1929-05-17

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.
Sixth report of the select standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacin'the).


Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Anderson (High
Park) moves, for Mr. Lawson, that Bill No, 255 an Act for the relief of Marian Rost Harrison be now read the third time.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, are you departing from our rule that the sponsor must be in his place?


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the hon. member for High Park has been authorized to move the bill for the sponsor, but if exception is taken the bill cannot be proceeded with.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we must
hold to the rule except where the sponsor is absent through illness.



AVILLIAM JOHN BRETT

Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Heaps moves,
seconded by Mr. Woodsworth, that Bill No. 257, an act for the relief of William John Brett be now read the first time.

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask that my name be withdrawn as
seconder.
Mr.	SPEAKER:	Mr.	Heaps	moves,
seconded by Mr. Bird-


Mr. BIRD:: Mr. Speaker, I beg to withdraw my name as seconder.
Mr.	SPEAKER:	Mr.	Heaps	moves,
seconded by Miss Macphail-
Miss	MACPHAIL:	Mr.	Speaker, I beg
leave to withdraw my name as seconder of this bill.
Mr.	SPEAKER:	Mr.	Heaps	moves,
seconded by Mr. Coote, that Bill No. 257, an act for the relief of William John Brett, be now read the first time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the first time.



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 256 for the relief of Dean William Moncrieff.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 261 for the relief of Mabel Graham. -Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 262 for the relief of Yelma Stella
Seadon.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Emma O'Grady.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Edna Marguerite Stroud Robinson.-Mr. Cahan.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Joseph Richardson.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Angus John Archibald Blaine.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill	No.	270,	for	the	relief	of	Thomas
Horace Sillery.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of George Melville Fulton.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Gladys Elizabeth Boyd.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Annie Fraser Rice.-Mr. Kay.
Bill	No.	275,	for	the	relief	of	Clarence
Spurgeon White.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill	No.	276,	for	the	relief	of	Gertrude
Georgeanna Anderson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Lloyd Edward Angel.-Mr. Ladner.

[Stage Direction]
On the order, government notices of motions:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, not for the purpose of submitting the motion with reference to the sockeye salmon fisheries convention, of which notice appears on the order paper. Last night before adjournment my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked whether he might have the correspondence with reference to this convention. I may observe that the correspondence appears to be very largely of a confidential character, as is the case with respect to most correspondence pertaining to the negotiation of treaties; I see, however, no objection to placing the entire file at my hon. friend's disposal. If the leader of the opposition wishes to see it, I shall have pleasure in sending the file to his office, and he may look it over and place it at the disposal of hon. members on his side of the house.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his courtesy, but it was to permit some of our friends from British Columbia, who are greatly interested in the matter, to see the correspondence that I inquired. It was in their behalf rather than for myself that I asked the question in the first instance. If the Prime Minister would permit the correspondence to be inspected by our members from British Columbia, I think that would quite serve the purpose, provided he does not consider this in any sense a violation of any confidence that should be respected in the matter. Of course, I should not want to disregard any such confidence, but I should like my hon. friends to have an opportunity to see the correspondence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend did not hear me add that he might place the correspondence at the disposal of his friends on the other side. It is confidential inasmuch as it is of an international character. We should like to proceed with the resolution on Monday and I hope my hon. friend will be ready to proceed then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I can see.


Hewitt Bostock: Shall I say "Stand"?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
Motion stands.

2576	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the Prime Minister propose to sit on May 24? Some of my friends have asked me to inquire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The house has sat on May 24 in previous years and it is the intention to sit on that date this year.



BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to the questions, passed on May 2 and 6, as orders for returns with respect to cattle slaughtered as reactors under the bovine tuberculosis test. I believe the information is all on the files in the department and I should be very glad if the minister would bring down the returns at an early date.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I will look into the matter and see that the information is supplied as quickly as possible.



WESTERN POSTAL EMPLOYEES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General) moved the third reading of Bill No. 252, respecting certain employees of the postal or railway mail service of Canada.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill which is now before
the house for its third reading is somewhat different in terms from the bill founded on the resolution which was first submitted for consideration by the Postmaster General. It offends a principle which we think should govern legislation of any character having to do with public servants who are reemployed in the service of the country after they have been dismissed from that service for good cause, or have left the service. This bill retroactively grants, in its terms, increases in pay to certain men on the basis of the employment which it is alleged they undertook when they reentered the service. I asked the Postmaster General to give the house some particulars with respect to the matter. It 
will be recalled that in 1919 this strike occurred. It will be further recalled that during the summer of 1919 tlhe employees in question were dismissed from the service because they declined to avail themselves of the opportunites which were offered by the administration for reemployment. Having thus left the service by reason of failing to obey a lawful command of the state to go back to their work, they were dismissed by order in council. It was later thought that, having regard to all the circumstances, these men should be afforded an opportunity to be reemployed in the public service, and to that end the difficulty was waived with respect to their age and they were permitted to apply for reemployment through the Civil Service Commission; and having been reemployed they reentered the service as new employees. Their salary was fixed; the compensation they were to receive was a matter of contract between them and the state. That compensation was not as much as the compensation they enjoyed before they left the service and this measure seeks, whether successfully or not, to provide that these men shall now receive pay on another basis than that of the contract which they made with the state when they were reemployed. We cannot get away from that fact. The question is whether or not this house will give effect to that principle, and in order that it may realize just what is involved I am going to give some illustrations from the documents brought down by the Postmaster General in order to clear away any misunderstanding. For instance, a large number of these men did not go to work for five or six years after they had been dismissed; a large number did not seek reemployment, some until after six years, many until after five years, some after four and others after three years, while others did not reenter the service until nine years after they were dismissed from their positions.
Now I will give a few illustrations, without using the names. Here is a man who was first employed on March 16, 1908; at the time of the strike he had been eleven years in the postal service. He was not reemployed until November 2, 1925, six years after he had been dismissed. At the time of his reemployment the bonus had disappeared from the public service and he received an initial salary of $1,020. At the time of his dismissal he was in receipt of a salary of $1,419, but by meritorious service in May of this year he reached a salary of $1,440, or $21 more than the salary he was receiving when he was

Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett
dismissed from his employment. It is now suggested by the Postmaster General that this man who, when he was dismissed from the service, was employed as a letter carrier, and who was later employed as a mail porter, should receive compensation on the basis of the salary and bonus he was receiving when he was dismissed from the service. This is the fifth case on the list.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely my
hon. friend misunderstands that table if it appears to indicate that payment is to be made for letter carrier service if the man is not employed as a letter carrier.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very grateful to
the Prime Minister for making that observation, because it does remove at least one difficulty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That I think, is clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say it
is not alleged in that sense by those who are affected by this measure, and the reason I took this illustration was that the matter might be made perfectly clear before the bill is read the third time. Under the schedule provided by the Postmaster General it is stated that at the time this employee left the service through dismissal he was engaged as a letter carrier, and when he was later reemployed he went back as a mail porter. Now he is receiving SI,440, although at the time he left the service he was receiving $1,419, of which $480 was a bonus. When this man rejoined the service in 1925 he received a salary of $1,020, and the contention made outside of this house by those affected is that this employee is to receive his salary on the basis of the difference between what he was receiving at the time he was dismissed-


Mr. YENIOT:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that is the contention made outside this house by those affected; they contend that this man is to receive the difference between the amount he was receiving when he was dismissed and the amount he has received since going back to work.
Let me take another case which illustrates this wrong principle perhaps a little more Clearly. This employee first joined the service in 1914; he had worked in the department five years when he was dismissed, and he did not go back to work until six years after the strike. When he was dismissed he was receiving, with bonus, a salary of $1,419, but on May 1 of this year his salary was 78594-164J
$1,500. On both occasions he was employed as a letter carrier. Now, mark you, six years after he left the service he went back to work as a letter carrier, and when he was reemployed he received a salary of $1,200 although with the bonus, as I have said, he received $1,419 when he was dismissed. The contention is now made that he should receive additional compensation, although he was out of the service for six years before he went back to work as a letter carrier. The suggestion now is that he is to receive a salary not according to his employment but on the basis of what he would have received if he had not lost his job.


Mr. DUNNING:: That is not in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what they are
contending it means, and the Postmaster General will say that that is their contention.


Mr. VENIOT:: Who are contending that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The letter carrier in
this case.


Peter John Veniot: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That man was a letter
carrier when he was dismissed and he is a letter carrier now; his case is number six on the schedule. As I pointed out, six years after he was dismissed he went back to work under a new contract with the state, and the salary he received was $1,200 although when he left six years previously he had been receiving a salary of $1,419. Now, by meritorious service, his salary has increased to $1,500, and my submission is that no body of men in the world can determine how much of the recommendation for meritorious service was attributable to his antecedent knowledge of the business and how much to the improvement which he showed from the time he was reemployed up to May 1, 1929. Remember that this man is now receiving almost $100 more than he was getting when he left the service; he has been at work now only three years, after having been out of the service of the government for six years, and now the Dominion of Canada is proposing to give him additional money. I submit that that is wrong.
Now let us take another case in order that there may be no misapprehension. The next case is a little stronger still; it is the second last case on the first page of the list. This employee first entered the service in 1909, and therefore had ten years of service when he was dismissed; I find that he was not reemployed until March 22, 1928, nine years after his employment with the state was seT
2578	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett
ered. When he went back to work he was paid a salary of $1,020; when he left the employ of the state, according to the report furnished me, he received a salary of $1,300 and a bonus of $430, making a total of $1,730. On May 1, 1929, he was receiving only $1,140; he is now working as a postal helper, and when he left the service he was engaged as a primary sorter. He has been in the service now just over one year; he returned to work on March 22, 1928, and this is May 17, 1929. As I have said, he was reemployed at a salary of $1,020 and is now receiving $1,140, or $120 more than when he was reemployed some fifteen months ago. It is now asserted that he shall be paid on the basis of what he would have received as a postal helper had he continued his services without a break from the time he was first employed.
Let us go to the next case, the last one on the first sheet-I am not mentioning the names purposely. This man was reemployed in 1920, a year after the strike, at a salary and bonus amounting to $1,200. When he was dismissed from the service he was receiving $1,419. In both instances he had been working as a primary sorter. Look at what we are doing? That man made a definite contract with the state to work as a primary sorter a year after he was dismissed, the contract carrying a salary of $1,200 including bonus. When he left the year before he was receiving $1,419 and it is now contended that because he was employed as a primary sorter when he was dismissed and is employed as a primary sorter now that he shall be paid and compensated on the basis of $1,419 per year from the date of reemployment, although his contract calls for $1,200. In other words, the Dominion of Canada is to pay a man who makes a new contract, after he has struck in the public service and has been dismissed, $219 because he struck. That is the story.
Then we go to a case, which is found on the second page. This is a very striking case of a man who was employed in 1916, three years before the strike. He was dismissed after three years of service and did not go back to work until 1927, eight years after the strike. When he was reemployed he received $1,020; when he left the service he was receiving only $ 1,080 or $60 more than he received after being out of the service for eight years. He is now employed at a salary of $1,200 as a mail porter, and when he left the sendee he was employed as a letter carrier.
The next case is that of a man who was employed in 1918, about a year and a few
iMr. Bennett.]
months before he went on strike. He stayed out of the service four years, having come back on June 7, 1923. When he was reemployed he received $1,155 with bonus; when he was dismissed he was receiving $1,080. I want to show how this case works out. When he went back to work he received a larger sum of money than he was receiving when he left the service. He was receiving $1,620 on May 1st of this year, and in both instances he was employed as a subsorter.


Peter John Veniot: What page is that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The second page, the
ninth from the top. The date of reemployment was June 7, 1923, four years after the strike. When reemployed he received $1,155 with the bonus; when he was dismissed his salary and bonus amounted to $1,080, and he is now receiving $1,620. He was employed as a subsorter at the time he left the service and was reemployed in that position. I put this to the house: How can you say that this man should have any adjustment of pay when he has been able so to conduct himself as to merit the appreciation of his employers to the extent of having his salary raised to $1,620?


Peter John Veniot: He would not receive any
readjustment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point I want to make. This man receives nothing, and the man who worked in the same job-the case I mentioned a few minutes ago-will receive $219.


Peter John Veniot: This man was taken back
after the strike as a subsorter, while the other case mentioned by the hon. leader of the opposition was that of a man who was taken back into a lower position but who did the work of a higher position; there is a difference between the two cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am pointing out only
what is shown on this sheet.


Peter John Veniot: That is what it shows.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And these figures are
given by the Postmaster General. I go to the next case, that of a man who was engaged as a subsorter and who was acting in the same capacity when he was dismissed. This man had been a little more than a year in the service and he went back to work in November, 1920, a year after the strike. At the time he was reemployed he received $1,260 with the bonus, but when he was dismissed he was receiving only $1,080. He is now receiving $1,800 and is still working as a subsorter.

Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett


Peter John Veniot: He has reached the maximum of his class.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, and he has
done that through meritorious service. I put this to the house:	Is it a sound principle
to say that you are going to differentiate between* the periods when meritorious service was rendered and go back to an antecedent period of time when a man received a certain amount of pay to determine what he is to receive in the light of what he should have received if he had not been so employed? That must be wrong, and the illustrations I have given prove it. That man would receive nothing under the readjustment; he would not even be considered according to the statement made by the Postmaster General.
The next case is that of a man first employed on March 18, 1912, seven years before the strike. He went back to work immediately after the strike, on November 10, 1919. He was reemployed at $1,202.50 including the bonus, but was receiving $1,206 when he was dismissed, and he is now receiving $1,740. When he was dismissed from the service he was employed as a raibsorter and when he went back to work he was taken on as a mail transfer agent. In other words, he went back to work as a mail transfer agent at $4 per year less than he was receiving when he was dismissed. It is suggested that he is to be paid as a substorter from the time he started to work. I would like the right hon. the Prime Minister to make the matter clear, because the statement of the employees as to what they are to receive is entirely at variance with what has been stated in the house, and I am taking this opportunity to illustrate the inequalities in order that a concise statement may be made with respect to what is to be done. Only this morning I was asked about it, and certainly the construction placed upon this matter is entirely different from that which the right hon. the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General suggested is the correct construction of the document.
The third case, on the top of page 3, is a very striking one. This employee had only been at work for a little over two months, having started to work on May 7, 1919, and having struck in July, 1919. He was reemployed six years after, on April 28, 1925, at a salary of $1,020; when he was dismissed his salary was $1,080, because there had been readjustments of salary during that time. He is now receiving a salary of $1,200 per annum. At the time he struck the position was purely temporary because he had not been long enough employed to be on the permanent
staff. The record shows that he went to work as a mail porter in 1925. What adjustment is possible in that case?
Let me pass to another case which illustrates the same principle. This employee went to work on the 2nd January, 1917, or a little more than two years before the strike. He went back to work on the first October, 1923, or about four years after the strike. When he went out on strike and was dismissed, his total salary and bonus amounted to $1,184.25. When he was reemployed his salary was $1,095 and it now amounts to $1,320. In both cases he was employed as a letter carrier. That is what this sheet shows. That is, he was employed as a letter carrier, as hon members will observe, four years after he was dismissed, and he is now receiving $1,320, on account of meritorious service based upon his ability as, I take it. At the time of his dismissal he was drawing $1,184.25, but when he went back to work he got only $1,095, and we are told there is to be a readjustment of that man's pay. This is plainly a case in which the Postmaster General says there is to be a readjustment. Can the country put itself behind such a principle? I leave it at that.
The next case i3 a very striking one, because this man was employed in June, 1914, five years before the strike, and he went back to work six years after the strike, namely, in 1925. The salary rate when he was reemployed was $1,020, there being no bonus. He has now risen to a salary of $1,500. At the time he left the service he was receiving $1,380. When he left the service he was enjoying the rank of a primary sorter; when he went back to work he got a position as a subsorter. In his case, according to the statements made-in the house, there is to be a readjustment, I cannot tell on what basis.
I come now to the last case that I will mention, because it is not necessary to take up further time. On the 1st May, 1917, this employee entered the public service of Canada. Two years and a few months later he was dismissed. He stayed out of the public service for three years. When he was reemployed he received $1,095, including bonus. When he was dismissed he was receiving $1,184.25. He has now risen to a salary of $1,500 and in both cases before and after the strike he is classified as a letter carrier. Can you readjust his pay? If so, on what principle?
I will not take up further time in dealing with these cases. I took them just at random as I looked over the pages, some of them indicating men who went back to work shortly
2580	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett
after the strike, and some who did not go bacll to work for some years after the strike, one indeed, for as long as seven years afterwards The contention is made that by reason oi particular experience in certain work men were able to render greater service to thft state than they otherwise would have been-, in other words, they were found to be better employees of the Post Office Department than they otherwise would have been. I am going to read to the house a letter I received from one of the officials of the Amalgamated Civil Servants who was himself employed in the post office at Winnipeg and who gives this illustration to me for the purpose of showing that although a man might nave been out of the service for a very considerable time, nevertheless his past experience was of importance. I use it to show just what the meaning of this proposal is. These are the exact words.
I joined tne public service of Canada on the 4th of November, 1919.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What letter is this!


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a letter written to
me by one of the members of the Amalgamated Civil Service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend give his name?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is hardly fair to give his name. He was writing to me, complaining about the position taken by me in this matter.
.'Mr. MACKENZIE KING:	It is hardly
fair to read the letter if the hon. member does not give the name.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not bound to disclose the name of the correspondent. I do not fancy he has any objection to my giving it, but I am not doing so at the moment. He
;goes on :
I had postal experience in England, terminating ill 1911, when I came to Canada. As is usual with a young healthy immigrant, 1 turned my. hand to anything, and worked at all sorts of civilian duties absolutely unconnected with post office work. I enlisted in 1914, stayed with it until 1919, so I had ample time ill which to "forget".
The day after I entered the Winnipeg post office-
And hon. members will recollect that that was November 4, 1919.

I took over walk 36, head office-as a letter carrier, and surprised my officer, Mr. R. F. Ross, by having my walk routed up without assistance for the second delivery. I did that route for two weeks without assistance, even on the Monday, when all walks are heavy.

As a reward, another man was taken off walk 33, head office, and 1 was given me walk for my own. From the date I took that walk, early in December 1919 until Christmas 1919 1 trained three newcomers to the service, on walk 33 to see it they could do it, in order to give the supervisor the chance to use me as a "relief" man.
It was impossible to train a new man in so short a time, especially just before Christmas, so 1 retained the walk and now have a very good record as a carrier.
He is still a carrier.
I think my point is well taken and amply illustrated-that experience tells.
Let us see what we are doing. This young man receives his experience in England, not in Winnipeg. He did not strike sympathetically or otherwise. He joined the service of the state under a contract but because of his past experience that enabled him to do his work better than others, he was able to train others and his ambition being as it was, he found large." scope and wider opportunities because he desired to make progress. He now says that he has made that progress. The experience which he had in England was of assistance to Km as a letter carrier. Had he struck, had be been reemployed1, he would now comb back and get some pay from the country because it was said that he had experience in Canada before he struck. But being a man whose experience was derived in another country and who is not making it the basis of a claim for more pay, we are now told that he has no part or parcel in this transaction. He does not claim it, 1 may say. He is supporting the claim of these men.


