1928-04-27

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. W. HAY (North Perth) presented the sixth report of the selecting standing committee on banking and commerce, as follows:
In obedience to an order of the house dated 27th March, 1928, your committee have considered the following resolution of the house, viz:
"That the select standing committee on banking and commerce be instructed to investigate and report on the operations of companies carrying on sickness and accident insurance business in Canada."
and herewith submit a copy of the evidence taken in respect thereto.﻿APRIL 27, 192S
Private Bills
It is expected that the Insurance Act will be amended next session. Your committee, therefore, recommend that the superintendent of insurance be instructed to draft amendments in keeping with the facts adduced, for incorporation in a general amending act to the Insurance Act.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) moved:
That the petition of Seraphim Ouimet and others, praying for an act of incorporation under the name of the Montreal Underground Terminal Company, presented this day, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders, for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I shall submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out that the time for the presenting of petitions has already elapsed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is moved by Mr. Goodison, seconded by Mr. Smith (Stormont) that the following bills be now read a first and second time, and referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills:
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Richard Thomas Bell.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Albert Cheney. -Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Katharine Adriance Burruss	Christie.-Mr.	Wilson
(Wentworth).
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Nellie Cohen. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Louis Cowell. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Wesley Thornton Davidson.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Orfie Earl Dingman.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Edith Alice Douglas.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Radford Alonzo Dunfield.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Reuben James Fenton.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Jane Annie Field.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Charles Edward Frank.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Bernice Gatehouse.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Harriet Elizabeth Roussie Gray.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Thomas Haggitli.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Ellen May Collison Keene.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Henry Peet.- Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Leon Proulx.- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Dorothea Wil-helmina Reynolds.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Violet Robinson.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Susan Amelia Saunders.'-Mr. Lang.	*
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Agnes Georgiana Smith.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Walter Edgar Soule.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Phoebe Ellen Stevens.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Thomas William Storey.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Samuel Wellington Thompson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 258, for the relief of John Edwin Timson.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Jennie Campbell.-Mr. Geary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: On motions, I wish to bring up the question of the letter which was referred to by me last night in discussing the matter of harbour commissions. I stated that that letter had been written by the hon. the present leader of the opposition, and he demanded that I produce the letter.


Mr. BENNETT:: I said, lay it on the table. The rules require it.


Peter John Veniot: I am going to do that if the hon. gentleman will just give me time. I have before me the original file, and I also have a copy of the letter. As I understand that, under the order of motions, when motions or requests are made for papers, it is generally copies that are produced, and as 1 do not wish the original file to go out of my possession, I am going to lay on the table a copy of that letter, which reads as follows: House of Commons,
Ottawa, April 3, 1912. The Honourable L. P. Pelletier, K.C., Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Pelletier,
Please appoint Andrew Chapman Postmaster at Cochrane, Alberta, in the place and stead of Fisher, the present incumbent, who has been

Halifax Harbour Commission
an active partisan, being, in fact, the brother of the Speaker of the Liberal legislature of Alberta, under whose auspices the office is being conducted.
Yours faithfully,
[DOT]	(Sgd) R. B. Bennett.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any trouble
about that?


Peter John Veniot: No trouble about it.



OLYMPIC GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   V@: Referring to the answer given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) yesterday, in reply to a question regarding the grant to the Olympic games, I notice that the sum of $26,000 was paid to the committee last year, and that no accounting is made to the government, or expected by them, of how this money is expended. I would ask the Minister of Finance if he would be good enough to have inquiries made as to what proportion of this grant is going to be given towards assisting the New Westminster lacrosse team to go to Amsterdam.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave yesterday referred to the grant voted by parliament last year. The same procedure is followed as in regard to grants to the Boy Scouts, Girl Guides and other organizations; my hon. friend will notice several in the miscellaneous items of the estimates. But I shall now direct the attention of the treasurer of the Canadian Olympic committee, to whom the money was paid, that members of parliament desire details of the expenditure. This information I will table as soon as I receive it.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: We want to see that lacrosse is properly taken care of.


James Alexander Robb: That is reasonable.



GREENLY ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the government to the fact that the lighthouse keepers on Greenly island who entertained the transAtlantic fliers are being paid only $2,100 a year, out of which three families have to subsist. Will not the government now consider granting them a little higher salary?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think my hon. friend may assume that his suggestion will receive every consideration.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY BEAUHARNOIS POWER COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to inquire of the right hon. Prime Minister whether or not application has been made by the Beauharnois power interests to have determined the principles upon which the waters of the St. Lawrence are to be diverted from their present channel into a canal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Personally, Mr. Speaker, I do not know of such an application, but I should not like my reply to be regarded as final.



HALIFAX HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 217 to provide for a loan to the Halifax harbour commissioners.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire formally to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether or not the undertaking Which he was good enough to give the other evening with respect to the Quebec harbour commission bill will apply to this measure and as well to the St. John measure.


Mr. CARDIN:: Absolutely.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 20 consideration in committee of Bill No. 204 respecting t'he Toronto Terminals Railway Company-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Marcil in the chair.
Mr. DUNNING:: I think, Mr. Chairman, the committee had practically completed its consideration of this bill, which contains only one section, and which has already been passed upon by the special committee having to do with railways and shipping. I think we may regard section 1 as carried.


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

Railway Act Amendment


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 26 consideration in committee of Bill No. 220 to amend the Railway Act-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Marcil in the chair.
On Section 1-Railway grade crossing fund.
Charles Avery Dunning: We were still on section
1 when the house adjourned last night, Mr. Chairman. I think probably the discussion had proceeded not as far as the members of the committee desired. I shall be glad to deal with any further questions which may arise.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Does this bill contain any provision that would debar small towns or municipalities from making applications in the future for railway crossings?


Charles Avery Dunning: Absolutely no. The intention of the amending bill is, as I explained last night, entirely in the opposite direction. There is certainly no greater restriction; on the contrary there is greater freedom to make application.


Mr. BOAS:: Is it the intention that this
should apply to maintenance as well as construction in the first instance?


Charles Avery Dunning: The section reads "not
including that of maintenance."


William Alves Boys: This situation sometimes arises: there is a separation of grades, and perhaps under the terms of the agreement between the municipality and the railway company an overhead bridge is constructed. Twenty years later-as in the case I have in mind-it may be necessary to make substantial repairs. Why should there not be some allowance out of the fund to take care of such a situation? In the case to which I am referring the municipality is paying 50 per cent and the railway 50 per cent of the cost of separation. It seems to me that that would be an appropriate case for, say, a 40 per cent allowance from this fund, the balance to be borne equally by the railway and the municipality. If the legislation does not so apply-and I may say frankly that I understand it does not-does not the 'minister 'think it is a matter that might well receive consideration? I have thought the matter over, and I can see no reason why the fund should not apply to such a case.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I intimated last night, I want to make more elastic the conditions under which the grade crossing fund is ad-
56103- 155
ministered, in order to widen the use for which it was created. I would direct the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that grade separation is the real object in view. As long as there are so many thousands of dangerous crossings throughout the country to be dealt with, I am afraid that to so change the law as to make it apply to maintenance as well as construction would be going too far, having regard to the amount which parliament is annually voting for the fund at the present time. However, I should like to call attention to this:	It is evident
from the history of the fund that more than one contribution has been ordered with respect to the same crossing. Out of 520 crossings dealt with since the inception of the grade crossing fund, some 44 have been dealt with by more than one grant. I am advised that that second grant does not in any sense involve what my hon. friend has just pointed out, repairs to an existing structure, but rather a change in the character of the protection afforded. That is to say, there might be in the first place a wig-wag, for which ten years later gates might be substituted. I believe both the present statute and the amending bill would permit that.


William Alves Boys: That is really construction.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is really construction, but I do not believe that either the present act or the amending bill would permit maintenance charges, such as replanking a bridge, and so forth, to be entertained. Much as I sympathize with the position outlined by my hon. friend, I suggest we had better not widen the legislation to that extent. If the municipality is fortunate enough to have received, together with the railway company, a contribution to the extent of 40 per cent of the original cost, it is not so much of a burden to keep the structure in reasonable repair.


William Alves Boys: Unfortunately that is not so
in the case I have in mind, because the bridge in question was constructed before this fund was available. There has been no contribution whatever in connection with the construction, but it was thought proper, having in view the public safety, that the grade should be separated. It was separated and now the time for repair has arisen. Naturally therefore I was anxious to have the fund made applicable to a case o/ that kind. I can understand however that if it is not applicable to maintenance in any case it cculd not be made applicable here even if there was no allowance originally made for construction.

Railway Act Amendment


Mr. ARTHURS:: Is there any provision
for the deviation of a road to avoid a railway crossing altogether? I have in mind the approach to a town in my riding. Parry Sound, where there are seven crossings within a very short distance, all dangerous. I believe that if this act provided for a case of that kind a deviation could be made to avoid most of the crossings.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the past, as I
explained last evening, the fund has been used for the purpose of diversion, such as my hon. friend refers to, and the definitions contained in this amending section in no way alter that condition. In this section "crossing" means any railway crossing on a highway, or any highway crossing on a railway at rail level, and every manner of construction of the railway or of the highway, by elevation or depression of the one above or below the other, or by diversion of one or the other, and so forth.


James Arthurs: That is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On the preamble.
James Arthurs: I understand the proportion contributed by the Dominion is 40 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not exceeding 40 per
cent.


James Arthurs: In any case where there might be two or three high bridges, or viaducts, required, and a deviation of the road might eliminate this necessity, would the minister be prepared to say that they should then limit themselves to 40 per cent on the deviation?


Charles Avery Dunning: That raises a question
which has occurred more or less frequently under the existing law, for the reason that there was a limitation on the number of crossings within one municipality to which the board might apply the funds in any one year. But that limitation has been removed. There is somewhere provision for the declaration by the board that the work is one work of safety. I cannot put my finger on the exact phraseology, but if my hon. friend will read the bill he will find somewhere that it is provided that any work may be declared by the board' to be a single work of protection.


James Arthurs: The point I am trying
to make is that a deviation might obviate three or four crossings.
[Mr. Boys.l


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, so long as the work is declared to be one work.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: Will the bill make it compulsory for a municipality to make alterations intended in this legislation?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no compulsion
involved in the bill. The power of the board remains exactly the same in that regard as it is to-day.


Mr. McGIBBON:: How are the proportions arrived at which are contributed respectively by the municipality, the province and the railways? Is it by agreement?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is within the judgment of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case, having regard to the date at which the crossing came into existence and having regard also to which is senior, the railway or the highway. Many considerations are involved and they vary in particular cases. It is not possible to read through the board's rulings in various cases and arrive at anything which may be -said to be an absolutely fixed principle applicable in all cases. This is one of the matters which the board must analyse in relation to the circumstances surrounding the particular crossing under review.


Peter McGibbon: It is subject to the railway board?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does not the minister
think that there should be some rule established whereby, when the highway is senior to the railway, the railway company should be required to pay the whole cost of providing protection at the crossing, subject of course to any allowance being made out of the fund?


Charles Avery Dunning: That point was dealt
with last evening, and I can only refer my hon. friend to section 260 of the act. In any case where a railway has been constructed after the nineteenth day of May, 1909, the railway company shall at its own cost and expense, unless as otherwise provided by agreement, approved by the board, between the company and the municipal or other corporation or person, provide, subject to the order of the board, protection, safety and convenience for the public in crossing a highway by a railway. That is to say, in respect of ail crossings which came into existence since 1909, the railway company is prima facie responsible for the protection there required. This is subject to exceptions, such for example as where a roadway was in existence on paper in 1909-that is to say, it was dedicated as a roadway-

Railway Act Amendment


Richard Bedford Bennett: A road allowance.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, a road allowance,
as we call it in- the west. In a subsequent year that road allowance is used and the railway company makes representations to the board that traffic has arisen in connection with that particular crossing which was not there and not contemplated when the railway was built. In such cases the board has not rigidly applied the rule that the railway must pay. The other rule then comes into operation, as to which is senior in point of fact and of operation. Another difficulty which I find in some cases, regardless of the time oi construction of the crossing, is where the need for protection arises by reason of increased traffic over either the highway or the railway. In many instances the need arises through increased railway traffic not comtem-plated when the crossing was instituted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Broad street at Regina,
for instance.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, Broad street at
Regma is an excellent instance in point. It was increased traffic on the railway in that case which made necessary the work of protection, and in consequence the railway had to pay very much more than the proportion it would otherwise have been called upon to contribute. Then you have the possible case where the railway traffic remains substantially the same but where the highway traffic, due to the building, let us say, of a trunk highway, has increased materially.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As at Albert street, west of Regina.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that would be an
instance. In that case the railway board takes into account the relations between the parties and adjudicates. In general I think it may be said that the administration by the Board of Railway Commissioners, under its successive chairmen, of this particular section of the law, has been about as satisfactory as such a piece of legislation in operation could be. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) suggests some general rule.
I can assure him that if he reads through the acts and gets an idea of the very varied circumstances which obtain between crossings in different parts of Canada, he will find it as difficult as I do to attempt to apply any rigid general rule.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have read through
the cases, and in fact have taken part in some of them. I have found that generally the board will say, "Well, yes, we will give you the protection at this crossing but you
56103-155J
will have to share the cost equally with the railway or you will have to pay all the expenses." That happens even when the highway is senior to the railway by a number of years, and it seems to me that'some provision should be made whereby the board cannot give a ruling of that kind. I will admit that the Board of Railway Commissioners is an impartial body and tries to do its best, but at the same time it has come to be pretty much a board which stands for the protection of the railway companies, as far as I can see, more than for the protection of the public as it used to be. Consequently I suggest that the minister might consider the advisability of bringing in some legislation which would cover the matter in so many words, in order to leave no discretion to the Board of Railway Commissioners in dealing with that particular subject.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I cannot
make my friend that promise; my study of this matter convinces me that such positiveness would tend to make an already difficult situation rather worse. Of course I appreciate the fact that in cases before the board the party who does not succeed is like the unsuccessful party in an ordinary lawsuit; usually he is not satisfied, and that is equally true of the railway companies. They have come to me and pointed out where grave injustices have been done to them in certain cases, but after balancing things up I think the board has administered this measure about as well as we could expect it to be looked after,


William Garland McQuarrie: If they slowed down
the trains at crossings it would be an entirely different matter, but as a general rule they do not do so. They go across the highways at a rather excessive speed in many cases, and that is where the difficulty arises. Possibly they could be compelled to moderate their speed if the matter were taken to court, but that is always a hazardous proceeding. As a general rule the danger exists because the railway operates trains along tracks which cross highways; the danger does not come from pedestrians or motorists running into trains.


Charles Avery Dunning: Last night I gave the
figures for last year; seventy-four motor cars ran into the sides of moving trains.


William Garland McQuarrie: Why did they do that? The trains must have been going too fast. That is the very point, but in any event it seems to me that the lives of motorists and pedestrians should be taken care of at these crossings to a greater extent than is the case at present. I know it is absolutely impossible
Railway Act Amendment

to prevent some of these motorists from getting into accidents; I quite appreciate that fact, but the way it appeals to me is that the crossing is dangerous because of the operation of the railway trains. Therefore the railway companies should be compelled to provide the necessary signals and to take the necessary precautions to minimize the number of accidents in cases where the highway is senior to the railway.
Mr. ARTHUR,S: The minister has informed the house that in connection with crossings constructed before 1909 the onus is upon the railway to provide the protection necessary for the safety of the public. I believe I am right in that?


Charles Avery Dunning: Subject to the exception which I read.


James Arthurs: As a general principle
that is true. On the other hand, the present act allows the Board of Railway Commissioners to give 40 per cent of the cost of improving the protection at railway crossings, and no more than 40 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: That does not apply to crossings constructed since 1909.


James Arthurs: I am not referring to those at the moment. I would like to ask the minister whether a deviation would be allowed for, and to what extent, by his department. In my riding I have a municipality which contains seven railway crossings within a distance of about three miles, all built subsequent to the highway which they cross. Manifestly it would be impossible for a small municipality to pay even 40 per cent of the cost of protecting those seven crossings.


Charles Avery Dunning: The highway was there first?


James Arthurs: Yes, and I would suggest that the act be broadened out to take care of special cases of this kind where a railway, through the agency of its surveyors, has crossed a highway repeatedly within a very short distance. To some extent the municipality should be assisted in a special way.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will not presume to give legal advice, but I am reasonably sure that such eases are already within the competence of the railway board. I am satisfied that that is the law, subject to the opinions of my legal friends.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to ask the minister a question, and I hope he will pardon me for doing so, because probably I *should know all about it. However, I have not had time to study this bill. I understand .that the grant is $200,000 a year?
{Mr. McQuarrie.]


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Will that be sufficient to take care of the applications?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; I would hope not.
I will explain that to my hon. friend when he finishes his question.


Peter McGibbon: The point I wish to make is that we should enlarge the grant so that these death-traps throughout the country might be eliminated as quickly as possible, having in view the rapid increase in motor traffic.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I should have gone more fully over the discussion which took place last evening. The fact is that the fund has not been expended. In practice the provisions of the law have not proven sufficiently elastic for those interested to avail themselves of the assistance granted, with the result that there is still in the fund over $600,000 which was placed there prior to 1919 as earmarked money. In addition to that there is available, under statute, the accumulation of $200,000 for each year since 1919, making a total of about $2,600,000 available to the board. So we are in this position: Under the provisions of the law as it has existed we have only succeeded in spending about $1,300,000 in eighteen years, whereas parliament has provided $3,800,000 during that period. The whole object of this amending legislation, with its increase in the maximum from $25,000 to $100,000 for an individual crossing and the other loosening provisions, if I might so term them, is to make it possible for the fund to be used more generally for the purpose for which it was assigned. I might point out further to my hon. friend that in respect of the annual appropriation by parliament, under the original legislation of 1909 the annual statutory contribution of $200,000 applied for ten years. In 1919 that statutory appropriation was renewed for a further ten years, which means that it will expire in 1929. I am not in this bill proposing any extension of that, in the hope that during the year which is coming we shall get experience of the working of these amendments and have thereby a better idea of what to propose to parliament with respect to future grants. I may say that I do not hope, as I explained last night, that the grade crossing fund in anything like the proporions financially which we contribute to it annually will eliminate the level crossing difficulty in Canada. We must recognize that every level crossing of a highway by a railway or vice versa is a place where a fatality is liable to occur sooner or later.

