1931-07-27

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I wish to lay on the table of the house supplementary report of Errol M. McDougall, Iv.C., and I move:
That 500 copies in the English language and 200 copies in the French language of the supplementary report of Errol M. McDougall, K.C., the coinmisioner appointed to investigate and report upon illegal warfare claims and reparations payable in respect thereof, laid on the table of the house this day, be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 in relation thereto be suspended.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Does this report deal with prisoners of war or specifically with civilian claims?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This deals with all the remaining civilian claims except three. The report dealing with prisoners of -war has not yet been tabled.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
QUESTIONS	,
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Kfr. Ralston.]

Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Who is in charge of Fort Lennox, in the county of St. Jean, Quebec?
2.	Were complaints made against Mr. Alcide Papineau, former caretaker of Fort Lennox, at St. Jean, Quebec?
3.	If so, by whom?
4.	What were the nature of said complaints?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Jean Albert Gagnon, who was appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
2.	Yes; departmental files show that Mr. Papineau's services were very unsatisfactory.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.



RURAL MAIL-ST. NERBE, BELLECHASSE

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	On what date does the contract of Alfred Boutin for the distribution of the rural mail in the parish of St. Neree, in the county of Bellechasse, expire?
2.	Was this contract cancelled?
3.	If so, for what reason?
4.	Were complaints made against Mr, Boutin, and if so, by whom?
5.	Who asked or recommended the cancellation of this contract?
6.	If complaints were made against Mr. Boutin, were said complaints made known to him, and was he given the opportunity of refuting same?
7.	Was an inquiry held or will one be held regarding the complaints which may have been made against Mr. Boutin?
8.	Is Mr. Boutin a public servant or just a contract holder with the government?
9.	Does the state of health of Mr. Boutin allow him to do work other than the distribution of rural mail?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	December 31, 1932.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. This contract was cancelled on the recommendation of Mr. J. W. Gaudette in connection with affidavits submitted by France Goulet and Joseph Dutil. New resprescntations were made and instructions have since been issued restoring Mr. Boutin until a proper investigation can be made.
8.	A mail contractor.
9.	Department has no official knowledge.



ST. EMILE, QUEBEC, POSTMASTER

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Was Mr. J. B. Grenier, postmaster of St. Emile, dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reasons?
3.	Were complaints made against him, and if so, by whom?
4.	Was an inquiry held?

Questions
417.)
5.	What was the name of the inquiry commissioner?
6.	What were the total costs of said inquiry?
7.	Who are the witnesses who testified at this inquiry?
8.	Who was appointed to replace J. B. Grenier, as postmaster of St. Emile?
9.	By whom was he recommended?
10.	Was Mr. Azarias Rivest appointed by the department to replace Mr. Grenier, and if so, did he afterwards receive notice that his appointment was void?
11.	Will the expenses incurred by Mr. Rivest in preparing a location for the post office of St. Emile be refunded to him?


Mr. SAUVE:: 

ST. CYRVILLE DE WENDOVER MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	On what date did the mail contract for rural route No. 1, of St. Cyrille de Wendover, expire?
2.	Was this contract cancelled?
3.	If so, for what reasons?
4.	Were tenders called?
5.	If so, what persons in the county of Drummond requested said tenders to be called?
6.	Were complaints made against the previous holder of this contract, and if so, by whom were said complaints made?


Mr. SAUYE:: 1.	Contract expires on 30th September, 1931.
2 and 3. No.
4.	Yes.
5.	Agesilas Kirouac.
6.	No.
1 and 2.
Persons or firms
Shelburne Shipbuilders.. ..
Robert Irwin	
Bras d'Or Coal Co	
Indian Cove Coal Co	
Victoria Coal Co	
North Sydney Collieries.. .. Sydney Mines Coal Company


Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	On what date did the mail contract for rural route No. 2, of St. Cyrille de Wendover, expire?
2.	Was this contract renewed?
3.	If so, what persons in the county of Drummond requested its renewal?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Contract expires on 30th September, 1931.
2.	Yes.
3.	Agesilas Kirouac.



PUBLIC WORKS INQUIRIES

Mr. DORION:: 1.	Did Mr. Oscar Drouin, lawyer of Quebec city, hold inquiries for the Public Works department between September, 1921, and July, 1930?
2.	If so, what inquiries were held, how many reports were made by Mr. Drouin, and what are the names of the persons who were dismissed as a result of said inquiries?
3.	What sums were paid to Mr. Drouin by the Department of Public Works in this connection?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	- Yes.
2.	A preliminary enquiry was held to investigate charges of political partisanship against Albani Page, employee of the Department of Public Works, Montreal, but as the complainants abandoned the case no dismissal was made.
3.	$117.21.
Shelburne public building Mr. RALSTON:
1.	What persons or firms tendered to supply coal to Shelburne, Nova Scotia, public building in response to last published notices calling for tenders for coal?
2.	What were the prices submitted by the various persons and firms and for what quality or qualities of coal?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded and from what mine was the coal derived?
4.	What price quote "delivered in bins" at said building, or otherwise?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Price	Kind of coal	Calorific value$8 70	Acadia lump	B.T.U's 13,5008 40	Acadia lump	13,5008 20	Bras d'Or lump	13.0567 70	Tom Pip lump	13.0008 00	Victoria lump	13.0008 28	Harbor side lump	13,3697 30	Jubilee lump	13.681
Questions

3.	(a) Sydney Mines Coal Company.
(b) Jubilee seam in the colliery of the Sydney Mines Coal Company, Ltd., at Sydney Mines, N.S.
4.	Price quoted is for coal "delivered and trimmed in bin."



INVESTMENTS IN CANAL SYSTEMS

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	How much money has Canada invested in all canal systems?
2.	What is the anual revenue from such systems?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	$233,608,586.46.
2.	$536,727.33.



PRAIRIE RIVER, SASK., POST OFFICE

Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	Has W. S. Law been appointed postmaster or acting postmaster at Prairie River, Saskatchewan?	_	. .
2.	Has he ever occupied this position previously ?
3.	If so, did he resign from office or was he dismissed?
4.	If dismissed, what was the cause for dismissal ?
5.	Have complaints been received by the Post Office Department against this man on previous- occasions?
6.	By whom was lie recommended for appointment to office at the present time?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes. Acting postmaster pending permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission.
2.	Yes.
3.	He was dismissed.
4.	Pleaded guilty to charge of theft.
5.	Yes, but general service was satisfactory.
6.	In view of his previous experience and because information has been received that he was not guilty of a moral wrong but pleaded guilty on a technical charge, he was placed in temporary charge on the resignation of the postmaster pending a permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MARCIL (for Mr. Seguin):: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, and representations made by any person or persons, including full report of the inquiry held in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Jean-Baptiste Grenier, postmaster of St. Emile, the appointment of Mr. Azarias Rivest, his successor, and the subsequent appointment of Mr. Emile Provost.



HAVRE ST. PIERRE LIGHT KEEPER

Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents in the possession of the Minister of Marine and any of the officers of his department at Ottawa and Quebec, regarding complaints of political partisanship made against Mr. Jean Boudreau, lightkeeper at Havre St. Pierre, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, since July 30, 1930, to date, including the correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Marine and the officers of his department with the said Mr. Boudreau.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams passing between the Western Clock Company Limited of Peterborough, or any official of the company, and the Minister of Finance, and to any other member of the Dominion government, during the year 1931.


Mr. BENNETT:: The hon. member is not in his place. This motion falls within the category of those we have dealt with several times during the session. It involves the question of costs of production and the information given is confidential. Such parts as may not be confidential the hon. gentleman is entitled to receive, but beyond that we cannot comply with the motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Carried?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; we had better wait
until the hon. gentleman is in his place.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion stands.



RAILWAY POSSIBILITIES-GASPESIA

Charles Marcil: For a copy of the report of Mr. S. A. Desmeules, civil engineer, regarding the possibility of building a railroad in the inland part of Gaspesia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. gentleman is absent, this motion had better stand. It involves an interdepartmental report regarding matters that have not yet been acted upon.
Motion stands.



TEMISCOUATA RAILWAY

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Board of Railway Commissioners, the Temiseouata Railway Company and any person or persons, including telegrams, notices, minutes of meetings, reports, requests and orders in connection with the curtailing of trains of the Temiseouata railway on or about July 20, 1931.

Farm and Unemployment Relief


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Board of Railway
Commissioners for Canada is a court of record and this motion is similar to any motion that might be asked for a return with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada. We have no jurisdiction and I suggest that the motion be dropped.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the Minister of
Railways (Mr. Manion) have any objection if I asked the board to show me their records?


Mr. MANION:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have no control over the board.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The resolution being improper, it will be stricken from the order paper.
Motion dropped.



FARM AND UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to employment and farm relief; and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada; and to authorize the governor in council to expend for the said purposes out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may from time to time be necessary.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
although this motion is not debatable at this stage, I should like to ask a question concerning its wording. It appears to be ambiguous in a certain particular. The motion reads:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to employment and farm relief;
Does that mean unemployment relief and farm relief or does it mean in respect to employment and in respect to farm relief? I understood that the measure was to be in respect of the relief of unemployment and the relief of distress in rural districts. As it is now worded it would mean that the government is putting forward a principle of obligation on the government to furnish employment rather than to provide unemployment relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the resolution is ambiguous in the sense in which my right hon. friend suggests. If there is any doubt the word "unemployment" can be used.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
only point I was making.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the consent of the house I move to add the prefix "un" before the word "employment."
Motion as amended agreed to.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I see in the press that some letters patent or documents, have been issued concerning the appointment and functions of His Excellency, the Govetrnor General of Canada. Could the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) lay these papers on the table of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was as surprised as the hon. gentleman when I read in the papers this morning the item to which he refers. I did not know from what source this information had been obtained. These papers may have been laid upon the table of the British house, but no motion has been made in this house to supply such documents. Had such a motion been made it would have been agreed to. A copy of the instructions of His Excellency, the Governor General, will be laid upon the table, if that is what my hon. friend suggests. I shall endeavour to ascertain the source of the information. No new instructions have been issued since His Excellency was appointed the latter part of March or the early part of April this year.


Ernest Lapointe: Does the newspaper report give substantially what are the instructions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will table the instructions.



RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker inasmuch as it has been said in reference number 389, tabled June 29,
417S
C.N.R.-Finance

1931, that it was then impossible to bring down the information called for by that return because at the time the estimates of the Canadian National Railways were being dealt with by the select standing committee on railways and shipping, and whereas since that date the final report of that committee containing no such particulars has been dealt with by the house,-
1.	Are provisions made in the Canadian National Railways budget of 1931-32 for the construction of new stations?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	Where are they to be constructed?
4.	What is the total estimate, including capital account expense or other, prepared by the Canadian National Railways for each station?


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that there are not to be any new stations built this year. I think that answers the hon. gentleman's question.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
in 1931
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 79, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. MANION moved the third reading of the bill.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that when the resolution upon which this bill is based was presented to the house, a statement of the situation was made to hon. members as to the necessity of the measure. That is why no discussion has taken place in committee and why no further exception will be taken to the immediate third reading.


Robert James Manion: It has been dealt with in committee.
iMr. Pouliot.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desired to make it clear that the bill is not going through without consideration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE OF SECURITIES TO BE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 83, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of securities to be issued under the Canadian National Railways Financing Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to make the same observation with regard to Bill No. 83 as I did with respect to Bill No. 79. My understanding is that both of these measures are based first of all upon the discussion that took place in the committee on railways and shipping-


Robert James Manion: That is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -that members of the committee were agreed upon the advisability of these measures being introduced; and also that when the resolutions on which the bills were based were before the house an explanation to that effect and in addition with regard to the essential features of the measures was made to the satisfaction of all sides of the house.


Robert James Manion: While there is a slight
difference in the method adopted, this is the right to guarantee the securities of the Canadian National Railways, and it has been done in the past in practically the same way.


Charles Marcil: I should like to take this
opportunity to say a few words regarding the policy adopted by the Canadian National Railways in my constituency and to ask the Minister of Railways to use his good offices in this respect. The Canadian National Railways are now applying to the Board of Railway Commissioners to close up three stations or receiving agencies which are situated in the parishes of Maria, St. Simeon de Bonaven-ture and Marcil between Shigawake and Port Daniel. Maria station has been in existence for over forty years, in fact since the road

Chicoutimi Harbour
was built. The population of the parish is about 2,000. I have received numerous petitions and protests against this policy. The chief claim is that in a time of stress such as this the Canadian National Railways should not deprive the people of the limited facilities thej' have at present for shipping their agricultural products, fish and so forth, and that the status of these stations should be continued until the crisis is passed. The revenues are fairly reasonable and I do not think the policy of the Canadian National Railways in depriving the people of these facilities is a good one. because the result will be that the people will resort to transportation by water, thus still further decreasing the revenues of the railway. I would ask the minister to use his good offices to see that these services are continued.


Robert James Manion: The Canadian National
Railways will lose a certain amount of revenue by closing stations throughout the country and protests have been received, but they are taking this action only where they find that this means an actual gain in money and sometimes a large gain. As a matter of fact, if the people would continue to utilize the railways, the services would not be cut off. I shall, however, be glad to pass my hoi., friend's representations on to the railway. The matter is in their hands, not in those of the government.


Mr. CAYLEY:: Has the minister any provision for the payment of interest and principal on those guaranteed bonds of which I spoke the other day? I particularly mentioned the Toronto Surburban.


Robert James Manion: I think, in the hon. member's absence, the question was asked by another hon. member. I pointed out that we have nothing to do with that. The bonds of the Toronto Suburban are guaranteed neither by the government nor by the national railways. It was a subsidiary, and while it is true the interest was paid in the past, the national railways, I am informed, due again to the same reasons that I gave another member a minute ago, namely, decreased earnings, have decided not to pay the interest, because on this subsidiary they were down $100,000 a year on operating expenses and, including interest, $200,000. Therefore I presume they have decided to cut out the interest payment just as many industrial corporations have discontinued paying dividends on stocks. I have no control over the matter; it is entirely in the hands of the Canadian National railway management.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I would infer that as soon as times get better, interest payments will be resumed?


Robert James Manion: I cannot say that. As a matter of fact, the national railways for some years, indeed I think ever since they took over the Toronto Suburban, have found that it has been a losing proposition, and I think their decision is to shut off the services altogether for the same reason that I gave to an hon. member, namely, that they are not getting the traffic. I understand they are willing to turn the railway over to the trustee of the debenture stock and let him handle it as desired; it is stock and not bonds about which my hon. friend inquires. The railways will give every facility for having the stockholders' trustee take it over without cost and handle it in any way to suit his wishes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the Chicoutimi harbour commissioners not exceeding $450,000 for the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of the debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (YorinSunbury) in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Duranleau thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 141, to provide a further loan to the Chicoutimi harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. DURANLEAU moved the second reading of the bill.
Jean-François Pouliot: Explain, please.


Mr. DLTRANLEAU:: I will explain it in
committee.

Saint John Harbour


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think there is any desire to delay this measure, but inasmuch as hon. members have not seen the bill, if there is to be no explanation, it might be permitted to stand. I would suggest, if it is not too late, that this be done and that we have the second reading at a subsequent time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not wish to be disagreeable to the minister. I simply want information.
Motion stands.



SAINT JOHN HARBOUR


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 134, to provide for a further loan to the Saint John harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Loan of $10,000,000 to harbour commissioners for terminal facilities.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wish to observe in respect of this bill that my recollection is that there was a very full discussion on the resolution, and the committee got most of the details at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 135, to provide for a further loan to the Three Rivers harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Loan of $700,000 to harbour commissioners for terminal facilities.
Jean-François Pouliot: On this section I have
just two questions to ask of the minister. Owing to an article that has been published in a local paper pointing out that the loan is being voted by the house at the same time

as a by-election is taking place in the county of Three Rivers, I would ask if it is understood that the harbour commissioners of Three Rivers will proceed with this work, whatever may be the result of the election in Three Rivers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is a very serious
question, and I want an answer from the minister.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be glad to
answer it. The answer is, surely.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. My second
question is this:	Is it understood that only
citizens of Three Rivers of a certain political complexion will be employed on the work, or will the unemployed be able to work on the harbour whatever may be their political colour?


Alfred Duranleau: It seems to me that
my hon. friend has in mind what he would do himself under similar circumstances, but I can say to the committee that any citizen who is able and willing to work, irrespective of his political colour, will be given the chance to work by the harbour commissioners so far as there is work available.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. That is very satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 139, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act, 1913.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-^Certain by-laws confirmed.
Mr. SPENCER:: Would the minister explain section 4?


Alfred Duranleau: The explanation is
contained in the explanatory note on the page opposite to the bill. By-law 115 provides the tariff of cargo rates effective on goods landed, shipped or deposited within the limits

Bonus on Wheat
of the North Fraser harbour. It repeals and replaces a by-law of the same number approved by order in council of April 20, 1927. The rates in the present by-law 115 are considerably reduced, and are the result of conferences and agreements arrived at between the members of the corporation, representatives of the four municipalities adjacent to the harbour, and other interests affected. The by-law 115 and the order in council confirming it, of November 1, 1927, are set out in full in the Canada Gazette of November 12, 1927, at pages 1406-1409.


