1930-03-04

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) laid on the table copy of the agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the province of British Columbia with reference to the transfer of the railway belt and Peace River block.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Beaubien,
Bell (St. Antoine), Bennett,
Bird,
Blaitchford,
Cannon,
Ca&goatn,
Clark,
Cotmam,
[Stage Direction]
Elliott,
Gott,
Gray,
Guthrie,
Hanson,
J acobs,
Johnston (LongLake), Kellner,
Kennedy,'' '
King (Kootenay East), Lapointe,
MePh&e,
McQuairrie,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Maroil,
Mercier (St. Henri), Ralston,
Rheaume,
Young (Toronto Northeast).-29.
(Quorum 10)
Select Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
No. 2 ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES
Messieurs
Anderson (Toronto-High Park),
Bell (HamiltonWest), Bell (St. Antoine), Bettez,
Bissett,
Blatchford,
Bothwell,
Bowman,
Cahill,
Camtley,
Oasgrain,
Casselman,
Chevrier,
Crerar,
Dubuc,
Edwards (Waterloo South),
Esling,
Evans,
Fansher (Lambton East),
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Fraser,
Gardiner,
Geary,
Gershaw,
Guerin,
Heaps,
Howden,
Jones,
Kennedy,
Lacroix,
Laflamme,
Lapierre,
McIntosh,
McLean (Melfort), MacNutt,
McQuarrie, Macdonald (Kings), MacLaren,
Mercier (Laurier-
Outremont),
Milne,
Morin,
Parent,
Pouliot,
Price,
Rennie,
Ross (Kingston City), Ryerson,
St-Pere,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Simpson,
Smith (Cumberland), Speakman,
Stewart (Leeds), Telford,
Tobin,
Totzke,
Vaillance,
White (London), Young
(Saskatoon).-60.
(Quorum 20)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Adshead,
Anderson (Halton), Baldwin,
Barber,
Blanchard,
Bock,
Boucher,
Bowen,
Boys,
Brown,
Cahan,
Cannon,
Chaplin,
Church,
Denis,
Descoteaux,
Deslauriers,
[Stage Direction]
Dumaine,
Embury,
Fansber (Lambton East),
Glen,
Hall,
Irvine,
Kay,
LuChkovioh,
McGregor,
McMillan,
McPherson,
Macdonald
(Glengarry),
Maloney,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont), Murphy,
Parent,
Pettit,
Robitaille,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Sinclair (Wellington North),
Smith (Stormont), Spence,
Stinson,
Telford,
Thompson,
Tummon,
Verville,
Wilson (Wentworth), Young
(Saskatoon).-50.
Langlois,
Letellder,
(Quorum 15)
[Stage Direction]


Select Standing Committees
ON	No. 4 STANDING ORDERS
Messieurs Bell (HamiltonWest), Ladner,	
Blanchard,	Lavigueur,
Blatchford,	Lawson,
Brady,	McGregor,
Desaulniers,	McKenzie,
Deslauriers,	Mercier (St.-Henri)
Evans,	Morin,
Gershaw,	Murphy,
Gervais,	Speakmam,
Grimmer,	Young
	(Weyburn).-20. (Quorum 8) No. 5 ON PRINTING
Messieurs
Baldwin,	Marcil,
Bettez,	Maloney,
Bock,	Matthews,
Boulanger,	Maybee,
Bradette,	Morrissy,
Charters,	Peek,
Edwards (Waterloo	Perras,
South),	Prevost,
Embury,	Price,
Esling,	Quinn, Rennie,
Evans,	
Foster,	Rinfret,
Fraser,	Roberge,
Girouard,	Rowe,
Gott,	Ryerson,
Gray,	St-Pere,
Guerin,	Spankie,
Hocken,	Speakman,
Howden,	Spencer,
Hubbs,	Spotton,
Lacombe,	Steedsman,
Lacroix,	Sylvestre,
Lang,	Taylor,
Lapierre,	Verville,
Lucas,	White (Mount
Luchkovich,	Royal),
McKenzie,	Wilson (Vaudreuil-
MacLean (Prince), Macdonald	Soulanges).-54.
(Glengarry),

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Adshead,	Duff,
Beaubien,	Dumaine,
Bell (Hamilton West),	Ferland,
Bettez,	Fraser,
Black (Yukon),	Gardiner,
Bothwell,	Geary,
Boys,	Girouard,
Campbell,	Hanson,
Cahan,	Ilsley,
Canmon,	Jacobs,
Caeselman,	Laflamme,
Coote,	Lapierre,
Cowan,	Lennox,
Donnelly,	Lovie,
Dubuc,	McDiarmid,
/Mr Mackenzie King.]
McGibbom,
Malcolm,
Maloney,
Manion,
Odette,
Parent,
Peck,
Perras,
Pouliof,
Power,
Ross (KingstonCity), Rutherford,
Ryckman,
Smith (Stormont), Smith (Cumberland), Smoke,
Taylor,
Telford,
Thorson,
Tobin.-50.
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Allan,	McLean (Melfort),
Bennett,	McPhee,
Benoit,	McRae,
Bird,	Manion,
Black (Halifax),	Matthews,
Bothwell,	Mercier (St.-Henri),
Brown,	Odette,
Casgrain,	Perley (St. George),
Cayley,	Pettit,
Chaplin,	Raymond,
Donnelly,	Robinson,
Dunning,	Robitaille,
Ernst,	Ross (Moose Jaw),
Fafard,	Rutherford,
Geary,	Ryckman,
Guerin,	Sanderson,
Hanson,	Smoke,
Harris,	Spencer,
Hay,	Steedsman,
Hepburn,	Stevens,
Irvine,	V allance,
Jacobs,	Ward,
Kaiser,	Woodsworth,
Ladner,	Young
Lang, McIntosh,	(Saskatoon).-50.
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Allan,
Anderson (Halton), Arthurs,
Bancroft,
Barber,
Benoit,
Bock,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Boulanger,
Bowen,
Campbell,
Carmichael,
Cayley,
Charters,
Coote,
Descoteaux,
Desaulniers,
Donnelly,
Dubuc,
Dupuis,
Fansher (Last Mountain), Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Garland (Carleton), Glen,
Gott,
Goulet,
Hodgins,
Howden,
Jones,
Kay,
Lucas,
McGibbon,
McGregor,
McKenzie,
McMillan,
McPhee,
McRae,
Malcolm,
Maybee,
Millar,
Motherwell,
Plunkett,
Ross (Moose Jaw), Rowe,
Seguin,

Select Standing Committees
Senn,
Sinclair (Queens), Sinclair (Wellington North),
Spence,
Spotton,
Steedsman,
Stevens,
Stirling,
Taylor,
Totzke,
Tummon,
Vallance,
Young
(Saskatoon).-60.
(Quorum 20)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Bancroft,
Beaubien,
Bissett,
Blanchard,
Bourgeois,
Brady,
Cantley,
Cardin,
Delisle,
Dickie,
Dionne,
[Stage Direction]
Dussault,
Ernst,
Fansher
(Last Mountain), Garland (Bow River), Grimmer,
J enkins.
King (Kootenay East), MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Macdonald (Kings), Macdonald (Richmond-West Cape Breton), MacLaren,
MacLean (Prince),
McPherson,
McQuarrie,
McRae,
Morrissy,
Neill,
Pouliot,
Quinn,
Short,
Sinclair (Queens), Smith (Stormont), Ward-35.
(Quorum 10)
[Stage Direction]
No. 10 ON MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS
Baldwin,
Beaubien,
Bell (St. John-Albert), Bissett,
Black (Yukon),
Blatchford,
Boucher,
Bowman,
Bradette,
Brady,
Cahill,
Cowan,
Dickie,
[Stage Direction]
Esling,
Gershaw,
Heaps,
Howden,
Ilsley,
Messieurs
Jelliff,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North-Victoria) ,
Lapierre,
Letellier,
MeDiarmid,
McLean (Melfort), Macdonald (Richmond-West Cape Breton), Macdougall,
Macphail (Miss), Millar,
Plunkett,
Roberge,
Robinson,
Simpson,
Smith (Cumberland), Stewart (Edmonton West)-35.
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Bell (St. John-Albert), Bissett,
Black (Halifax), 2419-164
Messieurs
Bourassa,
Chevrier,
Church,
Cowan,
Deslauriers,
Ferland,
Gervais,
Grimmer,
Hall,
Heenan,
Howard,
Jenkins,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North-Victoria) , Lacroix, Letellier, Macdougall, Macphail (Miss), McGibbon,
McIntosh,
McMillan,
Malcolm,
Murphy,
Neill,
Perley (SirGeorge), Prevost,
St-Pere,
Stinson,
Thorson,
V eniot,
White (Mount Royal), Woodsworth,
Young (Toronto Northeast))-35.
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Bouchard,
Church,
Elliott,
Esling,
Hocken,
Lacombe,
Messieurs
Macdougall,
Marcil,
Millar,
Prevost,
Rinfret,
Young (Weyburn)-12. (Quorum 7)

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker and Messieoirs (Members on the part of the Commons)
Bertrand,
Bettez,
Bourassa,
Bowman,
Carmichael,
Chevrier,
Cotnam,
DescoteauX,
Dionne,
Edwards (Ottawa), Foster,
Fraser,
Garland (Carleton), Geary,
Girouard,
Glen,
Guthrie,
Hepburn,
Hodgins,
Johnston (LongLake), Jones,
Kennedy,
Lacroix,
Langlois,
Lavigueur,
Lennox,
McIntosh,
Marcil,
Neill,
O'Connor,
Pouliot,
Prevost,
Quinn,
Rinfret,
Senn,
Short,
Smoke,
Spencer,
St-Pere,
Stirling,
Thompson,
White (London), Young (Toronto Northeast) -43.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
(Members on the Bancroft,
Black (Yukon), Boivin,
Bourassa,
Carmichael,
Cayley,
Chevrier,
Clark,
Edwards (Ottawa), Howard,
part of the Commons) Howden,
Kay,
Kellner,
Lang,
MacLaren,
Ryckman,
Senn,
Spankie,
Spence-20.
Export oj Liquor
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved that the report 'be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved:: That the select standing committees of the house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to amend and make operative certain provisions of the Copyright Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. LADNER:: This bill embodies in the main the recommendations of a special committee that was appointed to inquire into the matter and which acted, I think, in 1924.
From time to time the proposed1 amendments were deferred, and latterly the delay was due to the conference at Rome dealing with the Berne convention. It was understood that the government would introduce legislation relative to the convention at Rome, and also dealing with the questions involved in the committee's report. No such legislation has so far been introduced. As this bill embodies the recommendations of the special committee and as there is practically nothing in the bill that is controversial, with the exception of one clause, it is not anticipated that there will be any serious objection in the house by those who understand the proposed amendments.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXPORT ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 15, to amend the Export Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose
of this amendment is to authorize officials of the Dominion government having charge of liquor in bond and the granting of clearances to vessels, to refuse to release such liquor or to grant such clearance where the granting of such release or clearance in any case would facilitate the introduction of intoxicating liquor into a country where the importation of such liquor is forbidden by law.


Mr. CAHAN:: Is it entirely in the discretion of the officials to refuse the clearance?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not catch the remark of my hon. friend, but I gather that he asks if the bill leaves discretionary powers to officials, or whether it is intended as a measure to prohibit absolutely any possibility of export in certain cases.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No. I understood the right hon. gentleman to say that the bill left it entirely in the discretion of the officials to refuse clearance, without any government action in the matter. Is that the case or is this a matter in which the government will take action?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend will see on reading the bill that the government will take action to prohibit export ; it is not left to the discretion of officials.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



IMPORTATION OF EGGS FROM UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: I have received the following telegram from Alister Forbes, president of the Canadian poultry pool:
Following is a copy of telegram I have to-day dispatched to Hon. Chas. Dunning and Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Ottawa, regarding imports of eggs presently into Canada. Request your assistance in bringing about compliance with the request contained therein. Would invite your attention to present import of American eggs which are now flooding our Montreal, Toronto and prairie markets. Canadian production of eggs increasing rapidly, and in our opinion is now sufficient to meet consumptive demand in Canada. Further import into Canada at this time will result in the demoralization of our market to an extent that Canadian producers will not receive sufficient for their eggs to cover cost of production.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman is out of order. He should give notice of his question.


William Garland McQuarrie: I merely wished to
ask what action the government proposed to take to meet this very serious situation.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the house.


William Garland McQuarrie: Did I understand
correctly that my question was not to be answered?


Hewitt Bostock: No, but it is not in order. It is too involved a question and notice of it should be given. I might also remind the hon. gentleman that telegrams may not be

Grain Trade
read as they cannot be considered as documents. If he will put his question on the order paper it will be answered in due course.



IMMIGRATION OF MENNONITES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
should like to ask the acting Minister of Immigration if it is true that we are permitting or have permitted to enter this country in the last couple of months large numbers of Mennonites as immigrants.
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration):	No, it is not
true. I might say that I had a similar inquiry from Winnipeg. I find that about one hundred Mennonites have gone into Manitoba and Saskatchewan, all through friends or relatives.


Robert James Manion: When was that, may I
ask?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: During the
last month or five weeks.



GRAIN AND GRAIN TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) when the report of the National Research Council dealing with its protein survey of Canada's overseas wheat market will be laid on the table?


Hon. JAMES MALCOM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I do not quite understand the question of my hon. friend as to wheat marketing.


John Millar: Last session it was provided that the National Research Council should be asked to make a survey of the overseas wheat market to see what would be the effect on that market if Canada should make protein a factor in grading wheat.


James Malcolm: I am pleased to be able to inform my hon. friend that the report of the National Research Council on the protein content of our grain as it affects its standing in the European markets will be ready, I think, in about three days.



PRIVILEGE-MR. COOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday some figures I quoted with respect
to the export of motor trucks were seriously called in question by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). This morning I took the trouble to inquire of the Bureau of Statistics in regard to these figures. I have received a letter from the bureau and I should like to place on Hansard the figures they have furnished me so that the matter may be set right. There is a slight discrepancy in two years, but the total number of trucks exported during the last four years is considerably higher than that stated by me yesterday. This is the letter as received from the Bureau of Statistics:
The figures of exports of motor trucks (freight automobiles) from Canada for the last four calendar years for which yooi just asked on the telephone are as follows:
1926	
20,696	$6,957,2421927	
17,514	6,272,1261928	
23,656	8,652,3011929	
36,848	14,831,006
The letter is signed by the Dominion statistician.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, no other basis than on Hansard, will he make it clear that those figures include not only completed trucks, to which I was referring, but also the chassis separately.


George Gibson Coote: I am quite willing to make
that clear, if it is necessary. In the bulletin issued by the Bureau of Statistics part of these exports are listed! as completed trucks and part as chassis. The number given, here is the total. They are .called by the statistician motor trucks or freight automobiles.



THE GOLD STANDARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) whether it is the policy of the government to bring Canada back to the gold basis, or is some other basis contemplated?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, no other basis than that provided by law is contemplated, and so far as I am aware the terms of the statutes in that behalf are being carried out to the letter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That hardly answers the question, whether we are going to be brought back to the gold basis or not. I do not think what the hon. minister has said answers my question. In view of the discount of the Canadian dollar at the present time, I think we have a right to know whether we
Natural Resources-Alberta

are going to allow this state of things to continue, or whether we are going to get back to the accepted gold basis.


Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Speaker, what my
hon. friend might argue as being the gold basis might not commend itself to the judgment of others in that regard. I can onily answer as I did at the outset, that the statutes enacted by this parliament with respect to the currency are being complied with in every particular.



IMMIGRATION REQUIREMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, of the acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) regarding questions that are put to returning Canadians by officials of the Department of Immigration stationed at Windsor and WaJkerville. These are the questions: 1, n'ame; 2, residence; 3, birthplace; 4, citizenship; 5, occupation- height, eyes, complexion-6, hair; 7, marks; 8, name of employer; 9, business address. There are two other questions, but they apply to foreigners. The questions I have mentioned are required to be answered by Canadians residing in the border cities.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman should give notice of this question. It is too involved to be dealt with on the orders of the day.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I simply wanted to ask
the acting Minister of Immigration why these questions are put to Canadians working in Detroit and residing in Windsor. The immigration officers at Windsor and Wafkerville are not able to give the reason why. I should like to know.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr .Speaker, I will
make inquiries and give my hon. friend an answer.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm the agreement between the governments of the Dominion and the province of Alberta, dated 14th December, 1929, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Alberta.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. BENNETT:: I assume, Mr. Chairman, that the agreement will be attached as a schedule to the bill?


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of that circumstance, if it is agreeable to the administration we would reserve our discussion until after the bill is printed and let the resolution pass without further delay.


Mr. CHURCH:: I think the committee are entitled to see the agreement in black and white. We do not know how the Privy Council will construe this agreement. We do not want any more agreements such as that made in 1905. I think before the committee is asked to pass this resolution we should have a copy of the agreement before us. Is Alberta to have a law of its own manufacture? Is it to be an extension of the act of 1905? It is well known that a clause was put in that act which was ultra vires of parliament. What kind of agreement is to be made with the province of Alberta in regard to its natural resources-its water-powers, its mines, its forests, its lands? What sort of an agreement is this anyway? I remember three or four years ago when I raised this question in the house, an election was pending, and all of a sudden the Minister of the Interior brought up the subject and announced that legislation would be brought into the house giving effect to an agreement. What happened? I had a resolution on the order paper and it was put at the foot of the list. The government of the day kept that resolution on the order paper for four or five months so that no one could ask any questions about it until the minister reintroduced it. The result was that no one in this house could do anything. I think, Mr. Speaker, every member of this house is entitled to see the agreement and to know what is in it. Is this the way parliament is going to pass agreements, without anyone seeing them? No member on the opposition side at least has ever seen this agreement, and we will be asked by our constituents, how did this agreement slip through the house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: An agreement was placed in the box of every member in the house.


Charles A. Stewart: In order that the agreement might be in the hands of the members of the house, it was placed on the table of the house at least ten days ago. The agreement dealing with the return of natural resources to the province of Manitoba has also been placed on the table of the house for the information of the members, and I have to-day tabled the agreement between the Dominion government and the government of British Columbia for the return of the Peace River block and the railway belt, and I am sure my hon. friend cannot plead ignorance of what is in the agreements because they were tabled for that very purpose.

Natural Resources-Manitoba


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I asked the distribution office for copies of those agreements and was told that they were not available for distribution.
I then wrote a note to the distribution office and told them I understood they were tabled and called attention to it, and the messenger came back and said that the clerk or someone in the distribution office told him that they were not available for distribution, and that is undoubtedly the reason why members on this side are asking for copies.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I tabled a large number of copies, believing that they would be available for the members. I have done the same thing to-day. And may I say, for the information of the members of the house, that there are plenty of copies of the British Columbia agreement, and I hope every member will avail himself of the opportunity to secure a copy and becoming familiar with the agreement before the bill comes up in the house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that when they are laid on the table of the house the only source of supply that we know of is the distribution office, and a certain number of copies should be put in the distribution office to meet the request of members.


Charles A. Stewart: I would like again to say to my hon. friend that I placed, I think, a sufficient number on the table for the purpose of distribution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty is that they are laid on the table of the house and not sent to the distribution office. That is the real trouble.


Mr. HANSON:: Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that important agreements like this are not mailed to every member of the house so that he may be able to get his copy? I had not heard that copies were laid on the table of the house. As a matter of fact, I have not seen one yet. When a document is laid on the table of the house there is such a noise going on around here that no one hears what the minister is mumbling over, and we cannot catch on to what has actually transpired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not saying that in any offensive spirit, but it is a fact.