Railway Act Amendment


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many thousands
are there?


Charles Avery Dunning: Tens of thousands of
level crossings. I mentioned last night that in the United States some of the states are to-day spending up to hundreds of millions in protection and grade separation work, in cooperation with the railways; and it has been freely stated before the Interstate Commerce Commission that to apply rigidly the law as it exists in that country with respect to protection and grade separation would bankrupt the railways of the United States; that is to apply literally the true spirt of the law in forcing grade separation generally in every case. It has become an increasing problem, and of course the railways take the ground that the problem has assumed its more serious aspect largely on account of the development of another type of traffic which in fact competes with the railways and has the effect of reducing their revenues. For instance, my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Mc-Quarrie) suggested a minute ago that railway trains might slow up when approaching a crossing and make crossings more safe. But looking at the competition which is against them, it would mean that they would slow up in competition wth the trucks, making themselves more subject to competiton by backing down as it were in favour of their competitors.
I do not pretend for a moment that the amendments before the house will remedy anything; really the fund is intended as an inducement to those parties who are interested, municipalities, provinces and railways, to deal with the question, the inducement being a contribution from a fund provided by the federal treasury for the purpose. Up to the present, as I have said, it has not been made use of to the extent desired, and these provisions are introduced with the idea of creating a greater utility


Mr. FANSHER (East Lambton):: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear the minister say that he wishes this accumulated fund to be used, and that these amendments have been introduced to make it more available. To my mind however it has accumulated largely because of the action of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true.


William Russell Fansher: If they
had been a little more lenient in their rulings in regard to grade crossings, I think this fund would have been entirely used up and perhaps more would have been required. To my mind we may amend this present act, pass
these amendments which I think are all right, but we will still have a deterrent in the Board of Railway Commissioners and this fund will not be made available as it should be. I cited a case last evening of a crossing on a provincial highway in the province of Ontario, one of the most densely travelled roads in the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which was senior, the
railway or the highway?


William Russell Fansher: The highway was senior. There a grade crossing is still maintained, with a wigwag and a bell, whereas the local municipality really wanted a subway. I think it might not be out of the way for this house to take into consideration at some time that at least on our provincial highways we should have separated crossings, either subways or overhead bridges, especially on the main tourist roads and over the main lines of railways. Then something should be done to induce the Board of Railway Commissioners to be a little more lenient in their rulings in regard to these grade crossings; if that were brought about this fund would be used up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I confess I am not able
to understand why the application in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Lambton should not have been acceded to. When he says the highway was senior to the railway, it is even less capable of being explained. I fancy the minister is much in the same position as I am in respect to the reason for it. I only recall one case after this fund was first made available in which I heard an order made by the board that a portion of the cost of the separation of the grades should be borne out of this fund.
The whole effect of this act probably is to enable two or three communities to deal with a situation with which otherwise they could not deal; and in addition we have enabled the fund possibly between now and May, 1929, to be used to an extent that it has not been used. Knowing how earnest and zealous the hon. member for Lambton is for his constituency, I have no doubt that his municipality will make an early application to the board. I am sure that this house will be very interested in learning why the municipality controlling the highway, being senior, is not given relief. The real fact is that the lawyers for the railways have succeeded in inducing the board to believe that the present protection is adequate.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is about the story, on the facts, as we hear them in the house.
Railway Act Amendment


Peter McGibbon: May I ask the minister is this applicable to any crossing, or are there any restrictions?


Charles Avery Dunning: No restrictions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are no restrictions.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Chairman, I
must admit that in this bill the minister has gone pretty far, but he has not yet gone far enough to look after the wishes of the public. A too great economy will operate adversely to the public interest. It will not save one life in the Dominion of Canada. They have first a little bell, then a light, and then a light a hundred yards or so away from the crossing; and then the next thing will be that perhaps the light will be extended a hundred yards further; and that is all that will be done. As I said last night, there is only one solution of this problem, and that is to get away from the grade crossing; there is no way in this bill to secure the safety of the public. I quite admit that there are cases where the public are to blame; but there is the crossing and there is the danger light, and not only can a reckless driver risk his own life but, on the way, he picks up one or two innocent passengers who are very often sacrificed. The minister or somebody should go another step further and say that where more than one accident has happened grade separation must follow. On these highways they have had not only accidents once a year but once a month, and some drastic action should be taken.


Charles Avery Dunning: What drastic action?


Arthur Edward Ross: Force a bridge or an underground passageway.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Arthur Edward Ross: The minister must admit that I used the word "highway". I was not referring to these little feeders.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. I was referring to branch

line railways which are crossed by a main highway, where there is plenty of highway traffic but an infrequent train service. In fact railway men tell me that they are more subject to crossing accidents at a crossing on a railroad which is not very often used by trains than they are in cases where the trains are running with considerable regularity. The reason for that is that people become accustomed to speeding across such a crossing; they say: It is only a branch line; there i3 no train to-day or no train this week. That is how a great number of the accidents occur and the adoption of any fixed rule seems to be impossible. I am sure the Board of Railway Commissioners will take cognizance not only of this legislation but of the expressions of view by hon. members with respect to the spirit in which we desire this legislation to be administered. Much as I desire to lay down some fixed rule, I find some objection such as that which I have just mentioned, to every suggestion which comes forward along that line.


James Arthurs: I should like to suggest
to the minister that in addition to protecting the public against railways built since 1909, we should have a differential in favour of a municipality where a railway has a crossing which is obstructed either by nature or in some other way, and it is difficult for the public to have a view of the railway either to the right or to the left.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was also dealt with last night. Section 258 of the present act gives the railway commission the fullest possible power in relation to anything of any nature which obstructs the view.


James Arthurs: Only up to forty per
cent of the liability.


Charles Avery Dunning: The grade fund is not
usable with respect to the removal of obstructions of view. It is only available with respect to the construction of the actual work of protecting the crossing. But the board has very full and wide powers with respect to the removal of any obstruction to the view of a person approaching the crossing, no matter what the cause of the obstruction of view may be.


Robert King Anderson: Where a railway has not only its main track but sidings across a highway close to a town and a dangerous condition exists, is there legislation to compel the railway to provide protection at such places? In my town there are four crossings [DOT]within a mile and on every one of them a number of people have been killed.

Railway Act Amendment
Within the last five or six years at least eight people have been killed on those four crossings and yet nothing has been done either by the municipality or by the railway to protect the public.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no compulsion on anybody. The Railway Act provides the machinery through which anyone interested may take action, but it in no way compels any of the bodies concerned to act, that is by way of motion. There is, of course, machinery whereby the railway commission can compel the railway company to do such and such. As regards the initiation of the motion to bring about some protection, surely in a case such as that referred to by my hon. friend there must be sufficient people interested in the municipality concerned to ensure that the municipality would apply to the board for whatever protection they deemed necessary in the circumstances. If there is not that, I am afraid there is in the law nothing which would compel them so to do.


Robert King Anderson: On more than one occasion a conference has been had between the municipality and the railway company but there seems to be no provision by which any of these improvements can be enforced. Apparently it is entirely a question of two or three people who are interested coming to some agreement and as a consequence nothing has ever been done. I know on two occasions there have been conferences between the municipality of the town or the township and the railway, and yet nothing has come of them.


Charles Avery Dunning: While a friendly conference is of course always desirable preceding any attempt at litigation-and as a matter of fact an application to the board is litigation-there is provision in the law for bringing a matter of this kind to the attention of the board. Section 257 of the present Railway Act reads:
Where a railway is already constructed upon, along or across any highway, the board may of its own motion, or upon complaint or application, by or on behalf of the crown, or any municipal or other corporation, or any person aggrieved, order the company to submit to the board, within a specified time, a plan-
And so forth. There is the widest kind of provision for application to the commission. In fact under that section my hon. friend could himself make an application to the board with respect to those dangerous crossings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In fact the section that the minister has just read was inserted to meet the very situation to which the hon.
member for Halton has referred. It used to be that no one except the municipality and the railway might deal with these matters, and if my memory serves me aright the board when Mr. Justice Mabee was chairman, instructed their engineers, whenever reports of accidents came to them, to see what action should be taken. From that there was an extension of the power and it is not infrequently that members of parliament write to the board asking them to make an inspection and to see what action may be taken to protect human life at dangerous crossings. I know that because of my experience in another capacity something over ten year ago. The whole purpose for which this money was voted by parliament was to meet cases where municipalities and railways could not agree and where it would be too great a hardship to ask the municipality to do all the work. It was to cover the cost up to forty per cent so that in some cases the burden was only ten per cent on the municipality, fifty per cent on the railway and the remaining forty per cent was taken out of this fund.


Mr. CANTLEY:: In view of the fact that economy seems to control the application of the remedy to this level crossing problem, does the minister not think it advisable to make provision that a larger proportion of the cost be defrayed out of this fund?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what the bill
provides.


Thomas Cantley: What proportion?


Charles Avery Dunning: The provision in the existing law is forty per cent with a maximum of 125,000. The provision in this bill is forty per cent in cases where the work to be done costs less than 8100,000, and forty per cent with a limit of 8100.000 in all cases where the cost exceeds S100,000. It is a quadrupling of the possible contribution in the particular case.


Thomas Cantley: Would the minister consider, where the cost is less than $100,000, increasing the contribution from forty per cent to fifty, sixty, or seventy per cent? The fund is accumulating; we are not spending it, and people are being killed. My point is that we should get some action. At the rate we are going, it will be the middle of eternity before anything worth while is done.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can best answer my hon. friend by referring him to the leader of the opposition, who very wisely said, in his first remarks' upon this subject yesterday, that the objective of the grade crossing fund was not the giving of large sums by way of federal assistance to large works, but rather
Railway Act Amendment

the providing of works of protection of one kind or another in the great number of cases throughout the country that are outside the cities altogether. I am already increasing the limit, and if the percentage were to be increased, that would, of course, tend still further to segregate the expenditure out of this fund to the larger works in the larger centres, and I arrived at the conclusion to retain the forty per cent in its relation to $100,000 as it previously existed in relation to $25,000, as being a pretty substanial step forward which would result in the fund being used to a greater extent. I think my hon. friend might consent to allow this to be tried for one year, so that we may see to what, extent the fund will be depleted. I am reasonably sure that it will go down very rapidly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There will be no money left next year.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not after we apply the provisions of this legislation.


Thomas Cantley: What I had in mind was that the percentage might be greater than 40 per cent, say 50 or 70 per cent, in the case of works where the cost was comparatively small, not exceeding perhaps $25,000. I am not referring to crossings in town'., but out on the main highways.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 205, respecting the Departments of Health and Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee theron, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will recall
that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) and some of his associates who are absent from the city are greatly interested in the question of the name, and possibly the minister would not object if later on they might make their suggestions as to the name during the further progress of the bill through the house, and that it will not be taken that we have finally disposed of section 1. I have no desire to delay the legislation, but I should like to reserve that right for them.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Since the resolution was under discussion, it was decided to leave the question of the name until we came into committee, but I have since had consultations with various people who are interested in the title of the department. I am most anxious that all should be satisfied, but, of course, there may still be disagreement. I think, however, that the proposed title, "The Department of Pensions and National Health" will properly designate the activities of the department, and what I would suggest is that we pass this section, and then later on we can go back into committee or upon the third reading we can have a discussion of the title.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was all I wished
to direct the minister's attention to.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister spoke to me about this bill, but since then I have heard a little criticism that the proposed name of the new department, "Department of Pensions and National Health," might suggest that it was taking over the control of pensions and would interfere with the time-honoured custom of having the pensions branch independent. I do not think that is the minister's intention, but there is a little criticism and perhaps a little misinterpretation in that regard.


John Warwick King: I think that when we deal with the Pension Act that misconception will disappear. The pension commission will remain as they are at present, independent, but it is true that this department, in the course of its administrative work, will pay the cheques after the adjudication has been made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6, subsection 1, paragraph (b)- Selection and employment of staff.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the discretion with respect to employment, should all the positions mentioned be excluded from the operation of the Civil Service Act? The old act excluded employees that might be required from time to time. Now excluded we have:
Part time professional officers, or part or full time employees whose compensation is determined by rates payable for similar work in the locality in which such persons are employed.
Is it desirable to take these matters entirely out of the hands of the Civil Service Commission?

Pensions and National Health


John Warwick King: There are certain
employees in and about our hospitals-attendants, engineers, carpenters, dietitians-that would not be considered permanent but part time or full time employees. They would be paid the prevailing rate. Provision is made later in the bill to take care of those who become permanently attached.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite realize that, but
as subsection (b) reads, it provides:
for the selection and employment of such part time professional officers or part or full time employees whose compensation
may be paid. That certainly would look towards permanent positions. That is why I am directing attention to the amendment. I quite agree that if you hire a man for a day's work it is not a matter for the Civil Service Commission at all; but when it comes to full time employment, I see no reason why you should exclude the operations of the Civil Service Act.


John Warwick King: There are certain classes of employees that I do not think we wish to engage permanently. Take your attendants in the hospitals, their positions change very rapidly, as no doubt my hon. friend who has had experience knows. Then it is debatable whether your nursing staff should be made permanent; they change from time to time of their own will or from necessity. Those employed as carpenters, engineers or firemen would be considered part time employees, or what are known as prevailing rate employees. The same principle applies in other departments of government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; but this substitutes for the section printed on the opposite side of the bill something different in principle:
and the creation for this purpose of appropriate positions,
That puts in the hands of the minister the power to create a full time position and disregard the Civil Service Commission; whereas the section that is being repealed provides:
that the employees selected and employed under the authority of the said regulations shall, as far as practicable, be classified by the minister in accordance with the schedules of classes of positions set forth in the civil service classification, and shall be paid such rates of salary as are thereby described, and the said regulations shall, as regards salary increases, leave of absence, promotions and resignations, conform as nearly as practicable to the regulations made under the Civil Service Act, 1918.
The effect of the amendment is disastrous to the minister-not my hon. friend, but the minister who happens to be in charge of the department-because under subsection (c) he will be creating the appropriate positions and
making appointments without regard to the Civil Service Act; whereas working side by side with the people so appointed will be those selected under the Civil Service Act at rates of pay provided by the Civil Service Commission. That, I think, is exactly what we are endeavouring to prevent. Before the minister asks us to adopt subsection (e) I suggest that he consider whether we are not making a retrograde step in replacing the relevant subsection in the old act by this subsection, which introduces patronage in its most vicious form with respect to a matter which should not be dealt with in that way.


John Warwick King: That is hardly
the situation. As a matter of fact the positions under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment at the present time are outside the Civil Service Commission, and the appointments have been made by the governor-in-council on the advice of the minister. But we are preparing, through this legislation, to bring a portion at least of the service into permanency and under the Civil Service Commission. However, it has been felt that certain services are being rendered in the department with respect to which it would be very difficult to make permanent appointments; in fact it would not be good for the service. In the application of the present act the practices and usage of the Civil Service Commission have been followed by the department. Our classification is very much along the line of that of the Civil Service Commission, and the rates of pay are very much the same. This condition will continue under the new method. This is merely providing for a certain class which it would not seem wise to bring into the service permanently, and separate it from the class that eventually will be brought in permanently.


William Alves Boys: I desire to support what my hon. leader has just said. One of the subsections is as follows:
for the selection and employment of such part time professional officers, or part or full time employees,
If the words, " or full ", were not there I not think the section would be open to criticism. Let me read the passage with those words left out:
for the selection and employment of such part time professional officers or part time employees,
Worded that way there can be no doubt that it could not be suggested for a moment that any employee could be regarded as permanent; but the moment you introduce the words, "or full time", the employee could be appointed as permanent, although I
Pensions and National Health

am not assuming for a moment that the minister intends the section to bear this meaning. Therefore I would suggest that if he insert the word "temporary" before the word "employees" the situation might be met. May I read the subsection thus amended:
for the selection and employment of such part time professional officers, or part or full time temporary employees.
I think that would remove any thought that the minister, with the approval of the governor-in-council, is assuming the right to appoint permanent employees.


Mr. RALSTON:: If my hon. friend will
allow me to read the section as it was before, I think he will see that what is being done here is rather restrictive of the minister's power than an extension of it.


William Alves Boys: May I say to my hon. friend
that while we might interpret it now with the first draft before us, in the future nobody will be in that favourable position.


James Layton Ralston: Not the first draft, but
the act we are amending.


William Alves Boys: You do not have even that
before you after the consolidation of the statutes.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend misunderstands me. I am not using the previous act as a means of interpretation, but I am pointing out that the bill now before the house is more restrictive of the powers of the minister than is the previous act. My hon. friend quite properly pointed out that not only part time but full time employees are included in the present bill.


William Alves Boys: Who may be appointed by
the minister.


James Layton Ralston: Under regulations. This
is a section regarding regulations. Pull time employees are limited to thosewhose compensation is determined by the rates payable for similar work in the locality in which such persons are employed.
Under the old act there was no provision at all, as to either part time or full time; the minister had power to pass regulations authorizing the selection and employment of officers, clerks and employees. There were therefore both part and full time employees under one regulation. Now they are separated into part time employees and full time employees. I take it that the reference to employees whose compensation is determined by the rates payable for similar work in the locality in which such persons are employed is to more or less casual labourers, transients, mechanics and so forth. This bill limits the minister as compared with the existing act.