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


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 140, respecting wheat.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-Payment of five cents a bushel on wheat.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that there may
be little difficulty in the operation of this measure I asked the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada to go into the matter with some degree of care and as a result of his suggestions the bill appears in its present form. It covers wheat grown in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the year 1931, and delivered to any licensed elevator in the western inspection division, commission merchant, track buyer or grain dealer as defined by the Canada Grain Act. The chairman was of opinion that this is the proper language to employ to cover the intention of the bill. In view of the limited discussion which took place the other day I may add that the next paragraph provides the regulations for payment of the money and makes the further provision that the act shall expire on July 31, 1932.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: I wish to ask
the Prime Minister a question concerning the operation of the proposed legislation. How will it affect the wheat grown in the Peace River area of British Columbia. Will 1he farmers in that area receive the benefit of this legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Anderson Fraser: Well, why should not the wheat grown in the Peace River area of British Columbia come within the operation of the act, the same as that grown in Alberta? The two areas adjoin one another. My information is that there are about a million bushels of wheat grown in the Peace River area of British Columbia. Why should not wheat grown in that area be entitled to the same bonus as wheat grown in the adjoining province of Alberta?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The wheat, grown in the Peace River area is partly in Alberta and partly in British Columbia. So far as my information goes the major part is grown in Alberta, and the measure now before the committee is intended to cover only the three great wheat producing provinces. To undertake to make it cover a small area or section of one province presented such difficulties that it was thought undesirable to make any such attempt. The conditions under which wheat is raised in the new territory, as compared with the older part, is well known to all. Such action could not reasonably be taken.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: There is a considerable quantity of wheat grown in the Peace River block of British Columbia. Undoubtedly there will be considerable dissatisfaction if those farmers are not to receive five cents per 'bushel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The farmers who live in Alberta will receive the benefit.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not speaking of those who live in Alberta, but of those who have their residence in British Columbia at points adjacent to Alberta and who do not enjoy the railway facilities for the transportation of grain enjoyed by their neighbours in Alberta. To that extent they are handicapped. As it is arranged now I presume the Board of Grain Commissioners will supervise payments, make regulations and decide to whom the money will be paid. Generally speaking it will be paid on wheat cheques to the farmers through the elevator companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To the producers.


Charles A. Stewart: Through the elevator companies, or purchasers from the grain growers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Through the payee, as described on the grain tickets. Sometimes the payee is a bank, and sometimes, as my hon. friend knows, it is not a 'bank. As he has very properly said payments will be made
Bonus on Wheat

through the Board of Grain Commissioners, to the producers. The business of the grain commissioners is to see that the money reaches the producers in connection with their grain tickets. My hon. friend knows better than I that there are great difficulties in connection with mortgages on crops. The chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners is working upon the regulations and believes there will be no difficulty in carrying into effect the intentions of the act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) in regard to the Peace River section of British Columbia. As the Prime Minister knows, the nature of the soil in that particular part of British Columbia is the same as in the Alberta section. It seems to me that there will be discrimination against wheat producers in Pouce Coupe and Rolla, British Columbia, who would not receive the five cents a bushel, while the Alberta producers at Spirit River, almost next door, would receive it. It seems to me that possibly some amendment might be introduced to extend the benefit of this legislation to the Fraser river section of British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a small area in the southern part of British Columbia in the same way.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that I am heartily in favour of any relief that may be or should be given to any real needy person in this Dominion. However, when the resolution preceding this bill was introduced the other day I made a protest against it on the ground that I did not believe that it was the duty of this government to propose any such sectional measure. I think my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) has made a protest which should be considered by this house. But I do believe that this is a bill which should not be received and passed by this parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Thomas McMillan: No sir, it is
not carried. I think there is no more uncalled for, unreasonable and indefensible bill -and goodness knows there have been many introduced by the government during this session and the special session last September. What is the situation? My right hon. friend the Prime Minister told us the other day that he had four reasons-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Five.


Thomas McMillan: Well, possibly five; which he advanced in favour of the passage of this measure. The first reason was the reduction in the price of wheat. Does not that apply equally to every variety of grain and of every other product of the farms of Canada? If you are going to introduce any such measure why should it not-be made general in its application? His second reason was that the prices which we are getting for wheat bear no relation to the cost of production. Does that not hold good in the production of every other article of the farm? I should like any hon. member to get up and say that the farmers of his constituency are able to produce at a profit. His third reason was the necessity of a measure of relief among western farmers. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to realize that in the burnt-up districts of the three western provinces there are, according to the last report, 150,000 farmers who will not have a bushel of grain of any kind this season. They certainly will not benefit at all from this sectional measure. In the other sections of the three prairie provinces there are farmers who have the prospect of a 20,000 bushel crop, and they will get a pure handout under this bill of no less than SI,000 each. Why should this house consider seriously any such sectional arrangement? Then his fourth reason was the psychological effect, which he described as the fact that the wheat-producing capabilities of the three prairie provinces had placed Canada on the map as a great wheat-producing country. I would ask him and every other member this question:	Do
you want to encourage our farmers at the present time to grow a greater quantity of wheat in the face of present conditions and present prices? Furthermore, there is not a large stock-producing farmer in those three western provinces to-day but will feel like feeding at least a portion of his wheat crop to his live stock; this bill does not encourage him to do so at all.
I want this house to realize, when the Prime Minister sets up the three western provinces as being a great wheat-producing country, that as far as the agriculture of Canada is concerned the old province of Ontario produced in 1929 over 31 per cent of the entire agricultural production of the Dominion. When we consider the province of Quebec along with Ontario, we find that in 1929 they produced 62.71 per cent of the entire agricultural production of this Dominion. In 1930 they produced over 55 per cent of that production. And yet, sir, here is a proposition so sectional that with the exception of the three prairie provinces no other portion of

Bonus on Wheat
4 is;
the Dominion is entitled to anything. On June 29 I asked the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) what parts of Canada were taken into consideration with respect to this proposition. He told me that this payment of 5 cents per bushel applied to the wheat producers of this country. Of course, he did say afterwards that it had not been considered in council. Nevertheless that was the reasonable, unbiased opinion that he gave expression to as a result of that degree of reason of which he is possessed-and we all give him credit for considerable reasoning power-but it seems to me that when he and other members of the cabinet go into council they have to throw their brains into the waste-paper basket. We have often heard the hon. Minister of Railways talk about the farmers in his district. Do you think he will go out and tell them that this is a provision not intended for their benefit, that they are too wealthy to need any help like this, and that this applies only to the farmers of the three western provinces? Do you think he will go out and tell them that? I noticed the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) in his seat a moment ago, but he has since gone out. I wonder if he will go to the good county of Oxford and tell his farmer constituents that they are not entitled to any consideration along these lines? Will the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) tell his farmer constituents up in new Ontario that they are so wealthy they are not entitled to any of this handout?


Mr. ROBINSON:: Are there any crop
failures in Ontario?


Thomas McMillan: If my hon.
friend had watched the press reports he would have seen that in the vicinity of Stratford, in the first twenty days of July, no less than 8 51 inches of rain fell in that locality, at the very time when our farmers were trying to save the hay harvest. There are farmers in my immediate vicinity who have not a single load that has not been partially destroyed. Many of them have drawn the hay and burned it because of the weather. Even in the favoured sections of Ontario there is scarcely a farmer who will be able to make ends meet. I am not going to keep up this protest at any greater length, but I want the committee, and more particularly the members of the cabinet, to understand that I will protest in this country wherever I go, and I am not going to do that before I protest in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can hardly let the hon. gentleman's statement go without one or two observations in reply. Are there any elevators in Ontario such as are referred to here, or in any of the eastern provinces?


Thomas McMillan: There are
storehouses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they are not storehouses such as these. It will be observed that all the grain that passes out of the western country for export passes through the elevators. There may be some small quantities that do not leave for export which also pass through them.


Thomas McMillan: Does this provision take in the millers of western Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. gentleman
knows, most of them have elevators, and some provision will be made in the regulations to deal with that situation. But this is an effort to give some assistance to the great grain-producing area of Canada. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should display so much heat in opposing the measure. I am sure it will be greeted with great satisfaction by those of his countrymen who have gone and settled in the western plains-for there are a great many men from Huron who have settled in western Canada. If they tell him, and if he will listen to them, I think he will agree that the action taken is what he himself would take under similar circumstances. It has not been taken hastily; it is the sort of action I would expect him to support rather than to oppose, for the reasons I have indicated.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Section 1 speaks of wheat grown in the western provinces in the year 1931. There are still held by the farmers certain quantities of the 1930 crop which will be marketed with the 1931 grain. Has any provision been made to separate these two crops, or will the 1930 and 1931 wheat come under this provision?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The information of the
Board of Grain Commissioners is that only small quantities of the 1930 crop are held. In any event an effort will be made under the regulations to separate the crops, and the 1930 wheat will not be paid the 5 cents.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: As I see it, wheat
delivered at mills to which no licensed elevators are attached will not be eligible for this 5 cent subsidy. There are a number of mills in the three western provinces that have
41S4
Bonus on Wheat

no elevators associated with them. They are not licensed under the grain act, and wheat delivered there will not receive the 5 cents. If the Prime Minister does not intend to provide for them, then, of course, they will have to go without it. But if he does intend to take care of them, I see no provision here for wheat delivered to such mills.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not intended to
do otherwise than as stated in the bill, except to meet the situation referred to by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael).


William Richard Motherwell: You think they will be covered ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has not
heard me. All grain grown in 1931 and delivered to country elevators in accordance with the grain act will receive the payment of 5 cents; not otherwise.


William Richard Motherwell: 1 see that. But
does the Prime Minister think that the regulations are comprehensive enough to include an occasional warehouse as well?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Warehouses are covered
by statute.


Mr. YOUNG:: The Prime Minister stated
the other day that this bonus of 5 cents was intended as a compensatory adjustment of the burden the tariff imposes on the farmer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


Edward James Young: I associate myself with the
hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown); we cannot accept it as such. This bonus of 5 cents will amount to approximately 8 per cent of the farmer's income, and the tariff imposes a burden of 30 per cent. We cannot accept a bonus of 8 per cent as a compensation for a 30 per cent spoliation. But I want to ask this question. In view of the fact that this is intended as a compensatory adjustment of the burden the tariff imposes on us, and inasmuch as this will last only one year, will the Prime Minister at the end of the year remove the tariff burden?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say a tariff
burden; there is no tariff burden placed on the farmers of the west.


Mr. BROWN:: Why an adjustment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say a tariff
burden. I said that this was a compensating adjustment as between the east and the west, because hon. gentlemen are all the time complaining-notably my hon. friend from Lisgar -about the terrible burden imposed upon the

west by the east. If he has been around these buildings lately he will understand what that means. This is intended to be just what it says, neither more nor less; and I gave the reasons for it. I did not give as one of the reasons what my hon. friend has suggested, and which I thought might offend his susceptibilities; although I did mention it as something that might possibly be said with respect, to the payment of this sum of money. As regards my hon. friend's remark about spoliation, that is not a matter of great importance.


Mr. YALLANCE:: Following up what the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has said, I do not think the Prime Minister really grasps the significance of the question put to him by that hon. member. There are in the three western provinces many mills that will not come within this provision. The Prime Minister is merely putting these interior mills at a disadvantage of five cents a bushel. The export miller has an advantage over the Canadian miller who has no elevator facilities; he has a five cent leeway on him. Let me assure the hon. member for South Huron that this five cent bonus will not encourage the growing of wheat. The position of the western farmer to-day is well known to the Prime Minister. If the hon. member for South Huron will look up to-days' quotations he will see that No. 1 wheat, July delivery, is selling at 52 cents. In the pool it is 30 cents on No. 1 wheat, and if you deduct freight, all that the farmer has left is 8i cents a bushel. It costs him 12 cents to thresh it, so that you can see what his profit
is.	As one who has produced a good deal of wheat, I can assure the hon. member that this bonus will not be an inducement to me to go more extensively into the production of this grain. However, I want to emphasize the point with regard to western millers who have no elevator facilities of their own. I hope the Prime Minister will see to
it, either by regulation or in some other way, that the wheat delivered to those individuals will receive the five cents which will be paid on export wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am obliged to my hon. friend from South Battleford for having taken up the question raised by the hon. member for South Huron. It is not the intention to encourage the growing of wheat. I thought that was so well known that it would be unnecessary to mention it. I thank my hon. friend for bringing this matter to my attention and will state that an effort will be made to meet the situation. I went over it with the chairman of the Board of Grain

Bonus on Wheat
Commissioners, and although there are some difficulties in the way they are not such as will not yield to treatment. I think the major part of the wheat will be taken care of as the great milling companies have licensed facilities.
Mr. SPEAIvMAN: Mr. Chairman, just a word following what was said by the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Vallance) in connection with over-encouragement being given to wheat growing. The hon. member spoke of a possible 8 or 8i cents payment being made locally to the farmers for No. 3 wheat delivered to the pools. I have before me the market quotations for the town of Red Deer, which offers a typical example being situated on the main line. These prices are as follows:
111	cents	for	No.	1.81	cents	for	No.	2.31	cents	for	No.	3.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the advance payment.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Those are the quotations which appeared in the paper of July 15. They cover the initial payments as advertised by the pool. Every hon. member will appreciate that the addition of five cents per bushel will not make wheat growing so profitable as to encourage over-production. As has been said, this payment could hardly be looked upon as a compensating adjustment, but I think the farmers who have been so fortunate as to have wheat this year will appreciate this additional price. While they do not consider it in the light of a compensating adjustment, while they feel, rightly or wrongly, that it is wholly inadequate, from the viewpoint of increased purchasing power or a lessening of their losses they are prepared to accept and appreciate this payment. This is the first time in our history that such recognition has been given; whether or not it will be the last, we do not know, but we accept it in that way. It is being accepted as some recognition of the losses which have been incurred but not in any way as an encouragement to overproduce. Even with the 5 cents a bushel it is obvious that the cost of growing and marketing wheat will be far greater than the returns which have been received this year. As to whether or not this payment should apply to all grains is another matter; as to whether or not it should apply to all farm products is another matter. Those are matters for discussion but my own opinion is that it would be of assistance to all farmers to receive something of the same nature. The farmer appreciates anything which will add
$5,000,000 to $10,000,000 to the purchasing power of the prairies, but as has been said again and again, he is not prepared to accept this as payment in full for the burdens which the tariff and other policies of this country have placed upon him. He is prepared to accept it exactly for what it is worth, as so much assistance at a time when assistance is badly needed. With so many crop failures this payment will not apply to or be of the slightest advantage to many districts, and we must look to the bill which will be introduced shortly for relief in this connection. Despite what has been said by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) and other hon. members of the committee, I am not afraid that the farmers of the west will rush into greater production of wheat.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Mr. Chairman, I desire to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for this assistance to be given to the farmers of western Canada. I appreciate the endeavour to make it applicable to all wheat marketed through the regular channels. However, there will be difficulty and hardship involved in the case of the smaller millers. One of the absurdities of our economic life is that at the present time the price of flour in western Canada where the wheat is grown is practically higher than the price prevailing in any other part of the British Empire. The cause is the fact that the millers charge for the wheat as if it were shipped to Fort William, and then add on the price of flour the local freight back from Fort William. The price of flour in the west is as high as if not higher than the price in many points in eastern Canada. As a result of this condition many small mills have begun to operate throughout the prairies. There are four or five in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. These mills buy their wheat from the local farmers, who, in turn, purchase their flour from the mills These local mills not having to pay the freight on the wheat to Fort William and the freight on the flour from Fort William are able to sell flour at a lower price. Several of the municipalities in granting relief stipulated that any flour needed should be purchased from these mills because of the cheaper rate prevailing. Under this proposal these mills will have to pay an additional five cents per bushel for wheat. They have no elevators and there will be a discrimination against them because the larger mills, such as the Quaker mills at Saskatoon, and the Robin Hood mills at Moose Jaw will have an advantage of five cents per bushel, even though they charge more for their flour. Something should lie
Bonus on Wheat

done to give these smaller mills the same consideration as is 'being given to the larger ones so that they may have an even break in the matter.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Mr Chairman, I was not in the chamber when the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) was speaking, so I do not know whether or no he took up the question which I propose to ask the Prime Minister. My question is as follows: Why has the province of Ontario been left out of consideration in this payment of five cents per bushel? Why are not the wheat growers of the province of Ontario going to share in this payment? The Prime Minister may have some good reason for that, and if so I should like to hear it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the question
which was asked by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). I endeavoured to give him an answer. He considered it inadequate, but it was the answer that suggested itself to me, namely, that we were dealing with an extraordinary and emergent situation which the western producers of wheat, being so far removed from their market, as distinguished from those in the east, found it necessary to pay transportation charges that left them only from as low as five cents to as high as fifteen cents a bushel for their wheat. It is almost unnecessary for me to say to the committee that such a price, if you take the maximum figure I mentioned, might cover the cost of threshing. In Ontario no such condition prevails; there is no such thing in that province as a bushel of wheat being sold for fifteen or twenty cents; there is no such thing as the transportation costs absorbing 80 per cent of the price of the commodity, and under those circumstances this is an endeavour to equalize the situation, to a limited extent only as I have said, but to do something to indicate that those parts of Canada more favourably situated with respect to transportation are willing to bear some part of the common burden to assist the producers in the western areas to approximate in their returns more nearly at least the cost of seed and the effort put upon it.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: So far as an emergent condition exists in the western provinces, we in the east very heartily approve the step that is being taken to relieve that emergency, but I want the Prime Minister to understand that in many cases there is also an emergent condition in Ontario. The problem is serious for the farmers in the older parts of Ontario to know how to carry on under the

very heavy obligations which they have assumed and the heavy taxation that has grown upon them down through the years. They are at present facing problems that are hard of solution.
I notice in Saturday's paper a suggestion to encourage dairying in the western provinces by the payment of a bonus of one cent a pound on butter. This would be another measure of assistance to the western provinces. We in Ontario wonder what we are going to get by way of legislation and help for our farms because we know it is very important that our farmers be able to make their way and pay their expenses. I was wondering whether in the legislation it is proposed to introduce by way of unemployment and farm relief, the Prime Minister had in mind any proposition in the way of relieving the farmers of Ontario or any other part of the Dominion who are also suffering from an emergent situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps when the Minister of Agriculture is dealing with his estimates, the hon. member might secure from him an explanation with respect to the item that he noticed in Saturday's paper.