Charles A. Stewart: May I point out to my hon. friend that the records of the house are available to him just the same as to every other member, and every document that is tabled is recorded in the records.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGREEMENT WITH MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm the agreement between the governments of the Dominion and the province of Manitoba, dated 14th December, 1929, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Manitoba.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume that in this case the agreement will be printed as a schedule in the bill, and that ample opportunity will be afforded to discuss the matter at length if we so desire, and with that understanding the resolution may 'be reported without further delay.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I wish to object to this way of putting through a bill regarding the natural resources of a sister province. We are all familiar with the trouble they had in Manitoba a few years ago and we do not want to have this trouble break out again, and that is just what will happen with this parliament interfering with the problems of that province. Are we going to give the water powers of that province away to men like Mr. Backus and other American millionaires? Are we to sit here and allow this government to pass over the natural resources to the provincial government without uttering a word? I never received a copy of the agreement regarding either Alberta or Manitoba in my post office box. I sent down three times to the distribution office and they said they did not have them. Where is this all going to end? The province of Manitoba has been clamouring for years along certain lines. There have been elections held in that province regarding the public utilities of the province. Are we going to allow the-present government in Manitoba to handle the natural resources of that province, with the possibility of handing over those natural resources, including of course the water powers, to every corporation that comes along, without any protection, without any strings on it, without any rider, or without a proper agreement? The smallest municipal council or township council does
24S
Natural Resources-Manitoba

not do business in that way. Even they would not pass this kind of an agreement. Are you sure that this parliament has the power? Are we sure we are acting within our powers and that this resolution is intra vires of this parliament? Some time ago the government met representatives of the province of Manitoba here in Ottawa; they returned home, then came to Ottawa again and some time later it was announced in all the papers that this agreement had been reached. Does any member of the house know what is provided for by this agreement? No; no one is supposed to know anything about it, and this just illustrates the decay of parliamentary institutions in Canada and the decline of the House of Commons. A resolution such as this would not have been passed in the early nineties without every section being debated, but now we are being asked to pass an agreement which will bind the Dominion for all time. We all know what was put over in this parliament in 1906 with regard to the Saskatchewan Act and the Alberta Act, and I should like to know if our friends from the prairie provinces are satisfied with this agreement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure.


Thomas Langton Church: Last year we had a
lengthy debate with regard to the Seven Sisters falls; another conference was held, and as a result the Seven Sisters falls and the Beauharnois were given away. Dear knows what will happen if we still have another conference.
I protest against passing such a resolution as this. The minister easily could have had copies of this agreement distributed so that we might know what it contains. Is there anything secret in it? How many jokers are included? We all know that last year after a debate lasting five or six days the Seven Sisters falls were given away over the head of this parliament in order to please a few hungry political adventurers. Again I protest against passing such an important resolution in this haphazard manner.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Manitoba.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be read a second time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the observations made by several hon. members of this house to the (Mr. Church.]
effect that the agreement has not been put in their hands, might it not be desirable to delay the second reading of this bill in order to give every member an opportunity to study the agreements and the schedules which are attached to the operative part of the measure?


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the house. ALLOWANCES TO WAR VETERANS



ASSISTANCE TO PENSIONABLE AND NON-PENSION-ABI.E RETURNED SOLDIERS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting allowances to war veterans, to provide assistance for certain veterans who are not in receipt of pensions, or wiho, if in receipt of pensions, are only partially pensionable, or who are unemployable, and to provide for the administration, amounts, terms and conditions of such allowances, and for the payment of such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the proposed legislation.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps it might suit the convenience of the minister better if the Speaker leave the chair first, and then questions may be asked of and answered by the minister when we are in committee. I merely make this suggestion in order to expedite the business of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, this will constitute an endeavour on the part of the government to meet an outstanding need in the lives of our veterans, which need has been recognized for some years but not provided for up to the present. I might direct the attention of the committee to the fact that in 1928 the committee on pensions and soldier problems included the following in their return to this house.
"Your (mmmittee finds that one of the most serious situations confronting the department and the country generally is that relating to the employment and care of ex-members of the forces suffering from disability, broken down or burned out. A number of suggestions have been made to your committee for dealing with such cases.	I he committee recommends information be gathered which will be of assistance in framing the government's policy. The committee consider this the most serious problem which has arisen in connection with our ex-soldiers."
Our present pension legislation is specifically designed to compensate veterans whose disa-

Allowances to War Veterans
bilities are traceable to war service, but it has become increasingly apparent that some provision inevitably must be made to provide for the aged and unemployable veteran whose condition may not be directly traceable, under our present legislation, to war service. Recognizing the fact that this is the major problem with which the department is faced I have given the question my personal attention for some time, and for a period of some months have had a committee of the department and an officer of the soldier settlement board devote their whole time to the study of this question. As the result of this review, we have come to the conclusion that in order to take care of a situation which is entirely apart from our pension legislation, an act such as that to be introduced to-day is required for the aged and unemployable veterans.
I .aim definitely of the o-piniion that this new legislation should be administered by a committee composed of the senior officials of the department. In that way, the experience of the department, gained during the past decade will be brought to bear on the solution of a problem which, through lack of adequate legislation, the department heretofore has been unable to handle. Because of this acceptance of responsibility by the government many of the cases which were oited recently in this house will be provided for. Although we have had such cases in mind in designing this legislation, we realized that there were many other types of cases not referred to during the debate which will be covered by this legislation, and thus we will be extending to our ex-service men the best possible consideration within the country's resources. For this reason I am suggesting that the principle of this resolution receive the endorsation of the house so that the committee may have the guidance of parliament's wishes in the matter.
It will be observed that the age of eligibility is set at sixty-five. I propose to place at the disposal of the special committee complete data and information as to the estimated cost of this measure were the age set, for example, at sixty instead of sixty-five.
The legislation which will follow this resolution is the most far-reaching of all veteran legislation so far introduced, in that, for the first time, it recognizes and makes provision for the .man who was discharged fit, who is now unemployable, but who has not been found, under our present legislation, to be entitled to pension. In making provision for the non-pensionable man, Canada will be a pioneer in enacting legislation of this character. It will be seen that we propose to pay an allowance to men with front line
service, or to pensioners, or former pensioners, no matter where their service, at a stated age, provided they are in necessitous circumstances. It is provided also to pay this allowance to men in this class, irrespective of their age, if they are found to be in necessitous circumstances and permanently unemployable Reservations have been made as in the old age pension legislation, restricting the amount receivable from this legislation and other sources combined.
It is not necessary for me to repeat what has been so frequently stated in this house, namely, that many men who rendered splendid service at the front are in need, and have been found non-pensio>nable. It is equally unnecessary for me 'to state that the effects of front line service have had a telling effect on the constitution and work expectancy of our veterans, so that many have aged before their time. This legislation provides for an allowance to these men. There is no doubt that in some cases the legislation will benefit men whose physical conditions are not due to their war service, but if we are to err we prefer to do so on the side of generosity towards those who served Canada so generously in their better days.
I sincerely hope that ail parties and all hon. members will see their way clear to cooperate with the government by endorsing this principle and referring the measure to the parliamentary committee where it, together with other proposals involving the welfare of out veterans, should be further considered.


Mr. CLARK:: 
John Warwick King: Yes, it is to be referred to that committee.


John Arthur Clark: Is this the major matter to be brought before that committee?


John Warwick King: I should say it was.


John Arthur Clark: What other matters are to come before the committee?


John Warwick King: All matters which have been before the house, and matters which the legion and other soldier bodies may bring forward.


John Arthur Clark: Is there any other specific matter to be referred to this special committee?


John Warwick King: You mean a government bill?


John Arthur Clark: Yes.


John Warwick King: No.
Allowances to War Veterans


John Arthur Clark: As I understand it, this legislation will apply only to soldiers who have attained the age of sixty-five years; is that right?


John Warwick King: No.


John Arthur Clark: What was the reference made to sixty-five years?


John Warwick King: The provision is made that a soldier who has reached the age of sixty-five, if he can qualify under the provisions of the present Old Age Pension Act, he will come under that legislation. Then, there is the provision whereby a veteran who has become disabled, and through illness or disability is not employable, is treated as though he had reached the age of sixty-five.


John Arthur Clark: He would obtain a pension in the nature of an old age pension?


John Warwick King: He would get a pension similar to the other pension.


John Arthur Clark: In the nature of an old age pension?


John Warwick King: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Or in the nature of a pension under the Pension Act?


John Warwick King: No, an old age pension.


John Arthur Clark: It would not make any difference whether he was forty years of age or sixty years of age; is that right?


John Warwick King: That is right.


John Arthur Clark: Who will administer the act?


John Warwick King: I have suggested, and the bill will contain a provision that the senior departmental officers will administer this act.


John Arthur Clark: The provinces will not contribute?


John Warwick King: No.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, I must express my very keen disappointment that this is the only specific matter to be referred to the committee.


John Warwick King: There are many other matters,


John Arthur Clark: There is admittedly a demand throughout the country that some provision be made for the man who is burnt out or who is prematurely aged although he may not be suffering from disabilities strictly attributable to war service.
There is however another matter which the government should work out in detail and submit to the house rather than to the com-

mittee, and that is how we are going to provide adequate compensation to the man who is admittedly suffering from war disabilities but who is not receiving the pension to which he is entitled. Then provision should be made for the man suffering from war disabilities which are not admitted as being attributable to war service. There are literally thousands of these men throughout the country.
There is something wrong with the Pension Act or something wrong with the administration, and personally I believe it is the act which is mainly at fault. The pension board sitting in a stuffy office in the Daly building cannot investigate these cases, they cannot accurately determine whether or not a man in British Columbia is suffering from disabilities attributable to war service. The returned man has not been provided with the machinery to enable him to prove that his disability is attributable to war service. In my opinion that is a vital question to which this house should address itself. Let us ascertain if we have the machinery capable of dealing with this question. I do not believe we have. About three years ago I complained in this house very bitterly about a specific case. I do not like giving specific cases, but I introduced that one to bring home to the house the impossibility of individuals having their cases properly investigated and adjudicated upon. It was the case of a widowed mother and the dispute was as to whether or not her son had been her sole support. The pension board investigated the case from their offices in the Daly building. They refused from 1916- I think it was 1927 when the case was discussed in the house-over a period of eleven years, to grant the man a pension. But about a yqar and a half ago, the pension board, or a section of it, was in Vancouver, and it was good enough to investigate the case on the ground. They heard the evidence and due to complications which had arisen over a period of eleven years, seven lawyers were present at the hearing. After hearing the details of the case on the ground, the pension board came to the conclusion that they had been wrong for eleven years, and they reversed their decision. That is why I ask the government to take into consideration the fact that the pension board is not equipped in the Daly building to investigate and determine whether or not a man's disability is attributable to war service.
The matter has now reached the stage where the pension board should be remodelled. Every case that comes up now is difficult and one which requires investigation on the ground. The man who is disabled and who thinks his disability is attributable to war ser-

Allowances to War Veterans
vice should be given an opportunity of appearing before a quorum of the board so that he will get a square deal. He has not that feeling now. A man 3,000 miles away from the board, may go before his own doctor who gives him a certificate of attributability but apparently no attention whatever is paid to such certificate by the pension board at Ottawa.
A matter of major importance that should be dealt with by the special committee this session is: How are we going to provide for dealing with the difficult cases of men who are suffering from disability and who claim that such disability is due to war service? There are many of those cases and they are not provided for in this resolution. I would hate to think we would have to sit here for months hearing evidence on this point, as we have done in the past, when it is perfectly clear what we should do. We have the machinery and the medical men under the Old Age Pensions Act. Why not allow a soldier, if he is going to get an old age pension, to come under the Old Age Pensions Act and prove to the medical men who are administering the act, that he is eligible because of his position? Let the personnel of the Old Age Pensions Act administer it, the full amount of the pension to be paid by the Dominion government. The machinery is in existence in each province. It certainly can be added to slightly, and the advantage of it would be that the machinery would be on the ground right where the man lives. The medical men could examine him on the ground and determine whether or not he is a man so advanced in age that he could qualify for an old age pension. The matter is only one of accounting. The federal government could pay the full amount that is so paid out annually. It is a very simple matter. Why provide for an entirely new department such as will be provided for under this resolution?


John Warwick King: It is not a new department. It will be administered by the present department, the senior officials of the department.


John Arthur Clark: The pension board will administer it.


John Warwick King: The senior
officials of the department will be a committee to administer it.


John Arthur Clark: What does the minister
mean by " the senior officials of the department"?


John Warwick King: The deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister and from three to five other officials selected.


John Arthur Clark: That is more objectionable
still. It will become a political matter.


John Warwick King: No.


John Arthur Clark: These men are under the
minister. That is something we do not want. Let us get this entirely away from the administration of the government. Such a procedure would call for favouritism. If a man's political stripe is right, the pension will be granted. I saw the same thing in British Columbia, and the minister was a member of that government when it occurred. There was a time when no one of the other stripe of politics could get a mother's pension.


John Warwick King: I take absolute
exception to my hon. friend's statement. He cannot verify it.


John Arthur Clark: That was the case for a
period of years, and it will be the case wherever the administration of such an act as this is left in the hands of the government. It ought to be put into the hands of some body independent of the government.


John Warwick King: Another commission?


John Arthur Clark: What I say is that we can avoid this by having the work done by the pension board or in the various provinces by the bodies that are administering the old age pension. It is a very simple matter. The need is admitted and it is not a matter of great difficulty, whereas the granting of pensions to men who are bona fide entitled to them and who are suffering from war disability, is one which is contentious and really is a question which should be investigated by this committee. The committee should also be given the job of remodelling the Pension Act. That should be their major job, and another committee entirely separate from that which the minister appointed last night, should deal with this matter if it is desirable so to deal with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that my hon. friend has understood the minister, and I am not sure that I understand my hon. friend. Do I understand that what my hon. friend thinks ought to be investigated is the sort of matter which has been referred to in their motions by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst).


John Arthur Clark: That is a part of it.

Allowances to War Veterans


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the resolution was moved yesterday and carried by the house that all matters connected with pensions and returned soldiers be referred to a special committee consisting of hon. members of this house, the government had in mind referring those resolutions to that committee. That is the government's intention. May I add that any matter whatever which the returned soldiers are interested in may be referred to the committee which the house has appointed? The desire of the government is that the committee shall go into anything and everything that is of concern to the soldiers.


John Arthur Clark: The Prime Minister has overlooked the minister's statement in reply to my question: Is this the major matter that will come before the committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the minister understood the question put by my hon. friend. The minister was referring to legislation brought down by the government concerning these matters. This is one piece of legislation which the government is submitting, but the government does not for one moment wish it to be understood that it is the only matter the committee is to take up. It is the wish of the government that the committee will take utp any and every matter the soldiers wish to have investigated at this time.


John Arthur Clark: If this is the government's attitude, then let the government take the responsibility for it and elaborate the legislation right here in the house. The particular committee that was appointed last night is one that has sat 'for several years. It has dealt with matters similar to those referred to in the resolutions of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. Those are the matters which this particular committee will be most valuable on. This is a matter that the whole house might very well deal with, because it is akin to legislation the house has already dealt with, namely, the Old Age Pensions Act.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The other day when this matter was under discussion, I was absent due to illness of one of my partners, and I should like to make one or two observations.
I wish to reiterate in the strongest possible terms, the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) that this question should, above all things, be kept out of politics or of any possibility of political influence of any kind. It certainly seems to me an objectionable form of administering a delicate matter of this sort, which is so 
near the hearts and feelings of the people of this country, not to speak of the men who are returned soldiers, that the administration of the act and decisions should be left in the hands of officials directly under the control of a minister or a government.
In that statement I do not reflect upon the present minister or upon any minister, but it is only human nature to expect that he would be influenced by a situation of that kind, and to a certain extent the matter would be beyond his control. I think the house is unanimously agreed that some remedial legislation is necessary at the present time. Grievances have been accumulating throughout Canada for some considerable time, and im my judgment the legislation which is now before the house should have been brought before parliament some considerable time ago. As this resolution is the usual formal resolution preceding a bill, the terms of which are now definitely drafted, disclosing the government's policy, I would ask whether any provision is made in the bill for the widow of a deceased soldier who was denied a pension, but whose dependents under this bill would have received a pension had he lived.


John Warwick King: This enactment
deals with the veterans only. There is a provision that the veteran who is a married man will receive $40 a month instead of the $20 which he would receive if he were single. The legislation, however, deals entirely with the veteran, and it is not proposed by this bill to pension widows or dependents, but rather to provide an amount that will assist them in carrying on during the period when they are in these unfortunate circumstances.
As to my hon. friend's suggestion regarding the departmental committee, it is easy to say that such a committee would be political. As a matter of Tact, we have in the department to-day a very large number of officials who are dealing with cases just like this from day to day. Some 3,500 patients are now in our hospitals. These officials are also dealing with relief throughout Canada, some 3,000 people being in receipt of relief from day to diay during the winter months. I have not heard that there has been any political influence or any sort of political activity in the carrying on of this work. The reason why I have suggested that this enactment should be entrusted for its administration to a departmental committee, to men who are doing this very work each day, is that their services and the knowledge that they have gained over a period of years and the machinery of the department might be utilized. New machinery, of course, would have to be built up if a commission were

Allowances to War Veterans
appointed. I think that when this matter comes before the committee, it will be found that the committee will recommend that the departmental officials be allowed to administer this act.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I understand then, that
this act deals only with veterans whether they be married or single. If the veteran dies, is any (provision made for his widow and children?


John Warwick King: They are not
affected by this act.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Suppose the claimant for
benefits under the act is dissatisfied with the ruling of the departmental officials, has he any appeal to the minister?


John Warwick King: I suppose he would have.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does not the minister
think that provision should be made for an appeal to the federal appeal board, just as is done under the Pension Act?


John Warwick King: I have no objection to that question being gone into in committee.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But I understand that the bill is drafted and 'Contains definite terms, and I am asking as to the policy of the government, whether the right of an appeal to an independent board will be allowed.


John Warwick King: It is not provided for here.


Leon Johnson Ladner: As my hon. friend from
Vancouver-Burrard remarked, one of the great sources of trouble and criticism of the pension board at the present time is their decisions relating to disabilities attributable to war service. Many hon. members in all parts of the house have raised the question of the onus of proof. It has always been asserted by the minister that the benefit of the doubt is given to the claimants, but the fact is that in my experience and in that of many of us the benefit of the doubt is not given to the claimant. He is loaded with such obligations to produce evidence, a large part of which does not exist, that it becomes impossible for him to discharge that onus. Does this bill in any way deal with the onus of proof and the rights of a soldier to have a pension if he was in good physical condition when he enlisted?


John Warwick King: This bill is going to the committee. It does not deal with the present Pension Act at all. It is a new and distinct enactment. It does not come
into conflict with the Pension Act. I think it would be well to have the bill introduced so that hon. gentlemen could familiarize themselves with it and later let it go to the committee.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Do I understand the
minister to say that it is not a pension matter at all?


John Warwick King: It is not considered a pension matter in the sense that we have been discussing pensions heretofore. This is an allowance to the veterans.


Mr. IRVINE:: Is there anything in this
bill or any provision in any other statute which will take care of a soldier who is suffering from an incurable disease, not due to the war, and the soldier having do pension at all?