Peter John Veniot: He supports their contention?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is supporting his
fellow workers; he is their representative and the minister evidently has the letter in front of him also, so there is no question he knows to whom I refer. Having regard to the fact that men antecedently to employment may have been employed in a particular walk of life which enables them to do better the work in which they are engaged, and having regard to the fact that their employer must every year make recommendations as to their meritorious service, which recommendations, as I have pointed out, have resulted in many of these men receiving higher pay now than they had when they left the service, and in some cases receiving their maximum, is it not an unsound principle to say that because of the circumstances under which they left the service, you are to go back to their antecedent employment in order to determine the compensation they will receive.

Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett
If that principle can be applied as this gentleman thinks it can-and he is speaking for the Amalgamated Civil Servants of the country- as the Postmaster General and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) say the bill means, and as the Prime Minister says it does not, we can only look at the terms of the bill itself and ask ourselves what it does mean. What does the bill say? It says that these employees who subsequently were reemployed and are now in the said postal or railway mail service shall be paid for services actually performed as from the date of their reemployment at the rates of remuneration paid to other employees for similar services. That is a letter carrier is to be paid a letter carrier's pay.


Peter John Veniot: If he performs the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is what I am
saying. A letter carrier is to be paid a letter carrier's pay. That is what he was before, and you cannot segregate the work that he did from the time of his reemployment against the experience that he has had in all these years and say that when he is promoted and receives additional pay it is referable only to the time of reemployment. It is referable to the whole experience he has had in life. It is so with everyone of us. I may have had experience in one particular line of work, and then have gone out of it, and come back to it. It is likely that the work will come back to me a little more readily because of my previous experience, and I am pushed up a little more quickly and reach the maximum of my class a little more rapidly than the other man. But we are now to say, that notwithstanding it was the experience that some one had somewhere else that enabled him to rise to the position he has reached without any assistance, he is not to share in any division of this money, although he has done this work, joining as a novice. Although he has had experience, he joins as a new employee, and he has now risen to the position where he is ranked as one of the very best of the employees, and yet he does not have anything to do with respect-to this $100,000 that is to be distributed. That is the sum which the Postmaster General says is to be distributed, and on the letters that are now before us as to the position of these gentlemen, I am satisfied that with the bill construed as it would be construed by a court, it would be very difficult to see how any employee would get anything. I am only pointing out to the house what the men think they are getting and what the bill itself says, and I leave it at that.
I cannot for my part bring myself to believe that it is a sound principle in a country like this to declare that because men received certain compensation before they sympathetically struck and left their employment, thereby tying up the public service, when they were reemployed and made a new contract with the state, and were reemployed because the state realized that the conditions were such that if possible they should use these men's services-I cannot believe that it is a sound principle not to punish them for striking. The only punishment according to this list that may be said to have been given to many of these men- the loss of seniority, whatever that may mean, they say is lost, because you cannot change the clock, time does not stand still. All that they have lost if this bill becomes operative is their seniority. The effect of it will be that some of them-not all, but some of them- are already saying that they have vindicated their position and that the postmaster at Winnipeg is to go. That is the next thing. They say:	We have got the government to
do this and now we are going to drive the postmaster out; we have got it started now. Thereby they are saying to the world that in the great struggle for the supremacy of law and order in this country against the forces of revolution and rebellion, this parliament is going to put the imprimatur of its approval upon the latter and not upon the former. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) who is behind this move may think that it will bring great kudos to him from organized labour, but if my memory serves me well, in the long run it is the great labour forces in this country who are best served by the maintenance of law and order, and they look in the end to fair and even justice for the preservation of their rights, justice and fair play and fair treatment under every consideration. I am not unmindful of the effort that has been made in some quarters to induce me, for instance, to realize that those who supported this bill will be approved and those who did not will not be. I will not give my assistance to the forces of anarchy and the forces that brought disruption to the postal service of Canada, and I tell that to the Minister of Labour of this country. I tell him that he is doing no service to his own organizations when he does this, for the Postmaster General is but the medium through which the Minister of Labour expresses his opinion with respect to these matters.
I had hoped, very greatly hoped, that the retroactive features of this measure would be discarded, that we would not endeavour to adjust these matters as we are doing, but
*582	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett
apparently the government thinks otherwise. The government thinks that it is going to bring some measure of peace and harmony out of discord and trouble by saying: We now recognize the principle that those who without notice left the service of the state, depriving the public of their opportunity for getting their mail, who disrupted a great public service, and who did that under circumstances to which we shall not now refer, should be rewarded and compensated for what they then did. If that be so, a precedent has been established which will have a far-reaching effect, and when you cloak it behind the hollow pretence of saying that men are going to be compensated for the work they do, that is cant and hypocrisy so far as the public is concerned, because every man who is employed to do a job and is seeking with ambition to advance his future and make a better place for himself in the world does not watch the clock and see how little he can do, but does the best that is in him by reason of the experience that he has had. Just as this man coming to this country in 1911 and working at various times after the war finally -went into the postal service in 1919 and was able in the light of his past knowledge to rise more rapidly and be of greater use to the public service and get in the end a higher classification and more pay than the man who joined the service as a novice, so these men in the light of the knowledge which they had knew when they reentered the service what they were doing; they made their contract with the state, and the state now says that it was not a contract such as they should have made, and the state is now going to make a new contract for them. I can only say that that principle I oppose. This bill is undoubtedly a modification of the first proposals. What it means I think it is difficult to say. It is not clearly stated. It is to be left to certain gentlemen to work out in the future, but when it is said that it involves 8100,000, it can only do that if the principles which the Postmaster General and the Minister of Labour have from time to time told these men would be applied, are applied.


Peter John Veniot: I wish to correct the hon. gentleman. I never told these men anything of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then he told the house.


Peter John Veniot: I never told the house
either.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did not the minister
say the amount was $100,000?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, then, what are
you talking about?


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend said that
I told these men certain principles would be applied. I never told these men of any principle that would be applied except that a workman was worthy of his hire, and' I laid that principle down in this house every time I spoke.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The day before yesterday, according to Hansard, the minister said that the amount involved would be $100,000, and not $125,000. It is the old story, the hon. gentleman never will make a frank statement with respect to anything if he can avoid it. He told this house last year the amount was $125,000, and it was in the supplementary estimates. It is not there this year. He now tells this house that it is $100,000. He told the house that the other day when he was passing his resolution and his bill. What does he mean by Saying now that he did not say any such thing?


Peter John Veniot: I never said that I did not say that. I said that I did not state to the men that the principle the hon. gentleman is now laying down is the principle I was to follow, but that the principle was that every man was worthy of his hire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
leader of the opposition is, I think, quite right in endeavouring to see that before this bill passes its third reading there should be left no possibility of misunderstanding as to what it means not only to hon. members in this house, but to those who may feel themselves entitled to some consideration under its provisions. With respect to his desire to have the meaning of the bill made perfectly clear, I have no exception to take. I would take very strong exception, however, to my hon. friend seeking to misrepresent in any way either the motive or the purpose of the Postmaster General or the Minister of Labour in so far as their association with the measure is concerned.
I will give to the house what the government understands to be the full force, meaning and effect of this bill, and if in any particular I am expressing a view which is other than that entertained by the Postmaster General or by the Minister of Labour, each of whom is in his seat at the moment, I hope he will correct me at once, because so far as the government is concerned there is no doubt in our minds as to what this measure contemplates, and there is one opinion only entertained by the cabinet with respect to its intention.
In a word, the bill means exactly what it says. I will read the section, omitting the few words that refer to certain orders in council. It is that:
the former employees of the postal or railway mail service of Canada who were removed from such service-
Then I skip a few words.
-and who were subsequently reemployed and are now in the said postal or railway mail service, shall be paid for services actually performed as from the date of their reemployment at the rates of remuneration paid to other employees for similar services.
That language is, I think, as plain as the English language can be. I do not believe it is possible to express in words a meaning more clearly than that expressed in this clause which in fact as the whole bill. It says that the employees are to be paid for services actually performed. My hon. friend has taken a table of statistics which has been supplied by the Postmaster General, and has placed his own interpretation upon their meaning. My hon. friend must have meant what he said as to the statistics leading to certain deductions which in fact he drew, but I am bound to say that so far as I can see no deductions of any kind whatever appear on the statement which is before my hon. friend
25S4	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Mackenzie King
What is recorded throughout is a mere statement of fact. There are no deductions or conditions set forth. I may be allowed to read the headings of the various matters referred to in the table:
Name of employee; jrear of birth; date of first employment; date of reemployment; salary rate when reemployed; salary bonus and total; salary rate when dismissed; salary bonus and total; salary May 1929; occupation at time of strike; occupation when reemployed.
These are the headings that appear on the table, and 'beneath them are given the facts or statistics that appropriately relate to the several headings. There are no deductions. My hon. friend has drawn his own inferences, and I confess that its seems to me he must have had in mind as he was doing so the resolution as it originally appeared on the order paper and his own interpretation thereof.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask my right hon. friend a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He will observe on page
one there are six within the first ten that were L.C.-letter carriers-when the strike came on and who were reemployed as letter carriers. The salary they received was not as great when they went back to work as that which they had received before they were dismissed. What is to be done under this bill with respect to those cases?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer
my hon. friend in a statement which will be applicable to all cases. Perhaps I may sim-plfy the matter by saying that insofar as this bill is concerned no account need be taken of the salary a man was receiving when he went out, no account need be taken of the date of his reemployment, no account need be taken of anything other than the actual work at which he has been engaged since his reemployment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very greatly obliged to the right hon. gentleman. That clarifies it very much.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
whole position. Now, may I go a step further? With respect to the salary that he receives when he is reemployed, as hon. gentlemen know, the Civil Service Commission attaches a certain rate of remuneration to each of certain classes of employment. That rate of remuneration is known and it is supposed to apply to all who are employed in a particular class. Had there been no strike, all who were engaged in performing a particular class of duties would have been receiving an amount 
of remuneration equivalent to that assignable to that particular class. There are some men who came iback into the postal service at Winnipeg under the terms of the order in council which permitted them to reenter. They were put into certain classes of work, but were put into these classes not at the rate of remuneration which these classes properly command but at a rate which was lower than that for which the service at which they were engaged should have been remunerated. This bill provides that where such was the case men shall be paid for the work they actually performed at the rates of pay attaching to the work of the class on which they were engaged. If, for example, a man was a letter carrier and was doing letter carrier's work, but was paid as a postal helper at a much lower rate, he would be entitled to the difference between the .postal helper's rate and the letter carrier's rate for the time during which he had been doing letter carrier's work; nothing, more. The same with respect to all other classes of employees. Now I ask hon. gentlemen:	Is not that obviously the fair
thing to do?
There is no necessity of confusing the present measure with any question that relates itself back to the reemployment of these men. If there was an error in their reemployment it is an error for which the present administration at all events is not responsible. We are not trying to saddle responsibility upon anyone with respect to the reemployment of these men. We say that the principle involved in their reemployment, whether right or wrong, was settled by the government in office in 1920. We are not even taking exception to the manner in which they settled the matter. But the fact is that they settled it without reference to any act or authority; they settled it in total disregard of the Civil Service Act. Hon. gentlemen have been saying a good deal about the attention that should be paid to the Civil Service Act. Well, the act was there, and if they had followed its provisions we should not now be discussing this matter. But they ignored the act altogether. My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) thought they had proceeded under authority of the War Measures Act, but I find on going' into the matter that they ignored that act also. In other words, they followed no act; they proceeded without authority, and arbitrarily under order in council, to reemploy the men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was careful to say that I did not know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; my hon. friend did say that he did not know. But I wish to make it clear that, having 'looked into

Western Postal Employees-Mr. Mackenzie King
the matter, I find the facts as I state them. Be that as it may, however, we are all prepared,
I hope, to concede that at that particular time many things may have occurred which we tru3t will never occur again. But what we do say is that the question of reemployment, the right or the wrong of it, was settled at that time; and that, therefore, is not the principle which is to be settled at this moment.
Let us come now to what this particular measure seeks to do. It seeks to proceed in accordance with another principle, namely, that the state in hiring labour should pay for [DOT] services rendered in certain positions the rates of wages which those positions command, either in accordance with the current rate or in keeping with what may be fixed by the Civil Service Commission or by some other recognized authority. In all government employment there is a certain basis on which labour is paid, having regard to the amount and the quality of the work performed. In this particular matter there is no dispute regarding what certain classes of work of a particular quality command. It is known that a postal helper receives so much a day; that a sorter receives so much a day; that a letter carrier receives so much a day. And so on. Records are kept of the work of employees from day to day, and it is known whether men have worked as letter carriers or sorters or helpers. It is possible therefore to ascertain exactly the difference between what any man was paid and what he should have received had he not been penalized in the matter of his wages.
This bill seeks to remove, as respects actual service performed, a sense of injustice not only in the minds of the men immediately affected but in the minds of labour generally; because as the matter now stands the government of the country is in the position of seeking to depress standard rates of wages, and hon. gentlemen know that if labour is concerned about one thing above another it is the maintenance of certain standards in the matter of hours, wages and conditions of employment. We say there is no dispute as to the standard which should prevail with respect to wages, hours and conditions of employment in this particular post office at Winnipeg, and we believe that the state, as a model employer, should see to it that the men who have been reemployed and have done certain work should be given the full payment due them for the services they have performed. I trust that this explanation is clear. I do not think it leaves doubt in the mind of anyone, and I think this house would do itself a fuller measure of justice if it unanimously accepted the principle of the
payment of wages for actual work performed to those who have been so engaged especially where the men who have been reemployed have been reemployed by the state itself.


Mr. STEVENS:: Will the Prime Minister
permit a question? In the light of the explanation he has just made, why has not the government for the last seven years paid employees wages for services rendered-a principle very clearly explained by the right hon. gentleman?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
government has done so. There may be some laws-the Civil Service Act for example- which operate in the matter. That act gives to the Civil Service Commission the power of fixing certain rates and the government complies with that particular law. Each case must be met on its own merits. So far as I am concerned I stand strongly for the principle that employees, whether engaged by the government or by private industry, shall be paid for services actually rendered.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister does not catch my question. I have not time to read the list, but I venture to say that a substantial percentage of the men have been reemployed during that period-I am not referring now to the period which the Prime Minister rather condemned, namely, under the previous government, but in the last seven years. This practice which the Prime Minister has just strongly condemned has been observed all along. Why has not the government taken steps until this late date to invoke the principle which he has advocated to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe the
leader of the opposition said a moment ago that an effort was made last year and the year before, but apparently the excitement which the introduction of the measure provoked prevented our getting as far along with it as we have succeeded in doing this year with the present bill. The reason these men have been paid a lower rate for so many years is that the order in council which permitted their reemployment necessitated their reentering the service at a low rate. Had they been placed at and continued in the employment which commanded that low rate no exception could be taken at all to what was done. But what happened was this: The men who were qualified to act as sorters and letter carriers were obliged, under the order in council of reemployment, to enter as postal helpers and to receive the pay of postal helpers, although they were not given postal helpers' work to do. Many of them were put
25S6
Excise Act Amendment

into the class of sorters or letter carriers or other of the higher classes and were paid lower rates of wages than sorters, letter carriers and the other classes command. That is where undoubtedly the mistake has occurred, with consequent confusion. If these men had entered the class of employment at which by the order in council they were supposed to start-postal helpers-and had worked up step by step, always receiving the full payment for the class of work on which they were employed, then certainly there could be nothing due them to-day. But where a man entered at a postal helper's rate of pay and worked as a sorter or as a fetter carrier, we say that an injustice was done-an injustice which this bill seeks to remove.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder whether I am
trespassing too much on the right hon. gentleman's patience in asking a single question. On the list supplied by the Postmaster General there are the names of thirty-seven men who are alleged to have been employed as tetter carriers at the time of the strike and who were reemployed as such. I thought the right hon. gentleman said that what they were receiving at the time of the strike, before they were reemployed, was not to enter into the matter. What I was anxious to know, was-because it will clarify the whole situation-whether or not there would be any change with respect to those employees who went back to the same work in which they were engaged at the time of the strike.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certain men
were letter carriers when they went on strike and when they came back they were put into the class of letter carriers. When they were put back into that class they were not paid letter carriers' wages; had they been paid those wages nothing would be due them today. This bill provides that when men were put back as tetter carriers, although they were engaged as postal helpers, and were given the wages of postal helpers notwithstanding that they did the work of letter carriers, they should receive the difference between what they actually earned as letter carriers and what they were actually paid as postal helpers.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister one or two questions. Where men are employed in the civil service who for some considerable time have done the work of a certain position without receiving the salary attached to that position, and when they do obtain siuch position will the government adopt it as their policy that these men shall be paid for the services previ-

ously rendered? For example, in our penitentiaries a man is appointed as guard; for some considerable time, perhaps for a year, he fills a higher position before he is actually promoted to it. Will the government pay for such services as a matter of policy?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think every case should be examined and considered on its own merits. Perhaps that will answer my hon. friend's first question,


Arthur Edward Ross: Then my second question is this: These men who are to receive higher salaries for a year or two back will pay a certain amount into the super-anuation fund, so they will obtain a higher rate of superannuation. Is that the case?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should think the superannuation would relate to the class of work they have been doing and the payment received for that work. The Postmaster General tells me that superannuation was not affected by the strike.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not think the answer given by the Prime Minister is satisfactory; it does not really answer the question. I have come here repeatedly on behalf of men who went back to work during the war and who were getting a certain amount of pension, but these men have been consistently refused consideration for their services. They have been ignored, although they did not go on strike; they gave good, faithful service, but their applications have been refused by the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can only say that any case of apparent injustice should be considered on its merits.


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

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) (for Mr. Robb) moved the third reading of Bill No. 279, to amend the Excise Act.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I rise to a point of order, and I do so because I wish to raise the point in connection with another practice which has arisen. Can this third reading be moved in the absence of the Minister of Finance?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was simply trying to save time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask under what rule any member of the house is denied the privilege of proposing a private bill for another member?