Charles A. Stewart: I understood the government had abandoned the idea that this bonus was being granted for the purpose of assistance in transportation costs, in other words, that it was a bonus on export wheat as was announced in the first instance, because I think it would have been unfortunate if the government had adopted that plan. Australia has got into considerable difficulties by bonusing exports, and I would regret to see Canada following that method of granting assistance. I am much more favourable to this scheme which gives the producer the five cents without mentioning whether the wheat is to be exported or what use is to be made of it. The matter then is a domestic one and does not get into the realm of international trade, involving the same difficulties that Australia has encountered. I hope conditions will improve and it will not be necessary to bonus the growing of wheat. No doubt the Prime Minister has in mind the deplorable situation that exists at the present time, when the price of wheat has gone away below production costs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was down to fifty-two cents to-day.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think the five cents will be of great benefit, although it may lend some encouragement and help. As prices are to-day this five-cent

Bonus on Wheat
bonus cannot be construed as compensation, but it may be some help to the fanner who has a reasonable quantity of wheat and who at present is producing below cost. I would however oppose most vigorously any attempt to bonus any commodity as an export commodity, because I think in the long rim such a policy would bring about a worse evil even than that which Australia became involved in by her attempt to carry out a scheme of that kind.


Mr. DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation):: I
wish to express my disapproval of this bill which, in my humble opinion, does not answer the purpose which the government had in view when submitting it to the house. On the other hand, I think that the government introduced this measure with always the same end in mind: that of favouring the large interests at the expense of the small holders; that of favouring the wheat grower on a large scale, the gentleman farmer at the expense of the small wheat grower who utilizes his crop for live stock raising. Moreover the government has given little thought to those who, instead of shipping their wheat to the elevators, sell to the miller or to friends who need it, either in their section of the country or the province. I am furthermore opposed to this measure because it fends to favour one section of the country to the detriment of the other provinces of confederation. I am aware that the western provinces are, at present, in serious straits, but the eastern provinces, Quebec included, are also, to some extent, in a critical position owing to the lack of sale for their farm products, such as butter and cheese. As Quebec 'has to bear a large proportion of the taxes, I think the government could afford giving it its quota of protection. I am opposed to this bill because it is devoid of principle, the government seems to court the western provinces and specially favour the large interests which are always subscribers to election funds. As a Quebec representative, I am not opposed to the rebate of five cents for each bushel of wheat shipped to elevators, but I am opposed to the measure because the same advantages are not afforded to the small holders who seek by all possible means to earn a living, and who, instead of shipping their wheat to elevators at ridiculous prices, have gone into live stock raising in order to take full advantage of their wheat.


Edward James Young: This five-cent bonus is intended as a temporary expedient to relieve the present distressful condition, but it can 22110-260
be at best only a temporary expedient, whether efficient or not, and the real remedy must be found in something more permanent. I think everybody will agree that the trouble with the wheat farmer to-day, apart from crop conditions, is that our wheat is shut out of world markets where formerly it had a ready sale. Many European countries now have hostile tariffs which it is almost impossible for our wheat to surmount. I know that the Prime Minister has made efforts to have our wheat used more largely within the British Empire, but the empire itself cannot take all our wheat, and so we must find markets outside. I would respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that some endeavour be made to have European markets reopened to our wheat. Two or three months ago a trade treaty was signed between Germany and Austria, under the terms of which each country admitted the products of the other duty-free, and I believe there was a clause in that treaty which provided that any other country would be eligible to receive the benefits of that treaty if they would come in on the same terms; that is, open their ports to the products of those countries. I would respectfully suggest that the Prime Minister explore this matter thoroughly to discover if it is not possible to have those markets reopened to our wheat on the condition that we open our markets to some of the products they have to sell.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must not permit my
hon. friend from St. Denis to labour under a misapprehension. He said first of all that we were protecting the large producers of wheat at the expense of the small producer, and he proceeded to say that what we are trying to do is to give a bonus to those who might really need it, but at the same time, he said, it was discriminating against the province of Quebec, and that we should not do it unless we gave a bonus to butter and cheese; and we also, he said, should provide something in connection with local sales.
Let me say this to him: No farmer in the province of Quebec is ever called upon to produce a bushel of wheat and sell it for 13 cents. That is number one. The farmer in the province of Quebec has a market nearby, and in my judgment the finest market that any people have in Canada, namely, the great cities of Montreal, Three Rivers and other large communities. Whatever else may be said, there is in the province of Quebec a large industrial population. On the island of Montreal there are nearly one million people who must be fed, and are fed in the main

Bonus on Wheat

by the products from the farms of other parts of the province of Quebec. There is no such condition as that in western Canada. If there were, the western farmers would not be seeking a market abroad for their wheat; they would be able to sell it at home. It is true that the province of Quebec has to purchase a portion of its wheat from these very wheat producers, but the producers of the province of Quebec find a ready market for their vegetables, farm products and garden truck on a fairly profitable basis, notwithstanding the lowered cost of commodities. That does not extend, of course, to all parts of the province.
Clearly, there is no such thing as sectionalism in a policy of this kind. It is an endeavour on the part of all the people of this Dominion to adjust the tremendous losses that are being made by the producers in western Canada, whose purchasing power has amounted in the last few years to billions of dollars, to conditions that approximate-I say only approximate-the cost of production, and by production I do not mean the labour or the price of seed and threshing, apart from everything else. I do not think our policy should call forth from the hon. gentleman an attack against the government on the ground that it is based on sectionalism. On the contrary, it is a frank recognition by all the people of Canada of an obligation to the less-favoured part of our population under an extreme and emergent condition. Rubber has fallen about 90 per cent in value; wheat, has fallen over 50 per cent; and many of the metals, copper, for instance, have fallen 100 per cent in value. But the farm products in western Canada are peculiarly struck by reason of the fact that, rightly or wrongly, the producers of that country have been depending more or less on that crop and that crop only, and when you have a crop that not since the days of the building of the Canadian Pacific railway has reached the price of 50 cents, and when you recall that but for the action of the government it would undoubtedly, as the premier of Alberta said the other day, have dropped to 40 cents, it means that there is absolutely nothing left for the producer of the wheat. The one factor that the hon. member for St. Denis and the hon. member for South Huron overlook is the cost of moving the product from the point of production to the point of consumption. If you had any such difficulties as that in Ontario and Quebec, you would have exactly the same claim; but when you have the cost of threshing, the cost of the seed, the cost of putting it in the ground, the cost

of reaping the crop, and when in addition to all those costs you have a cost of 20 cents a bushel-


John Vallance: Twenty-six and a half
cents per hundred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, about 15 to 16 cents a bushel for freight. When I mention that I think the committee will realize that all we are trying to do under the present most distressed conditions is to equalize in some small way-we cannot do it wholly because we cannot afford to do it wholly-the emergent conditions under which these people are suffering. But if the time ever came when you had an equally emergent condition in the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario, there are no people who would respond more willingly in their desire to help than the people of those same western plains.


Mr. IRVINE:: I have no doubt that the
farmers in eastern Canada need more than they will obtain for their products this year, just as do the farmers of the west, but I do not think it can be doubted that eastern Canada has been industrialized largely through the national policy which has been in vogue in this country for upwards of sixty years, and that national policy has been paid for. if you care to put it that way, to a greater extent by the people of the west than of any other section of Canada. The result of that industrialization has been to give the farmers of eastern Canada a market for all kinds of products right at their very door. So under the circumstances, as explained by the Prime Minister, I do not think the eastern farmers should object to allowing five cents a bushel to the western farmer under the very difficult conditions which exist at the present time.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Mr. Speaker, I strongly protest against the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when he asserts that I wish to rouse the provinces against one another. To be more clearly understood, I state that this bill is worthless. If the right hon. Prime Minister sincerely believes he can find a solution to the distress existing, at present, in the western provinces, by granting a rebate of five cents per bushel on wheat, he is greatly in error; to my mind, all will have to be done over again, once the five cents rebate is exhausted. It would be preferable for all concerned to inagurate a constructive policy, that the cause of the evil be sought in order to apply an effective and curative remedy, as behooves the good doctor, financier and able lawyer he believes himself to be. Instead of

Bonus on Wheat
this measure which proposes to pay a rebate of five cents per bushel of wheat, when the western farmers are in the greatest straits, he should wait until next session, ponder over the matter and present to parliament and the country a more constructive legislation than the one he is, to-day, submitting to the house.


Mr. McINTOSH:: In connection with the five cent bonus on every bushel of wheat, the Prime Minister has made the statement that the proposed legislation is not sectional. Well, as to whether or not it is sectional depends on the way hon. members view the legislation. I always understood if you took a piece of legislation, applied it to one part of Canada and did not apply it to the other it was sectional in scope, vision and content. I believe the present legislation is of that type. The Prime Minister argued however, quite properly, that we have a national emergency, and he is using the emergency idea to make it appear that alter all the proposed legislation is not sectional when in fact it is.
I would say that we appreciate the five cents a bushel bonus offered to western farmers, so far as their wheat sales are concerned. I should like to point out however that that was not the policy the creators of the national policy fifty or sixty years ago thought would be necessary to bind Canada together and make her a nation. At that time they told Canada that the national policy was going to unite all portions of the Dominion, was going to populate all portions of the Dominion, was going to create splendid markets for all portions of the Dominion; we were promised that we would have cities, towns and buying areas for all our products. We find sixty years afterwards however that such is not the case, that our policy of industrialism has linked us up to a very high and extreme tariff policy with the result that to-day the spread between the price of what the farmer has to buy and what he has to sell is greater than ever. Nationally speaking, that is really our present predicament. The five cents a bushel now offered is to narrow that spread. Well, when we consider that about 30 per cent is taken from the farmer every time he buys an industrial product, and that we return to him five cents a bushel on his wheat- five cents on fifty cents, or 10 per cent-the policy is not worth much after all, and it is not permanent. This temporary policy for one year is not going to meet the situation at all. It will have to be met in a more permanent way, and I suggest that one of the best ways to meet it is, as far as possible, to 22110-2601
reduce the tariffs on articles the farmer must buy and thereby give him a chance to buy more with his money-even, if he has not very much.
In closing I would say that as a westerner representing a western riding we accept the help afforded by five cents a bushel, although in my estimation it will not meet the problem with which Canada is faced, namely, to give the farmers of the west, the producers and consumers of Canada a much greater purchasing power.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I say, with the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) that the present legislation certainly will not cure the difficulties with which the wheat producers are faced. I do not think any hon. member expects it to have that effect. At the present time however the action of the government is very welcome. Even five cents a bushel means a great deal to the farmers who will have wheat to market this fall.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning subsection (b) of section 2 of the bill. I presume that is the section we are now discussing. I wonder if there is any discrimination between the different classes marketing wheat, namely the farmer and the bank or loan companies. Subsection (b) reads:
Determining the person to whom the said sum of five cents per bushel shall be paid and the method of the payment thereof.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Although we have not reached subsection Ob) I may say to the hon. member that it appears in the bill for the purpose if possible of enabling the producers to receive the money. As I mentioned a short time ago, at times there are grave difficulties in determining exactly who the producers may be. This is an endeavour at least to see that the man who puts the work upon the land and secures the grain may be able also to secure the five cents a bushel. The chairman of the grain commissioners thought that with such a provision he would be able to see that justice would be done to the producers.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am glad to have the Prime Minister's explanation. I may say that thousands of farms in western Canada are really held by loan companies. Farmers have fallen behind in their mortgages and they have signed over their farms to loan companies. In this case five cents a bushel might be taken as a part of the price of the grain. Usually the farmer is obliged to deliver one-third of the crop clear or its value. If the
Bonus on Wheat

five-cent payment is made as a distinct bonus to the grower himself, however, then of course all such payments would go directly to the farmers.


James J. Donnelly: I wish briefly to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) concerning the marketing of our grain. While with the best possible grace accepting the five cents a 'bushel we feel it is not going to be of much assistance to us 'because no man in western or any other part of Canada can grow wheat for 30 or 40 cents a bushel-and that is practically what the farmer would receive. Aside from that one must consider the hauling of the wheat to market. I have paid as high as 25 cents a bushel to have wheat hauled to market. That is but one of the expenses. Some of our western farmers have to haul distances of 35 or 40 miles. In western Canada our sheriffs allow a cent a mile per bushel to haul wheat to the market. Hon. members can readily see that there is not much money left for the fanner.
We must recognize the fact however that if we are going to get out of the depression in which Canada and the world are thrown to-day, the first people who must be put on their feet are the primary producers-the farmers. Unless measures are brought in to relieve the farmers and to bring them back to better conditions we will not get out of our present depression. All economists through-jut the world say that in any depression in vhich we have ever found ourselves the first class to show signs oif relief were the farmers, the primary producers. Our primary producers, namely our farmers, fishermen, lumbermen and miners must first show signs of getting over the depression or the manufacturers will not get over it, and the country will continue to suffer.
In 1921 we were faced with a great debt; we had the war to pay for. A11 our money was used to pay for the war, in the same manner as the farmer pays his mortgages. All our money has been going out in the payment of dtebts with the result that it has reached the coffers of the United States and France. The world to-day is without money, and the only way in which she can buy goods is by exchanging goods. As our economists tell us, after the year 1921 the United States saw a chance of making some money and as a result they inaugurated a fiscal policy of higher tariffs. They built tariff waHs around themselves, shut themselves in, and made money in abundance. They had their own

markets and world markets to supply; their factories were built four or five times greater than would have ibeen necessary to supply their own local needs. But the world market said, "This is the way for us to grow rich; we will do the same thing, we will build a tariff wall around our own country." France built a tariff wall, Germany did the same, and so did Italy. In 1927 Germany, France, Italy and the other countries of Europe began to help their primary producers, and they prohibited the importation of wheat. Then the farmers of western Canada began to feel the effect of that fiscal policy. Little by little those countries raised their tariffs until at the present time Canadian wheat is shut out of the markets of Germany, France and Italy. The French tariff against us is from 85 to 90 cents per bushel, the Italian is 85 to 90 cents, the German is something like $1.25 to $1.50, and I think it has been up as high as $1.80. No wheat can get over such a tariff wall. It is impossible for us to sell our wheat to those countries. The result is that the only market left for our wheat is the British Isles. If we supplied all the wheat that is needed in the British Isles, if we had the whole of that market to ourselves, it would not 'be sufficient to absorb our surplus wheat. They import only about 170,000,000 bushels a year, and on an average we have an exportable surplus of 300,000,000 bushels. Therefore we have to find a market somewhere for the remainder of our crop, and unless those other countries in continental Europe go 'back to truck farming or dairying or stock raising, and leave to us the growing of wheat, these unfavourable conditions are going to continue.
What we need at the present time is tariff agreements with those countries just as we made a tariff agreement recently with Australia. We ought to make tariff arrangements with Germany, Italy and France, so that they will let our wheat in at lower rates of duty in return for which we will admit some of their manufactured products. The other day we made a tariff agreement with Australia which would help the manufacturers, and the only people who were to pay for those concessions were the farmers. I should like to see an agreement negotiated with some country that would help our farmers at the expense of the manufacturers. I should like to see the tide turn for once. Until we have something of this sort done, I say conditions for the farmers in western Canada will go from bad to worse.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Bonus on Wheat
On section 2-Regulations, paragraph (a).
John Vallance: Mr. Chairman, on section 2, paragraphs (b) and (c), I should like to make a few observations to the Prime Minister. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are as follows:
(b)	determining the person to whom the said sum of five cents per bushel shall be paid and the method of the payment thereof;
(c)	making such arrangements as may be necessary with the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada or other statutory body for payment of the said sum;
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister, in reply to a question directed to him by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), make the statement he did, because this is the kernel of the whole bill; that is, that it will be necessary that payment of this five cents be so arranged that it goes directly to the producer, because if it is at all to be a relief measure the producer must have the entire control of the five cents; for instance, if his wheat was seized, his five cents could not be touched. We know that huge financial corporations in western Canada are extorting from the people a tremendous toll. I could cite instances that have been drawn to my attention. I know the Prime Minister probably would tell me that this subject is entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and I agree that it is. But I could cite these instances to show the absolute necessity of making certain that no one can touch the five cents, otherwise it ceases to be a relief measure to the wheat grower. I hope paragraphs (b) and (c) will effect this purpose and that it will be absolutely certain that the farmer or producer will get the benefit of t-his assistance.
I should like to draw the attention of eastern members to the fact that for some years past there has been a tendency in the west to decrease the cost of labour in operating our larger farms. Take a farm to-day in western Canada producing 5,000 bushels of wheat and over a year. On such a farm it is more profitable to operate a combine or harvester-thresher than the old binder and threshing machine. There was a time when in the operation of a section-and-a-half farm you would have to have four to five men on the binder, four or five men stooking, and some twenty-five to twenty-seven men drawing in to the machine. To-day it is possible to take care of the wheat-harvesting operations on that size farm with three men only, two on the combine and one on a truck drawing the wheat. So that the money that the western farmer heretofore used to pay for labour on
the farm is now being paid for labour in the eastern factories. Therefore the eastern farmers stand to gain by the introduction of the harvester-thresher. This is another instance where we can say that in this measure the government is not discriminating against the east in favour of the west.
Let me repeat, one of the things that concerns me most is to see that this bill makes it positive that the producer or farmer shall get the five cents, and that no one shall be able to deprive him of that relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the hon
member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallanee! has directed attention to what after all is a very important, if not the most important feature of the legislation, apart altogether from that section of it which directs payment of the five cents. Those subsections in section 2 are to meet the situation to which he has referred, and I can only say to him and to the committee that I asked the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners to come to Ottawa in order that we might discuss the matter in an endeavour to make it clear that the purpose and intention of this parliament is given effect to. If the hon. gentleman has any suggestions to make, I shall be glad to receive them and to act upon them if they will make the purpose any clearer. When the hon. gentleman uses the word ''absolutely" I think he realizes that that is a little strong, because many conditions might prevail that would make it almost impossible to give effect to what he says. But that is the aim, and if there be an exception now and then it will only go to prove the rule.
While I am on my feet I think I must say to the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) and others who have made observations with respect to tariffs and their effects upon the sale of Canadian wheat, I hope they will remember that so far as this country is concerned at least it lowered its tariff and did not increase them, and yet Canada was more affected than any other country by those higher tariffs. So it cannot be said that Canada invited reprisals, for at least it has been remarked by those well able to speak with authority in the League of Nations and elsewhere that of all the countries of the world we were the only country that did reduce our tariffs between 1921 and 1930; and during that period tariffs against our agricultural products were higher than they have ever been in our history. The very conditions to which (he hon. member for Willow Bunch referred in Germany, in France and in Italy obtained under the economic situation to which atten-