John Warwick King: This bill will
provide for him.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I am very reluctant
to criticise the measure which the minister has outlined, but not having the bill before us it is hard to grasp its purport simply from the minister's explanation. It does strike me however, that this is a radical departure from the system that we have heretofore followed, and one which in my humble judgment, from the knowledge I have, is not desirable. Unless you call it by some other name than pension, it is undoubtedly discriminating between two classes of soldiers, and if I may say so, I think that this legislation is taking away the rights of one class. In other words, it is going to put a part of those who should be eligible for pension practically on the dole in this country. The minister shakes his head. I hope I am wrong, but I cannot see how it will work out in any other way. Suppose, for instance, that you have a pensioner to-day who has been on the pension roll since the end of the war. You have another man who comes up for examination and is found to have a disability admittedly due to the war; this man in the second case will not only be penalized because his pension will be cut down, but the natural rights which should accrue to his wife and children under the pension law will not be theirs.
*Consequently, sir, I submit we are discriminating between two classes of ex-servicemen, depriving one class of their rights and the rights of their wives and children. In fact the proposal looks to me at the present time to be nothing more than an old age dole. The minister, if I caught his meaning correctly, stated the returned man would have
Allowances to War Veterans

to be sixty-five years of age-probably not in years but the equivalent. Well, who to-day wants to wait for their rights under the Pension Act, rights secured by war services, until they are practically dead. That is what it would amount to. If you are going to say in effect that those men to all intents and purposes must be sixty-five years of age before you give them any pension, why, they will all be dead before they have a chance to draw a pension At the present time they are dying at the rate of one thousand a year. I do think this proposed legislation is a misnomer and altogether wrong. I do not think legislation of this kind should be brought in by a government and then handed to a committee with these instructions: Rubber stamp it on behalf of the people of Canada. If that is not the intent, why is this bill introduced at all? If this is to go to a nonpartisan committee as named by the minister, why should not the whole problem be sent to that committee to deal with and to draft legislation in accordance with their views. Why should the government followers go to the committee more or less pledged to support this legislation? I say it is discrimination; it is depriving the veterans, and in many cases the most desirable class of veterans, of their rights under the law. We are saying to them: You have to be sixty-five years of age before you get anything. Then we deprive their wives and families of the benefit which other pensioners get under the present act.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt at all in my mind that what applicants for war pensions want to-day is this: they want a fair show; they want their rights; they do not want to be paupers; and above everything else they want some assistance to prove their case before the Board of Pension Commissioners. In the last two or three days I have had dozens, yes, I think probably hundreds of letters, telephone calls and telegrams from people who are in this class. Only this morning a man visited my room and produced a number of certificates from medical men throughout the country certifying that he had tuberculosis. He was asking the Board of Pension Commissioners for treatment. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Pensions will know the man I am referring to. The doctors on the pension board said that he had not tuberculosis; therefore he gets nothing. Now, I am not blaming anybody in connection with this. His own doctor and a number of other medical men say he has a disease which is attributable to war; but the pension board through their medical men say he has not. The man is immediately blocked. Unless he can get support somewhere he is going to be
[Mr. McGibbon.j
deprived of his rights-if he has any. I am not saying that in this case he has. That is the position the applicant for a pension is in. He has neither the means nor the information necessary to prepare his case. A few years ago before the pension committee I moved a resolution that we give the applicant power to employ a lawyer to prepare his case. Colonel Thompson, head of the pension board, stated that this would do more to clear up the situation than any one thing we could suggest. That proposal was voted down. I am not finding any fault on that account. The reason given by some who objected to it was that they did not want to create a class of pension lawyers, and I think there was a good deal of force in their objection. But the applicant is up against a stone wall when he gets that far. The next move is his; all the Board of Pension Commissioners have to do is to sit tight. They do nothing and all the expense has to be borne by the applicant.
If this house is going to carry out the intent of the Prime Minister when he spoke on the address, that we should pension-legally and properly pension-these deferred disabilities, what does that mean? First, that the man has a disability due to war. Granted that, he has a right to a pension under the law of this country, his wife has a like right and so have his children. Take, for example, a case of insanity. Suppose a man entered the war mentally sound, went through it mentally sound, and was discharged mentally sound. Five years afterwards his mental condition breaks down. There is no proof, I submit, in existence, on record, no place where the man can put his finger on as proof and say:	My
present disability is due to war service. And yet there are hardly any medical men or laymen that in very many of these cases will not admit that the breakdown was really caused by war service. I submit that if you are going to reach the class of cases that the Prime Minister referred to, there is no other way in which it can be done except by putting the onus of proof on the Board of Pension Commissioners. That, I think, is the crux of a great deal of the trouble which our war veterans have to-day. My present objection to this suggestion, if I caught it aright, is what I have mentioned, that you are showing discrimination between two classes, cutting off the wife and children of the man in one class and reducing the amount which was legitimately his according to the present law. I shall be glad to study this proposal, but at the first glance I rather think it will not win the approval of the veterans of Canada.

Allowances to War Veterans


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Just one question I
should like to have settled at the present time. I have no desire to discuss the details of this or any other proposed legislation. Were we prepared to study it now in detail, I would see no value in the establishment of a special committee. What I am anxious about is that the special committee shall have the power and latitude, as it always has enjoyed in other years, to take up this suggested legislation and other legislation which is now in existence, to go into it thoroughly, to view it at every angle, and if in the opinion of that committee it is inadequate, to suggest changes in the system by way of amendments to existing legislation so that it may be made adequate to solve the problems which I think we all recognize to exist. That is my idea of the functions of the committee to be appointed, and I am satisfied so long as I am sure that we have that power and that latitude to deal with these problems, to accept suggestions from any quarter, and weigh their merits and bring forth a report which in the opinion of the committee will adequately meet the situation. I have no intention to discuss details now which may be absolutely changed after the committee has scanned them for three or four weeks. That being the case-and I see by expressions of acquiescence on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Pensions that my interpretation of the committee's duties is correct. I am satisfied that with the goodwill of all sides we shall be able to meet the problems that we know do exist, problems suggested by my hon. friend to the right, and be able to deal with them in a way that will be acceptable to the house and just to the returned men.


Mr. EMBURY:: Is it the intention of the government to adhere to the principle that a disability must definitely be proven with reference to war service before assistance may be granted to a returned soldier?


John Warwick King: That will come in the amendments to the Pension Act. It would not be considered in this act here.


Alfred Speakman: I would merely like, if I may, to have the assurance in words that I thought I detected in the expression that those will be the powers and the functions of the committee.


John Warwick King: That is the intention of the government, yes.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: And will the government
accept the findings of the committee?


John Warwick King: We hope parliament will.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a misnomer to call it a pension act, or an act at all dealing with soldiers' pensions in this country. As enunciated by the minister in the introduction of this resolution, he states distinctly that the main purpose-and practically the sole purpose-of this legislation is to make the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act applicable to soldiers when they become sixty-five years of age, or the equivalent of sixty-five years if their condition is accordingly bad. The very principle of the matter is an extension of the Old Age Pensions Act, and I am very much afraid that if we connect this with the ordinary Pension Act of this country, either directly or indirectly- and especially if we put the administration of this proposed pension act under the officers of the pension board or of the minister's department-we are going to find in many cases- cases that we all come in contact with from day to day, of men whose pensions are being withheld owing, as has been stated here frequently, to lack of evidence which is not producible at the time on behalf of the soldier -that they are going to say to the soldier who has a perfectly honest claim for a pension-a pension which should include his wife and children: Well, we cannot give you what you deserve, we know you deserve it but you cannot prove it, so we are going to give you a dole of twenty dollars a month for the balance of your life. That, Mr. Chairman, is what I judge the situation to be, and I think the returned soldiers of this country should distinctly understand the intentions of the government and the probable result.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: It is surprising to have the announcement from the government that the legislation indicated by the resolution now before the house is the only legislation the government intends to bring in at this session concerning soldiers and soldier pensions. There have been committees at many sessions of the house, absolutely nonpartisan committees, and their deliberations have never allowed of any partisanship in dealing with the subject submitted to them- that is, soldiers' pensions and soldiers' affairs -but at the same time, notwithstanding the honest work done by those committees, and the many hours they have put in in listening to witnesses brought from all over the Dominion of Canada, the soldiers' problem is not solved. It must be patent to every member of this house after hearing the speeches made here the other day on the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Muskoka-
Allowances to War Veterans

Ontario (Mr. McGibbon), and the amendment to that resolution, that the Pension Act is not workable, and that it should be amended, re-drafted, and it is the business of the government to see that it is. That is not the business of any committee of this house. It is the business of the minister in charge of soldiers' affairs. What is a government for but to govern, to bring in legislation as its policy and submit it to this house? Why wait -for a committee to suggest these things? Why should not the Minister of Pensions take the lead? Surely he can devise legislation that will meet the situation.
I have heard some hon. members say that they dislike to refer to particular or individual cases. So do I, and I have never referred to one before, but as proof that this Pension Act is not working, and is not workable, I would like to refer to one remarkable case, the case of a soldier named Arthur Murphy, his regimental number being 16392, and I will read extracts from a letter written to the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners by the soldiers' adviser of the city of Vancouver, an appointee of this government who does not wish to embarrass the government, but who wishes to carry out his duties in that connection as best he can. I also wish to read a certificate given by this same adviser as late as February of this year. The letter to the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners is dated March 18, 1929. He says:
The above noted who is now residing in Victoria, has called on me and has asked that I assist him concerning pension and treatment matters. He has furnished the necessary authority in order that I may peruse his fyle and I might say that I have had the opportunity of examining the voluminous documents and correspondence compiled. I would like to state at the outset that from a dispassionate point of view I do not think that this man has received a fair and just reward.
That is from the soldiers' adviser appointed by this government to the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners. He says:
My purpose here, indeed my duty is to ask that the commissioners again review the whole case quite dispassionately and I cannot but think they will come to the conclusion that justice has not been done this man. . . .
It is, of course, a matter of record that he was discharged medically unfit on the 12th of June 1918, and pension at the rate of twenty per cent was allowed for heart trouble and myalgia. This was continued to the 1st day of January, 1922, and then was abruptly cut off, and he has not been on pension since. It is a significant fact, I submit, that the genuineness of his complaints on service and up to the time pension was cut off, was not questioned. . . .
The commissioners, I submit, erred in cutting this man's pension off; there was not sufficient or any evidence to show that the pensionable

disabilities had wholly ceased and determined and certainly the commissioners in their letters to the man were singularly silent as to the diagnosis reached by the several private doctors above referred to. . . .
Time and time again he has been forced to take private treatment and the director of medical services has seen the necessity in treating him as a class 1 patient during these occasions.
Then he refers to the medical men who have given him certificates, and he winds up:
It has been most certainly shown by the board's own officials in this unit that the man is entitled to pension and one can come to no other conclusion than that the refusal of the board is unreasonable and dictatorial.
I do not think, myself, from my dealings with that board-and I have had a good deal of experience-that they are intentionally unreasonable or dictatorial. They are handicapped by the act as it is, and I say it is the duty of the government to amend that act and not to let the whole session go by while a special committee listens to evidence, the effect of which they already know.
Here is the surprising certificate given by the soldiers' adviser at Vancouver on the 1st of February this year, re this same case:
The above named ex-soldier has been now for years endeavouring to establish his disability. He has a great weight of medical evidence in his favour stating definitely that he has a condition of arthritis. Please note in particular the certificate of Dr. Oille, who I believe is a specialist in his line.
And then he gives the dates of the certificates given by twenty-one medical officers, specialists most of them, as to this man's entitlement to pension,-twenty-one different officers, not all of them in the employ of the government:
The ruling of the pension board is that no objective findings have been found to warrant assessment for these under the disability table but it seems inconceivable that the weight of medical evidence in this case should not be conclusive in favour of the appellant. A special board should be asked for to have the case thoroughly examined and reviewed.
We should not be content with the legislation anticipated by the resolution that is now before the committee which is going to extend to some returned soldiers a measure of old age pension, but there should be a bona fide attempt on the part of this government, the members of which and the supporters of which, have at this session expressed so vehemently their regard for the returned soldiers. What the returned soldier wants is not talk; he wants action, and it is the business of the minister and of the government to give it to him at this session by an amendment to the Pension Act which should be brought in now and not towards the close

Allowances to War Veterans
of the session after a special committee have listened for month after month to evidence the result of which they already know.


John Millar: Until the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) spoke I was considerably disappointed in the proposed legislation. After hearing his request of the government and the assurance he received I am not quite so much disappointed, yet I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied. My disappointment arises out of the conclusion I have reached that in this legislation no provision is made for dependents of soldiers who have died, and I am under the impression, perhaps, mistakenly, that existing legislation is not to be altered, so that their status will be exactly as it has been.


John Warwick King: Not altered in
this bill.


John Millar: Is it the intention to change other legislation?


John Warwick King: Many matters
may come before the committee.


John Millar: That is more satisfactory.
I should like to say that if the position of dependents of returned men who have died while their case was pending is not altered, a very great injustice will be done. It is perhaps not very strong proof, but I will cite a specific case which I have in mind, where a returned man had been treated for heart trouble and some other disability, but owing to the fact that he was treated by a doctor who gave his services free and kept no records of dates of treatment, it was very difficult to connect his disability with service. Some even thought it was partly pretence on his part, and that he was not very ill, but while the matter was in this undecided state, he died. His case was not settled; his widow was left to care for a small family. She has since had the misfortune to break her ankle. Of course, I do not urge the latter incident as an argument in favour of her receiving consideration, but there are such cases, and it would be a great injustice if the dependents of these men should receive no consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: From the remarks of the last two speakers I gathered there might be a misunderstanding as to the significance of my remarks in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). I understood him to ask what matters would be referred by the government to the special committee, and in answer to that I mentioned that this was the one piece of legislation the government had provided for reference to the committee. I would not like it to 2419-17
be understood that it was the only legislation the government might bring in with respect to returned soldiers, because the procedure that from the outset it has been understood would be adopted was the reference of all matters respecting war veterans to a committee and that the committee would be allowed the fullest latitude to deal with any and every question in respect to returned soldiers. The committee will bring in its report and the government will take such action on the report as may be thought advisable. This unquestionably will mean further legislation.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does it relate to the Pension Act, as *well?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, anything that relates to returned soldiers.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If the committee brings in a report recommending amendments to the Pension Act the government will favourably consider such report?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly the
government will be prepared to consider the report, and take responsibility for its action thereon.


Peter McGibbon: Will the government
put it into law?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will first
have to see what it is.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: To say that
I am rather disappointed in the attitude taken by the government is putting it very mildly. I see in this resolution an attempt to side-step the whole issue in regard to returned soldiers. The minister stated that a man receives an old age pension at the age of sixty-five, and that if a returned soldier were looked upon as being sixty-five at the age of forty he would be entitled to an old age pension. I want to direct the attention of the minister to the fact that at the age of forty such a man has just as much disability, due to the war, as if he had been wounded, and the war is the cause of his aged condition at that time. He served overseas and such service resulted in a change in his physical condition which caused him to age rapidly. [DOT] Therefore he should receive a pension equal to that paid to any other man who received a wound. The whole cause of the condition that exists to-day is the fact that the regulation stated that a doctor must be able to put his finger on a condition in a man's system that is pathological, and say that that condition is due to his war service. Many of these men are looked upon as burned-out and have no demonstrable patho-

Allowances to War Veterans

logical condition upon which any doctor can put his finger, and yet the average doctor knows perfectly well that they are damaged to the extent of a considerable percentage of their normal period of life. The regulations base the percentage of pension on a man's ability to earn a living in the manual labour market. His ability to earn a living is based on the strength and development of his muscular system and the endurance of his heart. Many of those men who grow old early in their lives are unfit to compete in the manual labour market; they cannot compete with the average healthy man, and in consequence cannot earn a living. To that extent they should receive their pensions just as if they had been injured at the war. I wish to draw that phase of the situation to the attention of the minister in order that he may see how ridiculous the resolution is.


John Warwick King: See the bill.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: The minister
says this resolution is based on a recommendation of the committee which sat two years ago, so why should we return this matter to the same committee?


John Warwick King: For consideration of the measure coming out of their recommendation.


Arthur Edward Ross: This recommendation came from the committee two years ago. Therefore it would be quite in order for the government, instead of only going so far as to bring in a resolution, to go on with the legislation without referring it back. Does it not appear to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Pensions that this is absolutely unnecessary? Why should this recommendation be sent back to the same committee, and then returned to this house.


John Warwick King: Altered conditions.


Arthur Edward Ross: I see no reason for sending it back, because it does not refer to pensions, it simply puts the returned men in the old age list. It simply says this, "We are agreed that having served overseas for four or five years we will take that period off the old age limit and allow you that much for your service, putting you on the same basis as any other aged person." If I am correct this resolution is about two years late; it should have been proceeded with last year. I think perhaps the impulse behind it is the agitation stirred up by Sir Arthur Currie; if so, we are reminded of the promise 
made by the minister at 'Christie Street hospital, when he stated he had an interdepartmental committee considering all these matters. Surely he did not mean the recommendations of past committees which have been accepted and which the government could have put into legislation before this time, but. rather these causes of complaint which Sir Arthur Currie brought before the people in a startling way. If so his interdepartmental committee has not been considering the cause of agitation at this time. Sir Arthur Currie in his letter says:
Our aim must be to see to it that no man who went to the service of his country must be permitted by that country to suffer because of war disability.
The question brought forward by General Currie, and the one before the people, is that of war disability, and this resolution does not deal with that. Some of these men are only forty or fifty years of age, and they would not come under the provisions of this legislation until ten or fifteen years had passed. The men in Christie street hospital were told that an interdepartmental committee would deal with these cases of war disability. General Currie claimed that the time had come for a revision and redrafting from beginning to end of the act, and that has not been attempted by the government. All the government has brought forward is a modified old age pension for returned men. I am not. going to complain because we can never sufficiently reward the veteran for his services, but this is not a solution of the question now before the people. The Prime Minister came to the help of his colleagues by promising that everything would be considered, and it is up to the government to see that the whole act is redrafted and thus meet the Request of General Currie and the Canadian Legion.


Mr. MURPHY:: Is it the intention of the minister to make the provisions of this act retroactive in the case of pensions which will' be awarded or which should have been awarded' on previous occasions.


John Warwick King: This does not
apply to the Pension Act at all: it would not be retroactive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, before this^ resolution is declared carried I would like to point out the peculiar position in which this house now finds itself. General Currie wrote a letter to the legion meeting last fall at Regina pointing out certain defects in the Pension Act of this country, and the Prime Minister of this country undertook to-redress those grievances and to ensure that the defects to which General Currie had!

Allowances to War Veterans
directed attention would be met by the administration. In his address in reply to the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister referred to deferred disabilities and to the right of returned men to benefit under the Pension Act by reason of such disabilities. That matter has not been dealt with in this resolution, and there is no measure before the house which deals with amendments to the Pensions Act.
We lawyers have a saying that he who asserts must prove. The onus probandi is upon the man who attempts to prove his case and if there be an equal balance of testimony the asserting party has lost his case. In 1927 we on this side of the Speaker advanced the view, with which I thought the government agreed, that where there was, shall I say, an equal weight to be attached to testimony for or against the claimant, instead of applying the principle of law that he who asserts must prove, the onus of proof would be shifted, as we say, and the benefit of the doubt would be granted to the claimant. The country would have to prove conclusively by a preponderance of the testimony that the case made by the claimant should not be favourably considered. That is my understanding of what was said in the house at that time, and, from what the Prime Minister said in his speech, the country assumed that legislation would be introduced to amend the Pension Act in that regard. At any rate that is my understanding of what was said. The benefit of the doubt would be given to the man who had been passed by the medical authorities as being fit for military service, who had rendered service in a theatre of war, and who was suffering from a disability. That phase of this question had not been dealt with because there is no amendment to the Pension Act. We were led to believe-when I say " we " I do not mean this party, but the country as a whole-that these cases of deferred disability, to which the Prime Minister very properly referred the other day, would be dealt with. These men went to war and the disability from which they suffer did not become apparent until many years after they had left the theatre of war, and it can only be said that but for their service to the state they would not be in the condition in which they now are.
Take the case referred to by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). Can anyone imagine in a court of law twenty-one medical men testifying that the condition of a claimant was attributable to military service, and one doctor sitting in Ottawa being able to negative the view of those medical men? Is that sound? Is that right? In my judg-2419-17J
ment that is a travesty on justice. The government should have introduced legislation with respect to the Pension Act which would remedy such a condition.
In considering the case of dependents, I will not mention individual cases although it has been done, and very properly so, in the house. Cases have been brought to my attention which make it almost impossible to believe that they have been considered at all by the authorities. When these cases are brought up they point to the language of the act and they say, " Within the terms of the statute we must decline the claim," and I am bound to say that very often they are right in the view they take. That condition should be remedied by amending the statute if we are going to do justice in this matter.
The sole control of expenditure of money rests with the government. We on this side of the house cannot introduce legislation dealing with matters of that kind. I wonder if the house realizes the limitations placed upon private members, members of the opposition, and members of the House of Commons other than the administration, in dealing with the public purse. It is not competent for any one of us to introduce a measure which will increase the pension to be bestowed upon members of the expeditionary force; it is not competent for any one of us to introduce legislation the effect of which will increase the burden upon the public purse. If we introduced remedial legislation to deal with the problems to which I have referred, the Speaker very properly would rule it out of order because we were seeking to do indirectly that which we could not do directly. We are not permitted to submit such legislation, but it is the function of a government to govern, and the duty of the administration is to submit to this house a measure dealing with the Pensions Act, which measure could be referred to the committee.
I had occasion the other day to deal with the case of a widow with many children, who is now a pauper

that is the only word to describe her condition. I knew her husband and I have no hesitation in saying that had that man not gone to the war and assuming that he would have died at the time he did die, he would have left his wife better able to face the future with her children. But owing to his service to the country he was deprived of his earning power for four years. Having lost that, he comes back in health, mark you! and endeavours to reestablish himself. What does he find? He finds his energy less than it was; he finds no sign of disease, but his flagging energies in-
Allowances to War Veterans

dicate his inability to earn the money that he once could. He is passed by and finally dies. He dies from a disease that you cannot say is directly referable to war service. His wife and his children are paupers. This widow's case is one of many in this country and her condition is indirectly attributable to the fact that her husband saw fit to give his services to the state and then found himself, on account of the deferred disability to which the Prime Minister referred the other day, in a position where he could no longer earn money, thus leaving his wife penniless. Are we going to do anything for that widow or not?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that is the government's answer, but I think we should do something in that case and I press upon the minister the desirability of endeavouring to deal with such a situation. What is the answer? The government's answer to all that is: Look what we shall do in the committee! In the first place the government has control of the committee; the majority in the committee is a government majority. In the second place, the government's intentions are manifest from the bill they have offered to the house. Those members of the committee who are selected by the government as their nominees are men who, I believe, reflect the attitude of the administration as indicated by the measure submitted. If the measure now submitted had left the financial provisions in blank, one could have understood it; if it had provided skeleton clauses, one could have understood it; but instead of that it makes definite provision dealing with definite matters and provides for definite payments to be made under certain conditions. Therefore, the committee must necessarily be limited in the scope of its activities and in the conclusions at which it arrives.


