1929-05-23

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 309, respecting The Dominion of Canada Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company, and to change its name to " The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company."-Mr. Geary.

Industrial Relations-Mr. McIntosh

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Brown.
Twelfth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Cahill.
Seventh report of the select standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe'-Rouville).

Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac):: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: Of course that money
must be voted by the house because the moment the money is deposited with the officers of the house and the bill does not pass, the money automatically goes back to the receiver general.


Frank S. Cahill: The motion is to refund
the money.


Hewitt Bostock: I would say: Stand.


Frank S. Cahill: Why should it stand? I
think it has been the custom to make a motion of this kind in the past.


Hewitt Bostock: Stand.
Motion stands.



PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. GEORGES BOUCHARD (Kamour-aska) moved:: That the select standing committee on the printing of parliament be given leave to sit while the house is in session.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough) moved:: That the select standing committee on marine and fisheries be given leave to sit while the house is in session.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	I beg to move:
That the recommendations contained in the second report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations presented to the house on May 1st last be concurred in.
Mr. BENNETT:: I think that should stand.


Hewitt Bostock: Stand? Notice has been
given.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Notice of this motion
has been given since May 1, and I think it has stood long enough. I am ready to go on with this motion to-day.
The report presented to the house by the committee on industrial and international relations on the first day of May, and printed in the votes and proceedings of May 1, No. 52, is a report based on a resolution adopted by this house on February 14. That resolution, after adoption by the house, was sent to the committee for investigation and report, the committee being instructed to investigate and report on insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity. The house will remember that last year this same resolution was before the committee on industrial and international relations, and last year's report was adopted by the house on June 6th. That report is of importance at the present time.
Before entering into an analysis of last year's report, I should like to say on behalf of the committee of which I am chairman that we have done our best during the last two years to unravel this complicated question and bring in a report that would be favoured by the house. If there is any fault to find with the report I believe that it can be traced to the fact that the resolution which was before the house was not considered seriously enough before being sent on to the committee. I believe the committee has done excellent work. I am not speaking for myself as chairman of the committee, but I believe that we have given to the resolution all the time, care and study that was possible. Lord Disraeli once said that man has been made to adore and obey. I do not know about the adoration so far as this committee's work is concerned, but I do know that the committee has tried to obey the instructions of the house, to investigate and report on a very difficult question, one of the most technical questions that can come before any committee of the house. There is more than one viewpoint to consider when ex*
2772	COMMONS
Industrial Relations-Mr. McIntosh
amining a question of this kind. It needs not only vision to see the problem in hand, but a little sentiment also to warm up to a resolution of that nature, and then it is for the committee to do its best in an executive way to bring in a report that will be satisfactory to the house and to the country.
Hon. members will notice that in the treaty of Peace, in section 1 of part XIII, dealing with labour and the question of universal peace, the statement is made, and I believe it is true, that if we want universal peace in the world it must be based on social justice. If we are to have social justice we must pay attention to some of the fundamentals of labour.
The preamble of this labour section of the treaty of peace first of all deals with a number of important questions affecting labour. It speaks of the injustice and hardship surrounding, for instance, the control of labour; secondly, of insurance against unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age; thirdly, of the necessary organization and association to bring labour problems before the public; it also deals with the special need for vocational and technical education. These are some of the labour problems that we must face if we are to solve the problems of the labour world and do social justice to all in need in order to bring about national and international peace. They are ideas which concern the justice of labour, and must be carried into effect if humanity is to play its part in solving problems of this kind.
The report that was presented to the house last year was divided into numerous parts. The committee took the stand, in the first place, that unemployment is an important national problem, and a problem that must be faced and solved if we are to solve the problems of the labour world during the next few years. We cannot dodge the issue; we must face it provincially and nationally. Some hon. members may think that a resolution of this kind is not very important, but it is bound to assume more and more importance as the years pass by.
In the second clause of last year's report the committee took a square stand on the question of unemployment insurance; that is, insurance against unemployment based on compulsory contributions by the employer, the employee, and the state. The next clause in that report, which was adopted by the house on June 6th last year, places the responsibility for unemployment insurance upon the different provinces. It was a question that the committee considered to be one of provincial jurisdiction.

The committee next drew attention to the fact that in Canada we have not got the necessary data upon which to base the approximate cost of an unemployment insurance scheme in Canada, and it asked the Labour department at Ottawa to get to work during the ensuing year and do its best to provide that data.
The other clause in the report was to the effect that the committee would like to reinvestigate the question this session. We have spent one or two months on this work.
The resolution this year again deals with insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity. The report presented a few days ago to a large extent covers the same ground as the report of last session, with one or two new features.
The committee, after investigating as far as possible the subject matter of the resolution, took pretty much the same ground as I have mentioned, last year, that' insurance against unemployment should be based on a eompuulsory foundation.	Since the matter is one of provincial jurisdiction, and since all the provinces last year were notified of the report of the committee and replied that	they were not
ready to take any action, the present committee recommended: that the Department of National Health be asked to initiate a comprehensive health program by cooperating with the provincial and municipal health departments; that in the forthcoming census provision be made to register all unemployment and sickness in Canada, and that when that data is secured it should be compiled and published as quickly as possible; that when I he next provincial-federal conference is held, the Dominion government should invite the representatives of organized labour and of organized industry to be present to discuss the subject matter of the report.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the present report to a large extent follows the lines of that presented last year; they have certain points in common. Briefly, both recommend compulsory contributions from the state, the employer and the employee. As the subject matter falls within the competency of the provincial authorities, the committee recommends that action be taken by the legislatures of the respective provinces. The committee recognizes the importance of securing all the data possible on sickness insurance.
This is a very important problem, Mr. Speaker, and the time has now arrived when the report of the committee should be concurred in by the house or rejected. I believe (hat many hon. members may not be cog-

Industrial Relations-Mr. Heaps
nizant of the subject matter of the investigation, 'but I believe there are others who are quite anxious to see something tangible result from it, and the sooner this report is thoroughly debated so the country and parliament may know where we are at, the better it will be for all concerned.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: With the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. McIntosh), Mr. Speaker, I realize (he very great importance of the subject matter of this report. I have followed the chairman of the committee with a great deal of interest and the closest atention in the hope that he might give the house a little more enlightenment as to what is really contained in the report.
I am one of those in this house who do not feel satisfied with the recommendations embodied in the report. I have gone into the matter rather carefully, I have attended as many of the meetings as I possibly could, and although I am not a member of the committee I appreciate the many courtesies that were extended to me by its members. They went about their work in the most diligent manner, they examined a great many witnesses, and I had hoped that after the recommendations presented last year, we might have had something more tangible as a result of their labours this session.
There has been, I believe, a great deal of unfair criticism levelled against the work of that committee. With such criticism I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. Nevertheless, I do think that constructive criticism -and that is the form I wish to employ on this particular question-is the kind that the chairman of the committee and the whole house will welcome.
The state has a certain responsibility to the man or woman who happens to be out of work. I believe the employer has also a certain amount of responsibility. As recorded in the report last year, it was the intention of that committee that a form of such insurance should be compulsory and be participated in by the state, the employer and the employee. With that suggestion I have no quarrel, because it follows the practice of other countries which have had similar schemes in operation for a number of years.
Last session the house accepted the principle of compulsory unemployment and sickness insurance. We are asked this year to adopt the principle once again. Personally I do not see the necessity of asking the house to endorse the same principle twice. When the committee was asked this year again to consider the question, the intention behind the
resolution was for them to bring forward something more concrete than they submitted last year. In this case I must disagree with what the chairman has had to say. I regard this report as a step backwards, and I shall try to prove this to the house.
Now, the chairman of the committee in bringing this matter before the house, stated that the question was a national problem. With that statement I am in hearty agreement. If it is a national program, then I think it must be dealt with in a national manner, and not in a provincial manner. In section 3 of the report of last year, dated June 1, 1928-and the report was adopted by the house-the following recommendation is contained:
That the evidence of the Justice department makes it clear that the responsibility for such legislation rests on the provincial authorities, it being within their jurisdiction under the provisions of the British North America Act, but that it would be within the power of parliament to contribute, by grant, to such provinces as adopted such legislation, following the precedent set in the matter of technical education, highway construction, and, more recently, the Old Age Pension Act.
Now that was the recommendation of the committee last year and it was unanimously adopted by the house. This year what do the committee recommend? A comparison of the two recommendations will show my hon. friend the chairman of the committee (Mr. McIntosh), and hon. members of the house generally, just why I regard the present report as a backward step. Paragraph 2 of the report this year has the following to say with reference to the question of jurisdiction:
Your committee recognizes that while it is highly desirable that such legislation should be uniform in all the provinces, and while social insurance has a federal aspect, nevertheless, according to the Department of Justice, under our constitution legislative jurisdiction in relation to the establishment of a compulsory system of unemployment insurance as vested exclusively in the provincial legislatures.
And it stops there. Hon. members will here observe the difference between the report of the committee last year and the report submitted this year: last year they stated that the Dominion parliament might, if it so desired, assist in some way in the matter of legislation of this character, just as it has assisted under the Old Age Pensions Act; this year they claim in the report that the matter is entirely one within provincial jurisdiction. Now if we were to depend entirely upon the strict letter of the British North America Act, there are a great many things which this parliament has undertaken which would never have been put into force. The fact is that we have tried to find ways and means of over-

Industrial Relations-Mr. Heaps
coming some obstacles in the British North America Act in order that we might be able to put certain legislation into effect. Let us suppose, Mr. Speaker, that this parliament bad taken, in respect to the question of old age pensions, the attitude which the committee has taken on the question of social insurance: there would never have been any .Old Age Pensions Act on the statutes of this Dominion.
Again, in its report this year, the committee states that the provincial legislatures were not anxious to come within the provisions of such legislation. Let me once more refer to the question of old age pensions. If we had waited until all the provinces had signified their intention to take advantage of that legislation there would be to-day no Old Age Pensions Act on the statute books of Canada. Well, the very same thing applies now to social insurances. In this regard I venture to make this observation. Since last year, and since the beginning of this session, there seems to have been a change of opinion on the part of certain ministers of the crown. A few months ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) described as a vicious principle what he regarded as an encroachment by the federal authorities into the provincial sphere; he said that there should be a clear line of demarcation between the work of the provinces and the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. I am just wondering whether the report submitted by the committee this year does not cany out that view indicated by the Prime Minister in this house some months ago in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. However, I hope I am wrong in that surmise. Personally I hold that the questions of unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance Should be mainly a Dominion responsibility, and1 I believe that if the government is willing it can find ways and means of overcoming any obstacle in the way of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the Dominion. In this connection I wish to read a paragraph from the platform of the Liberal party-I am sure the government is not going to go 'back on its own platform of 1921.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That is only a chart.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, I regard this as a very good chart, exactly as I am going to regard the Conservative party's platform of 1927 on the same question. Reading from this chart or platform I find at page 9 the following reference to this matter:
That in so far as may be practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age and other disability, which would include old age pen-
sions, widows' pensions, and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces; and that on matters pertaining to industrial and social legislation an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the Dominion and the provinces by effective cooperation between the several governments.
I hope I am not asking too much of the government when I suggest to them on this occasion that they put iwto effect their own platform of 1921 just on the eve of the election. And having read that particular plank in the Liberal party's platform, I turn now to the more recent convention held by the Conservative party in the city of Winnipeg. I do not know whether the environment of Winnipeg made them think of social insurance, but if it did I am glad that the Conservative party's convention was held in that city. Let me read just one or two paragraphs from their platform in regard to what they term capital and labour. Beginning with paragraph 9, they say:
So far as is practicable-
Mark you, exactly the same words as used by the Liberal party in 1921. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) asks me whether this is a chart. No doubt they are both charts, but at any rate I am going to ask that legislation be enacted along the lines charted by both parties:
So far as is practicable, to support social legislation designed to conserve human life, health and temperance, to relieve distress during periods of unemployment, sickness and old age.
This is substantially, in effect, the same as the resolution adopted by the Liberal party in 1921. On a previous occasion I expressed ' the opinion that when the house is too unanimous on a question we generally get nowhere. I hope I am not justified in that opinion and I trust that on this occasion, in view of the unanimity of the Liberal and Conservative parties on this question, something in the way of definite legislation will result from the present committee's deliberations.
To the working people of this country this is probably the most important question that has come before the house this year; I do not think I am exaggerating in the slightest degree when I say that in the report submitted this afternoon at least 25 per cent of the people of Canada are vitally interested. Legislation along the lines I have suggested would affect that proportion of the population. Of course, I realize the difficulties in the way of enacting such legislation; but the average man and woman are not very much concerned with difficulties of jurisdiction, as

Industrial Relations-Mr. Neill
between the provinces and the Dominion. We overcame one difficulty in 1926 in connection with old age pensions and there is no reason why we cannot ovecome the same difficulty in relation to legislation of this character. It appears to me that if the house adopts, as it stands, the report of this committee it will be shirking its responsibility, because the whole responsibility will then rest on the provinces; and if we asked the provinces to enact such legislation it would mean that no legislation would be enacted. I cannot imagine that one province would enact a scheme of insurances while neighbouring provinces did not pass similar legislation. I can understand the situation in regard to old age pensions legislation, which is on a basis entirely different from that of a scheme of social insurances. No question of insurance is involved in the old age pension legislation; it is entirely a contribution by the state to aged persons requiring assistance. Therefore in one sense it is not such a great hardship if persons in one province do not obtain old age pensions while persons in another province are given that assistance, but in the case of social insurance in which unemployment, sickness and invalidity are involved, and where there is compulsory contribution to such a scheme by the employees, that is on an entirely different basis. Let us imagine for a moment that in the province of Ontario it was desired to adopt such a scheme; we can understand how difficult it would be for a man living in Ottawa and working in Hull. It would be almost impossible to work out such a scheme unless there was uniform legislation in all the provinces. In order to obtain the uniformity which is necessary there must be some central and responsible body to enact that legislation, and the only responsible and central body is this Dominion parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if possible I would like to help the committee out on this question. According to this motion they now wish to put the whole responsibility on the provinces, but in this country we cannot have nine different schemes of social insurance; I would much prefer one scheme enacted by the federal parliament, and I believe there is a way out of the difficulty. It is a debatable question whether or not this parliament has sufficient jurisdiction in this matter, but assuming we have not that jurisdiction we can do in this matter just as we did in connection with the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Under that act the powers vested in some of the provinces have been handed over by them to the Dominion parliament,
and now this parliament has the full right to legislate with regard to industrial disputes in those provinces, under t'he provisions ol the act to which I have just referred.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this report referred back to the committee. I know that by so doing at this stage of the session it will mean that the report is dead so far as this year is concerned, but I will take full responsibility for such action. I would much prefer to have this report killed than to have this house adopt a report which means practically nothing to the vast majority of the working people in this country. I think if the report went back and the committee considered the suggestion I now make, that the provincial authorities vest in the Dominion authority the right to legislate in connection with unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance, we would be taking a step forward. Even in this report it is claimed that this should be a matter for federal legislation, in order that the legislation might be uniform, and if this is ithe case I think we should at least try to bring into being such uniform legislation by a federal enactment.
Therefore I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill):
That the said report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations be not now concurred in hut that it be referred back to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations with instructions that they have power to amend the same by adding thereto a clause recommending that all the provinces of the Dominion be requested to pass legislation under which the jurisdiction in relation to legislation providing for unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance based on compulsory contribution and which is now claimed to be within or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces be vested in the Dominion government.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a rather ambiguous position with regard to this matter; I am seconding a resolution moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) asking to amend the report of a committee of which I was a member, and in whose report I acquiesced. However, I am prepared to take the full responsibility for my action; I could not think of a better solution of the problem before us, and. somewhat shamefacedly I am compelled to say to my hon. friend from North Winnipeg, in the words of Kipling, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din." I only hope this condition will not become habitual.
The report of the committee deals with the question of unemployment in three sections; first it endorses the principle which we en-
2776	COMMONS
Industrial Relations-Mr. Neill
dorsed last year and then it says that the provinces, on being consulted, apparently were not prepared for immediate action. The provinces were very wishy-washy in their answers; some of them merely acknowledged receipt of the letter, and no province exhibited' the slightest interest in the matter. The third and the only active suggestion contained in this report is that in the forthcoming census provision should be made for the securing of the fullest possible data with regard to the extent of unemployment and sickness, and that this information should be compiled and published as soon as possible. I must confess that when we drew up that report I felt this to be quite inadequate, because the census will not be taken for another two years, and two or three^ years more will elapse before that information is compiled, tabulated and published, so it will be practically useless.
If I remember correctly, in the report of this committee last year it was suggested that the Labour department should take steps to ascertain by practical methods, from month to month, the extent of unemployment in Canada. Some of the officials of that department appeared before the committee this year and stated that this was practically impossible. I do not think it is impossible, and I believe a better attempt could and should have been made to obtain that information. The officials did not say it was absolutely impossible; they said it would involve enormous expense, but I do not agree with that contention either.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg has stated that the adoption of this amendment would mean the abandonment of any report from this committee this year. Seeing the nature of the report I think no great hardship will result if the matter is held over for another year, because the census will not be held for two years, and that is the only practical suggestion contained in the report. This amendment does contain a practical, concrete suggestion, and it does seem to clear the air of this continual miasma which we meet at every turn, as to the respective jurisdiction of the Dominion and of the provinces. We have been travelling around and around that question for the last two years in this committee; we have had reports and opinions from the legal officers and so on, 'but we do not seem to go ahead. As the hon. member stated, a precedent exists for this action; a similar policy was adopted when the provinces waived their rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, turning them over to the Dominion. That gave the Dominion full jurisdiction; that appears to have worked well and I see no reason why it should not work well in this case also.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Does my hon. friend think the provinces have the right to do that without. an amendment to the British North America Act?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, because whatever divergence of opinion there may be as to the rights of the provinces, we must accept the fact that they have some rights, and if the provinces pass legislation turning over these rights, whatever they may be, to the Dominion, certainly I think that would be constitutional.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does not
my hon. friend think it would be more intelligent to proceed in this way: Have the federal parliament pass the legislation which is desired and make it operative only after concurrent legislation has been passed by the respective provinces?


Alan Webster Neill: No, that principle was adopted in the Old Age Pension Act and it was made permissive to each province. The general scheme of unemployment, owing to its very nature, could not be made provincially permissive; it would have to be universal, and for that reason we would desire to have it handled by the one federal authority.


Mr. CAHAN:: The amendment is:
That the said report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations be not now concurred in but that it be referred back to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations with instructions that they have power to amend the same by adding thereto a clause recommending that all the provinces of the Dominion be requested to pass legislation under which the jurisdiction in relation to legislation providing for unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance. based on compulsory contribution and which is now claimed to be within or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, be vested in the Dominion government.
Does the hon. gentleman suggest that, when specific jurisdiction is vested under the constitution in the provinces, the provinces by any conceivable legislation could revest that jurisdiction in the Dominion parliament? It seems to me to be the most extraordinary suggestion I have heard for some time.


Alan Webster Neill: That was the belief of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and myself, and we have the precedent of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. However, the recommendation was merely that it be referred back to the committee with instructions along those lines. This is not- an enactment and it was drawn by men who are not constitutional lawyers like my hon. friend. When it is sent back to the committee we hope to avail ourselves of the opportunity of putting it in the precise legal phraseology.

