh, what is the use of laying the report on the table; it is simply a long string of names and of figures. Well, give us the names and the figures. But, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that parliament is entitled to the report; and, furthermore, the government is open to severe censure in having suppressed the report up to this time. The report has been in the hands of the government since before the opening

Reparations Claims-Mr. Stevens
of the session, according to the Secretary of State. We have gone through the whole session with repeated requests and references to reparations, and in face of the government declaration of last session I repeat that the failure to table the report is evidence of disrespect to parliament. So we ask that the report be tabled, and we have the right to demand that it be tabled before the close of this session. And, further, we have the right to ask for action on the report. In short, we want the report, and we want action on it. We are convinced from what we are able to learn, not only from the meagre knowledge we can glean from the government about the situation in Canada, but from parallel conditions in the United Sates, in Great Britain, in France and other countries- we are convinced, I say, that some at least of these claims may justly be paid. We know that in a large number of cases the failure to make payment has caused suffering similar to that to which my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) brought to the attention of the house a moment ago. The case he mentioned is only one of hundreds in this country involving actual privation and suffering. I have in my room a letter from a lady, over eighty years of age, who is suffering severe privation from the lack of funds due to losses during the war incurred through the sinking of the Lusitania or a similar incident. My hon. leader reminds me that she lost her husband, a master mariner. He knows the case as well as I do. These are pathetic cases, there are hundreds of them throughout the country, and we submit that these minor claims

minor in respect to the amount of money involved-should be settled. It may be that in some of the large claims -I understand there are one or two of over a million dollars-time should be taken to scrutinize them carefully. If there are such cases, by all means scrutinize them with the greatest of care; no one objects to that; but we do object to the holding up of claims by individuals who are suffering privation while the government coolly takes time to look into these other matters.
Why is not the government prepared to take action this session? I confess frankly to the Prime Minister and his colleagues that I cannot understand it. I cannot find any conceivable excuse for the delay, and I have studied earnestly to find an excuse. The Secretary of State gave us none this afternoon. He intimated that the government wants to scrutinize the claims. I submit to him that between January and to-day there has been ample time to scrutinize a great many of
these claims. Indeed, the major portion of them have been in his hands for two years on the interim report made by Mr. Friel. They have been in his hands long enough for him to go over the investigation three or four times. These claims could very properly be paid. If any of them are of a doubtful character, hold them in abeyance. But let us at least have the privilege of examining the report. Then we will be in a position to judge whether the minister is making a fair interpretation of the report when he says that it is so delicate -and so intricate that he must take another year to scrutinize it and determine what action should be taken. I wonder, is it the purpose of the government to look into this report and scrutinize the findings with the expectation that some of the claims may be increased? Or does the government wish to decrease them? Is it the intention to decrease these claims or to increase them? Why the delay? It is rather significant that next session we will be one year nearer an election than we are to-day. The minister asks: Why should we make a political issue out of this, because we ask for a redress of the grievances of the people on going into supply. I ask him now, since he has indulged in implications, am I not justified in drawing this inference, that inasmuch as next session will carry us much nearer the time of an election, is not the government at least inviting designing persons to press for the payment of their claims in return for political support? That may not be so, but I say, is it not a fair inference?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: No, most
unfair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I say to the Prime Minister it is most unfair for him to deny us our right to see that report. It is most unfair for him to deny the citizens of Canada payment of their just claims out of the moneys which the government has wrongfully put into the consolidated fund, according to an official declaration on behalf of the government by a minister of the crown from his place in the house. It is he whom I quote in support of my contention.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State suggests that the report is for his personal study. I submit that it is not for his personal study. He has no more right to that report than I have. It is a report to parliament, a report for this house to consider and determine what action shall be taken. Why, the ministry itself last session and this session has said, indeed the Secretary of State has repeated the language this afternoon, that

Reparations Claims-Mr. Stevens
the only way effect can be given to the report is by a vote in parliament, by putting in the estimates an item to deal with the claims. It is obvious that the report is the property of parliament, and it is equally obvious that we are denied rightful access to our own property. The minister has no right to say that the report is for his own personal study.
Then the minister made this statement: he said that an appeal to the court would have given a legal air to this matter. That is to say, if they had appealed from Commissioner Friel to the court a legal air would have been given to these claims. Why are the government afraid of "a legal air"? A little while ago they said that there was no legal point at all at issue, that it was an act of grace. While I am not a lawyer I do not agree with that. I believe that under the terms of the treaty these people have an absolute legal claim against this fund-a claim which they cannot enforce because the funds are in possession of the government.
Another statement the minister made was that this report could not be taken as a basis of any payments. But I find, in his replies of a year ago, that he declares that the intention of the commission and of the report was to secure the bases upon which payment could be made. To-day however he says that the report cannot be taken as a basis of payment. I reiterate that what we are asking for is the report, which is the property of parliament, and action upon that report this session.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Monday, May 21, 1928