Mr. THORSON:: Why?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because it is a committee the majority of which is controlled by the administration.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Is the hon. member suggesting that the members of the committee from this side of the house will not tackle the question fairly?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no hesitation in
saying that the members of the committee from that side of the house will try to do everything they can to meet the situation and they will do it in such a way as to get the greatest possible political advantage out

of it. The reason why I say that is well illustrated by what is happening in Vancouver. The soldiers' representative in British Columbia is a gentleman who is very actively interested in politics. He sits on the Liberal side in the British Columbia legislature. The other day a scene took place in the legislature in which, according to the report in the public press, he was the chief mover. What is the attitude of men who have to go to him and seek support when they find him so violent in his expressions against Conservatives? Is that fair?


John Warwick King: He is a nominee
of the legion and the soldiers' bodies in British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member said
so last year and I saw some exception taken to his appointment by the members of the legion themselves. I point out that as being unfair.
I come to the administration of the legislation now before 'the house. The minister said that there is an appeal from the committee to himself. Is he or is he not a political officer? He is a member of the government, of the cabinet. He is political in his views and in his viewpoints and he is doing what he can in the interests of the party to which he belongs and the government which he supports and of which he is a member. The other day I took up a Victoria paper, and I read a report in regard to certain assistance certain parties were receiving from my hon. friend. It is an open secret in this country that large numbers of letters have been sent to medical men on the pension board. Sometimes they are marked "personal"; they are not before us. Members of parliament have said that as they sat on the Liberal side of the house they could more easily be successful in their efforts to secure pensions than if they were on this side.


John Warwick King: That is very unfair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be wrong, but my hon. friend knows that is going on in the country. I know personally of cases where that statement has been made. What is going to happen if the minister is to constitute himself a court of appeal, to determine whether a man is to receive a pension of $20 or $40 per month? Do you mean to say that the Minister of Pensions and National Health is not human and is not seeking to maintain in power the Liberal administration of this country? Does he not want to remain in power himself? Is his judgment not going to be warped and biased by reason of

Allowances to War Veterans
that fact, I care not how fair-minded he may be? In a court you can take five experts on one side and five on the other, all men of high professional qualifications, and the live on one side will take a given view and swear to it as their opinion, while the other five will swear to another opinion as theirs. The minister finds himself a court of last resort' under the bill now before the house to determine whether or not people in difficult circumstances shall secure money compensation. Is that fair? Is that right? Is that just? Is that in accordance with the ideas that should be at the bottom of the Pension Act? I submit it is not.
There are two things the government must do. First of all, they must bring in legislation to amend the Pension Act in accordance with the promises that have been given so as to make adequate provision for that class of cases to which reference has already been made, and to which I will not again refer, cases that the Minister of Pensions and National Health knows of quite as well as I; second, to provide a simpler method whereby applicants can have their oases favourably or otherwise considered by the board, and, third, to make it clear that in cases of deferred disability the country is going to deal with them as pensionable cases, and where there are cases of deferred disability the dependents, widows and children who have been left behind, shall have their claims considered by the state. That means amending the Pension Act, but that act is not before the house. If you can dignify the resolution now before the house as meaning anything, it means just what the minister said, an old age pension act for certain types of cases.


John Warwick King: I did not say anything of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How did the minister put it?


John Warwick King: Let the hon. member proceed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not called it an old age pensions act, but similar to the old age pension provisions.


John Warwick King: Provisions that are apnlicable to old age pensions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That means that the provisions that are applicable under the old age pensions will be applicable to cases of this kind? What is the qualification of an applicant under the Old Age Pensions Act? It is pauperism. Under the Old Age Pensions Act no man can secure a pension unless he is prepared to make a declaration in the several
provinces that he has not anything, and if he has any property he has to surrender it to the state before, in many of the provinces, he can become pensionable. Is that the attitude to be taken towards men who have offered their lives to their country? This is not an old age pension. This is not a case of pauperism. This is the case of men who have offered their lives for the state, for men like the minister and myself and other taxpayers. Because we are taxpayers, our duty is to see that the sacrifice of these men is not in vain. That is our duty and that of parliament, and parliament fails in its duty if for a single moment it says it has to deal with these men in a similar manner to the way in which it deals with old age pensioners who have to become paupers in order to get money out of the state. The other day a man said: "The objection I have to the old age pension is that I have to declare myself a pauper if I am to secure a pension". That is a most objectionable thing. Although no pensions are being paid in the province of Quebec, it will require $12,000,000 to pay pensions in Canada this year. What a reflection that is on Canada's prosperity! Now the government is going to add to those pensioners numbers of men who find themselves in a difficult position because they had the courage to leave this country to fight for it. Such treatment is not right and it is not good enough. The Canadian people will not accept it and I misjudge this parliament if it will.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there was one note sounded in common by most hon. members who have spoken on this question of returned soldiers' disabilities and matters pertaining to their pensions, it has been that every effort should be made to keep this question out of party politics. We had an interesting discussion a few days ago on certain resolutions moved by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I must say that listening to the speeches that were made from all sides of the house, while much was said of the problem as he saw it from the point of view of each individual speaking, there did appear to be a distinct effort, to avoid making the question one of political controversy, at least at the outset. At the conclusion of the discussion there was a speech delivered which I confess caused me to alter the opinion I had formed as to the object of the discussion. I may refer to it at another time; I shall not do so at the moment. I did not expect that the one person above all others who would seek to make this question from the outset one of party controversy in this house would be
Allowances to War Veterans

the leader of the opposition. I say to my hon. friend that the speech which he has just delivered was a speech calculated to endeavour to make party capital out of this question at the very beginning of the session. Apart from that, the present attitude of my hon. friend is at such complete variance with the point of view which he himself took in speaking in this house on the address, that his speech to-day amounts almost to a complete contradiction of what he said at that time. When we were considering the speech from the throne, my hon. friend stressed above everything else the importance of having this question relating to returned soldiers dealt with by a committee of this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He pointed
out that this was the method by which previous governments had sought to deal with the matter, and he endeavoured to take particular credit to the conservative party for having set an example in that regard. But this afternoon he tells the house that these matters should be dealt with not by a special committee but by the government through specific legislation in advance of any reference to a committee, and he says we are all at fault because we are waiting to enable a special committee to deal with this matter before finally disposing of it in the house. May I read to my hon. friend his words in this house on the 24th of February last, as reported in Hansard.


Robert James Manion: What page?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Page 23.
Referring to the speech made by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray), who moved the address, the leader of the opposition said:
We endeavoured in this house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not to interrupt, of
course, but the Prime Minister being such a stickler for forms, I would just mention that it is not in order to refer to a past debate.
Mr.	MACKENZIE KING: My hon.
friend evidently knew what was coming.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know what is coming.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall not quote from the debate, but will allow hon. members to look it up for themselves, at page 25 of Hansard. I think they will find that the view which my hon. friend has expressed in this house heretofore, if I may put it that way, is that all these returned soldier problems should be dealt with in the first instance by

a committee of the house. May I say that with that view as originally expressed, I am in entire agreement. I believe that the country is of the opinion that that is the way in which the returned soldier problems should be dealt with. I believe also that the returned soldiers themselves, the legion and other soldier organizations, will wish to have this question dealt with by a special committee on which there will be returned soldiers and before which they can appear and make their views and opinions known. At any rate, it was with the hope and expectation, in order not to defeat the very ends we are most anxious to serve, through any attempt, so far as this House of Commons is concerned, to have political capital made out of any phase of the discussion, that we as a government decided to follow the procedure that has been adopted in previous years, and which on the whole has worked very well. I want to make clear that that is the procedure we intend to follow. With respect to any matter concerning the returned soldiers which they individually, or the legion or any other of the veterans' organizations wish to have taken up before that special committee, they should have, and will have, the fullest opportunity to have it discussed there, and the committee may bring before this house whatever report in its opinion should be brought in. The committee in its study of the question will be able to get from every possible direction all the assistance they wish to have, and when their report is before the house we as a government will deal further with the matter.
My hon. friend has tried to make a point out of the circumstance that hon. gentlemen opposite cannot themselves bring in specific measures; that only the government can bring in measures that necessitate the payment of moneys out of the public treasury. I imagine that hon. gentlemen opposite, if one could read their minds, are very thankful that such is the case, because they know very well that of all the questions that arise in dealing with these problems the most difficult is that which has to do with the cost of the legislation proposed. My hon. friends escape the possibility of their measures being judged on that score. If we on this side of the house venture to point out that a measure is going to cost several million dollars, we are immediately told that we are thinking more of the treasury than we are of the returned soldier. So I say that my hon. friends opposite are very glad indeed that under the rules of the house they are not in a position to suggest concrete measures. But there has been no limitation on their suggestions or proposals by way of resolu-

Allowances to War Veterans
tion. They have already introduced a resolution and an amendment, two motions, with respect to what should be done, and I would ask the members who introduced these resolutions if they have ever calculated what the cost of the proposals involved in their resolutions would amount to, and if so, whether they will be prepared, when speaking again to the resolution and amendment, to tell us just how many millions the resolution and the amendment, if adopted, would cost.


Peter McGibbon: Is that the Prime Minister's objection to it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not. I am simply answering my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, who regrets that he has not the opportunity of bringing in any specific measures. I think that my hon. friend from Muskoka-Ontario would himself hesitate very much to bring in any specific measure based on his resolution if he had the opportunity to do it. But I think it is entirely proper that a resolution such as my hon. friend has moved should go for their consideration to a committee of this house on which there are returned soldiers, and before which the returned soldiers can come. I think every consideration should be given to the matter by that committee, and that this house, in the light of the wider knowledge which comes as a result of inquiry before a committee, might well be informed what in the opinion of that committee should be done in respect to a matter of that kind.
My hon. friend has made a reference to Sir Arthur Currie's remarks and some aotion of the government in reference thereto. May I say with respect to the legislation now-brought down, that it was very far under way before Sir Arthur Currie had spoken at all; that the government for a long time has been giving very careful consideration to this matter. Sir Arthur Currie's remarks had reference more. particularly, I think, to questions of administration by the pension board. Sir Arthur Currie stated, if I recollect aright, that there were far too many regulations, that the board was too restricted in its powers, and too rigid in the application of them; that it did not have enough discretionary power, and that in those respects, there should be changes. I think Sir Arthur Currie also stated, in particular, that where there were cases of reasonable doubt upon the evidence before the board the returned soldier should get the benefit of the doubt. I have said before, and I repeat now, that with those expressions of view of Sir Arthur Currie I am wholeheartedly in accord.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why are they not carried out?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will just wait a moment: I hope that Sir Arthur Currie, among others, will appear before the committee and give to its members on this particular point the benefit of his large experience and wisdom. When the committee report to the house, having heard Sir Arthur Currie and the officers of the legion and other war organizations, that in their opinion a certain course which Sir Arthur Currie or others may have already suggested should be taken, this house will be in a position to act with a fuller appreciation of what is involved than would be possible without that step being taken in the first instance. I feel sure the country will believe that the government and the house are doing wisely in seeking to arrange to have these gentlemen of wide experience and knowledge in these matters, and those who are primarily affected, given a hearing at the outset.
So far as the Pension Act and its administration is concerned, that is one question, and it will come before the committee appointed by the house and be the subject of the fullest inquiry and investigation. There need be no restrictions, no limitations of any kind upon the extent of the inquiry with respect to the Pension Act as it is. That has been taken as understood from the outset. Right along it has been made clear that a committee of this house would be appointed for the purpose.
But those who have given study to the question and who have knowledge of the situation know that so far as the pension board and the appeal board are concerned they do not begin to deal effectively with what is a very critical and a very serious situation, namely, the class of cases, referred to by my hon. friend opposite, of men who break down as a result of the strain of war service as distinguished from known injury received during, or proven to be directly attributable to said service. These problems of deferred disability, as the member for Muskoka-Gntario (Mr. McGibbon) has used the phrase, apparently do not come within the scope of the present Pension Act. They are not so much questions of the character which the pension board has been considering up to the present time as they are in fact questions of a man's ability to carry on. I mean to say, it is not a question whether or not the disability can be proven to be due to war services, but the simple fact that having served overseas a man finds himself in such a condition of physical or mental impairment that he is unable to earn a living. These cases are the most dis-
Allowances to War Veterans

tressing and difficult to deal with, and we need something supplementary to the existing pension legislation in order that they may be properly covered.
Now, the government might have done what has been done on previous occasions, namely, introduce a blank bill and give it to the committee with authority to consider what in the way of legislation should be enacted. Had we adopted that course probably we would have been told that we had not introduced any legislation at all. In order to put something concrete before the committee-not something that the committee will have to adopt, not something that the committee cannot amend, not something the committee is bound to accept simply because it comes from the government-but in order to put something concrete before the committee which in the opinion of the government should help to meet existing needs, the Minister of Pensions has introduced, or rather is at present seeking to introduce, a measure in the nature of war allowances to returned veterans. If with that legislation before them, and having heard the members of the returned, soldier organizations and others, the committee feel that the proposed legislation does not meet the cases it is hoped it will serve to meet, they may saj' so; if the committee think that that legislation should be amended, they are free to suggest the amendments, they are free to deal with it as they please; but haying something concrete before them, something that has been the subject of much careful study, the committee will certainly be in a much better position to take up this question than they would be without any measure at all.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the intention of the government in the matter is clear and does not admit of any misunderstanding whatever. In a word it is simply this: We wish to proceed with respect to soldiers' problems, this session of all sessions, in a manner similar to that which has been adopted in previous sessions, in a manner which has been found very helpful in the past. Above everything else we wish the returned soldiers to be heard in respect of any matter which vitally affects them with respect to disability or pension. Particularly do we wish, in the interests of" the returned soldiers themselves, to avoid a political battle on the floor of this house with respect to a matter that is far too serious to be dealt with in a partisan manner.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, I do not grasp very clearly the Prime Minister's idea of what constitutes playing politics. Now, if it is playing politics to endeavour in 
this house to see that fair treatment is accorded to our returned men, then I must plead guilty to playing politics. If the Prime Minister could be with me sometimes when in my office I am called on by men who have fought in the war, and who are now physical wrecks, and if he could hear them tell how they have made their applications for pensions and have been refused, I am sure he would take an entirely different view of our position. I could cite a great many cases where there have been outrageous decisions on the part of the Board of Pension Commissioners, and also cases where I think the board of appeals has not treated returned men fairly. Those men are living in my constituency and they come to me as being their representative in this house. I think it is my duty to do the best I can for them. I have tried the Board of Pension Commissioners many times; I have tried the appeal board many times; I have even gone to the minister and to his medical advisers, I have gone to everybody that I could think of who might have any interest, and I must say that I have received very little satisfaction for those men. There is something wrong, absolutely wrong, with our whole system when a board of pension commissioners can refuse a man a pension, as they have done many times, because the disability in their opinion was either pre-war or post-war.
I should like to read a sample of the oonf-munications which I have received. This has just come to my hand. It is from a man in my constituency who served in three wars before the great war. He says:
Please find enclosed two letters received by me from pensions commissioners, Ottawa, after my last board in Shaughnessy. I may say I have suffered considerably from double hernia and was served out with a truss some time ago. Of course you know I put this down to being blown up in the Ypres salient, 1916. I never received any treatment for this but was considerably shaken up and bled internally for some time after it and not much since I was invalided June 1918.	[DOT]
Although I got treatment for my eyes and ear at the field hospital its always post discharge. If you remember injury arose to my eyes through mustard and tear gas whilst in charge of R. E. Park at Lens Junction and injury to m.v ear whilst in charge of artillery position at St. Nazaire. I was also wounded in the ribs, it was only slight, and stuck a piece of plaster on it and carried on and refused to go to hospital.
My worst complaint is hernia as it affects my carrying on my work on the farm. I know I do not look sick but am very much affected by this. If you remember I joined up at mobilisation. I was to have gone over with the 7th battalion but was sent over on the island on coast defence and transferred to engineers having been foreman in B.C.E.R. car shops in New Westminster. I also contracted in Vancouver for

Allowances to War Veterans
many yeare previously. I was sent over to Prance eventually as reinforcement to 7th company field engineers. Was transferred to 10th company, served twenty-one months with them and C.R.E., invalided home to Canada June 1918. These particulars are to refresh your memory. My son William is getting worse in Shaughnessy and gets very little treatment, for don't think the doctor who is supposed to treat him sees him once in three months. His case has never come up to appeal court.
The letter that he refers to from the Board of Pension Commissioners has the reference S.C.R. 981-F-l., B.P.C. 95968, and it is dated February 3. 1930:
Mr. F. W. Kearsley,
Strawberry Hill, B.C.
Dear Sir:
Your claim has been carefully considered by the Board of Pension Commissioners and they have ruled that double inguinal hernia arose post-discharge. It is regretted, therefore, that under The Pension Act you are not entitled to pension for any disability due to this disease.
Your pension is being continued however at twenty per cent for your disability due to arthritis incurred during service.
That man, as I say, served in four wars. He is una'ble to carry on bis work-


Mr. CAHILL:: What four wars?
Mr. MicQUARRIE:	I have not that information, but he told me he served in four wars. R'e is unable to carry on bis work on his farm. He .has come to my office; I have seen him. I have known him for years, and he is getting a pension now of fifteen dollars lien- month. I say it is a shame and a disgrace to Canada. A man like that should at least be decently treated by (this country. In the letter he refers to his son William. The boy is in Shaughnessy hospital, I believe a total wreck mentally and physically. He also had some service. After his father enlisted he joined the 131st battalion as a bugler. He got to England, but being too young to be sent to France was assigned to duty in England. He used a motorcycle. He was run into by a motor truck.and was injured. La.ter on he developed very serious trouble. On coming back to England his father saw the boy and was very much struck by his condition. When he left New Westminster he was a strong, rosy-cheeked boy. At his father's instigation, in 1918, having served two years in England, he was returned to Canada, the reason given .that he was under age, and that reason is on his papers. As a matter of fact, he was not under age then. He was undeir age when he enlisted, but he had then attained the age of eighteen years when he was discharged, and he was discharged because
of his physical condition. After his return to Canada toe boy seemed to recover his health a little, and later got married, but since that time he has been going steadily down hill, and at present he is in Shaughnessy hospital, a complete wreck. The doctors at first diagnosed 'his case as sleeping sickness, and they said that sleeping sickness could not be the result of any injuries received at his work. The fact as, however, that the boy is totally incapacitated. There is no dispute as to his being 100 per cent disabled. He is not getting any pension. I understand that the doctors have now changed their diagnosis, and they say he is suffering from paralysis. That family has been badly treated; who ' is responsible? The government is responsible, and the minister of the department is responsible, and I for one am not satisfied that we should have to rely on the department to mete out .treatment to our returned men. Something better should be done for them. I have made the charge several times dn the house .that instructions have been given to the Board of Pension Commissioners to keep down pensions as much as possible, to refuse pensions where they could, and I have actor yet had that denied.


John Warwick King: You know very
well it is not true.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is the first time the minister has ever denied it. In any event,
I make this charge, that the Board of Pension Commissioners do not give pensions where they should give them, and apparently we are not going to have the privilege this session of discussing cases of this kind at all.


John Warwick King: Certainly you are.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister say that we can discuss individual cases before the committee?


John Warwick King: Certainly.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is understood?