Customs Tariff Amendment


Hewitt Bostock: A private bill is in a different position; there is a difference between a government order and a private bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know there is a difference, but I would like to have the clerk furnish us with the rule. I will not delay the house to press the point at the moment, but I would like that rule cited.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not like my hon. friend to think me guilty of a discourtesy. As hon. members know, we are desirous of making progress in these matters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am entirely in accord with this practice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Finance is in his office; I have asked him to come to the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Go ahead; I entirely disagree with the other practice, that is all.


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

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister), for Mr. Robb, moved the third reading of Bill No. 212, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Mr. L. S. R. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville):: I desire to move in amendment to the motion for third reading:
That Bill No. 212, an act to amend the Customs Tariff, be not read a third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend item 460 F by adding thereto after the words "trough belt conveyors'' the words "of a class or kind not made in Canada."
My reason for proposing this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is that the belt manufacturers of Canada will be placed in a very difficult position if some action of this kind is not taken. In their competition with British and United States manufacturers they are handicapped by the fact that while their raw material is imported free they must pay on it higher transportation charges than they pay on the finished product, because the raw material is more bulky.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The raw material carries a lower freight rate.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: But since it is more bulky the transportation charges are higher. Moreover, the manufacturers are handicapped by the action of this house in imposing a duty of fifty cents per ton on all their coal and a duty of 27i per cent on their machinery when it is of a kind made in Canada, or 10 per cent when it is of a kind not made in Canada. Under these circumstances the Canadian manufacturer is not in a position to meet the competition of the British manufacturer who is not affected by these duties, and as a matter of fact the Canadian industry is hardly able to meet the competition of the American industry even under a duty of 12^ per cent.
Let us suppose the American and the Canadian manufacturers were placed on the same footing; we could reasonably assume that they would divide the Canadian trade, and therefore 50 per cent of our consumption of this article would be furnished by American manufacturers to the detriment of Canadian labour. It seems to me that these are conditions which should not be approved by this house and which should not be the policy of the government; at a time when the balance of trade is so much in favour of the United States I think we should not continue to increase our purchases in that country and decrease the production in Canada, particularly when it is very clear that the Canadian consumer will not derive any benefit.
I think if we add to item 460 F a provision that the reduction in duty will apply only to trough belt conveyors not made in Canada the requirements of our industry will be satisfied and it will be for the general advantage of our country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I ask whether the general effect would be an increase or a decrease in revenue?


Louis-Simon-René Morin: It all depends on whether these articles are presently imported from the United States. If they are not imported now there is no revenue; if they
are imported of course it will increase the revenue.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: I am very much surprised that any member of this house should once more seek to introduce into the tariff of Canada the most dangerous phrase ever invented. The clause says that articles shall come into Canada free which are "of a class and kind not manufactured in Canada." I have been endeavouring to ascertain from the ^Department of Finance who it was that invented this clause; I have been trying to ascertain when it was first introduced into a budget. It is an amazing thing to find this clause no less than nine times in the present budget. I object to the clause because it is a dangerous one. The province of Ontario has recently passed a bill permitting municipalities in that province-

Customs Tariff Amendment


Mr. MORRISSEY:: What about the other provinces in Canada?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The province of Ontario
does not pass laws for any other province. This bill will permit municipalities to issue debentures to defray the cost of laying out sections of their cities or towns for industrial purposes. The city of Oshawa, where I come from, is a highly industralized community and we are asking authority to lay out a portion of the city for industrial purposes. What form of industry can we induce to come to the province of Ontario? Naturally we look into our imports to see just what articles are consumed in Canada, but when we look at the budget we find that articles which are not made in Canada are permitted to come in free. What encouragement is that for the industrial development of our province? The clause appears nine times in the present budget and I look upon it as a blight. I cannot imagine anything more injurious to the future of Canada than the continual injection of that clause into the industrial budgets of Canada, a clause which says that anything which is not made in Canada shall be allowed to come in free. The people of Canada want to manufacture as much as possible in Canada and not have it continually said that when an article is not made here it may come in free.
We are endeavouring to manufacture every part of the automobile in Canada, and we are asking firms to invest money in building factories in order that certain parts may be manufactured here. Then this clause without modification is injected which says that those articles which are not made in Canada shall be permitted to come in free. How can we ever build the entire article in Canada when this clause is continually being thrust into the budgets?
I would like to find out who invented this clause and when it was first used in the budgets of Canada-I hope the time will come when in its unqualified form it will be eliminated from the budget altogether.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the hon. member (Mr. Morin, St. Hyacinthe) in moving the amendment is out of order. Beauchesne, paragraph 553, states:
When it appeared from the debate that an amendment proposed to a resolution reported from the committee of ways and means would increase the charge, the Speaker ruled the amendment out of order.
And 551 is as follows:
It is a fundamental principle that no resolution or amendment to increase a charge upon the people can be moved with the Speaker in the chair; it must be initiated in committee by a minister aeting on behalf of the crown.

The hon. gentleman has stated that the effect of his amendment might increase the rates, and under those conditions I am obliged to rule his amendment out of order.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I fail to see how the moving of this amendment is out of order. I think a statement should be made by someone in authority, and I would be quite satisfied to take the opinion of the Minister of Finance. I am frankly in accord with the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin), and if I might be permitted to proceed I could state very shortly my reason for taking that position. I think we should have something which is authoritative.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the best authority is the sponsor of the amendment.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: I do not
believe that my amendment would increase taxation because it would leave the articles mentioned in this section under the tariff which is actually in force. We are dealing with a bill which will reduce taxation but the bill is not law as yet, and the purpose of my amendment is only to maintain the actual legislation or the actual duty which is at present imposed on this class of goods; therefore, it does not increase the taxation.


Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling. If the argument of the hon. member is correct that it does not increase taxation, then there is no necessity for his amendment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



WAR REPARATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rinfret that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Minister of Finance be authorized to place to the credit of the custodian, out of the reparation money paid into the treasury for losses sustained during the late war, a sum not exceeding $2,500,000 and that provision be made as to the method and scale of payments.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the minister in charge of this bill has suggested a certain amendment which he would like me to move to the resolution. The government is inclined to believe that there is a misunderstanding on the part of some who have opposed the resolution in its present form. The resolution contains the words "not exceeding" and these words seem to have suggested to

War Reparations
25S9
the minds of some hon. members that if the resolution were adopted in its present form it would not be possible at a later stage, if it were thought advisable so to do, for the government to consider any payments beyond that amount. That was not the intention of the resolution as it was drafted,. I have spoken to the clerk, who advises me that the words "not exceeding" are not essential and that the substitution of the word "of" having regard to the provisions of the bill would be perfectly proper. If the house would give its consent to that substitution, I would move in amendment to the resolution:
That in the third line of the resolution the words "not exceeding" be struck out and the word "of" be substituted therefor:
The resolution would then read:
That the Minister of Finance be .authorized to place to the credit of the custodian, out of the reparation money paid into the treasury for losses sustained during the late war, a sum of $2,500,000 and that provision be made as to the method and scale of payments.
If the resolution passes in that form, the minister will be in a position, when we are discussing the resolution in committee and, later on, the bill, to indicate to the house the view of the government with respect to making certain immediate payments. The question whether further payments should be made will necessarily depend in no little measure on the discussion that may take place when the resolution is in committee or when the bill is before the house, but the minister himself has been precluded from indicating to the house up to the present time the particulars of the bill, because, having spoken once on the resolution, he is prevented from speaking again, and the debate seemed to turn on the question of the words "not exceeding", as though in some particular the government had intended finally to restrict all payments to that amount.


Hewitt Bostock: This amendment cannot be put at the present moment, but it can be made when the resolution gets into committee Standing order 50 reads:
A motion to refer a bill, resolution or any question to the committees of the whole, or any standing or special committee shall preclude all amendment of the main question.
In a few moments when the resolution is in committee, the amendment may be moved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the resolution goes into committee, I should like, in order to enable the minister to deal with it properly in committee, to ask why we have been so long in using money that came to the treasury of Canada to pay the claims of people justly entitled to payment. The word "reparations"
means just what it says, and the reparation that is sought is to have the money that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has been keeping in the treasury of this country for the purpose of swelling his surpluses, used for the object for which it was paid. Germany paid the money to make reparation for injuries done to the civil population. The money which has thus far been received amounts to $21,000,000 and it has gone into the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. There is therefore ample money to pay all the claims that have been made, assuming that they are just and proper. Without any consideration other than an order in council, the government appointed successive commissioners to deal with this matter, and they have determined that certain of the civil population making claims, are entitled to receive the money. The commissioner, namely, Commissioner Friel, has provided that 5 per cent should be paid upon that money from a given date with respect to most of the claims. The date that he has fixed for the interest to run from is the date of the conclusion made as to the treaty of Versailles. That is with respect to personal losses only: property and other losses stand in a different category.
There are some people who are actually suffering because they have not received this money. They have lost everything, and I have never yet been able to understand why the government holds that money in the treasury to swell, as I say, the surpluses of the country, using it for public purposes instead of paying it to the people for whom it was intended. It is idle to say that there is no trust. I know there was not a trust in the ordinary sense of the term, but the government received this money to be distributed among the people who were entitled to it. When the minister amends his resolution, I hope he will not only provide for the claims that will exhaust the $2,500,000 but deal with people who have claims of any kind. Last year it was suggested that some claims would have to be referred to the courts. That may be so, but in the meantime that has not been done, and if they have just claims, all of us who have business experience know that it is desirable that such claims should be paid promptly. Some of these people are poor. I recall receiving a letter from a poor woman who said that she had been solicited by many people to put her claim into their hands and who asked me if I could do anything in the matter. I said that I would refer to it in the house. It is only a small claim of about $900, but it means a great deal to h"r. I suggest that we
War Reparations

should utilize the money for the purpose of paying all the smaller claims in full; that if there be business claims about which there is no criticism, they should be paid, and that if there be doubt as to the soundness of the conclusions arrived at by the commissioner, such claims should be dealt with by the proper authority, for instance a judge of the exchequer court, so that there may be no delay in the matter. I hope the minister, when the resolution gets into committee, will amend it so as to deal with all the cases to which I have referred.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member fof
Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) a little while ago asked for a ruling about the moving of private or public bills. If he will refer to May, thirteenth edition, at pages 255 and 226 he will find the following:
A member of the government may act in behalf of a colleague in all cases including the proposal of new clauses on the report stage of a bill; but, with this exception, or in the case of an unopposed return, or of a motion for leave of absence, no motion cam be moved save by the member in whose name the notice stands.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to move:
That the resolution be amended by striking out in the third line the words "not exceeding" and substituting the word "of" therefor.


Mr. RINFRET:: 
Mr. ERNST:: If the minister will permit a question, is the course of action which has been followed by the government of this country subsequent to 1920 consistent, in his opinion, with adherence to .the principles enunciated by Sir Austen Chamberlain?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I shall come to that, I was trying in the first place to explain the character of the payments made to Canada through Great Britain. Then I will come to the nature of the Canadian claims and the way in which they have been received and treated in this country. I am glad to see from

War Reparations

the question of my hon. friend that he agrees with Mr. Austen Chamberlain that the money -and he puts it very clearly-is intended to compensate the wrong done to the state, not to pay individual claims; that there is no legal claim, but there is a moral claim that might be recognized. The British government did acknowledge and recognize that moral claim, and set aside a certain amount-not to compensate the whole of the claims that had been made, but to pay them to a certain extent and on a certain scale. My hon. friend shakes his head. In the papers before me is very clearly indicated the way in which the British government has met those claims.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister permit me? Did not this parliament three years ago formally and finally recognize the principle of compensating private parties? Why go into an academic argument as zo whether it is an act of grace? We have admitted all that.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am delighted to hear it. We can start from that point and very likely reach the decision that we are all anxious to reach.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us pay the claims. That is all we are after.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Let it be understood then that we are not disputing any further that this money is the property of the state, that we acknowledge only a moral claim on the part of the claimants. And perhaps we can go further and regard the action of the British parliament as an example of what should be done in Canada.
' Mr. ERNST: Oh no.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am now coming to the story of what happened in Canada, and I hope I may be as convincing as I have been regarding the character of the money. Let us see what was done in 1918. On November 15 of that year the Borden government passed an order in council appointing the Under-secretary of State, Mr. Thomas Mulvey, as an officer to take such steps as might ibe necessary to make a list of the Canadian claims and submit them in proper order. Advertisements were circulated inviting claimants to send in their claims and setting forth the machinery for dealing with the matter.
I may point out that when the advertisement was circulated the Canadian government of that day made it very clear that although these claims would be received, at the same time the government would not guarantee that they would ever be paid. I

admit that at the time it was intended to submit the claims, not to a commissioner in Canada, but to a mixed commission that would sit in London and pass on them. It Had also been contemplated at the time that payments might be made direct by Germany to Canada to meet those claims. But as I established a moment ago, that basis was abandoned, and instead a commissioner was appointed to act in Canada, his instructions being to hear the claims, and to recommend awards.
Now, it is true there has been considerable delay in this matter, and I agree with my hon. friend that we should do everything possible to avoid any further delay.


William Gordon Ernst: Tell us what you are going to do, then.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: But at the same time an unkind fate has caused delay, irrespective of either party which may have been in power. The former government in 1921 appointed Sir John Douglas Hazen as commissioner. Later he was called to the bench and therefore could not act. In 1923 the Liberal government appointed the Hon. William Pugsley as commissioner, but unfortunately after hearing a few cases he died. In 1925 Commissioner Friel was appointed, and he heard the claims, numbering in all 1,613. Last year he made his final report, but by the time it had been printed the session was pretty well advanced.


William Gordon Ernst: It was printed in December, 1927, according to the report.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The typewritten report
was sent to the printing office, but the printing was a rather complicated affair by reason of the number of figures to be dealt with. It took considerable time for the commissioner to go through the proofs, and it was some weeks later before the printed report was actually in the hands of the government. But, I may set my hon. friend's mind at ease if I tell 'him that I admit there has been undue delay in this matter.


William Gordon Ernst: Hear, hear.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I hope we shall agree that the delay was due to various causes that it would only prolong the discussion to explain.


Mr. CLARK:: I should like to know
whether it is a fact that the report of Commissioner Friel was in the hands of the press for months before it came into the hands of members of parliament?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: So far as I know, I must deny that. I have no such information.

War Reparations


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister get the
information for the house? I am informed that the report was in the hands of the press for months before it became available in parliament.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I can tell my hon. friend that neither the minister nor his department gave the report to the press as he indicates. But perhaps my hon. friend will admit that this is only a detail, and as we are all very anxious to avoid delay, it might be desirable that I be allowed to complete my explanation before we come to such episodes.


William Gordon Ernst: Tell us what you are going to do.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: During the course of the session of 1925 Commissioner Friel had hardly begun his work, but it is true that the then Secretary of State, the Hon. Mr. Copp, brought down a resolution asking the house to authorize the Secretary of State to receive the report and to pay the claims that might be recommended. Every time we discuss this matter it is pointed out very strongly by hon. members opposite that the introduction of this resolution was a clear indication of the policy of the government. But my hon. friends are less anxious to remind the house of the very clear indication of their own policy at the time. The resolution to which I have referred was so strongly opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite that it was withdrawn by the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but the minister
surely is not going to precipitate a discussion on that point, because if he wants to do so it will not look so well when we get through with it as it does from the presentation he is now making. There were very good reasons for opposing that resolution. This has been threshed out over and over again. All we are urging the government to do now is to get on with this resolution and let the country pay those poor people who are entitled to be paid for the losses they sustained. Why raise up old issues? If the minister discusses them we will have to discuss them and so unnecessarily delay this business.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend does not
get my point, for the very good reason that he did not allow me to make it. I only wanted to point out that the conditions at the time did not permit-


Mr. SHORT:: You have rehashed that sort of thing time and time again, year after year. Why don't you tell us when you are going so pay these claims? That is what we are interested in.
78594-165J


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am quite willing to stop my explanation right here and appeal to the leader of the opposition. If he is willing that this resolution should pass and will allow me to introduce my bill, I shall be quite willing to conclude my speech at once.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. minister has
referred to me. If he will be good enough to indicate what payments he proposes to make, and what claims will be dealt with, I think it would expedite the passage of the resolution.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: When the Hon. Mr. Copp introduced his resolution in 1925 he made it quite clear that he was introducing that resolution in order to meet the moral claims of certain of the claimants. He did not at that time lay down a policy on any legal ground. Our hon. friends on the other side and in the far corner pointed out in the first place that the nation should be recognized and, in the second place, which was very proper I think, that inasmuch as there was no report before the house it was scarcely opportune to consider such a resolution at that time. Consequently the resolution was withdrawn.
Last year, on May 19, my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), on a motion for the house to go into supply, introduced an amendment recommending payment of the claims in full or in part, and I then undertook to explain that as we had not had an opportunity to study the report fully we were not in a position to recommend payment of the claims in full. I indicated on that occasion, however, the intention of the government in the following observations with which I concluded my speech:
Therefore, as I have said, it is our intention during the recess, when the labours of the session are over, to give that report, the judgments and the evidence the fullest care and study in order to be in a position at the beginning of next session to introduce legislation. I cannot now forsee exactly what the legislation will be, but I can say that in principle it will be shaped by and based upon the policy adopted in the British parliament by the British government. It will not admit any legal rights, but the government is willing to meet some of these claims on compassionate grounds and as an act of grace. And I hope that this policy will commend itself to the good sense of the parliament of Canada and of the country.
Voting on the amendment, the house endorsed that statement by rather a large majority. Now coming to the bill proposed to be introduced, I may say that in the first place the explanation would have been available a long time ago had opportunity been
War Reparations

given me to make it. The bill proposes to meet precisely the position which the government took at the time the amendment was moved on May 19, 1928. What it is intended to do by the bill is to recommend immediate payment of all small claims and payment on account in respect to the larger ones.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is meant by small claims?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will indicate that. The bill provides in the first place that the report
of the commissioner shall be deposited with . the Secretary of State, and the Minister of Finance shall then place to the credit of the custodians the sum of $2,500,000. It sets out in clause 5 the method of payment. It is proposed to meet in full all claims up to $15,000; in excess of $15,000 and up to $25,000, payment of 25 per cent; in excess of $25,000, payment of 10 per cent; in no case shall the total amount exceed $25,000. Under the scale adopted in the proposed bill the outlay required will be as follows:
Assessments to $15,000	.. 1,294	$1,761,018 00	In full	$1,761,018	00Excess of $15,000 to $25,000.. ..	.. 10	191,541 35	25 p.c.	160.274	34Excess of $25,000	.. 17	2,294,309 40	10 p.c.	410,092	921,321	$4,246,868 75	$2,331,385	26
In other words, the number of awards recommended by the commissioner is 1,321. If this bill is adopted it means that 1,294 of these claims will be met in full; 10 other claims will receive $15,000 plus 25 per cent; and 17 claims will receive these allotments plus 10 per cent. But in no case will the sum paid be greater than $25,000.
As pointed out by the Prime Minister a moment ago, this is not intended to be a final settlement or in any way to preclude or prejudice further discussion of this question; it is intended merely to avoid any further delays in meeting the claims of the 1,294 claimants where the amount does not exceed $15,000. It is only in respect to the 27 claims exceeding $15,000 that we are not in a position immediately to recommend to the house payment either in full or in any higher proportion than proposed. This is a matter in which at the present time as in the past both parties are interested; moreover, it is non-political. It should be approached in that spirit and I do invite the fullest discussion of the question from all parts of the house. I know that some hon. gentlemen are anxious to have us meet all claims in a larger proportion; but I know also that other hon. members will probably take the opposite view, the view taken in 1925, that the money belongs primarily to the nation. The losses of the nation have been very heavy, running into a billion dollars, and possibly it will be thought that $2,500,000 is a sufficiently large sum to spend at the present time. We must not forget that other settlements have been made along the same lines. Such have been made in the British parliament-war claims of this very nature. The Home bank claims here have also been settled in this manner and it is

therefore not altogether extraordinary to make a proposal of this kind.
I wish to stress this point-because I am anxious that there shall be not the slightest misgiving in the minds of my hon. friends- that the government invites the fullest discussion of the matter; it is desirous to know the sentiment of the house. In 1925 the house was absolutely opposed to any form of payment, but last year by a somewhat large majority it rather indicated that, in its opinion, a partial payment would meet the case. If the representatives of the people, having met their constituents, indicate in the discussion the feeling that this payment is not sufficient, we are willing and prepared to meet the demand of the people and of parliament. And perhaps I might indicate, im case my hon. friends think this would mean a delay of another year, that we have ascertained the possibility, after we have laid down the principle contained in this bill, of having an amount in the supplementary estimates to increase the payments if it appears from the discussion that such is the desire of the house.
Before I sit down I wish to make another point. We have not made allowance for interest. The reason is obvious. I do not think we can consider interest unless we meet all claims in full. It would not be proper to pay certain claims with interest and make only partial payments in the case of other claims where interest is not possible. Therefore I do submit that the government is not inspired in this matter by any desire other than to meet the wishes of the nation as expressed here by the representatives of the Canadian people.