Bonus on Wheat
tion has been directed. There has been a very earnest effort on the part of those European countries to be self-contained from the standpoint of growing sufficient grain to meet their own requirements. Every little corner in France is covered with a crop, grain is grown everywhere, and I think it would amaze hon. members to see the care and attention given to small sections or patches of land in France for the purpose of getting the utmost return from the standpoint of food products. In Germany and in continental Europe generally the same thing prevails. We have sold more wheat to France by three times than we did last year. That is explainable in many ways, as hon. gentlemen will say, but we believe that at least one explanation is to be found in the representations which we made to them. The Prime Minister of France had no hesitation in saying to me personally that the business of any government there was to take care of the agrarians. He said that no government could survive in France that did not take care of the agrarian interests. France, he pointed out, was so constituted; and from my own observations and reading I should think there is no doubt about it. I mention this only because it must be clear that we stand in a different position to that country than we do in relation to Australia or any other country. When we go to countries like France or Germany and propose to them that they should admit our wheat free, they at once say that they have obligations that would make it necessary for the wheat of other countries to come in free also. Trade relations, most favoured nation treaties, and matters of that kind make it impossible for such an arrangement to be carried out unless we give terms that would be absolutely destructive of our national integrity. I do not think that any member of this committee is prepared to say that the doors of Canada should be opened freely to the manufactured products of continental Europe. I say that to my hon. friends from the west who have studied the matter with a good deal of care, but I apologize for taking up the time of the committee again discussing the point. I felt, however, that I must make that statement, because it does not lie in our hands, in view of the experiments we, ourselves, have made.


John Vallance: Undoubtedly an effort will be made this fall by the farmers' creditors to seize the wheat. No matter what the value of the wheat is they will not get very much for it as conditions are to-day. But if it is possible I want the government
	;
to assure us that this five cents will not be touched. If it is touched it affords no relief at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can say this to the hon. gentleman. The five cents is not garnisheeable, so far as we understand the law. The provinces, of course, control questions of seizure and matters of that kind; but so far as this government is concerned it certainly will not be seized. That is why it is put in the hands of the Board of Grain Commissioners. My hon. friend will agree that no other body in the west which we could name is so well able to look after it.


John Vallance: I suggested it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the hon. gentleman did. It is a striking manifestation of the fact that great minds think alike. I followed the leading of his great mind and he followed mine, not so great.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 136, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would direct
the attention of the Prime Minister to the following phrase in the preamble:
And whereas it is desirable that the system of old age pensions shall be established on a contributory basis as a national undertaking;
Inasmuch as this phrase appears in the bill to amend the existing act which is before us, it is important to consider what may be involved in the passing of the second reading. Speaking on the resolution upon which this measure is based, I pointed out to my right hon. friend that it would be advisable to avoid raising the question of contribution; at any rate, that it would be desirable to have the British North America Act so amended as to make it possible'at the earliest possible date for this parliament to enact an old age pensions measure and administer it without any question of contribution, in case there should be a difference of view as to whether the old age pension measure should be on a contributory basis or not. I still take that view, but I am inclined to feel

Old Age Pensions Act
that if the house were to approve the bill in its present form it might be said later by the administration that we had endorsed an old age pension scheme only on a contributory basis. If that is the intention of the measure, there will be strong opposition to it, and before the second reading passes I think the Prime Minister ought to give the house a word of explanation in that regard
Another point is this. Under this measure we of this federal parliament are contributing 75 per cent of the amount that is to go towards old age pensions. This is being contributed to the provinces. To bring out the significance of my point, I would ask the house how it believes the provinces would view any measure on their part which would involve their making a contribution of 75 per cent to this Dominion with the expectation that the Dominion would administer the law, towards the operation of which they had contributed that proportion of the expenses. The time has come when the Old Age Pensions Act should be administered by the federal government, even if only 75 per cent and not 100 per cent of the cost is being met by the Dominion.
The third point I would emphasize again is the unwisdom of making special grants to provinces where they involve control of expenditures by a body other than that which is obliged to raise the necessary taxation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To the three points
raised by the right hon. gentleman, I have this to say. As regards the preamble, it was not intended thereby that the house should commit itself to any definite policy. While the preamble is under certain circumstances of very great force, it was not intended that in this bill it should be anything more than the recital of a pious hope; and in view of what was said the other day, had it not been that the bill was already printed, it would have been omitted. When the bill is in committee that part can be removed.
With reference to the second point, I can only point out to the right hon. gentleman that his objections to the payment of 75 per cent are equally applicable to the payment of 50 per cent. If he will look at section 4 of the legislation passed by his own government he will find these words:
Every agreement made pursuant to this act shall continue in force so long as the provincial statute remains in operation or until after the expiration of ten years from the date upon which notice of an intention to determine the agreement is given by the governor general to the lieutenant governor of the province with which same was made.
Under these circumstances it will be apparent that all that we have done is to increase our contribution or payment without in any sense endeavouring to interfere with the terms of the agreement. Inasmuch as it would remain in force for a period of ton years I have grave doubt as to just how far we could proceed in that direction. It is a principle of law, which has been settled by the decisions, that you do not avoid an agreement by increasing the benefits which accrue under it to the other party. We are advised that the agreement itself cannot be affected within the terms of that section by reason of the increase of the benefits which are conferred upon the other party, namely, the increase from 50 to 75 per cent.
As far as the third point is concerned, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by beating again that straw. This has been discussed at great length on various occasions. It has been indicated that the British North America Act is based upon the assumption that the provinces were to receive subsidies by reason of the fact that they surrendered certain powers of taxation. Having surrendered those powers there has been a continued increase since confederation of the benefits to the provinces. Subsidies have been reviewed, revised and increased; grants in aid have not been uncommon, and in fact when the right hon. member was confronted with the problem of dealing with old age pensions he dealt with it by paying 50 per cent of the amount due. I am rather inclined to think that the imposition of that principle upon the provinces subject to the conditions mentioned could be said to be the basis of most of the difficulty which since that day has arisen out of the grants in aid to provinces. Two distinguished members of the legal profession gave to the province of Quebec an opinion that this was illegal and improper, the basis of the opinion being that it was not competent for the Dominion to impose its will upon the provinces, even to the extent of conferring benefits predicated upon conditions. In this instance benefits were conferred based upon conditions to be fulfilled, and the opinion of these two eminent counsel was that legislation stipulating the acceptance of conditions which might be regarded by the provinces as onerous before they could receive any part of the benefits provided, was beyond the competence of this parliament. I find it a little difficult to follow that reasoning, and yet one can understand that there is some semblance of authority for it when one applies to the facts of the case the well-
Old Age Pensions Act

settled legal principles which should govern in matters of this kind. As I said the other day, this measure merely increases the benefits to be conferred, and if there is anything in the preamble or the bill which is out of keeping with that principle, I will assist the committee in its removal.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure just where we stand in this matter. I understand that on second reading we adopt the principle of a bill, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has stated that he does not wish to commit the house to the principle of a contributory system. If it is understood that the preamble will be amended during the committee stage, and that we are not endorsing the contributory principle on second reading, then the bill could go through to committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, the other
day the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) stated that the agreement had been forced on the provinces by the late government. I was rather surprised to hear the minister make such a statement because he is one of the most brilliant lawyers in this country. He knows very well that an agreement cannot be forced upon anyone, and so this statement must have been a slip on his part.


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
subscribe to the interpretation which has been placed upon my remarks by the hon. member. My remarks appear in Hansard and they can speak for themselves.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is a
dissenting judge.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has raised a question which is worthy of some consideration, namely, that when the act of confederation was passed certain duties were assigned to the federal parliament, the remainder being retained by the provinces. I remember when the federal government passed the highways act. This act granted sums of money for the purpose of constructing highways provided that the provinces spent a considerably larger amount and that the highways were constructed according to a certain standard. That created some embarrassment to the provincial governments-I know that was the fact as far as Alberta was concerned; and T mention this merely to point out that in my opinion the federal government should confine its activities to its own field. The gov-

ernment of which I was a member cannot be said to have been immune from acts of this character, but these matters lead to abuse. If federal parties are going to vie with each other during general election in offering inducements to the electors in any given province to vote for them, offering assistance to the province which rightly belongs in the sphere of provincial finance, trouble will ensue. Such has been the case with old age pensions, grants for highways and grants for technical education; all these were clearly intended to be the business and the duty of the provinces themselves. The Prime Minister has pointed out that consideration has been given from time to time to the method by which assistance or grants should be given to the provinces. If the subsidies are to be increased, all well and good; because that would not entail any obligation upon the provinces to do anything to earn the subsidy. In my opinion we are embarking upon what is nothing more or less than a vicious principle. If assistance is to be given, let it be given by way of a subsidy, and let the provinces take care of their own affairs. Both governments have been guilty of this practice and I do not think the federal government can continue to enter the field of the provinces without there being some readjustment of taxation. Undoubtedly the provinces will resent any intrusion in the way of taxation. Although the income tax was a special war measure, it was resented to some degree by the provinces. Undoubtedly conferences will be held during the life of the present parliament to discuss with the provinces this very question. The fathers of confederation were wise in their day and generation when they made an allocation of duties, and we would be wise to stay within the bounds of that allocation. If increases in assistance are to be given, they should be by way of subsidy.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I happened to be out of the chamber when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) made his remarks, but I understand he has signified his willingness to eliminate whatever reference there is in the bill to the contributory system.
I am glad my right hon. friend is willing to do that, because the question of a contributory system of old age pensions has not had the survey and the consideration which it might have received. On the other hand, the question of a non-contributory system of old age pensions was reported upon by a committee of the house which sat and heard

Old Age Pensions Act
evidence from many organizations and representative men, especially labour men. Therefore I was a little surprised to find in the bill a reference to a contributory system, because it had not received due consideration. A contributory system of old age pensions is much more involved now than it was when it was adopted in England a few years ago, the reason being that our economic situation has changed considerably and is changing very fast. A contributory system would be of very little use unless it were compulsory, and to compel people to-day to contribute to old age. pensions would be much more difficult than it was a few years ago. For instance, England is a small, congested, highly industrialized country, and it is very easy there to provide for contributions for unemployment insurance, old age pensions or any other social activity. But in a country like Canada, where we have men who are out of work say four months in the year, and who usually receive low wages when they are working, it would be a hardship upon them to provide that if they did not contribute to an old age pension system they should not be entitled to receive any benefits therefrom.
Another aspect of the situation that I might point out to the Prime Minister is this: in our industrial life in Canada to-day-and I suppose it is the same in many other countries -men are being laid off work at a much earlier age than they were some years ago. We have many industries that will not employ a man who is over forty, so that when a man who is forty years old loses his job he is not in a position to contribute to any system of old age pensions and it would be hard to prohibit him from participating in the benefits just because he was consigned to the scrap heap at such an early age.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What work would that be?


Mr HEENAN:: I have in mind a few industries, but there is one in particular with which I have had some experience. I refer to a pulp and paper industry in Kapuskasing, where they have a rule that a man cannot be employed after he is forty years of age. That does not mean that he will be discharged when he reaches forty-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a different thing.
Mr. HEENAN -but a man will not be hired after he reaches forty. Conditions are going to be harder than ever, and I am glad the Prime Minister has signified his willingness to eliminate from the bill all reference to the contributory system, because if we
passed the measure as it stands, we would simply be putting ourselves on record as announcing that it is the only proper system of old age pensions for Canada to adopt. I am heartily in favour of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 1-Amount of payment to provinces increased.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps it would serve the purposes of the committee if I pointed out the words it is necessary to delete from the preamble. They are the ones commencing in the seventh line after the word "desirable":
-that the system of old age pensions shall be established on a contributory basis as a national undertaking; and whereas, pending the taking of the decennial census of 1931 and obtaining such information therefrom as will enable the necessary acturial computations to be made* it is desirable-
Then it would read:
And whereas it is desirable and would be of advantage to augment the national contributions.
When we reach the preamble I shall have the Minister of Fisheries move accordingly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure that the elimination of those words is satisfactory from the standpoint of some of us who are specially representing labour. I do not think I need point out that in Great Britain the old age pension is a distinctly government obligation at the age of seventy, but between sixty-five and seventy only it is contributory. There are also invalidity provisions that are very important. As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River pointed out there is also a system of unemployment insurance which dovetails into this and makes contributions possible. In some of the other dominions legislation is along somewhat similar lines. I notice in the Australian measure, part III, section 15, reads:
Subject to this act, every person who has attained the age of sixty-five years, or who, being permanently incapacitated for work, has attained the age of sixty years, shall, whilst in Australia, be qualified to receive an old age pension.
Subsection 2 reads:
The governor general may by proclamation declare that the age at which women shall be qualified to receive an old age pension shall be sixty years, and from and after such proclamation the last preceding subsection shall, as regards women, be read as if the word "sixty" were substituted for the word "sixty-five."
Old Age Pensions Act

Section 20 reads:
Subject to this act, every person above the age of sixteen years who is permanently incapacitated for work, by reason of an accident or by reason of his being an invalid, and who is not receiving an old age pension, _ shall, whilst in Australia, be qualified to receive an invalid pension.
I would venture to urge upon the Prime Minister that when the agreement between the Dominion government and the provinces is being altered to harmonize with this legislation, some provision should be made for those who are permanently incapacitated. There is in all our communities a considerable number who are old before they reach anything like seventy years. This was clearly recognized in the case of the burnt-out returned men, and provision was made for them. But there are others who are permanently aged and others who, because of some invalidity, are as helpless as if they were old people. I am thinking particularly of a class whose claims should appeal to every member of the house, that is the blind. I have in my hand the following resolution which was passed by the United Blind Pensions Committee of Manitoba on April 3, 1930:
All needy blind persons in the province of Manitoba, not otherwise provided for by any pension scheme, should be provided for by state aid of pensions, in order to effectively relieve the aged, infirm, unemployed and unemployable blind, by providing for them adequate maintenance, and thereby reduce for them the struggle for existence.
I would also call attention to the resolution passed by the provincial legislature of Manitoba on February 24, 1931, reading as follows:	[DOT]
That whereas the legislature of Manitoba has from time to time recognized the urgent need for a pension scheme to assist blind persons, and has unanimously passed resolutions, urging the federal government to inaugurate a system of pensions, and
Whereas the legislature on March 27, 1930, undertook or agreed to undertake a pensions scheme for the blind in conjunction with the federal government, and forwarded a memorial to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada to this effect, and
Whereas since that time the federal government has agreed to assume a much larger share of the cost of old age pensions, and
Whereas at the forthcoming session of the federal parliament it will be necessary to amend the Old Age Pensions Act to bring it into conformity with the proposed financial changes,
And whereas a pension scheme for blind persons could advantageously be financed and administered in conjunction with the Old Age Pensions Act, either through an added schedule to that act or by the passing of a Blind Persons Pension Act;