William Alves Boys: The minister suggests that this languagewhose compensation is determined by the rates payable for similar work in the locality in which such persons are employedwould indicate that they are not to be permanent. Is that the point?


James Layton Ralston: No.


William Alves Boys: Then I have missed the
point. I would say that when a full time employee is to be appointed this section merely indicates what he is to get; and having got it I suppose he continues to receive that compensation until perhaps he applies for an increase. If that is not the case then I have missed the point.


James Layton Ralston: The provision to which
my hon. friend refers, regarding part time and full time employees, is no wider than the act as it stands. The act which is being amended contains neither the adjective "part" nor the adjective "full" time; it uses simply the wrord "employees". This would permit the minister to employ persons either for an indefinite length of time or permanently. Full time employees under the present bill are only those whose compensation is determined by the rates payable for similar work in the locality in which such persons are employed.


Mr. STEVENS:: Will the minister read
the latter part of the old section, the first portion of which he has quoted.


James Layton Ralston: I am trying first to
answer my hon. friend (Mr. Boys). He suggests that the words "part time" and "full time" in some way or other extend the power of the minister. "Part time" and "full time", taken separately with this clause, limit rather than extend the power of the minister. But even if the language does not limit his power it goes no further than the present act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does.


William Alves Boys: If my hon. friend could convince a judge in that manner, I should be glad to have him as my advocate in the first civil case I had.


James Layton Ralston: I am sure I could convince my hon. friend.


William Alves Boys: The minister points out that
because of the existing act he does not think the bill we are about to pass has the effect and force we are contending for. Why therefore bother to discuss the present law? Let us take what the house is trying to pass and endeavour to construe it.

Pensions and National Health


James Layton Ralston: I thought that was what
my hon. friend was basing his argument upon. I thought he was arguing that the present bill extended the old act.


William Alves Boys: That may be the effect, but
that is not my argument. I am endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of the legislation offered this committee, and in a word my point is this: the moment you insert the words " or full time employees", giving the minister power to appoint any full time employee, such an employee might remain indefinitely and would therefore become permanent.


John Warwick King: If he were satisfactory.


William Alves Boys: But that is not what the minister intends, I am told. If that is so, why not put the matter beyond peradventure? If the minister can think of a better word I have no desire to press my suggestion. But if you say "or part or full time temporary employees" you exclude the thought of permanency, while at the same time the minister would have full power to appoint any employee, but only for temporary service.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister might well make an explanation when he is dealing with two branches which will come under him and one of which up to the present time has been under the Civil Service Act. How is he going to distinguish between these two? He may take over a clerk from the Department of Health, who is under the Civil Service Act; and he may get another clerk from the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, not under the act. In other words, the minister, in this bill is not making one change, except that he will have the appointment of every clerk and official who is under the Health Department. Notwithstanding the few words added in the section, he is going to have the appointment of every clerk and official in that department as well as in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. I cannot see where he has made any change.


John Warwick King: If my hon. friend will consult the bill he will find in the section with which we are dealing that the officers are under the department administering soldier affairs, while in part two he will find that the officers to be appointed in the health section are to be appointed under the Civil Service Act. I cannot see any objection to the word "temporary"-temporary employees-if it is considered necessary. Those I have in mind, and who were contemplated by the draughtsman, are part time .professional officers scattered throughout the country, probably medical men who give certain services to the returned men or pensioners, and who are receiving a partial or part time fee. I do not think anyone would suggest that these part time individuals should be considered permanent; they change from time to time. Then the full time employees-those whom my hon. friend designates full time "temporary" employees- are the class of men who work around the institutions, particularly in connection with hospitals, such as cooks, assistant cooks, ward attendants and so forth. It would not be wise to place them in the permanent class. It is not for me to say whether the term "full time temporary employees" is suitable or not. Personally I can see no great objection to it.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend seems to agree with the idea I have expressed, and his only fear is that the word I have suggested may not be the best. If he can suggest anything wrong with it, I will not press it, although it seems to me to meet the situation.


Mr. BRADY:: In the minister's interpretation of the words "full time," has he really the idea that these are permanent employees? Is the word "permanent" applicable to full time? Would it not be better to designate the class whom he wishes to have looked after under the term "full time"? The expressions "full time" and "permanency" are not by any means synonymous. There is a great difference between them.


James Layton Ralston: I was just discussing this with the minister, and he tells me that the Department of Justice drew the bill and have gone over it with a great deal of care. As I have tried to point out to the committee, I am sure it does not extend the power of the minister beyond what it is now, and in fact with all due deference to my hon. friend I am sure that power is limited. That being so, it is not thought advisable to insert some word or some adjective without consulting the Department of Justice.


William Alves Boys: If it were not for what has already happened I might be impressed by the suggestion that this draft has passed the scrutiny of certain officers of the Department of Justice, but not long ago a bill was introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in which the same situation arose. That bill also had passed the scrutiny of departmental officials, but an amendment was suggested which may have been adopted; if it has not been accepted I think it will be, and it is possible that in the scrutiny of this
Pensions and National Health

bill this point has not been considered by the officers of the department. It does not make much difference to me; my purpose is simply this: I do not believe the minister should have the power which he receives under this section, and to be fair to him he does not pretend to seek such power. All I want to do is to have it put beyond question, and it s'eems to me that what I am suggesting would achieve that end. However, why not let this subsection stand and if there is any objection to the wrnrd I would be glad to hear it.


John Warwick King: Very well; I would suggest that we let subsection (b) stand and proceed with the bill.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: In the meantime would the minister make it more clear just what change is taking place in this act through these amendments with respect to the control by the minister or by the governor in council over the appointment of the personnel of this department? As I understand it, because of the alleged temporary nature of the department, under the old legislation every single member of the personnel was excluded from the operations of the Civil Service Act. I would like the minister to tell us what change he is making and whom he is bringing under the operations of the Civil Service Act now.


John Warwick King: We are of the opinion that the time has arrived when this department should be amalgamated with the Department of Health, and following that amalgamation and re-organization in the course of a little time we should be able definitely to define those positions which we consider as necessary to carry on the functions of the department, and which should be considered as permanent at least during the lifetime of this generation. This class of which we are speaking never will be considered permanent, but during the summer the executive officers, some of the clerical staff and others of the professional staff will be classified, and next May they will become permanent. During the interval there will be a selection of those who are to become permanent, because section 16 provides that in May, 1929, the Civil Service Act, which has been held in abeyance, will function.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where does that appear?


John Warwick King: In section 16 on page 7. I would suggest that we pass from subsection (b) to the next subsection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And subsection (b) will stand?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: In defining the
outside service, does the minister mean that all the present outside service, or at least those connected with the hospitals, will be what are called full time temporary employees? The minister mentioned carpenters and plumbers who might be working around the hospital, and also referred to dieticians. I imagine that a dietician would be considered permanent, whereas a carpenter or plumber would be needed only from time to time. There is no such thing in a hospital as a full time carpenter, but a dietician is an important member of a hospital staff.


John Warwick King: A dietician would be a full time professional officer.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to
make it quite clear to the minister that in allowing this subsection to stand at this stage, before the debate has been concluded, he may be making a mistake. I do not object to the subsection standing, but there is a good deal more information which we might secure and there may be a good deal of criticism to be offered, which might help the minister in making what alterations he may have in mind. We do not want to be prejudiced in any way; we would not want anyone to say that we allowed this subsection to stand without criticism.


John Warwick King: We will allow it to stand until we are in committee again.
Paragraph (b) stands.
Paragraph (c), (d) and (e) agreed to.
Paragraph (f): Reciprocal and other arrangements with other governments.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think this subsection was before the special committee, and it was inserted in the bill subject to any recommendations or amendments which might be proposed by that committee.


John Warwick King: I believe that is right.
Subsection (f) agreed to.
On section 6. subsection 1, paragraph (g)- Sheltered emploj^ment of ex-members of forces, etc.


Arthur Edward Ross: Just a moment,
Mr. Chairman. Under this act, are you going to take the responsibility for the burying of those in destitute circumstances?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. GARDINER:: Of course there is the
Last Post fund.

Pensions and National Health


John Warwick King: They are most
interested in the non-pensioned soldier who may die. * The pensioner will have burial under the provisions which exist. The Last Post fund is an outside organization which is supported by a grant from the government from time to time.


Robert Gardiner: It might come under
this, if you do not mention the pensioner.


John Warwick King: It might.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the minister in respect to clause (g), will that not apply to persons who are in destitute circumstances and yet require medical attention?


John Warwick King: I do not think
the section definitely provides for employment for ex-service men who are not pensioners.


Robert Gardiner: No, medical attention.


John Warwick King: No, it does not.
They are supposed to be pensioners. The only treatment provided there was:
The treatment of former members of the forces classified as wholly incurable or chronically recurrent cases needing institutional care; for the provision of measures of unemployment relief to ex-members of the forces and their dependents, and for the payment of compensation in respect of industrial accidents; the whole subject to such appropriations as parliament may provide.
Treatment to-day in our institutions is confined really to those who are pensioners. It is true that by regulations the governor in council can extend and give treatment to those who are indigent and require such treatment. We did that in regard to a certain class last summer, and those orders were placed upon the table. We found throughout Canada a number of cases of exservice men who had contracted certain diseases overseas, who were totally disabled and in poor circumstances, and provision was made for that class last year. But generally speaking a man to be entitled to treatment in our hospitals must have been considered by the pension board eligible for pension, and therefore eligible for treatment.


James Charles Brady: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that we have many cases in Canada in which returned men require hospital treatment; where it cannot be claimed that their trouble is attributable to war service. I would like to see the minister at this session of parliament make some provision for that class. I quite understand that you must be very
careful in dealing with such cases, but I know many to which such consideration should be given irrespective of the fact that their condition is not attributable to war service. In my opinion this country should give them medical treatment.


John Warwick King: I believe extensive recommendations have been given to the committee which is dealing with soldier affairs. I think the soldier body has gone into that very thoroughly. At any rate, the governor in council has power to make provision for medical treatment.


James Charles Brady: I would like to draw the attention of the minister to quite a large number of cases of returned soldiers who allowed a period of years to pass by, after they returned from the front, without bothering any of the pension boards. Now we find that often for five or six years there is no medical history whatsoever for these unfortunate people; and the result is that when their cases are brought up for consideration they can get no relief. I think that in this bill we should consider carefully those men who, after their return, had courage and grit enough, not to worry the pension board but to go right into work. After five or six years they are broken down, and their cases are really often worse than those presented to the pension board. When these cases come before the board, as many will, I would like the minister, to see that they receive such consideration as will result in relief being given. On that point I would like to draw the attention of the minister to this. It is a pity that a great number of the returned soldiers, ignorant of the methods of obtaining relief, have to come to the ordinary member of parliament, who is placed under great difficulties in obtaining the knowledge necessary to present to the board of pension commissioners the cases of these men; and I think, sir, in the department that has to do with returned soldiers there should be some particular person set apart, whose duty it should be to go to the aid of these men, and thus save them trouble, anxiety and loss.


John Warwick King: In reply to my
hon. friend, it is true that many of the returned men are experiencing difficulties on account of their medical file or sheet not showing that they had had treatment over a period of years. It requires very considerable investigation to secure that evidence but it is necessary that some evidence be obtained. I know from the work of the pension board that inquiries of that character are going on from day to day, and in order to assist the soldier in his inquiries and in preparing his case,


James Charles Brady: How many advisers are
there in British Columbia?


John Warwick King: There is one in
Vancouver city covering the mainland of the province of British Columbia and one in Victoria covering Vancouver island. There is one in Ai'berta, one in Saskatchewan, one in Manitoba, two or three in Ontario, two in Quebec, one in New Brunswick, one in Nova Scotia, and one in Prince Edward Island.


James Charles Brady: As this is such an important matter and northern and central British Columbia comprise such an immense area, would it not be advisable to have an adviser for that portion of the province situated at some central point such as Prince Rupert or Smithers? The soldiers have so much land in the north country that they would have to come hundreds of miles to a central point and these unfortunate people do not know how to get in touch with the advisers.


John Warwick King: Where the work
is accumulating and not being dealt with rapidly, we may increase the number or appoint men temporarily to relieve the situation. There is something in what the hon. member says with regard to the western provinces. The distances are great; the men are spread throughout the community, and it takes time to deal with the different cases. Although we have an excellent man in Manitoba, he has found his work has got behind arid it has been necessary for the department to give assistance to bring his work up to date.


John Evans: Somehow the system is not
very effective after all, and I think it is three years ago now since I brought this matter to the attention of the minister. I know of cases that, we are all satisfied, are due

to war experience, where men have not yet been able to get on the pension list. In my constituency there was one one man who was suffering when he returned, but although I brought his case repeatedly before the minister and the pension board and although he is totally disabled, he is unable to get any relief from the board. The last I knew of him was that he was in a hospital in Winnipeg. Who is paying the hospital authorities I do not know. That is only one case and there are others.	I have always
taken the ground in this house that as regards anyone who has seen active service at the front and who has been disabled, this country is under obligation to provide and care for him when he is in want. I think the act should be made a little more elastic so as to cover these cases and so that the benefit of the doubt will all be given to the returned soldier. These men are suffering daily, feeling that they are humiliated by receiving charity.


John Warwick King: The matters
referred to by my hon. friend would more properly come under the Pension Act which is now being reviewed by a special committee of the house. That committee has heard evidence and expressions of opinion similar to that expressed by my hon. friend, and no doubt it will give careful consideration to such representations.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If I recall aright,
there was brought to our attention in one of the committees this morning the case of a man who is not able to establish clearly that his impairment of health was directly due to war service. He is being assisted during the winter months for a short time, but after that he is thrown on public charity and the city of Winnipeg has to maintain him. In cases of that kind I think the least we can do for a man who has served at the front is to see he is taken care of. In this particular instance he is perhaps a little below the average mental standard so that there is all the more need for some care to be exercised during the whole of the year. Again I would plead that the regulations should be broadened out to take care of this class of case.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I believe the question was already asked by an hon. member on this side in regard to provision being made for the burial of a deceased returned man, but I did not catch the answer. Is there any such provision in this bill or any other to take care of the burial expenses of a returned man who is in destitute circumstances?

Pensions and National Health


John Warwick King: Paragraph (g) of clause 6 in the thirty-seventh line reads:
For providing burial expenses for ex-members of the forces who die in destitute circumstances.
That covers the case.


Arthur Edward Ross: I understood the minister to say that that referred to those who are pensioned. Does that cover every case of destitution, because if it does it leaves the minister and the department open to many requests and there is no use for the last post fund?


James Layton Ralston: The clause is one providing for regulations which may cover these cases.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Is this the first provision that has been made for such cases or has there been heretofore any such provision?


James Layton Ralston: It is the same section.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I know of a case that happened within a few miles of my town of a returned man who had taken up land under the soldier settlement board and who had a good prospective crop on the quarter-section but who before the crop was harvested, took ill and died. He had no money in hand or in sight except what would be realized from the crop and the people of the community had to go around and raise funds to cover his burial expenses. I was asked some time ago to ascertain whether there was provision in the act to take care of such cases.


John Warwick King: This clause will empower the government to make provision for every ex-service man in destitute circumstances. The policy of the government to date has been to bury those who die of pensionable disabilities providing it is necessary to do so. In addition to that we have been supporting what is known as the Last Post fund. That is an organization throughout Canada which has been doing excellent work by providing funds for burial expenses in the locality where the death may occur. We have been supporting that organization by a grant to the executive and in addition last year by supplementing their expenditures where they failed to secure sufficient funds for the work which they were doing.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I also remind the hon. member that he has the word of . the Prime Minister that he would like to know of any such case that was unprovided for under the Last Post fund?


John Warwick King: That is true.


Mr. ESLING:: In the event of the death of an ex-service man in destitute circumstances, to whom is application made for burial expenses?


John Warwick King: Ordinarily it would be through the local branch of the Last Post fund in the various provinces.


William Kemble Esling: Would that necessarily be to the headquarters at Vancouver?


John Warwick King: It would come from the local branch to the provincial headquarters, and from there to the central organization. There would be no difficulty; it is working very well.


William Kemble Esling: Does the soldiers' adviser make periodical trips throughout the province or must all communications be addressed to him at Vancouver?


John Warwick King: Usually I think the communications have been sent in to his residence, but if it is found that there is a large number of claims outstanding in any one district, and a request is' made that the adviser should go in there, and the department think it advisable even though it is a considerable distance from his home, if the service to be rendered justifies it, he would be sent in there and his expenses paid. But I do not think the soldiers' adviser has been travelling very far from his centre.


William Kemble Esling: I am sure he has not.
British Columbia is a pretty vast territory, and does not the minister think it advisable to suggest that the soldiers' adviser make periodical trips to the various branches of the legion, where he could receive complaints and applications? I say that because I have no less than one dozen different matters which have been brought to my attention from returned men, and I have been in correspondence with the service bureau here, and I must say that I have had excellent service, but it does occur to me that if the soldiers' adviser would go into the interior of the province of British Columbia, he could get into closer touch with the men and ascertain from the applicants just what the basis of their claims was.


John Warwick King: If it is found that there is a large number of applications from, say, the Kootenay district, Rossland, Nelson, Trail, and so on, there would be no difficulty in arranging to have the soldiers' adviser make the trip in there. The whole service is guided by the number of applications that have to be considered by the pension board or by the appeal board, and if it was shown that there was a large number of applicants
Pensions and National Health

in the Kootenay district, for instance, who could conveniently be seen by the adviser going in there, I do not see any objection to that; in fact, I would be quite anxious that he should do so.


William Kemble Esling: The members from British Columbia must have received numerous communications from returned men throughout the province, from scattered districts, and it would seem to me very desirable that the adviser should visit the different districts. There are many of the men who do not know that there is such an adviser.