War Reparations


Mr. DUFF:: I am sure we listened' with
a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Secretary of State. I am not particularly interested in the legal argument. I do not particularly care whether these claims are technically legal or whether some typist omitted to cross a "t" or dot an "i" in typing the treaty of Versailles; this matter is far above any technicality of that kind. I do not pretend to know any law; I am sometimes referred to as a sea lawyer, but when I hear some of our lawyer friends discussing different matters I think perhaps the laymen can come to equally good if not better decisions by simply using their -common sense.
For a few moments I would like to deal with some of the arguments advanced by the minister, who claims that there is no legal obligation on the government to pay this money. If that is true I wonder why certain sections are included in different orders in council which were passed not only by this government but by the previous government, giving certain instructions tb three successive commissioners. The order in council of October 31, 1921, stated that the commissioner was to take such Steps as were necessary to obtain a complete list of claimants and persons residing or carrying on business in Canada who suffered damage due to the destruction of life and property through the illegal warfare carried on by the enemy.
Then it goes on:
The minister further submits-
That means the- government of the day. -that, under article 231, part VIII (reparation) of the treaty of Peace with Germany, the allied and associated powers affirmed and Germany accepted the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing the loss and damage to which the allied and associated governments and their nationals had been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
It seems to me that this includes not only the loss caused by naval -and military operations during the war but also the losses suffered by our nationals, or in other words the individual citizens of Canada. After Sir Douglas Hazen resigned the same instructions were issued to Hon. William Pugsley, and if we look at article 232 of the treaty of Versailles we find the following:
The allied and associated governments, however, require, and Germany undertakes, that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the allied and associated powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency of each as an allied or associated power against Germany by such aggression by land, by sea and from the air, and in general all damage as defined in annex 1 hereto.
Section 9 states:
Damage in respect of all property "wherever situated belonging to any of the allied or associated states or their nationals, with the exception of naval and military works or materials, which has been carried off, seized, injured or destroyed by the acts of Germany or her allies on land, on sea or from the air, or damage directly in consequence of hostilities or of any operations of war.
My hon. friend tried to argue that legally all this or any other government could pay out of the moneys received from Germany was the cost of the actual operation of the war. Let me tell my hon. friend that even if he is technically correct the people who suffered the damages set forth in Mr. Freil's report have to help pay the cost of the war as well as those who did not suffer any special damage, and I believe that the cases of the 1,600 claimants should be considered and their damages paid.
My hon. friend told us what Great Britain did, but we have a neighbour closer than Great Britain; I refer to the United States. Their -claims totalled $191,000,000. If, as the minister says, he cannot legally take the full amount necessary to pay these claims out of the payments made by Germany, which to date have totalled $21,000,000 and which will amount to $360,000,000 in the next fifty years, I would suggest that he follow the lead of the United States and pay this money from another fund. In the United States they took 30 per cent of the German property held by the custodian, amounting to $45,000,000, in order to settle these claims. I understand that we have some $13,000,000 or more obtained from the same source, which has been kept in a special fund, and if we cannot pay all these claims with the reparations money surely we can use the money in that special fund.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Did they pay
interest also?


William Duff: Yes, from March 10, 1925. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, putting aside the legal question, that, as the minister said a few moments ago, there is a moral question involved. These people have suffered damages; in my own county I know there are hundreds of people who suffered greatly through the loss of their ships, in the case of ship owners, the loss of wages in the case of seamen and the loss of their catch in the case of fishermen. Some of these men have never recovered from their losses, because they have been waiting all this time for this government to reimburse them, which should have been done from the reparation money,
War Reparations

I	say that in fairness to these claimants they should get not only the amounts set opposite their names but also the interest as set forth in Mr. Freil's report. Certainly this government had confidence in Mr. Freil when they told him to investigate this matter; they practically said, "We will accept the report you make." In his report Mr. Freil declared in no uncertain terms that after going over these claims it was his opinion that they come under section 232 of the Versailles treaty and under part 8 of annex
II	to part 2.
In view of the fact that the government appointed these commissioners, that a large amount of money was expended in order to investigate these claims, that the claimants themselves have spent small and large sums of money in order to file their claims that hope has been held out to them during the past ten years that they will get their money, it seems to me that this government, this country and this House of Commons should have no hesitation in passing a unanimous vote that the claims be paid in full. Not only should the $2,500,000 be paid but the government should bring down a supplementary estimate to provide for sufficient money to pay the claims in full, with interest.
To show that I am not as selfish as people sometimes think I am, I want to say that the $15,000 proposition made by the minister covers every claim I have. I think my hon. friend will agree with me when I say that possibly all the claims in the county of Lunenburg, which has the most claimants, will come within this $15,000 proposition.


An hon. MEMBER:: There will be no interest, though.


William Duff: I know that. The reason the majority of our claims will be paid is because most of our vessels are owned by shareholders. We differ from the people who own vessels in other parts of the country. When a man owns one, two or up to ten or twelve shares in a vessel, it does not amount to $15,000, but there are other cases of ship owners Where there is only one dhare. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) may own a whole ship, and is it fair that I and the sixty-three other shareholders should get the full amount of our claims while my hon. friend gets only $15,000 and 10 per cent besides? Take case No. 51, in the county of Cumberland. This covers the loss of the schooners L. C. Power and Lillian H., and the total claim amounts to $78,640. These ships were owned by G. M. Cochrane and if they had been divided into sixty-four shares the total of the $78,640 would be paid. But be-
[Mr Duff.]
cause this man owns the ship outright he will only receive a portion of his claim. I submit that that is not fair or right. The same principle applies to claims of $200,000 or $300,000, or upwards.
The total of all the claims amounts to only about $4,000,000, and the interest is only $2,000,000. It is not our fault that the interest has mounted up, because we should have had the money many years ago. The government has had this money for years, so they really would not be out the interest. As my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said, the government has had $21,000,000 for two or three years from the reparation receipts, and $13,000,000, representing enemy property funds, since 1918, so if the government should meet these demands it would not cost the country one cent. The government has to provide only $2,000,000 in round figures in the estimates to pay all the claims in full.
The government does not want the people to come knocking at its doors day after day. There is only one way to settle the thing, and that is to settle it right and the government or parliament will not be settling this question right if they only pay the $2,500,000 as proposed. The way to settle it is to pay all the claims, because if the money is not paid in full with interest, day after day and year after year not only will the government be bothered, but every member of this parliament will be receiving letters and be tormented until the government finally decides to pay the claims in full.
I think the government should appreciate the fact that although I was strongly in favour of the payment of these claims last year, I showed my allegiance to my party by voting against the want of confidence amendment moved by one of the hon. members on the other side. I do not want to be placed in that position this year. Whether these claims are called legal claims, equitable claims or moral claims, the only way to settle them i3 by payment in full with interest so that the people will receive the money to which they are entitled.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Chairman, I heartily
endorse everything which has been said by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), even though his enthusiasm for these payments in full is somewhat belated.


An hon. MEMBER:: The lion and the
lamb.


William Gordon Ernst: Who is the lion? I said the hon. member's enthusiasm is apparently belated. I do not intend to attempt to answer argument by argument, but the hon. inin-

War Reparations
ister referred to the treaty and the most conclusive answer to every argument he has adduced is the action of this government and its immediate predecessors in office. The example of Great Britain has been brought forth as an argument, but in the face of that example Mr. Pugsley was appointed in 1923 as a commissioner to determine the amount of the claims due to civilians owing to enemy actions during the war. When you invite claimants to come before a tribunal and do not tell them that any payment which they may get as a result of the award of that tribunal will be a matter of charitable donation or an act of grace, you encourage them to expect that the claims will be paid in full according to the award. That is the only conclusion to which you can come in view of the action taken in 1923. In addition to that, a resolution was introduced in 1925 by the then government which sought to provide for payment in full.


An hon. MEMBER:: And with interest.


William Gordon Ernst: And with interest, yes. In
the face of these facts how can the minister ask the house to believe that he seriously thinks we ought to follow the example of Great Britain, when he knows perfectly well that his own government departed from that example? He knows perfectly well that we have between $13,000,000 and $14,000,000 which we have received from Germany as reparations under section 232 of the treaty. He knows the United States have interpreted a similar section in the treaty of peace which they signed as meaning that civilians are entitled to participate in the money received under that section.
I realize that the amount of $15,000 will cover most of the industrial claims in Lunenburg county, but it will not cover them with interest. I accept the proposition of the minister that we cannot reasonably expect interest to be paid upon the small claims until the large claims are paid in full, but I submit that having the money and having intimated to the various claimants that payment would be made when the money was available, there is no moral justification today for refusing to pay the claims in full. They should be paid in full and with interest as the commissioner awarded or recommended -interest on personal losses other than property losses from the date of the signing of peace, which was January 10, 1920, and interest on property losses from the date of the loss. The government has had the use of this money during a period of years, but the people who lost their property through the illegal warfare have 'been put to great
hardship in many cases, and in other cases they have had to borrow money and pay interest. They have lost the use of their capital during that period; that capital was worth something to them, and that something is interest. They should get back their capital and the interest as well. I know of dozens of cases of fishermen around my own part of the county whose capital was lost. I know of some instances where they have had to borrow, and when they borrowed they have had to pay interest. The government has the money and it should pay in full with the interest. This interest means the addition of approximately 50 per cent to each award.
Some reference has been made by the minister to the fact that this proposal in its present form is introduced only to test the feeling of the house. I understood him to say that some revision might be made through the medium of the supplementary estimates, but I think I know the feelings of this part of the house. If it had not been for a motion from this side of the house we would not have received the report last year. The minister refused to table it until my leader said that we would not go on with supply until we got it, and then the report was forthcoming. This resolution was called during the early part of the session but for some reason, which the minister alone knows, it has been allowed to stand over a period of months and as it is now late in the session he can offer that as an excuse for not presenting any amended measure if the house voices its disapproval of the proposal as it now stands.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is politics.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We will have to ask
the member for Vancouver to come back and address to my hon. friends the remarks he addressed to me.


William Gordon Ernst: I am about to conclude with this remark that the minister knows perfectly well that the sentiment on this side of the house is in favour of payment and payment in full, with interest.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will just read to the hon. member his own amendment of last year:
Mr. W. G. Ernst (Queens-Lunenburg): I move in amendment seconded by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark):
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets the refusal of the government to introduce legislation at the present session of parliament providing for the payment
War Reparations

in full or in part of the various sums fixed by James Friel, Esquire, K.C., a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, as losses sustained by the civilian population of Canada during the Great war."
"In full or in part."


William Gordon Ernst: That was the amendment, it is true, but would the minister say from that that this side of the house did not pledge itself to payment in full? It did pledge itself to payment in full, but to test what the feeling of the house would be on the amendment, the alternatives were necessary. But this side of the house believes in payment in full and with interest, and forced the government to its present position, if you will. The minister must know what the feeling on his side of the house is, and there is no reason why these claims cannot be paid in full and at once, with interest.


Mr. JACOBS:: I am glad to see my hon. friends on the opposite side of the house have changed their views with respect to the payment of these reparation claims. In 1925, had it not been for the obstruction of the opposition, this money would have been paid to every one of the claimants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is nonsense.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would like to support my statement from Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have the Hansard under my hand.


Samuel William Jacobs: I should like to read to the leader of the opposition the views of the then leader of the opposition, a man who, I think, at that time had the confidence of the gentlemen who sat behind him to the same degree that the present leader of the opposition has. Might I refer to the remarks of Mr. Meighen as reported in the Commons debates, under date of June 19, 1925, at page 4517:
Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Opposition): This is undoubtedly a measure of some consequence, the full purport of which should be made very clear before the resolution is adopted. The opening sentence is rather threatening, that it is expedient to bring in a measure "to make provision for the payment of claims". And paragraph (3) provides for payment. Does the minister propose that on the report of the late Hon. William Pugsley he is to be permitted to distribute assets amounting to millions of dollars in cash among those whom Mr. Pugsley thought the money ought to go to?
Then I would cite Mr. Meighen a little further. If this is nonsense, I am in pretty good company.
[Mr. Rinfret.l


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that the
observations of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen were nonsense; I said that the observations of the hon. gentleman who is speaking were nonsense.


Samuel William Jacobs: But I said that this would have passed and become law four years ago if the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and the hon. gentlemen who sat behind him had not opposed it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who had the majority in the house at that time?


Samuel William Jacobs: The government had the majority, but the opposition was such on the other side that the government thought it well to withdraw the resolution.


Mr. SPENCE:: Do they withdraw things now that they can put through?


Samuel William Jacobs: Sometimes they do.


James Houston Spence: Not very often.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: If you want to put it
through, why not do it now? You have the majority now.


Samuel William Jacobs: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I will quote some of the remarks on his own side of the house, and perhaps I will find some of his remarks too. I will continue with what Mr. Meighen said-the "nonsense"-as fallows:	[DOT]
Mr. Meighen: If the motion is .adopted it will be in the face of my protest. This is merely requesting the government for authority to pay out millions of money as a first charge on reparations, on the mere say-so of him who, unfortunately, now has passed away, but who was for many years a close associate of the government themselves. It is a measure of far-reaching consequence, and that it should be brought in at this stage of the session and sought to be precipitated through along with many others seems to me a disgrace to this house. I for one lodge my protest, and lodge it now. Under what rule of equity, or reason, or fidelity to the public interest-
Here is some nonsense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit of it.


Samuel William Jacobs: -are millions of money to be paid out merely on the dictum of a commissioner? Possibly he had some practical duty to perform in investigating certain facts and saving the time of a duly constituted court; but here was a commissioner acting under the authority of, subject to the will of, dismissible on the whim of, the government in office,

and we are asked to act now on the assumption that he was a final judge in appeal as between the treasury of this country and certain claimants to vast sums of money. Is it right? I know of no other country that has done any such thing. I do not know what the nature of these claims is. I do not doubt some

War Reparations
of them are good. I am not going to speak arbitrarily on the priority right of these claimants. lit may be they have it; I doubt it. I want to say now, I doubt very much if special claims for damages due to the war are in priority to the state itself,-the damage of the state.
Further nonsense from the then leader of the opposition.
Reparations are not paid in respect of the special damage of the individuals of a country; they are paid in respect of the damage of the nation itself. Now this government asks us to take the dictum of the late Hon. William Pugs-ley, grant the priority of claims that he has allowed, pay the money out-money paid to Canada as reparations of the war-to these claimants, and lose the whole of it so far as the general taxpayer is concerned. These vast sums are all to be paid to individuals. And more-because no doubt these seven or eight millions are just a beginning-we are called upon to decide to-day what course we are going to take as to the whole career of this thing. As for me, I am firmly against it from the beginning. I will protest against its passing, this session in partcular.
Does the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) not think he spoke a little too soon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all, as I shall presently show.


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps that is the reason my hon. friend is now leader of the opposition and Mr. Meighen is no longer in the house. Maybe it was some of that nonsense which caused Mr. Meighen to seek private life. In any event, what I want to say is that if there had not been such opposition, such obstruction, shall I say, from hon. gentlemen on the other side, this money might have been paid. Mr. Meighen was not the only one. Perhaps I can cite the names of some hon. gentlemen who are still well known on the other side of the house and who, happily, are still with us: the hon. member who now represents Fort William (Mr. Manion); my smiling friend the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who uttered some rather pungent criticisms. Then I find that an hon. gentleman asked whether, in view of the opposition to the resolution coming from the other side, the Secretary of State would not be well advised to withdraw it. "Evil communications corrupt good manners." The Secretary of State withdrew the resolution and now, four years afterwards, when it is reintroduced by the Secretary of State, we find that the strongest protagonists of the measure1 are these very hon. gentlemen who opposed the resolution four years ago. They cannot get away with anything of that kind. They cannot go to the country and say: The government did not wish to do anything at all in
the matter of paying these reparation claims, but were forced to do so. My object in rising is to show that the view of the Conservative party in 1925 was in strong opposition to the resolution. Mr. Meighen says that legally and morally the claimants are not entitled to one penny of the money. I am glad the present leader of the opposition says that this is nonsense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say so.


Samuel William Jacobs: We believed his remarks were nonsense four years ago and we believe to-day that we were right at that time.
I am opposed to the resolution before the house because I do not think that it goes far enough. I am in favour of seeing payments of all the claims made in full, as was suggested four years ago, and if the Secretary of State would take my suggestion he would withdraw his resolution and bring in something that would give satisfaction I think to the entire house, satisfaction to us in 1925 and in 1929, and satisfaction to the Conservative party in 1929.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman from Cartier rose in his place and made an observation the effect of which was that but for the opposition of 1925, the reparations claims would have been paid. I said that that was nonsense, and I repeat it. He then, realizing that he had made a statement which was entirely without foundation, states that what was said by hon. gentlemen in the house at that time was declared by me to be nonsense. Does he think that that improves his position? Does he think that a misstatement such as that from a member of the legal profession as to what was said by a member of this house improves his position?