John Warwick King: Certainly.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have many cases,
then, that I want to bring before that committee. We must always bear in mind that the government has a majority on every committee of this house, but if the committee is going to be allowed to proceed without undue influence we may possibly expect something. I have no complaint to make against other committees that have acted, but I do hope that the government will keep out of this and give the committee a wide range and full power to deal with matters which are submitted to them.
Allowances to War Veterans


John Arthur Clark: Is there anything relating
to dependents in the legislation which is to be based on this resolution?


John Warwick King: No.


John Arthur Clark: Is the legislation not drafted?


John Warwick King: Is the hon. member referring to provision for dependents of deceased veterans?


John Arthur Clark: For the dependents of
veterans whether deceased or otherwise.


John Warwick King: I explained that
before. The measure does provide that where a man is married, with a wife and family, an increased grant is given to that family.


John Arthur Clark: In a lump sum?


John Warwick King: Yes, given to the veteran.


John Arthur Clark: A married man gets more
than a single man.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How does the minister distinguish in principle between that situation and one where the veteran dies, and his wife and children, who were the cause of his receiving the additional allowance, are deprived of it?


John Warwick King: It is not provided for.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What is the difference in
principle? Why does the government make such a distinction and deprive the widow and the children, who received the allowance so long as the veteran was alive, of the allowance when the veteran dies?


John Warwick King: It is an allowance to the veteran, the man who served overseas, an allowance made when he reaches a certain age, or when of necessity, with the conditions and circumstances surrounding, he has not the means to carry on. I think if my hon. friend will wait for the bill he will find that it covers the full endeavour very well.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why should not the widow and children also receive an allowance? Why is the proposal of the minister prejudicial to the women? If the principle is one of old age allowance, surely the women and the children are entitled to it; if the principle is one of pensionable disability relating to the pension act, then the principle of the pension act should apply. Under those conditions how can the government exempt the rights of or debar the women and children from participating in the benefits? fMr. McQuarrie.]


John Warwick King: They are not debarred; they are not considered under this act. It is the veteran who is considered.


Robert James Manion: Do I understand this act
is not a modification of the pension act at all?


John Warwick King: No.


Robert James Manion: In view of that fact I
should like to point out to the Prime Minister that it hardly agrees with his statement during the debate in reply to the speech from the throne. In his remarks he said-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: Very well, I will use the Prime Minister's own words; on a previous occasion in {his house he pointed out that legislation would be brought down which would be a modification-he did not use those words, but that is what he meant-a modification of the pension act which would deal with these cases, and said it would be referred to a committee. He was much more elaborate in his pre-description of the legislation which was to come than the legislation itself justifies. This afternoon the Prime Minister said this was virtually a blank bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I said
the opposite of that; I said I might have brought in a blank bill, and then we would have been blamed for doing nothing.


Robert James Manion: I misunderstood the right hon. gentleman, but certainly the bill does not justify the pre-description given by the Prime Minister, which dealt very elaborately with it and gave us the impression, if I read his remarks correctly, that it was to be a modification of the pension act. He said that after careful consideration by the government it had been decided to appoint a committee which would bring about what would be virtually a modification of the pension act, so certainly this does not live up to the speech made by the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to direct
the attention of the Prime Minister to the observation contained in the speech from the throne:
My ministers have also been making careful inquiry into the workings of the provisions and administration of the Pensions Act with a view to ascertaining what, in the light of past and present experiences, may be necessary to ensure full effect being given to the purpose of parliament in that enactment. As a result your attention will be invited to legislation to make more adequate provision for the needs of the veterans of the Great war and their dependents.

Allowances to War Veterans
That As the paragraph in the speech from the throne which directs attention to the fact that the pension act was to be dealt with, but there is no legislation now before the house; the matter is left to a committee to be dealt with.
The right hon. gentleman referred to the fact that I always have been in favour of these matters being left to committees. That is perfectly true, but when a bill is introduced in this house making express financial provisions, when that bill is sent to a committee, it is quite obvious that the committee is limited by those financial provisions under our rules of government. In other words, it is not competent for the committee to impose upon the country a heavier burden than that contemplated by the bill referred, which is introduced only after having received the consent of His Excellency the Governor General and under certain rules of procedure which have been adopted in connection with such matters. I did suggest and still suggest that a committee is desirable, but not for the purpose of playing politics.
I say that again; I go further and say to the minister that there is abroad in this country the idea that "kissing goes by favour." Let me give an illustration. Only a few weeks ago a widow came to me at a time when certain of the ministers were in one of the towns of this country. This lady asked if I thought it advisable for her to go in person to see the minister, adding that the president of the Liberal association had made the necessary arrangements in the hope that something might be done for her. I say, "Certainly, go ahead," and that has been the case with respect to many matters in this Dominion. If the special committee will consider the matter, have the correspondence brought down and examine the officials, they will find that in a great many instances the pressure of political supporters has been brought to bear for the purposes of accomplishing results. It was to protest against that practice that I rose in my place this afternoon and made the observations that I did.
What is more, the legislation now submitted to this house is the worst piece of political legislation any parliament has had to consider on the eve of an eleotion. What does it do? It puts into the hands of the Minister of Pensions and National Health the power to say yes or no to the applications of these applicants, and if anyone who knows that gentleman and knows what he has been doing in British Columbia thinks for a single moment he will not play politics, he has another thought coming.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I make the statement
in all seriousness, not because he is worse than anyone else but because he has the great desire to see if he cannot win to the support of this falling administration a few friends among the returned soldiers. That is why I made the observations I did this afternoon. If I felt that this committee was not bound by the limitations imposed upon it by the constitution; if I felt that the Minister of Pensions w.as desirous of carrying out the statements made in the speech from the throne by setting up a committee for the purpose of submitting legislation to deal with the pensions act, I would not have said what I did say. Here is a political officer, a member of the government, who is to have the last word as to whether or not men shall have pensions. Does anyone mean to tell me he will not be subject to the pressure of political exigencies? Who can think so for a moment? Let us look at the hon. gentlemen opposite and ask ourselves if any of them can so think. Is there one of them who does not know what the minister will be doing; is there one who does not know what he will be endeavouring to do when these applicants come and ask for 'his support- on the eve of an election?


Mr. VALLANCE:: The same as we always have done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly; my hon. friend is absolutely right.


John Vallance: And we always have done it irrespective of political associations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they expect favourable consideration from the minister whose cause they are espousing in the constituencies. I am not blaming the minister; he and the members of the government are only human, but I say we must not put the applicant in such a position that he has to do what was -mentioned by the h-on. member for Richmond-West Ca.pe Breton (Mr. Macdonald)' the other night. The hon. member gave us instances of cases where men had to make statements as to their political allegiance before they could get jobs.


John Warwick King: Where did that happen?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the constituency of Richmond-West Cape Breton; we were told about it the other night. We also had the situation in Ottawa last year where slips of paper had to be produced in order to get work on the canal. How much more would that be done in dealing with a question of
Allowances to War Veterans

this kind? Let me tell the Prime Minister that in times of stress and strain men who have wives and children for whom to provide, men with very little food in their homes, will not let a small matter such as the question of pledging their political allegiance stand in the way of their endeavours to secure what they need. We must lift them out of that position, and it is not fair to this country to have the minister deal with the question of pensions; it is not fair to those who profess the faith of the party to which I belong. It is not fair; it is not right and it is not just. This committee is hamstrung before it starts. That is the great difficulty; a limitation is placed upon the committee beyond which it may not go.
The Prime Minister asked me why I took the position I indicated. I will tell him; I have taken that position because he has introduced legislation this afternoon which places in the hands of one man the right to determine whether or not the claims of a person shall receive recognition. That is not British fair play, when that officer is a political officer. That sort of thing has been going on in various parts of Canada, and it is high time that practice was stopped. The people who pay taxes in Canada are not all Liberals or Conservatives, and they have the right to see justice done regardless of political considerations. No minister of the crown is the man to dispense justice in such cases whether he be Liberal or Conservative. I want to be fair in this matter; I do not think the members on this side would be the men to do it, any more than the members on that side. It is not right, or just, or fair that it should be done in that way. Let us give these men a chance for fair play. If the sending of this bill to the committee is to be the basis of the action you are going to take, it is not fair play either to the people of Canada or the men it is desired to assist.
The Solictor General (Mr. Cannon) and the Minister of Pensions and National Health will bear me out when I say that in 1927 I was very hesitant to introduce an amendment by which the applicant would be given the benefit of the doubt. The Prime Minister has said that I am trying to make politics of this matter, but it will be remembered that on that occasion seventy-eight members voted for that proposal as against ninety-six the other way.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Did the hon. member in a recent visit to western Canada make use of that very thing upon the political platform?
An hon. MEMBER; Why not?

Mr. BENNETT; He certainly did, after the Prime Minister had stated that he was going to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. I stated that his conversion had been deferred because in 1927 he voted against that amendment moved by me, as appears on page 546 of the journals of the House of Commons for that year.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The hon. member was using that argument for political purposes during his recent visit to western Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was explaining the
Prime Minister's sudden conversion.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: You were playing politics.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I was not playing politics-not in Saskatoon; it was not necessary to play politics there. All they want there is a chance.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: You will have to play a lot of politics yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we hope they will get that chance.


An hon. MEMBER:: We will give you a chance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was speaking of the
electors of Saskatoon, but there are many other constituencies which might be mentioned in the same category.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: They will speak for themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That amendment moved by me in 1927 read in part:
(3) For the purposes of the Pension Act, the disability on discharge of an applicant for a pension who actually served in the theatre of war shall, in the absence of misrepresentation or concealment on enlistment, be conclusively presumed to be attributable to military service.
Among the names of those who voted against that amendment appears the name of Young of Saskatoon. I made the statement referred to in answer to a statement publicly made by the Prime Minister, a statement which he has repeated this afternoon, that in consequence of the statement made by Sir Arthur Currie, legislation would be introduced to provide that the benefit of the doubt would be given to the applicant. That legislation is not before the house.
The legislation before the house is of the grossest political character. If the Prime Minister is desirous and anxious to keep this matter out of politics, then why has the government introduced a bill which cannot be considered except as a political measure, one in which a minister of the crown is to determine who shall share in the benefits of the measure?

Allowances to War Veterans


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has made reference to a passage in the speech from the throne relating to matters pertaining to the returned veterans and their dependents, and has sought to draw an inference that because the speech from the throne is worded as it is there should necessarily have been an amendment to the Pension Act in order to implement what is there stated. Allow me to re-read the section which my hon. friend has quoted. It reads:
My ministers have also been making careful inquiry into the workings of the provisions and administration of the Pension Act with a view to ascertaining what, in the light of past and present experiences, may be necessary to insure full effect being given to the purpose of parliament in that enactment. As a result your attention will be invited to legislation to make more adequate provision for the needs of the veterans of the great war and their dependents.
Let me draw attention to these words:
-to insure full effect being given to the purpose of parliament in that enactment.
What was the purpose of parliament in the enactment of the Pension Act? I take it to be that parliament expected that any man who had served in a theatre of war, who became disabled as a consequence therefrom, who was impaired in health either mentally or physically, would be able to discover some agency of government which would see that to the extent of his need, he was looked after by the state. In a broad way, I think that was the purpose, that the act was passed with that end in view-that the veteran would receive some consideration from the state which would serve to meet the needs arising from his disability. What has the experience with the Pension Act proven or revealed? It is this: that while there are many men to-day who are broken down as a result of strain during the period of war, they are unable to show that that impairment of their health is attributable to any specific cause connected with the war itself. We may all be prepared to admit that the present impaired condition of health of these men is due to the war, but they are not receiving from the state the consideration which parliament believed they would receive when the Pension Act was passed. The government, having gone into this matter very fully, has come to the conclusion that in that particular the Pension Act does not meet the present situation; the Pension Act does not meet the cases of those men who are breaking down to-day from causes undoubtedly due to service in a theatre of war, but who are unable to link up their disability in some specific and direct
way with something which occurred while overseas. The government has sought to devise legislation which would meet that class of case, but it does not follow that this should be in the form of an amendment to the Pension Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Naturally it would.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all, it may well be a separate measure. Let me make this statement for the consideration of my hon. friend; I may say quite honestly that it was very much in my mind when we were considering this matter. Rightly or wrongly there has grown up a certain prejudice against the pension board.


An hon. MEMBER:: Change it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Criticisms have been directed against the pension board to the effect that they were too rigid in their interpretation of the law, and that they had become mechanical and bureaucratic in their method of carrying out their duties. Had we as a government brought in an amendment to the Pension Act to deal with the class of cases I have mentioned and which would have referred the whole question to the pension board, wc would have been told at once that we were simply perpetuating a system with which the majority of returned men were finding fault. For that reason we took particular care to prepare a separate measure to deal with this class of case, to avoid any possibility of its being thought that the government was seeking to bind around with regulations and rigid rules of one kind and another the benefits which were to be given under the measure. That is why the present legislation is being introduced in the form in which it is.
My hon. friend speaks about the measure being a political one. He said a moment ago that the referring of it to a committee was political-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -because the followers of the government in that committee would be bound by whatever the government said. May I say to him and to the house that I hope every member of that committee who comes from this side will feel that he is absolutely free to deal with this legislation as he thinks best. The government in no way wishes the committee to feel limited as to how far they shall go or what they shall or shall not do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why were not the
amounts left blank?

Allowances to War Veterans


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Because if
they had been left (blank my hon. friend would have said that we had done nothing; that is why. It is useless for anyone to hope to please hon. gentlemen opposite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not an answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While we are very anxious to do all we can to meet the views of hon. gentlemen opposite, we have to consider what is going to be most effective in the long run in meeting the wishes, not of hon. gentlemen opposite, .but of the veterans, and we are taking a course which we believe will lead to that end.
This measure has been introduced amongst other things to give relief to the man of forty-five, fifty or sixty years of age, who is prematurely aged. Instead of having to wait until seventy years of age, as he would under the Old Age Pension Act, the returned soldier will receive the equivalent of the old age pension at the, age of sixty-five. Or if declared "burnt out," as it is expressed, he may receive this equivalent at a much earlier age, at any age in fact. My hon. friend says we are putting him in the class of paupers, and that the Old Age Pension Act is a paupers' act. That is something entirely new;
I have never before heard the old age pension measure interpreted as an act of charity on the part of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that the man has
to declare himself a pauper to get it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not agree with my hon. friend. There are many receiving old age pensions to-day whom I am sure my hon. friend will hesitate very much to describe as paupers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then, under the regulations they are not properly qualified to get it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is such
a thing as honourable penury which is very different from pauperism. One who receives an old age pension is not accepting charity but is receiving from the state that to which he has a right in accordance with the interpretation to be placed upon the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. That was explained when the measure itself was being discussed. As an example, under the industrial system to-day, it happens that many men, through no fault of their own, find it impossible to secure employment after they have passed a certain age. Changes that have arisen in the occupations in which they are engaged, through mechanical or electrical inventions and the like, have left them absolutely handicapped in the race of competition, and they 
cannot get employment. Those men are not paupers; they served their day and generation well and helped to advance the interests of the community and of the country in which they have lived. The old; age pension is based upon the theory that those men in their old age have, through no fault of their own, found their incomes reduced and, as a matter of right, are therefore entitled if restricted in their means of livelihood, upon the conditions set out in this act, to something from the state.
Their situation is parallelled by that of the returned soldier. If a man who has served in the theatre of war comes back and is disabled, whether you can trace his disability directly to some act in the theatre of war or not the mere fact that he has served in a theatre of war should entitle him in case of necessity to some consideration from the state itself. That is the purpose of the legislation which we have brought down, and I repeat that in bringing it down in this form we believe we have removed it from the prejudice which might attach to any amendment to the Pension Act, or to move in the way of administration under the Pension Act. If by any chance there is what my hon. friend opposite says, namely, the possibility of political interference or political control in any form, let the committee amend the legislation in any way that will help to remove that. Our desire is to get this matter as far removed as possible from political control, and our discussions in the house also as far removed from political controversy, as possible.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Post Office Act (newspaper ownership).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-sworn statement of names and addresses of editors, owners, stockholders, etc. to be made semi-annually.
Mr. VENIOT:: May I ask the hon. gentleman if this is the same bill as last year's?


Thomas Langton Church: Yes, it is the same bill.

Criminal Code-Motor Vehicles


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not this bill go a little further than the one my hon. friend introduced last year?


Thomas Langton Church: It goes further only to the extent that it adds these words, "and such additional information as the Postmaster General shall by regulation require." That gives the Postmaster General permissive and enabling authority to ask for any further information that in his own discretion he sees fit. It strengthens his hands.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicles).
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Would my hon. friend explain this bill?


Thomas Langton Church: Everybody knows the appalling loss of life that is taking place on the highways to-day. The law as it has been for many years is contained in sections 284 and 285 of the Criminal Code, dealing with what is popularly known as motor manslaughter. The subject of motor manslaughter has been before judges, magistrates and coroners' juries and grand juries many times. In the city from which I come 87 people were killed on the highway in one year, some of them little children, and in some cases the hit-and-run driver behaved in a most cowardly way, driving off and leaving the child on the road. There is an appalling loss of life on the highways throughout Canada. I do not know of any disease that exacts a bigger toll of life per capita than these motor accidents. Grand juries have commented on the matter as well as judges. That able and upright hardworking judge, Chief Justice Meredith, of London, has taken the ground that the provisions of the Criminal Code are too uncertain, too inconsistent, and quite insufficient to meet present-day needs and that almost any amendment might improve them. To the jury he said, that the deaths and bodily injuries caused by highway traffic would be appalling if their frequent occurrence had not made us too familiar with them, and that nearly all these aocidents are the result of some breach of the rules of the road. Not a moment of the day passes in cities without a deliberate breach of the law. Under the present law a reckless driver is very often
let off by the jury. My amendment would strengthen the law. Chief Justice Meredith with his vast experience and capacity for public rights, further says:
And as now nearly everyone is a car owner and car driver, young and old of all sorts and conditions, it is difficult to get justice in even a civil action. Car-driver-jurors have nearly all the speed fever; and self preservation instincts are so strong that they will not be persuaded to decide against drivers who have been no more unlawful than they themselves often, if not commonly, are.
What then is the remedy? I think it should be: make the laws plain and reasonably severe and enforce them; and cancel licences freely.
And at the other end of the matter: Give no licence to anyone who is not proved to be mentally and physically, and from experience and a knowledge of the highway laws, thoroughly capable.
The present section 285 of the code is repealed and a new section substituted covering (a) reckless driving; (b) injuring persons by negligence; (c) failing to stop, and hit-and-run drivers. Clause ID of the bill covers racing and cutting in where there is no room or place ahead on a highway, in a negligent manner, dangerous to others who are driving carefully. The deceased has as much right to live as these reckless, selfish people.
Section 2A says causing death is deemed to be murder. Section 2B provides that a driver who has killed a person shall not drive again for ten years, even though the deceased was partially to blame. In many cases it takes two to make an accident.
Section 2C is a new clause and a new offence, involuntary homicide. Homicide which is not wilful or wanton but occasions death, even though the deceased was somewhat negligent and his negligence contributory to the accident, renders the accused liable if he could have avoided the accident. The speed of the car is a question of fact for the jury and it is for the jury to say if the accused was driving in a negligent manner.
Section 2E was recommended by the chief constables' association at their meeting in Windsor, from a paper read by the Chief of Tecumseh township who asked one of the hon. members for Essex to bring in a bill. Section 2E is as follows:
Any court, judge or magistrate on the trial of any offence under the provisions of this section may upon the application of any person aggrieved and immediately after the conviction of the offender, award any sum of money, not exceeding one thousand dollars, by way of satisfaction or compensation for any loss of property, costs and expenses suffered by the applicant through or by means of the offence of which such person is so convicted and such court, judge or magistrate may require the offender to enter into a bond to the person aggrieved with two sureties satisfactory to