Therefore be it resolved that the legislature of Manitoba again forward a memorial to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, urging upon His Excellency the present urgent necessity for such a pension scheme, financed in whole or in part by the federal government, and
Praying that His Excellency may be pleased to cause such legislation as may be necessary for the granting of such a pension scheme to be brought before the parliament of Canada at the earliest possible moment, at the forthcoming session thereof.
I would urge upon the Prime Minister the need of some such change as this. I need not, I think, say anything further to the members of this house with regard to the appalling position in which a great many of our blind find themselves, and it would seem a veiy natural extension of the principle underlying the old age pension scheme to include incapacitated people and particularly, perhaps, this class, which is amongst the most needy of all the incapacitated classes. I would ask the Prime Minister, if it is possible, to consider this. I know that he has had some representations made in this regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not intended to
change the agreements and negotiate new agreements. It is merely intended to substitute "seventy-five" for "fifty;" that is all, and in view of the provisions of the statute to which I referred and the fact that increasing the benefits to be paid does not constitute such a variation of the agreement as necessitates a new agreement, no new agreements are being negotiated at the moment. I am unable therefore to meet the views of the hon. gentleman. It must always be remembered that pensions involve taxes, and some are demanding no taxes, no thrift, and pensions for everyone. Of course you cannot do it that way.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister is not really serious in suggesting that anything like that was involved in my request on behalf of the blind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. I
said that one must remember that fact. The leader of the opposition reminded me of it the other day, and I am merely reminding the committee of it in case it might be forgotten. My right hon. friend seemed inclined to the view that I had forgotten that all these things involve money. Unfortunately in the position I occupy I cannot forget that fact. I am constantly, every day, reminded of it, and of how the money is to be raised. It is not intended to vary the agreements, but merely to substitute the pay-

Old Age Pensions Act
ment of seventy-five per cent under the existing agreement. That is why these conditions are added in subsection 2 with respect to the inspection of the vouchers involved in the payments made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to see that my right hon. friend has taken to heart some of the advice that I have been trying to give him, in the kindliest spirit, I can assure him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The kindliest spirit was
always apparent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am interested in the legal advice which my right hon. friend has just been giving the committee. Hs indicated that an agreement was not voidable because its conditions were being improved, if I understood the purport, but not the language, of his contention. Because better consideration was being given-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Increased benefits.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -the agreement would not be voidable on any ground such as that. In this matter of the agreements between the Dominion and the provinces the latter are really being placed in an improved position, seeing that the federal government is now giving seventy-five per cent instead of fifty per cent. All of that is quite correct, but I imagine the law applies equally with respect to all things, and I submit there would not be any objection on the score of the existing agreements raised by the provinces should my right hon. friend undertake immediately to take over the administration of the act and the federal government bear that cost in addition to the seventy-five per cent, or take over, as I think the public were led to believe by him we would do at once, one hundred per cent of the expenditure on old age pensions. There is nothing in the agreement, no matter what its terms are, that cannot be terminated by mutual agreement, and my point is-it does not require argument, it is obvious-that the provinces to-morrow would jump at a chance to be relieved of their fifty per cent, and jump at a chance to be relieved of the cost of administration. So my right hon. friend need not regard any agreements existing at the present time as being either a bar to action or a cause for delay in implementing the pledge he made to the electorate that there would be a national old age pension system on a one hundred per cent basis.
Just to emphasize the importance of hastening towards that end, may I give him the
words of his own Secretatry of State (Mr. Cahan) as to the mistake that is being made in these contributions to the provinces, from their point of view as well as ours. The hon. Secretary of State, speaking on this very subject of old age pensions in this house on April 15, 1926, as reported at page 2472 of Hansard, said:
Furthermore, this scheme contemplates that in its operation there shall be cooperation between the provincial governments and the federal government. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in the recent political history of this country we have proceeded altogether too far in the way of cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments in respect, for instance, to road appropriations, which are within the proper jurisdiction and control of local legislatures. The same refers also to certain building schemes in which there was cooperation, but in respect of which the federal treasury, which provided the money, really had little or no control over the management of the funds and little or no supervision over the actual expenditures made. I do not wish to stress the matter, but X went through for several weeks, as counsel, an investigation in my native province of Nova Scotia which clearly dislosed to me that when provincial governments or provincial legislatures are expending moneys which are not raised on their own credit -and responsibility, and in respect to which their sole responsibility is that of expenditure, it leads to wasteful expenditure and very wide latitude indeed in the making of those expenditures.
That is excellent counsel, and I have no doubt that it was because of his known wisdom in matters of this kind that my right hon. friend brought the present Secretary of State into his administration as one of his close friends and advisers. That, I think, i3 advice that might well be heeded at the moment.
This further word by way of supplementing what was mentioned by the hon. member for West Edmonton, namely that these grants tend to lead to all kinds of efforts unduly to influence whole provinces in political campaigns in a way that is not at all justifiable, and which if carried to any extent, may prove to be very serious. I would like to give my right hon. friend his own words as they appear on the subject of old age pensions in Hansard of February 18, 1927, at page 481. My right hon. friend then spoke about the possible political effects of parties vieing with each other to do more in the way of making these grants in aid to the provinces, and he held up Australia as a horrible example of what might result to any country were its political leaders to compete in that way. My right hon. friend said:
Now, it might be well to lo'ok on the political side of the matter. You know what took place

Old Age Pensions Act
in Australia under conditions such as these. You are going to have a system that is not contributory. An election is coming on. They go out and say that more money should be given, that $20 is not enough. "Well, we will give them $25 if we get into power."
Then, later I find the following:
I was simply pointing out what might be said with respect to such a matter as this. That is the position. That is what happened in Australia.
Skipping another sentence or two, I find the following:
.... and so the contending parties, the government and the opposition, were endeavouring to outbid each other in the matter of old age pensions.
Then, a little later on:
.... and the contending leaders were intending to secure the popular vote by promising to make an increase in old age pensions. Those are the facts. Consider what would happen in Canada.
My right hon. friend having uttered those words, I am all the more surprised that he should, a year ago, have made so considerable a bid for the support of the electors of the provinces by the grants he promised with respect to old age pensions, technical education, highways, unemployment relief, and other matters, for all of which services he promised grants in aid. I am happy to be able to say to him that during the last campaign I was not a contending party with him as regards any of those promises. I refrained from making a single overture to any province involving proposed additional grants for old age pensions or additional grants for any other purposes if returned to power. In fact, I went out of my way to explain that with conditions what they were in Canada, it would be most unwise for the leader of any political party to hold out inducements to an electorate by way of further grants in aid to the provinces. What I did say, and should like to repeat now, is that I believed the time had come when there should be a Dominion-provincial conference which would afford an opportunity for the Dominion and the provinces to decide upon which particular services of what may be called these great social services they would respectively undertake to administer. Let the Dominion, if so agreed, take over in its entirety the administration and control of old age pensions. If to that end an agreement could be reached with the provinces, let the Dominion agree to take over technical education, or any other services which at such a conference might-be agreed upon between the provinces and the Dominion. Let the prov-

inces on their part agree exclusively to manage and control these or other services concerning which agreement might be reached. Having reached an understanding, if it were
felt that the provinces had not sufficient fields of taxation, by agreement they should be allowed fields of taxation other than those they had previously enjoyed. Further, if there was a feeling that full justice was not being done to the provinces, as regards their financial relation to the Dominion, the subsidy should be revised. That was the method adopted at confederation and undoubtedly it was intended to be the method through which all financial adjustments between the provinces and the Dominion should take place. I believe that step should have been taken before the legislation now before us was introduced. After all, by postponing such a conference till all these grants are made, the administration is throwing away its strong bargaining instruments in any angreement which may eventually be reached between the provinces and itself. Sooner or later there will have to be a Dominion-provincial conference' to settle these matters. When such a conference is held the provinces will already have received and will feel themselves permanently entitled to these additional grants for old age pensions, additional grants for vocational training and technical education, additional grants for highways, for unemployment relief and the like. The federal government, which is supposed to be protecting Dominion interests, will find itself, as a consequence, materially handicapped in its efforts to uphold the interests of the Dominion.
I am just as strong an advocate of provincial rights as any person can be, but I do believe that the people of Canada sent us here not to represent the provinces but to represent the interests of the Dominion. I submit that is, or should be, our first consideration in all matters between the provinces and ourselves. The provinces have their own representatives who will feel a corresponding obligation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if anything is more calculated to bring democratic institutions into contempt than the speech to which we have just listened from the same gentleman who in 1$26 wrote a letter to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in which he promised he would do the very thing he now says this house should condemn. When in power after the election he put upon the statute book this very law-and he now

Old Age Pensions Act
says, "What an iniquitous thing it is!" Is anything more calculated to 'bring democratic institutions into contempt?
Standing here this afternoon, with all the power and authority of the leader of a party, he condemns the scheme which he himself fastened on the country. And he asks the people to take him seriously! I wonder if he really has any policy about anything. Just look at it-ask yourselves what it means; look at it clearly. When this statute was passed he was not content with putting it on the provinces, but he fixed the terms upon which the provinces would have to pass their legislation. He fastened that upon them-he fixed the amount at $240. He fixed the terms and conditions under which they should make payments. He fixed the power to make regulations, and then said no pension could be granted by this Dominion-50 per cent or any other amount-until the provinces adopted agreements satisfactory to the Dominion. Then his provisions are approved by the governor in council.
Now he says that all this is such an absurdity! The idea of the federal power making these grants to the provinces-why, it was that in this very house that was read by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the hectic days of 1926. But the right hon. gentleman stands in this committee to-day and talks in that way. I must say this is the fourth time I have listened to the same speech. I have not said much about it, the time has come to expose the hollow mockery of that sort of talk. No wonder men look upon our institutions with disdain and contempt. He talks about what the Secretary of State said-of course he did. He dealt with the matter as I dealt with it When the right hon. gentleman said I went out and competed with him or anybody else for votes, he knows as well as anybody that a great convention of the Conservative party was held in Winnipeg at which a declaration was made for a national old age pension system. That same convention elected me leader, and I went nut to the people of Canada, not with a chart that I had forgotten about, not with a compass upon which I could not read the direction in which my ship was sailing; but I took that declaration as meaning that I was bound by the convention, and I asked the electors of Canada to adopt that policy. It is not my policy; it is that of the party I lead. When that party elected me to be leader I accepted, I was bound to give effect to their policy. To
the best of my ability I have done so, and I shall continue to do so until I am replaced by someone else. When hon. gentlemen go round and say I made promises, my reply is that I placed before the people the policies of the party which made me its leader. That practice I shall continue until my party concludes that it shall have either another policy or another leader.
In connection with my undertaking with the people of Canada to pay 100 per cent and take over the national old age pension system, I realize I cannot do it in a day, nor did I promise I should do it in a day, nor did my party say that we would do it in a day. I realize however that the provinces are hard pressed in these days-very hard pressed indeed; their position is one of great financial uncertainty. To relieve them of any part of their burden, provided I safeguard federal interests is something that, having regard to that legislation, I am bound to do. It is not the way perhaps that I would choose to do it; it is not the way in which if I were dealing with it de novo I would endeavour to deal with the situation; but with that policy, with that position, with that legislation, I felt the only thing I could do in justice to the people of this country-who after all live in the provinces, but are citizens of the Dominion-was to implement to the extent that the finances of the country would warrant the promises which the party had given when it sought their support in the general election. I do not believe the intelligent electors of this country expected me to introduce in a day legislation to deal with all the things dealt with in the resolutions passed at the Winnipeg convention; but I do believe they expected some evidence of a desire to honour that policy and in good faith to carry into effect the promises that were made to them. It is in that sense that we have endeavoured to meet the situation in the manner that I have indicated. If anyone will take the trouble to read that legislation and see how it imposes the will of this parliament upon the provinces with respect to (a) amount of pensions, (b) conditions under which they pay, (c) conditions under which men may have property taken from them if they have any for that purpose -all that it may be argued is something which protects the federal interests. But what it does is this-it says: "You take it or leave it; there is the system we give you."
Now I succeed to the obligation under the promise made by the party to which I belong
Old Age Pensions Act

to deal with this as a national system. And we will deal with it as a national system if we continue in office-as I believe we will- but we are not going to endeavour to do it at a time of national financial emergency. All we can do is to endeavour by this bill to show our good faith to the people who gave us their support, and that good faith is evidenced by our relieving to the extent of 25 per cent the obligation that the provinces have assumed with respect to pension legislation.
I must say that I do not believe the Canadian people think it is necessary for political leaders who one day are in power and the next day are in opposition to revile when in opposition all that they held most dear when they were in power, to change their ground, to shift their position and say, "That which I asked you to accept I now ask you to condemn; that which I told you I believed in then I no longer believe in. I misled you when I told you to do thus and so, not knowing whether I knew or not; I instructed you right then, but now, with changed conditions all that is wrong, all that is nonsense, all that is absurd. What I want to do now is to condemn this thing." What would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have said if when the bill was introduced he had listened to the speech he has listened to this afternoon? What would he have thought? He was the man who forced this upon a reluctant administration. AVhat would he and his friends have said? How would they have voted in that crisis? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre never made any bones about what he wanted, he was frank and open about it, and he said, "The necessity of one party is my opportunity, and I am going to press it to the full for the benefit of my friends." And he did. I never had any objection to his doing it. But what would he have said if on the introduction of the bill he had listened to the speech he has listened to to-day for the fourth time? What would this country have thought of it? Is not that after all the fair test?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CRIME AND CRIMINALS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['I hope so.']
James Shaver Woodsworth: Before you leave the chair,
Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the house some considerations with regard to the administration of our criminal laws. There is no recognized place for the discussion of such a topic, the estimates for penitentiaries being nearly always presented in the last crowded hours of the session, when they receive scant attention. I therefore feel justified to-night in bringing to the attention of the government and of the house some, matters which I believe are creating increasing interest among the outside public.
First I venture to suggest that justice is not being impartially administered. Let me point out one or two instances to illustrate my meaning. I quote from a paragraph in the Winnipeg Tribune of June 5, 1981:
Tense, whitefaced and repentant, Mike Kohut, young farmer of Sundown, Manitoba, winced and clutched the side of the dock when sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary by Magistrate Noble in city police court to-day for extortion.
Kohut pleaded guilty to a charge of "demanding property with menaces."
Again-
Asked in court to-day if he had anything to say before sentence was pronounced Kohut replied, "I didn't try to do those things."
"But it was only because you were caught before you could do so," replied Magistrate Noble.
Again-
"This is a very serious offence," commented Magistrate Noble, "and carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years in the penitentiary. I can't see where we could have anything much worse than your case. There will be a sentence of ten years in the penitentiary."
Here is a young fellow who was represented by no lawyer whatever. His mind is said to be somewhat unbalanced and he had simply threatened to do certain things. In his own stupid, fumbling way he probably told the truth as he saw it, when he said that he actually had not done them. I contrast that with another sentence which was reported in the Manitoba Free Press of May 6, 1931, just a few weeks previously:
Lachlan McNeill, for many years head of the Manitoba Farm Loans association, was sent to Headingly jail for eighteen months by Magistrate H. R. Welsford in provincial police court to-day when he pleaded guilty to theft of more than $7,000 government moneys. . . .
The court expressed much sympathy with the

Crime and Criminals
man, who, after a long and successful career in the public service, where he was highly regarded, now finds himself penniless, and with his character gone. For that reason it dealt leniently.
Here was a different sort of crime, the appropriation of $7,000 of government money, extending over a period of five years, and the sentence was eighteen months. I do not know what some hon. members may think of this, especially some of the lawyers who are accustomed to cases of this kind. But I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that a growing number of ordinary people across the country are beginning to resent keenly what seems to them great partiality in the administration of justice. It would seem as if the big criminal is treated in one way and the little criminal in an altogether different and more severe fashion. Let me give a few other illustrations. I quote from the Free Press of December 22:
Bank hold-up. Gang leader is given twelve years, twenty strokes.
This was simply one of a number of similar sentences meted out by Magistrate R. B. Graham to some young criminals who had been convicted of hold-ups.
Here is another from Toronto:
James Kirkland, self-confessed bank bandit, who admitted having robbed the Bank of Montreal at King, the Bank of Nova Scotia at Agincourt, and the Canadian Bank of Commerce at Unionville, was this week sentenced to serve eighteen years in the Portsmouth penitentiary, with fifteen lashes at the end of sjxty days, by Magistrate William Keith in the Yory county police court.
Take another case which has come to my knowledge. A young chap named Kitowoski robbed a bank. The report says:
Kitowoski robbed the Dominion bank, Wednesday, of $540. _ The deed was committed at 12.45 p.m., and in less than twenty-four hours, the bandit received, after pleading guilty to the crime before Magistrate H. L. Cruso, the severe punishment of five years and twenty lashes to be administered in the Stony
Mountain penitentiary	Kitowoski is only
sixteen years and two months old.
I am very glad to say that clemency was shown to this boy and the lashes were remitted. Here is a boy just past sixteen who ought to have been dealt with by the juvenile court; yet he was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. He had not actually injured anyone. It is true he held up a bank, but he was caught and the money had not been disposed of. So that no one was the loser. I am not justifying him, but I do say this is a very severe penalty to inflict upon a
boy. Personally I do not think any police magistrate ought to have such powers. This is one respect in which the law should be changed.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: In fairness, should you not say that he was armed and threatened to shoot?