Samuel William Jacobs: In what respect did I make a misstatement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When he said that I
declared that the observations made by the then leader of the opposition were nonsense. He knows that I said no such thing.


Samuel William Jacobs: No, excuse me, I did not
say that. What I said-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said "more nonsense."


Samuel William Jacobs: There was obstruction by
men in his party in 1925, and he said that was nonsense. Then I quoted what the nonsense was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to see that
the hon. gentleman is beginning to get a sense
2G0C
Private Bills

of responsibility. I am glad to see that he is not endeavouring to laugh himself out of the false position in which he placed himself. You cannot fool with the truth and get away with it as a joke.


Samuel William Jacobs: In what respect was I fooling with the truth?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I repeat that he said
several times in his speech when he read from what Mr. Meigben said at that time that that was more nonsense according to the leader of the opposition, and I say that I said no such thing, and he knows it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does my hon. friend then
agree with Mr. Meighen? Answer that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly shall, but
once more my hon. friend is evading again; it is the old story.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Answer the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman from Melfort is doing the same thing. The question before this house is a simple one. The hon. member for Cartier got up and said that I said that the speech made by the leader of the opposition was nonsense, and I say that is untrue, and he knows it was untrue. How will that go? Does the hon. member for Melfort understand that?


Malcolm McLean: As the bon.
gentleman has brought my name into it, I would ask him to answer the question he promised to answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will in my own time,
in the right way, on the right occasion.


Malcolm McLean: Then leave the hon. member for Melfort alone when he is leaving you alone. [DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: You asked me to answer a question, and I say I will answer it when I get ready. I am dealing at the moment with the hon. member for Cartier, who has endeavoured in this house to place a statement on Hansard that was incorrect and false, and he must have known that it was.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Agnes Victoria Leader.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo South).
[Mr. Bennett.3
Bill No. 178, for tihe relief of Adele Cawthra Rogers.-Mr. Matthews.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Madelaine Virginia Lumsden.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Edgar Charles Buchanan.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Isabel Honor Gilderoy.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Harvey Baden Powell Haney.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 198, for the relief of John Campbell. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Marjory Lavinia Bradford-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Pai'k).
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Patrizio Nardini.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Motions for third readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton) moved the third reading of Bill No. 202, for the relief of Joseph Nicholl.
Hon. CHARLES MAROIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the house to the fact that we have about ninety-five divorce bills on the order paper in a single day, and the majority of these, if not all of them, are uncontested. We are dealing simply with ex parte evidence. The house the other day referred one of these bills to its own private bill committee for the first time in many years. The case was investigated and evidence taken, with the result that the bill was withdrawn. So I would just point out to the house what might happen if we investigated all these bills thoroughly-perhaps not one-quarter of them would be allowed to pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed on division.



MARION ISABEL KEMP

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 153, for the relief of Marion Isabel Kemp-Mr. Arthurs-'Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Marcil: I understand there are two children. Has any provision been made for them?


Mr. ARTHURS:: Any such provision is entirely in the hands of the courts of the various provinces. No provision can be made by this parliament. There are three bills stand-

Procedure in Divorce
ing in my name for consideration in committee. I have read most carefully the evidence in each case, and I am quite satisfied that the committee will be justified in passing these bills.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Was there any representation that the children should be cared for before this divorce was granted?


James Arthurs: Representations of that kind, Mr. Chairman, would be no use to the committee on divorce.


Charles Marcil: Has the matter come up
in the courts of Ontario? It is important to know that the children will not be thrown on the street without provision. The committee should have required the petitioner to give evidence on that point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 157, for the relief of Elizabeth Crawford Copping -Mr. Arthurs-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


James Arthurs: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 158, for the relief of Arthur Alderton-Mr. Arthurs-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the
children?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 103, for the relief of Constance Mary Kearns- Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


Mr. ANDERSON (High Park):: No
children.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 110, for the relief of Edna Louise Brown-Mr. Anderson (High Park)-.Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


Alexander James Anderson: There is
one child in tihe custody of the petitioner, the mother, and the husband is living in a state of adultery. I suggest that the child is much better off with the mother than it would be with the father, living as he is.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 117, for the relief of Wallace Evered Gillespie- Mr. Anderson (High Park)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
James Shaver Woodsworth: No children?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 182, for the relief of Maud Parker-Mr. Spence (for Mr. Church)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


James Houston Spence: Yes, one born in 1917, but the husband1 has deserted this woman and she has been living with her mother.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 1S3, for the relief of Eleanor Vair-Mr. Spence (for Mr. Church)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
2G02
Procedure in Divorce
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Marcil: I understand that in this
case we are departing from the rule which requires the sponsor of a private bill to be in the house.


James Houston Spence: I called on the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) on Sunday and I have had a letter from him. He is absolutely unable to be out of doors, to say nothing of coming here, and he probably will not be here this session.


Charles Marcil: I merely wanted to have
it understood that this was the reason for allowing the bill to go through in the absence of the sponsor, on account of illness.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Everyone in the committee knew that.


Charles Marcil: But it is just as well to
have it in Hansard so that there may be no misunderstanding. I have no personal interest in the matter but I wish to safeguard what I conceive to be public morality and to give expression to the sentiments of the people whom I represent.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 192, for the relief of Catherine Goring-Mr. Spence (for Mr. Church)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


James Houston Spence: One child seven years old.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With whom?


James Houston Spence: Living with the mother,
who has been deserted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 119, for the relief of Bessie Ruth Glass-Mr. lacobs-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am not in a position to
say; I am not responsible.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the least
we can expect, is some information regarding the facts of the case, and until the sponsor is prepared to ascertain the important information as to whether or not there are children we ought to ask that the bill stand.


Samuel William Jacobs: What difference would it
make to my hon. friend whether there were children or not? That matter does not come before us.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It makes considerable difference.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is a matter for the
provincial courts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is quite within
the competence of this parliament to refuse the divorce on this ground, among others, namely that there is no assurance that the children will be provided for. I think the Minister of Justice will support me in that.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with that.


Mr JACOBS:: Parliament, of course, could do anything; it could abolish my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have a right
to ask whether there are any children in this case and whether they are provided for. If the sponsor of the bill is not in a position to answer that question I shall have to ask to have the bill stand.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: The hon. member has a perfect right to ask that question. He has asked it in respect to several bills and has received a reply in most cases. But I would ask him, now that he has got the information, what he proposes to do.


Charles Marcil: Call public attention to the matter.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: We know that we have not the power here to deal with that aspect of the matter. We might refuse the divorce asked for, but we have not been doing so. How much further ahead are we? I appeal to the good common sense of the house. We know perfectly well that we are now simply taking up the time of the house. I was one of those who for some time during this session protested against the refusal to provide a divorce court for Ontario; I strongly advocated the bill in that respect. I thought it was our duty to bring the matter to the attention of the house and of the country. That has now been done, and for the life of me I cannot see what we are gaining in taking up the time of the house. I am not suggesting for a moment

Procedure in Divorce
that an lion, member has not the right to ask any questions with reference to any of these bills, but after we have obtained the information asked for I do not think it is serving any purpose to delay matters.
Some non. MEMBERS: Carried.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: No; I do not
waste much of the time of the house and I will say what I have to say. No one will stop me. I want to appeal to the good common sense of every hon. member to take a reasonable and sane view of the whole situation, and unless there is some specific reason why a particular bill should not go through I think we should expedite matters as far as possible.


Charles Marcil: In answer to my hon.
friend, I would point out that the people who are asking for these divorces are residents of Ontario and Quebec where the law of the indissolubility of marriage prevails. These people, therefore, are asking to be exempted from that law; they are asking in each case for a law unto themselves. When therefore they ask that favour of parliament, parliament has a perfect right to deal with the matter as it sees fit, as was done in the Bourdon case which was referred back to the committee on the motion of the bon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). After the evidence had been heard the bill was withdrawn because the parties knew the house would not grant it. Are we going to deal honestly and conscientiously with these bills, some three hundred, as we do with all other measures that come before parliament, or are we going to constitute ourselves merely a rubber stamp, shouting "carried", without giving them any consideration? Are we going to break up family ties and throw the children on the streets, leaving them for the Canadian people to support? I should not care to face an audience in any place where the marriage tie is still held in high veneration and confess that I had taken that stand.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall section 1 carry?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, there is something important involved here, and if some of us make ourselves unpopular I suppose that is the penalty we will have to pay for insisting on reform. The other day we came [DOT] to a sort of understanding that far from in any way blocking these bills we would simply ask that when they were considered in committee-during that one stage-we would make an inquiry concerning the children, or if any bill came up of which we had special information we would ask for a simple outline
of the case. Surely that is reducing our inquiry to the lowest possible minimum. We have let all these third readings go by when we could have checked them; we have let the first readings go by and we have let the second readings go and now we are letting these pass committee after simply asking one question which I at least think is very important.
There are hon. gentlemen in this house who blame a few of us for this condition of affairs. I am not going to refer again to the divorce court question except to say that if anyone is to blame for this situation1 it is these members who voted against the establishment of such a court. Further than that, there are members of this house who leave early Friday afternoon and do not return until late Monday night or Tuesday; they come chiefly from points near Ottawa, and for their own convenience they travel home every week end, leaving some of us who are far from our homes to struggle along as best we may, week after week, month after month, without a chance to see our homes at all. Then, because these men are not here to sponsor their bills we are told that we are responsible for keeping the order paper cluttered with these bills. They are responsible and they must bear their responsibility.
As the hon. member for Bonaventure has said, owing to an appeal which was made to me personally I asked the house to refer one particular bill back to the committee. The house responded splendidly to that request; I do not think any hon. member could have conscientiously refused to do so. A number of sessions of the private bills committee were devoted to an investigation of that case and serious allegations were made, so serious that some gentlemen concerned did not want to appear before that committee. In any case the result, as we all know, was that the committee did not refuse to report the bill for the simple reason that it was withdrawn. I would suggest that the newspapers which undertook to comment on the bill and which said there was no likelihood of its being turned down were absolutely misrepresenting the case, because a number of hon. members were well understood to be in favour of that bill not being reported again to this house. In addition to that, when it was suggested that a doubtful operation had been performed there were members of this house who told me such a thing was impossible, that no reputable surgeon would do it and that no hospital would permit that sort of thing, yet the evidence disclosed that a reputable doctor in this city did perform-
Procedure in Divorce

such an operation in the civic hospital here in Ottawa. This information has not been brought out here before. I have no desire to name the doctor, although his name was given in evidence before the committee, but I do say this is a most serious state of affairs. If out of 300 of these bills one is referred to a committee and that one is turned down by the committee, I say it is a serious question as to whether we should not consider more of these bills in our private bills committee. Now I come to the point raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: On a point of
order, I would like to say that the bill was not turned down by the committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not say it
was turned down; I said it was withdrawn.


An hon. MEMBER:: You said both.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to make
it clear.


Mr. McGIBBON:: It was withdrawn
because it was thought parliament would prorogue before the bill could be put through.


Mr WOODSWORTH:: I intended to say
that the bill was withdrawn. Further I am very much concerned, as I know many social workers and citizens generally are concerned, with the fate of the children in these cases. We have been told by the Minister of Justice that this is a provincial matter; I presume he is right, and for the time being we accept that decision. However, that does not absolve us from some responsibility in granting divorces where children are concerned. If I were a member of the senate committee I would make it a condition precedent to the granting of divorce that the children should be provided for; I think that would be a reasonable thing. Until the senate adopts that procedure, and they can do so any time, I think that without referring these bills back to the committee I am quite within my rights to call the attention of the house to the fact that there are children involved and that some provision should be made for them. I suggest that I can take that action, for my own reasons, without being charged with obstructing.


Mr. NEILL:: Does my hon. friend consider that the children will be any better off if these divorces are not granted?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but for my
own information and the information of others I want to know if any children are involved and whether or not provision has been made for them.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I tell my hon. friend
that the responsibility of the parents towards the children exists just the same as if there were no divorce. They have a legal responsibility, and these children have a right to apply both to the father and to the mother for maintenance, notwithstanding any divorce which may have been granted. Under the law in Quebec the father has the custody of the children unless, for some sufficient reason in the opinion of the court, the custody is given the mother. However, the responsibility exists just the same, so really all these harangues do not amount to anything.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They may not
amount to anything in the opinion of my hon. friend, but I still insist that we have the right to know something about these cases. This house has deliberately adopted this procedure of dealing with divorce cases, and under this procedure I am quite within my rights in asking for some information with regard to these bills. The information I want is as to whether there are any children and whether or not any provision has been made for their future maintenance. I should like the sponsor of this bill to answer those questions.


Samuel William Jacobs: Nothing appears in the
record with regard to whether or not these people have children; otherwise I should be glad to give my hon, friend the information.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then, for us to know the real situation is a decided gain, because it shows that this question is not considered by the senate committee.


Charles Marcil: As I said before, we do
not have divorce in either Quebec or Ontario but we have processes which are very similar, and I question very much whether any court would grant a separation without inquiring as to whether or not there were children.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 125, for the relief of Edith Marie McFarlane- Mr. Jacobs-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any children in this case?

Procedure in Divorce


Samuel William Jacobs: Apparently the senate committee did not think it of sufficient importance to ask that question; I do not see anything in the record regarding the children.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 128, for the relief of Cleoniki Paleologou Drak-oulas-Mr. Jacobs-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


Samuel William Jacobs: These people being Greeks, they were careful enough to state that there was one child.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has any provision been made for it?


Samuel William Jacobs: There is the usual legal provision.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committe on Bill No. 140, for the relief of Nanette Coffey-Mr. Jacobs- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am glad to be able to give the hon. member the much desired information. The petition contains the following :
That .after the said marriage your petitioner lived and cohabited with Joseph John Coffey, at the city of Toronto, and there is now living issue of the said marriage, one child, viz.:

Edwin Carl, born the twenty-second day of December, 1924.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With whom is that child living now?


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps I could find out after the bill has passed and if so, I will pass the information on to my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite serious in this: In whose care is the child at the present time?


Samuel William Jacobs: There does not appear to be anything in the record to show that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.	[DOT]

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 142, for the relief of Stephen Dymon-Mr. Jacobs -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Mariage dissolved.
Samuel William Jacobs: For the information of my hon. friend I would say that the petition discloses that there are now living issue of the said marriage, three children.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 159, for the relief of Elias Abraham, otherwise known as Elie Abraham Allen-Mr. Jacobs- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I would like a brief explanation of this case, as there seems to be something peculiar about it; why the alias?


Samuel William Jacobs: I might state that the parties do not belong to my persuasion. They are Syrians.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.	.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 185, for the relief of Helen Jane Sim Pittendreich- Mr. Spence-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Houston Spence: There is one child in this case, who was born in Scotland. By an order made by Magistrate Patterson, this man was ordered to pay six dollars per week, but the lady apparently would rather do without the man than get the six dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.
260G
Procedure in Divorce

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 189, for the relief of Molly Vaughan-Mr. Ryck-man-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On sectioif 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children in
this case?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: None reported.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on bill No. 190, for the relief of Lillian Augusta Dunn-Mr. Tummon-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children in this case?


Mr. TUMMON:: There is one child in the custody of the mother, who is the petitioner. The same is true in connection with Bill 206 -one child who is in the custody of the petitioner.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 191, for the relief of Myrtle Mary Jane McLean -Mr. Ryckman-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children in
this case?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There is one child, a
ohild of the adulterous father who left his wife, who, according to the principle of public morality announced in the house to-night by the hon. member for Bonaventure, should not have a divorce. There is a child by the father who offended against his wife.


Charles Marcil: I am surprised at the
hon. gentleman making that statement. I am not defending the guilty party in this case. I am merely asking the house to deal with the matter seriously and not be a rubber stamp, approving, without any investigation, what has been done in the other house. I am prepared to defend my attitude in that regard.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The hon. member for
Bonaventure would not grant a divorce in this case. He said-and I took down his words-that these people were a law unto themselves and came to parliament seeking divorce. Who is a law unto himself? The offending husband who would not be granted relief by anyone, and my hon. friend from Bonaventure would not dare rise in his seat and say he would grant the wife relief. If a divorce should be granted in any case, it should be granted in this. Will the hon. member say on the floor of the house whether he would grant her a divorce?


Charles Marcil: The man has not been
heard. These are all ex parte cases. We know what happened in the case that was referred to our own committee where the bill was withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 181, for the relief of Mary Addie Linton-Mr. Lennox-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


Mr. LENNOX:: There are two children,
aged fourteen and eleven respectively. They are living with the mother who is a housekeeper but who owns the property which was deeded to her by the husband when the application was made for divorce.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 141, for the relief of James Graham McCreadie.-'Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Claude Frederick Burgin.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Edna Maud James.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Alfred Roy Edwards.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Walter Henry Lyne Dixson.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Ida Rosenberg. -Mr. Spence.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Marie Rose Beffre Baer.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Eva Alexandra Grayson Smith.-Mr. McPhee.

War Reparations
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Ernest Gillespie Simpson.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 2.17, for the relief of Gertrude Helena Martin.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Laura Warren. -Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Ethel Elizabeth Kelley.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo South).
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Andrew Ralph Wilson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Marion Jane Stewart.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Mildred Muriel Lange.-Mr. MoPhee.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Linda Lydia Snowdon Pascoe.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of William Tres-love.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Annie Letticia Smith.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Jennie White. -Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Gladys Evelyn Lawrence.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Daniel Ray Bouvier.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of George Nelson Brown.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of James Duncan Gerard.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Violet Haney. -Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of James Thompson Clark.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Alexander James Purse.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Wilfred Keith Black.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Henry Feldman.-Mr. Jacobs.
Motions for second readings agreed to on division.
Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private bills being exhausted-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on. Put them all through.


Hewitt Bostock: There must be unanimous consent.