Robert Gardiner: What is the minister's interpretation of the following paragraph in paragraph (g) of section 6:
for the treatment of former members of the forces classified as wholly incurable or chronically recurrent cases needing institutional care.
How broad is that?


James Layton Ralston: I noticed that myself.
The first part of the paragraph provides generally for the treatment of everybody, and these words seem to refer particularly to those who need institutional care, those whose disease is wholly incurable or chronically recurrent. But if my hon. friend will look at section 5, he will see that it gives the minister power in reference to any matters assigned to him relating in any way to the care, treatment or reestablishment in civil life of all persons-my hon. friend will note that it says, "of all"-who since the first day of August, 1914, served in the naval, military or air forces. Then section 6 (a) provides for the control and management of any hospital, workshop, home, school, or other institution, owned, acquired, or used by His Majesty for the training, care or treatment of any person at all, not simply those mentioned in paragraph (g).


Archibald M. Carmichael: Section 6 simply
states that, subject to the approval of the governor in council, the minister may make such regulations as he may deem necessary and advisable. Then paragraph (g) provides:
For providing burial expenses for ex-mejnbers of the force who die in destitute circumstances.
But there is no provision in the act to take care of such cases as I mentioned. The minister may make provision for taking care of them, but I would like to have something definite from the minister whether he thinks provision should be made for such cases, and to what extent such provision should be made.


John Warwick King: I have stated the practice that is being followed at the present time in regard to these cases. There have

been representations made recently to the committee that is now sitting on soldier questions, but whether they will make further recommendations or not, I am not sure. With regard to the case my hon. friend speaks of, I expect that the soldier settler was not a pensioner, because I think that the men selected to go on the land were selected on account of their physical fitness and because it was thought they would best succeed as farmers. So I do not think that he would be a pensioner, and under those circumstances the case would probably be met by the Last Post fund, to which the government subscribes and which it supplements.


Archibald M. Carmichael: No. In the case I
mentioned the man was not a pensioner, I believe. He had purchased land from the soldier settlement board and had a good prospective crop, but it was still standing, and the soldier settlement board commandeered all the crop, and all the machinery, and all the movable assets that this settler had. There was nothing whatsoever left to pay his funeral expenses, and the undertaker would not undertake the funeral expenses until they were guaranteed to him, and the expenses had to be raised by public subscription in that community. It appears to me that that is a disgraceful situation, and if our statutes are so framed that an ex-service man cannot have a decent burial, there is certainly something wrong with the statutes. I would like to emphasize to the minister the need of having something definite and specific to take care of such cases.


William Garland McQuarrie: May I inquire of the
minister whether the services of the soldiers' adviser at Vancouver, for instance, would be available to soldiers who bring appeals from the revaluation of their land. That is a question which is causing a good deal of uneasiness in British Columbia. I understand that there will be quite a large number of these appeals, because the soldier settlers are not satisfied as a general thing with the decisions which have been given lately. Now, for the ordinary man to appeal to the exchequer court presents many difficulties, and a great many of these men are not in a position to pay for legal expenses. Neither are they capable of paying their expenses to Ottawa to appear before the exchequer court. If hearings could be held in an informal manner near their places of residence, returned men might conduct their cases in person. It seems to me advisable that they should have the privilege of using the soldiers' adviser to help

Pensions and National Health
them on the appeal. I think this adviser would do his best for them, although he is retained by the department.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will
permit me, the soldiers' advisers, as my colleague has said, are appointed on the recommendation of the soldiers' organizations; they are really the servants of the soldiers.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am glad to hear
that. The minister probably knows how many appeals there will be, although this matter does not come in his department. I have had correspondence with the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) on the subject. He has been kind enough to answer certain questions which I put to him from the secretary of one of the returned men's organizations in Langley municipality. But the fact remains that at present there does not seem to be any provision at all to take care of these returned men whe appeal from decisions in reference to the valuation of their land. At the risk of repeating myself, I suggest that the minister and his colleagues should take into consideration the advisability of allowing these men to have the advantage of the services of the soldiers' adviser.


William Kemble Esling: Will not the minister consider having the soldiers' adviser make these trips? May I ask the name of the gentleman?


John Warwick King: I shall be glad
to make inquiries and consider the advisability of the soldiers' adviser making trips into the interior. The name of the adviser on the mainland is Captain Ian Mackenzie. My hon. friend speaks of the utilization of the soldiers' adviser to assist the soldier settler in his claim. That is a new phase. Heretofore the soldiers' advisers have been appointed to advise and assist ex-members of the force in matters pertaining to their re-establishment, care and treatment and pensions. His suggestion may be worthy of consideration.


William Garland McQuarrie: That would come within his jurisdiction, it seems to me.


John Warwick King: It may be.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think it is unfortunate that this discussion should be taking place while the special committee is sitting. As to care and treatment, I do not think the minister can assure the member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) that that includes everybody, notwithstanding what the Minister of National Defence has said, because the clause he took up deals with the matters which shall be referred to him, and he knows that up to the 56103-156
present time the care and treatment of those not pensionable does not come under him. It seems to me that the settlers' case which has been mentioned should not be allowed to drop. When the time comes the hon. member should take it up with the minister in charge of the soldier settlement board and insist that they look after the burial in such cases. They took every cent that he had saved during the war and invested it in his farm; in fact, they cleaned him out. The hon. member should insist that from this day forward the soldier settlement board see to it that no ex-service man doing settlement duty, in the unfortunate event of death, be neglected and his burial left to the charity of other people.


Mr. FORKE:: I did intend to ask the member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) for a little more information in regard to the case he brought to our notice. On the facts as presented by him it is a deplorable case. Did the man die on his farm, or had everything been sold before his death?


Archibald M. Carmichael: The settler to whom I referred enlisted with the first contingent, served throughout the war, and came back unwounded and unpensionable. He bought a quarter-section of land under the soldier settlement board, put nearly the whole of it under cultivation, and had a good prospective crop; but he took sick and died, I think in July or August, before the crop was harvested. I believe he did owe some dues to the settlement board because of the bad times. They took possession of his stock, crop, machinery and everything he had, as well as the land. The poor fellow left no money behind and was buried by some charitable persons.


Robert Forke: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that this should not have happened. And it would not have happened had I received any information in regard to the matter. My instructions to all the staff of the soldier settlement board, from the superintendent down to the supervisors, are that the soldier shall have the best treatment we can give him, that whenever doubt exists he is to be given the benefit of the doubt, and that if there is any possibility of his being able to make good ten years from now he shall not lose his farm. I think that satisfied soldier settlers five or ten years from now are of much greater value to the country than any monetary collection that can be made at the present time. I will make inquiries into this particular case and find out just what has happened. Somebody will get into trouble over it.



Pensions and National Health


Archibald M. Carmichael: In fairness to the
minister, I must state that this case happened before he took charge of the department. I am not charging him with any dereliction of duty whatever.


Robert Forke: But it might happen, and I know nothing of it.
Subsection (1) of section 6 agreed to.
On subsection (2)-Regulations to be laid before parliament.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I am not familiar with the facts of the case presented by the hon. member for Kindersley, but I do not think he is contending that had the officials of the soldier settlement board been appealed to they would have refused to advance the funeral expenses. I think his contention is that under the bill we are discussing somebody should be in a position to put up the necessary money at such a time.


James Charles Brady: In paragraph (g), subsection 1 of section 6, there is a very important provision, that the minister may make regulations for the provision of measures of unemployment relief to ex-members of the forces and their dependants. Considering the many cases that are arising, and that exist at the present time, of unemployment among returned soldiers, I should like to know exactly what will be the measures of unemployment relief. Will these men be given jobs through the provincial governments, or will the relief be given in terms of financial aid, and for what period? This is a rather broad provision; it is a far-reaching statement covering a great extent of unemployment; because many returned soldiers to-day are badly in need of relief. One case came to my notice the other day of a returned man who has been incapaciated and is unfit to work. He has six children and his wife is supporting them and him as well. He cannot get employment; his case is chronic. I desire to know what may be expected when cases of this character are presented for relief.


John Warwick King: In the larger
centres where the provincial government maintains labour bureaus with a view to assisting the labourer in securing employment, the Dominion Labour department have what is known as the handicap section where the returned soldier who is handicapped by disability or disease may make application. It is the duty of these officers to try to locate the individual in some industry in that vicinity. That work is going on throughout Canada. In addition to that we have what is known as sheltered unemployment in our

vetcraft shops. This is limited employment. At the present time between 245 and 250 men, considered ordinarily as unemployable in the labour market, are provided for in this *way. We have had also in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver committees who have been carrying on similar work, endeavouring through their individual efforts or jointly to induce employers of labour to provide employment for those who are disabled among the returned soldiers. Again, the government is assisting industrialists to employ the partly disabled soldier, and has for some time now been providing for the payment of compensation in connection with industrial accidents. That is to say, we arrange with the various compensation boards to provide for the insurance and payment necessary to carry these men under the boards, relieving the manufacturer in this respect. The government has carried on this activity in all the provinces, the expenditure last year having been i>75,000. This has made it possible for many men to secure employment in the various industries, inasmuch as we have been absorbing that cost.


Robert Gardiner: The Minister of National Defence drew my attention to section 5. I would ask him whether he thinks that in this particular section there will be sufficient power to take care of the cases I have already mentioned. I am keenly interested in the matter, and I desire some definite information as to whether these people will secure adequate treatment.


John Warwick King: I would rather
wait for the recommendation which will be brought down by those who have been investigating the matter. I know they have had it under discussion and I should prefer to wait for that recommendation rather than state anything at the present time. Later on there will be an opportunity to discuss this phase of the problem. The section permits our making regulations in the matter, but I have no doubt we shall receive recommendations from the committee who have been dealing with soldier affaifc.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the minister
mean that he wants this bill passed and that when the recommendations come from the special committee on' pensions he will then answer the hon. member's question?


John Warwick King: I shall be in a
better position then to answer it.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is sufficient to
say at the moment that there can be no such care or treatment as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) indicates.

Pensions and National Health


John Warwick King: That is true.


Arthur Edward Ross: And cannot be.


John Warwick King: It can be done by regulation.


Arthur Edward Ross: But there are no
regulations by which it can be done. I will ask the minister to allow paragraphs (g) and (b) to stand over in order that hon. members who are attending the special committee-I admit I ought to be there myself- may be given an opportunity to discuss them.


John Warwick King: Is there any
objection to passing the section?


Arthur Edward Ross: There are at
present in attendance at the special committee, which has been sitting since four o'clock, a number of members who are interested in this bill.


John Warwick King: You want paragraph (g) to stand?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes, and (b) as
well.


John Warwick King: In that case we
will withhold paragraphs (g) and (b) and proceed to the next section.
Section stands.
On section 7-Official soldiers' adviser.


Arthur Edward Ross: No doubt a suggestion will come from the special committee in this regard, but I think the minister should extend the application of this section. In some cases the official adviser is a lawyer, while in others he is not. I might refer to Mr. Askwith, the official adviser for Ontario, who has done good work. He is handicapped-


James Layton Ralston: Is he a lawyer?


Arthur Edward Ross: No. He is handicapped in this way: seventy-five or ninety per cent of his cases are purely medical, and he has a decision of one group of medical men on the pension board giving their opinion. You have also a second group representing the federal board. Unless he goes outside and secures someone to act gratuitously, he has nobody to advise him. I submit that he should be permitted to bring in a medical officer to assist him when these cases are heal'd before the federal appeal board.


James Layton Ralston: It would seem to prove
that he should be a doctor instead of a lawyer.
56103-156i


Arthur Edward Ross: Legally he is in
a good way to present his case, but when the case comes up against a medical decision he needs medical advice.


James Charles Brady: The adviser may not be a doctor; in fact perhaps it would be advisable if he were not. In investigating a case would he have the privilege of taking that man to a doctor, after securing his story and personal history, so that all the facts in connection with that ex-soldier would be complete?


John Warwick King: That would depend upon the history of the individual. If a man came in off the street who had had no sickness or disability ovenseas, that case would be treated in a different manner. Supposing a man walked into the office of the soldiers' adviser and asked for a pension; the adviser would ask why he wanted a pension and the man might say he was not feeling well. The adviser would inquire whether he had an injury, sickness or disease overseas; if the answer was in the negative that man would be required to present some history to indicate that he had had some illness or injury following his service, and that he had been treated at some point by a physician for the trouble of which he complained. If he could get a certificate from an outside physician setting forth certain conditions from which he was suffering which would indicate that his disability was due to overseas service, that would be a fair case to be taken up with the pension commissioners by the soldiers' adviser. Once it was decided that this man had a good case, the necessary observation and examination would be given as a matter of course.


James Charles Brady: And if a medical examination were held would that be free?


John Warwick King: It would be made by the officers of the department.


William Kemble Esling: Did not the minister say a moment ago that the soldiers' adviser was nominated by the soldiers themselves?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Kemble Esling: And following that nomination you appoint him? In this act it is provided only that the minister shall appoint him.


John Warwick King: In the event of a vacancy in a certain area the practice followed is to have the soldier organizations, through their executives, recommend at least four or five persons whom they consider competent, and from those persons recommended one is selected by the minister and recommended to council.

Pensions and, National Health


James Charles Brady: I regret to prolong this discussion, but I should Mke to make one other point. I believe it is essential that these advisers 'be appointed, but at the same time I know there are terrific fights going on at present throughout Canada for every paltry post office job; applicants are pulling each other to pieces, so when the minister considers these four or five recommendations which may be presented to him I hope the mere fact of his being a Liberal will not be considered as the major qualification.


John Warwick King: The welfare of the soldiers is the thing we keep in mind.


William Kemble Esling: Does not the minister think it would be in the best interests of all returned men if these soldiers' advisers had no other duties? If the adviser is to be appointed by the minister to look after the needs of all returned men in his district, would it not be better to pay him a salary for that purpose, and to make sure that he does nothing else? If a lawyer or a doctor is appointed he will be disposed to look after his own practice and to give as 'little attention as possible to the returned men, because he will receive his salary from the government anyway. I think it would be well to appoint these advisers solely for the purpose of going through their districts and ascertaining just what are the requirements of the returned men in the various localities.
One of the greatest needs of the returned men to-day is someone to advise them what to do in this, that or the other case. , Just before coming here I learned of a returned man who made application for a revaluation of his land. He said he received a questionnaire which was so intricate that he could not possibly fill it out, and as a result he simply threw it aside and abandoned all idea of trying to secure a revaluation. I contend that a soldier's adviser should be appointed for the purpose of keeping ex-service men posted on matters of this kind, and also to help them in any way they may desire.


Mr. KENNEDY:: I understood the minister to say in answer to the hon. member for Acadia that a certain section would depend for its interpretation upon the recommendations of the pension committee. Is it the intention to amend this act after the report of that committee is presented to the house?


John Warwick King: No.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Then how can we deal
with the matter intelligently if we pass the act now?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid my hon.
friend misunderstood something I said. This is an enabling section conferring upon the department and the minister power to do certain things. The only way in which the recommendations of the committee would affect the section referred to would be to indicate the action which should be taken under the powers conferred by this act. I think we are all satisfied that the act is wide enough.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-Appointment, classification and salaries of staff.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to call the attention of the minister to a point in this section which is a bit obscure to me. He may be able to enlighten me, but at the moment it does not appear to me to be correct. I refer to that portion of the section included in lines 25, 26 and 27, which provides for the carrying of the members of the staff of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment into the new orientation of the two departments. The closing two lines of the first paragraph are:
-and shall thereafter become subject in all respects to the Civil Service Act.
But in the clause preceding those two lines are words to this effect:
-be thereby appointed to the Department of Pensions and National Health at the salaries and in the classification fixed under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act,
In other words, while you are carrying this staff forward into the new department and placing them under the Civil Service Act, you are fixing their classification and salaries as under the old act, thus putting them more or less into conflict with the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Commission system. Would it not be fairer, and in order to avoid complaints in the future would it not be more desirable to say that you carry them into the new department and place them under the Civil Service Act both as regards salary and classification? It might be thought advisable in some individual case, but in the main it is an unwise principle to introduce into the civil service a department the salaries and classifications of which are different from those in other departments. That is really what you are doing; you are perpetuating a difference. Wherever you interfere with the general system of the civil service you introduce more or less confusion and make it more difficult for the Civil Service Commission to discharge

Criminal Code Amendment
its already complicated and difficult duties. I suggest to the minister that those words could be deleted without destroying the effect of the section. There would then be no violation of the principle of the civil service.


James Layton Ralston: I think you ought to
preserve the salaries. Probably the classification might be made to conform.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister has
no doubt given a great deal of study to this abstract principle. I ask him, is it not desirable that we should seek to bring about in the civil service a condition under which those giving like service shall receive the same salaries? Here we have a department which was outside of the civil service, and some of its officers, undoubtedly are on a different scale as to salary from others doing similar work in other departments. My idea is, as far as possible, to bring them into conformity and uniformity as far as the Civil Service Act is concerned.


John Warwick King: I think that is
really the object of those who drafted this act and made their representations to the Justice department. The practice in the department has been to have the grading of position and salary follow very closely that of the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Commission. In fact that has been one of the grievances of the officers in the department, that they were classified in grade and in salary as civil servants but did not enjoy the other benefits that accrue to civil servants. I understand my hon. friend means that to tak(? these varied classes, which probably might be out of line with the present civil service, and bring them in by order in council might upset and disjoint the service and result in unfairness. But my understanding is that there is no such danger, that the classification has been along the line of the civil service requirements, and that salaries have been paid somewhat along that line. We are leaving over subsections (b) and (g) of section 6, and it is understood that we will be going into committee again the first of the week. The members interested will not be here to-night?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I think not.