James Shaver Woodsworth: He was armed.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: And threatened to shoot.


Mr. SHORT:: If the money had not been handed over he would have shot.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to be fair; I
am quoting these extracts briefly. In contrast, let me now give two Canadian Press despatches:
Toronto, Nov. 3.-A verdict of guilty was brought in by the jury Saturday after deliberating three and a half hours in the case of D. S. Paterson and Austin Campbell, charged with conspiracy to defraud and affect the price of stocks.
Toronto, Ont., Nov. 3.-D. S. Patterson and company, mining brokers, were suspended from trading on the Standard Mining Exchange to-day.
I cannot help contrasting such a sentence as that with the sentence meted out to these poor boys of whom I have been speaking.


Harry Bernard Short: Was that broker armed?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; there are easier ways of robbing people than by using arms- and much more effective.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the sentence?


James Shaver Woodsworth: He was suspended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that was not the sentence. That had nothing to do with the sentence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A verdict of guilty was brought in. The sentence is not given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is in the penitentiary now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and that is
another matter to which I wanted to refer. He has been .placed in the preferred class penitentiary. Only a week or so ago we had some information regarding some of these mining brokers who had been placed on the Collins Bay farm some miles west of the city of Kingston. We were told by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) that this farm was not intended for juveniles. When the estimates were being considered in 1928, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) made a strong plea for better treatment of juvenile delinquents. The following reply was made
Crime and Criminals

by the then Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) as appears on page 4063 of Hansard of June 9, 1928:
When the estimates are being prepared next year this will help me to convince my colleagues that the money will be well spent to provide for the construction of special institutions for young offenders.
The debate of the following year will show that this farm was intended for juvenile delinquents. It is true that it was classed as a preferred class penitentiary site, but I do not think that any hon. member imagined that the preferred class would be the big criminals, such as mining brokers. As someone has said, this is a sort of country club for tired brokers.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Did my horn, friend say
that in the passing of the estimates it was stated that this would be used for juvenile offenders?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said that the discussion would show that it was for juvenile offenders, although it was classed as a preferred class penitentiary site. The hon. member for Kingston followed much the same line as the year before and it was taken for granted that it was to be for juvenile delinquents. I bring this matter up because I know that a large number of people feel very strongly with regard to this matter. May I read what the Toronto Star had to say in connection with the Solloway-Mills case. The article reads:
Guilty Brokers Escape With One Month and
Four Months in Jail-Man Who Steals An Overcoat Gets Several Years
It comes down to this, does it not: That because the guilty brokers are willing to pay into the provincial treasuries a total of half a million dollars out of the vast sums they improperly took from the public, they are to escape with one month and four months in jail. And the elected representatives of the people whose duty it is to see that justice is impartial are satisfied with the arrangement, if, indeed, it was not their own making.
Meanwhile, an unemployed man who steals a suit and an overcoat is liable to go to prison for several years without intervention on his behalf from the fountain head of justice.
Something will have to be done by leaders of the community to improve upon the faulty workings of our system of justice and restore faith in its impartiality.
I quite agree with the comment made by the Toronto Star. Let me give one or two expressions of opinion from my own city. 1 quote the following:
Judge L. St. G. Stubbs spoke to Mrs. Doris Wyrozub, after acquitting her on a charge of aiding her husband to break jail. He said: "Had you been the wife of some wealthy man,

sent to jail for robbing the bank by more subtle methods than those used by your husband, there would have been no need for the use of hack-saws to secure his release. The more potent weapon of political influence is much less dangerous, and much more up-to-date."
That is what was said from the bench by Judge Stubbs.


Hugh Guthrie: His Honour Judge Stubbs does not admit that report.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Of course I have
not his statement.


Hugh Guthrie: I have, and in writing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am well acquainted with his honour.


Hugh Guthrie: So I believe.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know something
of his sentiments in this regard. In sending Jack Tansowny to gaol for two weeks for furious driving, his honour said:
When a few wealthy rogues can steal more money than all the bank robbers and hold-up men since Canada began, and get off with nominal punishment, it is very disturbing, not only to some of the judges, but to the very serious effect it has on the mind of the public.
I know that our laws have come into existence by piecemeal methods, some of the severest being inherited from the early days. I do not think anyone will contend that in these more modern days we have been as severe with modern crime as they were in the days of old with the class of criminals of that day. Many people are losing their all through speculation, and I ask whether or not this house has any responsibility in the matter. I have talked over this matter with the Under-Secretary of State, but he tells me that he does not see how we can do anything. If we manage to punish crime of other kinds, surely we can punish crime which defrauds people of large sums of money, sometimes of their very living itself. I received the following letter only a few days ago:
I am an employee of the C.N. for about 23 years. When I was a kid of 14, father became an invalid so I had to get out and hustle. At 17 I took out an endowment policy in the Manufacturers' Life. It often kept me guessing to meet the premium but I managed to cash in on it in 1927.
That year was rather unfortunate as I was advised by a so-called business man to invest in some good bonds or preferred stock, so he had a talk with a bond salesman at Wood-Gundy's, and picked out Anticosti for me. So I slammed $2,000 into it.
I am enclosing an editorial from to-day's Free Press which will explain the whole steal better than I can. For every $100 I put in, I get

Crime and Criminals
one and a half shares common. The common is quoted at sixty cents, so that gives me ninety cents or nine mills on the dollar.
Is it any wonder that Canadians are losing faith in their country. The only difference I can see between Sir Herbert Holt and Solloway Mills, etc., is that the latter are in jail, while the former is a bank president.
It seems to me that that letter well illustrates what a large number of the so-called "common" people in this country are thinking. In so far as this government represents law and order, it behooves us to take such steps as will remove these anomalies from our criminal code.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Does not the hon. member know that under our constitution the administration of the criminal law is in the hands of the provinces?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I know that, but I know also that the federal authorities have general supervision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Over what?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Minister of
Justice has a certain function; the Solicitor General has a certain function, and this parliament is the body which enacts the criminal code. TV hen interrupted I was urging that we pass legislation which will enable us to deal with the big criminals just as we deal with the small.
Further, in my opinion there should be appointed a special commission to study the causes of crime and the treatment of criminals. It is said that in this connection we are ahead of the United States; I believe that to be true, but I believe that we are far behind Great Britain. Some years ago that country made a careful investigation of the whole situation, and since that time there has been a very marked improvement. The following resolution was passed by the legislative assembly of Manitoba. I quote from the routine proceedings of March 23, 1931, as follows:
_ That whereas the increasing number of convictions in Canadian criminal courts, and of prisoners in our reformatories, jails, and penitentiaries, indicates that crime is on the increase notwithstanding severe and long prison sentences and the imposition of flogging; and,
Whereas no scientific system of segregation and treatment of prisoners according to age, nature of the crime committed, and modern methods of reclamation, at present exists in our prisons and penitentiaries; and
Whereas the reeomendations of a royal commission appointed by the British government to study the whole question of the cause, punishment, and cure of crime, was followed by legislation which apparently has resulted in a lessened incidence of crime; which recommendations included new forms of trial, new institutions for the preventive detention and 22110-267
treatment of prisoners, such as the Borstal institutions, prison aid associations, the Criminal Court of Appeal, the Juvenile Delinquency Act, and Parole Act, and
Whereas there is in Canada urgent need for a similar exhaustive investigation into the whole matter of crime, treatment of prisoners, conduct of prisoners and penitentiaries, the nature of punishment, and the institutions and organizations necessary for scientifically dealing with the problem;
Therefore be it resolved, that this legislature do hereby humbly memorialize His Excellency, the governor general in council, to make such investigation, by royal commission or otherwise, into the matter of crime, its causes and remedies, present and possible methods of dealing with persons accused of crime and of persons convicted thereof for the purpose of creating legislation, institutions and organizations, necessary for dealing with crime and criminals in an efficient and scientific manner.


Mr. BEYNON:: Why not just read the
report of the English commission?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the hon.
gentleman like me to read it?


William Addison Beynon: Why not adopt it in Canada instead of having a royal commission?


James Shaver Woodsworth: If we adopted the report of the English commission, we would probably accomplish our purpose.


William Addison Beynon: I think that would cover
it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It might. The
trouble is that we have drifted along from year to year in the old way, and we have not attempted any very drastic reforms in dealing with criminals. This idea of a royal commission on crime is endorsed by the Canadian prisoners' Welfare Association of Montreal.
I do not think I need go into any further detail with regard to the necessity of some more modern methods of dealing with crime. In a pamphlet published at Ottawa, giving statistics of criminal and other offences, I note that in 1900 there were 780 .convictions per 100,000 of population, while in Great Britain the convictions amounted to less than 200 per 100,000 of population. In that respect we are evidently far behind Great Britain. I admit that conditions in Canada are somewhat different from those in the old country. Owing to our very large and mixed populations and vast spaces, the situation in this country may be difficult. On the other hand, we are apt to say that in the more crowded industrial sections we would look for more crime.


Hugh Guthrie: Do those figures include
convictions for offences against provincial liquor acts?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That 1 cannot say.

Crime and Criminals


Hugh Guthrie: I think they do. It makes a great difference.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In this connection
I might quote from a statement from an address delivered in January, 1931, by the Hon. E. J. McMurray, former Solicitor General, before the service clubs of Winnipeg:
The policemen of Great Britain and Ireland are unarmed and the criminals are unarmed. The jails are becoming empty. From 1913 up to 1930 crime decreased from 600 in every 100,000 population to 120. There are but one-fourth as many people in prisons in Great Britain to-day as there were in 1913. . . . Intelligent scientific treatment of a purely scientific problem has had this result.
Let me give some of our own statistics. The total number of people in Canadian penitentiaries has jumped from 2,769 to 3,187, an increase of 418 over the previous year. By far the greater part of this increase is in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The figures for Saskatchewan penitentiary have almost doubled during the past year-501 on March 31, 1930, as against 268 in 1929. Forty-eight were under twenty years of age when sentenced. I think that is a most serious situation. Over 45 per cent of the total number of prisoners are between the ages of twenty and thirty. Nearly 12 per cent are not yet twenty years old. So that about 57 per cent of the total number of prisoners in Canadian penitentiaries are not over thirty years of age.
We have very largely gone on the old plan of dealing with the criminal individually. Henry Elmer Barnes has said in the Story of Crime:
The modern criminology supplants the old slogan of making the punishment fit the crime by the new objective of making the treatment fit the criminal.
Some hon. gentlemen insist on banging their desks as I talk. I am well aware that a number of members are not in the slightest degree interested in this question of crime and the treatment of criminals. In the last ten years, that I have been a member of the house I have found that we have had practically no opportunity of entering into details with regard to the situation or really carefully considering the matter. I cannot hope that to-night at this late stage in the session- and this is the first opportunity I have had of dealing with the matter-we can give it careful consideration. What I am pleading for is that in some way the Department of Justice would consider very definite reform measures. If it be necessary to have a royal commission -and sometimes these royal commissions are overdone-let us have one, but in some way let men competent to deal with the question

give careful consideration to the whole subject with a view of working more nearly along the British lines or bringing in some other better system. We should not be satisfied simply with reading reports of how we are dealing with criminals; rather, we should take some steps to try to understand and abolish the causes of crime.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that the matter he has just discussed is one of the greatest importance in this or any other civilized country. I regret exceedingly that he has waited until almost the closing day of the session to bring this subject to the attention of the house. I also regret that I had no notice Whatever that he intended to bring the matter up this evening or at any time to-day; otherwise I might have had before me certain information, in particular statistical data which might have thrown a good deal of light upon the administration of the criminal law in the Dominion of Canada.
As has already been said the administration of the law does not belong to the jurisdiction of this government or parliament. Under our system the administration of the law, both civil and criminal, is entrusted almost exclusively to the various provincial governments. It is true that the. criminal law is enacted in this parliament, and that the federal government appoints the judges who for the most part administer that criminal law throughout Canada. But there is a great body of the criminal law which is not administered by the judges we appoint. The majority of the convictions to which my hon. friend has just referred are convictions by justices of the peace, police magistrates, stipendiary magistrates, all of whom are appointed by the governments of the various provinces. The vast majority of the convictions are from the courts of our magistrates, in whose appointment this government has no voice whatever.
I agree that it is difficult in a country such as Canada, or in any country for that matter, to secure uniformity in regard to criminal sentences. Indeed it is impossible. Each case must be decided upon its own particular facts and circumstances. Matters which will appeal to one presiding judge may not appeal to another. The circumstances in no two cases exactly coincide. Consequently we are bound to have in the various parts and among the different populations of this country differences in regard to sentences.
There is a branch of the Department of Justice known as the remission branch, which deals with criminal cases on the basis of

Crime and Criminals
executive clemency, where recommendations are made to His Excellency the Governor General in respect of persons who are actually in custody serving the sentence. Until a man or a woman has been placed in one of our penal institutions and is actually in custody, no question- o-f clemency arises and the Department of Justice in no way interferes; but after the criminal is in custody, then it is within the power of His Excellency the Governor General, in the exercise of the royal prerogative, to take a lenient view, as he very frequently does on many of the applications which are brought before him in respect of clemency.
We have on the statute -books of this country what is known as the Ticket of Leave Act. Under that act it is competent for any man or woman who is confined in a penal institution to bring his case up for consideration before His Excellency t'he Governor General and ask for the exercise of the royal prerogative. Those cases are exceedingly numerous. The applications will run to four thousand, probably five thousand, in a year, and each application, when it comes in, is fully considered and such recommendation is made to His Excellency as seems to accord with the circumstances of the case.
I admit that -probably at this date the conditions in respect of criminals and crime are more advanced in Great Britain than in Canada. I have read, not as fully as I should like to have done, and I have to some extent considered, the report of the royal commission in Great Britain upon this subject. We in this country are endeavouring as fast as we reasonably can to adopt such of those methods as have been adopted in Great Britain with excellent results. But we cannot do so in the twinkling of an eye. It will take time t-o develop that syiste-m here as it is in Great Britain. Indeed, it is said by officers of the Department -of Justice that as far back as 'the year 1890 the very system which was adopted in Great Britain was considered in this country and partly adopted. Plans were drawn and laid before parliament for the adoption of such a system, and some money was spent at that time, but the matter was allowed bo rest; it never was proceeded with. But in England it is said that they adopted the very plan which we had discussed in the parliament of Canada. They brought them to maturity, and they have been operated in Great Britain with very excellent results.
In any comparison of convictions in Great Britain with convictions in the Dominion of Canada, no true idea of the conditions in the two countries can be formed unless one
excludes what we call convictions under the provincial liquor laws. These in Canada are exceedingly numerous, while in Great Britain they are exceedingly limited in number. We have different provincial enactments with respect to the use -of intoxicating liquor. In England they have one, broad, general, very liberal law, and the convictions for breach of their law are rare, while in this country convictions for breach of our liquor laws make up a very large proportion of the records of our conviotions.
Unfortunately the penitentiary population in Canada has increased. It is now somewhere between 3,800 and 4,000. It has increased in -the past three or four years eo rapidly that we are experiencing the greatest difficulty in accommodating those who have been sent to our penal institutions, but it is not correct to say that in this country we have not drawn the line between the juvenile offender and the more hardened offender. In I think almost all the provinces of Canada we have prisons and reformatories under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments for the treatment of juvenile offenders. Under the laws of this country, undeT the laws passed by this parliament, a juvenile offender is a boy or girl up to the age of sixteen. They dlo not go to our penitentiaries. They go to our prisons and reformatories.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about these
young people between twenty and twenty-five years of age, who form such a large proportion of the penitentiary inmates?