Industrial Relations-Mr. Lapointe


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I am bound to object to the amendment of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) as I believe that it could not be adopted 'by this parliament, as is suggested by the hon. member for St. Laiwrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). The amendment proposes :
that all the provinces of the Dominion be requested to pass legislation under which the jurisdiction in relation to legislation providing for unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance based on compulsory contribution and which is now claimed to be within or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces be vested in the Dominion government.
We would be asking the provinces to do something which they have no right, no power and no authority to do.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the hon. minister explain how the authority was given under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act?


Ernest Lapointe: That is quite different. The hon. member proposes in his amendment that it would of necessity be a compulsory contribution. A compulsory contribution by employers and by employees, as has been said in the house, is undoubtedly a matter of civil rights as it affects the civil rights of both the employers and the employees, and it comes clearly and exclusively within the scope of the matters assigned to the provinces for legislation under the British North America Act.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are there ho civil rights under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act?


Ernest Lapointe: There was no compulsion placed upon anyone. That act had to be changed in order to make it constitutional, as my hon. friend knows. That act was declared unconstitutional by the Privy Council and we had to change it and limit it to federal matters which came within the powers of this federal legislature. We offered the machinery of the Labour department and of this enactment to the provinces who might ask this parliament to put that machinery at their disposal in the case of industrial disputes.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Did not the provinces surrender certain rights which they claimed to be provincial?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They passed enabling legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite sure that the provinces would never agree to this parliament imposing contributions and taxation on their citizens in matters which were undoubtedly provincial; they would not agree to that, and even if they did agree I do not think they would have the right to do so. The provinces have the right to delegate certain powers to municipalities, to commissions and to bodies which are of their own creation, and those bodies have the right to pass regulations and by-laws, but the provinces under the provisions of the British North America Act cannot delegate those powers to the federal parliament. That act is a charter- it is not a chart as explained by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) a few minutes ago-of the provinces and a charter of the Dominion, and neither one has the right to change it. If my hon. friend will not accept my views in this matter perhaps he will accept the views of the Privy Council. I have here the words of Lord Watson, given in a case reported in Lefroy's Canada's Federal System, in which he said:
The Dominion cannot give jurisdiction, or leave jurisdiction, with the province. The provincial parliament cannot give legislative jurisdiction to the Dominion parliament. If they have it, either one or the other of them, they have it by virtue of the act of 1867. I think we must get rid of the idea that either one or the other can enlarge the jurisdiction of the other or surrender jurisdiction.
To these remarks Lord Davey added, "or curtail."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Have you the reference from which you are quoting?


Ernest Lapointe: This is in the course of the argument in Canadian Pacific R. W. Co. versus Bonsecours, (1899) A.C. 367.
Sir John Thompson, when Minister of Justice in 1889-the house will find his words on page 218 of the same book-said that he had to express his dissent from the view:
-that the interpretation of the British North America Act can in any way he affected by subsequent legislation by parliament, or the legislatures, or by any action of the government. No legislative body can. by legislation, increase or diminish the authority conferred upon it by the constitution, nor can any expression of opinion or course of legislative action by either afford any conclusive or even satisfactory guide to its interpretation.
No person in Canada can be hound by acquiescence in unconstitutional legislation on the on the part of governments, even if such acquiescence has occurred.
It is an elementary principle that governments, no more than individuals, can do indirectly what they cannot do directly. In that regard I will read two leading propositions of Lefroy in his book entitled Canada's Federal System. They are propositions Nos. 17 and 18, as follows:
17. The parliament of Canada cannot under colour of general legislation deal with what
2778	COMMONS
Industrial Relations-Mr. Lapointe
are provincial matters only, and conversely provincial legislatures cannot under the mere pretence of legislating upon one of the matters enumerated in section 92, really legislate upon a matter assigned to the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
18. If the Dominion parliament or the provincial legislatures have no power to legislate directly upon a given subject matter, neither may they do so indirectly.
This is not new; the desire of going beyond the jurisdiction of a parliament is not peculiar to this one nor to the provincial legislatures in certain matters. Experience shows that all bodies are rather impatient of the limitations imposed upon their jurisdiction and powers, but in the case of a confederation like Canada, which by a contract binds every part of it together, we ought not to enter lightly upon any steps or make any move which would be an encroachment upon the powers of one or another of the legislative bodies created by that act.
There are, I believe, only two matters which clearly, under the British North America Act, come under the joint jurisdiction of the Dominion and the provinces. These are agriculture and immigration. As regards anything which concerns agriculture or immigration the federal parliament has the right to legislate and so have the provinces. In regard to health there are certain matters which the British North America Act gives to the federal government to supervise, for instance, matters concerning seamen. As a matter of fact, hospitals, with the exception of marine hospitals are placed under provincial jurisdiction. Matters concerning quarantine, inspection of immigrants and that sort of thing come under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. When parliament created the Department of Health, there were some who entertained the view that it was rather doubtful whether parliament had the authority to do so, but if my hon. friend will read the act he will see that the Canadian parliament was very careful to say that the department has no control over matters which are under provincial control. They took care to say that they would not have any control whatever of provincial bodies, and the federal acts which are to be administered by that Department of Health are specially mentioned. They also say that one of the duties of the department would be to collect information and as far as this goes I have no objection to the report of the committee in respect of the matter which we are now discussing, because it is identical to the power given to the Department of Health, to collect information, to endeavour to obtain the cooperation of the various provinces with regard to matters of

health which in certain emergencies might become national in their scope. But I repeat that the amendment of my hon. friend, which specifically states that unemployment insurance would have to be established by way of compulsory contributions by the persons concerned, both employers and employees, in the provinces, it is entirely outside of oui jurisdiction and we would be asking the provinces to do something which they would have no right to do by transferring their powers to the federal'parliament.
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George); Personally I endorse the principle stated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) but it seems to me to have a wider application than that which he has given to it. The first clause of this report which is found on page 338 of the votes and proceedings of May 1, 1929, reads:
That your committee 'accept and endorse the principle of unemployment insurance, based on compulsory contributions derived from the state, employer and employees.
Obviously, according to the opinion given by the law officers of the government, reaffirmed to-day by the Minister of Justice, unemployment insurance which is based on compulsory contributions from the state, employer and employees, is a matter within the legislative and administrative jurisdiction of each of the several provinces of Canada. That being admitted, why should the parliament of Canada express a gratuitous opinion upon a public matter which is not within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament or the administrative jurisdiction of the government responsible to parliament? Why should we in this parliament, who have very extended duties and obligations to the public, set ourselves up as the judges of the duties and responsibilities of members of the several legislatures, and attempt, by adopting a report of a nature which I have read, to superimpose our gratuitous opinions upon the legislatures of the provinces and the governments which are responsible to those legislatures? Even if we adopt the report of the committee in its present form, we are going far outside of any jurisdiction committed to the parliament of Canada.


Mr. STEVENS:: It is eyewash.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps it might be so
termed.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will
permit me, perhaps it is a reciprocal act of courtesy, because it occasionally happens that the legislatures offer views to this parliament on certain matters.

Industrial Relations-Mr. Cahan


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I doubt whether the Prime
Minister and his colleagues appreciate the courtesy of the provincial governments when they seek to impose provincial duties and responsibilities upon the government represented by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, and such returns of courtesies of that nature simply lead us into grave and almost irremedial difficulties, or at the least they lead us into confusion of thought always. Speaking for myself, because I do not know that this report has ever been considered by the other members of the party to which I belong, and as I have no right to express their opinions, and my opinions are therefore wholly personal, I could not endorse this report containing that clause; I could not even vote for the adoption of the report. I admit that there are several other matters mentioned in the report which are within our jurisdiction; that the census, for instance, is within our jurisdiction, and it is perfectly proper for this committee to recommend to the house and for this house to recommend to the government that in the taking of the new census certain additional information should be sought by means of that census, information which is useful to this parliament and which may be particularly useful to the legislatures of the several provinces. Therefore, I would support some of the recommendations under clause 4, but I am not able personally to endorse and accept the report as a whole. I also find great difficulty in accepting the amending resolution moved by my hon. friend.
The amendment that the report should not now be concurred in I can support in its entirety. That it should be referred back to the committee for further consideration I would endorse most heartily, but that it should be sent back to that committee with a precise recommendation of this house that the committee should add to the report a clause which is not within the purview of the committee and which deals with matters that are not within the legislative jurisdiction of this house-a clause which presupposes that we are assuming powers that are not vested in this parliament under the constitution of the country-is something that I certainly could not support.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Is the amendment imperative on the committee?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: An amendment is always expressed in the courteous terms, " that the committee have power to add," such and such a clause, but it leaves the assumption that that particular clause is the matter which the com-mitee should consider, and that parliament anticipates and expects that the recommendation which the committee will subsequently make will be in line with the recommendation of this parliament.
First, this amendment says that the report shall be referred back to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, "with instructions that they have power." Now when we state by our instructions to the committee that they have power to do something which is utterly beyond the powers of this parliament under the constitution of the country, we are making what is obviously not a true statement of fact or of law. We are stating to the committee that they have power, and we all know that they have no such power.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would take exception to that statement. There are other authorities to the contrary which might be quoted.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my hon. friend wishes to argue that issue, he can do so in his proper turn. This resolution says that "they have power to amend the same by adding a clause," but I think the implications are that the committee, a committee of this house, has power to recommend. Now what are the recommendations? First, that all the provinces of the Dominion be requested to pass legislation under which the jurisdiction-that means the jurisdiction now vested in each of the provincial legislatures-


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member says that he has just quoted the assumed instructions to the committee which request the provinces to do something. He has stated before that the committee has no power and this parliament has no power to do so. We surely have power to request the provinces to do something. whether they do it or have power to do it or not. Certainly we in this house and in that committee have power to make the request, and that is all we ask.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Suppose we examine that
statement. The word power may be used with various meanings. I was dealing with the use that expresses the legislative and administrative powers of parliament and of the government responsible to this parliament. We can make requests, it is true. We can pass a resolution to-morrow to request the states of the United States to take certain action with regard to national prohibition. Not long ago I was paying a visit to one of the states of the American union and I went to the counter of the hotel to buy a package^ of cigarettes, and I was told that it was criminal to sell cigarettes in that jurisdiction. Of course, I might have come back to parliament and have asked this parliament to request that
2780	COMMONS
Industrial Relations-Mr. Cahan
(he legislature of that state should amend its laws so that foreign visitors like myself might indulge in their ordinary liberties while in that state.


Alan Webster Neill: Does my hon. friend suggest that that is a parallel in any sense?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think it would be regarded as equally discourteous as for us to pass a resolution requesting the provinces to revest in this parliament certain powers which they now have or which they are assumed to have under the British North America Act, because they themselves might make the retort courteous, that powers vested in those legislatures cannot be revested by them in the parliament of Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Prime Minister of
Alberta has made this request.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What request?


Abraham Albert Heaps: He says that the question of unemployment insurance is one of federal ' jurisdiction.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That may be so. If it is
a question of federal jurisdiction, then make that clear to this house, and let this house after argument and on due persuasion exercise that jurisdiction. This amendment assumes that that jurisdiction is vested in the legislatures, and we are asking the legislatures to tiansfer to the parliament of Canada powers which we assume are already vested in those several legislatures, and we all know that that is a constitutional impossibility.
I was referring to the amendment. It says:
that they have power to amend the same by adding thereto a clause recommending that all the provinces of the Dominion be requested to pass legislation under which the jurisdictionin relation to unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance,
-based on compulsory contribution, and which is now claimed to be within or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, be vested in the Dominion government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Read what is in between.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will read the whole thing again, although I have put this whole clause on the record once. It says:
That the said report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations be not now concurred in,-[DOT]
That is the first. The second is:
but that it be referred back to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations with instructions that they have power-
That is that the committee have power.
[DOT]-to amend the same-
[Mr. Cahan.l
That is, the report.
-by adding thereto a clause recommending that aill the provinces of the Dominion be requested to pass legislation under which the jurisdiction in relation to legislation providing for unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance based on compulsory contribution, and which is now claimed to be within or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, be vested in the Dominion government.
I think I am correct in my construction, that what the provinces are asked to do is to pass legislation vesting in the Dominion government-not even in the parliament of Canada-


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is merely claimed to be.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If it is claimed to be, and
is not, then the request is ridiculous. If it is justly claimed to be within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and this resolution so assumes, then it requests that that jurisdiction shall be retransferred-ait first I thought it was to the parliament of Canada, but now I find that it is to the government of Canada.	In other words, that the legislative
power of the provinces is to be delegarted by their respective legislatures, by legislation passed by them, to the government of Canada, and that hereafter a legislative jurisdiction which is now vested in the provincial legislatures shall be exercised, not even by the parliament of Canada but by a government responsible to this parliament. Now, I suggest, with all deference to my hon. friend who proposed this resolution, that he really must see the absurdity of it, and, rather than ask us to deal with so great an absurdity, I suggest he should withdraw the resolution in its present form.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, if a layman may venture to intervene between the legal lights of this house,
I may say that I find myself in a position somewhat similar to that of my neighbour who supports an amendment to a report to which he previously agreed. My position is this. I feel like supporting an amendment which I think has been unfortunately worded. From my humble point of view, the purely technical objection made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and supported by the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) is incontrovertible. It is obviously against the spirit and the letter of the constitution that the provinces should by any form of legislation divest themselves of a jurisdiction which they exercise in order to vest that jurisdiction in this parliament. Likewise, I do not think this parliament can make matters any better by inviting the provincial legislatures to do so.
27S1

Industrial Relations-Mr. Bourassa
But if one goes beyond the wording of any resolution or report of a committee, one must come to the conclusion that this is another exemplification of what is coming to us from year to year as a growing truth, that we have outgrown the literal bounds of the written constitution under which we live. There is not the slightest doubt that when this constitution was framed neither the upholders of legislative union nor the defenders of provincial rights ever anticipated the immense importance which labour problems would assume. They never anticipated that this question of social insurance, whether applying to unemployment, to sickness, or to any other form of social suffering, would be of such importance that it is now one of the national problems with which we have to deal.
If we take this factor as existing to-day in this year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, a factor which is growing fast upon us, which will be more important next year and the year following than it is now, we cannot solve the problem by looking into this or that clause, or word, or semicolon of the charter under which we are governed. We must find some means to adjust those problems, and we must devise a way to come to an agreement with the various provinces wherever provincial jurisdiction is an obstacle to the exercise of national jurisdiction by the federal parliament. It seems to me that it is an imperative duty upon us.
To claim that because civil rights and property are under provincial jurisdiction this parliament is debarred, legally and constitutionally, from the accomplishment of its duty to the people of Canada at large in regard to those great social problems-I cannot agree to that. Whether or not we could by some means legislate upon this question of social insurance without an amendment to the constitution I do not know. I do not pretend to the legal knowledge and experience that may be necessary to settle that first point. But I know this, that on many other questions of state and legislation, experience has proven that the general jurisdiction exercised by the parliament of Canada for the good of Canada at large, or according to the usual phraseology " for the general advantage of Canada," has in many instances overcome the objection of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. May I quote one or two examples? With regard to the law of bankruptcy, it was questioned for many years in the province of Quebec whether this parliament had the right or the jurisdiction to legislate upon that matter, because once a law of bankruptcy
was enacted by this parliament it would of necessity amend, directly or indirectly, the civil code with regard to the application of many articles of that code, promissory notes, interest, and so forth.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will
allow me. Section 91, which gives the powers to the federal parliament, mentioned specifically bankruptcy and insolvency.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so; I do not dispute that. I am simply saying that once this parliament exercised its jurisdiction on matters of bankruptcy, its legislation came into conflict with many articles of the civil code, and constituted an amendment to that code without any cooperation on the part of the provincial legislature.
Now, with regard to railways, I remember a famous case in the province of Quebec a case which was pleaded by one of the most eminent lawyers of that province, the late Sir Lomer Gouin, who became premier of Quebec and afterwards Minister of Justice in this government. It was a case in which the sole issue was a conflict between the right exercised by the individual, under a certain article of the civil code, to enjoy his property as against damages sustained through the acts, whether culpable or not, of another party, and, on the other hand, the jurisdiction granted by this parliament to the railway company to operate its railways as a common conveyance, whatever might be the consequences to individuals. The question of fact was not disputed; it was admitted that the railway company had done all it could to ensure the preservation of private properties along the roads traversed by its railways. Fire was set to the individual's building by the engine of one of the company's trains and that individual sued the company. He pleaded that article of the civil code under which he was entitled to enjoy his property and under w'hich he claimed that the railway company was responsible for all its acts. But the Privy Council decided that, parliament having granted, for the general advantage of Canada, the power to that company to run its trains throughout Canada, the right of the individual under the civil code must yield to the right of the company under that federal legislation. I cite this not as a legal point touching the matter now under discussion, but simply by way of illustration of the problems that arise day by day, placing us in the position of having to choose between the discharge of our duty to the people of Canada at large, and a scrupulous respect for the letter of the constitution

Industrial Relations-Mr. Bourassa
I am second to none in my respect for the basic principles of the constitution. But, I repeat, we must go ahead. This country must face its duties and the problems that arise from year to year. We cannot remain shackled by the strict letter of a constitution which was written some sixty years ago and which no longer corresponds to all the needs of the people. It is from that point of view particularly, leaving aside the wording either of the committee's report or of the proposed amendment, that I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that this matter should be referred back to the' committee for more careful consideration at another session; because if we go on at this rate, many problems that ought to be seriously studied and ultimately solved by this parliament or by the various legislatures of the country will remain unsolved, or will be delayed to the detriment of all the provinces and of the whole population at large.
We cannot divide this country into nine compartments labelled Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and so on, for the simple reason that each compartment or province has its raison d'etre. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has said, this is a confederacy and ought to remain a confederacy. But Canada is also a nation; it is one country and ought to be broad enough, with a constitution flexible enough, to meet the needs of all classes of the population irrespective of province, race or any other consideration. Now these labour problems, these social insurance problems, are essentially national questions. If you wait for the nine legislatures of Canada all to deal with the situation, you will wait a long time. The reason is obvious: the labour problem may be a rural problem in one province; it may be an industrial problem in another province; or it may affect a large proportion of the population in one province and a small proportion of the population in another. We have to admit, human nature being what it is. that governments and legislatures are mainly concerned with those problems that are sufficiently acute to force themselves upon public opinion in the respective provinces. And if this social question is not of , immediate concern to the government of one or another of the nine provinces, that government will take no stock in it inasmuch as the question will have no bearing upon the next provincial election. The result is that that particular province will stand as an obstacle to the action of the Dominion or of the other provinces that happen to be more concerned in the matter. I submit, therefore, that if we have to wait until the [Mr. Bourassa.)
nine provinces are of one accord on every single aspect of this question we shall wait a long time; and in that event we shall remain far in the rear of all those countries which, having to face these social problems, have at least taken some action-action which, while ,not always leading to perfection, has at any rate brought such countries nearer a solution of their difficulties.
I do not think we should shelter ourselves for any length of time under the protection of constitutional rights, thus refraining from dealing with these problems. I must confess, as a member of the committee, that I was not as faithful and constant an attendant at its meetings as 1 should have been had I not been otherwise busily engaged. I may say, however, that I have followed its proceedings with sufficient care, and have read sufficiently in various publications appearing not only in this countiy and the United States but in Europe as well, to realize that we are far behind most other countries in dealing with social problems; and largely as a result of this situation which has presented itself to-day, as it has done on many other occasions in relation to social and other problems, whenever the question has arisen as to the respective jurisdiction of the provinces and of the federal government, we find ourselves taking the attitude that we cannot deal with the matter for the reason that it affects provincial rights. Some province will say. " We will not deal with it because, irrespective of what the people of the other provinces may feel, our people are not interested in the question." Another province will say, " Let the federal government deal with the situation."
What the hon. member for North Winnipeg has said is absolutely true. I have read the correspondence exchanged between this government and the various provincial governments in respect to this question, and the same thing applies to family allowances. We have had practically no replies from any of the provincial governments. Are we going to leave this matter at a standstill because provincial politicians, busy with other questions, refuse rightly or wrongly to deal with it? No; we must face the situation. I think, therefore, that the question ought to be referred back to the committee, not to adopt the wording of this or that clause of the amendment, or of the report itself, but to study the broad question, if necessary, of an amendment to the constitution of Canada to enable these problems to be considered in a proper and practical manner. So far as the language is concerned, I should be inclined to agree with my hon. friend from St. Law-