John Warwick King: Those hon. members who are now attending the committee will probably be here this evening, and I suggest that section 14 stand for the present.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister
should let it stand over until next week. I understand they are working on the preparation of their report, and undoubtedly much of what we have been discussing this afternoon will be there dealt with. It would be better to defer the matter until the report is brought in.
Section stands.
Section 15 agreed to.
On section 16-Chap. 90 and chap. 187 of R.S., 1927 repealgd.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Section 16 repeals the
Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment A ,t, which is quite proper and necessary in order to make it harmonize with this act. But it has an exception:
Except paragraph (b) of subsection two of section five thereof which shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of May, 1929,
Can the minister tell me just what is the effect of that?


John Warwick King: It means that the officers and employees will until the thirty-first of May, 1929, have the same relationship to the department that they now hold. By that time it is anticipated that the organization will be complete and we shall be able to designate definitely those officers who will come in and be part of the civil service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Kemble Esling: What is the salary of the
present soldier advisers?


John Warwick King: In Toronto I believe we are paying $3,600 a year, and I think the same in Winnipeg. In Vancouver we are paying $1,800, and in Victoria the same. It varies according to the work and the locality.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think you are wrong
about Vancouver; I think the soldiers' adviser there is getting $3,600.


John Warwick King: A year ago it was $1,800.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 191, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Lapointe- Mr. Marcil in the chair.
Henry Herbert Stevens: It is almost six o'clock. We cannot very well deal with this now.


Mir. LAPOINTE:: The bill has already been in committee and a full discussion has taken place on it.
Criminal Code Amendment


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was not present on that occasion. Frankly I am not in a position to say whether or not my honoured leader has anything more to say on this bill. I know that he has been very much interested in it.


Ernest Lapointe: When the bill was in committee on Monday last, the leader of the opposition during the afternoon asked me to wait until the evening because some hon. members opposite who wanted to speak were not present. During the evening those hon. members were present and took part in the discussion. The hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. W'oodsworth) was speaking when eleven o'clock came. I think the subject has been fully debated; the bill has already passed the house five times, and this is the sixth occasion of its introduction.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Passed always after very bitter opposition.


Ernest Lapointe: It went through without opposition last year, to meet afterwards the same fate in the senate that it had met in previous years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am a little weary of debating this matter from year to year, but I have not changed my views. I stated on previous occasions that personally I would be quite willing to see some portions of the act repealed, but that there were some por-, tions which should not be repealed. I have taken that ^tand on each occasion the bill has been before the house and I see no reason for changing my opinion. Naturally I do not wish to go over the debate annually, but I should not like the impression to go out, from what the minister has just said, that the house has passed this bill year after year agreeing to the principle. It has never been passed without pretty strong opposition.


Ernest Lapointe: There has always been opposition.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There has always been a sharp cleavage of opinion in the house in regard to the matter, and that cleavage of opinion exists to-day. It may be that hon. members are weary of repeating their arguments each year and therefore do not desire to delay the house further, knowing, no doubt, that a division would simply mean the carrying of the measure. Personally I have no desire to delay it. I have not had an opportunity of talking to my leader in regard to his views on the subject and I am sorry he is not present now.


Ernest Lapointe: He was present on Monday last.
(Mr. Lapointe.]


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is unfortunate that the matter was not cleared up then.


Ernest Lapointe: Eleven o'clock intervened.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is now six o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: We will wait until eight o'clock anyway.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 80, for the relief of Laveania Maud Kelly-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: There is a large number of divorce bills on the order paper. Is it the desire of the committee that we should now proceed with these other divorce bills?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


John Frederick Johnston: Unanimous consent is
required.
Bill reported.
Mr. SMOKE (for Mr. Stewart, Heeds) moved the third reading of the bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before that motion is carried, I should like to state as briefly as I may why I have felt constrained to speak to these divorce bills. I should like to make it very clear that it is not my purpose to take up each of these bills in turn. I do not wish to adopt any blocking tactics. I wish, however, to call attention to the impossible situation in which this house finds itself, and, if possible, to secure some definite action. I should like to make it clear that I am not taking this action because of this particular bill or any other bill that may come before us; that is, I have no personal opinion on any of these bills, but rather, there is a principle at stake, and I must protest at some one stage, and it just happens that my protest comes wben this particular bill is before us.
Since I made my protest the other evening I have been rather surprised at the large number of people who have endorsed the action which I have taken, including mem-

Private Bills
246')
bers on both sides of the house and a considerable number of people throughout the country, and I feel sure that the time has arrived when we can be confident of public support in altering the manner in which we are dealing with these divorce cases.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) states that I am in favour of divorce. I should like to make myself clear on that point. I am in favour of divorce in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, and only in certain circumstances and under certain conditions. The Minister of Justice the other night suggested that I was delaying the passage of these bills. If he is so much opposed to divorce I should think he would rejoice and congratulate and assist me in so delaying the passing of these bills.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not objecting to
your action.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suggest to the
Minister of Justice that to the extent to which he is facilitating the passage of these bills his position is quite inconsistent with his statement that he is opposed to divorce. He is facilitating, and steadily facilitating, the passage of these bills, and urging us to facilitate their passage, even although he says he is opposed to the principle of divorce.
I propose, Mr. Speaker, to move to-night, in accordance with my previous motion, two amendments to two of these bills. Were I intent on merely blocking I would move amendments, as I have the right to do, to every one of the seventy-five or one hundred bills we have before us. It is not my intention so to do, but simply to pick out one or two in order that we may decide upon some principle.
I should like to emphasize that we have the right to determine the conditions upon which divorce should be granted, and further, if those conditions are made rigid enough, I am inclined to think that we may not have quite so many divorce bills before us in the future. In any case we shall be carrying out the principle of granting divorce only under conditions which will entail the least public evil. Without delaying the house any further, and in order to test the house on the important question whether or not we are to set up a divorce court where these matters can be decided in a far more effective manner than they can possibly be in this parliament, I beg to move seconded by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps):
That the house do now proceed to order No. 31. being the second reading of bill No. 27 (Letter A of the senate), intituled: "An act to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of marriage."


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I stated some of my objections-


Hewitt Bostock: This motion is not debatable.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) does not want this important bill to be taken up tonight -without previous notice to anybody, and with such a slim attendance in the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Most decidedly, because I have tried repeatedly to induce the government to consent to taking up this bill, and the government has refused to do so. It seems to me, therefore, that the only recourse left to me is to take advantage of the rules of the house under which a private member is given certain privileges, and under which the house itself is given certain powers. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that under the ordinary forms of procedure we are in danger of being dominated by the government. There are however certain privileges and rights guaranteed to private members and to the house at large, and therefore I move this resolution.


John Frederick Johnston: To the motion, that Bill No. 80, letter K of the senate, be given third reading, Mr. Woodsworth moves':
That the house do now proceed to order No. 31, being the second reading of bill No. 27 (letter A of the senate) intituled: "An act to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of marriage."
The hon. gentleman, I suppose, is proceeding understanding order 48, which reads:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order-
I think the motion of the hon. gentleman is in order. The question is on his motion.


Ernest Lapointe: And is not debatable.


John Frederick Johnston: And is not debatable.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Woodsworth) which was negatived on the following division.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Anderson (Halton), Bennett,
Black (Yukon), Black (Halifax), Chaplin,
Edwards (Waterloo South),
Esling,
Evans,
Fraser,
Garland (Carleton), Hanson,
Irvine,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North-Victoria),
Private Bills

Jones,	Stirling,
Ross (Kingston City),	Woods worth,
Smoke,	Young (Toronto
Spotton,	Northeast).-21.
Stevens,	
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Allan.	Lapierre,
Baldwin,	Lapointe,
Bouchard,	Luehkovich,
Bourgeois,	Macdonald
Bradette,	(Glengarry),
Cannon,	MaeLean (Prince),
Carmichael,	McMillan,
Chevrier,	Millar,
Delisle,	Morin (St. Hyacinthe-
Denis (Joliette),	Rouville),
Descoteaux,	Motherwell,
Dunning,	Perras,
Dussault,	Pouliot,
Elliott,	Ralston,
Fansher (Last	Robb,
Mountain),	Ross (Moose Jaw),
Fiset (Sir Eugene),	St-Pere,
Forke,	Seguin,
Foster,	Sinclair (Queens),
Garland (Bow River),	Smith (Stormont),
Heenan,	Stewart (Edmonton
Jelliff,	West),
Kay,	Sylvestre,
Keilner,	Telford,
King (Kootenay	Tolmie,
East),	Veniot,
King, Mackenzie	Verville,
(Prince Albert),	Wilson (Wentworth),
Lafiamme,	Young
Lang,	(Weyburn).-53.


Milton Neil Campbell: I was paired with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HEAPS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Had! I voted I would have voted for the. motion.


Mr. SPENCER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Milne). Had I voted I would have supported the motion.


Mr. BARBER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Thomas Cantley: I was paired with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LUCAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Steedsman). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Hobbs). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
(Owing to the absence of an official list and the impossibility of recording several statements of pairs simultaneously announced, the list of stated pairs is incomplete.)



ARTHUR JOHN EVANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 81, for the relief of Arthur John Evans-Mr. Harris -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be reported.


John Frederick Johnston: Would it now serve the purpose of the committee to take all these unopposed divorce bills together?
Mr. WOODSW'ORTH: I have a motion to move with reference to Bill No. 84, order No. 42.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland) moves that Bill No. 81 be reported.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to move, with reference to Bill No. 84-


Charles Avery Dunning: I move that all of the divorce bills, save Bill No. 84 be taken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would ask that the committee go only as far as order No. 42, that is Bill No. 84.


John Frederick Johnston: I understand that the hon. member desires to say something on Bill No. 84.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


John Frederick Johnston: Would it meet his
purpose if we reported the other unopposed bills, allowing that one to stand for the present ?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have also something to say in connection with another bill further down on the order paper.


John Frederick Johnston: Will the hon. member give the number of the other bill?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
discuss Nos. 84 and 150. So far as I am concerned the others may go.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall I report these
bills, with the exception of those noted?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.



THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Dorothy Estelle McCutcheon.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 81 for the relief of Arthur John Evans.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 82 for the relief of Margaret Constance McIntyre Fairbanks.-
Bill No. 83 for the relief of Lina Elizabeth Foster.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 85 for the relief of Ruby Jean Standing.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 86 for the relief of Aibertine de Varennes.-Mr. Casselman.

Private Bills
Bill No. 87 for the relief of William Bye Fasken.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 88 for the relief of John Alexander Parsons.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 89 for the relief of Martha Golding. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 90 for the relief of Reginald Key. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 91 for the relief of Madeline Massey Knox.-Mr. Smoke.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of James Parker. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Dorothy La-Belle.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Richard Henry Orr.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Marjory Sterne Boyd.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Florence Louise Parsons.-Mr. Goodison.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of George Daniel MacDonald.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Evelyn Connor. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Annie May Caldwell.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Florence Marjorie Cressman.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Esther Buck Scott.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Norah Jones. -Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Albert Wood. -Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Louisa Bal-dock.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Albert John Morison.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Amelia Judd Wasserman Berliner.-Mr. MoFhee.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Ernest Edmund Parrington.-Mr. Bowman.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Margaret Beaton Hale.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Annie Constance Vipond Coleby Lazier.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Gladys Caroline Isbell.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 111. for the relief of Victoria May Hardwick.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Annie Alice Tushingham.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Rita Peden.- Mr. Smith (Stormont).
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Lome William Paterson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Albert William Hornby.-Mr.	Anderson (Toronto High
Park).
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Marguerite Adele Berwick.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Harriett Ellen Isabel Kirkpatrick.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Martha Evelyn Taylor.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Winnifred Clark.-Mr. Bowen.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Maria Eremca, otherwise known as Marcia Eramko.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Albert Glenn Steinberg.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill	No.	122,	for	the	relief	of	Charles
Frederick Spittle.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Helen Lazelle Margaret Zeller.-Mr. Cayley.
Bill	No.	124,	for	the	relief	of	Rachel
Pearson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Ida Myerson. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill	No.	126,	for	the	relief	of	Arthur
Wellington Henry.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Dorothy Warren Gorrie.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill	No.	128,	for	the	relief	of	Stanley
Edmunds.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Irene Frances Phebe Flicker.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Jean Maxwell Douglas (without amendment).-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Constance Brown Kinsman.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill	No.	132,	for	the	relief	of	William
Wilbur Blackburn.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Viva Venetta Rahmer.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 134, for the relief of George Ranney Price.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill	No.	135,	for	the	relief	of	Percival
Bovill.-Mr. Ilocken.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Paul Char-boneau.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill	No.	137,	for	the	relief	of	William
Franklin Darby.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Lome Wilbert Helmer.-Mr. Ryerson.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Mary Marjorie Jacques.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 140, for the relief of John Edward Gladstone King,	otherwise known	as John
E. King.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Winnifred Lilias Maunsell.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Hazel Kathleen Mulligan.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Jessie McLean.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 144, for 'the relief of Winifred Margaret Pope.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Elizabeth May Thomley.-Mr. Rennie.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Norton Webster Kingsland.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Alice Edith Knowles.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of John McArthur.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Charles Alfred Turner.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Lillian May Chandler.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 206. for the relief of Esther Brand. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Irene Adela Crann.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Jessie Ferguson.'-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of William Herbert Gamble.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Mabel Maude Giles-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Alice Mock-ford.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Alvah Arthur Norris.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Eleanor Porter. -Mr. Geary.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 84, for the relief of Winifred Osborne Gimblett. -Mr. Garland (Carleton)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported.
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) moved the third reading of the bill.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear that I am dealing with this bill as a sort of test case. There is a very large number of these bills on the order paper; I had no opportunity of reading the evidence relating to these scores of bills, and as I glanced through the bills I took this one as the first that occurred to me as seeming to answer the purpose I had in view. I have no idea that the people involved here are in any worse case than a large number of the others who may be affected by similar bills

on the order paper, and I have not intended in bringing forward this motion to give them preferential treatment. This is the motion of which I have given notice:
That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it as follows:

(1)	That section one of the bill be amended by adding the following words thereto:
"and the said Winnifred Osborne Sinclair shall have the custody of their child and the said William Henry Gimblett shall pay annually to Winnifred Osborne Sinclair, for her support and maintenance, the sum of five hundred dollars, so long as she remains unmarried; and the sum of two hundred dollars annually for the support and education of their child."
(2)	That section two of the bill be amended by adding the following words thereto:
"Provided that this right shall be exercised only upon condition that she shall be previously examined by competent medical authority and pronounced free of venereal disease, and that William Henry Gimblett may marry again only upon the same condition."
Mr. Speaker, I notice that in the petition presented the following complaints were made:
That after her said marriage your petitioner lived and cohabited with the said William Henry Gimblett at the said city of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, and that there is now living issue of the said marriage one child, viz:	William Henry Victor Gimblett, born
on the 16th day of November, 1924.
That in the year 1926, the said William Henry Gimblett committed adultery with various women whose names are unknown to your petitioner, but. as the result of such illicit intercourse, the said William Henry Gimblett contracted a loathsome sexual disease which he communicated to your petitioner, from which your petitioner is now suffering, and for which your petitioner is now receiving medical treatment.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this house is to continue the practice of granting divorce we ought to take all the circumstances into consideration. This woman has a child by the man from whom she seeks to obtain a divorce. That child, now something over four years of age, ought to remain in her custody. There is nothing in the bill which definitely determines the custody of the child. Further than that, if the woman has been so wronged the least we can do is to see that she be given something to maintain her during the years that she may remain unmarried. I have arbitrarily placed this at $500 a year. It is quite obvious that with no evidence before us as to the circumstances of either of them it is impossible to determine with any accuracy how much is needed; so I set a perfectly arbitrary figure. In the same way I have placed the maintenance of the child at $200, again an arbitrary figure but not an unreasonable one. In a proper divorce court there

Criminal Code Amendment
would be provision as to the manner in which these sums should be paid, and further than that, there would be penalties for their nonpayment. It seems to me that the best course at this time would be to put the motion in the form I have suggested, without going into details, because we are here simply determining upon a principle. I will appeal to the members of this house that if a man has in this way wronged a woman, if he has left this child unprovided for, if he has actually passed disease on to his wife, the least we can do is to require that he shall pay a sum sufficient to maintain his wife and his child. That seems to be a reasonable thing. As it is now we give to her the right to marry again, and inferentially we give him the right to marry again, but we make no provision for her maintenance, and I think it' is only a fair thing that we should do so.
Moreover, according to the evidence presented, the man was diseased and the woman is now suffering from the disease communicated to her. Are we going to tell her that she has a right to marry again in the diseased condition, and worse, that the man has the opportunity of marrying again?
I was very glad to have my attention directed to the fact that there is now being considered by the senate a bill, letter D, to make venereal disease an impediment to marriage. I want to congratulate the hon. senators for considering such a bill as that. Whether we do that in a general way or not, it seems to me that the least we can do is to insist upon it in this case, where we already have the situation clearly before us in the evidence. I make this motion in the interest of the public and in the interest of the parties concerned.	.