Hugh Guthrie: Over the age of sixteen
they are not, under the statute, considered juvenile delinquents. We have a limited number in our penitentiaries to-day between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. I had the figures prepared to submit to the house when the penitentiary estimates were under discussion, but I do not happen to have them with me to-night. It is a very small number between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, but between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five the number is considerably larger. But as between the first offender and the hardened criminal a very great effort has -been made to draw a very decided line. It is for that reason, and in carrying out that policy, that certain prisons are being established, and I hope in the future they may be established throughout Canada, called "preferred class" penitentiaries. I do not know that the name is well chosen. I do not know that there should be any preference at all in regard to such a matter, but in some way or other the term "preferred class" has grown up, and you will see in the
Crime and Criminals

various reports in years gone by from the superintendent of the penitentiaries how strongly he has urged that preferred class penitentiaries shoidd be established. The recommendation of the year before last, I think.it was, for a vote of money to erect buildings at Kingston and at St. Vincent de Paul in the province of Quebec was for the express purpose of providing preferred class penitentiaries-not for juvenile delinquents at all. I note that in the discussion which took place in this house something was said in regard to juvenile delinquents, but that was not the purpose of the vote. Juvenile delinquents, I say, are looked after for the most part in provincial prisons and reformatories. These preferred class penitentiaries are for first offenders, for men who have not theretofore had a criminal record at all. The idea is to segregate them from the old offender.
I grant you that the influence of prison life, where first offenders are congregated day after day and night after night, year after year, with old offenders, is in a great many cases very baleful indeed, and I think it was a step in the right direction when something practical was done to establish the preferred class penitentiary, call it by what name you like.
The criticism which was levelled some six weeks or two months ago with regard to the treatment of some men in the preferred class penitentiary was entirely unjust. It was said that certain brokers were down at the preferred class penitentiary at Kingston. That is so in the case of other men, not brokers only, who are first offenders. Anyone else who goes there is a first offender who has not been convicted of one of the more serious crimes of violence. That prison is now under construction. It is being built entirely by prison labour. Naturally the construction is slow. Men have to be trained as carpenters, , stone masons, bricklayers and mechanics in the various trades. In the preferred class penitentiary the hours of labour are precisely the same as in the other penitentiary, the clothes are precisely the same, the prison rations are precisely the same, the hours during which the patient or prisoner is locked up are precisely the same-the treatment in every respect is identical, although as yet the prisoners are not confined behind high stone walls but merely behind barbed wire fences. The idea in the establishment of that prison is to give the inmates a chance if possible, to reform, to keep them away from the bad influence of hardened criminals. Two of these preferred class penitentiaries have been established. One institution which might

be in that class is the Ontario reformatory at Guelph, which has done excellent work. It is a provincial prison. Around it there are neither stone walls nor fences. Gangs of men may be seen working on the farm. Of course there are guards in attendance, but the men are allowed a certain amount of recreation while in that institution. In a great many instances I believe positive reforms have been made and men have been saved from careers of crime. That is the first of the large prisons established in Canada based upon reformative principles.
The preferred class penitentiary follows as closely as possible the model of the reformatory at Guelph. 'Conditions are the same in many respects, but segregation is complete. First offenders sent to Kingston to-day, except in cases where crimes have been accompanied by violence-because as yet we cannot trust such prisoners-are placed in the preferred class. Although at the present time there is not room to accommodate all of them, about 200 or 250 are in the preferred class prison. Another institution of the kind is being established at St. Vincent de Paul, Montreal. I hope when we are in a position to make the necessary expenditures similar preferred class prisons wild be established throughout all the provinces.
I do not wish further to discuss this matter. I agree that the matters to which my hon. friend referred are serious and I should like to offer some practical suggestions concerning the points he raised. I think however that in this country we are proceeding along proper lines and if we do not stand first in the number and treatment of our criminal classes I believe we stand second to Great Britain and ahead of every other country in the world. Perhaps some day we will in that regard be upon as high a plane as is the mother country.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say very much to-night, because I am not prepared, but I believe the subject under consideration is worthy of the attention of hon. members. For some years I have been interested in the subject before us, especially from the point of view of juveniles. I think a mistake was made in allowing police magistrates to sentence to penitentiaries. They have not the experience or judgment to qualify them to make such decisions.
I have one example in mind which I think worthy of mention, and to which I shall make further reference when we are dealing with the subject of penitentiaries. I refer to a

young boy who enlisted for overseas service as a result of which at the age of seventeen years, he was taken from his home. At the close of the war he was rooming above a grocery store, and one night being hungry he entered the store and took two tins of pork and beans. A few mornings afterwards the police magistrate, not being in his right mind, sentenced the boy to three years in the penitentiary. Before we could get the boy out of prison he had spent two weeks in Kingston penitentiary on a bench beside a lifer. Although we were told repeatedly that boys were not placed beside lifers, I know in this particular instance the reverse was the fact. This should make plain the necessity for some consideration of the matter before us. I do not agree with the information the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has received concerning preferred class penitentiaries. I think the term "preferred class penitentiaries" will damn us all. It is said that this particular type of institution is for first offenders, but if it is supposed that only first offenders are admitted, somebody is badly mistaken, because I am in a position to state that at the present time there are other than first offenders in the institution.
I am not particularly concerned with the statements which have been made concerning the preferred class penitentiaries. I do not care how much comfort and ease the brokers have experienced, and so far as I am concerned they may be given more. In my view it is a mistake, however, that those men should have been picked out, some of whom had been only twenty-six days at the penitentiary and some only seven days when they were transferred, while on the other hand boys, first offenders, are still in the big prison. I am not concerned about the brokers, but I am opposed to naming the institution "preferred class penitentiary," and believe that such action will get some people into trouble.
There are further matters with which I intend to deal when we come to the matter of penitentiaries. For the present, however, I wish only to say that I am not convinced that the Minister of Justice has been correctly informed concerning the existing situation.
Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound)-Mr. Speaker, earlier in the session I placed a motion on the order paper asking that a board be appointed to examine all sentences pronounced for offences under dominion statutes with power to revise either by appeal or otherwise. Unfortunately when the matter came before the house shortly after eight o'clock I was not in my seat and the motion was dropped. I have had a great number
Restigouche River Bridge
of letters and large quantities of corespon-dence in the matter. I have had considerable experience in dealing with criminals and I believe there should be some check upon sentences imposed, especially by police magistrates whose environments and sympathies are purely local.
Before I proceed further I should like to give an example of the administration of justice in the county from which I come. A few years ago a foreigner ran amuck through the town and smashed twenty-one windows with an iron bar. He was arrested and charged with wilful damage to property, and sentenced to serve two years for each window that he had broken-forty-two years in the penitentiary. Evidently the magistrate intended the two-year terms to run concurrently, but once having delivered judgment, he insisted that it was correct. We have had cases in Ontario-largely automobile accident cases-where through the sympathy of the local judge and magistrate the accused was let off on suspended sentence. A young man in my riding was convicted of stealing a fox from a fox farm. For this offence the extreme penalty is two years' imprisonment-and he got it. It was pointed out, and rightly I think, that this young fellow had had no previous convictions against him, that he was drunk at the time and in the company of criminals who no doubt had induced him to commit the theft. It took me a year and a half to get a remission of the sentence. Why? Because in this, as in every such case, remission of the sentence depends upon the magistrate reversing his original judgment, and it is naturally to be expected that our magistrates being just human and having no legal training will be disinclined to stultify themselves.
I do not desire to labour the matter further, but I would impress upon the government that a board should be appointed to whom such appeals could be made. I know I shall be told by the Minister of Justice that the persons convicted are at liberty to engage a lawyer to appeal their conviction, but many of these criminals, especially the young men, have no means, and therefore cannot possibly engage legal assistance to lodge an appeal. I submit there should be a body appointed to whom these cases could be appealed without any costs to the unfortunate appellants.



Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I am in the happy position this evening of bringing to your notice and to that of the government, through the
Restigouchc River Bridge

hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), a question that appeals favourably to me as it has for many years appealed to the people of New Brunswick and eastern Quebec; I refer to the construction of a bridge over the Restigouehe river from Cross Point in Quebec to Campbellton in New Brunswick. The matter has been brought to a head during the last four or five years by the construction by New Brunswick of the magnificent highway extending from Campbellton to Edmundston down to the United States boundary, and also by the construction of the magnificent Gaspe highway by the province of Quebec. The hon. Minister of Public Works has been kind enough to advise me of the progress that has been made in regard to this question. A few years ago, if my memory serves me aright, the New Brunswick government passed an order in council to pay one-third of the cost of this undertaking, and recently the government of Quebec has passed an order in council', a copy of which the hon. Minister of Public Works has very courteously supplied to me. I presume it is practically on the same lines as the order in council passed by the government in New Brunswick. It reads:
Whereas Act 21, George V, chapter 5, authorizes the government of the province to build an interprovincial bridge on the Resti-gouche river, between Cross Point, in the province of Quebec, and Campbellton, in the province of New Brunswick, and, consequently, to enter with the government of Canada and that of the province of New Brunswick into the necessary covenants concerning the construction, maintenance, up-keep, repair, administration and operation of the said bridge.
Whereas it is now necessary to enter into these covenants.
The honourable the minister recommends that he be authorized to enter with the government of Canada and that of the province of New Brunswick into the necessary covenants concerning the construction, maintenance, up-keep, repair, administration and operation of an interprovincial bridge on the Restigouehe river, between Cross Point, in the province of Quebec, and Campbellton, in the province of New Brunswick.
On Wednesday last I brought this arrangement to the attention of the government, and the hoe. Minister of Public Works told me that his department was prepared to enter into a discussion of the matter with the two provinces. This enabled the citizens of Campbellton,-the most important town in northern New Brunswick-to convene its board of trade. At the meeting a resolution was adopted which I had the honour of transmitting to the hon. minister asking him to take action in this matter, 'both by reason of the urgency of the work itself and the

necessity to provide employment in that part of the country owing to the practical stagnation of the lumber industry. I also communicated with the hon. Minister of Public Works and Labour in Quebec, Mr. J. N. Francoeur, and this afternoon I received from him the following message:
Have sent to-day following telegram to hon. Stewart, Ottawa, and hon. Stewart, New Brunswick, "Re Cross Point Campbellton Bridge as per legislation passed concerning this bridge and as authorized by order in council our government ready to contribute to the extent of one-third of cost of bridge."
This dispels all doubt on the question. I do not think I need plead any further with the government to cooperate with the provinces in this undertaking. When we see two provinces agree as in this case, it has been the time-honoured custom of the federal government to contribute one third of the cost. Happily at the present time this government has at its head a distinguished son of New Brunswick, and I have no doubt that under the circumstances he will be delighted to aid his native province and the old province of Quebec in the construction of this bridge over the historic Restigouehe river. I have inquired of the hon. Minister of Public Works and I know I shall have his support and also that of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) with whom I have sat in this house for many years, and I am sure also the support of the member for Gaspe (Mr. Bras-set) and the member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier). Already the supplementary estimates have been tabled, but this is a matter of great urgency and I know there have been instances of further supple-mentaries being brought down. Therefore I think it might be possible until such time as *the plans are prepared and the arrangement between the two provinces completed for a small amount to be voted by this house to enable the preparatory work to be carried on and certain necessary construction material ordered. I can assure the government that if it responds to the public feeling in this matter it will be entitled to the thanks of the community on both sides of the river.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of detaining the house but without making any apology for so doing, I desire to say a brief word in regard to this proposal for a bridge over the Restigouehe river between Cross Point, Quebec, and Campbellton in my own province. The agitation for this bridge extended over a very considerable number of years. Previous to the war it was thought that the project might be brought to fruition, but the enor-

Crime and Criminals
mous war expenditures forced its postponement. Recently, however, interest has been stirred up, chiefly by the citizens of Camp-bellton. They have been exceedingly active in urging upon the three governmental authorities the absolute necessity for providing a through highway joining the two provinces at this point. I quite realize that perhaps the country is not in a very favourable position just now to vote large sums towards this project, but I agree with my hon. friend from Bona venture (Mr. Marcil), who has laid the matter before the government in a reasonable way, that a start might be made this year. The reason I urge that something be done is that I realize that unemployment conditions in that particular locality call for immediate attention. Restigouche river, dividing New Brunswick and Quebec, has been for many years the scene of very extensive lumber operations. But as a result of the change from long lumber to pulp a large number of long lumber mills have been put out of active business, with consequent unemployment. If the government, and especially the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart," Leeds) could find it convenient to call a meeting of the representatives of Quebec, now that they have put themselves in order, and of New Brunswick, which has been urging the project for three years, some start might be made this fall. I commend this to their consideration, because I believe it will go a long way towards relieving some of the distress from unemployment in that community in the coming winter. A substantial amount of preparatory work could be done before the drawing of the plans and the calling for tenders; but if that is not possible I suggest that some provision be made either in the supplementary estimates or out of the moneys that may be voted for unemployment, so that the project may not be delayed until the next session of parliament. In other words, I urge that a start be made this year, and I heartily concur in what has been said by my hon. friend from Bonaven-ture. I trust that the government will give the matter its very earnest attention.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Very little can be added to what the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken have stated in connection with this project. The Dominion has sometimes made a joint and equal contribution with the provinces interested in inberprovincial bridges. It is correct to say that a considerable time ago New Brunswick intimated its readiness to join in this project and to contribute one-third of the cost. It is only within the last few days, as
I have already said in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Bonaventure, that any intimation of this kind had been received from Quebec, and I have not yet been handed the telegram to which he refers. The orders in council passed by that province signify its willingness to consider the question of a contribution, and I stated to the house that we were prepared to enter into a discussion. That still stands. It is unfortunate that the matter comes up so late in the session, when the supplementary estimates are practically down. It would take weeks or probably months to conclude the discussion and have plans prepared, because no action can be taken until the three authorities interested are in agreement with regard to cost and other matters. It has been suggested that possibly the Canadian National Railways would be interested in this project, and that would change its character altogether. All I can say at this time is that I shall be pleased to receive deputations from either or both of these provinces, and give the matter careful consideration, discussing it in all its details and endeavouring to arrive at a conclusion as to the kind of structure to be built, whether it is necessary to proceed with it immediately, or whether it would be possible to do so. That is as far as I can go to-night. I have no doubt that in the near future, the two provinces being now interested and each having agreed to make a contribution, we shall be able to discuss the subject. The details can be settled and an agreement framed if it is thought, after all the information is available, that this is the proper time to proceed.


CRIME AND CRIMINALS
Miss AGNES MAOPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: It shows how Little we can hear, and how bad the acoustics are, when I say that I did not know that the hon. menber for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), who followed him, were discussing something altogether different from the matter introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Since I could not hear one word that either of them said, I shall now proceed to say something on the subject of crimes and criminals. Before I go on to do so, however, may I suggest that we need not only an improvement in the acoustics of the chamber but a training school in voice culture. The least we can expect is to hear what is being said.
It seems to me that in this time of widespread unemployment, when people cannot find work and often are driven to desperation,
Crime and Criminals

the sentencing of those who have committed offences is something that should be done with great care. We know only too well that many people who commit the gravest crimes against society are not condemned but rather applauded. On the North American continent the strange custom prevails of honouring most the most unsocial of citizens; they are given places of trust, all the fine things fall to their lot, and in fact the laurel wreath of victory is placed upon their brows. It therefore makes me sympathetic with men and women who in these days are often driven by hunger and despair to do what otherwise they would not dream of doing. I think it is particularly fitting that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should bring this matter up.
Many years ago, when the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty was Minister of Justice, a splendid commission was appointed and it brought in recommendations which if acted upon would have resulted in the improvement of our treatment of criminals. But those recommendations have not been acted upon, and so our whole penal system has suffered.
In Great Britain they have been remarkably successful in their treatment of criminals. There are three things in which they have gone much further than we. First, in regard to probation, many are given suspended sentence; second, the man or woman is given a chance to pay the fine in instalments. Now that we have the instalment plan in nearly everything there is no reason why it should not be applied to the payment of fines. Then, too, they carry on a more extensive parole system, particularly in regard to young offenders. This is something which we might well follow the lead given by Great Britain.
In case I should not be here when the estimates come down-because it is often difficult to be in the house when particular estimates are in committee-I wish to say now what I think is most needed at the moment in our Canadian penitentiaries. Possibly more than anything else we need a citizens' board of reestablishment. That need not be the name, but we do need a body of responsible citizens to whom prisoners can go, and who will help them in a human way to become reestablished in life. I am sure we could get people of splendid mental attainments and fine character to take part in such work as this. Very often the prisoner becomes utterly discouraged during the first week in which he or she is free, and this feeling might be overcome.
We need wardens who are trained in penology. While some wardens have been good wardens, many have been political appointees.

They are appointed not because they are trained in penology, but 'because they happen to be the brother, the cousin or the brother-in-law of some person in authority. At times these appointments turn out rather badly.
We need that to which this house agreed to some time ago but which has not been carried out, the providing of productive work for prisoners. This work would be paid for, the pay to go to the support of their dependents, if any, and, if there are no dependents, to be held for the use of the prisoners when released. Of course, the cost of maintenance would be first deducted.


Mr. ARTHURS:: We should provide first for the men out of prison.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not see why a man should be prevented' from working simply because he has committed a crime. Certainly I want ito see the men out of prison having work, but by adopting the method of productive work with pay for prisoners, maintenance would cost the state less and the men would be better off if they had plenty of work ito do. Social workers will tell those interested that one of the disastrous things which happens after a man has served a long term is the fact that he will not again assume the responsibilities of his family upon release. This would be prevented to a large extent if the man had to consider these responsibilities while in prison.
The library facilities in our penitentiaries could be improved. They are much better than they were previously, but the lighting in the cells is not good. If a prisoner wants to be studious he should not be forced to carry on his studies under the worst possible light, with a danger of eye strain.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1932, was presented by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunfoury) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
European war-naval, militia and air forces after the war, $50,500,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, when this item was last before the committee I asked the minister as to the

Supply-Pensions
standing of the disputed cases which had been sent to the exchequer court. I understand that a total of $25,000 is payable in connection with the six cases. Perhaps the minister could give the committee some information in this regard.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: My information is that the decision of the exchequer court did not touch the question of payment.
I am informed also that to effect payment application must be made to the tribunal, and that one or more of those affected have already made such application.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Another point which was raised on a previous occasion had to do with the commission counsel throughout Canada. A return was tabled earlier in the session containing the instructions sent out by the chief commission counsel to the various counsel throughout Canada. When that return was made I discovered that further instructions had been issued on June 26, 1931. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister who informed me that he did not approve of the instructions and had asked that they be cancelled immediately.
I think it only fair to the minister to make this statement. However, these instructions violated absolutely the spirit of the legislation passed last year under which the ex-service man was to be given the benefit of the doubt. Without detaining the committee too much, I should like to place these instructions on record. They read:
Ottawa,	June 26,	1931.
C.C. Instruction No.	25.
Re: Medical Witnesses.
Up to the present time it has been only on rather rare occasions that counsel have brought in any medical witnesses on applications before	the	various	tribunals.	Ourattitude, as you well know, has been to insist upon the applicant proving his case against the crown rather than producing evidence against him.	This	practice	has resulted in
what might be described as "unbalanced transcripts." That is, all the evidence is in favour of the applicant and there is none which tends to show the soundness of the medical theory advanced by applicant's medical witness. This situation has been repeatedly commented on by the court and a change is considered advisable.
Pension medical examiners in the various unit offices have now been instructed to furnish counsel with the name of a prominent doctor in each of the towns and cities visited by the tribunals. Immediately upon arrival in that town or city it is desired that district counsel communicate with this doctor, advising him that you wish him to peruse the file, listen to the testimony and if necessary go into the box as a witness. If it happens that he agrees with the medical theory advanced by the
applicant's medical witness or the applicant himself, it would seem hardly necessary to put him in the box. On the other hand, should he doubt that the symptoms complained of by the applicant are bona fide symptoms of any present injury or disease or that it is likely that the said injury or disease could be related to service, put him in the box, so that his opinion may be recorded.
It is impossible to lay down any definite tariff of fees but you will have to inform these doctors that the commission is prepared to pay them a reasonable fee.
In case of consultants or specialists the figure would, of course, be larger. The best method of arranging payment for these services is for the doctor to give you an account at once and for you to forward it to this office, advising in what cases he attended before the tribunal and whether or not he actually testified.
This change in procedure is to go into effect immediately.
Chief Counsel.
The only reason I am bringing this to the attention of the committee is this: I strongly advise the minister that all instructions sent in the future by the chief counsel to the various commission counsel be reviewed by the minister himself or by his deputy before they are sent out, because this instruction is in direct conflict with the spirit of the work of the parliamentary committee of last year and the principle of giving the ex-service man the benefit of the doubt. Again I wish to congratulate the minister on recalling this instruction as soon as I brought the matter to his attention.