Charles Marcil: I object, Mr. Speaker. WAR REPARATIONS



AUTHORITY TO PLACE $2,500,000 TO CREDIT OP CUSTODIAN FOR PAYMENT OF CLAIMS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution- Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Johnston in the chair:
That the Minister of Finance be authorized to place to the credit of the Custodian, out of the reparation money paid into the treasury for losses sustained during the late war, a sum not exceeding $2,500,000 and that provision be made as to the method and scale of payments.
Richard Bedford Bennett: When the house rose at
six o'clock I had been endeavouring to point out the very improper attitude taken by the hon. member for Cartier with respect to certain observations that were made by myself.
I have taken the trouble to ask Hansard for the record of his remarks, and I find he said that:
In 1925 had it not been for the obstruction of the opposition this money would have been paid to every one of the claimants.
Mr. Bennett: That is nonsense.
He proceeded to point out that the then leader of the opposition had taken a very pronounced stand against that resolution, and in the course of his observations he added:
Then I would cite Mr. Meighen a little further. If this is nonsense, I am in pretty good company.
At once I pointed out that I had not in any sense indicated that the observations of the then leader of the opposition were nonsense. Again the hon. member for Cartier said the same thing later in his speech. I repeat what I said before recess, that such statements are not to the credit of this house or of my hon. and learned friend from Cartier who made them. For when he endeavoured to indicate that the leader of the opposition of to-day had said that the observations of the leader of the opposition in 1925 were nonsense, he made a statement wholly without foundation, and he knew it to be without foundation, a statement for which there was no warrant on the record as he himself read it. I repudiate such a statement as that, and I say further it is not creditable to a member of the legal profession or to a member of this house to continue to make a statement of that kind in the light of the record then before him.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would the hon. gentleman
pardon a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Samuel William Jacobs: What remarks of mine did
he consider were nonsense? Perhaps I am entitled to know that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why, certainly. I have
already said so and I repeat it. The hon. gentleman said that in 1925 had it not been for the obstruction of the opposition this money would have been paid to every one of the claimants.

War Reparations


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. gentleman
deny that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say it is nonsense.


Samuel William Jacobs: I cite the remarks of Mr. Meighen and his party on that occasion. If what I say now is nonsense, what Mr. Meighen and his party said then is nonsense.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the gentlemen who applauded that are not paying a tribute to their own intelligence. If "a fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind," it is because they find themselves so often in the same box.
The right hon. gentleman, the then leader of the opposition, opposed a somewhat similar resolution to the one now before us, and he told the government his reasons why. In the first place, the resolution was introduced on the 19th day of June, and the house rose on the 27t'h. It was introduced, as Sir Henry Drayton pointed out, in the dying days of the session. Further, it was not a resolution to pay claims that had been ascertained. A part only of the claims had been settled by the commission; the balance were to be settled. The position was taken that until the claims had been determined by 'some authority, Mr. Meighen thought that a single authority without reference to parliament was not ample enough. When the hon. gentleman speaks of obstruction, I would point out to him that the whole debate, participated in by Liberals, Conservatives and Progressives, took only eight pages in Hansard. He ventures to call that obstruction. The Hon. Mr. Copp, then Secretary of State, withdrew his motion, giving as his reasons that he had not expected that it would be so treated. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) also participated1 in the debate and gave two reasons why he was opposed to the resolution, which were in part the reasons of the then leader of the opposition. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who has spoken to-day, pointed out that these claims had not been determined and that it was proposed to give to the government, without reference to parliament, the power to settle claims when the commissioner had not yet completed his work.
The whole purpose of our effort last session was to endeavour to secure the report of the commissioner in order that we might see in black and white what the decisions were so that this parliament might know whether or not those decisions were based upon appreciation of the evidence, and that the government might for itself determine, as was then 
said, whether or not it would pay the claims or wait until they had referred some of them to a judge. What action the government will now take I cannot say, but the smaller claims under $15,000, I take it, have been reviewed by the administration in terms of their promise of last year, and the administration is satisfied that the claims of $15,000 reported upon, by the commissioners should be paid in full.
My friend, the member for Melfort, asked me to answer the question he put to me, whether I was now desirous to adopt the language of the then right hon. Jeadter of the opposition. I say, without adopting his language, which is his own always, as my language is my own, that I approve entirely of what he said-


Samuel William Jacobs: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -that no parliament
should be called upon to approve of the payment of claims about which it does not know. If the hon. gentleman will look at the resolution, which is found on pages 4517 of Hansard for 1925, he will find that the house was asked to approve of the report of the commissioner as far as it went. Then:
(2)	That from time to time, as sums are received on account of reparation under the agreement of London-
-and so on, they shall be placed to certain credits.
until such time >as the aggregate of such payments is equal to- the total amount of the claims for reparation as determined by the report of the said commissioner and approved by the governor in council;
(3)	That the Secretary of State shall, on receipt of such payments, from time to time distribute the same to persons found entitled >to claims for reparation in the commissioner's report, by way of pro rata dividend;
(4)	That the Secretary of State shall annually lay before parliament, within fifteen days after the meeting thereof, a report of the receipts and expenditures under the proposed legislation.
The obvious principle being that this was to be a matter extending over many years, because they were to lay before parliament fifteen days after it met a report of the moneys received and the moneys paid. What we pointed out last year was that the money had been received in sufficient amounts to enable the payments to be made in full of the claims that had been approved. That is what we endeavoured to point out. When the hon. member from Antigonish-Guys-borough-who described himself this afternoon as a " sea lawyer " but whom we always affectionately term as " the Admiral"-referred

War Reparations
to these claims as he did, and said that out of loyalty to the administration he voted with them last year, although he felt they should pay the claims, he but presented the argument which we now make to this government, that having the money in hand which was paid by Germany for the purpose of reparations for the wrongs and injuries suffered by the civil population in the terms that were read this afternoon by the Secretary of State, then indeed we should proceed to discharge them. In other words, the money is there, the claims are now proven, judgment has been given by the commissioner, and on that judgment we should proceed to pay in full.
Let us proceed a step further. There was another reason. A very few claims had been considered by the late Mr. Pugsley. Some of the larger ones and the great multitude of the small claims which Mr. Commissioner Friel dealt with, had not, may I remind the hon. member for Cartier, even been considered by the commissioner. These claims that were referred to this afternoon, the claims that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough mentioned, the claims in which we are all interested, are the claims of the small persons who have suffered by reason of not having received this money. I do say to the Minister of Finance, now that he has had the use of this money for all these years and 'has received $21,000,000 that enabled him to pay off obligations due by the Dominion, carrying interest at the rate of five per cent, he should with the remaining money and the accumulated benefits that have come to this treasury by the use of it all 'these years pay these claimants in full with interest at five per cent per annum in the terms of the judgment of Mr. Commissioner Friel. Why should this country retain the money which belongs to these people and not pay interest on it? Would a private individual do so? It is true there was no legal trust set up, but the very word " reparations " and the language that my hon. friend the Secretary of State this afternoon referred to, namely the injuries and the wrongs done to the civil population, indicate that this money-as indeed it was-was paid by Germany for one purpose, to discharge at least in part the damages that were done to the civil population by reason of the war. There seems to be no doubt about it on the part of all the members of this house. The hon. member for Cartier said three years ago the government recognized that principle; the opposition of that day said, you have not ample evidence before you to warrant you taking this step; the hon. member for 78594-166^
Vancouver Centre pointed out very distinctly aand clearly that fact; Sir Henry Drayton in his observations pointed out that it was late in the session and it should not be done. The right hon. leader of the opposition pointed out further that the money belonged to the state and they could do with it as they pleased. I say I am not discussing the legal rights; I never have. I have conceded always, so far as the state is concerned, that the obligation of parliament is not an obligation that can be measured in terms of exact contract. But the money was reparations money to repair the wrongs done to a civil population-not injuries suffered in the field, not defeats suffered on sea or land, but injuries done to the civil population through the war. The men who lost their fishing smacks, the men who loslt their nets, the men who lost their boats, the women whose husbands were loslt at sea-all these are losses of the civil population for which Germany, being responsible for the war, has paid a sum of money into the treasury of this country. These are losses which the civil population suffered and for which Germany, having been responsible for the war, has paid money into the treasury, and I think it ill becomes any Minister of Finance, whether it be the present incumbent of the office or some other, to state to this house that he will depart from the principle under which such moneys are paid. That principle is that such moneys shall be available to rectify the wrongs and injuries done the civil population of the country in consequence of the war. My hon. friend from Cartier and the Secretary of State take this attitude: they say that what this house thinks this house will do. That is a very fair attitude to take because, as has been pointed out, the wrongs were suffered not by one class of people alone; they were not suffered only by members who supported the administration, although one member is concerned in the net result. But not one member of parliament or two, not Liberals or Conservatives, are to be considered as such in dealing with the matter. That is not the point. Those who suffered these wrongs were citizens of Canada, and Germany has paid a sum of money to repair those wrongs, that sum of money being known as reparations.
Now since we are all agreed in that respect -members on the right as well as those on the left-then let us see to it that wTe express unanimously the desire that the Secretary of State should amend this legislation. He cannot do it in this resolution inasmuch as he must introduce a new resolution if he intends to increase the amount and secure the approve)
War Reparations


Mr. ILSLEY:: As one of the Liberal members from the province of Nova Scotia I wish to place myself on record in this matter. I am in accord, I may say at the outset, with the conclusions to which the leader of the opposition has come. I believe that the claims of civilian claimants which have been established before the various commissioners should be paid in full, and paid this session, and should all be paid and with interest.

War Reparations
But, Mr. Chairman, I must dissent from some of the observations which the leader of the opposition has made especially in reference to the argument put forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Cartier. I have before me the debate of June 19, 1925, in which Mr. Meighen, then leader of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and some others participated; and when the leader of the opposition would have the committee believe that Mr. Meighen's only objection was that the matter had not come before parliament, or that some of the claims had not been adjudicated upon, I submit that he is leaving a wrong impression on the house. I wish to read a few sentences from the speech of Mr. Meighen in 1925. It is to be found at page 4519 of Hansard of that date, at the bottom of the first column:	'
I w'.ant to say now, I doubt very much if special claims for damages due 'to the war are in priority to the state itself-the damage of the state. Reparations are not paid in respect of the special damage of the individuals of a country; they are paid in respect of the damage of the nation itself. Now this government asks us to take the dictum of the l'ate Hon. William Pugsley. grant the priority of claims that he has allowed, pay the money out- money paid to Canada as reparations of the war-to these claimants, and lose the whole of it so far as the general taxpayer is concerned.


James Dew Chaplin: That was read this afternoon; we can all hear.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was the principle laid
down then.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It has been read once


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am going to read it again, even if it has been read once, and I am going to make two or three observations with reference to it. The principle underlying Mr. Meighen's objection in 1925 was that if these claims were paid in full the money would be lost so far as the general taxpayer was concerned. He goes on to say:
These vast sums are all to be paid to individuals. And more-because no doubt these seven or eight millions are just a beginning- we are called upon to decide to-day what course we are going to take as to the whole career of this thing. As for me, I am firmly against it from the beginning. I will protest against its passing, this session in particular.
I am free to say that the reasons given in some of the other speeches, particularly those delivered by Sir Henry Drayton and by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre are not these reasons, -but the then leader of the Conservative party placed on record his objection to the step which we are now being asked by the opposition to take, and the objection was that if these claims were paid
in full the money would be taken out of the pockets of the general taxpayers. I hope I have made that clear. The hon. member for Cartier points out that only a few moments ago the present leader of the opposition said that while the language used by Mr. Meighen at that time was a little different, his sentiments were the same and he concurred in Mr. Meighen's conclusions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the leader of the
opposition repeat what he did say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hansard will show it in the morning.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I am glad Hansard
will show what the leader of the opposition said.


William Gordon Ernst: And Hansard will also show what the hon. member for Hants-Kings has not said on any previous occasion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not previously
spoken on the question; there was no reason for my doing so. However, I am glad the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg brought up that point. This afternoon the Secretary of State approached this matter in a very conciliatory way; he invited the fullest discussion from all parties in the house and he intimated the willingness of the government to place in the supplementary estimates an amount to meet these claims in full if the general opinion of the house was in favour of such procedure. If I had been a member of the opposition, after listening to that statement I would not have indulged in a very extreme, violent and partisan speech such as we heard from the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, this afternoon and which I was very much surprised to hear. The hon. member said that his party or he himself, as I gathered, had forced the government to adopt this position. I want to say that not in 1925, not last year and not up to the present time have we known the attitude of the opposition in regard to this matter.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about last
year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will deal with last year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read all the speeches.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have read the speeches
during the dinner recess, and I was surprised at their contents. In the first place, what was the resolution moved by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg?


An hon. MEMBER:: Read them all.
War Reparations


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will my hon. friends please keep quiet for a moment? I would like to read the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg last year, and I ask hon. members to remember the attitude taken by the hon. member and by the leader of the opposition to-night, which is that the opposition have been in favour of payment in full of these claims, and still take that position. Here is the amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets the refusal of the government to introduce legislation at the present session of parliament providing for the payment in full or in part of the various sums fixed by James Friel, Esquire, K.C., a commissioner apointed under the Inquiries Act, as losses sustained by the civilian population of Canada during the great war."
There is nothing in that resolution about paying all the claims in full. It says in full or in part.


William Gordon Ernst: Would the hon. gentleman
permit a question?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just wait till I finish. I have been invited to read the speeches which were delivered last year, and I wish to say that the only request made then was that the government pay the smaller claims. In the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, I find the following:
It may be that in some of the large claims- I understand there are one or two of over a million dollars-time should be taken to scrutinize them carefully. If there are such cases, by all means scrutinize them with the greatest of care. . .
What for, if they are to be paid in full?
.. .no one objects to that; but we do object to the holding up of claims by individuals who are suffering privation while the government coolly takes time to look into these other matters.
In other words, "Pay the small claims but not necessarily the large ones." That was the entire request last year, to pay the small claims. At page 3205 of Hansard for last year we have the leader of the opposition saying:
Mr. Rinfret: Does my hon. friend take the stand that the report should be considered as final?	.	.
Mr. Bennett: The report is final so far as this commissioner is concerned; he is through. But whether or not it should be final so far as the government is concerned depends, it seems to me, upon the amount involved.
In other words, at that time the opposition were not prepared to accept the findings of the commissioner as final; that is, they were not prepared to pay the claims in full as determined by the commissioner. Later on in

the same speech, at page 3206, I find the following :
But the point is that the smaller claims should be disposed of. Whatever the government might consider just in the way of a partial payment on account of the larger claims, I submit that the smaller claims should be dealt with at once; because after all, when men lose their all, by act of war, and they know that a fund has been provided by the enemy to pay that liability, it only makes for dissatisfaction when that money is withheld from year to year.
So it was with great satisfaction that I heard the unequivocal declaration of the leader of the opposition to-night, a declaration which has not been made before on behalf of the opposition, although my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg purported to speak for them this afternoon. I was glad to hear the leader of the opposition say he was in favour of paying all these claims in full, with interest, at once.
What he says as to there being no real distinction between the large claims and the small claims is perfectly correct. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough pointed out this afternoon that the smaller vessels are owned in shares, and that each of the shareholders who suffered a loss was entitled to file and did file an individual claim, whereas certain larger ships were owned by incorporated companies and the claim of the company is dealt with as a whole. So if the large Claims are not paid in full the shareholders of the large companies will be prejudiced or discriminated against. In the part of Nova Scotia from which I come I know there is a fairly large number of shareholders in these larger companies; many of them are not in affluent circumstances, and they would feel that they were very greatly and very unjustly discriminated against if the government paid their claims to the extent of only 10 per cent while at the same time they paid an individual claim to the extent of 100 per cent.
If, as I believe is the case, the members on both sides of the house are now in accord as to the procedure which should be followed in adjusting this matter, I feel that the resolution should be altered in order to provide for the payment of about $4,000,000 in addition to the $2,500,000 mentioned in the resolution in order to satisfy the claims in full with interest.


Mr. LADNER:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
ask a question of the minister in connection with a point in this discussion which was under consideration during the debate of February 26. Article 232 of the Versailles treaty reads, in part, as follows:
The allied and associated governments, however, require, and Germany undertakes, that

War Reparations
she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the allied and associated powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency of each as an allied or .associated power against Germany by such aggression by land, by sea and from the air, and in general damage as defined in annex 1 hereto.
Section 9 of annex 1 reads as follows:
(9) Damage in respect of all property wherever situated belonging to any of the allied or associated states or their nationals, with the exception of naval and military works or materials, which has been carried off, seized, injured or destroyed by the acts of Germany or her allies on land, on sea or from the air, or damage directly in consequence of hostilities or of any operations of war.
I read these two paragraphs to point out to the minister that by a treaty to which Canada's name is appended an obligation is placed upon this country with respect to the moneys whidh we received from Germany, and I submit that there is created not only a moral obligation on the part of Canada in relation to her nationals but also a legal obligation, because the very wording of the treaty makes the contributions of Germany payable to the nationals of this country.
I rise to make this point and to ask the minister a question upon it. If there is in any sense a legal claim on the part of a claimant, or if there are principles of law involved on the part of any claimant, and the commissioner, either through lack of judgment or lack of knowledge of the law, or for any other reason, has failed to give justice to the claimant, I consider that the claimant should have the right of appeal to a court which could properly determine the question, just as the right of appeal iprevaiis with respect to the administration of justice in all our courts. My question is this:	As the
minister has had time to consider the matter following the previous discussion, is it his intention to provide for a right of appeal with respect to the claims which have been turned down, where good cause for appeal can be shown?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In reply to the hon. member I will say that this question is very much along the same lines as the question of interest, which was mentioned this afternoon. It was decided that this matter would not be settled finally until it was decided whether we would pay the awards in full, but we have given consideration to the matter. There are instances where Commissioner Pugsiey had practically rendered his judgment but the cases have been revised by Commissioner Friei. There are other oases, either dismissed or an award granted, which might possibly be reviewed with advantage by a judge. I am not
willing to admit the legal right which my hon. friend stresses; in fact I was stopped this afternoon from making my point by the response of the other side of the house that the moral right was admitted. Even on moral grounds I think we should act with as much equity .as possible, and although the bill does not contain any clause with reference to appeals, I am quite willing to discuss that feature when the bill is in committee and possibly make a proposal which will cover the matter.
I invited a very full discussion of this matter and I do not want to stifle it, but the house as a whole seems to be in favour of this resolution inasmuch as it is not considered as being final. I would submit that we might possibly report the resolution and allow the bill to be introduced and the matter could be discussed on the second reading. If it is proposed1 by the government that additions be made, either iu committee or later on by way of supplementary estimates, I would be in a position to make a declaration.