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


John Frederick Johnston: The hour for
private bills being exhausted we now revert to government orders.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 191, to amend the criminal code.-Mr. Lapointe.-Mr. Johnston in the
chair.
On section 1-Unlawful associations. Publishing seditious books, etc.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose again
to go over the ground that has been so often gone over before, but it does not follow that because legislation is not used it is therefore bad. There are in the criminal code not many but some sections that have never been
used, with respect to which offences have not . arisen. This section was inserted in order to meet an extraordinary situation which we hope will not again obtain in this country, but it might obtain; it might prevail, and when it does, the section should be in the code to be used.
I will make only one suggestion to the minister, namely, that the section might well be revised, if there is any doubt about the matter, to make it clear that it has no application to labour unions. In days of unrest, disquietude and uncertainty to have in the criminal code a section to which recourse may be had in the event of the occasion arising, can never be a bad thing.
I believe the statute was originally drawn by one who is not now a member of this house, and that he said that to make it abundantly clear that labour unions were not included would not be a very difficult task. I do not like the idea of repealing this statute in its entirety, an idea which is attributable not to any fear of the statute but rather to the undertaking which was given some two years ago that the statute would be repealed and which was embodied in a letter given by the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and read in the house so that it might be recorded in Hansard. But for that, I fancy the necessity for repeal of the measure would not be so apparent nor the reasons so urgent to bring about the end which is now sought.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: I move to amend Bill
No. 191 by adding thereto the following sections:
2.	The said act is amended by inserting after section 133 thereof the following:
133 A.
No one shall be deemed to have a seditious intention only because he intends in good faith,

(a)	to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures; or
(b)	to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution of the United Kingdom or of any part of it or of Canada or of any province thereof or in either house of parliament of the United Kingdom or of Canada or in any legislature or in the administration of justice; or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the state; or
(c)	to point out, in order to their removal, matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of hatred and ill will between different classes of His Majesty's subjects.
3.	Section 134 of the said act is amended by striking out the words "twenty years" before the wrord imprisonment in the second line of the section and by inserting the wrords "two years" in lieu thereof.
Criminal Code Amendment


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will explain just what this means.


Ernest Lapointe: The purpose of the
amendment is to restore that part of the criminal code relating to sedition as it was prior to 1919. Those provisions have also been voted by the house five times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This section?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this amendment the
act as it was in 1919?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes-"two years".


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is only one observation I have to make and that is with respect to paragraph (b):
No one shall be deemed to have a seditious intention only because he intends in good faith to point out errors or defects. . . in the administration of justice.
That is a very broad way in which to express the matter, and certainly some of the prosecutions that have taken place in Great Britain could not be maintained in the light of that section. To prove bad faith is almost always impossible. Perhaps the minister knows from experience the crown officers have always said that the question of proving good or bad faith is one of those matters that are so difficult, it is almost hopeless to expect to succeed. Bad faith is a state of mind, and to prove a state of mind can usually be done only by expressions. If a man then says: The expressions I used were only for the purpose of directing attention to something in order that it might be remedied, in most instances you would say that is good faith; whereas he may have in fact the worst of bad faith in connection with the matter. I cannot but think the observations I made a few moments ago apply with even greater force to this. If in the light of knowledge and experience it is thought desirable to strengthen the hands of the law, not necessarily by bringing men within the purview of it but by declaring that under certain circumstances an offence is being committed, that provision may never be called into use; but while it is there the effect is salutary and you have in your hands a weapon that will enable the officers of the law to maintain peace, order and good government in the country when they are being threatened. That is why the legislation was enacted, and that is why it should remain on the statute book. If there be in the measure any ambiguity by which labour unions may be thought to be affected, that should be removed, but we should not reenact the old law simply because of promises that have been made.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not agree that the change was made in the light of knowledge and experience. As I said the other day, the change was made in a moment of panic. The three readings of the bill took place one afternoon inside of half an hour. I admit of course there was unrest at the time; but we cannot say that this was a very well-considered piece of legislation, and the fact that the statute has never served any purpose, because no proceeding has ever been instituted under it, shows it is not necessary to have it on the statute book. As regards the wording of the amendment, it is exactly what it was in the criminal code of Canada prior to 1919. After all I do not think we should be much in favour of limitation of free speech, provided that it is done in a constitutional way and merely as a matter of criticism against the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree as to that.


Peter McGibbon: I should like to remind the Minister of Justice that he himself was a consenting party to the passing of this act, and the members behind him were also consenting parties.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not remember.


Peter McGibbon: Yes, he was. I was in the house at the time.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot say no, but
perhaps I have since seen the error of my ways.


Peter McGibbon: It is remarkable that the same light that came over Saul of Tarsus should come over the Minister of Justice and his followers, especially at a time when political exigencies demanded that he secure support from certain quarters. I should like to ask the minister to-day, disregarding the political necessity that called forth this promise from the government, what demand there is behind this legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend was not here
the other night when we discussed this matter. As I said at the time, all the labour unions in Canada and all the men who have had anything to do with the labour movement in this country have been asking since 1919 for the repeal of this legislation. They have come in delegations-


Peter McGibbon: No.


Ernest Lapointe: Do not say no. I have
been a minister since 1921, and I know that along with other members of the government I have received every year delegations representative of labour, asking for the repeal of this legislation. They think that it is a

Criminal Code Amendment
danger to the working of the labour unions. They set forth, and I think they are right in doing so, that the common law concerning sedition is quite sufficient to provide for any prosecution of seditious libel, seditious utterance, or seditious conspiracy.


Peter McGibbon: The minister has admitted that it has created no hardship, and surely he should be the last man to remove anything from the statute book which, while working no hardship, creates respect for law and order. If it has done no harm it may do some good in preserving respect for law and order in this country, which is something every law-abiding citizen desires to see. I cannot see how the minister can have had such a change of heart since he and his whole party were a party to putting this on the statute books in 1919. But ever since they have been trying to kick it out and get rid of it, just, because my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre demands that that be done.


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all.


Peter McGibbon: That was the genesis
of it.


Ernest Lapointe: I think a similar bill
was introduced before my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was a member of this house.


Peter McGibbon: Yes, it was following a
letter from him that the government promised to repeal this legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: No. Similar legislation
was introduced before he was a member of this house, I believe.


Peter McGibbon: The government did not agree to repeal it before he demanded it.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh yes, we did.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Now that the minister has
admitted seeing the light-


Ernest Lapointe: I do not admit having
seen the light because I do not agree that I have supported the legislation. I was not a member of the government that passed it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am sorry that the Conservative party has not yet seen the light on this matter. The question has been asked, who is asking for the repeal of this particular legislation? I would like to know who ever asked for this legislation in 1919.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Parliament, unanimously.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Who came to parliament
and asked for it in 1919?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know who was
Prime Minister then. I do not know whether Sir Robert Borden was in the house at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the Acting Prime
Minister.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Acting Prime Minister
may have asked for it, but there was no organization that came to parliament and asked for it. It was put on the statute book possibly at the mere whim of the then Prime Minister or Acting Prime Minister. But in this case, behind parliament there is the whole labour movement asking for the repeal of this legislation, and a great many people outside.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The section has been
passed, and my hon. friend is only obstructing the passing of the bill.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not obstructing it.
The obstruction comes from hon. gentlemen to my right on this side of the house, and from another house very closely associated with the minority in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a statement the
hon. gentleman has no right to make. The rules of this house are clear on that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the rules of the house
debar me from making that statement, I am sorry that I made it, but I would make it outside.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, and that is why sections like this are in the code.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The labour unions have asked for the repeal of this legislation. I believe it has been stated in this house that the British law has not been used since it was put on the statute books, and I think it has been argued that it should be there in case of emergency. Now if there was an emergency in this country in 1919, and the old law was able to convict, why was this law necessary at all? That is something I should like to hear from members of the legal profession. I should like them to tell us a little more about that, but they deal only in generalities.
This law dealing with sedition does not at all create any respect for law and order; it has just the very opposite effect. I could go into the library of any hon. gentleman who has spoken on this question and I could find there seditious literature within the meaning of this act. I could take the Bible in their homes and find passages in it which would be construed as being absolutely sedititous under this section of the criminal code.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is nonsense.
Criminal Code Amendment


Abraham Albert Heaps: If it was desired I could
point to passages in the Bible that would be considered absolutely seditious under this section of the criminal code. That being the. case, how can any person in this house argue that a law of this kind creates respect for law? It has the very opposite effect. If you want to create respect for law, the laws must be just in their character. I claim that this is a most unjust law, and that it operates unfairly and harshly on a section of the people of this country. I think the best thing you can do to create respect for law in this country is to repeal this law, which passed this house, I understand, in the space of twenty minutes. I would ask any hon. member of this house who wants the people of Canada to have respect for law in this country, how he can expect them to have respect for the law when a bill is given three readings and becomes the law of this land in the space of twenty minutes? We are supposed to be a deliberative assembly, and to give time and consideration to important questions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That shows there was no opposition to it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It shows a good deal more
than that. It shows that it was railroaded through this house.


Mr. PRESTON:: It could not be if there
was opposition to it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am inclined to think from
the knowledge that has come to me from sources which I believe to be fairly reliable, that my latter contention may be the more correct of the two. I understand that at the time this law was passed, assurances were given to certain members of this house, that there was nothing of an important character in it. On account of those promises, the then leader of the opposition, a gentleman who is not now a member of this house-


Peter McGibbon: To whom is my hon. friend referring?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. D. D. McKenzie.


Peter McGibbon: My hon. friend mentions the dead, of course.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I believe the fact is on record -and during the election of 1921 the same statement was made by that gentleman in Nova Scotia-that he let the bill go through on certain assurances given, to him by the then leader of this house. I mention that only to show the methods that were used to pass this legislation. If hon. gentlemen de-

sire to see respect for law in this country, they should see to it that laws are put on the statute book that the people of this country can respect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact, my hon. friend's somewhat for him, moderate tirade is wholly unjustifiable. We have already passed this section, and I submit that he and others were out of order in discussing it. But if there is to be allowed a discussion in which the motives of those who were present when this law was passed, are to be called in question, we have at least the right to say a word or two in justification of our action.
The amendment was not railroaded through the house at all. I was in the house at the time, and I recall the circumstances perfectly well. There was unanimity of opinion in this house that it was absolutely necessary that there should be some amendment to the criminal code to make it possible to deal with a situation that had never occurred in Canada before, a situation which had up to that time seemed impossible to occur in a country such as this, but which did arise entirely out of the new revolutionary methods obtaining in certain parts of Europe and Asia.
The question whether or not this legislation was carefully considered is not open to dispute. The legislation was most carefully drafted, after very thorough consideration by the law officers of the crown, and in the face of conditions which made perfectly clear the nature of the legislation that was required to deal with the situation. It was not a question of theory, of carrying out anybody's ideals, whims or wishes; it was legislation carefully drafted and prepared after careful consideration by those competent to do so. It was then brought to the house, fully explained, and accepted by the house without a single word of opposition as far as I recollect, and I am certain I am correct in saying this.
It does not follow that this or that member must be saddled with the full responsibility of that measure. I am not aware of anyone repudiating responsibility for it. The point is that it was accepted by the house. Now it is wholly unfair and inaccurate to say that the bill was railroaded through the house on the strength of certain assurances, as my hon. friend says. I Submit that he has nothing whatsoever to back up his Statement that assurances were given either to the late D. D. McKenzie, who was then temporary leader of the opposition, or to any other member of the house. I was then and have been since in close contact with the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was at that time

Criminal Code Amendment
more or less active in the drafting of the legislation, and I have never on any occasion heard him mention directly or indirectly that any such undertaking was given, and I am pretty certain he would have told some of us if that had been the case. That statement has never been made before when the matter was being discussed and particularly when the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was in the house and well able to look after himself.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The statement I referred to was made by the late Mr. McKenzie himself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. McKenzie has been out of the house for nearly eight years. He ' is now dead, and we have no chance of discussing the matter with him. I sat with Mr. McKenzie while he was a member from 1911 to 1921, and I knew him well enough to be certain that he would not object to that legislation were he here to-night. In my estimation it is' not in violation of Mr. McKenzie's attitude towards such questions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He certainly objected to it in 1921 when the elections took place in Nova Scotia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend would do much better if he would bring the record. However, I am not going to enter into a discussion on that point; it is1 not relevant, and has no force. Let us look at the legislation itself. Before reading this clause I shall repeat what I said two years ago and on several other occasions. It is perhaps reasonable that there should be some modification or change of this legislation. I told my hon. friend the Minister of Justice two years ago, and I tell him again to-night, that as far as I am concerned I should be quite willing to sit down with him and study certain amendments to this legislation; but I am opposed to repealing it en bloc. Let us consider the real point in the legislation. Section 98, subsection 1, of the criminal code, which it is sought to repeal by this bill, reads as follows:
Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property. or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.
I submit to hon. members that such a measure ought to be on the statute book after the experience we have had in several sections of
the country. The first principle of any government is to offer security to life and property within the state. One of the first things an unorganized group of individuals would be called upon to do would be to organize themselves and to appoint some of their numbei to exercise this power. So- the clause simply declares illegal any group of persons who desire by force, violence or physical injury to person or property to undermine the authority of government. I submit that we have no right to remove a clause of that kind from the statute book. I am free to admit that in the subsequent clauses it may be that there are some points upon which there could be a disagreement of view, and the repeal or change or modification of which we might justly consider. I have no objection to approaching it in that way, but I do object to the real point of this legislation being tampered with.
Now, I have said this and much more on previous occasions, and I do feel that it is entirely wrong for my hon. friend to rise in his place and single out the Conservative party, intimating that they have in some invidious way secured the passage of legislation that is inimical to the welfare of any number of citizens of this country.


Peter McGibbon: It is a compliment to be singled out like that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Possibly. I repeat that the legislation was passed after -being carefully drafted, and personally I hope that the amendment fails. Unfortunately it is pretty clear that the committee will carry it, but there should be no reflections cast on those who may not agree with the majority decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has said that this bill was put through the house with great rapidity. I find that on May 1 1919, the then Solicitor General, the Hon Hugh Guthrie, moved:
That Messrs. Guthrie, Tweedie, McIntosh, Allan, Thomson, Boys, Douglas, Jacobs, Murphy, Ross, Archambault and Copp, be appointed a special committee to consider and report upon the law relating to sedition and seditious propaganda, and on any changes in the law which may be considered necessary to meet the existing conditions, and that the said committee have power to sit while the house is in session.
Mr. Speaker said:
This motion can only be entertained by unanimous consent.
And the house gave its consent, Mr. Guthrie having stated that in England a committee had been appointed to consider the English law upon the subject. I find that on June 10-not twenty minutes, but six weeks later-Mr. Guthrie at the opening of the
Criminal Code Amendment

house moved the adoption of the report of the committee. He set out the facts and law at some 'length, and I find in the course of his observations he said:
At the same time the greatest care will have to he exercised that there be no unnecessary interference with, nor curtailment of the sacred right of free speech.
Mr. Ernest Lapointe, whom I take to be the same hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Justice, said "hear, hear," and Mr. Guthrie concluded his remarks, indicating what the findings of the committee were. Whereupon the Hon. Charles Murphy said that there seemed to be a very earnest desire on the part of members to protect the rights of labour unions. He added:
Judging by the manner in which the house received the hon. gentleman's reference to the subject of free speech and the rights of organized labour, I take it that there is, at the present time, in any event, a unanimous opinion in this house that free speech and the rights of organized labour should not be interfered with. However that may be, such was the opinion that prevailed in the committee of which I was a member, and the report from which- not from the whole of which, however,-is now before the house.
Then he said:
There was in the committee a very sharp division of opinion as to the necessity of amending the criminal code, and there was a further division of opinion whether, in the event of the committee being of opinion that the criminal code with reference to sedition and seditious propaganda should be amended-in view of the numerous strikes and the general unrest throughout the country-this was the proper time to make such a report to the house and to induce a discussion of matters that would inevitably be discussed by reason of that report and of any action that might follow the introduction of that report.
He concluded his observations by saying that the minority report was not brought in, nor did they propose to move in that direction. He reserved anything further he might have to say on the subject until a future occasion, if the report of the committee should be concurred in and legislation based upon it introduced in the house. "Motion agreed to and report concurred in."
I have not before me the Hansard in which there appeared the report of the introduction of the bill, but that is the report on which the bill was based, a report unanimously concurred in, to which no amendment was moved The committee was moved on the first of May and the report brought down on June 10. So much for the hon. gentleman's accuracy with respect to the report.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How long did it take the bill to go through the house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is that the bill was not based upon anyone's caprice. It was a bill reported by a committee that took six weeks to consider it. It was not a bill that originated in the mind of the Acting Prime Minister. I was not a member of that parliament, but I know that it was not one of those bills which are brought before the house suddenly in a panic. On the contrary, it was a bill which in terms was considered by a very select committee of the house, a representative committee on which there were eminent lawyers and laymen as well. As 1 say, they made their report on June 10, the committee having been appointed on May first.
Under these circumstances, I am sure, the hon. gentleman will desire to withdraw the observations he made as to the panicky character of this legislation. As to the bill, I have not been able to put my hand on the Hansard reporting its introduction, but I have sent for it and if I have an opportunity later on I shall direct the attention of the house to it. The fact is that the bill did pass through the house in a very short time. Why? Because a committee had spent all the time dealing with it and had given it very thorough consideration. Indeed, it was based upon a report which received far more consideration, far more time and attention, than have been devoted to any legislation passing through this house this session. At that time apprehension was expressed whether the language employed was sufficiently clear to protect the interests of trade unions, and since that time on many occasions it has been pointed out that it is capable oi being construed in a manner which would be injurious to those interests. But no case has arisen in which this fear is justified. The fact that the legislation stands in the form in which it is, after having been considered for weeks by a very representative committee, and the further fact that no cases have arisen under it that have impinged upon the rights of these unions, such as the Solicitor General had in mind when he made his motion to adopt the report of the committee, is in itself some evidence that if for a period of ten years that condition has prevailed, the same condition may be expected in the next ten years. The purposes for which the legislation was enacted are the purposes indicated in the report and in the speech of the Solicitor General. It is legislation which is intended to protect the people of this country, if occasion should arise. That is what most penal legislation is for. Under the circumstances I cannot see why the course

Criminal Code Amendment
taken by the Minister of Justice should not have been the proper course, of amending the legislation to meet any doubt which there might be that, as the Hon. Mr. Murphy pointed out at that time, the interests of the labour unions might be impaired and their rights impinged upon so far as free speech was concerned. Not having been in the house and not being therefore quite familiar with the matter, I have ventured to send for the Hansard report and I shall quote from it. I see that my friend the Minister of Justice has the report.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is not
correct when he says that this bill was submitted to a committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was based upon the
report of the committee.