Industrial Relations-Mr. Woodsworth
rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). If anyone objects to the amendment moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg because of the suggestion contained therein, I do not see how that person could accept the report of the committee itself; because, as the hon. member says, the first paragraph of the report lays down in a different form the very same principle indicated in the amendment of the hon. member for North Winnipeg. If we have no right to request the provincial legislatures to enact legislation enabling this parliament to deal with the question, then how can we lay down, as is done in the first paragraph of the report, the principle that compulsory contributions to unemployment insurance ought to be the basis of such legislation? If we have no right to request the legislature to agree to that, how can we agree to it ourselves? On the other hand, if we leave aside for the time being the narrow letter of the law; if we simply desire to express broadly an opinion as to the desirability of doing something in the matter and referring the question back to the committee in order to have this aspect of the question studied, that is, the possibility of enacting legislation, which will apply to the whole of Canada, then I think the amendment moved by the hon member for North Winnipeg should be supported, not because of its wording but because of its spirit.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why not move an amendment to the amendment referring the question back for full consideration?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not sufficiently apt in these things to get the proper wording for such a motion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I find myself
in a rather peculiar position in regard to this matter, since I was a member of the committee and also of the subcommittee which drew up the report. I may say frankly that the suggestion contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg had not occurred to me before we drew up that report or I should have endeavoured, with what success I do not know, to have something of the kind inserted in the report. However, we are now faced with the question of dealing with this amendment.
May I recall what was stated by the mover of this motion, that under the treaty of Versailles we are already under certain obligations, and if the federal government assumed certain powers at that time and signed a treaty, later assuming the responsi-78594-177
bility for carrying out certain conventions involving this question of unemployment insurance, it does seem to me that there is a continued responsibility laid upon us to solve the problem in some way. Apparently in this house it is very easy to raise all sorts of legal objections; technically they may be quite correct but, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has said, we must look beyond these technicalities to the great reforms which some of us at least have in view.
Back in 1919 you will recall, Mr. Speaker, a royal commission was appointed to consider industrial relations, and I desire to read paragraph 21 from the report:
The chief causes of unrest may be enumerated as follows:
1.	Unemployment and the fear of unemployment.
2.	High cost of living in relation to wages and the desire of the worker for a larger share of the product of his labour.
3.	Desire for shorter hours of labour.
i.	Denial of the right to organize and refusal to recognize unions.
5.	Denial of collective bargaining.
6.	Lack of confidence in constituted government.
7.	Insufficient and poor housing.
8.	Restrictions upon the freedom of speech and press.
9.	Ostentatious display of wealth.
10.	Lack of equal educational opportunities.
Further, the report states:
We have placed unemployment first because we found that there was the greatest unrest where there were the most unemployed.
The commission recommended:
We recommend immediate inquiry by expert boards into the following subjects, with a view to early legislation:
(a) State insurance against unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age.
That was ten years ago, but so far as I know nothing has been done in a legislative way to meet any of these evils complained about, and we are still quarrelling over the question of jurisdiction. In 1920 the Privy Council adopted the report of a committee of council which is P.C. 2722, in which I find references to this matter. With regard to the draft conventions concerning unemployment, the report states:
The minister is further of opinion, seeing that the principal object of this convention is the establishment of a national system of employment agencies under the control of a central *authority, that the Dominion is the proper authority to give effect to the proposals of the convention.
I may say that a system of federal employment agencies, carried on in conjunction with the provincial governments, has been put into

2784	COMMONS
Industrial Relations-Mr. Woodsworth
effect. Then I pass on to paragraph 3 of this report, which deals with unemployment further:
The minister observes that the experience of other countries has demonstrated that a system of unemployment insurance, in order to be effective and successful, must he merely ancillary or complementary to a system of labour exchanges, thh whole being adapted to the principal function of finding work for unemployed insured workmen.
I would direct this to the attention of the present Minister of Justice, as the opinion of the Minister of Justice at that time. I am quoting from the report of the Privy Council, which I presume represented the considered findings of the government of that day. I proceed:
In this view, unemployment insurance has a pronounced federal aspect, and on the whole, the minister thinks the establishment of a system of unemployment insurance is competent to the Dominion in the exercise of its residuary legislative power with relation to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
Of course, it is easy for the the Minister of Justice to repudiate that position and establish a new one of his own.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, because the Privy Council has repudiated it in its judgment with regard to the Industrial Disputes Act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, the Privy
Council can now repudiate what a previous Privy Council did.


Ernest Lapointe: I am referring to the
judicial committee of the Privy Council.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will discuss that
in a moment. It is rather curious to nofe the development which has been going on in Canada during the past few years, as contrasted with the developments which have taken place in the United States. In that country the different states started out with a great deal of authority while the federal body had very little, but gradually there has been an increase in authority on the part of the federal government. Curiously enough, in this country the reverse has been the case; residual powers were held originally by the federal government, but there seems to have been a tendency to lop off, if I may use the phrase, different powers from the federal government, and state that these are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces. *
In this respect I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Labelle. I am sorely tempted to go into the question of the British North America Act, 'but I will refrain from so doing. However, it does seem to me that we must face this question before long; we cannot forever continue to be tied down by an instru-
ment which was drawn up sixty years ago and which is absolutely inadequate to carry on the functions of government and meet the needs of this country as we find them today.


Ernest Lapointe: But so long as it i3
there we cannot get around it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is quite true, and that is what led me to sign that report. Here is what we are faced with: Last year the committee recommended, and this year the recommendation was endorsed, that the only possible, effective system was one of compulsory insurance. We start with that. The second point is that the Department of Justice tells us that under -the British North America Act it is not within our power to do anything, that we have not jurisdiction. Then, as far as I could see, putting those two things together there was only one conclusion to which we could come. The conclusion was that we would simply refer this to the provinces; give the scheme our blessing and refer it to them. That is the only thing I can see which can be done short of a revision of the British North America Act. All of us who have been in this house for some time know how difficult it is to start any movement towards -the revision of that- act. When we had the federal-provincial conference a year or two ago the sentiment along that line was not very encouraging, but if we have failed once we will have to try again. The possibility of having a revision of the British North America Act was so remote that we hardly thought it worth while to mention it in the report of the committee, but the suggestion which has been embodied in the amendment of the member for North Winnipeg would give to us a modus operandi. Both the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) have said that this cannot be done. I do not profess to be able to dispute legal points with these eminent authorities, but I do believe that there was an effort made -to get around this point in the legislation connected with the Industrial Disputes Act. I agree with the hon. Minister of Justice that this act was unconstitutional, and we had to get around it in some way. It was imperative that some sort of expedient be arrived at; so finally a number of the provinces passed enabling legislation. I should like to read the act which was passed by the Manitoba legislature. This act is entitled "An Act respecting the Investigation of Industrial Disputes within the Province," and is as follows:
Whereas the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, chapter 20

Industrial Relations-Mr. Adshead
of the Acts of the Parliament of Canada, 1907, have been held not to apply to industrial disputes which are within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of any province of Canada; and
Whereas it was enacted by chapter 14 of the Acts of the Parliament of Canada. 1925, entitled An Act to amend The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, that the said act shall apply to, among other tilings, "any dispute which is within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of any province and which by the legislation of the province is made subject to the provisions of this aot"; and
Whereas it is deemed expedient, in view of the amendment recited above, that the provisions of the said act, with amendments, shall be made to apply to industrial disputes of the nature defined in the said act, which are within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the province:
Therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative assembly of Manitoba, enacts as follows:
1.	This act may be cited as "The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act (Manitoba)".
2.	The provisions of The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. 1907, chapter 20 of the statutes of the parliament of Canada, 1907, and all amendments thereto up to and including the said chapter 14 of 1925, shall apply to every industrial dispute of the nature therein defined which is within or subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of this province.
3.	This act shall come into force on the day it is assented to.
That act was assented to on March 31, 1926.
Whether or not that legislation is good I am not in a position to say, but surely it must be admitted that powers which were regarded as being exclusively provincial were turned over to the federal authorities; I do not think that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George or the Minister of Justice will deny that. We have been getting along tolerably well under that makeshift legislation and it occurred to some of us that it might be possible to use that as a precedent. Until such time as a conference can be called at which there could be a discussion of the revision of the British North America Act we might utilize this expedient to relieve the situation and at least get something moving along the lines of unemployment insurance.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The Manitoba legislature enacted as its own law a law which had been adopted by the federal parliament; that would be coming to the same end but by a different process.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is quite true, and I am quite prepared that we should take the initiative. But when we suggest proceeding along those lines in this parliament we are immediately met with the statement that such action would be ultra vires; so we cannot act. We simply ask that if we cannot get started in one way we be allowed to get started in 78594-1774
another. We are quite prepared humbly to request the provinces to consent to giving us jurisdiction and then we shall be free to take action.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think it is better to
pass a law here.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the Minister of
Justice and the government will consent to that I shall be very happy indeed. They have always protested that it is impossible to. proceed in that way, but I should like to see us get away from these technicalities. There-is a great deal of industrial trouble in this, country and, as we said in our report last year, there is very little doubt but that industrial insurance would do a great deal ti? prevent the troubles which are occurring in the industrial field at the present time and would prove to 'be at least a partial solution of some of the most outstanding problems in the industrial world. I would ask that this question be treated in a generous way. Being a member of the committee I dislike asking that the report be amended, but I think that my colleague is perhaps right when he says that it would be better to defer this matter to another year rather than to pass a motion which, after all, is no much more than a pious hope that something will happen some time.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: (East Calgary):
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house very long, but as a labour member I must say something with respect to this matter. Unemployment has been a plank of the Labour party in all parts of Canada and organized labour, no matter of what affiliation, is extremely interested in this matter. I am not concerned about the legal entanglements of the British North America Act, 'because when anything occurs which relates to labour or other matters which it is the part of the government to look after, as the hon. members for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) have both said, we are alwaj^s met with these legal entanglements.
My hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) read a part of the plank of the Liberal party which distinctly stated that they were to institute under the federal government, in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces, unemployment insurance. Perhaps it was a foolish thing to do, but I believed that proposition; I believed that they would do what they said they would do in 1921, but we have waited for eight years and nothing has been done as yet.
A short time ago the right hon. the Prime Minister was charged with saying that the
2786	COMMONS
Industrial Relations-Mr. Speaker-Ruling
principle of old age pensions was a vicious one. As far as I am concerned I am willing to defend the right hon. the Prime Minister and say that he did not say that, but he did say something which was of equal importance. He said that for one government to collect taxes for another government to spend was a vicious principle. I hope he did not mean to repudiate the plank in the Liberal platform when he said that he was going to act in conjunction with the provinces in connection with unemployment insurance, whereby the government of the province would contribute part and the federal government would contribute the balance. If he did mean that, he cuts from under his feet the plank contained in the Liberal platform for 1921. If he did mean that, then there is the next proposition that he must make it a federal platform altogether, if the federal authorities are not going to act in conjunction with the provincial authorities, then there is the last proposition, which I do not like, namely that he intends to abandon the matter entirely.
So far as I am concerned, I do not care what the committee do; that is up to them. But it is for the Dominion government themselves to say, as a iplank in their platform, what they are going to do now after waiting for eight years to deal with the matter. They have implemented, the plank in regard to old age pensions; they have done a good deal along the lines of social insurance, and I think I may put this question to the Prime Minister and the government: What are you going to do in connection with this matter regardless of what the committee says or what is to be found in the British North America Act? We laymen seem to be a lot of flies when the legal authorities start speaking; we get tangled up in a web of various things and we do not know where we stand. It is not my business to clear these things up. The lawyers themselves who enacted this plank must have known how far the British North America Act went. They knew the various difficulties in the way. Let them clear away their own difficulties and tell Us where we stand and what they are going to do in regard to what they promised eight years ago. Will the Prime Minister say something along this line?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I just inquire, before the question is put, whether the amendment is in order or not?


Hewitt Bostock: In my view, this is a constitutional question. Bourinot, in defining the powers of the Speaker, says at page 180: [Mr Adshead.l
He will not give a decision upon a constitutional question, nor decide a question of law, though the same be raised on a point of order or privilege.
I have no doubt that this question is constitutional; that is to say, it involves a change in connection with the respective powers of the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures. To make such a change in the constitution requires a joint address of both houses of parliament to the Imperial parliament.
A similar question arose some years ago, in 1903, when I was a young member of the House of Commons. After the census of 1901, the province of Prince Edward Island lost two members, and when the new redistribution based on the census was being put through the house, a motion was made in the House of Commons by Mr. Hackett, one of the members from Prince Edward Island, seconded by the hon. member for Lincoln, Ontario, Mr. Lancaster, to the effect that in spite of the census the representation of Prince Edward Island should be six members instead of four. Thereupon the Prime Minister of the day said:
I submit that this amendment is out of order, because it is contrary to the constitution.. The constitution* provides for representation by population between the provinces. The very question raised in this amendment has been submitted to the supreme court, Which has decided that the province of Prince Edward Island and all the other provinces are entitled to the number of members which are mentioned in this bill. The British North AmeVica Act provides that the representation of the other provinces shall be based upon the unit fixed by the representation of Quebec, and this amendment would violate that provision of the British North America Act.
Just as this amendment violates one of the provisions of the British North America Act, as was pointed out by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). The Speaker of that day gave this ruling:
The question which has been raised in regard to the amendment is a very difficult one, and I am very sorry that I have not had more time at my disposal to give it the fullest consideration. It would appear, as has been stated before the house, that this parliament has not the necessary legislative authority to grant Prince Edward Island the number of members asked for by this amendment and the supreme court, having been consulted upon the matter, declared that the British North America Act does not give to the province the right to have more than four members.
He goes on:
According to rule 37 of the House of Commons, the Speaker has the right to declare out of order any motion contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament. I see that there is a

Industrial Relations-Mr. Bennett
very serious doubt, whether under our rules of procedure the Speaker has the right on his own authority to interfere and declare irregular and out of order a motion of this kind. May, at page 331, says:
"But doubtful cases may arise, upon which the rules of the house are indistinct or obsolete, or do not apply strictly to the point at issue; when the Speaker, being left without specific directions, refers the matter to the judgment of the house."
I am of the opinion, under the circumstances, that, on account of the serious doubt which may arise as to the irregularity of the motion made by the hon. member for West Prince, I should leave it to the house to determine whether this motion is irregular or not, or whether it should be accepted or not.
In my own mind, I have no doubt as to the unconstitutionality of the amendment if it were carried, but Bourinot says that the Speaker cannot decide on constitutional questions. and therefore I think the best way is for the house to pronounce on the amendment now that the members have been called in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, may I say one word on the point of order ? In the case to which Your Honour referred, namely, the case with respect to the redistribution in Prince Edward Island in 1903, the issue there was somewhat different from what it is here. There was a question of doubt and it was referred to the courts, and I believe an appeal was pending to the Privy Council, but it does seem to me, if I may direct Your Honour's attention to the last words of this amendment, that it is so clearly in violation of the constitution that this house should not even consider it. While Bourinot's opinion was as Your Honour has quoted, nevertheless it is pointed out in May, as in the rules of the house, that when the matter is clearly a subject that this house should not pronounce upon, it should not be asked to do so, because by so doing the house would be pronouncing on something over which it had no jurisdiction. The last part of the amendment asks that the legislative powers-the legislative powers, mark you-of the provinces, which are defined by section 92 of the British North America Act, shall be vested in the Dominion government.


Mr. DUNNING:: Not in the Dominion
parliament.
Speaker said in that other case, but they discussed it further. I submit to Your Honour, having taken the course you have, that the proper matter now to be submitted to the house is whether this amendment is in order, and we can vote on that because this house makes its own rules in a matter of this kind, and we can declare once for all that an amendment to a motion submitted to the house that involves the amendment of the constitution of Canada which would divest the provinces of Canada of their legislative powers which have been granted under the British North America Act is wholly beyond the power of this parliament to deal with.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has stated the case quite clearly. He has quoted only one portion of the amendment. One portion of the amendment is not binding on anyone at all. It is just an expression of opinion. I am asking the house to refer this report back to the select standing committee, but it is wholly within the power of that committee to bring in a completely new report, and this may be the last we shall ever hear of this motion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is just what they
cannot do.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Oh yes, they can. Although I have not the 1903 case before me, I am of the opinion that the motion in that case must have been completely different from the motion that I have made this afternoon.


Hewitt Bostock: I have given my own personal opinion as to the constitutionality of this amendment, but I am guided by Bourinot; he is my master. He says that the Speaker,
will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same be raised on a point of order or privilegeas in the present instance.
But the house by pronouncing immediately on the amendment will decide whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not in parliament at all, and I do submit that there is quite a clear distinction between this case and the one with which the Speaker had to deal in 1903. The question that I think, with all deference, Your Honour should leave to this house is: Is this amendment in order? Let us decide that as a preliminary question. That is what the
Adshead,
Bird,
Bourassa,
Bradette,
Carmichael,
Coote,
Evans,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River),
Messrs:
Gershaw,
Heaps,
Kellner,
Lucas, Luchkovich,
Neill,
Speakman, Spencer,
Woodeworth.-18
278S

Industrial Relations-Mr. Neill
++NAYS
Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto-High Park),
Arthurs,
Barber,
Bell (Hamilton West), Bennett,
Benoit,
Black (Yukon), Blanchard,
Blatchford,
Bock,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Boulanger,
Bourgeois,
Bowen,
Boys,
Brady,
Brown,
Cahan,
Cannon,
Casgrain,
Charters,
Chevrier,
Clark,
Denis,
Desaulniers,
Dickie,
Donnelly,
Dubue,
Dunning,
Esling,
Euler,
Fafard,
Forke,
Fraser,
Garland (Oarleton), Gervais,
Girouard,
Glen,
Gott,
Hanson,
Heenan,
Hepburn,
Howden,
Ilsley,
Johnston (Long Lake), King (Kootenay East), King. Mackenzie (Prince Albert),
Lacombe,
Laflamme,
Lapierre, _ Lapointe,
Letellier de St. Just, Lovie,
Macdonald (Glengarry), Macdonald (Richmond-West Cape Breton), MacLean (Prince), McLean (Melfort), MacNutt,
McGibbon,
McIntosh,
McKenzie,
McQuarrie,
. Malcolm,
Mercier (St. Henri), Millar,
Milne,
Morin (St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville),
Morrissy,
Motherwell,
Peck,
Perras,
Price,
Quinn,
Ralston,
Rinfret,
Robb,
Ross (Kingston City), Ryerson,
Sdguin,
Short, [DOT]
Spence,
Spotton,
Stevens,
Stewart (Edmonton West),
Stewart (Leeds), Sylvestre,
Taylor,
Telford,
Totzke,
Yal lance,
Young
(Saskatoon).-92.