James Houston Spence: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister has said that this matter should be allowed to proceed until it reaches the second reading of the bill, but we would like to know what he is going to do. As far as I am concerned, I am not very well satisfied. He has not as yet promised to pay the interest, and I think an honourable government should carry out its agreement after a commissioner has heard the cases of the claimants and awarded certain sums of money to individuals who have suffered both on the water and on the land. I have received many pathetic letters from different parts of Canada which give the views of many people as to the conduct of this government. It is too bad that so much time of the house is taken up by hon. members on the government benches continually rehashing the days which have passed. The whole business world has been reformed since the war; the man who did not change his methods has no business to-day, and I hope the government will forget the past and let us legislate for the future. The guilty party is on that side, as a rule. I am satisfied that the right thinking people of Canada are behind this proposition and will heartily support, the payment of the awards with interest. This party has never prevented the government from carrying out any honourable act and we advocate strongly that these payments be made. I have in mind a particular case I might mention, that of a gentleman who lives up in the north end of my old riding. He went overseas and was taken prisoner. His case was tried and he was awarded $4,000, but since that time he has
War Reparations

struck nothing but hard luck. Had that man received the $4,000 when it was awarded to him it would have put him in business and would have been worth far more to him than it will be to-day, because his health is breaking down.
Even though the bill is passed this session we do not we do not know when the claims will be paid. It may not be for ten years, and bj'' that :time many of the claimants will have died. When the bill comes down to the house it should be understood just when the claims will be paid.
Another case I might mention is that of a man who has borrowed $966 from the Reverend J. D. Gibson. He has had a wonderful record; a son who enlisted at fourteen years of age-of course he told them he was nineteen-went to the war, and came back blinded.
Here is another case of a man in Winnipeg. He went down with the Lusitania. He was an electrical engineer but has never been able to do any work since his return, as his health is gone. He was awarded $8,830, and if that had been paid to him at the time he could have gone into business and would have been able to do something for himself. He is getting old and feeble and in a few years he will be gone and no one will be getting anything in relation to that claim. I believe in doing something now. Give the people flowers when they are alive-not thorns, as this government is trying to do all the time.
The next case is that of a lady with three daughters living at 16 Inglewood drive. They were on the Lusitania, and she has been awarded $5,680. This is what she says:
If these claims, which have been passed by the government's own commission, are to be denied it is surely the crudest piece of deception which a government could conceive-
I think the same, because I believe the government, after they have received this money from Germany, are in honour bound to pay it out. There is no reason why they should put it into some other melting pot or spend it in some other way. This lady says also:
-besides being a waste of public funds which the government now seems to be so desirous of conserving.	.
This is a lady in distress. I have another case of a person who is getting on in years. An award of $1,000 was made, but nothing has been paid.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


James Houston Spence: It will be carried when I
gay so. I just want to point out that these

are sad cases. These people should have had the money long ago when it would have done them more good without interest than it would now with interest. I think the government are really waiting until half of these people die. Here is another case, affecting people who used to live in Toronto but who now live in Vancouver. It is a case of great hardship where a lady is suffering. She is awarded only $1,400. I am not asking that the big claims be paid in full, but I contend that chums up to $15,000 should be paid in full with interest. The government are in honour bound to do this and I hope at the next sitting they will change their minds in regard to the payment of interest on these small claims and will bring in a bill to cover the situation.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I am interested in this
question from the point of interest of quite a number of my constituents, both private parties and corporations. I listened this afternoon with scant patience and a good deal of indignation to the pussyfooting speech of the hon. the Secretary of State. This matter has been before the government for ten years. Ten years ago the then Secretary of State introduced a resolution into this house providing for payment on reparations account.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It was only three years
ago, not ten years ago. I do not want to be alluding to that all the time, but I may say that it was a resolution that was put forward tentatively by the government and withdrawn.


Thomas Cantley: It was introduced in
June, 1919, ten years ago, lacking one month, by the then Secretary of State.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: June, 1925.


Thomas Cantley: No, it was in June, 1919. Is that not ten years ago lacking one month? What therefore is my hon. friend talking about?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will
allow me-[DOT]


Thomas Cantley: I allowed my hon. friend this afternoon to talk a great deal of what I considered nonsense. His predecessor in June, 1919, introduced a resolution and I will read its terms.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It was in 1925.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The minister's predecessor.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We are not talking about the same thing.


Thomas Cantley: I am not referring to the minister; I am talking about certain actions

War Reparations
of his predecessor. The resolution was to provide that reparation payments should be turned over to the Secretary of State by the Minister of Finance and-
-that the Secretary of State should, on receipt of such payments, from time to time disburse the same to persons found entitled to claims for reparation in the commissioner's report, by way of pro rata dividend.
That was withdrawn.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I regret to rise again
just to put the thing straight. That was moved by the Hon. Mr. Copp in 1925.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It was moved in 1919
almost before the hon. member was born or got any knowledge.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There was a resolution moved by the Hon. Mr. Copp in 1925.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That is another one.
Get back to the facts. This was moved in 1919.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend is rehashing the past. I was trying to deal with the present.


Thomas Cantley: The minister is only making matters worse. Apparently there were two occasions on which the government came to a decision that the money ought to be paid. The minister wasted a great deal of time this afternoon on the same subject. The , money is not yet paid over and nobody on this side of the chamber knows whether the government are going to pay in full now or not. Germany admitted .tih-at they were not able .to pay all the losses occasioned by the war, but they said they would pay the losses occasioned to thie civilian populations .of the countries involved, and they have already contributed a very large amount for that purpose. This government has received over $21,500,000 which they hold plus a good deal of .accumulated interest as from the date of the first payment, but nothing has been paid out yet. Hundreds of people in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Canada have suffered and suffered severely for a long time. Some of the original sufferers are dead; many of them are in want. But the government insists, I think wrongfully, on withholding from those people money which should be paid to them on account of those losses. Germany paid that money on one account and one only; the government took that money from Germany, and if they do not pay it over to the people who sustained the losses, either they are guilty of taking money from Germany on false pretences or they are defrauding parties in this country who are entitled to those amountsone or the other. I have scant respect for the idea that this money belongs to the state, come from what source it may. If the government cannot deal justly with money that comes into their hands for a specific purpose, then woe betide the country.
As regards the question of interest, the government have held this money for years. They have either spent the interest or saved it; it is immaterial which. The people to whom the awards were made by the government's own commissioners after evidence taken and inquiries made, are entitled to the payment not only of the amount awarded by the commissioners appointed by the government, but to the interest. As to that there is no possible doubt. I am at a loss to understand why this or any other government should insist on keeping in the treasury money which does not belong to them, and which they received for a specific purpose and which is due people who are and have been in needy circumstances for many years.
I apprehend that probably the present intention of the minister although it has not yet 'been1 disclosed, is to now vote a portion of the amount. Certainly that was his intention when he brought down the resolution in the first place. I anticipate now, from the hedging which has been exhibited in the house this afternoon, that he intends later to bring down a bill providing for the payment of the balance. I suggest to him that it would be better for him, better for his government and better for the well-being and honour of the Dominion of Canada that he should pay the full amount this year, rather than next year immediately prior to a coming election. If he will take my advice in that matter, he will act accordingly. I only regret that I am not able to put this matter as effectively as I should like to. My leader has however, ably done so, and I again appeal to the government and to the minister to deal with this matter as they would deal with it if it were a matter in their own private business. We are sometimes told that members of the House of Commons coming here are sometimes not actuated by the best of motives. I repudiate that idea, which however the action of the government as outlined by the minister this afternoon goes far to give colour to. If the minister persists in the attitude which he has so far adopted a good many people in this country will have occasion to blaspheme.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would ask the hon. Secretary of State to take into consideration the real mind of this parliament, and I suggest that because he has shown himself dis-
War Reparations

posed not to put a limit upon the amount but rather to offer opportunity to increase it. I am familiar myself with many cases of hardship, and I think that nothing else will do but paying the full amount of these claims according to the judgments that 'have been given. The people of Canada will not be satisfied with less. You cannot pay just a certain percentage, 20 per cent or 50 per cent; you cannot single out some and deny others; you cannot make a choice between those who can afford to do without the awards and those who cannot. In a matter of this kind the full amount of the claim has to be reckoned. As the hon. gentleman who preceded me said, in 1919 the attitude then taken was to recognize these claims and to pay them. The Secretary of State says that it is an ex gratia payment. So it is in law.. None of these private individuals would have a lawsuit against Germany; that is well understood, but that money has been paid in respect of a specific application, and I say it would be fraud on the part of this country if these claims were not recognized.
An automobile accident takes place. The father is in the car with his child. Both are injured. The father is awarded so much for himself and so much for his child. The child cannot take the money but his claim is paid; it is an ex gratia payment if you like, but who would say that the father could appropriate that money to himself? He is not allowed to touch a cent of it. So I say when this money has been given to Canada for a specific purpose, why should the Dominion of Canada say how that money should be spent? Why" apply it to the consolidated revenue fund? Why should the government say: We are going to make a payment for which we should be complimented, if we recompense in part those who have suffered? Let me tell the Secretary of State that the people of Canada will never be satisfied unless the specific money has the specific application which it was intended to have, and I am satisfied that the people of this country will say that those who have suffered damages should be recompensed according to the judgments handed down.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I am interested in the resolution which is before the committee because there are a few reparation claims in the province of Prince Edward Island now waiting to be adjusted. I think the viewpoint that has been expressed from the different parts of the house should convince the hon. Secretary of State that something further should be done before the matter is finally disposed of. I am sure that we are

pleased at the attitude taken by the Secretary of State to-day, because I think we can read between the lines and see that he is ready to amend this legislation to meet as far as possible the views of the different sections of the house. I believe that in doing so he is acting wisely. I feel sure that unless this matter is dealt with in a way that will appeal to the claimants and also be approved by the people of the country generally, it will not be settled satisfactorily.
The bill provides for the settlement of some fourteen hundred1 claims. There are only a few others, no doubt large ones, but I think possibly the government would be well advised to endeavour to take care of them also.
My main object in rising at this stage is to advocate the payment of interest in connection with these claims. There are different reasons, and I think good reasons, that can be advanced in favour of that course. One is that the government has had this money for some time, and as has already been stated, the money has been earning interest for the government, so the government would not be much out of pocket if they paid the interest on these claims. Another reason, and I think it is perhaps a stronger one, is this: We are now acknowledging these claims. If we acknowledge these claims _I contend that we are admitting the principle that that money has been held by the government in trust for the different claimants, and if the money has been so held by the government, it is in duty bound to pay interest on the claims.
The question next arises as to the date from which interest should begin. That is a very material matter to the claimants, because if you -will read over the different claims you will find that a great many different dates have been stated. I have in mind two claims one of which I am interested in. Both these parties lost properties on the same date in 1918. The claims were adjusted) by the same man, but he recommended that interest be paid in the one case from 1918, and in the other only from 1923. That is a matter that will have to be looked into very carefully before the money is paid over. I observe that the United States has admitted the payment of interest on all claims from the one date, from September 16, 1928. I do not know whether the claimants in Canada would be satisfied with a settlement of that kind-
I do not think they would; but I think possibly the government could arrive at a decision to pay interest on all the claims from a certain date. That is a position which the government could very well take, and it is one to which not much objection could be

Supply-Pensions and National Health
taken. We should approach this matter not in any spirit of party recrimination or faultfinding. The minister has shown his willingness to meet the views of the house, and I think we can trust him to da so. I am highly pleased with the attitude he has taken to-night. I feel that nothing that the government has done this session will be received in the country with more enthusiasm and more appreciation than its settlement of these claims. We have settled other claims in this parliament. We settled the claim of the automobile dealers who were asking for a refund some years ago; the Home bank depositors had their claims dealt with, and only to-day we passed a bill providing compensation for the postal workers in western Canada. I think therefore that the house would be well advised to go as far as we possibly can in adjusting these claims and making a clean job of the matter. Let us provide the money and the interest, and let the interest be fixed to run from a certain date, and then I think that the people will thank the government and the members who advocated this measure.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I did not intend
to take any part in this discussion, but sitting here and listening to the debate I have been deeply impressed with the injustice of the attitude which the government takes towards these claimants, these unfortunate people who are suffering because of the non-payment of debts that are due them fairly and honestly, and which the government holds the money to settle. I look upon it as nothing more nor less than misappropriation of funds. The payments were put off for a commission to examine the claims. The commission reported long ago, and yet we are told " Oh, well, these claims are not going to be paid; we want the use of this money a little longer." This is in line with the record of this government in connection with the Duncan report and with the fisheries commission. They appoint these commissions and then they take no action on their reports. I say to the government to-night that if the Duncan commission report is not fully implemented, and if the other commissions' reports are not dealt with, there will be another maritime rights agitation, and the government will be compelled by public opinion to take action, as they were compelled when they appointed the Duncan commission. I warn the government that will be the procedure in the maritime provinces, and if we cannot get what we are entitled to by a fair and moderate appeal, we will force the government to give us our just rights.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rinfret thereupon moved for leave to introduce 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 and bill read the first time.



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.
John Frederick Johnston: Vote 232, page 63 of
the estimates.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Chairman,
I desire to direct my remarks to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King) with regard to this vote. The minister, of course, is perfectly well aware that the Department of Health was created in 1919 for several specific purposes, the more important of which have not been carried out by the department. The main activities of the department since that date have been generally in connection with various kinds of work which were formerly done by other departments. Those works were of importance in themselves, but they were very efficiently administered by other departments before the health department was brought into existence at all. In themselves they did not constitute a real cause for the organization of a department of health, and as a matter of fact they were not considered a reason for the creation of that department, but were simply thrown in, I might say, as ballast.
The conditions existing after the war had something to do with the creation of a health department. The control of venereal disease, the coordination of health activities of the provinces into a unit, and the establishment of a bureau of scientific research with regard to health, were the real basic reasons for the creation of a health department. Since that time it has not in any way attempted to implement the basic purposes for which it was created in 1919. So far as the control of venereal disease is concerned the department apparently thought they had done their duty when they relegated the matter to the provincial departments of health and gave them
8100,000	a year to be distributed pro rata to population. Not even on the question of immigration, where large numbers of people were coming into this country, did the depart-
2618	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
ment attempt to control this disease or to find out those suffering from it, although the department must have known quite well that in the free clinics of our various hospitals 60 per cent of those asking for free treatment for the disease were members of our foreign population. Scarcely anything was done to keep out that class of people; the only class they attempted to exclude were those suffering from syphilis.	*
Inso far as coordination of the various health activities of the provinces is concerned, nothing was done but to appoint a Dominion council of health. That council was constituted of men eminent in the medical profession and in other walks of life, representing the departments of health in the various provinces and certain departments of the government as well as outside societies. I think the council was constituted of about fifteen members, but they were practically crippled in their efforts to do anything in relation to public health. They were earnest and desirous of doing something for the public health of Canada, but they were not given any facilities or any means by which they could carry any project to a successful conclusion. Consequently they confined their efforts to giving advice.
So far as the real basic reason for establishing the health department is concerned, that is, the bringing about of a bureau of scientific research, not even has it been spoken of so far as I know by any official of the department or by any member of the government. Since the day of the organization of the department nothing has been done in any way to establish a bureau of scientific research. I know the government has a laboratory of hygiene upon which a few thousands each year have been spent, but that has nothing whatever to do with scientific research. I do not wish to minimize the benefit of even the laboratory of hygiene, I think it has done fairly good work in looking after the purity of food, standardizing drugs, and also in analyzing patent and proprietary medicine. It has done some work of that kind-; but with regard to the establishment o-f scientific research nothing has been done at all. I do not need to t-el'l the minister, because he knows it himself, that the establishment of a real research institute properly equipped and manned would be one bf the best agencies for the promotion of good health in Canada that could be -had. He knows that it would be a centre around which the activities of the various provinces would revolve, and it would create in Ottawa a health department which would- be an asset to the country instead of a

liability. It would be a sort of clearing house for health information and would help to -coordinate the activities of the various health departments in the provinces which are now doing good work. I am of the opinion that the establishment of a scientific research bureau is the one thing needed to coordinate the efforts of t-he various health departments of the nation into a unit Which would perform a splendid service in the Dominion. There are many and substantial reasons why the government should take this matter into serious consideration at the earliest opportunity in the future and establish a bureau of scientific research.
The greatest asset of a country is its people, *and the greatest asset of a people is good health. There is no doubt on that score. Good health gives a vigorous body, a sound mind and great mental activity, with initiative, resourcefulness and ability an-d courage to carry projects into effect. These attributes of body and mind are influenced by many factors, some of them natural and o-thers under our control. Professor Fisher of Yale, making a demand for a scientific health institute in the United States, made the statement that the future belongs to the nation that has the greatest inventive genius. I think that is correct, but I -would go further and say that, other things being equal, the future belongs to the nation that keeps the health of its people up to the highest standard. Mr. Hoover, making a speech in the city of New York only a short time ago, said that we were entering a period of increased competition from the reconstructed nations of Europe. That is quite correct; everyone will agree with it; and I might go further and say that increased -population and the increased propagation of scientific knowledge and methods will increase competition still further, so that only those nations that are alive to the necessity of a vigorous citizenship will be able to take leadership or maintain it. Canada should have little difficulty in doing this because nature has endowed us with two of the main contributing factors. Nature has given us a splendid climate in a north temperate zone, a climate which is conducive to strong, vigorous and mentally active people. We have the nucleus of that people now, and Professor McLennan of Toronto university, when he appeared before the special committee on industrial research, made this statement with regard to our people:
Canadians have an intellect, a freshness of mind, a virility, a broad outlook and a resourcefulness not excelled in .any country in the world.