Criminal Code-Motor Vehicles
the court, judge or magistrate, conditioned to pay the amount so awarded, or such sum as may be determined in any civil action, and if the accused does not pay the amount so awarded or any fine imposed, or enter into a sufficient bond for the payment thereof as aforesaid, the court, judge or magistrate may commit the accused to gaol for a term not exceeding one year or until such time as the said bond is duly executed.	_	_
(2) The amount awarded for such satisfaction or compensation, and costs and expenses shall be deemed a judgment debt due to the person entitled to receive the same from the person so convicted, and the order for payment of such amount may be enforced in such and the same manner as in the case of any costs and expenses ordered by the court, judge or magistrate to be paid by the person convicted under the provisions of section one thousand and forty-four of the Criminal Code.
A poor person has to sue the visitor in Ontario and register a judgment against him in the States, and no one can afford all this. The new clause requires a bond on the spot. The person injured or killed has as much right to use the highway as the reckless driver, but even in a civil action it is difficult to get justice against the reckless driver. One of the most callous persons is the hit and run motorist. Some time ago, a poor working woman returning home from Mimico was knocked down while getting off a bus, but the hit and run driver made good his escape. I could quote to the house articles from the Toronto Globe and the Toronto Mail dealing with the appalling number of motor accidents last summer; for instance, there were forty-seven motor accidents during one week-end. These hit and run and reckless motorists are a law unto themselves. Many of them are tourists from the other side and they disregard our laws, but they cannot break their own traffic laws with such impunity. Some hon. members may argue that the provisions of this bill go too far, but undoubtedly it is time to tighten up our traffic laws and bring them up to date as they did in England last January. This is the opinion of the chief constables' association expressed at their meeting in the city of Windsor. I think the provisions of this bill are necessary to deal with the class of person who are responsible for many of our motor accidents. There is murder in the hearts of some of these men; they are potential murderers; they do not care if they kill you. I repeat, our traffic laws ought to be tightened up to deal with such cases. They have tightened up their traffic laws considerably in England, and similar action is being taken in New York State.
It may not be fair to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to adopt this bill to-

night, but I would ask him to consider it. He has, I know, some regard for the safety of the public. I think the bill might very well go to a committee composed of members from all sides of the house for consideration and revision.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the law governing motor traffic should be very strict, but I am afraid that my hon. friend's bill, if enacted, would defeat the purpose he has in view. I may say at once that the government intends this session to bring down legislation amending the criminal code in many respects, and that part of the code relating to motor accidents will be particularly dealt with. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he allow his bill to stand until the government measure is brought down, when the whole matter can be discussed. Then, of course, he will be at liberty to move any amendment he desires, even to the extent of incorporating the provisions of this bill if he thinks they are better than those of the bill which I intend to introduce. These provisions are being considered, and we are basing that consideration on the experience of the attorneys general and the deputy attorneys general of the provinces, who have the administration of justice under their control. My hon. friend in his explanatory note has this:
Under the code now, murder or manslaughter may be charged where the victim dies, in the case of a hit-and-run driver, hut if the victim survives, after injury, there is no penalty except fine under the various motor vehicles' acts and no adequate section of the code to fit the case. The amendments are intended to cover suoh cases.
That is not the experience as it is conveyed to us. I think my hon. friend is wrong in the statement contained in the explanatory note. The fact is that in cases where the victim survives the driver is liable to two years' imprisonment under the provisions of section 284 of the criminal code, which reads as follows:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, by any unlawful act, or by doing negligently or omitting to do any act which it is his duty to do, causes grievous bodily injury to any other person.
This section is the section under which prosecutions are being instituted when the victim survives.	But the difficulties which
the provincial authorities have had to meet -and more particularly in Ontario-did not arise in cases where the victim survived. It has been in cases where charges of manslaugh-

Criminal Code-Embalming
ter were laid following the victim's death. In those cases experience has shown that it is very difficult to get juries to convict of manslaughter, and for a time it was thought by some of the judges that where the victim died no conviction could be made for criminal negligence under section 284, which I have quoted, with the result that a number of people escaped punishment. We had for a time the intention to amend the criminal code, by adding a section stating that the jury ma}' find the accused not guilty of manslaughter but guilty of criminal negligence under section 284, but we have been advised by the deputy attorney general of Ontario that the first appellate division of the supreme court of Ontario has delivered a judgment in the case of Rex vs. Starr, holding that the crown had a right to charge criminal negligence even though the victim has been killed, and this judgment still stands. But I am considering the advisability of making it still more certain, and amending the criminal code in that regard at the present session.
A further difficulty has developed more recently in securing convictions in manslaughter cases, arising out of motor accidents, owing to a decision of the supreme court in the case of Rex vs. Baker, which adopts the view that some degree of intent, of mens rea, is required to establish criminal negligence in manslaughter. The deputy attorney general of Ontario has asked me to amend the code in that regard and provide that when any person is charged with manslaughter caused through negligence, evidence which is sufficient to establish negligence upon the same set of facts in a civil case shall be sufficient for a conviction of any person so charged. That is being considered at the present time. My hon. friend will, therefore, see that we are considering this matter in the light of the experience of the prosecuting authorities in the provinces, and they do not seem to concur with my hon. friend in their view of what the difficulty is. I would also call my hon. friend's attention to subsection (2E) on page 3 of his bill, in which he provides for compensation for loss of property. I am strongly of opinion that this section relates to property and civil rights, and that this could not be brought under the designation of criminal law.
I reiterate to my friend my suggestion to allow Ijis bill to stand until the government measure is brought down. He suggests that this bill be sent to a committee. If it should be considered that the bill brought down by the government should be sent to a committee then the whole matter might be discussed at that time, but meanwhile, especially in view 2419-18
of what I have stated with regard to the various provisions of my hon. friend's bill, if he cannot see his way clear to allow it to stand I would be compelled to oppose the second reading.


Thomas Langton Church: I am prepared to adopt
the suggestion of the minister, that he bring in a bill himself. He has had a good many representations, and I am sure he will bring in a bill that will not be too hard on the motorists but which at the same time will protect the public. I accept the minister's suggestion that the bill be allowed to stand and he bring in a bill.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the debate was adjourned.



FIREARMS, HOMICIDE, OFFENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading o,f Bill No. 5, an act to amend the criminal code (firearms, homicide, offences)
*-Mr. Church.
Ernest Lapointe: I would ask my hon.
friend to give the explanation.


Thomas Langton Church: Just the same principle.


Ernest Lapointe: Very well; let it stand.
Bill stands.



EMBALMING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. J. E. GUERIN (St. Ann) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, an act to amend the Criminal Code (embalming).
He said: I would first of all thank the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) for having drawn the attention of the government to the possibility of this bill not being altogether in order; nevertheless I think it is well that some consideration should be given to it, and then it will be for the government to act in whatever manner it may deem fit.
There is no doubt whatever that we are altogether too hasty in regard to the disposal of our dead. It has become the general practice that as soon as a person breathes his last the undertaker is sent for. The first preoccupation of the undertaker is to put the body in such a state that it will not decompose, consequently he has recourse to embalming. Embalming, as we all know, is a very praiseworthy and very ancient custom. I think it was brought to a very advanced state by the Chinese, when they embalmed their dead, but with us it has become so easy that there is no time lost before the operation is begun. What made me particularly anxious in so far as this custom is concerned was ax experience I had about a month ago, when
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code-Embalming
[Stage Direction]
a .patient of mine died of heart disease. I had expected that patient to die, and told the relatives that within a short time death would ensue. A few days later a young man came to my house to ask me to certify to the death of his father. I said, "Certainly; I will go out and view the body," to which he replied, "Oh, I have sent for the undertaker." I said, "I hope he will not do anything until I arrive." The man had died at twelve o'clock and I went down immediately after lunch, ariving there at three o'clock, and found the undertaker in full charge. The family said, "I do not know whether they will let you in or not," but I said, "Oh, .there will be no trouble about that." I went in, and the embalmer had removed the greater part of the man's blood; the body was still warm, and he was proceeding to fill him up with embalming fluid. I have no doubt the man was really and truly dead; if he was not, he was decidedly dead by the time I got there. Death is a very slow process, and people should not anticipate the completion of that process. I could tell you of many other instances. I could tell of a friend of mine who was in the halbit of getting syncopal attacks, a species of lethargy. He used to get into such a state that everybody considered him dead, and one day, while going along St. Catherine street in Montreal he dropped, and the people who gathered around declared him dead. There was an undertaker's institution close by, where he was taken and placed in a coffin. It so happened that this man was boarding in the same house as a physician, a great friend of his; they found the .physician's address in the patient's pocket, and telephoned him. That gentleman was out attending his daily duties, so they telephoned to one of the principal hospitals in the city and told them to send someone to give a certificate of death so that they might proceed with the embalming. It took some time for the doctor to come from the hospital, but a little after three o'clock he came sauntering in. The undertaker met him at the door and said, "I have a body here; I would like to get a certificate of death before we proceed to do anything." They went to the coffin, but the coffin was empty. The patient, looking around and seeing himself in a mortuary chamber, had jumped out of the box and gone home. Just as he reached the door of his home he met his friend the physician who was coming out. The physician was startled and said, "Where are you coming from?" The man replied, "Do not ask 
me." The physician said, "I was going up to give a certificate that you were dead." "Well," the man replied, "I was almost dead, but I did not quite die."
Seriously, gentlemen, these are conditions which sometimes occur and which are decidedly dangerous unless there is some precaution taken in order to delay the enthusiastic cooperation of the undertaker with the medical man.
I may tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is customary for people who endure severe shocks, such as electrical shocks, to pass into a syncopal condition where all animation is apparently suspended. I have here an account from the superintendent of service of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, which employs a certain number of men to resuscitate those who are severely shocked. He referred to the instance of a young man named Ferdinand Lapointe, twenty-three years of age, who was electrocuted at 6.05 p.m. Twenty-five minutes later physicians declared the man dead, but at 7.30 p.m. on the same day they were successful in resuscitating him at the morgue. Unfortunately his condition was so weak that they were unable to keep him alive and the man actually died at 8.25 p.m. Had it not been that these people had been called in this man would have been probably embalmed before he died.
Another more interesting case was also cited by this gentleman. On March 29. 1913, Phillip Terry, sixteen years of age, was walking east on St. Catherine street when, at the intersection of Cadieux street, a wire fell and electrocuted him. This was at 1.40 p.m. He was proclaimed dead. At 2.15 p.m. they were successful in resuscitating him and this gentleman personally wished the boy a happy Christmas on the evening of December 24 when he was leaving the hospital to go home for his Christmas dinner. This, as you will see, was some ten months after the electrocution.
Since I brought this matter up I have found several instances in the newspapers, and I have in my hand a press despatch from Naples, as follows:
While relatives and mourners were gathered around her body before funeral services for Maria Todary, eighty-three year old woman of the village of Fillasodo, she startled them by opening her eyes and exclaiming, "I am cold."
Given medical attention she rapidly recovered and resumed her (usual activity. She was thought to have died from heart disease.
Evidences of the premature funeral were hastily removed.

Penitentiary Act-Mr. Church
In last night's paper there was an account of the death of a man from asphyxia. I have no doubt he died, all right, but at the same time I would not be in favour of having him embalmed right away; I think it would be well to give him the opportunity of dying properly first. It is all very well for us to think of this subject lightly but, gentlemen, such laws do prevail in other countries. In France, for instance, no one is allowed to mutilate a body in any way until twenty-four hours after death; the fact is appreciated that animation may be suspended and that the person may not be completely dead. Due to the density of population in our large cities, especially in Montreal, people are living more in apartment houses where there is very little room and consequently when a person dies the body is removed as soon as possible to some mortuary chamber. I think the old habit of allowing the body to remain for twelve or fifteen hours before being taken to an undertaking establishment is more civilized than the recourse at once to this embalming process. I appreciate that probably this act would come within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) deems it expedient to rule my bill out of order, which I hope he will not, I would ask that he make representations to the different provinces to have them enact the necessary laws to safeguard society. If the bill is ultra vires of parliament, of course I have to bow to the inevitable, but I hope the Minister of Justice will, in his wisdom, make representations and perhaps at the same time send along a copy of the few remarks I have made in order that his hand may be strengthened in connection with his recommendation to the attorneys general of the provinces.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin) has presented a strong case for the regulation of the trade of embalming, but he seems to have some doubt himself that it would come under criminal law. It would seem to be a matter for the provincial regulation of this profession, similar to the regulation which requires a certain delay before a person is buried. I would point out to the hon. member that the burden is put upon the undertaker of ascertaining when death actually occurred. The bill reads:
(c) embalms any human body, entire or in part, before the expiration of at least ten hours after death.
The hon. member has pointed out that it is rather hard to find out when death actually occurred, and I suppose the regulation should be ten hours after death as shown by the
2419-ISA
medical certificate. I will follow the suggestion of the hon. member and send a copy of this bill as well as a copy of his remarks to the attorneys general of the various provinces.


Hewitt Bostock: Shall the bill stand?
Mr. L.APOINTE:	I think it should be
dropped.
Bill withdrawn.



PENITENTIARY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Ernest Lapointe: Will the hon. member explain?


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I have no criticism to offer of the officials connected with these institutions, as they are doing a splendid work. This bill has been for many years suggested by one of the ablest judges in Ontario, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Grand juries have investigated provincial institutions in Ontario. In Hamilton, two sane men for several years were in the asylum and in one case in York county girls were found without food and shelter, in a dungeon below ground, this being a punishment for some minor offence. The chief justice in addressing the grand jury said:
I am in accord with your views as to inspection of these penitentiaries. Such inspection is in accord with that great principle in the administration of justice which for centuries has been applied and was confirmed by Magna Charta, namely, that the people shall have a large share in the administration of justice in criminal cases.
Whether penitentiaries are well or ill managed they are managed altogether by crown officers; and the management of them is a thing of much importance in the administration of the criminal laws so much that assuredly the people should be entitled to some means of learning for themselves what the crown officials are doing and how it is being done.
The grand jury, representing the people of the judicial district, can most conveniently, and at no cost, perform for the people the duty of visitation.
But one matter of detail I mention, because it seems to me that it should receive consideration.
In some counties there may be five grand juries in a year. Let me suggest that their power be limited thus: say twice a year.
The object of this bill is to put into effect the law of England in similar penal institutions under the Secretary of State for the Home department. We have a capable Minister who has been studying this problem and who is beginning to make some headway. I do not see where any objection can be made to this amendment as this has worked out very well in the provinces and I doubt if our asylums and other institutions would be in the efficient

Penitentiary Act-Mr. Lapointe
condition they are in to-day were it not for the supervision by the municipal and provincial authorities, the superior court bench, the county court bench and the grand jury. I do not know whether or not the minister will support this bill but when Sir Lomer Gouin was minister he promised to look into the matter and said it was most important.
The object of section 1 is to give jurisdiction to the grand jury to visit these institutions and to examine into complaints made, and make presentments without expense to the country. These institutions are manged by the crown, and it is the intention of the bill to afford the people some reliable and definite knowledge of the conditions that prevail in them.
I have letters from two gentlemen-I will give their names if desired-who visited one of these institutions and found tubercular men who had not been allowed out in the fresh air. They found the accommodation to be against all the laws of hygiene. One of the government members in this house from Montreal island two or three years ago presented a resolution which called attention to the fact that all the laws of hygiene were being violated in these institutions in the accommodation provided. A great deal of progress has no doubt been made in the good work which the minister and his predecessors have been doing. The grand jury can do this work without expense to the country. The members of the house and others have not time to go into these details, but that is the duty of the grand jury. I was looking up the textbooks, and I find that from time immemorial one of the functions of the grand jury has been to look after good government and respect institutions in the king's name and the respect for the law that they have in the old country has been due to the good work of grand jury. Grand juries have done wonderful work in this country as well.
As regards another clause of the bill there has been considerable criticism in the press of Ontario about a young man in trouble who had stolen a few hens and chickens in the city of Hamilton and was sent to Kingston. The family lived in Hamilton for many years, and this was the first time one of them had got into trouble. The judge, in order to put a stop to chicken stealing, perhaps went further than he intended. The father was sick with pneumonia, and died calling for a visit from his boy. The war has changed public opinion in many ways, and the Red Cross has been doing wonderful work of reformation in the country. There are many

people in trouble who would not be were it not for present economic conditions. Just the other day at Washington, Mr. Willard, president of the Baltimore and Ohio Railway, was giving evidence on unemployment before Mr. Hoover's special committee, and he called attention to the large number of first offenders in these institutions to-day. He said:
It is a dangerous thing to have a large number of unemployed men and women-dangerous to society as a whole, dangerous to the individuals who constitute society when men are willing to work and able to work and want to work are unable to obtain work. We need not be surprised if they steal before they starve. Certainly I do not approve of stealing, but if I had to make a choice between stealing and starving I would surely not choose to starve, and in that respect I do not think I am much unlike the average individual.
I just give this illustration to show that I think an exception should be made in the Hamilton case. The minister's officials said no one was ever allowed out to attend his parent's funeral. Rev. Mr. Vipond wrote a long letter to the Globe in regard to the matter. He said that a prisoner by the name of Shortis, a murderer and a lifer, was allowed out to attend somebody's funeral in Toronto. Perhaps the minister may think clause 2 goes too far because in some cases it might not be advisable for the father or mother to see the prisoner. The third clause has been before the house for some years. Five years ago there were seventy-five, sixty-two and sixty-one prisoners a year of the age of fifteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen respectively in these institutions. The minister has been carrying out a promise made to establish two juvenile institutes and has been doing good work in this connection. He has brought forward some very good votes for two institutions that I think will be a credit to the minister in the years that are to come, but he must admit that it will take two or three years to get these institutions going in Quebec and Ontario. In the meantime there is no place to keep these children. I think the minister might take that into consideration in studying the case, and adopt the clause that no one under nineteen is eligible to be housed in one of these penitentiaries.


Ernest Lapointe: The first section of the bill of my
hon. friend would authorize the grand jury of any county in which a penitentiary is situated to visit, view and inspect the same, and make such inquiry as it may deem proper into the state, condition and management thereof, the nature and efficiency of its accommodation, the employment, training and treatment of convicts, the conduct of its officers,

Allowances to War Veterans
prisoners and employees, and of all others having dealings of any kind or in any capacity with such penitentiary, and to examine and inspect the accounts, vouchers, records and books of the penitentiary; and the grand jury may thereupon make such findings and presentments as it may deem to be required in the public interest.
May I point out that such an inspection of a penitentiary as is proposed by this bill would occupy the activities of a grand jury working ten hours a day for several months? May I also mention the fact that the grand juries are composed of excellent men indeed, but they are men with no especial experience in criminology or the handling of criminals, or the management or care of such institutions. Moreover, grand juries are selected and appointed by provincial governments and they have therefore no authority whatever in Dominion government institutions. Penitentiary officials are not permitted ,to inspect provincial institutions, nor is it considered1 desirable that this should be so, notwithstanding the fact that there are confined in mental diseaser hospitals of the various provinces a number of inmates of penitentiaries, the care and maintenance of whom are paid by the Penitentiaries branch. There is already in the penitentiary law all that is required in the matter of inspection. Penitentiaries are inspected in detail by the superintendent, three inspectors, the auditor, the parole officer, the chief penitentiary engineer and the structural engineer. Such inspections are made continuously throughout the year. In addition to that, the following persons are entitled to visit and inspect a penitentiary during business hours: the Governor General of Canada, although I admit that he does not avail himself of that opportunity; the lieutenant-governor of any province of Canada; any members of the King's Privy Council of Canada, any member of any executive council of any of the provinces, any member of parliament of Canada and any judge of any court of record in Canada or in any of the provinces; and such inspection is invited.
May I say in that regard that the condition and the management of our penitentiaries have been favourably commented upon, indeed have been commended by visitors from other countries connected with various organizations, the judiciary or the police forces, and that our penitentiaries compare favourably with such institutions in any other country in the world?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Has any provision been
made for the families of those in penitentiaries, who are suffering more than the prisoners themselves?


Ernest Lapointe: I am talking about the
conditions in the penitentiaries themselves. What my hon. friend is referring to is a social question which does not come under the provisions of the present bill.


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for public bills having been exhausted, the house will now revert to the resolution respecting allowances to war veterans.