Mr. MARGIL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I want to add just a few words to the main motion. Before doing so, may I congratulate the intelligentsia of the house on the moral victory we have just achieved. How often is the old saying true, Mr. Speaker, "Right forever on the footstool; Wrong forever on the throne."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the correct rendering.


Alan Webster Neill: I remind my fellow victims
that fewer than our number once saved Sodom and Gomorrha, and possibly there is hope yet for something better even within these walls. While the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George was following the Minister of Justice in the early part of his argument, he was talking with his usual sound constitutional ability, but as he warmed up and threw the ponderous weight of his legal attainments upon the humble amendment presented by the hon. member for North Winnipeg and myself he termed' it absurd, ridiculous, and used other such unparliamentary language; but I noticed that he had to resort to a play upon, words to arrive at that vicious state of mind. In the amendment we used the words " Dominion government " when we should have said "Dominion parliament."


Hewitt Bostock: Might I remind the hon. gentleman that he must speak now to the main motion. The amendment has been lost.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I
think I can connect my remarks with the main motion. Of course, sir, I shall be subject to your discretion as I go along, but certainly what I am about to say is all part of my argument on the main motion, and I say so in all seriousness. I noticed that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George tried to draw a parallel-and this is where I am coming to the motion-he tried to cinch his argument 'by drawing a parallel-I do not think it was a parallel, and I so told him, but he said it was-between the desperate condition of women and children suffering in Canada. from want of employment and sickness with some grievance of his own when he went to the States and could not buy a cigarette. I shudder to think of the place he was in where it was an offence to buy cigarettes. But I rather think his whole later argument savoured of the reductio ad absurdum.
Now I come to what I wanted to bring before the house. I presume this report will pass. While along with other members of the committee I share my full responsibility for the report, I must confess it is rather a poor production. I cannot see that it is going to bring about any tangible results. But I want to tell the government and this house that we cannot evade this situation by taking refuge behind technical objections. I admit that the argument of the Minister of Justice was probably sound when he urged that the provinces cannot do what we suggest they should do. He ought to know, and his argument appeared to be sound. But, I repeat, we cannot get rid of this subject by having recourse to technical objections or points of

Questions
order. The question of unemployment and sickness insurance will be more and more a burning question in Canada with our modern methods. We are abundantly prosperous in Canada to-day, that is not denied, but with our modern methods of rapid production, as soon as there is a demand for a certain article scientific methods rush in to fill that demand, and they fill it with such tremendous facility that overproduction results. Prosperity or no prosperity, we are always going to have an increasing measure of unemployment, and trouble resulting from sickness. Other countries have recognized this and have taken steps to meet the situation. Now, it seems that we have a tendency to travel in a circle, in connection with questions of this sort, and we always find ourselves finally running into the great wall of the British North America Act. But 1 would suggest that the British North America Act is not an act of God; it is not one of the natural laws, such as the laws of astronomy, which cannot be upset or changed. The day is coming, indeed it has passed, when we should be taking steps to consider an amendment to that act not only in regard to the question now before us but in connection with several other matters that come up from time to time and which clamour for a change in the act. From time to time the Dominion holds conferences with the provinces and I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to give us some encouragement now to hope that when next we have a conference with the provinces he will take up with them the question of amending the British North America Act-adopting, of course, regular procedure-such as will enable us to deal finally and decidedly with this question of jurisdiction, not only as regards unemployment, sickness and so forth, but in connection with various other matters which are causing us more and more trouble, unrest and difficulty as between the provinces and the Dominion, both in our judicial and in our social relations. That is a subject that might well engage the attention of the government at the next provincial conference.


Hewitt Bostock: Shall the motion carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Bertha Jane Phelan.-Mr. McQuarrie.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many appeals have been received by the Federal Appeal Board, since the formation of the board to December 31st, 1928?
2.	How many of these appeals have been heard by the board?
3.	In how many cases has a decision been given by the board?
4.	In how many of these cases was a pension granted or increased?
5.	How many appeals lodged with the board had not been heard on December 31st, 1928?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	15,075 appeals were received of which, on consideration by the board, 3,719 were adjudged to be outside the jurisdiction of the board. 1,112 were reopened and pensioned by the Board of Pension Commissioners, 749 were awaiting further information and 9,495 were appealable.
2.	6,369.
3.	5,829.
4.	1,341 appeals were allowed. The Federal Appeal Board does not grant pensions. There is no appeal on assessment.
5.	3,126, made up as follows: 2,173 awaiting hearing; 737 also awaiting hearing and awaiting advice by official soldiers' advisers of their readiness to proceed; 216 deferred indefinitely for various reasons, principal one being that the Federal Appeal Board is unable to locate the appellants.


COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS-SHERBROOKE, N.S.
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	What is the name of the collector of customs at the port of Sherbrooke, Nova Scotia?
2.	What salary is paid said official?
3.	Is there also a sub-collector at this port?
4.	If so: (a) what is the name of said official; (b) date of apointment; (c) by whom recommended; (d) amount of salary; (e) duties of office?
5.	What were the amounts of customs receipts at this port during the years 1925-19261927-1928 and 1929?


Mr. EULER:: 1 and 2. There is no collector of customs as Sherbrooke is an outport.
3.	There is a sub-collector in charge of the outport.
4.	(a) 'Charles Russell Cameron; (b) 2nd April, 1929; (c) Minister of National Revenue, temporary pending permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission; (d) $360

Question as Order for Return
per annum; (e) All customs excise work of the outport.

1924-	25..
1925-	26..
1926-	27..
1927-	28..
1928-	29..
Import Duties 82,015 27 1,479 47 1,123 73 276 69 341 71
Excise' Taxes $ 910 99 1,426 54 952 81 516 65 502 62
Total $2,926 26 2,906 01 2,076 54 793 34 844 33


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	When orders are issued by the house for the original files, or copies of the same, regarding appointments under the Civil Service Commission, as has been the case in several instances lately in connection with the Post Office Department; are all the papers on the files of the Civil Service Commission brought down, including the reports or recommendations of the senior officials, any observations or opinions of the commissioners, and generally, everything on the files that appertains to the appointment in question?
2.	If not: (a) what is the practice, by whom and on what basis is the selection made of the papers that are brought down; (b) why is not everything brought down in accordance with the order of the house?


Mr. RINFRET:: Order for return.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Secretary of State
(Mr. Rinfret) will agree, I think, that this question is not one that should stand as an order for return. The questions are specific. For example, there is the question:
What is the practice, by whom and on what basis is the selection made of the papers that are brought down?
Possibly the hon. gentleman confuses this with another question.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The only reason for
making the question an order' for return is that I shall have to bring down considerable correspondence in connection with the question. The Civil Service Commission has made an official reply. The chairman of the commission has written a separate letter and I have had to write him with a view to clearing up a certain point. There will be no delay in bringing down the correspondence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It will be all produced.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. NEILL
On the orders of the day:


Alan Webster Neill: I
wish to rise to a question of privilege. It

is not a question of privilege so far as the house is concerned but one touching me personally in my position as a member of parliament in this house. In this regard I wish to cite the authority of Bourinot, at page 303.
There it is stated that many questions of privilege are permitted in the Canadian house, the category embracing:
Reflections or libels in books and newspapers on the house or members thereof.
I wish to discuss a reflection on myself as a member of parliament, in association with other persons, and the circumstances are very similar to those under which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) rose to a question of privilege some week0 ago. In an almost identical case that hon. member was allowed to speak for some thirty minutes, no objection having been raised on this side of the house. He spoke as a prominent member of his party. I hope I shall receive the same courtesy, although I am an insignificant member and cannot claim the allegiance or support of any party.
The article of which I wish to complain is to be found in The Mail and Empire of Toronto, of Tuesday, May 21, 1929. The article is accompanied by a large map of the province of British Columbia. I shall read certain portions of the article, those that I omit being quite immaterial to the main argument. The article, written by The Mail and Empire staff writer, reads:
Ottawa, May 20.-By the Pacific fisheries treaty negotiated by the King government with the United States and now before parliament for approval, it is proposed to give the United States equal control with Canada in the immense territory in British Columbia outlined in the map above.
The map takes in practically the whole or greater part of British Columbia.
This treaty is to preserve the sockeye salmon industry, almost ruined by the United States, and would place the watershed of the Fraser river under the control of a joint international commission-three from the United States and three from Canada.
Now I come to the point at issue:
This immense area, over which the King government proposed to give the United States equal control with Canada regarding lakes, rivers and improvements thereon, is about 100,000 square miles, equal in area to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island combined. . .
This treaty is viewed with grave suspicion by British Columbia members-
Of whom I am one.
-as giving the United States an economic partnership in half of that province. International joint commissions have been disastrous to Canada.

Privilege-Mr. Neill
Then, after some further remarks about international commissions, it concludes in this way:
It is felt the proposed treaty in giving the United States equal authority in Canadian territory is creating a precedent that may strike a deadly blow at Canadian independence.
Think of that, Mr. Speaker; it may strike a deadly blow at Canadian independence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order; this cannot possibly be a question of privilege affecting the hon. member. What he is now reading may hereafter become the subject matter of a very complicated debate, and this question is now before a committee of this house.
I think Your Honour pointed out not many days ago that if it is felt by a member that he has been libelled, the proper course is for him to place the paper on the table of the house and make the proper comment. I dare say Your Honour will recall the case in which that was done and the author of the article brought to the bar of the house. When the hon. gentleman stated that certain British Columbia members viewed with suspicion a certain course of action, and that he was one of them-


Alan Webster Neill: I did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When he said that, he
was within his rights as a matter of privilege in saying, " I was not one of those who took that view."


Alan Webster Neill: You did not give me time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, for the simple and
obvious reason that the hon. gentleman was discussing something else that had nothing whatever to do with him, and I submit that when we get into a discussion as to what that treaty involves we are on ground which should not be entertained as a matter of privilege with respect to any individual member. Your Honour laid down the rules I think the other day; I looked up the authorities and I believe Your Honour gave the correct ruling. The question of privilege is only a question where reference is made to British Columbia members; the moment my hon. friend went beyond that he was traversing ground he should not have traversed on a question of privilege.


Alan Webster Neill: I had not finished reading
the article of which I complained and which attributed to me, along with other members from British Columbia, sentiments which are entirely false. I do not see how I can be out of order yet. I would direct attention to page 303 of Bourinot:
In the Canadian house, questions of privilege take a wide range, but it may be stated in general terms that they refer to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the house collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character. In this category may be placed: motions touching the seat or election of members (a) : reflections or libels in books and newspapers on the house or members thereof...
The article in question touches my position and conduct in my representative character; it is a reflection on my standing and reputation in British Columbia if I endorse or allow to go uncontradicted that scandalous libel, which is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end. I have every right to defend my character, which is being assailed.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other member wish to speak on the point of order?


Henry Herbert Stevens: All I wish to say is that if such a statement and presentation as my hon. friend is making on a question of privilege is to be permitted, then other hon. members whose opinions may differ as to the article certainly should have a similar right to discuss that question.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition was perfectly right when he stated that any matter which has been referred to a committee cannot be the subject of discussion in this house until that committee has reported. However, if I understand the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, it is a question of privilege in that, being a member of the house, he draws the attention of the house to the fact that a newspaper, commenting on a matter which is now before parliament, has misrepresented the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he complains'that his position has been misrepresented.


Lucien Cannon: He wishes to show that
there has been misrepresentation. If that be the case, and if the hon. member succeeds in putting before the Chair such a case, certainly the privileges of the house generally and those of the hon. member particularly have been invaded.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni should have been allowed to make his statement, but I have not yet gathered where the point of privilege arises. However, I might remind the house that even if it were not strictly a question of privilege, at page 304 of Bourinot I find the following:
Members sometimes correct reports of their speeches, or inaccurate statements in the press on the ground of privilege; but these are personal explanations, not matters of privilege, anc are allowed only by the indulgence of the house
Privilege-Mr. Neill

I have not yet seen the point at issue, so I would ask the hon. gentleman to state exactly where the question of privilege arises.


Alan Webster Neill: I should think I might be
allowed to finish the quotation of which I complain:
It is felt the proposed treaty in giving the United States equal authority in Canadian territory is creating a precedent that may strike a deadly blow at Canadian independence. It is argired if this is done in British Columbia, United States partnership and control may be extended to areas in every province.
The question of privilege is this: I do not want to be associated with a statement so utterly and absolutely removed from the truth. The writer of this article suggests that he has obtained his information from, or that it has been inspired by, the members from British Columbia. Where else could he get the views of those members? After the great latitude which was allowed the member for St. Lawrence-St. George I think I should be allowed to explain where this statement is wrong. That is not a question of argument; it is a question of fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Again I raise the point
of order. Look at the clock; surely the rules of this house must be obeyed. The hon. member has made two misstatements in the last five minutes. I apprehend that this is all a by-play between the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has no right to bring me into this matter at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The anxiety of the Prime Minister was such that I apprehended that this was a by-play between him and the hon. member; if the Prime Minister says I am wrong that settles it. He says he has nothing to do with it.


Alan Webster Neill: You are also wrong in saying that I made two misstatements.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni said a moment ago that the members from British Columbia had made certain statements.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me. He said
further-


Charles Avery Dunning: He denies it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That only makes it worse. He also said that it was felt that so and so

was the case, but the article does not say that this was felt to be so by the members from British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: The article states that the
treaty is viewed with grave suspicion by British Columbia members and then says a little further on " It is felt"-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and when the hon. member says that as a British Columbia member he desires entirely to dissociate himself from that statement, he has discharged his duty and his right in claiming his question of privilege. That is the whole point. He said that he was not one of those members from British Columbia who share those opinions, and a moment ago he was discussing whether or not this meant independence. The record will show that he started to discuss that when I raised the question of order, and now he reads on again. The point is this: Are we going to traverse and argue. and discuss the merits of a matter which is now before a committee on a question of privilege raised by the hon. gentleman, or are we going to permit him to say, as it is plainly and clearly his duty to say, that the statefoents thus made incorrectly indicate his position? He has a right to do that, but he used language which was wholly unparliamentary in describing it a moment ago

wholly unparliamentary as defined by Bourinot-and I merely suggest that we should have some regard for the rules.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the hon. gentleman might state briefly the question of privilege which he raised this afternoon. I understand that a certain paper published an article wherein the members of a certain province were said to have apparently sacrificed the interests of Canada to the United States.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, no.


Hewitt Bostock: That is what I inferred
from the remarks of the hon. gentleman. He dissociates himself from that group of members who had sacrificed Canada. That article was in connection with the salmon treaty, and having said that, I think he has used his right as a member in claiming his privilege, but now he desires to say more.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I have used it,
but I do not think I have exhausted it. I do not think the house has clearly grasped the situation and perhaps I had better begin again. As it is close to six o'clock perhaps we might call it six o'clock so that the opposition may have an opportunity to grasp my views.

Privilege-Mr. Neill



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: By leave of the house, I beg to present the fpurth report of the special committee appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVILEGE-MR. NEILL

Alan Webster Neill: Just before six o'clock, in
the few intermittent moments that I was allowed to speak, I thought I had put on Hansard all of the article of which I was complaining, but I find that in one of the interruptions I had lost my place and left out a sentence which I would ask permission to read now. It is only a sentence and Hansard can insert it at the proper place or it can go in now. It makes no difference. This is the sentence I wish to insert:
In the territory is included Canada's great Pacific port of. Vancouver, which may be subjected to certain control by this international commission.
That suggests to me a view which is more than my personal grievance; it opens up a wider sphere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman who is an experienced member and who is not ignorant of the rules of the house, knows that on a question of privilege he is not permitted to discuss the question whether the port of Vancouver is or is not included.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not going to speak about the port of Vancouver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the hon.
member has just started to do.


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. member was not
quite so previous, and would allow me to develop my argument then he could find fault with it. Surely it is not necessary to find fault with what I am saying before I say it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will make my point
clear. The hon. member said: I now propose to make an argument. The question of privilege does not permit argument. Your Honour has so declared so frequently that I am not going to trespass upon the time of the house in making further reference to it. The hon. gentleman has a perfect right to say, after reading that article: I am not one of the
members from British Columbia who think so and the references which are made to myself are incorrect or not founded upon fact. But he must not enter into a discussion or an argument respecting the matter.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not making an argument and surely I should be allowed to indicate what my stand is going to be before I am checked up. I have for the moment not abandoned but simply sidestepped the situation as regards myself. I want to lay before the house a question of privilege, of all our privileges, of the dignity of parliament itself. On the 20th May the Prime Minister of Canada asked the house to send to the marine and fisheries committee this treaty that was mentioned in the article. That committee consists of thirty-five members of whom ten constitute a quorum. Naturally those members are drawn from the provinces fronting on the Pacific or the Atlantic ocean. Consequently the committee is very largely composed of members from the maritime provinces who live a long way from British Columbia. Those men are in the position of a jury; they are going to deal with this question. That occurred on the 20th May. On *the 21st May, the next day, comes out this malignant, treacherous, disloyal piece of propaganda. That is all parliamentary, for I have looked the matter up. I do not often prate about loyalty in the house, but that is disloyal to everyone in British Columbia, and to Canada and every member who cherishes ideals of truth, honour and decency in our political relations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely this is not a question of privilege. If the hon. member is not to observe the rules of the house, where is this to end?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I may say just a word, the hon. member is speaking about an article which reflects upon parliament as a whole and upon the honour of parliament. I have the article in my hand and the first sentence of it reads:
By the Pacific fisheries treaty negotiated by the King government with the United States and now before parliament for approval, it is proposed to give the United States equal control with Canada in the immense territory in British Columbia outlined in the map above.
That is an absolute untruth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is true. That is the difference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is absolutely untrue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say it is absolutely true.

Privilege-Mr. Neill


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is before us is an article referring to parliament and an international treaty which is before a committee of parliament. No newspaper has a right in these circumstances to make the statement that the treaty means something which it does not mean.


Hewitt Bostock: Will the hon. gentleman continue and state his point?


Alan Webster Neill: The point I was wanting to make at this moment was that the publication of this document was highly calculated, intentionally or otherwise, to influence the members of the marine and fisheries committee who act as judges or jury in the consideration of the treaty which is now before them. How can they be unbiased when a journal by which at least some of the members swear politically, comes out with definite statements, fortified by a map and supported by what is alleged to be the views of British Columbia members who are supposed to know? How can they give a fair and honest judgment to the consideration of the treaty when it comes before them? That i3 the point I want to make which affects the honour, dignity and rights of us all. Supposing it was a jury and a man was being tried for his life, and the counsel for the prisoner discovered that the jury had been secretly, or publicly, if you like, served with an extremely ex parte statement of the man's guilt. What would the prisoner's counsel's position be? Would he not ask for a new jury that had not seen and was not privy to this propaganda? That is the point of order which I submit. The Prime Minister said it was false and I understood the leader of the opposition to say it was not false.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is absolutely correct that under the terms of that treaty nearly 100,000 square miles is handed over to the joint control of the United States and Canada for fisheries purposes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Fisheries purposes is a very limited phrase, and even that is not correct.