Ernest Lapointe: Quite so. A committee was appointed for the purpose of studying and considering the laws concerning sedition. Apparently this committee reported, and when the report was presented to the house Mr. Murphy, who was a member of the committee, said:
Because of that view prevailing, there was on the clay of the last sitting of the committee a majority of the committee in the room at a certain time actually opposed to the bringing in of the report. The others who remained until the conclusion of the sitting did not submit a minority report,-
Saying that it would do more harm than good.
Mr. BENNE1T: The discussion would.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Murphy proved a
prophet. He went on:
The others who remained until the conclusion of the sitting did not submit a minority report, for the reason that they wished to avoid the very discussion which has been evoked here this afternoon, and such further discussion as may take place. Having informed the house of the division of opinion that prevailed in the committee, and as to the points on which that division of opinion existed, I shall reserve anything further I may have to say on the subject until a future occasion, if the report of the committee is concurred in and legislation based upon it is introduced in the house.
The motion was agreed to and the bill was introduced subsequently and passed the house in a very short time. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) seems to think that if this section disappears from the criminal code there will be nothing to protect society against sedition. That is absolutely wrong. If my hon. friend reads the speech of the Solicitor General of that day, the present member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), he will see that the committee thought this might 'be a wise addition to the
provisions of the criminal code. The code provides for the punishment of sedition, and the common law applies to everything that may be considered seditious. The laws of the country as they stood at the time were sufficient, but it was thought by the committee that it might be advisable to have this special section added. As I have said, however, this section has never been invoked; it has never served any purpose whatever except to irritate the labour people of Canada and to give them a grievance, inasmuch as they think it is specially directed against the activities of their union. W'e do not think that it is necessary to keep this section in the criminal code. I agree with the decision of the British parliament and of the Canadian parliament as well, both of which take the view that the common law is sufficient in matters of sedition, and that it is not advisable to adopt in that respect the report of the commissioners who were entrusted with the task of codifying the criminal code, both in England and in this country. Parliament, after a long discussion, took the attitude that the common law was better than any section which might be added by the commissioners. I do not think myself that parliament in 1919 was as wise as that parliament which at a prior date decided not to change the provisions of the common law in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. LAPOINTE moved the third reading of the bill.
James Shaver Woodsworth: During this discussion a great deal
has been said about labour, and I should like to make just one remark in that connection. Frequently the impression has been given that labour is more seditious than other sections of the community. As a matter of fact a great deal that is said on occasion by some labour men is very freely stated by other members of the community. For example take the statement, "No nation ever became truly great save by successful sedition and revolution." I wonder if the leader of the opposition would agree with that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would wholly disagree
with the statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to hear
it. According to the Manitoba Free Press of April 24, that was said at the annual St. George's night dinner. The president of the organization, Mr. Jackson Dodds, O.B.E., presided as chairman; music was furnished during and after the dinner by the regimental

Criminal Code Amendment

band of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, and the speaker was Mr. R. B. Graham, K.C., whom I believe to be crown prosecutor in Winnipeg. He was proposing the toast to England at this dinner which was held at the Royal Alexander hotel on April 23. I notice that a little later in the evening a toast was proposed to Canada by Sir James Aikins, who apparently let these sentiments pass without criticism. I will just read this paragraph as it is reported in the Free Press. Mr. Graham may of course have been misre-ported though the statement appears in quotation marks.


John Frederick Johnston: Perhaps I
should point out to the hon. gentleman that while the motion for third reading of the bill is debatable, his remarks should be relevant.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit that what
I am saying is not irrelevant; I want to read a paragraph to illustrate the fact that again and again statements have been made which imply that labour is more seditious than other sections of the community.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To whom does the hon.
gentleman refer?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That implication
has been left in these debates several times during the last five or six years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Never.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am very glad to
hear the hon. gentleman repudiate that suggestion, and I should be very happy to take back my words. However, this legislation was passed in the first instance in order that certain labour elements in this country might be curbed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The people guilty of what is set forth here should be curbed; that is all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will finish my remarks. if I may. I submit that such statements as these, if given in any labour union room or in any socialist hall, would very easily come under the provisions of the act which we are repealing. This is the paragraph I should liked to read.
No nation ever became truly great save by successful sedition and revolution. The lamp and the torch and the tumult have overcome tyranny. The signature of King John was placed to the Magna Charta, wrenched from him by the nobles; revolution led King Charles to the block; the corn law riots-these were crimes against the law and seditious, but no one hangs his head in shame because of them. ''Liberty, equality, fraternity," were no mere catchwords as in the French revolution, but the expression of the earnest striving for the substance that lies behind the words.
IMr. Woods-worth.]
I am not arguing for a revolution; I am not arguing for sedition, but I do submit that a certain section of this community which I have the honour to represent, the labouring people, may rightfully resent the constant implication that they need to be very carefully watched and that there must be laws enacted in order that they may not express themselves in some wrongful fashion.
That is all I wish to say at this stage, and I Should not have done so had the question not arisen with regard to the occasion when this act which is being repealed was placed on the statute book. There was a great deal of misrepresentation with regard to the whole situation prevailing at that time. I am not blaming the members of the house for acting as they did; probably they acted according to the information Which they possessed, but I am inclined to think that some of us who were a little nearer to the scene of action had a more intimate knowledge of what was going on. I am inclined to think that if there was too great exuberance on the part of labour, there was also a certain panic on the part of other people, and I also believe that if labour exercised any governmental authority, some of the business men's organizations exercised governmental authority to a much greater extent. These are things of the past; all I want to make clear is that the labouring people of this country are just as law-abiding as any other section of the com-muity, and if there was any violation of peace, law and good government at the time this statute was passed, it was not on the part of labour but on the part of some other sections of the community. I do not intend to say more than to enter my protest against any imputation as to the loyalty of labour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as one who has persistently opposed the repeal of this legislation, and since my hon. friend has not been more specific in stating to whom he refers, I must necessarily consider that he refers to me at least in part.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made no reference to the hon. gentleman.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have persistently resisted the repeal of this legislation, perhaps more than anyone else, and I have done so for the reason which I intimated a moment ago. I believe that any persons who by force, violence or physical injury and so on seek to undermine or disturb the foundations of government in this country merit criminal action being taken against them. That is my point, and I do not care -whether they are labourites, capitalists, industrialists, farmers or any one

Criminal Code Amendment
else. From that position I will not retire. On the other hand, I resent the suggestion of my hon. friend, who claims to speak for lalbour in Canada, that in taking the position we do we are branding labour as being more seditious than others. I have been in intimate touch with labour much longer, I think, than he has; I know the feeling and the heart of labour throughout this country just as thoroughly as he does, and I have the greatest sympathy with them.


Mr. WOODS  WORTH@: They have asked to have this .rescinded.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Labour organizations may have, but I do not know that labour does. My hon. friend speaks with too much assurance. He refers to brief extracts from a speech made by a gentleman in Winnipeg. I do not know that I agree with the gentleman, but his language referring to a successful revolution referred to King John, who, it may be recalled, was guilty of a wholesale violation of the principles of government of the country over which he was king. The preamble of the very Magna Charta to which he refers states that this is a recital of the ancient rights and usages of the people, and they forced John to recognize that. In regard to King Charles whose head was cut off, 'he was guilty of imposing taxation-this was his chief offence- without the consent of parliament or of the people.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Supposing Charles had been successful, what would have happened then?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am saying that the gentleman whose remarks were quoted-and his' language was rather loose-referred to well-known incidents in history. Later the same gentleman used this language, which is enlightening:
"England", he continued, "is not only a land of glory in the past, but a land of hope in the future, and Englishmen's ability to cope with an emergency, such as the general strike, leaves no room for doubt that they can cope with any emergency which may arise."


Abraham Albert Heaps: There was no emergency on the occasion of the strike in Great Britain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But they passed legislation very much the same as that which we passed, and it is still upon the statute books of England. That legislation, found necessary with reference to conditions which then existed, was not dissimilar, I say, to the legislation to which we refer.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not as drastic as this.
56i03-157$


Henry Herbert Stevens: I remember a review of that legislation in England, and it was much more drastic than this.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When was that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Within three years. The point is this-and I say this in answer to both my hon. friends from Winnipeg-that labour as exemplified in recognized labour organizations, such as railway trainmen's associations, the typographical union and such like, are not in sympthy with the movement which directed forces in Winnipeg and in Calgary and in Vancouver, out of which this legislation arose, namely, the One Big Union.


Ernest Lapointe: Still they are asking for
the repeal of this legislation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may be, but they are not in sympathy with the movement to which I have referred.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They were in the strike in Winnipeg.
M:r. STEVENS: Only a small section, and they were led away. It is a very long, a very intricate and a very sorrowful story; and these same labour organizations have since many times repudiated the principles of the so-called
O.B.U. The point of the matter is that the
O.B.U went out of existence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The O.B.U. was not :n existence at the time of the strike in Winnipeg. The strike there was called by the president and secretary of the labour group in Winnipeg.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was the same group that started afterwards in Vancouver; I know practically all of them. Some of them are there now, but most of them are scattered,, and they never were the true exponents of labour. They did play here and there upon passion or prejudice, in many cases upon the-sense of injustice under which certain labour groups were suffering, and by that means-stirred up sedition, rebellion and attacks upon orderly government. They certainly did that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman is going a long way towards justifying my charges of a few minutes ago.
Mr. STEVENS': I say without hesitation that the O.B.U. organization was not representative of labour in this country. The O.B.U. undoubtedly did seek to lead many groups in this country, composed largely of honest labour men, aside and apart from the Hue course which organized labour takes. The proof of it rests in this, that since that time organized labour throughout Canada, as or-
Criminal Code Amendment

ganized labour in England, has repudiated the extremist and the revolutionary element in their party. Take the labour party in England to-day, and there is where you get perhaps as fine an illustration as you can find of organized labour. In every congress of recent years of the labour party, and also of the labour organizations in England, they have repudiated and successfully voted down the communistic, the extremely radical, and what we term the bolshevik element.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They had a general strike in England.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And it was acknowledged by labour to be one of the worst things ever attempted in England. I am reminded just here that they put through the legislation immediately afterwards.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And the Conservative party
as a result is going out of business.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact one very striking development in England during the last six months or a year is that the labour party has lost a very great deal of its strength.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am speaking politically now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And I am speaking politically now. It has lost its strength.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Liberal party has gone out of business there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
speaker whether under the old czarist regime the people had not been persistently denied the right to govern, to have a Duma and so on?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nobody who knows anything about history denies that. But what I say is that it has been demonstrated the world over, in the history of every country, the history of Rome, the history of almost every great empire, that revolution by force is not the expression of the will of the people but simply the seizure of power by well-organized minority groups. That is exactly what occurred in Winnipeg, where a small well-organized group of revolutionaries seized the power of government. They attempted the same thing in Vancouver and they failed, but in Seattle and Winnipeg they succeeded for a short time. In the city of Seattle they exercised absolute power for some three days, and it was only when they were driven out by force that they gave up the struggle.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is a good thing the hon. member for Vancouver Centre does not represent Winnipeg, or he would learn what the citizens at large think about his statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not concerned with what they or anyone else think about it, nor with what they say.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not so much what they think of the statement itself as of the accuracy of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not concerned with what they think of the accuracy of it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the hon. member not concerned about the accuracy of his statement?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know it is accurate. The very gentlemen with whom my hon. friends are associated, a mere handful, improperly assumed that power, not by the use of the ballot, not with the concurrence of

Criminal Code Amendment
the majority of the people or any opportunity for them to say whether they wanted it or not; they amply seized and exercised power by force and imposed themselves upon the people. They attempted the same thing in the city of Vancouver, where they tied up some works for about ten days, but they made an utter fiasco of the affair. Why? Because the citizens of Vancouver as a whole repudiated and resisted the movement.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Just the same as they did in Winnipeg.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just the same. Again I say to the Minister of Justice and to the government that I resist the repeal of this legislation in so far as it deals with this type of violence. I think this legislation ought to be on the statute book. I am willing to sit in with anybody in order to scan the legislation carefully, because there may be in it certain passages or clauses which might properly be repealed, modified or changed-and I admit I cited them, I think, two years ago when this question was before the house. But I am opposed to abandoning the principle of the legislation.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word in this most extraordinary debate. It seems to be a debate between the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Voodsworth) as to whether the Conservative party or the Labour party is the least revolutionary. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre assures us that the Labour party is not revolutionary, not nearly as revolutionary as certain lawyers in Winnipeg. That comes to me as a great surprise. I imagine, if we analyse the revolutions of history, we shall discover that they came just as epidemics of typhoid might come.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From bad water.


William Irvine: Yes, from bad water.
Typhoid comes from bad water and bad sewage. Similarly revolution comes when there is bad government, economic or social or political oppression, and no law placed on the statute books of any country in the world will prevent a revolution arising if the necessary oppression or the condition which breeds revolution is produced. When you come to look at the matter in that regard, I imagine the labour people of any country are far more likely to be revolutionary than the bankers' association. The bankers' association are perfectly satisfied with the present system and conditions because they are getting their bread buttered on both sides. But When
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tells us that the labour people are less revolutionary than the bankers' association, I am glad to know that because it means that conditions for labour in Canada must be excellent..
That is all I wish to say, beyond this one thing: that the legislation under discussion is in my opinion of the nature of oppression. I do not doubt the sincerity of the people who placed it on the statute book. The hon. gentlemen who were responsible for the legislation were responsible for the government of the country at that time. I have no criticism to offer in that respect, but I believe the legislation itself is of the nature of oppression and that it would do more towards bringing about than preventing a revolution.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, before this discussion closes I wish to add a word. The legislation we are repealing I have never considered necessary, and I deem it superfluous in any country where democracy is practised without partiality. In its essence legislation of this kind carries with it the implication of lawlessness on the part of some class or other. Whom does it implicate in this case? It implicates a class who have been under the domination of some other class and who have realized their helplessness to exact a square deal in any other way than by revolution. Parliament has a sovereign power to enforce law; but we may well ask: what is law? Law is the juridical sanction which is given to the will of the ruling class or the class which happens to be in power at the time. I believe the juridical sanction has been given for many years by parliament to laws which have been unjust to the workers and primary producers.
I say again that the sovereign power of parliament has been used for many years to enforce the juridical sanction of a code of legislation in accordance with the will of a powerful political-commercial or political-financial group in this house. I was amazed, nay, I was startled by the words of the leader of the opposition on one occasion since I came to parliament, and that was when we sent the soldiers presumably to enforce law in Nova Scotia but in reality to protect the so-considered rights and property of a tyrannical body which was oppressing its men. The leader of the opposition upbraided the Minister of Militia across the floor of this house in 1923 and said: "You have gathered up the militia all the way from Winnipeg and sent them east, and now what protection has western Canada?" There was trouble at Powell River at that time. I understand.
Criminal Code Amendment

Mr. Speaker, that we were then relying on force in this house rather than a square deal to preserve the peace and good government of this country. In the last few years we have tyrannically applied this force to our own shame, I say, and Canada may well be ashamed of the extent to which we have applied that force. Legislation of this kind will be needed so long as parliament as a body fails to protect the rights of the workers and the primary producers. Wage earners and labourers never strike until they realize their helplessness in getting a square deal by other means, and revolution has never taken place in any country except under those conditions.
My hon. friend has mentioned Russia. Russia is an exact case in point where the workers of a country have risen in their might because of untoward conditions under which they have been compelled to labour. It is within mjr own memory when conditions prevailed in that country under which no human being could live in any respectable way. I can remember when an order was issued by the czar himself, because of the condition of the peasants who occupied the land in that country, permitting them to go into the forests and pick up the dry branches that had fallen that they might use them for fuel, and gather up the fallen leaves for fodder. That was the condition which prevailed for many years in that country, and when at last the people rose we raised our hands in horror and called them bolshevik and Red. But revolutions never occur in any country until the people realize their helplessness to obtain a square deal ip any other way. It is for parliament, therefore, and the country to study these conditions, to examine with care the road we are travelling, and, if all is not right, to take whatever steps may be necessary in the light of justice and reason.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But for the observations that were made to-night by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) as to the circumstances under which this measure was originally passed, I should not on the third reading of the bill make any further observations. The hon. gentleman says that this bill was passed in 1919 as the result of a sudden panic, and after only twenty minutes consideration. My memory was not quite that, although I was not in the house at the time, and so I ventured to send to the library and get Hansard. The record shows that on the 1st day of May, 1919, a committee of this house under the chairmanship of the then Solicitor General, the Hon.

Hugh Guthrie, was appointed to consider the whole question with respect to sedition. Upon that committee there were many members of the Liberal party, the Union government then being in power.


Ernest Lapointe: There were very few
Liberals in the house at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the present Minister of Justice was one.