ALLOWANCES TO WAR VETERANS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the proposed resolution-Mr. King (Kootenay)-respecting allowances to war veterans-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. O. B. PRICE (Westmorland):: I should like to make a few observations on the resolution introduced this afternoon by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and which reads as follows:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting allowances to war veterans, to provide assistance for certain veterans who are not in receipt of .pensions, or who, if in receipt of pensions, are only partially pensionable, or who are unemployable, and to provide for the administration, amounts, terms and conditions of such allowances, and for the payment of such sums as may be necessary >to carry out the provisions of the proposed legislation.
As hon. gentlemen are aware, .this resolution was discussed this afternoon, and a good many members expressed their opinions as to its effects. An explanation was given by the minister of pensions, and as near as I could gather, the proposed legislation, outside of providing for those veterans who do not qualify under the present legislation, is applicable only when the veteran reaches the age of sixty-five or becomes unemployable before that age through illness.
Three years ago in this house I asked the following questions of the minister of pensions :
1. Will legislation be introduced at this session of parliament providing relief for disabled and partially disabled war veterans at present excluded from pension benefits owing -to existing regulations?
2.	If so, when will the bill be introduced for the said purpose?
I pressed that question on many occasions during that session, and eventually the minister promised to give consideration to the matter and to see what could be done to relieve these cases. I had in mind at the time one or two cases which I shall mention very briefly this evening, and I hope that something may be done to provide relief for such cases.
Allowances to War Veterans

First is the case of Charles Dauphinee, a young man who had enlisted in 1914. He was found to have defective feet and that an operation would have to be performed before he cotdd be accepted for service. He was very anxious to serve his country at the front and submitted to the operation, paying all his hospital expenses outside of the surgical operation. He went to the front and returned in 1918. Shortly afterwards he developed pulmonary trouble and underwent examination by medical experts in the province of New Brunswick. They pronounced his case to be of a tubercular nature and he was ordered to the hospital. Being too proud to accept anything from the pension board, and not desiring in any way to embarrass his family, he went on paying his own expenses as long as his money lasted, but eventually he had to appeal to the pension board. Before resorting to this means of getting assistance he had undergone considerable privation. The board rejected his application. He then appealed to the soldiers' official representative at Fredericton, and he was told that his case seemed to be a deserving one. He was unable, however, to impress the Board of Pension 'Commissioners. He was placed in hospital. First he tried to get into the Newcastle hospital in New Brunswick or into the Jordan Memorial Sanatorium at River Glade, but he was refused admission owing to the advanced stage of the disease. Finally, on November 28, 1929, he died in the public ward in the Lancaster hospital at St. John. I say that in a case of that kind this government should feel responsible for that young man's death. Here was a case where the pension board had every knowledge of that man's condition, and why they did not appeal to the minister, or if they did, why the minister did not bring down legislation to take care of this and similar cases, I cannot understand. Why wait three years to bring down the legislation? I question indeed if the legislation to be introduced would cover such a case. I do not know, but I do say that the relatives of this man who provided the wherewithal to place him in the hospital, and went to the expense of clothing him and providing for him, should be recompensed by this administration.
Another case was that of Private George Weldon, a middle aged man, who passed the physical examination, enlisted and went to the front. On his return he was found to be suffering from arteriosclerosis. The department was unable to prove that he did not contract it during -the war, and the soldier himseJif was unable to prove that he was not afflicted with this disease when he entered the army, owing to the examiner's death.

This man has a wife over seventy years of age. H'e is -now practically useless; his nerves are broken down as a result of his war experience, and he is suffering from other ailments. The legislation which -the minister proposes to bring down should cover cases of that kind where the soldier has dependents of an advanced age.
I want to say a word or two with regard to the official soldiers' advisors. I believe these men intend to do the right thing, but they come into -contact with so many deserving cases throughout the country that it has a tendency rather to harden them against the men who are appealing to them. I should like to quote a paragraph from a letter which an official soldier advisor sent to a soldier a short time ago, to give you an idea of what I mean. He writes:
The only way to establish your case is to obtain certificates from the doctors who treated you since that time and possibly declarations to prove the existence of your trouble as soon as may be after discharge. You will have to obtain this evidence yourself.
I do not see why this man should not have been given -the opportunity of coming before the appeal boat'd, which travels around the country. I do not know how frequently -the appeal boa-rd visits the other portions of Canada, but they have held only two sittings in the maritime provinces, I understand, in the last year. Under those circumstances, to whom are these soldiers going to appeal? They h-ave not the money to come all the way to Ottawa. The minister knows that there are thousands and thousands of deserving oases, and I appeal to him to make his act broad enough to cover all such oases, giving the -benefit of the doubt to the soldier in every case, and leaving the burden of proof on the department. It seems a picture of black ingratitude-*


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
has read a paragraph from a letter setting forth certain tilings regarding the official soldier -advisor. I think it would be only fair to the house, to the department and myself that we should have the name of the writer of that letter, in order -that we may check up the advisor.


Otto Baird Price: I shall be pleased to give
the name to the minister.


John Warwick King: Give it to the house.
M-r. PRICE:	It is not my intention to
detain the house further by detailing similar cases to-night, but I shall be pleased to take them up with the minister with a view to seeing if provision cannot be made to look after these deserving cases.

Allowances to War Veterans


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough):: I should like to make one or two observations with regard to this resolution, which is supposed to give effect to the demand of public opinion throughout Canada from Halifax to Vancouver, and which has come to a head particularly during the last twelve months.
This resolution states that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting allowances to war veterans, which measure, I presume, will be a government, bill. In my humble judgment we are starting out in the wrong way, for the bill no doubt will be sponsored by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. By the way, what has the minister to do with pensions? Have we not a separate non-political, non-ministerial board of pension commissioners to deal with pensions? Why does this government create a department and call it the ministry of .pensions? No doubt the- purpose is to direct the attention of those who are entitled to pensions to the fact that if they would be in the good graces of those who are in a position to grant pensions, they had better line up with those who sit to the right of the Speaker.
Now, let me put myself right in this respect. I would be the last one in this house, Mr. Chairman, to raise political issues when dealing with a matter of this kind. I would rather lose ten thousand votes in my constituency than by introducing party politics embarrass the position of those men who served us so well during the trying years of the war, but in passing I would say that the title of "Minister of Pensions" was originated by this government.
But to get back to the bill under discussion. The minister will sponsor the bill, his department will administer it and will draft the regulations incident to its administration. The officials in that department are the very people who drafted the orders in council dealing with our returned men, which, as all Canada knows, have not been very satisfactory in their operation. That is not what the great body of our citizens want at this time. They want the Pension, Act so amended that not only the war veterans mentioned in the second line of this resolution will be looked after, but also members of the expeditionary force in general. They want some blood put into the Pension Act, they want to keep it alive, they want to see to it that the men who did so much for us and their dependents will be given real consideration. What should be done to effect this purpose? First of all, get the Pension Act out of the hands of the Minister of Pensions, get it away from the administration
altogether and put it in the hands of the Board of Pension Commissioners. We must see to it that the Pension Act is broad enough and general enough in its scope to carry out the wishes of the people of Canada. They are keenly interested in the welfare of the men who were in the front line trenches in France. They desire that those men should be given full consideration, not in proportion to the consideration given to the men who never left Canada but consideration commensurate with the meritorious service which they gave to their country. As the Pension Act stands now the man who enlisted but did not leave Canada receives the same consideration as the man who served in the front line trenches for the three months.
In the third line of the resolution we find the words "or who, if in receipt of pensions, are only partially pensionable." What is there in the Pension Act to-day to take care of that great, body of ex-servicemen who on their return home find themselves with a ten per cent disability and unable to continue in the vocation for which they were trained before the war? I am thinking of one case now. I will not cite the many other eases in my constituency-a constituency, by the way, which will compare very well in the matter of war service with any other constituency in the Dominion. The man I refer to was a motor truck driveT before he enlisted, but now he has shrapnel in his -back and can no longer sit behind the wheel of his truck and bump along the road; consequently he has to find another job. His disability is adjudicated ten per cent. As a motor truck driver he was able to earn considerably more than the unskilled labourer, but the pension awarded to him is based on the amount of his disability as though he were an ordinary labourer. Provision should be made in the Pension Act to take care of this class of cases.
After listening to the discussion of thi3 resolution this afternoon I feel it desirable to direct the attention of the house to the fact that we have not only to consider members of the legion, but also the men of the amputation association, the army and navy veterans, the imperial ex-service men, men of the air service, and those who lost their eyesight during the war. Not only have we to consider the representations made by these organized1 men, but we must consider that great body of ex-servicemen, representing about seventy-five per cent of our returned men who belong to no organization whatsoever, and are rehabilitating themselves in civil life in their own quiet way; but as one year sue-
2S0
Allowances to War Veterans

ceeds another find that some accident or illness that happened to them overseas is beginning to affect their health. But there is nothing on their medical sheet to show what that trouble is. They find themselves unable to carry on their vocation in their efforts to re-establish themselves in civil life. As I say, they belong to no organization, and are out of touch with the efforts that the legion and the other service organizations are putting forward on behalf of returned men. This great body of men will have to appeal to somebody for consideration. Must they be forced to come to this government for help? -a government which is in office solely by reason of the partisan activities that they are able to employ throughout the length and breadth of the country,-or are those men to be given an opportunity to appeal for justice to a non-partisan body such as the Board of Pension Commissioners? No politics? Why, this is one of the most serious questions that Canada has to face to-day, but, I submit, no party politics should be injected into it. Does party politics enter into the work of any government department? Last Sunday a young man met me on the street. I asked him how things were going. He replied:	"Fine. I
am working in the Post Office department, but last week a funny thing happened. A man came to me and said, 'If you want to hold your job you had better sign this membership card and pay fifty cents into the Liberal association of the city.' " God forbid that that condition should ever get into the Department of Pensions and National Health. But it will be there, if this bill passes and is permitted to take the place of amendments to the Pension Act. I think I would be safe in saying that the Board of Pension Commissioners handle eighty or ninety per cent of the cases that eventually receive pension, and the federal appeal board the remaining ten or twenty per cent. The Board of Pension Commissioners sit here at Ottawa, and pass on the eighty or ninety per cent of the case? through correspondence, and the ten or twenty per cent are passed on by a travelling board who probably do have an opportunity of getting in touch with the man or dependent who is receiving the pension. That, in my opinion, is not a fair deal to the pensioner. The cart is before the horse, and the positions should be changed.
I would like to make one or two further observations with regard to the conduct of the Federal appeal board. Oh, it is nice to see them sitting up there as judges, and it is very nice indeed to have someone represent the man. It is also nice for them to

have three or four secretaries when these ex-service men or dependents, a lot of them broken in spirit and unaccustomed to appearing before tribunals, go to the door, tap on it, with a secretary shooing them into a corner, and lining them up as I have seen them lined up on one occasion, some twenty or more, waiting their turn to appear before the board. And, as I stand here, I can visualize ,a woman in widow's weeds, trembling at the very thought of the cross-examination that is being conducted by the members of the board. The whole atmosphere is that of a court. The man or woman feels that he or she is on trial. I have in mind an observation made to me some few minutes after I had had the pleasure of appearing before this board. A man said to me: "I did not feel that I had a friend in the world inside there until you happened to come in." I bring this to the attention of parliament for this particular reason: the whole machinery for the conduct of this important matter is of such a nature that it does not carry out the mandate, I would say, of the people of Canada in the sympathetic administration of the Pension Act. The people are demanding that every possible consideration be given to these men and women and to see that nothing partisan of any nature whatsoever is introduced that will make it difficult for them to receive proper consideration. One hundred million dollars is being spent by the Edited States on pensions for their ex-service men. This government is spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars to-day sending ambassadors to the four points of the compass. Cut out your nonsense overseas and elsewhere, nonsense that is characterized by brass aind frills, and give more attention to those who are amongst us at this time; see to it-not only for their good but for the good of the generations which are to come-that men looking back into history will say that we did what was right by those who served us at a time when we most needed them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, there is only
one further observation I desire to make. I think the right hon. Prime Minister was unaware of the regulations that are existing with respect to oLd age pensions. In the provinces with which I am familiar, applicants for old age pension have to transfer such property as they may own in order to enjoy the benefits of the pension; or they must make a declaration that they are without any property whatever, in other words, that they are in a state of pauperism. Follow-

Allowances to War Veterans
ing the example of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) I had recourse to a dictionary-


Mr. CRERAR:: A good place to go at times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. CANNON:: The provincial regulations
do not apply. This matter will be dealt with by the Dominion government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite agree with what
the hon. Solicitor General has said, but those regulations were, in part, framed by the Dominion.
I was saying, Mr. Chairman-this is for the benefit of the right hon. Prime Minister, who has just come in-that he may not be aware that in some of the provinces those who apply for old age pensions are compelled to make a declaration that they are without property, or to transfer and convey to the state such little property as they may have before they can secure their pension, and that in that sense they come directly within the definition of the word "pauper" in the dictionary to which I have alluded, which definition I have read to the house. The Prime Minister is perhaps unaware of the regulations that compel that action to be taken by the applicant for old age pension, and I was endeavouring to differentiate clearly between the case of the returned men and those who are proper applicants for old age pension and who are compelled to make the declaration to which I have referred. The Solicitor General says the Dominion would have complete control over it in the one case, although in the other they had only to give their approval to the regulations passed by the provinces that deal with applications.
I have felt, and I still feel, that it is rather an indignity that, in at least two provinces with which I am familiar, people are compelled to prove their pauperism, using the word in the sense in which it is defined in the dictionary, before they are permitted to get the old age pension under the regulations as they now stand. I do not know whether or not the same regulations apply to all the
provinces, but in the language of the dictionary they are dependent entirely upon public aid for their support. That is the difficulty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To get an old age pension one has not to depend entirely- in part, possibly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the regulations have
been interpreted-this is perhaps not the time to discuss the matter at length-a person who will not do that cannot get the old age pension, and in two cases that I know of they had to transfer to the state what little property they had before they could get a pension. One of them had a little house, and that house had to be transferred to the province before the pension could be obtained.


Mr. HEENAN:: Only a few weeks ago
representatives of provinces who administer the old age pension provisions were down here, and they advised me that there is not one single case in any of the provinces -where applicants for old age pension had to turn their property over to the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the minister
is sound in that, because I certainly saw in my own office an old person who said: "I have been compelled to transfer my property to the state." I know it only as it was told to me; I think I could probably get the name. And a friend of mine, from the city of Toronto, told me of a similar case that had come to his attention. Perhaps when the estimates are up we can discuss that matter more fully, but these cases have come to my attention, and the declaration that had to be made to prove possession of property was of a most binding character; the applicants had to establish fully to their lack of means before they could secure the twenty dollars a month.


Peter McGibbon: I may tell the Minister of Labour that I know of a number of people who have refused old age pensions because they would not do that.


Peter Heenan: I iwill say this, that the regulations and the law are there for that purpose, but I am advised by those who administer the law that, notwithstanding that fact, there is not a single case in any of the provinces in which they have exacted that requirement.


John Arthur Clark: I know of a case in which I acted as solicitor where .that was required, in the province of British Columbia. The property was not actually transferred because, though it was in the naime of the father who was applying for pension,, it happened to belong to the son who had been killed overseas. Evidence had to be furnished that the house did not belong to the appli-
[DOT] 282
Allowances to War Veterans

cant, otherwise the pension would not have been granted. So the regulation is not only there, but it is also applied.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. King (Kootenay) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, respecting war veterans' allowances.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall said bill be read a second time?


John Warwick King: With the consent * of the house I would move that the bill be referred forthwith to the special committee appointed to deal with soldier problems.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that a reference made before the second reading of the bill, or will it come back to the house for second eading?


John Warwick King: Yes, by consent.


Hewitt Bostock: The bill will have to be read a second time.


Peter McGibbon: Before this motion is put I should like to know if I correctly interpreted the remarks of the Prime Minister this afternoon to mean that we can delete or amend this bill as we may see fit?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the committee?


Peter McGibbon: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is for the committee to do as it thinks best with the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house that this bill shall be given second reading now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it should stand until the next sitting, in view of the discussion which has taken place. No one has had an opportunity to see the bill. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister, it has not been the practice to refer a bill to a committee upon the first reading, but rather after the second reading.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the house. SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY



PROPOSED CANCELLATION OP SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Are those figures the
importations from New Zealand?


Mark Cecil Senn: No, the total imports into
the country for the years 1925 and 1929.


Charles Avery Dunning: From all countries?


Mark Cecil Senn: From all countries. A large
proportion of those imports came from that particular country, as the minister well knows. The total for the year 1925 amounted to $31,548,711 and for 1929, $53,031,160, a difference of $22,482,449, or practically 68 per cent.
A glance at the figures I have just quoted will serve to convince any reasonable person that if the farmers of Canada are to continue to enjoy the benefits of their home markets,
Australian Treaty-Mr. Senn

something must be done at once. A short time ago I read a portion of a letter over the signature of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, referring to our shipments of butter and eggs. That letter referred to the fact that there are no longer any exports of butter, and that our shipments of cheese are rapidly declining.
This brings me to a discussion of the needs of the dairy industry, and if there is one industry in Canada which needs the attention of the government, it is the dairy industry. For a number of years past the attention of the government has been drawn to the increase in the importations of butter, as well as to the diminishing dairy production. One of the most comprehensive reports on the dairy situation which I have ever read was submitted a short time ago to the tariff board by the National Dairy Council. I believe their demands were very reasonable, and I would commend that document to the consideration not only of the government but of the house. Among other things, they state that since the year 1925 there has been a steady decrease in the production in Canada of dairy products. This perhaps is more apparent in the case of butter than of any other milk product. For a great number of years we have had a favourable trade balance in dairy products. In 1925-26 there was a favourable trade balance of approximately $50,000,000. The following year the favourable trade balance was reduced to
526.000.	000, and for the last available twelve months for which I have been able to get the figures from the Bureau of Statistics, the favourable trade balance has fallen to something like $16,000,000. I have no doubt that if the figures for the calendar year, 1929, were available, the amount for that year would be shown to be even less. This goes to show that for the last three years our favourable trade balance in dairy products has been reduced from $50,(W0,000 to about $15,000,000, and that if similar conditions prevail for any length of time, we shall have an unfavourable trade balance in dairy products instead of a favourable one.
In 1925 we were able to meet our own requirements in the matter of butter production, and we had an exportable surplus of some
25.000.	000 pounds. Within the three or four years following that we have not been able to meet our requirements in this matter and it has been found necessary in the past year to import something like 32,000.000 pounds of butter from the Antipodes. Efforts have been made from time to time by hon. gentlemen opposite to prove that milk is being manufactured in increasing quantities in this country into other forms than butter, and that

that is why our butter and cheese production has been falling off. As a matter of fact the latest trade returns show very conclusively that in the matter of butter and cheese, fluid milk, cream, and condensed and evaporated milk products, our exports have been gradually falling off. Our export of milk products shows a decrease between 1926 and 1927, another decrease between 1927 and 1928 and still another decrease between 1928 and 1929. I wish at this moment to give to the house the figures of the decrease in the export of milk products between 1928 and 1929. They are as follows:
Decrease
Product	Pounds	
		$ 699,597
Milk, fresh	. 769,451	146,409Butter	. . 751,300	285,159Cheese	.. 21,329,300	7.049,871Milk, condensed..	.. 4,478.100	559,384Milk powder.. ..	.. 545,700	105,819Casein	. . 73,898	9,136Mi 1 k, ovaiporated..	. 1,121,700	264,624(increase)	(increase)	There has been	an increase of	only one
item, that of evaporated milk. This makes in all a decrease in the value of our exports of milk products between 1928 and 1929, of more than $9,000,000.
It is also a significant fact that from 1921 to 1925 there was a steady increase in the population of our dairy herds, and in the production of our dairy products; but in spite of some changes that have lately been made in the estimates of the Bureau of Statistics, they still show that the total production of butter from 1925 to 1929 decreased by more than 11,000,000 pounds. I may say in passing that the president of the National Dairy Council does not agree with these figures. He estimates that there has been a decrease of more than 40,000,000 pounds in the production of butter between 1925 and 1929. The statistics also show that the total production of cheese has decreased in the same period by some 31,000,000 pounds, and that the population of our dairy herds has decreased between 1927 and 1928 by 102.000 cow-s. If the decrease of last year were added to this, it W'ould probably amount to 130,000 and 140,000.
Producers of dairy products throughout Canada are aware of this change of conditions within the past few years and they are also aware that the change began shortly after the New Zealand order in council came into effect. Butter from that country began then to flow into Canada in ever-increasing quantities. At first it had a very depressing effect upon the market price of butter, and the butter that came into Canada set

Australian Treaty-Mr. Senn
the price of Canadian butter in our own markets. The Canadian dairyman was forced to sell his butter produced under winter conditions in competition with butter produced in a country where summer conditions prevailed throughout the year. If dairying is to succeed in Canada it must be carried on throughout the entire year, and if it is to be carried on in this way the Canadian dairyman must receive a higher price for his products in the winter time than he does when his cattle are an the grass. This act is not only recognized but acted upon by the producers as well as the dairy companies and others who are engaged in the distribution of milk in our towns and cities. The fact that butter enters the country very freely during the winter months has had a depressing effect upon winter dairying in Canada. Many farmers have been compelled to go out of the business. These are the words of the National Dairy Council in the brief which, as I have already mentioned they presented just a short time ago to the tariff board:
The combined effect of the actual and obvious lowering of the winter price of butter and the effect of large importations has tended first to decrease winter dairying and, second, to prevent the make of butteT from increasing in proportion to the demand.
In fact the production of butter has fallen off in Canada to such an extent that if we arc to meet our requirements in butter, it would mean that at the present average rate of production per cow, nearly 140,000 more cows would have to be kept. This seems to be conclusive evidence that there is a close relationship between the imports of butter and the falling off in our dairy herd population.
Another very important industry which has been affected by the butter situation is the hog industry. There is always a very close relationship between these two industries. Skim milk and whey, which are by-products in the manufacture of butter and cheese, are very profitably fed to hogs, as every farmer knows. It seems strange, yet it is only natural, that from the very day butter began to flow freely into Canada our exports of pork and pork products began to fall off. In the fiscal year 1925-26 our exports of pork and products, including lard, amounted to a little over $27,000,000, but in the year 1928-29 these exports declined to $9,981,000, a decrease of over 60 per cent. The dairy industry and the hog industry, as I have already said, are very closely allied, and a tendency to lessen our production of dairy products will ultimately reflect itself in a lower production so far as the hog industry is concerned. Indeed I may
say that the foundation of the whole mixed farming industry of Canada is dairying. In all the provinces the average farmer, while producing other lines of farm products, produces a considerable quantity of milk as well. It takes many years properly to equip a dairy farm, to build up a dairy herd, and to put production on a paying basis. After this is accomplished, the success of the industry depends very largely upon the stability of the market and upon the prices which the farmers receive. Production must continue the year round. The successful dairyman is the one who gets the limit of production from his animals, and this can only be done when his cows are milked through the whole period of lactation. If dairy products are to continue coming into this country during the winter months from countries where butter is being produced under summer conditions the year round, the dairy farmer will find it increasingly difficult to operate at a profit.
I have already given figures to the house showing how the hog industry has suffered during the past few years and how the dairy industry has suffered during the same period. At the same time we are continually increasing our imports of frozen lamb and mutton from countries whose products are coming into Canada under special privilege. As an example, there was imported into Canada during the fiscal year 1926, some $2,725,000 oi farm products. This is under the special agreement with New Zealand. In the year 1929 there was imported $14,987,000 of farm products.