Alan Webster Neill: I wonder who is discussing the terms of the treaty now, Mr. Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is trifling with the house.


Hewitt Bostock: I think if the hon. gentleman was allowed to make his statement as briefly and concisely as possible, there would not be any trifling, but he must not make any contentious argument. He must simply
[Mr. Bennett. 1
state what in that article reflects on his dignity or on his honour as a member of the House of Commons, and having said that, he has said enough.


Alan Webster Neill: And until he has said that, he has not said enough.
Mr. M'cGIBBON: Are you going to rule this house, Mr. Speaker, or is the hon. member for Comox-Alfoemi?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that before the six o'clock recess the hon. member for Comox-Alberni had dissociated himself absolutely from this article and repudiated all responsibility for it, and now he is attempting to read and discuss the article and to malign the party who wrote it and the paper in which it is printed. Furthermore, I submit that he is introducing an opinion of his own regarding the terms of the treaty to which we shall be precluded from replying by the rules of the house, and as to which treaty we hold diametrically opposite views from those he is expressing. That is utterly unfair. We have a right to claim the privilege of replying to the hon. gentleman if he, the Prime Minister, atid others are going to be permitted to comment on the treaty. If that is to be permitted, although we are not asking for that privilege because the matter is before the fisheries committee, we claim the right to reply. But if the matter is to be introduced we claim the right of expressing our views because this is one of the most important matters before parliament.


Alan Webster Neill: There is a good deal of truth in what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has said, only he has begun at the wrong place. It is not he that demands the right to reply; I am demanding the right to reply. They have had their innings in the Mail and Empire.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman cannot impute motives to hon. members.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Take that back now. He said they have had their innings in the Mail and Empire. I ask that that be withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope the hon. gentleman will withdraw that statement.


Alan Webster Neill: Which statement?

Privilege-Mr. Neill


Hewitt Bostock: That they have had their innings in the Mail and Empire. He is accusing hon. members of having written that article-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: By inference, yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I will withdraw it and put
it this way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is more offensive
still.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Wait till you
hear it.


Alan Webster Neill: The first statements that
came out in connection with this matter appeared in the Mail and Empire, did they not? For the honour of parliament and myself and in the interests of British Columbia I want a chance to reply. My hon. friend wants a chance to reply to me. I am only replying to the statements in the Mail and Empire. But we will leave aside their origin.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now the hon. gentleman is clearly out of order. He has no right to reply. The debate will afford that opportunity. The house must be deeply grateful to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, in the absence of any effort being made by others, for protecting its honour. Usually the Prime Minister is looked upon as the leader of the House of Commons, but in this instance the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is protecting its honour. The question is a very simple one, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman says: I now claim the right to reply to what appeared in the Mail and Empire. Surely, once he dissociates himself from the article the question of privilege is done, and he has his opportunity to reply when the treaty comes back from the committee and is debated in this house.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not going to reply to
the Mail and Empire. I was following up the line of argument that was used iby the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who asked the right to reply to me.


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


Alan Webster Neill: Oh come, Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon. gentleman
rising to a point of order?


Peter McGibbon: Yes. I say that the
hon. member for Comox-Alberni has twice defied your ruling.


Hewitt Bostock: In what respect?


Peter McGibbon: You asked him to withdraw and he refused.


Hewitt Bostock: He withdrew the statement and wished to qualify it but was not allowed to do it. The hon. gentleman will proceed.


Mr. CLARK:: I rise to a point of order.
The hon. member has spoken on this question of privilege on more than one occasion. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that while you are in the chair a member can speak to a question of privilege only once. The hon. member had spoken before dinner, and he chose to discontinue before six o'clock. He called it six o'clock to suit himself, but you, Mr. Speaker, did not call it six o'clock, and after the hon. member from Comox-Alberni took his seat from his own choice the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) proceeded with an entirely different matter. As you, Mr. Speaker, permitted the hon. member for Quebec South to proceed, thereby the question of privilege was closed and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is now definitely closed.


Hewitt Bostock: I did not understand that the question was closed at six o'clock. By unanimous consent it was declared six o'clock.


John Arthur Clark: There was no unanimous
consent because another matter was proceeded with and it was not six o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: Everybody understood
that it was six o'clock. I saw the hands of the clock at six just before hon. members left their seats, and the hon. member for Quebec South asked the leave of the house to lay documents on the table. I must say this, that the hon. member since he rose has been so frequently interrupted that he has not been able to make his point clear. Speaking from the chair I have said that he must be allowed some latitude in placing his question of privilege before the house. I think that if he was allowed to point out without interruptions what he complains of, it would take very much less time.


John Arthur Clark: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling has been based upon a decision of this house given by unanimous consent. There was no such unanimous consent. So far as I personally was concerned, when the hon. member sat down and presumed to call it six o'clock, I personally did not consent to any such proceeding, and I dissent from it now. There was no unanimous consent of the house asked by the hon. member or by the Chair of the right to proceed
Privilege-Mr. Neill

after six. It was not six o'clock, and you ruled, Mr. Speaker, that it was not six, -because you permitted another member to another member to introduce an entirely different subject which was proceeded with and disposed of.


Hewitt Bostock: Every day at eleven
o'clock I allow the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and others to ask questions of the Prime Minister, to which he replies. That is done every day. It is true there was no unanimous consent given, but tacit consent is tantamount to unanimous consent.


Alan Webster Neill: Dire indeed must be their
need when they take refuge-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: -in such a quibble.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we are going to have some semblance of fair play in this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I bring to
your attention certain facts in connection with this matter. I have the article complained of before me-


Hewitt Bostock: It seems that we cannot proceed very regularly in this way. I can direct the hon .gentleman to send the article to the Clerk of the House so that it may be read, and then action may be taken on it by proper notice being given, when the whole question can be debated. Otherwise it is trifling with the time of the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely.


Alan Webster Neill: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker-


Alan Webster Neill: I have the floor.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: Did I understand you, sir, to rule that I must send the article to the Clerk of the House, or was it only a suggestion?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes. We shall not have order in the house unless this is done properly.


Alan Webster Neill: On that one point, Mr. Speaker-


John Arthur Clark: The ruling has been given.


Alan Webster Neill: Am I to be howled down?


John Arthur Clark: You ought to be put out for disregarding the ruling.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. We shall not have order unless we proceed regularly. Generally
[Mr. Clark.)
great latitude is given on a question of this nature, but I see this evening it is impossible to proceed except regularly. Therefore I rule that the strict procedure must be followed. The article must be sent to the clerk to be read in English and in French. Then notice will have to be given and action taken on the article.
The newspaper article having been handed to the clerk, the Clerk Assistant read as follows :
United States Partnership in Canadian Territory.
From T. H. Blackloek Mail and Empire Staff writer
Ottawa, May 20. By the Pacific fisheries treaty negotiated by the King government with the United States and now before parliament for approval-


Hewitt Bostock: A motion should be made by the hon. gentleman that the article be read.


Alan Webster Neill: In deference to your ruling, sir-because I would be quite prepared to go on with my remarks-I make a motion that the article complained of be read by the Clerk of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thereupon the Clerk Assistant read as follows :
United States Partnership in Canadian Territory
From T. H. Blackloek Mail and Empire Staff Writer
Ottawa, May 20. By the Pacific fisheries treaty negotiated by the King government with the United States and now before parliament for approval, it is proposed to give the United States equal control with Canada in the immense territory in British Columbia outlined in the map above.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Untrue.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.
The Clerk Assistant resumed the reading of the article as follows:
This treaty is to preserve the sockeye salmon industry, almost ruined by the United States, and would place the watershed of the Fraser River under the control of a joint international commission-three from the United States and three from Canada.
This immense area, over which the King government proposed to give -the United States equal control with Canada regarding lakes, rivers and improvements thereon, is about 100,000 square miles, equal in area to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island combined, and also equal in area to that part of Ontario between Ottawa on the east, Windsor on the west, Niagara Falls on the south and Sudbury on the north. In the territory is in-

Returned Soldiers Insurance Act
eluded Canada's great Pacific port of Vancouver, which may be subjected to certain control by this international commission.
The treaty is viewed with grave suspicion by British Columbia members as giving the United States an economic partnership in half of that province. International joint commissions have been disastrous to Canada. The St. Lawrence power diversion was secured by a Canadian commissioner joining with the American members of the International Joint Commission. Fortunately that Canadien representative has been retired, but not before he did irretrievable harm. The international joint engineering board on the St. Lawrence development recommended the power plant on the international section be placed in the American territory. This was done by a member of the Canadian section joining with the American section.
It is felt the proposed treaty in giving the United States equal authority in Canadian territory is creating a precedent that may strike a deadly blow at Canadian independence. It is argued if this is done in British Columbia, United States partnership and control may be extended to areas in every province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Tory propaganda.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the article be translated into French.


Hewitt Bostock: The article will have to
be sent to the translators before it can be read.


Mr. PERRAS (Translation) :: Why, sir? Is it not possible to translate it immediately?


Hewitt Bostock: There are no translators here, in the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Number 13.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But, Mr. Speaker, there
is a motion pending. We cannot have two motions before the house at the same time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not
going to wait until the article is translated. I understood Mr. Speaker to say that the article is to be sent to the translator.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely we are
not going to wait until the article is translated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The motion must be disposed of.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: Then
everybody will understand it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion was to the effect that the article be read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Forthwith.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And it has been read. Now Mr. Speaker says it is to be sent to the translator. I presume in the meantime we had better proceed with other business.	'


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, we can go on.



RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to . consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that the time for receiving applications for insurance under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act be extended for one year from the 31st August, 1929.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the Chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister might explain the circumstances.


Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Chairman, last year the
special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems considered the question of insurance, and part of their report reads as follows:
It was strongly represented to your committee by returned soldiers' organizations that their members and returned soldiers generally should again be afforded the opportunity of applying for and receiving insurance under the provisions of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, under which no applications have been receivable since September, 1923.
In accordance with the recommendation of the committee a bill was presented ih the House of Commons and passed extending the time for applications for insurance until 1933. In the senate the bill was amended so that the extended time will expire in September, 1929. Under this measure we propose to extend the time for another year.


John Arthur Clark: To refresh the memories
of the members of the committee, would the Minister of Finance read the provisions of the act which extended the insurance? It was amended, as I recall, by the senate; consequently we are not very familiar with the provisions.


James Alexander Robb: As compared with the original measure we introduced-is that what my hon. friend means?


John Arthur Clark: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: The act was amended, by
recommendation of the parliamentary committee, in 1922, to provide an extension of one year in which 'applications for insurance might be made. \\ hen this extension was
2798	COMMONS
Returned Soldiers Insurance Act
granted certain special cases were made noninsurable. These special eases are:	(1) Applicants without dependents seriously ill; (2) Applicants with dependents, who had no expectancy of life and where disability was not due to war service; (3) Applicants who had suffered impairment of health due to immoral conduct. These are no longer admitted to insurance under the act.


John Arthur Clark: I wished to get the actual
amending provision passed last year by the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the section which
now appears in the 'bill, with the exception that 1929 is now 'being made 1930.


James Alexander Robb: That is alii; application for
insurance may be received under this legislation up to and including October 31, 1930, but shall not be received thereafter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Previously it was 1929
and you are now changing it to 1930?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That answers the question as to the date. But what I should like to know is this. The committee last year recommended 1933 and the Senate changed that. Is it not desirable, if we are going to extend the time now, to extend it to 1933 and be done with it?


James Alexander Robb: All we are asked to do at
the moment is to extend i't ome year; that is all that the representative of the legion requests.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the actuarial
effect of it?


James Alexander Robb: The applications received
between June, 1928, and April, 1929, were 5,222.


Richard Bedford Bennett: New applications?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. Of these, 4,530 were
accepted. There have 'been refused 604, and outstanding, not reported on, there are 88. The total applications accepted, 4.530, represent insurance to the amount of $11,018,000.


Peter McGibbon: What has been the loss, if any, on 'this scheme?


James Alexander Robb: It is difficult to tell what the actuarial loss is; some have not yet matured. The financial statement as of March 31, 1929, shows a balance of funds on hand of $7,651,878.18. Out of that we paid $540,044,93 in death claims, surrender values to the amount of $239,366.72, disability claims amounting to $5,555.40, leaving a balance of $6,866,911.13.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What would be the
amount necessary to hold as reserve, under actuarial, life insurance figures, to meet the liability?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friends will recall
that this scheme was introduced with the idea of giving the soldier reasonable insurance at moderate cost.


Peter McGibbon: Last year it was stated that the scheme was self-supporting and that the government would not be called upon to shoulder any liability.


James Alexander Robb: We always hope that these
schemes are self-supporting. I should not like to go on record as saying that this scheme is self-supporting, but it is not in an unhealthy condition at the moment.


John Arthur Clark: What was the general
ground on which the 600 applications were refused?


James Alexander Robb: I cannot say. The applications are passed on by the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Mr. GEARY:: Do you set up a reserve
as provided for in the insurance act? Is the scheme actuarially sound by means of an
ordinary reserve at 3i per cent or whatever the rate may be?


James Alexander Robb: The scheme was introduced
in 1920 but I should not care to say that it was actuarially sound. It is probably not far enough advanced yet to warrant that statement.


George Reginald Geary: If the policy is not loaded
too heavily for expenses it can be made actuarially sound by setting up the required reserve at the rate of interest called for by the department, and I understand that is actually done. It is only a question of loading or not loading for expenses.


James Alexander Robb: There are no expenses.


George Reginald Geary: And that is why we can
make it sound. I do not think the government wants the impression to get abroad that this is not sound insurance. It is not a gratuity; I hope it is not regarded as charity to the soldiers. The soldier is paying insurance that carries small loading for expenses and that is why the rate is lower than corresponding rates in line companies. I consider the proposition a good one and I should like the soldier to feel that he is getting something worth while by reason of the fact that the government is carrying it at cost; he is getting insurance at a good deal less than he would if he went to an ordinary line

Returned Soldiers Insurance Act
company. I believe such to be the case. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that there is no examination of any rigidity; the 600 applicants who were refused are in all likelihood those coming under the three classes of exceptions referred to by the minister and therefore not entitled to insurance. But so long as a man is under a disability, I do not care whether it be 100 per cent, the government should grant the insurance practically without examination. Perhaps the minister will enlighten us on that point. It is something that should be brought clearly to the attention of the soldiers, because they can obtain this insurance at much lower cost than they can outside.


James Alexander Robb: I am glad to have my hon.
friend express those views. If the government did not believe it was a good scheme for the soldiers they would not to-night be asking that it be extended another year. As I have said, all that the legion asks is that we extend it a year, and that we are granting.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: While in the west
during the last recess, I was approached by some veterans of the South African war. They pointed out to me that almost all our other legislation dealing with returned men had been so amended as to give to veterans of the South African war practically the same terms, in every respect, as were conceded to veterans of the Great war. In the matter of pensions, in the matter of hospitalization, in practically every measure introduced in relation to the reestablishment of returned soldiers of the last war, the South African veterans, it was stated, had been placed on a parity with their brothers. But it was pointed out to me that in this one particular there was an exception, and it was urged upon me with a good deal of force and, I may say, quite convincingly by a man with whom I am very well acquainted, that this entailed a real hardship. A South African veteran who had lost his leg as the result of services at that time had volunteered for service in the expeditionary force in the Great war but naturally was not accepted on account of his physical condition. He has a pension with which, in addition to what he can earn, he supports himself, an invalid and widowed mother and one or two helpless members of the family. Not long ago he made an attempt to obtain insurance under this act which would enable his mother and other dependents to carry on in case of his death. He made his application in good faith, enclosing the amount required as a premium 78594-178
for a S3,000 policy, but of course he was informed that this act did not include South African veterans but only veterans of the Great war. He spoke to me on the subject and I must say he was very convincing, so much so that at least I saw the justice of his contention, particularly as this would affect comparatively few men. So I told him that as far as I could see the matter was fair and that I would bring it to the attention of the minister having charge of the act and all the members of the cabinet, who are anxious to see justice done to all returned soldiers so far as that is possible.
I would like to know from the minister if he would consider the extension of the benefits of this insurance act to that comparatively small handful of veterans who remain from the South African war, who as I said before have been placed on a parity with other veterans in everj'thing except this matter. If they could come in under this act they would come under exactly the same terms, regulations and laws under which the veterans of the Great war now carry on, and I would be very glad if this question could be considered. I do not feel that it would involve a great deal of money; there are not very many of these men left, and those men who were crippled in the South African war and who have lived up to the present time obviously were not those who were in immediate danger of death.
Hon. iR. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Before the minister replies I might state that representations were made to me by a substantial number of South African returned men on this particular question, and I had intended to bring up the matter. The hon. member for Red Deer has covered the position so thoroughly that I will not go over it again. I believe the matter was considered in this house on a previous occasion, and I understand that the government bears part of the cost of this insurance. It is not, as my hon. friend has stated, upon a self-sustaining actuarial basis; if that were the case the matter would not be here. The government bears a portion of the cost for the simple reason that many of these men were not insurable risks, as was explained by the Minister of National Defence previously, and as the matter now stands we do not quite know what the ultimate responsibility may be. I understand that the officials of the insurance department say it is quite impossible, having regard to the type of risks carried and the difficulty of fixing any adequate premium, to indicate with certainty what the actuarial responsibility will be. Some of these men who returned from the South African war are in

2S00

Returned Soldiers Insurance Act
fairly good physical condition; some of them would not be accepted by line insurance companies but were hoping they might be permitted to come in under this act before they became entirely too old to enable them to make some provision for their families.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: Will the minister say whether any favours at all have been granted the South African veterans? I happen to be one myself and I am approaching that period when favours may be required. It strikes me that the contingent which went from Canada to South Africa was sent under the Liberal party, and we were paid by Canada up to the time we got on the boat. From then on the poor old mother country had to pay us and bring us home, and .as a matter of fact I believe all the pensions which are paid in Canada as a result of that war are paid by the mother country. So if any favours are being distributed I think this suggestion might be well considered.


James Alexander Robb: This is the first time politics have been injected into this debate; I thought this was a non-political question.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is that not true?


James Alexander Robb: I am not going into that question now, but I have some recollection that the South African veterans were given some privileges with regard to grants of land. However, I would not like to delay this bill by referring it back to the committee for consideration of this South African question. The bill now before the house is the result of an inquiry by a joint committee representing all parties, and the insurance is based upon the report of that committee. If at that time the South African veterans thought they had a claim, that claim should have been considered by the committee, and possibly that was done. My hon. friend from Red Deer was a member of that committee and he knows more about that matter than I do, but at this late stage all we propose to do is to extend for another year the benefits of an insurance scheme which has been recommended by a joint committee of the house.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 310, to amend the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

On section 1-Time extended one year for receiving applications.
John Arthur Clark: I would like to have a short statement, perhaps from the Minister of Pensions, giving the reasons for the refusal of so many applications for insurance. The reason I ask for this statement is because during the past year I have had many complaints from returned soldiers and returned soldiers' organizations that applications for insurance have been refused. My personal impression is that the great majority of these applications were refused because of the serious state of health of the applicants, but I have been assured that in some cases the matter was looked into by counsel on behalf of these applicants and that in their opinion the insurance should legally issue. I have never seen a case in which I could have given a similar opinion because I have not had the facts of these cases before me. I am not aware of the real reasons for these refusals, but I think it would clarify the situation throughout the country if the minister could give a short statement as to the general reason, if there is a general reason, for the refusal of so many applications for insurance.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Of course, that is rather a difficult question to answer, because the adjudication of these cases is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Board of Pension Commissioners. They have a medical officer who is in possession of the file of the applicant. An inquiry is made as to the present condition of the applicant and where there is a reasonable expectancy of life he obtains his insurance; tlhat is according to the act. There was probably some delay last fall with regard to rejections, but that has been adjusted and I think that many of the applications which wrere held up have been adjudicated on since. Out of six thousand applications something over four thousand have been favourably considered, which would indicate that a fair number are receiving consideration. As to those claims which the commission would not grant, that is a matter which is entirely out of my hands.