Supply[DOT]-Pensions and National Health
I think most hon. members in this house will agree with that statement. Again, we have a country teeming with natural resources of such a wide variety that we have the raw material for almost every kind of industry; and having the people there is no reason in the world why we should not forge ahead with great strides towards leadership amongst the nations. But, Mr. Chairman, great natural resources are of little use if the people have not the intelligence and energy enough to make use of them. Large areas of agricultural land are useful and valuable just in proportion to the quality and the extent of cultivation. Great mineral resources are valueless if they are left buried in the ground. It needs a healthy, energetic people to turn these resources into wealth. I say, therefore, that we in Canada are neglecting the greatest asset this country has. Are we going to continue in our present haphazard methods with regard to these conditions that exist to-day? We should give direction from the city of Ottawa to the health activities of the whole Dominion. The one thing needed to weld these various activities into an efficient whole that would give proper service is a bureau of scientific research in health, a bureau which would bring the brightest scientific minds in the medical profession into this city, giving them the facilities which would enable them to undertake research in the cure and prevention of disease. I do not think anyone in this chamber could estimate the value to the Dominion of Canada of a cure and preventive for the flu, or influenza, or even a common cold. It would be impossible to estimate the benefits that would accrue to mankind; you could not compute it in dollars and cents. It is beyond human computation. Yet that is something that will be found in the future, and it should be our duty at least to make an attempt in this Dominion to solve that problem. It is estimated that the deaths from flu in 1918 were many times greater than the number of deaths caused by the Great war. Senator Copeland, at one time Minister of Health in New York, said that the deaths caused by influenza in 1918 exceeded the deaths caused by all the wars of history. I should not care bo go to that extent, but I am satisfied that the number was very large indeed. Professor Fisher of Yale university made an estimate of the economic loss to the United States in a single year from loss in wages due to preventable illness and premature deaths, and he placed that loss at fifteen billions of dollars. If that estimate is right as regards the United States, then the loss in Canada annually from the same cause amounts to between a billion and a billion and a half. Surely it is
worth while on behalf of the people of this country for us to take such steps as we may to prevent such losses year by year.
The Great war stimulated medical and scientific research. It has been well said that necessity is the mother of invention, and the unusual difficulties with which the medical forces of the world armies were faced during the war stimulated them to find remedies to meet the various cases with which they had to deal. In all the previous wars of history disease carried off many times more soldiers than were killed by the enemy, but the Great war was a signal vindication of medical science. The war could not have been carried on but for the advances which have been made in medical and sanitary science during the last twenty-five years. Disease and pestilence would have decimated the armies if they had not been able to avail themselves of these discoveries.
Typhoid fever always has been the great scourge of war. During the South African war, in which only 200,000 men were engaged; 80 men died from typhoid to every 20 men who died from their wounds. There were over
60,000	cases of typhoid fever, with 8,227 deaths. During the Great war ten times that number of men were engaged in the British army; they were engaged in the field for four and a half years, yet during that time there were only 4,571 cases of typhoid fever with a mortality of 1.3 peT cent. Through the advance of medical science the ratio of deaths from disease and deaths due to enemy bullets was reversed; 20 men died from disease to SO men who died from wounds, and one writer has gone so far as to say that 95 per cent of the deaths in the Great war resulted from wounds and only 5 per cent from disease. The victory over typhoid fever was the greatest success of the war, and it was brought about by the use of a preventive serum and by sanitation, as far as that .could be carried out.
Another great success of the war was the victory over tetanus. The medical corps of the different armies were very much exercised over the dangers which might exist in the highly cultivated soil of Flanders and France, which contained a large amount of fertilizer; it was realized that the soil would be teeming with the bacillus of tetanus. A serum had been developed previous to the war but had not been thoroughly tested; it was brought into use, and the results were wonderful. Tetanus was practically eliminated as a cause of death during the Great war.
Malaria has been stated by one writer to have been the cause of the fall of Rome and
2620	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
the decadence of Greece. Malaria took a hand in the Great war; on the Macedonian and Mesopotamian fronts malaria was a more formidable enemy than the Bulgarian or Turkish troops. The mortality from that cause was very high; many men were invalided home and it cost the British government millions of pounds in after years to bring these men back to any degree of health, and many of them are still suffering from a recurrence of the disease. The campaign on the Gallipoli front was a failure because of malaria and dysentery among the troops, dvsentery both of the amoebic and bacillary varieties. There was no real remedy at that time for these two diseases, which were mainly caused by the large number of flies in that hot climate, but before the campaign ended the medical service perfected two remedies which were very effective indeed, and from that time on the deaths were very few in comparison to what they had been previously.
A federal health institute of research has been provided for in the act which was passed in 1919, and all that is required is an amount of money placed in the estimates sufficient to care for the organization of that department. Subsection (a) of section 4 of chapter 24 provides for cooperation with the various health departments of the provinces, while subsection (b) provides for the establishment of a bureau of scientific research. In moving the second reading of the bill Mr. Rowell is reported at page 1171 of Hansard for 1919 as follows:
-I should think that one of the natural and inevitable developments of a federfal department of health would be a bureau of scientific research in connection with it.
The power is there and, as I have said, the only thing lacking is an amount in the estimates sufficient to provide for the organization of this department. Professor Fisher of Yale, in advocating a health institute in the United States, said:
The heads of all the leading research bodies and medical organizations testify that the proposed national institute of health will not duplicate their work, but will rather help to focus it better.
I am of opinion that a scientific institute here in Ottawa would focus the health activities of the Dominion and make them very much more effective. Such an institution would be a clearing house for the provinces, particularly with relation to epidemic diseases. At present there is no method by which the various activities of the provinces can be brought together and the information developed in one province communicated to 
the others. A scientfic research bureau here would accomplish that purpose.
In 1917, when the Military Service Act was enforced, a little over 50 per cent of the men examined were rejected because of disease; of 361,655 men examined 181,225 were rejected. Of those rejected almost 60 per cent were found physically unfit because of preventable diseases. Surely it is a severe indictment of the public health activities of the Dominion of Canada when so many men were found physical^ unfit because of diseases they should not have had.
A great deal of research work has been done, much of it by private individuals and by our universities in a rather desultory way; many men work by themselves, yet even so a great many discoveries of immense benefit to the world have been made. What is the value of those great discoveries of the past to the people of the world? Jenner discovered a vaccine for smallpox. Can anyone estimate the value of that one discovery? It goes on in increasing volume as the years go by and it will continue throughout the centuries. When a remedy is discovered for a disease the value continues for ever. Pasteur discovered a remedy for hydrophobia. Lister discovered antiseptics which revolutionzed surgery and made it possible to perform surgical operations which otherwise would have proved fatal. Cavities of the body may be invaded and diseased tissue removed with impunity because of that discovery. What is the value to be put upon the discoveries of Simpson and Morton in the matter of anaesthetics? Surgery was revolutionized when the. groaning and struggling patient was made to lie quiet while the operation was performed without pain. Banting through his discovery of insulin has done a great deal for people suffering from diabetes. He has lengthened their lives and made them happier. Reed and Carroll discovered the cause of yellow fever and made it possible to complete the Panama canal. Klebs and Loeffler discovered the bacillus of diphtheria and made the first step in the direction of producing a serum which has practically eliminated that loathsome disease which is very fatal to children. Are these discoveries worth anything to the world? No one can estimate their value, and if anyone doubts their value he has only to get one of the diseases and he will realize what it means to him.
There are still many worlds to conquer in the realm of medicine and we should do our share in that regard, and at the same time consolidate our position with regard to the discoveries which have been made in the

Supply-Pensions and National Health
past. At times such discoveries are not used because of the indifference of public health authorities and the ignorance of the people. I was interested in reading the other day an article by Doctor Rajchman, director of health organizations of the League of Nations, in which he drew attention to the fact that smallpox had not yet been eliminated from the world although we had a very effective remedy in the vaccine discovered by Jenner. Many people have a feeling that the vaccine caused other diseases. He gave a list of the epidemics which have occurred in the last few years, as follows:
Minneapolis	 1925
Detroit	 1924
Los Angeles	 1927
Algeria	 1927
Rio de Janiero	 1926
He reported that in 1927 there were 280,000 certified cases of smallpox reported in the world, and during that same year 50,000 deaths occurred in India from the same disease. He also reported that the death rates in these epidemics ranged from 10 to 30 per cent. In 1927 there was an epidemic of smallpox in Indiana, which has no compulsory vaccination law. In 1885 there was an epidemic of smallpox in Montreal and Quebec, and 7,000 deaths. In 1884, the previous year, the Ontario Medical Health Act was passed. As soon as the outbreak occurred in Quebec the Ontario health authorities organized 563 local boards of health and appointed 283 medical officers and 160 sanitary inspectors. They enforced compulsory vaccination and the result was that the epidemic was stopped in that province with a loss of only 18 lives. That illustrates what can be done when science is fully organized.
In 1928 the city of Olean, New York, had an epidemic of typhoid fever caused by infected water. Actions were brought against the health department and judgments were granted to the amount of $350,000. Application was made to the state legislature for an enabling act to allow them to issue bonds to pay these damages, and they will be paying for the neglect of their health department for the next twenty years. The city of Albany, New York, has also had judgments rendered against it for the same cause, and I should think the city of Ottawa would take warning. No city I have ever visited had so vile a water supply as this city.
What is being done outside of looking after the human element in the Dominion of Canada? When I consider the estimates for other departments I find that more is being done for them than is being done for the public health of the country. In 1916 the national research council was set up to promote the utilization of our natural resources and to find means of using the waste products from the same, as well as to carry on other duties. This council is composed of some of the most prominent scientists of Canada. The council has given 344 scholarships to 199 persons who have shown special adaptability for scientific research. Young men are being turned out in our universities trained in medical and other sciences, but year after year they go to the United States and the universities of that country are filled with Canadians who have been trained here. They have been forced to take that step because we do not employ them.
We spend millions on agriculture and we have brought it to a very high state of efficiency. The 1930 estimates for this department amount to $8,483,000. Of that amount $2,450,000 is being asked for the health of animals branch, and $1,530,000 for the improvement of live stock. That amount spent upon the public health of Canada would be very acceptable, and would make a very splendid contribution to scientific research.
The estimates of this year include an item of $730,540 for the mines and geological survey. Of that amount $257,000 is for the investigation of mineral resources and deposits, and $363,000 for the geological survey.
We are spending $2,403,000 in an endeavour to make the fishing industry of this country profitable. Of that amount $442,000 is for the culture of fish, $301,000 for scientific and practical work, making a total of $743,000 spent in scientific work for the benefit of the fisheries of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With very little advantage.


Robert King Anderson: With very
little advantage. As regards immigration we have this year a grant of $1,300,000 for immigration societies, women's hostels, and contingencies and a grant of $1,000,000 for the empire settlement scheme, making a total of $2,300,000 to bring people into this country, and yet we neglect the people we have at home. We do not look after their health and we are losing many of them prematurely because of inactivity in our public health departments. For the health of the people of Canada how much do we spend? This year for the laboratory of hygiene we have an estimate of $150,000; for the control of venereal disease, $100,000, for quarantine, $240,000. Quarantine properly belongs to the Department of Immigration. The appropriation is largely spent in connection with that, although
2622	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
some of it, I am sure, is spent in connection with quarantine stations for other purposes. That makes a total of $490,000 for the health of human beings in Canada. It is surely a reflection on the intelligence of the Dominion parliament that such a situation exists to-day Millions for the health of animals, millions for bringing immigrants into Canada, and millions for mining and fishing, but a paltry five hundred thousand dollars to improve the condition of health of the people.
I do not intend to labour this question much further, but I should like to read what President Hoover has to say with regard to the situation in the United States and his desire for further organization of the health department. In his speech made on March 1 of this year Mr. Hoover says this:
Public health service should be as fully organized and as universally incorporated into our governmental system as our public education system to-day. The returns are a thousandfold in economic benefits and infinitely more in reduction of suffering and promotion of human happiness.
I direct the attention of the Minister of National Health to these statements and I would say that if next year he will decide to insert in the estimates an amount that will provide a building, equip and man it for the purpose of scientific research in health, the money will be returned to him, not a thousandfold, but many thousandfold, and if in future years they are able to find a remedy and preventive for the flu, the amount spent will return to him so many times over that he will be surprised. I therefore ask the minister to take this matter into his serious consideration and turn the present Health department of the Dominion of Canada, which is now doing some work but which is inefficient and not carrying out the provisions of the Health Act as it was intended by the government and parliament which passed it in 1919, into a real asset to the country so that it will be worthy of his tenure of office.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I supplement what the last speaker has said in his very excellent address by a few statements which I should like to place on the record as appearing in a pamphlet issued by the Canadian Social Hygiene Council, as follows:
Figures would appear to prove that from 45 to 60 per cent of all disabling illness is of external origin and, therefore, within the possibility of prevention.
Various authentic estimates would show that 2 to 3 per cent of the total population is continuously ill.
Of the population of Canada, 30 per cent are adult males; 30 per cent are adult females.
It is thus estimated that 54,000 adult males are continuously ill. This amount of illness

would suggest that in the adult male population alone there are lost each year 16,200,000 working days.
Calculations show that, for every 20 males gainfully employed, there are aproximately G females similarly employed. This would suggest that, in addition, the female population loses
4,800,000	working days per year.
Total loss per year-21,000,000 working days; at least 50 per cent preventable.
Superfluous loss per year 10,500,000 working days.
It is important to bear in mind that the resultant cost must be reckoned not only in terms of loss of pay to employees, but also in terms of diminished output, disorganization of industry and other economic results.
It is estimated that the total cost of illness to the Dominion of Canada per year is $270,000,000, which equals 75 per cent of the total expenditure of the Dominion Government for 1924.
This pamphlet is several years old. There has been little opportunity for discussing this matter and now I do not want to say very much with regard to it. It is most unfortunate that there is no provision in this house for the careful study of an important ques-of this kind. I would venture to suggest that we could not do (better than set uip a committee on public health that would definitely devote itself to a study of the whole field of public health. Here we come to a Friday evening at nearly 11 o'clock, and this is about the only opportunity we have in the course of the whole session for a discussion of a question of this kind.


Arthur Edward Ross: We shall have more.
Mr. WOODSWORTH; I hope we shall, and I think the doctors might well take the lead in this matter. I know the public would respond if they would take the lead in a progressive policy of this kind. While the discussion was going on, I glanced around the chamber and I found there were only thirty members present.
Mr. RYCKMAN; Six on the government side at one time.
Mr. WOODSWORTH; I noticed nine on the government side when I made my observation, but in any case there were only thirty people in the house for a discussion of an important question of this kind. I can only hope that the medical men in the house will give us a lead, and I am quite sure the public outside will support any reasonable expenditure in connection with public health.


Peter McGibbon: I know the minister docs not expect to get much through to-night, but I think it is his duty to give the committee a resume of the doings in his department. I

Supply-Pensions and National Health
have been in the house for a good many years. I was one who helped to bring the Health Act into existence. With one exception I have never known anything to happen but what has happened to-night; at eleven o'clock on Friday night the estimates of this department have always been brought in. I think this is a reflection upon the intelligence of the house, upon the people of Canada and upon the minister and the government who have for ten years sat in office and have had at their disposal a department which should be a most useful one in this or any other government. I say without contradiction that it has failed in every particular for which it was brought into existence. The minister smiles. On Monday probably I will give him some facts that may change that smile. I remember quite well, when this act was brought down in the old museum, the late Mr. Carvell coming to me afterwards and saying: "MeGibbon, you are only making positions for a lot more employees; you are only going to add to the country's expense; you will accomplish nothing." I was shocked that a minister of the crown should make such a statement upon such a subject. I have said before that I was speaking as a prophet, and to-night the voice of history records the accuracy of my prophecy as to the accomplishments of this department, which have been nothing up to the present time. It has been nothing but a bill of expense to the country, and it has failed in every particular to do what it was intended it should do. I intend to have something more to say on this subject on Monday. As it is now five minutes to eleven, I do not suppose the minister expects to get any estimates through to-night, and I think he should come to this house on Monday or whenever the estimates come up again prepared to give parliament and the country some account of his stewardship during the last five or six years. The report which has been handed out by the department is nothing but a catalogue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And no bargains in it.
Mr. MoGIBBON: No, not for the country. It is simply a rehash of the doings of the mounted police, a reprinting of some reports from the Ontario Department of Health, and other departments of the government; but as to the essential purposes for which the department was created, to look after and improve the health of [DOT] the people of this country, you can read the report from cover to cover and you will find it is absolutely devoid of imagination or any new suggestions. It is simply a reprint by the department of what has been done in other departments of the government.
7S594-167
It makes a show of having a department here that they call a Department of Health, but which has no more to do with health than with mines.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: As it is near
eleven o-clock I shall not attempt to reply to-night to my hon. friends who have just spoken. I am sure we all enjoyed the excellent review of medicine and medical history given by my hon. friend from Halton. It was especially interesting to those of us who are of the medical profession. This, of course, would not be the time to discuss the matters brought forward by my hon. friend. The vote undeT consideration is one dealing with the care of patients and the examination of pensioners. Later on we shall come to the estimates to maintain what is known as the HeaLth section.
In regard to this department my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. MeGibbon) indicated that as a member of the house at the time he had a great deal to do with the enactment that brought into being the Health department. I shall take occasion to deal with that subject when the estimates of the Health section are under consideration. It is all right for us to say that -there is a great field in health measures. That is recognized the world over, but under the practice that has existed in Canada up to the present and as is provided for in the bill, these matters come under -the provinces and under the municipalities.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister cite th-e clause in the British North America Act which states that public health is a provincial matter?


John Warwick King: I do not need to do that. I can cite the section from the Department of Health Act itself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister said
under our constitution.


John Warwick King: I said that it had been the practice.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Under the constitution.


John Warwick King: Not under the
constitution; I said in the bill, but it is under the constitution also, and if my hon. friend will take the pains to consult the Justice department he will be so advised. My hon. friends who are complaining in regard to the activities of this department should read the legislation which they say had a great deal to do in improving, bringing into being the Health department. Section 7 of -the Department of Health Act says:

2624	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
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.


Alexander James Anderson: The minister surely does not mean that that applies to a national bureau of research.


John Warwick King: That is quite different; I was not speaking of that, I shall deal with that later, because we have progressed in the matter of a bureau of research and moneys are being voted this year for the establishment in the city of Ottawa of research laboratories, laboratories which I believe the Health department will be able to utilize for the advantage of the people of Canada.


Peter McGibbon: Are these laboratories for fundamental or applied science?


John Warwick King: An arrangement
will be made whereby the Department of Health will have the opportunity to carry on scientific investigations in these laboratories.


Peter McGibbon: The minister said they were in existence.


John Warwick King: If my hon. friend will permit me, I shall speak of that matter later. As I said when I rose, I do not propose to-night to make any extended explanation of these matters, because this is not the time or place. The vote called is the one dealing with the care and treatment of patients, and that means the care and treatment in the departmental hospitals of our men who served overseas.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Put on the record the
story of the various units in which they are lodged and cared for.


John Warwick King: Under this vote we provide for the care and maintenance in outside institutions and in mental institutions of the men who served overseas and who suffered disabilities; also for drugs, medical and surgical supplies, and dental treatment and supplies, medical examination and observation of pensioners, manufacture and purchase of orthopedic, ophthalmic and surgical appliances, supplies and repairs, and for the transportation of patients and pensioners.
Under the heading of departmental institutions the expenditure was $797,004.38; in outside hospitals and for doctors, $1,252,661.93; indirect charges, transportation of patients, escorts $50,085.61; funeral expenses $25,673.24; expenses of travelling medical boards $5,062.27; transportation of pensioners $47,576.24, or a total of $128,397.96. The expenditure for limb 
factory operations was $263,204.22. Altogether the total expenditure was $2,441,268.49.


Arthur Edward Ross: As the item is
worded it consists of two parts, pensions and health. We are now dealing with the first part, pensions, and in order to save time I would ask the minister to come prepared on Monday or when next his estimates are up to give an account of what has been done by way of reorganization in that department : second, the amount apportioned under this heading to each province. It would save time if the minister would also give the same information with regard to pensions. Third, as to sheltered employment, and fourth, as to the officers who have been retired within the last two years and those who have been added to the staff by provinces, together with the allowances to those who retired.


John Warwick King: I shall be glad
to gather that information for my hon. friend.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 20, 1929