Charles Avery Dunning: From New Zealand?


James Malcolm: I think my hon. friend
cannot mean from New Zealand.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is the information I
have taken from a reliable source.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend
would quote the figures again; perhaps I did not catch them correctly. I mean the figures he gave of meat products.


Mark Cecil Senn: I did not say meat products. I said there was imported into Canada during the fiscal year 1926 some $2,725,000 of farm products, and under the special agreement in the year 1929 there was imported $14,987,000 of farm products.


Charles Avery Dunning: Farm products, not meat products.


Mark Cecil Senn: Farm products. That was an increase of practically 600 per cent. We must bear in mind that each pound of meat and
Australian Treaty-Mr. Senn

every pound of butter which is brought into this country replaces a similar amount of Canadian products in our home market.
I have given the house figures which I think demonstrate quite clearly that there has been a steady encroachment upon the Canadian market by foreign agricultural products, and that there has been a steady falling off in our production both of milk and of pork products. That the dairy industry is in a grave condition is acknowledged by everyone who is acquainted with the facts. Our dairy herds are being depleted. Foreign agricultural products are finding ready access to our markets. Agriculture in this country is labouring under great difficulties, much of which have been brought about by foreign competition, and this foreign competition is largely due, I believe, to the action of the present government in respect to their trade treaties.
To my mind the remedy is very simple. Measures should at once be taken by the government to assure the full benefit of the home market to the Canadian producer. I have always believed in trade within the empire. I cannot conceive of anything which will bind the different parts of the empire more closely together than mutual trade relations, but concessions in other markets than our own which are purchased at the expense of another industry in this country, and an important industry, may be bought too dearly. Our concessions to New Zealand have gone far towards ruining our daily industry, which has received a set-back from which I believe it will take years to recover. Something must be done before it is too late. Last year the situation was considered to be so serious that a debate was staged in the house on the question. I had the pleasure at that time of drawing to the attention of the house and the government the needs of Canada in this direction. The government was urged to negotiate with New Zealand for a more favourable trade arrangement. When I spoke at that time I did so with the full endorsation of my leader and of my colleagues. The late minister of finance sought to justify the agreement as it existed, and as a consequence nothing has been done. I believe that the Prime Minister, speaking in Woodstock on September 23, 1925, promised the farmers of Oxford county that their interests would be protected in the matter of trade treaties; he used words to that effect. I am wondering at the present time why no action has ever been taken. Surely the Prime Minister and the government are convinced at this time, in view of all the representations that 
have been made not only from this side of the house but from farmers' organizations all over the Dominion, that this treaty has had an adverse effect upon the agricultural industry in Canada. To restore to the farmers of Canada a more secure position in their home market, and as a first step towards that end, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), in amendment to the motion which is now before the house:
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house, order in council No. 1757, passed on the 26th day of September. 1925, respecting certain trade arrangements with the Dominion of New Zealand, should be rescinded forthwith, and immediate steps taken to negotiate a treaty with that Dominion on fair and equitable terms."


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit that the wording of this amendment is out of order, inasmuch as it conflicts with a rule of this house which I shall presently quote. That rule declares that on an occasion of this kind an amendment must not contain matter relating to any subject which has been already dealt with or which is now on the order paper. I direct your attention, sir, to resolution No. 21 standing in my name:
That, in the opinion of this house, six months' notice should be given to the New Zealand government to cancel the application to that country of the provisions of what is generally known as the Australian treaty.
I gave notice of that resolution on February 24th, so that it was quite impossible for me at that time to have foreseen the action of the hon. gentleman to-dav, and it proves that my motion was bona fide and could not have been designed with any intention of preventing him from moving his amendment.
I submit that the amendment now submitted by the hon. member is a plagiarism, a pale, pink copy, but still a copy, of my motion.
Now, to deal for a moment with the rules. First, I refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Fbrms, second edition. At page 149 he deals with this specific question as to the Speaker's leaving the chair for the house to go into committee, and says:
Neither the discussion nor the amendment, if one is moved, shall relate-
I ask you, sir, particularly to note those words. The rule says:
-the amendment shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be .proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Neill
Leaving out the unnecessary matter the rule reads:
The amendment shall not relate to any matter placed on the order paper.
So much for Beauchesne. Next I refer you, sir, to Bourinot, fourth edition, page 420, on the same subject of the Speaker leaving the chair. Bourinot says:
The ordinary rules of debate are applicable on this occasion; for instance, a matter already decided by the house, or of which notice has been given, or which stands upon the orders of the day, cannot be discussed;
"Cannot be discussed." Then I desire to cite another authority upon which we rely so much, May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition, page 526, where practically the same language is employed:
The ordinary rules of debate are applicable on this occasion. For instance, a matter which should be considered upon a substantive .motion, or which has been already decided by the house, or of which notice has been given, or which stands upon the order paper cannot be discussed.
That, surely, is conclusive. I think it will be allowed that that point at least has been established.
Now, to use the language of Einstein, I come to the question of the relativity of the amendment to my motion. Surely it is apparent that we are both dealing with the same matter. It is true the ihon. gentleman opposite proposes to deal with it in a different way from what I do; he is destructive, he wants to condemn the government and play *politics; I want to be constructive, and to have something done that will benefit the dairy industry. We are each dealing with the same matter in a different way, but we both deal with it.
Now I wish to draw attention to the amendment. The hon. gentleman has extended my resolution somewhat. After the New Zealand treaty has been done arway with he proposes that:
Immediate steps be taken to negotiate a treaty with that Dominion on fair and equitable terms.
It might therefore be argued that that extension of action, so to speak, constitutes the amendment a separate and distinct resolution or motion, and consequently that it does not conflict with mine. But, sir, you will readily see that if we allow that logic, then our rules are of no effect whatever, because it would always be possible to copy, we will say, my resolution word for word, and only add a few words at the end proposing further action, which would then make the amendment in order. For instance, suppose my motion had proposed to hang a man,
and the hon. gentleman opposite had proposed to hang and bury him; the burying is a further extension but entirely dependent upon my resolution. I submit that my resolution would be, so to speak, the senior motive in the situation.
I would direct attention to the fact that my resolution proposes that six months' notice should be given to the New Zealand government to cancel the treaty, whereas the language of the hon. gentleman is, that the order in council-naming it-shall be rescinded. But his proposed action to rescind would be of no effect whatever unless six months' notice was given under the treaty. I have the order in council before me, and it says that the provisions of the treaty, and so on, shall be "subject to the provisions of the said act." So you see the New Zealand arrangement comes under the Australian treaty and is "subject to the provisions of the said act." One of the provisions of the said act or treaty is that this government, if they wish to cancel the arrangement, must give six months' notice; and this provision therefore certainly applies to the New Zealand arrangement also. We cannot come along and say to New Zealand, "we rescind that order in council," and relieve ourselves of all obligation. If I grant a lease of my house to a man and the lease contains a covenant to give him six months' notice of my intention to terminate the tenancy, I cannot come along later and say, "I rescinded that lease some time ago, I regard it as no longer operative, and you must quit." He would say, "Well you may rescind that lease as much as you like, but I have my rights under that lease, and one of them is that I am entitled to six months' notice." If you tell the New Zealand government, "We have rescinded the order in council," they would say, "That does not matter to us, we want the six months' notice to which we are entitled." And the amendment of my hon. friend does not amount to anything unless the word "rescinding" means giving six months' notice. So in its spirit the amendment of my hon. friend embodies six months' notice. Therefore our two motions are practically the same, and I submit, sir, that I have established by the rules under which we are governed that my hon. friend's amendment is entirely out of order.
The word "relate" is very broad in its application and I leave it to the opinion of the house whether the motion moved by my hon. friend opposite does not relate to my resolution. The word "relate", I repeat, is very broad. I do not desire at this or any
2S8
Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett

other time by any technical quibble to prevent hon. gentlemen opposite from debating whatever they like. All they have to do is bring their action within the rules of this house- rules from which I have suffered many a time and oft, as I think have all other members. If they wanted to attack the government for not having rescinded the New Zealand part of the treaty sooner, they could have done so without relating their action to my resolution; but they have chosen, for reasons of their own, to copy my resolution both in spirit and in letter. This, I submit brings the amendment into relation with my resolution on the order paper and therefore their amendment is out of order.


Hewitt Bostock: Do any other members
desire to speak on the point of order?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have only to observe, Mr. Speaker, that it has been the rule from time immemorial that the Commons have a right to redress grievances before granting supply to His Majesty. The granting of supply is always preceded by a discussion of grievances. There are well established rules dealing with the method by which those grievances may be presented. You may not anticipate a bill upon the order paper; you may not anticipate a motion upon the order paper under certain circumstances, and the references of which the hon. gentleman from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) spoke are references every one of which dealt with bills. I took the trouble to look up the English precedents starting with 1S56 down to 1886. In this instance the distinction between the motion of the hon. gentleman and the amendment before the house is clear. One asks for action to be taken by giving notice for the cancellation of a treaty. The other asks that notice be given and that negotiations be carried on. There is no doubt as to what the terms of the amendment are as compared with the terms of the motion to which the hon. gentleman has referred. And there is another rule in England which Your Honour referred to on a previous occasion, that is, that the Speaker must be considerably governed by the general condition of the order paper and the likelihood of the matter being reached at an early day. In other words, there is a discretion given to the Speaker in a matter of this kind. In the cases to which reference is made in Maj', one was a bill standing upon the order paper for that evening. The other was a bill upon the.order paper for a few days hence. In this instance we have no certainty as to when the motion will be reached. It may be reached a long time from this date, or the debate on it may be adjourned. That is why 
a motion of this character differing in terms from the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni should receive the consideration of this house at this time, because it is redress of a grievance. The fact that it is a motion of want of confidence in the administration is the reason exactly that recognition should be given to it, otherwise we might as well make up our minds that amendments to go into supply are something about which we will never hear in the future. Surely the house does mot mean that its rights shall thus be tampered with. The leader of the house should be the last man to take that view. The time may come w'hen he will be compelled to sit to the left of the Speaker; he might desire to have grievances aired in the house, and all that would be necessary wmuld be for members to put motions on the order paper dealing with half a dozen questions, and then for each to rise in his place and say: "I rise to a point of order, because, the proposed amendment deals with the subject matter of a motion that is now on the order paper in my name". If the hon. gentleman had read what he should have read he would have found that the Speaker has authority to overcome just such a difficulty. If there was a day set for the debate dealing with the motion to which I have referred, that would be a different matter; but here is a motion standing on the order paper which may or may not be reached within the next two or three weeks, or not at all this session, the debate upon which may be adjourned or non constat, which the hon. gentleman himself might withdraw after he had heard the explanation made by the government.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, can there be any doubt that this amendment to the motion to go into supply, in the terms in which it is couched, is not in any sense similar to the motion on the order paper except that it deals with the New Zealand trade arrangement? As to what the hon. gentleman means, one has first to analyse his motion. His motion is that six months' notice be given for the cancellation of the New Zealand arrangement under what he says is known as the Australian treaty. The motion moved by the hon. member for Haldimand is that this house is of the opinion that notice should be given forthwith rescinding the order in council-


Charles Avery Dunning: Not notice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That this house is of the opinion that forthwith the order in council should be rescinded and immediate steps taken to negotiate a trade treaty with New Zea-

Australian Treaty-Speaker's Riding
land on fair and equitable terms. That, I submit, is entirely different from the motion on the order paper.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I did not
wish to participate in the debate on the point of order, but I must dissent from the view expressed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that the well known rule of practice that prevents an amendment to a motion to go into committee of supply relating to a matter which is on the order paper applies only to bills. That has never been considered to be so in this House of Commons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend did not follow me. I said the four illustrations given in May all dealt with bills, and I took the trouble to get them from the Hansard of the British House of Commons, one of which was to be considered on the very evening on which the debate took place.


Ernest Lapointe: I thought my hon. friend was referring to the authorities as a whole, including May.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I repeat that the references were in point of fact to bills in which the question was raised.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, it has not been
the case in the past in this House of Commons. I would refer my hon. friend to Bouri-not, page 420, where it says:
In the session of 1890 Mr. Laurier, on going into committee of supply, proposed a motion similar to one already on the notice paper in Mr. Kirkpatrick's name. The latter waived raising a point of order, on account of the premier having previously arranged to give Mr. Laurier an opportunity of making and speaking to the motion. See Canadian Commons Hansard 391. The Speaker intimated privately to the author that had the question been raised he would have (been obliged to decide against Mr. Laurier in accordance with precedent.
The only object I have in view is to prevent the creation of a precedent which would be contrary to the practice of this house.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply. In amendment thereto Mr. Senn has moved, seconded by Mr. Rowe, that in the opinion of this house, order in council No. 1727, passed on 26th September, 1925, respecting certain treaty arrangements with the Dominion of New Zealand, should be rescinded forthwith and immediate steps taken to negotiate a treaty with that dominion on fair and equitable terms. On a point of order, Mr. Neill
states that he has a motion on the same lines, on the orders of the day, or on the notice paper, No. 21, which reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, six months' notice should be given to the New Zealand government to cancel the application to that country of the provisions of what is generally known as the Australian treaty.
I have listened to the authorities which have been quoted, particularly Bourinot, which is our guide. It is true that on page 420 Bourinot says:
The ordinary rules of debate are applicable on this occasion; for instance, a matter already decided by the house, or of which notice has been given, or which stands upon the orders of the day, cannot be discussed.
Turning to the preceding page, however, I find this general principle:
The order of the day for the house to go into committee of supply having been read, the Speaker will put the question "that I do now leave the chair."-
That is what I have done.
-the same question is always put whenever the house is to go into committee of supply, in order to afford ah opportunity to members to propose amendments. On this point it is observed by an eminent authority that the ancient constitutional doctrine that the redress of grievances is to ibe considered before the granting of supplies, is now represented by the practice of .permitting every description of amendment to be moved on the question for the Speaker leaving the chair, before going into committee of supply or ways and means. Upon other orders of the day, such amendments must be relevant, but here they are permitted to relate to every question upon which a member may desire to offer a motion.
I find below the dictum of Sir John A. Macdonald:
The right to consider grievances at this stage is one of the first principles of the British constitution. But the practice has been much abused in England, and the commons have more than once considered what means can be devised for limiting discussion.
One of the means for limiting discussion is precisely the principle invoked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that no one should anticipate a discussion of a question already on the notice paper, but in England under that rule authority has been given to the Speaker of the house to decide whether or not amendments, such as the present one, should be debated in sipite of a motion drafted along similar lines. Such motions in England are termed blocking motions. I do not wish to a,pply the term to the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, because he has drafted it in good faith. The term "blocking motion" is applied in England on account of the abuse which has taken place in regard to them. If you

290	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Speaker's Ruling
will read Redlich, one of the best authors, you will find at pages 221 and 222 of his third volume that even in England they fear the consequences of a ruling which might prevent discussion of matters of public importance, on the ground of anticipation. He cites a case which came to the attention of the house in the year 1900. Redlich says:
It soon became a common practice to put down "blocking notices" for this purpose. Perhaps the practice was never more severely strained than' in the session of 1900, when a member, at the beginning of the session, put down a notice of motion in general terms with reference to the conduct of the war in South Africa, and then sailed for Africa to take part in the war without fixing any day for his motion. It was held that the mere retention of this -notice on the order book prevented discussion of the terms of peace with the Boers on the motion for adjournment for the Easter' recess.
It was considered a great abuse-not of the rule, because there is no rule-but of the usages and customs of parliamentary government in England. I do not look upon the motion made by the hon. gentleman as a blocking motion. It is on the order paper, and no doubt the hon. gentleman intended to bring it to the attention of the house at the earliest opportune date, but there is a point which cannot be ignored. The two motions differ materially in one respect; I grant that the provision for six months' notice is in the treaty, and whether you mention it as regards the abrogation or cancellation of the treaty it matters not because the treaty cannot be cancelled without giving six months' notice. I think you will find that delay mentioned in almost every treaty. But there is this which, in my mind, shows that there is a material difference between the two motions:	The
motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni proposes simply the cancellation of the treaty after six months' notice; the other one proposes the rescission or cancellation forthwith and-mark this-that immediate steps be taken to negotiate a treaty with that dominion on fair and equitable terms. In the one case the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asks for cancellation of the treaty; in the other case it is being asked that the treaty be cancelled, but that immediate steps be taken to negotiate another treaty with that dominion on fair and equitable terms. As the rule of anticipation is, shall I say, strictissimi juris, I should give to the amendment a broad interpretation. The two motions differ materially and in my humble judgment the amendment is in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind hon. members that a ruling of the Speaker is a judgment, and therefore should not be applauded. As regards the terms at variance as between the two motions, I am governed by a very high authority, the first Speaker of the House of Commons after the British North America Act came into force. I refer to the late Hon. James Cockburn, who was Speaker of this house for two parliaments, before and after confederation. A motion had been made by Hon. Mr. Blake, seconded by Mr. Holton, and an amendment substantially of the same effect as the original motion had been offered by the Hon. A. A. Dorion. The terms varied, however, and the Speaker ruled that the amendment was in order. There was a long discussion on the ground that the amendment was substantially the same as that involved in the original motion, and Mr. Speaker Cockburn went on to say:
It proposes to the house a resolution which is substantially the same as that involved in the original motion, but it omits considerable matter of recital both of fact and law, and in that respect, I think, the -proposition is one which the hon. member may propose as an amendment. He may say very properly, as he does say, that he has no desire to commit the house to the recitals which form a part of the original motion. I think the motion is therefore in order.
My ruling is that the amendment is in order.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, according to
Beauchesne, which seems to govern us primarily, this rule seems so well defined that I must respectfully appeal from your decision.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Neill moves, seconded by Mr. Jacobs, that the decision of the Speaker be appealed from.


Mr. BLATCHFORD:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it is eleven o'clock.


Mr. ROWE:: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house that the debate be now adjourned?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Dufferin-Simcoe has the floor as the seconder of the motion and he has moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
	' I ' *_
Wednesday, March 5, 1930