John Arthur Clark: Do the pensions board
doctors examine each applicant?


John Warwick King: No.


John Arthur Clark: How do they come to the
conclusion whether or not he is a man suffering from a disability?

War Reparations


John Warwick King: In nearly every
case the medical history of the applicant is well known; the file is in the office and it may be adjudicated upon from the records. If there is any doubt there is a medical officer in each locality and he can inquire and report directly upon the applicants.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 285 to provide for the payment of claims for compensation for loss sustained by the civil population of Canada during the late war.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have a suggested
amendment to this section. When the resolution was before the house I indicated the reasons why the government had limited its proposed award to $2,500,000, but during the course of the present session considerable, pressure was brought to bear upon the government to increase that award. Representations were made that the recommendations of Commissioner Friel be carried out, including his recommendation for the payment of interest. When the resolution was before the house I invited the fullest discussion on the matter and I indicated that the government had no intention to impose any policy in this matter. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, every hon. member who spoke on that occasion took the stand that full payment should be made of all awards recommended by Commissioner Friel, and that we should take into consideration his recommendation as regards interest. The government has reconsidered the whole matter in the light of the discussion which took place in the house, and also in the light of representations which have come from all quarters of the country and which have appeared in the Canadian press. It is the intention of the government to recommend to this house, partly by means of this bill and partly through the supplementary estimates, the full payment of the awards made by Commissioner Friel and the payment of interest on same. As the hon leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has 78594-1781
pointed out, it is not possible for a money bill to go beyond the amount stated in the resolution, and, therefore, it is not my intention to recommend an amendment to this bill as regards the amount of money. The amendment I intend to recommend will make it conform to the intention of the government in this respect. If this bill passes the house, and is adopted by the senate, the government will include in the supplementary estimates an amount to make up the difference between $2,500,000 and the full award of Commissioner Friel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And with interest?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: With interest.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved:: That subsection (b) of section 2 be amended by striking out all the words after the word "claim".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Commissioner's report.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have an amendment to suggest in connection with this section. This section refers to the appointment of the commissioner under the provisions of the Inquiries Act, and the fourth line reads: for the purpose of inquiry and report upon claims for compensation.
As there have been several commissioners appointed, I propose that the section be amended by striking out the words "inquiry and report" in the fourth line and substituting therefor "continuing and completing an inquiry and reporting." The section will then read:
The report of the commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Inquiries Act, chapter one hundred and four of the revised statutes of Canada. 1906, and amending act, for the purpose of continuing and completing an inquiry and reporting upon claims for compensation.


The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Ralston moves:
That section 3 be amended by striking out the words "inquiry and report" in the fourth line and substituting therefor the words "continuing and completing inquiry.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Reginald Geary: Many claims were passed
upon but not allowed. I have read the report and the evidence that was adduced and I cannot say that I would altogether agree with the action of the commissioner in regard to certain claims. Perhaps this is not the ap-
War Reparations

propriate place to bring the matter up, but I suggest to the minister that he consider the advisability of having an appeal in regard to certain claims.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I intend to move later
on that a clause be inserted covering that point.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Appropriation for payment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only thing about
this section is that it does not say when payment is to be made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It means right away.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Method of payment.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In this section it was
intended in the first place not only to have a scale of payments but to limit the maximum amount to $25,000. Again, in order to avoid any confusion with what we intend to do in the supplementary estimates, I suggest that the last paragraph be struck out, as follows:
In any instance in which the amount payable under these scales would exceed $25,000, payment shall be limited to that figure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was wondering whether or not the sum of $2,500,000 might not be ample to meet all claims up to $26,000 with interest and thus the difficulty to which the minister has alluded would vanish. That is, if the $2,500,000 will pay this in full, the minister need not be bothered about paying a part. The section provides for a payment of 25 per cent on any excess of $15,000 up to $25,000. That involves a great deal of bookkeeping. Could the minister not provide that the payments be made up to a certain sum so that under this bill those payments could be made in full and there would not be a shortage? Supposing the maximum amount, instead of being $25,000, was made $20,000, because the minister is going to put in the supplementary estimates sufficient money to make the payments in full; this would obviate a great deal of bookkeeping.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I must admit the difficulty which is created by the way in which we have approached this question, but if this bill passes and the supplementary estimates are also put through, I think we can well consider both this bill and the resolution in the estimates as one measure. Unless I should find any technical difficulty in the matter, it is the intention of the department and of the minister in charge, when the $15,000 assess-

ments are paid, to include the interest at once, although the interest is not provided for in this bill but will be in the supplementary estimates. It is also our intention to meet all the claims in the same way, making one payment, and not dividing it up into two or three payments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But might we not deal
wth the matter in this way by making section 5 read:
The custodian shall pay out of the aforesaid moneys the assessments made by the commissioner upon the following scale:-
Up to $20,000 with interest in full.
And just stop there, because the sum of $2,500,000 will cover that and the supplementary .estimates will provide a sum sufficient to pay all amounts in excess of $20,000 with interest. The difficulty I see, when you get to the Auditor General, is that yo.u have a statutory authority. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre said you might put two authorities in the same voucher. This is a statutory enactment that directs the payment of a percentage. If you strike out the balance of the section and say:	We will pay
claims up -to $20,000 in full with interest as reported by. the commission, will the $2,500,000 cover that?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not think we could
go that far. The sum of $2,500,000 will practically meet the $15,000 assessments with interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then if so, strike the rest of the section out.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The interest will be
computed1 until the date of payment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It may just 'happen that
we shall be short a certain amount. That is why I propose to leave it as it was so that the $2,500,000 would assuredly cover it, but we add just a small margin to cover the difference between the maximum of $25,000 and the 10 per cent payments.


John Arthur Clark: Under the amendment that the minister has made to section 2, there will mow be authority to pay interest under this bill, will there not?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This bill does not allow
any payment of interest. That will have to be provided for in the supplementaries and mentioned in the resolution in the supplementaries.

War Reparations


John Arthur Clark: Then I have misunderstood
the effect of the 'minister's amendment. Perhaps I have not got it clearly, but paragraph (b) of section 2 is struck out. When that is struck out, there is then nothing to preclude the minister from paying interest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Only the last
part of tlie paragraph is struck out.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think I made it clear
that the definition had been made for the bill, but my object in striking out the reference to interest is only to avoid confusion.


John Arthur Clark: The effect of the amendment is to strike out the words:
Exclusive of his recommendation for the payment of interest thereon.
The very moment the minister strikes out those words, there is authority muter this bill to pay interest, because a portion of the commissioner's assessment consists of interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The judgment so declares.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That difficulty also oame
to my mind, but I think it will suffice that the interpretation be given in the committee as to what -this definition means. It reads:
The word "assessment" means the amount allowed by the commissioner in respect of any claim.
This is the way in which the commissioner made his assesments. He stated a certain amount which he made specific, and then he said that to that amount should be added interest from such and such a date.


John Arthur Clark: Then the interest becomes a portion of the assessment. The very moment something is added, it becomes a portion of it. I suggest again that the very moment the minister strikes out the words-
Exclusive of his recommendation for the payment of interest thereon.
-the bill provides for the payment of the full assessment made by the commissioner consisting of a certain principal sum plus interest. That is the commissioner's assessment, and if these words are struck out, then under this bill we are bound to pay all the claims of $15,000 including interest. There might be a claim of $8,000 plus $7,000 interest. This would be a claim or an assessment of $15,000 which, under this bill, we would be bound to pay. There will be confusion if, with interest added to these various principal sums, the amount of $2,500,000 does not suffice to pay the total amount of the claims provided for in section 5.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think this is very much a matter of interpretation. It all depends upon the meaning that is attached to the word, "amount". If I may be permitted to revert to section 2, my purpose in amending it was to avoid confusion. If we leave in the bill a definition in which are mentioned the words-
Exclusive of his recommendation for the payment of interest thereon.
-there might be confusion between the bill and the resolution in the estimates. The definition, without these words and just reading-
"Assessment" means the amount allowed by tlie commissioner in respect of any claim.
-is clear enough, especially if in committee the interpretation is given to it that it is meant to indicate only the amount without the interest.	*


John Arthur Clark: Assume that the minister is one of those to whom an award has been made; if he puts himself in the position of the claimant he will see the difficulty that might arise under the act as it now stands. If he has been awarded $8,000 in principal, plus $7,000 in interest, he will assert that the amount awarded him was $15,000, not $8,000 at all, and he will claim $15,000, and I suggest claim it rightly.
Secondly, I suggest that any interpretation put upon this bill by the committee is quite useless because that will not preclude the claimant who has been awarded the $15,000 from claiming that amount, and it will not deprive him of the right, to dispute the payment of $8,000 because this committee has no right to interpret this act. It is not the body which interprets the act after we have passed it. We may express here unanimously our intention to provide that it is $8,000, but if the bill bears the construction .of $15,000 the courts will award $15,000.
May I point out, in the third place, that the minister is assuming, and probably the chances are one hundred to one that he is correct, that there will be a supplementary estimate to provide for the payment of this interest, but there is no certainty that the supplementary estimate will pass this parliament; there is no certainty that it will be introduced, and if it is not introduced, then we shall have this act which will be impossible if the principal sum named in section 4 is not sufficient to take care of the claims mentioned in section 5.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I offer this suggestion to the minister and to the Solicitor General sitting beside him? Amend this bill
War Reparations

by taking out the two and a half millions altogether, and then pass the bill, merely providing for the payment to the custodian by the minister of the awards made by the commissioner with interest, as provided in his report. Then a supplementary estimate will [DOT]be all that will be needed to meet the re-[DOT]quirements.


Lucien Cannon: That would be going beyond the scope of the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because it does not touch the resolution at all. The supplementary estimates have to be preceded by a message.


Lucien Cannon: The resolution mentioned an amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say, drop the resolution altogether.


Lucien Cannon: I{ we drop the resolution, how can we pass a money bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We do not deal with money; simply say that the award shall be paid out of any moneys provided by the minister for the custodian, and bring down the amount in the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Guthrie: Why not drop the resolution and this bill altogether and bring in a new one? It could be done much more expeditiously in that way because it is a matter of agreement and consent now.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think the objection
taken by my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard is merely a technical one. He says that one of the claimants may say that he is entitled under this bill not only to the principal of his award, $8,000, but also the interest on it. I could see the difficulty if we did not intend to supplement this bill by the necessary vote in the estimates in order to meet both the award and the interest. My hon. friend says that there is no certainty that the supplementary estimates will be brought down. I am giving him the assurance that we will certainly bring them down. My hon. friend says that they might not be adopted. I wish he would give me the assurance that he and his friends will not object to the supplementary estimates.


John Arthur Clark: In reply to the minister I would draw his attention to the attitude of this opposition over a period of years in uiging the government to do what we are again asking them to do. In other words, make sure that the amount will be brought down and that all the claims will be paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the Solicitor General will agree that it is a matter of law. If we drop this bill and the resolution, then on 
the supplementary estimates being introduced we will undertake, so far as we sitting here are concerned, to assist in the passing of the bill based on what you say, and the whole thing will go through and that will be the end of it.


Lucien Cannon: Suppose we did that,
immediately the senate would say that we had passed our legislation in such a way as to prevent the senate from discussing it. This is a matter of some importance which the senate should be allowed to discuss, but if it is done by way of the supplementary estimates, the senate will have to pass it whether they like it or not.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the objection to dropping the resolution and the bill and bringing in a new resolution on Monday and a new bill? We could pass it in a few minutes and it would avoid the question of the supplementary estimates altogether.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Amongst others, we are trying to meat the wishes of hon. gentlemen opposite, and if they are not satisfied with this we can move that the committee rise, and not proceed any further.


John Arthur Clark: That is not what we ask at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the situation.


John Arthur Clark: Not at all. What we are asking is that it be made clear that the claims as awarded by the commissioner will surely be met under this bill; that is all. I think that if the suggestion of the hon. member for South Wellington is adopted, and the assurance is given that the claims will be paid, that would be far the simplest way of dealing with the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say to mp hon. friends opposite that the government in this matter have sought to take the whole question out of the realm of political discussion. We are seeking to meet what we believe to be the general opinion of the house. If hon. gentlemen oposite are not satisfied with the method, we can move that the committee rise and report progress, and leave the matter at that. We have told the house that if this bill passes the house and passes the Senate, we will bring in a supplementary estimate making good the additional amount required together with interest. If this biil does not pass the Senate, we will not bring in the supplementary estimate. We wish this bill to pass both houses before we take further action.

War Reparations


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the Prime Minister had said that a little while ago we would not have had so much difficulty. We were endeavouring to assist the Prime Minister and trying to simplify the matter by having one payment instead of two. As section 5 now stands the Prime Minister will appreciate the difficulty.
I do not think it is quite in keeping with the Prime Minister's usual attitude to suggest in the way of a threat thait the committee will rise. I am quite satisfied that this legislation has as many friends in the administration as it has in this party. We are only eighty-nine of ninety in number, and their numbers are greater than ours. It is not a question of political friendship, however, at all; it is a question of dealing with this matter in a businesslike way, and the suggestion we made was made in good faith.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a question of getting through with the business of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The situation is complicated by reason of the government's attitude in connection with the resolution. Now, yielding to the views of the house, the method is somewhat different, and if the Prime Minister says that the government will accept responsibility for this question being settled satisfactorily, I for one am quite content.


John Frederick Johnston: It is moved by the Minister of National Defence that all the words in the last paragraph of section 5 be struck out, beginning with the words "In any instance" and ending with the words "to that figure."	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 7-Report.	.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have an amendment to move and as it is quite extensive I will hand a copy to the leader of the opposition and to the leader of the Progressive party. In his report Commissioner Friel points out that a certain number of claims had been assessed by Commissioner Pugsley, the former commissioner, and signed by him, and later on either not concurred in or else varied by Commissioner Friel. It has been represented that in such cases you really have the decisions of two commissioners. It seemed only equitable that the two decisions be referred to some proper authority for final adjudication. That is the purpose of the amendment which I now move:
(1) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this act, the custodian may refer to a judge of the exchequer count of Canada any assessment or assessments set out in the report of the said commissioner which was dealt with by a previous commissioner and was not concurred in or was varied in the said report, and upon such reference the said judge of the exchequer court is empowered to review any such assessment or claim and to report thereon, and upon receipt of such report the custodian shall pay the amount so reported by the judge in each case.
(2) For the purposes of such adjudication the judge of the exchequer court may, in his discretion, rely upon, either in whole or in part, any of the evidence taken by either commissioner, or upon the conclusions of either commissioner, and may receive such other evidence by affidavit or otherwise as may be further adduced in support of such claim and otherwise fix and determine any procedure necessary or requisite in the premises.
It is proposed to refer these awards to a judge of the exchequer court for final adjudication and to devise machinery for the inquiry.


Mr. HARRIS:: Would this amendment
cover a case where Commissioner Friel in disallowing a claim adds this rider? I would disallow this claim as not falling within any of the categories of the annex. Before the minister answers that question I should like to put this particular case before him-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Will my hon. friend allow me to interrupt him? If I should tell him that the amendment will certainly cover a case like that, perhaps he will be satisfied.


Joseph Henry Harris: In view of this particular
clause which says that the attention of the government is called to the decision of Commissioner Friel's predecessor, I asked the minister if he would be good enough to let me have the decision of the late Commissioner Pugsley, and in reply he wrote me saying that the government did not feel disposed to let me have the information. I pursued the matter a little further, and the minister said it was up to parliament. I want to know, is this matter up to parliament or is it up to the government?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my recollection is
correct, it was a case where the late Dr. Pugsley had prepared a draft decision and initialled it, but Commissioner Friel, evidently not considering it as a final judgment, has not seen fit to embody it in his report, as he has in every case where he has differed from the final decision rendered by his predecessor. Where there has been a serious conflict of opinion between any work done by the late Dr. Pugsley and that done by
War Reparations

Commissioner Friel, I shall use the authority-granted by this clause and give the most ample interpretation to the powers that it grants to the Secretary of State.


Joseph Henry Harris: I take it then that the
matter is up to the government rather than
up to parliament?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is one that my hon.
friend can look forward to with the greatest of confidence.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I suppose if this passes
the statement of claims up to $15,000 that we have received from the King's Printer will be paid immediately?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Oh yes, those will be paid without delay.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Those included in the
King's Printer's document which we have received?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not know exactly
what my hon. friend means by the King's Printer's list. Does he refer to Commissioner Friel's report?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The list containing the
names of certain persons.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Those are the awards
made by the commissioner. They will be paid at once.


George Reginald Geary: The amendment provides
for cases where there has been disagreement between the late Dr. Pugsley and the commissioner subsequently appointed. But the minister has not provided for those cases where the parties are dissatisfied with the original finding by Dr. Pugsley and concurred in by Commissioner Friel. Is it intended to leave open for appeal such cases?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No.


George Reginald Geary: On the principle that the two commissioners concurring it is evident the adjudication must be right?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps my hon. friend is aware that the former commissioner, Dr. Pugsley, rendered only 280 decisions, while Commissioner Friel has passed upon 1,613 cases. In ithe majority of the 280 cases the decision rendered by Dr. Pugsley was confirmed by Commissioner Friel; but in 21 of the cases he has dissented from the decision given- -by his predecessor. It is not contemplated to allow an appeal where both commissioners have dismissed the case, or where it was heard by Commissioner Friel and dismissed1.


Joseph Henry Harris: Can the minister give the house some idea as to the length of time it will take for the necessary machinery to be set up to take advantage of this particular amendment? It is not necessary to draw to the attention of the house that this matter has been before the Canadian people since 1921. It -has been delayed, most unnecessarily in my opinion, particularly since this government came into power. The people who are interested in these reparation payments are becoming older, and if they have to wait much longer they will be very seriously inconvenienced. I trust the minister will put some speed on now and get results.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: As regards the awards made by Commissioner Friel, there will be no delay after the close of the session. If the bill is adopted by both houses and the estimate passes, it is the intention of the department immediately to circularize the claimants and issue the cheques. As to those claims regarding which there is a difference of opinion, it is my intention to refer them at once to a judge of the exchequer court. How long that judge will take to dispose of them I cannot tell, but we will itry to see that the matter is expedited so far as they are concerned.