Ernest Lapointe: Not on the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not on the committee, but the Hon. Charles Murphy was on the committee, as well as Mr. Copp, the exSecretary of State. That committee made a report, but not until the 10th day of June. Their findings were not unanimous, but they made no minority report; no amendment was moved, and the report was unanimously adopted by the House of Commons. Then what happened? On the 27th of Jun,e, seventeen days after the report had been made and adopted, the Hon. Arthur Meighen, Acting Minister of Justice, moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 160, to amend the crim-minal code. Mr. McKenzie, then leading the Liberal party, asked him to explain, and Mr. Meighen made half a column of explanation. Mr. Murphy stated what his position had been, and then at page 4135 of Hansard, the motion is stated to have been agreed to and the bill read the first time.
I find that the bill was read the second time on the 1st of July. Page 4355 of Hansard shows that on motion of the Hon. Arthur Meighen, then Acting Minister of Justice, bill No. 160, to amend the criminal code, was read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the chair. Mr. Meighen explained that the bill was taken from the report of the committee except with a slight variation with respect to justice, instead of justices, of the peace. Then there followed a discussion in which Mr. Jacobs and Mr. McMaster participated, and finally, Mr. Meighen having made further explanations, Mr. Guthrie having made some, and Mr. Bureau having participated in the debate, we find that the bill was adopted. It was not, however, given its third reading that day.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did the hon. gentleman state that the bill was read on the 6th day of June? Were there not two different bills?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say anything about the 6th of June. I said that the committee was appointed on the 1st of May, that on the 10th of June it made its report, that on the 27th of June a bill based on the report

Criminal Code Amendment
of the committee was introduced and given a first reading, and that on the 1st of July the bill was given its second reading. There was not any twenty minutes hurry to get it through and read a third time that day, because according to Hansard, page 4380, on motion of the Hon. Arthur IMeighen, Acting Minister of Justice, Bill No. 160, to amend the criminal code, was read the third time and passed, the date being the 2nd day of July. That is, between the 1st of May, when the committee was first appointed, and the 2nd day of July, when the bill received its third reading and was passed, not on division, but without a question being raised against it, a period of two months had elapsed-not twenty minutes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon. gentleman
state that that bill amending the criminal code had reference to sedition, to what we are dealing with here?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely. This is the very bill we are talking about. Now, we go a step further. The bill could not become law until it had gone to the senate. On the 5th of July the bill came back from the senate, and page 4660 of Hansard shows that the house proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 160, to amend the criminal code. Mr. Meighen explained the differences between the amendments made by the senate and the bill as it left the House of Commons, and then at page 4661 of Ha-sard, we find these words:


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and concurred in.
The motion being that the senate amendments be concurred in. The bill did not then become law; it had to receive the royal assent. The royal assent was given to the bill when the house prorogued on the 7th of July, 1919.
It is just such statements, Mr. Speaker, as were made by the hon. member for North Winnipeg to-night that are responsible for the conditions aimed at by this legislation. I have no doubt that he has endeavoured to inflame the minds of labour men by inducing them to believe that this parliament did something in twenty minutes which it should have taken them two months to do, and which this parliament actually took over two months to do. It is just as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has pointed out:	you
arouse the animosities and prejudices and suspicions of groups of men by intimating that this parliament, reflecting the mind of plutocrats and others, has been endeavouring to crush free speech amongst the labour men of the country, when the very report made by the committee and! the Observations of those in charge of the legislation show that the facts
were directly the opposite. I join with my friend from Vancouver Centre in stating that in all this country there is no group of men more desirous of the enforcement of law and order than those organized under labour unions, for their very freedom of speech and continuance in useful existence depends upon their having the unfailing support of law and order. They must have order that they may pursue their vocations; they must have the protection of the law because under our institutions every man stands on an equality before the law: they must have those things if they are to prosper and maintain their families.
When the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) referred to what took place in 1923 as to the raising of troops, I wondered if he had reference to observations I had made as leader of the opposition. I had no memory of having done so. I was not sitting in the house at that time, but I doubt not it will be found that the then leader of the opposition by his observations intended to ensure peace, order, good government, prosperity, happiness -all of which spring from a just and proper observance of law and recognition of the equality of every man under the law. That is the important thing to remember-the equality of all men under the law, rich or poor, high or low. In this country so far, despite the attempts made at times to induce people to believe that it is otherwise, I have seen no instance in which I could not say truly that I believe in the administration of our criminal law every man stands on an equal footing-something which does not obtain in certain other countries.
I have never seen a more striking illustration than that afforded by the observations of the hon. member for North Winnipeg in his attempt to have the house believe that in a moment of panic parliament rushed through in twenty minutes this legislation that is now being repealed. I believed it until I found that over two months elapsed from the time the motion was made for the appointment of the special committee until it made its report on the 10th of June and the bill was finally passed into law early in July. It is just such statements as that which arouse and inflame the minds of those who look to the member for North Winnipeg and others for leadership. .Instead of accurate statements they receive misstatements, which lead them into conditions that imperil their liberty and bring discredit upon their organizations. That is the position we have before us to-night. That is why upon the third reading of this bill I have taken the trouble to direct the
[Stage Direction]
Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors
attention of the house to every stage of the measure from the time the special committee was appointed until the bill received the royal assent. Had it not been that I sent to the library for Hansard, the statement would have gone on record that this bill, supposedly a panic measure, was passed in twenty minutes by parliament because it was believed there was red revolution in the streets of Winnipeg. That was not the fact.
I do not propose further to trespass on the time of the house, but I conceive it to be a public duty to frown down any effort made to induce large bodies of our people to believe that this is the way parliament acts. This is what arouses unrest and hatred, instead of peace, unity and high desire to promote the interests of one another that usually characterize Canadian citizens whether they be found in parliament or elsewhere. I resent any effort to mislead the people in the way to which I have alluded.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third
time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 192, respecting interprovincial and international traffic in intoxicating liquors.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I congratulate the Minister of Justice on bringing forward this legislation. The provinces have long sought it. It will enable them beyond question to make effective their legislation, removing any doubt of the constitutionality of the statutes passed by the various provinces that have dealt with the liquor problem through government control. That is what is intended I understand, although the Nadan decision cleared the air.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; and it applies to two provinces which did not come under the old law.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Importation into province forbidden, etc.
Ernest Lapointe: I have two amendments to offer to section 3. First, by inserting after the word "railway" in the third line of paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the words:
including any necessary transfer by truck or railway car to a ship, or vice versa,
The subsection will then read:
The provisions of subsection one of this section shall not apply to
(a)	the carriage or transportation of intoxicating liquor into and through a province by means only of a common carrier by water or by railway, including any necessary transfer by truck or railway car to a ship, or vice versa, if. during the time the intoxicating liquor is being so carried or transported, the package or vessel containing the intoxicating liquor is not opened or broken or any of the intoxicating liquor drunk or used therefrom.
This is to cover cases where the railway has to transfer the liquor to a ship.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where there are no interchange facilities.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The other amendment is to add a new subsection to section 3, as follows:
The transfer from one distillery to another of any spirits or liquor which is permitted by any act or regulation lawfully in force, or by special permit of the Department of National Revenue.
This is suggested by the Department of National Revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Prosecution in place where liquor imported.
Milton Neil Campbell: Is it the intention of the department to leave the enforcement of this provision entirely to the provincial officials, or does the Dominion government intend to assume some responsibility? I notice here that no prosecution can be entered without the consent of the attorney general of the province. In any case where there is complaint in Manitoba, say, in regard to liquor being shipped into that province from Saskatchewan, I presume the Manitoba police will be empowered to deal with those who receive liquor in Manitoba. But the punishment of those shipping the liquor will evidently be left to the other province. It seems to me it would be difficult in these cases to get the provincial authorities to act. The logical thing would be for the federal authorities to take the responsibility.



192S

[Stage Direction]
Immigration Act
Ernest Lapointe: The same provision appeared in part IV of the Canada Temperance Act, which had the effect of supplementing the legislation of every province in regard to the prevention of liquor importations, and the provinces themselves have asked that this provision should be made, I do not think there will be any difficulty.


Milton Neil Campbell: It seems to me that this is only one step in the direction of the objective we all have in view, namely, the better enforcement of the liquor laws. Where there are such enormous profits as in the liquor business you will always have great difficulty in enforcing the law, and now that nearly all the provinces have public control of the sale of liquor, it would be only logical for the Dominion government to nationalize the manufacture of liquor. This may seem rather drastic, but I have in mind bringing before this parliament next session a resolution on this question.


Ernest Lapointe: Does the hon. member suggest that we engage in the trade of distillers?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes; nationalize the
manufacture. If you did that you would not increase the evil any more than the provincial governments to-day are increasing the evil by selling liquor, and you would curtail to a considerable extent the lawlessness which now surrounds the whole traffic. Anyone who has read the report of the royal commission that recently examined into the action of the brewers will be impressed with the fact that it is almost impossible for the authorities to enforce the law. What with the falsification of reports, and the illegal shipment of liquor here and there, the authorities are powerless to deal with the situation. I know the Minister of Justice and other members of the government will hesitate to take a step so drastic as nationalizing the breweries, but it is my conviction that this is the only way you will ever get to the root of the evil.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The provinces have approved of this?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It embodies their wishes?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 194, to amend the Canadian National Railway Act.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain the amendments?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have carefully examined the amendments, and had them examined by the legal officers of the department, and I can assure the committee that they are to the same effect precisely as the bill which left the house to go to the senate. The change is really a matter of construction of phraseology and has no bearing on the intention we had in passing the measure.


Mr. POULIOT:: I suppose the railway
commission will have full jurisdiction over construction, operation and maintenance, except in cases of expropriation?


Charles Avery Dunning: Construction, maintenance and operation, excepting provisions relating to the location of lines of railway, the making and filing of plans and profiles, other than highway and railway crossing plans, and the expropriation provision. That is all.


Jean-François Pouliot: It includes railway stations, fences and ditches.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no doubt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And fences?


Charles Avery Dunning: He said fences.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 187, to amend the Immigration Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Persons deemed to belong to prohibited classes.
Robert Forke: This bill is designed to
make deportation for certain causes dependent upon conviction in Canada under part II of the criminal code relating to offences against public order, rather than upon a bearing before a board of inquiry condemning certain offences under section 41 of the Immigration
Immigration Act

Act. Proceedings for the deportation of such undesirable classes are provided by sections 40, 42 and 43 of the act, and under these sections deportation may be carried out. It is considered that the provisions of section 41 are unnecessary, as section 40 and part II of the criminal code cover the case. Section 41 of the Immigration act reads:
Every person who
(a)	by word or act in Canada seeks to overthrow by force or violence the government of or constituted law and authority in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or Canada, or any of the provinces of Canada, or the government of any other pf His Majesty's dominions, colonies, possessions or dependencies, or advocates the assassination of any official of any of the said governments or of any foreign government, or who in Canada defends or suggests the unlawful destruction of property or by word or act creates or attempts to create any riot or public disorder in Canada; or
(b)	without lawful authority assumes any powers of government in Canada or in any part thereof; or
(c)	by common repute belongs to or is suspected of belonging any secret society or organization which extorts money from or in anyway attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or by threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail; or
(d)	is a member of or affiliated with any
organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government; shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to belong to the prohibited or undesirable classes, and shall be liable to deportation in the manner provided by this act, and it shall be the duty of any officer becoming cognizant thereof and of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein any such person may be, forthwith to send a written complaint to the minister, giving full particulars:	Provided, that this section shall not
apply to any person who is a British subject, either by reason of birth in Canada, or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
This amendment to the Immigration Act has been before the house four times, I believe, and has been adopted each time. I might point out that the crimes or misdemeanors mentioned in this section are pretty well taken care of by the criminal code and also by section 3, subsection (n) and (o) of the Immigration Act. Those sections refer particularly to immigrants newly coming to Canada who are dealt with at the port of debarkation. This matter has been debated in this house so often that I believe every hon. member is pretty well aware of the arguments which can be advanced for and against the amendment. You will notice that this does not apply to anyone who is a British subject by reason of birth or naturalization in Canada. It means that under this section no immigrant coming from England, no matter how long he may have been in Canada, can claim a trial by a judge and jury for
[Mr. Forked
treason or any of the misdemeanors mentioned; no matter how long he may have been in Canada he is still liable to deportation. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned Mr. Jackson Dodds, who is a very estimable and highly respected citizen of Winnipeg, it just struck me that he would come under this section and would be liable to deportation should he be found guilty of using any language which might be thought treasonable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He only presided at the banquet; Mr. Graham used the language.


Robert Forke: That is so, but it did strike me that if Mr. Dodds had made those statements he would have been liable for deportation if the circumstances corresponded to those which existed at the time this section was placed in the Immigration Act.
I think this amendment should appeal to the sense of fair play of all the members of this house. British immigrants have been treated so well and so generously by native-born Canadians that I think as a matter of fair play they should be treated in this regard as well as we treat an immigrant coming from Central Europe. Just the other evening the hon. member for Comox-Albemi brought a lady to my room in a very indignant frame of mind. She had resided in Canada for sixteen years, and upon going home for a visit to England had overstayed the one year period during which British immigrants may remain abroad without notice to the Department of Immigration. When an immigrant overstays that limit he loses his domicile and can only return to Canada as an immigrant. That is another thing that I would like to see remedied. This lady found herself in that position, and she was very indignant that she, a good citizen of British Columbia, should be treated as an immigrant when she wanted to return to Canada. She also told me it was quite common talk in her locality in England that if a British immigrant came to Canada and committed any crime, immediately he would be deported back to England no matter how long he had stayed in this country. I know this is entirely wrong; that only applies where certain crimes have been committed, but hon. gentlemen will appreciate the effect such a story might have. I hear a great deal these days about the Department of Immigration not being as anxious as it should be to secure British immigrants.
Mr. BENNETT; Hear, hear.
Mr. FORKE; The leader of the opposition says "hear, hear;" I hope he does not think

Immigration Act
the Minister of Immigration is guilty of that fault. However, hon. members will quite appreciate that a rumour of that kind will have its effect upon English people who may desire to come to Canada. This lady said she had been in Canada sixteen years; she was a good Canadian; this was her country, and she could not understand any law which would make a distinction between her and a native born Canadian. An alien coming from continental Europe enjoys privileges that are not enjoyed by British subjects.
The name of Hon. D. D. McKenzie has been mentioned to-night, but I do not think I can agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said about that gentleman. I remember a conversation which I had with him a number of years ago, with regard to this section of the Immigration Act; while I did not feel very strongly about it I thought it rather cast a reflection upon British immigrants. I remember that Mr. McKenzie, in his inimitable way, said to me, "Oh, don't be afraid, Mr. Forke; we will never deport you." In that sentence he put me in an entirely different class from native-born Canadians; and I think that is the real difficulty. It is largely a matter of sentiment, because I do not believe it likely that any reputable citizen coming to Canada from Great Britain and living in this country will be deported; but sentiment, Mr. Chairman, is a very powerful thing and has very great influence. The act as it stands puts it in the hands of the minister or his officers, without trial, to deport anyone on mere suspicion of sedition. That is to say, a board of inquiry of the immigration officials can deport anyone who is suspected of treason, without trial. As a matter of fair play I think anyone who has come to Canada, who has been a good citizen, who has lived here for years, who has done his part in the developing of the country, participated in its interests and activities, is at least entitled to trial by a judge and jury, and then if found guilty he may be deported to the country from which he came.
I do not know that it is necessary to make any lengthy speech on this subject. It is perfectly evident what is involved in the elimination of this section from the Immigration Act. I would appeal to the hon. members on the other side to look upon this matter in a broad way-I will not say in a charitable way, but from a sense of even-handed justice. I know that no hon. member on that side wishes to cast any slur upon immigrants from Great Britain, but it does seem peculiar that a man can come to Canada and marry a Canadian girl, and his children will have
privileges which he does not enjoy. The sense of fair play in the thing appeals to me, and I ask that this section be taken out of the Immigration Act.
Mr. McQUARRlE:	How many men or
women have been deported under this provision?


Robert Forke: I do not know that any have been deported, but it oasts a stigma upon men and women who may have been in this country for forty years, and who are in this respect not on an equality with those who have come here and have received Canadian citizenship. It is not a matter of suffering, but it is a matter of sentiment; and sentiment is sometimes stronger than law. I am not making any complaint. I have every reason to be thankful and proud of the privileges which I have enjoyed as a British immigrant, and I have found the Canadian people warmhearted and ready to extend to all British immigrants kind treatment. I would appeal to the' house to remove this stigma, because it is a stigma on British immigrants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has referred to one matter which I think should engage the attention of parliament, and when this bill is before the house it should possibly be determined by an amendment. He referred to a lady who had lived in Canada for some sixteen years, but who, having been absent in Great Britain on a visit, when she came back to this country found that she was treated as an immigrant.


Robert Forke: Because she had been in
England more than a year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let me state what I
conceive the law would be. The domicile of a person is not necessarily (his residence. Domicile consists of two factors, namely, the anima, the state of mind or intention-I will not use the legal word-of the person, plus the fact of residence. Any person who comes into Canada from any other country with the intention of making this country his or her home, and who resides here for even a short time, is in law domiciled in Canada. So that when this lady went to England and stayed there for fifteen or eighteen months, the question as to what her intentions were would become of paramount importance. If her intention was still to make her home in Canada, when she came back to resume her residence in the country that she had chosen as her home by intention, her domicile was still Canadian.
24S6
Immigration Act


Charles Avery Dunning: If she had declared her
intention of returning to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is the difficulty.
The question has frequently engaged the attention of the courts, in connection with succession duties. An outstanding case is the Widmer case. A very rich American who bad for many years resided in Great Britain, and had very large sums of money in the Bank of England, died, and his estate was taxed for succession duty by the British authorities. It was contended that he had never lost his domicile. The decision ultimately was that there was no evidence to show that he had ever expressed an intention to make England his permanent home, although he had resided there. There was no such expression of intention as would indicate the two factors had combined, namely, the intention to make his home in England, and the residence in pursuance of his intention. His property in Great Britain therefore, was not taxable as though he were a domiciled Englishman. I contend that our statute should be changed; we should say that any person domiciled in Canada may return to Canada at any time. For why should a domiciled Canadian be shut out of this country? My hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer) I daresay has in mind the case of one of his constituents, a man from England who went over to England and lived there, and then found he could not get back into Canada because in the meantime he had suffered ill health and was not in perfect physical condition. I regard that as a very serious situation. The minister should consider whether there should not be an amendment added declaring clearly that a domiciled Canadian cannot be kept out of Canada. If the Minister of Railways and Canals were to go to England for fifteen months and then come back, the Minister of Immigration would have to issue a permit for him to enter Canada. My friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) would be in exactly the same position.


Charles Avery Dunning: Worse than that, both of us can be deported without trial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt that if
the hon. gentleman spoke his mind they both would be deported.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 30, 1928