Joseph Henry Harris: These people were first circularized on October 17, 1921. After they have been circularized on this occasion how long will it take to get action?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend is not clear as to whether he refers to the awards made by Commissioner Friel', but so far as they are concerned they will be paid1 in full and in that case there will be- no delay. This particular section deals with cases involving a difference of opinion as between Commissioners Friel and Pugsley. These claims, as I say, will be referred at once to a judge of the exchequer court. I cannot guarantee how long it will take him to pass upon them, but they are only 21 out of some 1,600.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Section 7 will now become section 8.


John Frederick Johnston: Yes.
On the title.


George Reginald Geary: Is It the intention of the department to allow parties to appear before that judge?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That has been left entirely to the judge.

Supply-Pensions and National Health


George Reginald Geary: As a matter of procedure; but I would suggest to the minister that it might be well to have the parties appear.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps I might point out that we have taken a wide step from the initial resolution to the principle of paying awards in full with interest, together with the undertaking to refer a certain number of cases to a judge of the exchequer court.


George Reginald Geary: I am finding no fault, but I think it would be wise to let the parties appear and have the matter satisfactorily disposed of.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is left to the judge.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. NEILL
Hewitt Bostock: With reference to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), I will now direct that the clerk read to the house a translation of the article to which the hon. member took exception.
The translation was read by the Clerk of the House as follows:
Ottawa, 20 mai.-Par le traite des peeheries du Pacifique que le gouvernement King a ne-gocie avec les Etats-Unis et pour lequel on de-mande maintenant l'approbation du Parlement, on se propose de donner aux Etats-Unis line juridiction egale a eel 1 e du Canada dansce ter-ritoire immense de la Colombie-Britannique es-quisse sur la carte ci-dessus. Ce' traite a pour fin de conserver l'industrie du saumon sockeye, presque ruinee jiar les Etats-Unis, et placerait le bassin de la riviere Fraser sous la juridic-tion d'une commission conjointe internationale, -trois personnes des Etats-Unis et trois du Canada.
Ce territoire immense sur lequel le gouvernement King propose de donner aux Etats-Unis une juridiction egale a celle du Canada sur les lacs, les rivieres et les ameliorations a y intro-duire, couvre environ 100,000 milles carres, d'une etendue egale a celles des provinces de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, du Nouveau-Brunswick et de Tile du Prince-Edouard, reunies, d'une etendue egale aussi a cette partie de l'Ontario situee en-tre Ottawa a Test, Windsor a l'ouest, Niagara Falls au sud et Sudbury au nord. Et dans ce territoire se trouve encore compris le grand port canadien du Pacifique, Vancouver, qui peut etre sujet a une certaine juridiction de cette commission internationale.
Les deputes de la Colombie-Britannique considered le traite avec une serieuse alarme par-ce qu'il donne aux Etats-Unis un controle eco-nomique de la moite de la province. Les commissions conjointes internationales ont ete de-sastreuses au Canada. C'est parce qu'un mem-bre canadien de la commission internationale s'est allie aux membres americains que la diversion des eaux du St-Laurent a ete rendue possible. Heureusement, ce representant cana-dien a ete destitue, mais non avant qu'il accom-plisse un mal irrevocable. Le Bureau conjoint international des ingenieurs qui a etudie la canalisation du Saint-Laurent a recommande que les stations generatrices de la section international soient placees en territoire americain. Et cette recommandation n'a ete faite que parce qu'un des membres du comite canadien s'est associe a la section americaine.
On oroit que le traite projete, en donnant aux Etats-Unis une juridiction egale a la notre sur un territoire canadien, cree un precedent qui peut porter a l'independanee canadienne un coup funeste. Et l'on plaide que si l'on fait ceci pour la Colombie-Britannique, la juridiction et le controle des Etats-Unis pourra egale-ment s'etendre a des territoires dans chaque province.



DEPARTMENT OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in 'the chair.
Care of patients and medical examination of pensioners, $2,600,000.
Peter McGibbon: As it has been customary to discuss things generally on the first item, and as the two departments are linked together, I wish to say something regarding the Department of Health. I feel like apologising for taking up the time of the house at this late date in the session, but, as I remarked the other night, in the last ten years these estimates have always appeared on the last day of the week and generally at the last hour of the day. By way of preface to the remarks I am going to make I wish to read something from the act. Section 4 of chapter 90 of the Revised Statutes of Canada is as follows:
The duties and powers of the minister administering the Department of Health shall extend to and include all matters and questions relating to the promotion or preservation of the health of the people of Canada over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, particularly the following matters and subjects:
(a)	Cooperation with the provincial, territorial, and other health authorities with a view to the coordination of the efforts proposed or made for preserving and improving the public health, the conservation of child life and the promotion of child welfare;	.
(b)	The establishment and maintenance of a national laboratory for public health and research work;
That is the basis upon which I wish to speak for a few moments, in order to direct attention to what might be accomplished if we had a real, live Department of Health. I think it is grossly unfair to this country that a department which is offered such opportunities should be administered in the inefficient manner of the last few years. If we were to cast our eyes eastward we would
2808	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
see what has been done in Great Britain, where Mr. Stanley Baldwin picked no less a man than Mr. Neville Chamberlain to preside over the department of health, where he has done perhaps the best work of his career.
For a moment or two I would like to direct the attention, of the house to the great wastage of life in this country, and I would like to preface my remarks with the statement that while it is impossible to put a valuation upon human life, 'just as it is impossible to put a valuation upon the services rendered by a wife and mother, still the value of the people of a country is very much in excess of the value of all industry. I shall refer to that a little later; at this point I would like to direct the attention of the house to the life expectancy in Canada as compared with other countries of the world, as follows:
Years
New Zealand	 02
Australia	 58
Denmark	 58
Norway	 58
England	 58
Canada	 55-6
France	 45-48
Italy	 45-48
Japan	 45-48
What does that mean to a country? Let us consider it in relation to the increase of wealth per year. The wealth of Canada has been increasing at the rate of about $100 per capita per year, and I think the increase in the United States is almost the same. If we could advance the life expectancy in Canada by two years, with our 9,000,000 people and figuring the increase in wealth at $100 per year per capita, we would add- to the wealth of the country the huge sum of $1,800,000,000. If we could bring our standard up to 62 years, which is the life expectancy in New Zealand, the additional wealth would be very much greater, and surely that is not an unreasonable thing to expect. In that one particular, therefore, we have a loss of almost two billion dollars yearly, which is almost equal to the amount added to our national debt because of the war. I think this is one direction in which this department could demonstrate its usefulness to the great advantage of this country.
Then there are other ways in which this department could be of service. Let us consider the work which has been done by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. About fifteen years ago they started to expend STOOD,000 yearly for the preservation of the health of their policyholders. To date they 
have spent $15,000,000, but they claim to have saved no less than $43,000,000 in death payments because of the fact that the lives of their policyholders have been prolonged. If that result can be attained by an insurance company through the expenditure of $15,000,000,, what could be done in this country by an active Department of Health? The other day I ran across another good example which may appeal to my hon. friends from Quebec. In Bedford Mines, through the expenditure of some $30,000 over a period of years, the mortality rate was reduced1 from 300 per thousand to 96, and this reduction was effected largely in infant mortality. That shows what can be done by well-directed efforts along this line.
Now let us consider this question in another way. According to the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company an investigator examined a large number of wage earners who were receiving $2,500 a year; after going over thousands of cases he estimated the lifetime earnings of a man of that class at $41,000. His expenditure was estimated at only $13,000, which left an asset to the state of $28,000 per man. It is easy to figure out what that would mean even in a country with a population of 9,000,000 people, if the death rate could be cut down as we all know can be done.
For just a moment I would like to refer to the death rate in1 Canada; first I will give the infant mortality, and I wouild ask my hon. friends from Quebec to pay particular attention. I find that the infant mortality of Canada as compared with other countries is as follows:
Canada	 94
England and Wales	 69
Irish Free State	 70
Northern Ireland	 78
Australia	 54
New Zealand	 38
Switzerland	 56
Netherlands	 58
When we consider that this country has a wastage of 94 per thousand compared with 38 per thousand in New Zealand we can see the possibilities of a real active health organization. I would like to give the death rates of children in different cities in Canada as compared with cities in other parts of the world. In Canada the death rate per thousand living births was as follows:
Montreal	 132
Toronto	 71
Winnipeg	 61
Vancouver	 52
Ottawa	 95
Quebec		148

Supply-Pensions and National Health
The death rates per thousand in different cities in the old land are as follows:
London		59
Bristol	 58
Manchester	 86
Nottingham	 84
Liverpool	 95
Leeds	 81
The figures by provinces are as follows:
Quebec	 129
New Brunswick	 96
Nova Scotia	 92-3
Saskatchewan	 74-5
Manitoba	 72-2
Ontario	 71-1
Prince Edward Island	 06-6
British Columbia	 60 T
I give these figures, Mr. Chairman, in order to prove the great necessity of health work. We have a terrible wastage in this country which can be corrected by a properly organized effort by the Dominion. Department of Health and the provincial departments of health.
I would like to give some figures which show the decline in infant mortality in England and Wales. For the period from 1871 to 1875 the death rate per thousand births of children up to the first year of age was 153; that had been reduced to 70 in 1927. The death rate of children from the age of one to two years was reduced from 59 to 20. In this country we still have an infant mortality of some 15,000, annually. Syphilis is carrying off from 7,000 to 15,000 per year; tuberculosis accounts for 5,000; diphtheria, a purely preventable disease, accounts for something like 1,200. There is another side to the picture which is beginning to loom up, the new diseases connected with the new industries and occupations. We have carbon monoxide poisoning, but so far no department, either provincial or federal, has seen fit to consider this matter. When we look at the analyses of the different causes of death we find an astonishing increase in such diseases as cancer, nephritis and the circulatory diseases. I would like to give some figures showing the increase in deaths per 100,000 from cancer, as follows:
1881-85 1921-25
Ages 40	to	49	
36	88Ages 50	to	59	
81	213Ages 60	to	69	
128	473Ages 70	to	79	
200	816Ages 80 and over	
210	1,000
The figures are almost as startling in connection with nephritis. They are as follows:
Ages 40 to 49.. Ages 50 to 59.. Ages 60 to 69.. Ages 70 to 79.. Ages 80 and over
1881-85	1921-25
17	34
24	69
58	177
109	403
114	740
We find the following increases in connection with the circulatory diseases:
	1881-85	1921-25
Ages 40 to 49	.. 60	89Ages 50 to 59	.. 124	256Ages 60 to 69	.. 278	823Ages 70 to 79	. . 490	2.500Ages 80 and over.. ..	.. 430	5,730These figures show that there is a	remarkable increase in these diseases and this should have the attention of some active public health organization.
I find that the death rate from purpural sepsis has increased from 1.43 per cent in 1911 to 1.57 per cent in 1927.
Let us look at what has been done in the way of preventive medicine. Von Behring brought out his anti-diphtheric serum in 1890. In that year the death rate from diphtheria was 160 per 700,000 of population, and to-day it is down to 11. The house knows that serum was discovered by injecting the poisons of diphtheria into a horse and the anti-toxin was formed in its blood; after a sufficient quantity had formed it was bled and the serum was purified and kept in a ready condition to be administered to children or anyone who got the disease. In connection with typhoid fever it was discovered that by sterilizing the bacillus typhus and injecting it into a human being an anti-toxin could be obtained which would practically prevent the disease. That disease is practically extinct to-day. I looked up the records of twenty-four of the largest cities in the United States and I found that the death rate had fallen from 58 per 100,000 down to 8. This is a disease which could be wiped out with proper sanitation and a proper water supply. Many scientists predict that by 1930 diphtheria will be practically a disease of the past. By immunizing children who are susceptible to this disease they feel that it will be practically eliminated in four or five years.
Let us consider the venereal diseases for a moment, and in this connection I would like to quote from a report issued by Justice Hod-gins in 1917. He said:
Speaking generally -the evil is so great and so underspread that nothing would he gained, but rather the reverse by attempting at once too drastic action.
The statistics available at that time show that of the admissions to the Toronto General Hospital in the first three months of that year 12 per cent showed a positive Wasserman reaction; 25 per cent of the male patients at the Toronto hospital for the insane, had syphilis; and 26 per cent of the inmates of the Montreal general hospital were in the same condition. The percentage with refer-
2810	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
ence to the admissions to the general hospital to-day has dropped to five, while in the case of the admissions to the Sick Children's hospital it is down to less than one per cent. That shows the result of the intensive campaign which has been carried on during the last ten years.
It might be interesting to know, as regards typhoid fever, that prior to and during the South African war, about 85 per cent of war casualities were from disease, principally typhoid fever. In the last war those figures were just about reversed, and it was estimated that from 5 to 10 per cent of the war casualities were from disease and the balance from wounds.
Let us consider for a moment the way in which life expectancy has been increased in other countries. I have under my hand the London Life table, from 1841 to 1922, and the expectancy of life according to that table has increased in males from 34-6 years to 53-8 years, and in females from 38-3 to 59-1 years. This has been brought about largely by preventive measures. If you compute the value of human life even in dollars and cents according to the large increase which has taken place in the expectancy of life, you will see what it is possible to accomplish in this country.
There is another side of the question that I should like to draw to the attention of the committee for a moment, and I should be glad if the Prime Minister would be good enough to take cognizance of the figures I am going to give. Based on the investigation of Professors Winslow and Fisher of Yale university, who with Mr. Doublin' of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, made in connection with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a complete survey of the health of the United States in regard to the iprevention of accidents, sickness and death, and applying the same statistics to Canada-and I think this would be reasonable-we find that the wastage is simply enormous, unbelievable, as I shall show in a moment. These investigations showed that there was a yearly death rate in Canada of 96,000 to 100,000, forty per cent of which was claimed to be preventable. Forty per cent of 96,000 is equivalent to a waste of 38,000 deaths per annum. If you place a valuation of, say $2,500 per annum per life, we have the enormous wastage of $96,000,000. Clitting this in half to make allowance for children, we have a total economic wastage of preventable or postponable deaths of $48,000,000. This applies to preventable deaths alone.

Applying the same principle to illness, we find that two per cent of the population are continuously ill. This means that 180,000 people are continuously ill; of these 30 per cent or 54,000 are adult males and 30 per cent, or 54,000 adult females. The ratio of employment of women to that of men is as 6 is to 20, so we get a total wastage in this way of 16,200 females and 54,000 males, or a total loss of 70,200 people continuously. Allowing 300 working days to the year, we have a total wastage of 21,060,000 days, 50 per cent of which is preventable, or in other words 10,530,000 days. If we take this at a wastage of say $3 per day from each of these workers, we have a further wastage of $31,590,000 from preventable illness. If we could just save that and apply the saving to reducing our national debt, I wonder how soon we could relieve our citizens of the burden of taxation.
But that is not all. They-also found there was an inefficiency due to advanced impairment to health of some 10 to 24 per cent of the working population, while those suffering from minor illnesses range from 18 to 40 per cent. Let us take a fair average of 20 per cent. There are in Canada 3,510,000 wage earners at an average of $750 per annum, giving a total earning capacity of $2,632,500,000. On the above basis 20 per cent of these are inefficient to an extent of 25 per cent inefficiency, or a wastage of $131,625,000. I sometimes think we get into the habit of rolling millions off our tongues so easily that we lose the significance of these figures.
We have invested in hospitals $120,000,000, in sanitoria $50,000,000 and in asylums, $7,500,000, or a 'total of $177,500,000. The cost of upkeep of these institutions is $50,000,000 a year. Of the patients treated in these institutions 40 per cent are suffering from diseases that are preventable.
Adding all these totals, without wearying the house with the figures-and I have cut them in half-we get a total wastage from preventable death, illness, accident and dis-sease, of about $126,530,000 per annum. I should like to direct this to the attention of the house and the committee for the consideration of the Department of Health. This opens up a possible field for active work in this country. How is this wastage to be prevented? It can be prevented in two ways which are outlined in the act which brought this department into existence, first by coordinating all the health efforts of the country, provincial, Dominion and those connected with the insurance companies, so as to reduce the death rate and the preventable illness and
MAY 23, 1929	2S11
Supply-Pensions and National Health
accidents to the lowest possible minimum; second by increasing scientific research. It i? almost inconceivable that the government would stay in power for so many years, with a Department of Health going on year after year, and never creating a department of scientific research. Scientific research is the very basis, the lifeblood of any country. For instance, the work of Pasteur in France in connection with wines, silkworms and anthrax in sheep, brought such a saving to that country that Professor Huxley said that the saving from those three discoveries made by one man would have paid off the Franco-Prussian war debt. I was reading only yesterday the life of Mark Carlton, who turned the state of Kansas into a great wheat-growing country. Away back in the nineties when they struck the wheat rust there, he took his microscope and examined the soil and the grain and travelled all over the world. Finally in Siberia he got a wheat that he brought back and started to grow in the United States, and not many years after that the United States was producing between seven and eight hundred million bushels of wheat a year. He practically put the state of Kansas on the map as a wheat-growing state.
One of the greatest tales of modern times I think is connected with the work of Doctor Gorges, the man who eliminated yellow fever. He got the idea, simply as a general practitioner, that the mosquito was responsible for transmitting yellow fever. Being a man of keen observation he noticed that the higher he went up into the mountains the fewer cases of yellow fever there were, until finally he reached an elevation where a particular kind of mosquito disappeared.	The fever
disappeared also. He came	back and
started his experiments. Some people were of the opinion that the yellow fever was due to insanitary conditions. They cleaned up the insanitary conditions, but the yellow fever prevailed just the same. Still working on his theory that the mosquito was responsible, he built some rooms and covered them with fine netting so that the mosquitoes could not get' in, and he lived there. He took the clothes from the beds of people who had died of yellow fever and slept on them; he put on their clothes, and still he came out untouched by the disease. Then he took some mosquitoes and let them bite him, and in a few days he discovered that he had yellow fever. But working on that hypothesis, a remedy was found, and millions of people have been freed from that disease, and almost half a continent has been reclaimed. As was stated here the other night, the Panama canal could never have been built had this discovery not been made.
What, for instance, would a cure for cancer be worth to this country? I have just read that the death rate from cancer is increasing by leaps and bounds. This country cannot have too many men working in the unknown. The more men we have engaged in original research, the more likely we are to make discoveries of great benefit to humanity. It is only by delving into the unknown and making discoveries such as Doctor Banting made that you will achieve something that will prolong human life and make the human race happier. What, for example, has Doctor Banting's discovery been worth? Take the insurance companies. Every life thait is prolonged means just that much found money for the insurance companies, and expressed in terms of dollars and cents it would no doubt run into billions of dollars in a short time.
I might go on and speak of the discovery of the use of liver extract in curing pernicious anaemia. That was discovered by Doctors Minott and Lea. All these discoveries have helped to prolong human life and have meant greater happiness and greater prosperity for mankind. That is a work that I think this department has been very lax in since it has been organized. I urged upon the minister, when he brought this department into existence, to have research work of this kind started at once, and I got his promise; but shortly after the Liberal government went out of power, and nothing along that line has been done since. If you want expressed in concrete form the results of scientific investigations, I would refer you to the evidence taken by a committee of this house some years ago on scientific and industrial research. We find that one discovery in the Mellon institute, on behalf of a baking firm in the United States, has saved them $500,000 a year. The Eastman Kodak Company has been spending millions ekery year on research, and they have got the business of the world. It is the same with the Dupont Powder and Paint Company. That firm stands in a place by itself to-day. I think the future of this young country with all its vast natural resources is absolutely bound up with and dependent upon industrial and scientific research. I appeal to the Minister of National Health and to the Prime Minister to-night to do something to give this young country a chance with her competitors throughout the world. We have the men, we have the natural resources, we have the opportunity. All we lack is courage on the part of the government to establish in the city of Ottawa a laboratory that will give our young men of ideas a chance to come here and engage in this all-important research work under able direction.
2812	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
I have a lot more statistics here bearing on the same subjects that I might give if time permitted. The point I want to bring home is that there is no department of government in this or any other country that offers such opportunities for the creation of wealth, for the saving of waste, for bettering the welfare and increasing the happiness of our people than the Department of Health. It should be the biggest department in the government. As I have already said, Mr. Baldwin took one of the ablest men in Great Britain, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and put him in charge of their Department of Health, where he has done the best work of his life. I hope that before another session ends we shall have in Canada a Department of Health that will be of some use to the country.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: It is rather a strange thing that the moment a member speaks on either one of two subjects this house immediately empties itself. Those two subjects are bad whiskey and good health. Either of these subjects just melts the house away. Either will stop a riot and dispense a crowd anywhere. It is unfortunate, but it is so.
We hear a good deal about what is being done in the matter of public health in this country. We have a national Department of Health which was established in 1919. In that year this national institution first saw the light of day; it had an easy birth and the circumstances surrounding its arrival were auspicious. But under the guidance of this government, and with the kindly nutrition handed out to it by the present administration, we find that the poor baby to-day is the same weight and size, and has all the peculiar features which characterized it, as on the day of its birth. In other words, in relation to the Department of Health, the government has stood still for ten years; and what is more, it will stand still for twenty years longer unless someone comes along and wakes it up.
Is it not strange that we should have a Department of Health costing between $900,000 and $1,000,000 a year for the purpose of safeguarding the health of the people, while this government should be spending more than one half-two thirds-of that money on the heads of the department and in administration? Out of this $900,000 per annum spent by the government in the last ten years we find, in 1926, $427,000; in 1927, $393,000; in 1928, $472,000, expended on matters which by no stretch of the imagination can be regarded as conducing to public health. Most of the money comprises grants to the institution.

The government are not spending the money in the way parliament intends that it should be spent; the amount spent on public health as such is absolutely inadequate to accomplish any results. It might as well be wasted. Look at the national budgets of other countries and you will find that in these places, in order to secure anything like a proper standard of public health, it requires an expenditure of $2.50 per capita. But what are we doing in Canada? Instead of spending anything like a reasonable proportion on public health our per capita expenditure amounts to 74 cents. And if we take all the money spent by the Dominion, by the provinces and by the municipalities together, we find that it comes to the magnificent sum of 374 cents per head of population. We are spending in Canada 374 cents per head to accomplish what other countries are spending $2.50 to do. Can we ever dream of having anything like sound national health when such a parsimonious effort is put forth to that end?
It is commonly said that the Dominion government have no authority to act in the matter of public health in Canada. Medical men who have looked into the constitution know that this is not correct. In 1867 when the British North America Act was passed there was no such thing as public health in the sense that we use that term to-day. The only reference to public health was the matter of quarantine, and under section 91 of the act this was assigned to the Dominion government. We know also that matters which are not specifically assigned to any province come, under the British North America Act, within the domain of the Dominion government. Health officers and students in Canada came to the conclusion some time ago that under the constitution matters of public health should rest with the Dominion. We say, therefore, that the government have not been spending the money granted by parliament in the way that it should be spent. Under the act of 1919 it was provided that the government of the Dominion might publish literature, might disseminate propaganda, and might undertake to educate the people of the country in matters appertaining to public health. Well, they have done so, because we have here a magnificent sheet known as an abstract of current public health literature, and blazoned at the head of it is the intimation that it is issued by this government. But what has it to say with reference to public health? We find that, it contains extracts from the Journal of Medical Health of the United States. It tells us how to tackle

Supply-Pensions and National Health
the plague in India, how to grapple with cholera in South Africa, and so on. But there is not a word as to what should be done in Canada. It reminds me of a trip I made some fifteen years ago on the Mississippi. Someone pointed out to me one of the old fashioned boats which had plied on the river long years ago-and what did I find? There was so much space taken up by the whistle that there was no room left for the passengers, and in the front of the boat there was a magnificent leather cushioned chair for the captain. Well, we have a chair for the captain to repose in-a captain who draws $15,000 a year but has not been worth ten cents in the ten years he has been guilding the ship in this department.
I want to pay tribute to a gentleman whom we all respect in this house, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson), who gave us an excellent discourse the other evening in which he pointed out what could be accomplished in the way of scientific research. We have also heard a splendid address tonight from my hon. friend (Mr. McGibbon). I am not going to enter into the phase of the subject with which these hon. gentlemen dealt, but I want to say that the Department of National Health is condemned by every man in Canada who has ever read three lines about public health. If you want to find out what is being done in this direction you have only to take up the last journal published by those in this country who are studying the question, and every line is a condemnation of what is being done by the government. It is pointed out that if the government were alive to the situation it would move forward and do things that are being done in other countries. Why is it that France, England and the United States, acting as a federal unit, have all moved forward along really progressive lines? The United States government has divided the country into sections and over every section there ia a full time health officer paid by the federal government.


John Warwick King: No.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: This is one of the things we ask for. This Dominion should foe divided into health sections, over every one of which should be placed a full time officer paid partly _ by this government, partly by the province and partly foy the municipality. This is one of the things which the public health people of the Dominion are asking the government to do and it is one of the things that are absolutely necessary if we hope to obtain satisfactory results. If the minister wishes to know what can really be accomplished let him
read what has been done in the province of Quebec, which has been divided in the manner I have stated. There full time men are devoting their whole time and all their energies to the work of caring for the public health. See what they have done in relation to infantile mortality and in the matter of saving the lives of women in maternal trouble. See what has been done in grappling with epidemics; it is a credit to the province. They lead the way in this regard. And we have done the same in Ontario. For fifteen years I served as a member of the provincial board of Ontario and I have travelled throughout the province, so that I think I have the right to stand here and say that I speak with some authority on this question. Fifteen years ago in Ontario fifty persons out of every one hundred thousand of the population died of typhoid. The provincial government then grappled with the question and instituted a thorough investigation. We investigated the water supply of the province and looked into the situation from every angle. The result is that we have reduced the death rate in the province, from this particular cause, from 50 to 3.5 per hundred thousand. Such facts as these are pointed out to the government; and to find them, in the face of all this, sitting dumb and motionless is to me a marvel. The people will hold them responsible and get behind those who have progressive ideas with an insistent demand that we advance.
The last issue of the Canadian Public Health Journal, word foy word, line by line, page by page, makes this demand of the government; yet we see the government of Canada hanging on away at the tail end of the hunt, the people a great distance ahead of them. The medical men of the country are miles ahead of the department. We find hon. genltlemen sitting quietly foy, doing nothing but smoking fifty-cent cigars and drawing $15,000 a year. As an immediate steip in the direction of progress we demand that the government make a move in the apointment of a council of epidemiologists. Does the minister mean to tell this committee that if we had a council such as this, a few men who studied nothing but epidemics in Canada, who could move from one section of the country to another whenever there was an outbreak of any epidemic, very satisfactory results would not ensue? Two years ago there was a typhoid epidemic in Montreal when five hundred people were carried to the grave, while some five thousand were down in the hospitals. This cost between two and three millions. I have no hesitation in saying that if we had had in the Dominion at that
2814	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
time a few men trained in the study of epidemics there would not have been ten deaths in Montreal as a result of that outbreak; the epidemic would have been successfully met. But there was not a word spoken, not a voice raised in this house, not a voice raised in Canada against it until it was found that someone was losing five or ten cents a gallon on cream or milk. As soon as people began to lose a few dollars the cry went up (hat something should be done. Now this obviously is discreditable; surely the health of the people should be placed above dollars and cents.
In these two particulars we charge the government with dereliction of duty. They have no conception of the task that confronts them ; they do not understand the question with which they are supposed to cope. If you were to engage a few men who really appreciated the value of such measures as I have mentioned, you would see a progressive move made in the matter of public health in Canada. Let me quote something to show what is being done in England in regard to whole time officers. We read that the full time plan is in operation in England, where 351 out of some 1,200 part time officers have been replaced by full time officials in combined areas. In the United States also, since 1911, over 400 county health officers have been appointed on full time. In New York state half the cost is borne by the state. This gives you an idea of what is taking place throughout the civilized world wherever the authorities are alive to the importance of public health, wherever they place a proper value on human life, wherever they have an adequate conception as to what public health implies. In these countries public health work is divided into two great sections-one, the prevention of disease, and the other the combating of epidemics. In this regard disease and epidemics are fought pretty much as an up to date fire brigade tackles any conflagration. What should we think if we went into a large city and saw a great fire being attacked by volunteer firemen, while someone was paid a salary of *15,000 to look on at the show, occasionally to ring a bell, and once in a while to blow a whistle?
I make the charge that Canada, in the field of public health, is more backward than any other country on the face of the earth; the government are silent, they are dead. I do not hesitate to say that. There should be more activity in the department. In 1919 a council of health was created, and they come together every year, bringing scientific minds to bear upon the health problems that confront the 
country. Their conclusions they pass on to the Minister of National Health (Mr. King Kootenay). But the minister puts on glasses that will not read, he looks the thing over, and he says, "Oh, well, the pigeon hole is good enough for this; the Dominion cannot take action in this matter". I say, the people of Canada demand that we have some genuine national health work done by this government, and done before another year goes by. Now, I will not detain the house longer-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Hon. gentlemen opposite
clap their hands. My hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Young) and others know, however, that what I am saying is true. 1 know they do not like to hear me or anyone else refer in these terms to the government, but there are in Canada ten million people who think pretty much as I do, and I want to tell the minister that the people of the [DOT]country>
are demanding more and more that real public health work be done by this government. You have never yet seen a city criticized for spending money to take care of the health of its people. The people will support any such expenditure, and all I ask is that Canada get in line with other countries and take a proper view of the importance of public health.


John Warwick King: I am sure we
have all been greatly interested in the addresses delivered by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) and the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Kaiser).


Peter McGibbon: Not "hon." yet.


John Warwick King: Yes, quite honourable, I hope. Now, it is rather surprising that our friends should have made the criticism we have heard to-night and on a previous occasion. It is well known that the national department of health was brought into being in 1919. Prior to that, the services that were then set aside as proper health services for the Dominion to undertake were administered by various departments of government. I refer to the quarantine service, the medical inspection of immigrants and the treatment of sick mariners. These were the services which our constitution laid down as coming wii'thiin. tihe purview of the Dominion government. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), speaking to-day on another question, made that very plain. But we do not need to emphasize it, because if we take the act that was passed in 1919 we find that the govern-

Supply-Pensions and National Health
ment of that day realized the extent to which they should go in establishing a department of health. In the act there are two clauses- it was not set out in one but in two definite sections-which limit the activities of the department. The first, section 4, provides:
The duties and powers of the minister administering the Department of Health, shall extend to and include all matters and questions relating to the promotion or preservation of the health of the people of Canada over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, particularly the following matters and subjects.
I shall deal with these matters in a moment. Then there is section 7, which the parliament of that day considered necessary:
Nothing in this act or in any regulations made hereunder shall authorize the minister or any officer of the department to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any provincial or municipal board of health or other health authority operating under the laws of any province.
Just a moment ago my good friend from Ontario complained because the Dominion government was not in a position to go into Montreal during the recent epidemic and take charge of the health situation. That argument is absolutely absurd; it was not received by members of the house and it will not be received throughout the country, because everyone knows that at all times the provinces have insisted that they have local control with regard to health as they have with regard to education and other matters.
It is rather surprising to find hon. gentlemen opposite belittling the efforts which are being made by health authorities and by those who have charge of the health of this country; listening to hon. gentlemen opposite tonight the impression might go abroad that no health measures are being carried out in Canada. That is not true; it is well known to be untrue. In each province we have live health organizations under the control of the provincial governments in addition to the municipal health organizations, and generally speaking our municipal health organizations are not inferior to those in other cities on this continent or anywhere in the world. In health matters the city of Toronto is probably as well equipped as any similar city anywhere in the world. It is true there was an outbreak of typhoid in Montreal a year or two ago, due to an infected milk supply and also to the fact that the laboratories were improperly equipped and insufficiently staffed, but now conditions are different. The hon. member for Muskoka indicated that nothing was being 7S594-179
done in Canada and especially in Quebec, but he did not tell this committee that to-day in health matters Quebec is leading all the provinces of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, he said that.


John Warwick King: They have gone
ahead and established health units under their provincial law, and that is being done in other provinces throughout Canada. It is being done in my own province and in Saskatchewan and Manitoba; I do not think Ontario has adopted that system as yet. We were told that the federal government of the United States was in control in that country and had divided the country into health units, which it was subsidizing. That is not so; that is done by the state authorities as is the case in Canada. It is true -that after the great flood in the Mississippi valley a year or so ago the United States government did go in and take care of the health situation during that period of disaster; it is true that since the flood health units have been established in order to assist the victims of that disaster, but generally speaking the health units throughout the United States are established by state authority, and that system is in vogue also in Great Britain and in other countries.
Now I wish to refer to the matters which parliament saw fit to place under the control of the federal Department of Health. Section 4, subsection (a) of the act states:
Cooperation with the provincial, territorial, and other health authorities with a view to the coordination of the efforts proposed or made for preserving and improving the public health, the conservation of child life and the promotion of child welfare;
I might also read section 6:
There shall be a Dominion council of health consisting of the deputy minister of health, who shall be chairman, the chief executive officer of the provincial department or board of health of each province, and such other persons, not to exceed five in number, as may be appointed by the governor in council, who shall hold office for three years.
2.	Such Dominion council shall meet at such times and places as the minister may direct, and shall be charged with such duties and powers in respect to this act as the governor in council may prescribe.
Through this Dominion council of health which was brought into being under this act the cooperation between the provinces and the different health authorities can be and is being brought about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has been done by this council?

2816	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health


John Warwick King: It has done a great deal. It has been able to bring about uniform local quarantine laws in the various provinces; it has made a study of and reported on the matter of infection and contagion; we have uniformity in many of our health laws which did not exist before, and generally this council has been of great benefit to the people of Canada. Before I finish I intend to deal with some of the particular work which has been done and to show the character of the discussions which have taken place and the action which has followed these discussions. The character of the board itself is essential; we take the chairman or secretary of the various provincial health boards-


Peter McGibbon: That is laid down in the act.


John Warwick King: Yes, and I say it is essential. In addition, five other members are selected representing various groups such as the farmer group, the labour group, the women of Canada and so on. I do not know where we could get a committee which would be better informed and better able to coordinate health efforts throughout Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many times have
they met?


John Warwick King: They meet usually twice a year, in the spring and fall; they have a three-day session, for which the agenda is properly prepared and very thoroughly discussed. The sole object of the formation of this Dominion council was to bring about cooperation with the provinces and other health authorities, as specified in the act. The Department of Health cannot, nor can the Dominion Council of Health, lay down any authoritative rule or regulation for the control of these various health bodies; it is well understood that members of the Dominion council can only report back to their governments, who must put through the legislation.
Now I might mention some of the subjects which have been under discussion from time to time:	Maternal mortality; community
hospitals; quarantine regulations; vaccination and quarantine; malignant growths; oral hygiene,; carbon monoxide poisoning; trachoma among Indians; health therapeutics and home nursing; diphtheria, scarlet fever and measles; control of respiratory diseases; cyanide disinfection of ships; institutional treatment for drug addicts and so on.


Peter McGibbon: Can the minister tell
us what practical results have come about?


John Warwick King: I told my hon. friend that the quarantine laws throughout Canada have been made uniform and there has been a coordination, generally speaking, of the health laws as between the different provinces. Carbon monoxide poisoning has been discussed but there is no authority in the Dominion council, any more than there is in this parliament, to say to the people of Canada, " This is what we will do for carbon monoxide poisoning or this is what we will do for typhoid."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The province of Alberta enacted legislation at the last session.


John Warwick King: That is quite
true, but my hon. friend cannot claim for a moment that this committee, composed as it was and with an agenda of this kind, did not produce some good after three days of discussion.


Peter McGibbon: The trouble is that we cannot see it.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend seemed to think that the establishment and maintenance of a national laboratory for public health and research work should be the whole thing; that the Health department should be an incident to that section and not that section an incident to the Health department.


Peter McGibbon: I did not say that.


John Warwick King: That is the way the hon. member has talked.


Peter McGibbon: It is the biggest thing in the department.


John Warwick King: The establishment of that laboratory for public health and research woi'k is an important thing, but the department is doing other work which is not being done elsewhere in Canada. These various services were within other departments and we have established research laboratories and testing laboratories to deal with all questions relating to our food products. The best of chemists procurable have been employed and the work being done is equal to that being carried out in any laboratory of like character in the world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Excise department
used to do that.


John Warwick King: They did, but we do not think that they did it as well as we are doing it at the present time. We have very excellent men in Doctor Harris and Mr. Lancaster. They are recognized authorities on this subject and if anyone would take the time to go through these laboratories and see the class of work which is being done in re-

Business oj the House
lation to our food and drug products, he would realize the class of research work which is being carried on.


Peter McGibbon: It has always been done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Excise department
used to do it.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
speaks of the United States with some apparent appreciation of their greatness; does he know that it is only within the last few years that that great country has established a laboratory of health research.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Doctor Wiley has been doing the food work for over fifteen years.


John Warwick King: He has been doing it for years and doing it very effectively. Previous to the establishment of a health laboratory in Canada very little of that work had been done.
I will have something further to say before the discussion in regard to public health and research work closes. It would seem to my hon. friend that the establishment of a laboratory such as he speaks of requires only the expenditure of money. Money is about the least requirement for a laboratory of that character; personnel is the main and important one.


Peter McGibbon: The government has not got it.


John Warwick King: During the last one hundred years there have been only a few men with the talent for research who have made great discoveries. It is hard to say just where we could get the research men to go into a laboratory of that kind; we certainly would not get them by putting applications through the Civil Service Commission asking for men to apply for positions in a research laboratory. In the development of the laboratory work which is now being done we hope to train the men who will do the research work of the future.
The government is not opposed in any way to a laboratory for health research, and it is well known to parliament and to Canada that the government is giving considerable thought to research along other lines. Buildings are being constructed and it is hoped that we will soon have our own laboratories and our own personnel for the research work of the Health department, and I believe that some day we will be able to , create a laboratory and do the work which my hon. friend is desirous that we should rush into at once.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister must be careful and not duplicate the work which is being done in the Connaught laboratories, for instance, and other places of that kind.
78594-179J
Mr. KING' (Kootenay):	This class of
research work has not been done, as a rule, by governments. The work of Pasteur and of other great scientists has been carried on under very unfavourable conditions. Work of that character is being done in laboratories such as those, of the Rockefeller institute and of our universities. Men are continually in training and the faculty knows the men who have the proper qualifications for research work and they endeavour to retain those men. It is well known that the Rockefeller institute-does not go to the universities with a view to.>
taking that class of men away, because they know that such a procedure is resented.. Where they find a man with those qualifications they arrange with the university authorities to relieve him of some of his other duties which he may be doing within the university.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They give him a fellowship.


John Warwick King: He is permitted to devote his entire time to the problem he may be studying.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned until 11 a.m. Monday May 27, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 27, 1929