Murray MacLaren: It is true when the instruction was drawn to my attention I did not approve it, and I wrote the pension board asking that it be cancelled immediately. I want to say further that I am not yet informed that the instruction has been cancelled. This may be partly due to the absence of the chairman or to a question of the minister's authority under the act. I do not know which it is, or whether both were factors; but as a matter of fact I have not yet been informed of the cancellation. Further, as the matter has been brought up and as the instruction has been read in the committee, I wish to state that I entirely disapprove of the communication having been sent in reference to the giving or the not giving evidence. It is hardly in accordance with the spirit in which we look on these matters of claims for pensions.


Mr. NEILL:: I wish to bring up a matter that is of great interest to many ex-soldiers seeking pension and that will be of still greater interest in time to come, because they do not yet fully realize what they are up against. The situation is this: When a case comes before the Board of Pension Commissioners,
Supply-Pensions

as we all know they have three matters to decide: First, has the man any disability? Second, did he get that disability due to war service? Third, what is the amount of the disability? If the answers are in the affirmative in the first two cases, they will grant him a pension in accordance with the answer to the third question.
Prior to the legislation passed last year, if the Board of Pension Commissioners, while admitting the disability, refused to admit that it was due to war service, the man could appeal to a higher court, called the appeal court, but be could not appeal if, while they admitted the disability was due to war service, they said that the disability was negligible, or they gave him a sum less than he thought he should get. Many of the men felt that they suffered an injustice in that regard; they said that the Board of Pension Commissioners could always get out of their responsibility by saying: We admit you have a disability due to the war, but we find it is negligible, or only one or two per cent, in which case the man had no redress. The pension committee which went so largely into the subject last year thought they had remedied that by changing the right of appeal so that the man could appeal on either ground, either that the board had refused to admit that the disability was due to war service, or that he thought the pension was not big enough on what is called technically, assessment. That was highly satisfactory; it was made public and there were thousands of appeals. That began in the latter part of September or early in October and went on for a month or two. Then someone, I do not know who he was, had the idea that was all wrong, that the legislation passed in 1930 gave the man the right to appeal not on assessment but only on the question whether he had what is called entitlement or disability due to war. It appears that the legislation of 1930 provided that in case of any doubt arising as to the interpretation of the act, it was to be decided, not by the pension board, not by the regional tribunal, but by the higher court, the - court of appeal. The question was submitted to them, so far as my memory goes, somewhere around December and was heard some time in March. It is almost August now and the decision has not been rendered. It must be a simple matter for men versed in the law to decide whether that appeal comes within the four corners of the act or not. I have tried again and again by asking questions in the house, and so on, to find out the situation, and all I have been told is that the matter has been heard but a decision has not

yet been given. I feel ashamed to go home, and surely many other members feel as I do, and have to say that this matter has been hanging fire all this time and we cannot get this simple decision rendered by some three or five men.
This question very materially affects the returned men and the whole system of pensions, because thousands of cases where the appeal is against assessment are in consequence being held up; they are not being sent on to the regional tribunal because it is not known whether that can be done or not. It is difficult to explain the matter to the ordinary pensioner who put in an appeal last October and wants to know why there has been no action. When one tells him that a decision has not yet been given all he asks is; why not? I am interested not so much in asking why a decision has not been given as in asking that pressure be put upon this body to give their decision immediately. The benefit of it is this, that those men who have appealed on assessment and who find that they can or cannot, as the case may be, go on with their appeal, will know the best or the worst. Whichever way the decision goes, it will result in advancing the roll. The appeals will either be dropped or gone on with, which will be to the benefit of the system of granting pensions. I should like to know from the minister, who has studied this question carefully, whether he could give us some expression of his determination to bring this to a head in the interest of everybody concerned, including his own department.
Mr. MaeLAREN:	I shall make inquiries
in reference to the matter.


William Irvine: I rise to direct a question
to the minister in regard to the status of a Canadian soldier who remained in Great Britain at the close of the war and who is now suffering from a very serious disability which is, I believe, traceable to his war services. This young man was in Canada when the war broke out; he had lived here for a number of years; he joined up with the Canadian forces; he served with the Canadian forces throughout the entire period of the war, but he remained in Great Britain after demobilization. Has he any claim now to apply to Canada for a pension?
Mr. MaeLAREN:	I think he has, but if
a communication were sent in writing to the department any day, a prompt reply would be furnished in regard to the case, because the records would be searched, a statement W'ould be before the department and the matter could easily be settled.

Supply-Pensions


William Irvine: I think the application has gone in.


Alfred Speakman: How many applications are now pending which have been made since that act came into force on the first of October?


Murray MacLaren: There are 20,000 odd.


Alfred Speakman: Can the minister say
how many appeals have been taken, not heard, during the same period by the Board of Pension Commissioners against favourable decisions of the tribunals?


Murray MacLaren: I think all those figures
have been given in answer to questions. The number is 717.


Alfred Speakman: In how many of those cases was the decision of the tribunal reversed?


Murray MacLaren: In 200 cases up to the
end of June.


Thomas McMillan: Are the cases before the appeal court increasing or decreasing?


Murray MacLaren: The appeal court is
able to deal with its cases more completely than the other courts. It is pretty well up to date now.


Alfred Speakman: I neglected to ask what should have been my first question. How many of these 700 odd appeals have been heard?


Murray MacLaren: The number is 377.


Alfred Speakman: And in 200 cases the
decision has been reversed? I understand that under the resolution which was adopted, I believe, a little while ago, the number of the members of the tribunal will be increased so that in effect there will be two additional courts, which it is hoped will be able to overtake the applications that are accumulating. It is a matter of a good deal of importance, as the minister knows. I have never been in 'the habit of bringing up individual cases in the house, and I am simply going to touch on one illustrating the situation that exists and with which the minister is very familiar.
It is the case of a young chap named William Martin. The minister will not remember him, but this young fellow remembers the minister because, through the kindness of the minister, this young chap at my request was given several weeks of hospitalization, although at the time not legally entitled to that hospitalization.


Murray MacLaren: That was in Calgary.


Alfred Speakman: Yes, at the Colonel
Belcher hospital. He is a young chap from Red Deer, who was given hospitalization at my request as a compassionate case. Unfortunately the doctors found that they could not do very much for him, and although he was a little easier while in hospital, they came to the conclusion that the case was practically incurable, and so he went home. The situation is this: It is something over three years now since he first made his application. His application was refused, but he reapplied under the new act. During the time of application, some months ago, the minister was good enough to issue an order which placed him in hospital for some weeks. As I say, that is some months ago now. When he left the hospital he was assured by the officials there that his case for a pension was a good one. His condition was obvious, and they said that so far as they could judge his condition was attributable. He was a machine gunner. He received certain dental injuries and injuries in the back, with the result that in addition to the weakness and pain in his back, he now finds himself in a nervous condition which totally disqualifies him for any kind of work. As a matter of fact, at the present time this chap with his wife and two children, one of whom is an invalid and has to have special food at all times and special treatment due to some form of kidney trouble, is totally unable to work, and his sole income is derived from four cows which they are milking.
I have taken a particular interest in this case, perhaps a greater interest than in any other that has come to my attention because of the patience and courage of this man. He hardly ever complains, and he has endeared himself to the doctors and officials with whom he comes in contact just by reason of those qualities. But for months now his papers have been in Ottawa, and for months he has been awaiting word. He was informed when he left the hospital that very shortly afterwards he would receive notice as to his pension, but month after month has passed and he has been unable to get any reply. Apparently the file is hung up somewhere in this mass of 20,000 cases. Hope deferred makes the heart sick. I get an occasional letter from this man, not a cheerful letter, but very patient and courageous. I got a letter from a neighbour a little while ago asking if I could possibly find out why this fellow whose condition so obviously to all his neighbours entitles him to a pension, was unable to get a hearing and get any action. I am not complaining of the min-
Supply-Pensions

ister at all, because I know just as well as the minister himself that when we placed these boards beyond the reach of any political influence we placed them practically beyond the influence of the minister himself as well as everybody else. They are almost autonomous boards, but at the same time the minister has naturally some influence, and I would like him to use it in this way, not to get for this man something that he does not deserve, but if possible to hasten the decision so that he will be able to get the pension which he thinks will be coming, and which I think will be coming eventually. At present the case seems to be lost in this labyrinth of 20,000 cases. I have applied again and again to try to find out where it is, and no one seems to know or to be able to locate it, or to be able to say when the man's case will be settled. In the meantime the neighbours write to me and ask why in the world, with all the legislation we have passed and with all the intent on the part of parliament and the people of Canada that these proper cases should he taken care of, he is left in that situation.
I estimate that his income from the four cows would be from $2 to $2.50 a week, and the minister knows how far that will go to support four of a family, two of them invalids. I would ask the minister to make inquiries and ascertain the present position of this application, and if possible to hasten the day when definite action will be taken and the pension, if he is entitled to a pension, will be granted. As I say, it is a case which above all others which have gone through my hands in all these years has enlisted my complete sympathy. I am almost ashamed to look the man in the face when I meet him, because when I go home and go to see him, month after month and recess after recess he asks me about his case and, I can only tell him that I am doing all I can and that presently, if he will only have patience, his case will be attended to. As I say, it is a case of hope deferred making the heart sick, and I am a little afraid, in view of the condition this chap is in, nervously and physically, of just what the consequences may be; because a man can hope only so long, and courage and patience last only so long. The man's name is W. G. Martin, and his regimental number is 2275312,. That is an outstanding illustration of the delays which have taken place and of the fact that some of the procedure has gone a long way towards nullifying legislation which was passed. I hope the minister will look into the matter and that before long this young man will 
receive the consideration and financial assistance to which his services and disabilities have entitled him.


Murray MacLaren: I do not assume, necessarily, that tihe department is at fault. I have seen many cases where full investigations have shown that the department was not in error. I hope however that the hon. member (Mr. Speakman) will have a reply at a very early date.


Alfred Speakman: I am not assuming
that the department is at fault; I have a good deal of sympathy with it. Delays can last only so long, however, without being fatal.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I wish to bring to the
attention of the minister a matter which has been referred to me concerning the late G. A. Warren, regimental No. 775429. Mr. Warren was in receipt of a pension but directly following his death the pension due his wife and daughter was cut off. An application was made for appeal, and the case was heard in Toronto by the pensions tribunal on December 18, 1930, at which time the appeal was allowed. The finding of the tribunal was that the late Mr. Warren's death was due to cerebral hemorrhage, traceable to military service. In the hearing before the tribunal the evidence seemed to be very clear. For some reason however, the decision was referred to the pension appeal court, which set aside the finding of the tribunal on the ground that in the opinion of the court the evidence was insufficient properly to establish the claim. At the present time they are asking for more detail and evidence. The wife and daughter are in dire need of assistance. On the surface this seems to be a very cruel way of handling the matter-. Before Mr. Warren's death he was in receipt of a pension; directly after his death the pension due to his wife and daughter was cut off and they are left to get along as best they can. I trust the minister will investigate the matter to see if something can be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Care of patients and medical examination respecting pension, $3,000,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many are in all -the hospitals in Canada at the present time receiving treatment?


Murray MacLaren: There are 3,348.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is one matter I should
like to bring to the attention of the minister. A notice of motion in this connection has been given, but has not received considera-

Supply-Pensions
tion by the house. One matter which is causing ex-service men a great deal of pain and suffering is the fact that when they make application to the unit administrator they are told they can get no treatment or hospitalization until the examiners at headquarters decide whether or not they are entitled to pension. In all cases such decisions require periods of time ranging from two to six months, and often longer. I think it would only be fair, where an applicant or ex-service man presents himself for such consideration, that he should be examined forthwith, by the unit or district director, and if there is a matter of urgency or seriousness he should be admitted to hospital pending the decision whether or not he is entitled to pension. Many of these men have come up on such applications, and before decisions have been reached the men have died and the determination of eligibility was more difficult than ever. I think this country could well afford, where there are serious or emergent cases concerning exservice men, to admit through the unit or district administrator to the hospital at once. This matter has been the subject of discussion on more than one occasion and I believe it is the wish of all parties that such treatment should be given. There is no doubt that men have died simply because they were refused treatment. It may be true that those ex-service men may become municipal or charitable cases, but they have points of view of their own and believe that they are entitled to better treatment. I know how difficult it is to prove a man's eligibility, but according to the methods used at the present time it is just as difficult and perhaps more so to prove that he is not eligible. I believe that ex-service men, and especially those who have had front line service, are entitled to this particular consideration. When they present themselves they should be forthwith examined and if their cases are urgent or serious they should be admitted to hospitalization at once.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries-administrative, $1,510,000; insurance, $40,000; hospitals and clinics, $1,850,00.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the
minister given consideration to the necessity for a new military hospital in the city of Vancouver?


Murray MacLaren: No. There , have been
very substantial improvements in the building in Vancouver. At one time it was not regarded as being reasonably safe, and for that reason extensive changes have been made. Bed patients have been moved downstairs, administrative rooms have been moved upstairs,
because they are used only in the day time; special shingles have been placed on the roof and other changes have (been made in the building so that i't is now reported as being a fair and reasonable risk. It is not an old building and was not built as a hospital, but I think conditions at present are quite favourable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank
you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment relief, $600,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why the reduction of $300,000 in this vote?
Mr. MaioLAREN: Really it is not a reduction, it is a very substantial increase. Last year instead of there being what was thought by many a decrease, on the contrary nearly twice as much was spent; that is to say, over $900,000 as compared with $500,000 odd. But the amounts were not always sufficient and were supplemented by governor general's warrants. This year $600,000 was the original estimate, but as during the summer it has not been possible to make the. usual reduction, that amount will have to be very substantially increased by an appropriation in the supplementary estimates.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Is this vote to provide for returned soldiers out of work?


Murray MacLaren: Unemployed pensioners.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: In my constituency there is a soldier who has not (been able to prove that he is entitled to a pension, although he has been so used up that he is not able to work and has to depend on the municipality and his friends for maintenance. Is there any provision for such a case?


Murray MacLaren: Yes, a man not a pensioner and not able to work can qualify for a veteran's allowance.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: What would he receive in that case? He is a married man.


Murray MacLaren: Forty dollars a month.


Alan Webster Neill: But he has to be permanently unemployed before he becomes entitled to such an allowance.
Mr. MaJdLAREN: I cannot give details, but it is quite possible from what my hon. friend says that the man might qualify for that allowance. No definite statement could be made until after a thorough investigation.
Supply-Pensions


Mr. GARDINER:: Suppose a returned man is unemployed and cannot qualify for that allowance, what provision is made for him?


Murray MacLaren: Then this department
does not cover his case.


Alan Webster Neill: On wha)t basis is this money distributed to a single man, in cash or
groceries?


Murray MacLaren: If the man works for it, he gets money; but as a rule it is an order for groceries, coal or rent.


Alan Webster Neill: I heard of the. case of a single man, totally unable to work, given an allowance for groceries of $5 a month,-this to cover rent, food and clothing.


Murray MacLaren: This is a supplementary allowance and is not intended for the maintenance of a man and his family.


Alan Webster Neill: What does it supplement?


Murray MacLaren: His pension. If he has
a large pension he does not get anything out of this fund. It is to bring up hiis pension to a certain amount.


Alan Webster Neill: What is that amount?


Murray MacLaren: For a single man $30, for a married man $45, for a man and wife and one child $57, for a man and wife and two children or more $67. It does not exceed the latter sum.


Robert Gardiner: What was the total amount spent last year?


Murray MacLaren: We spent $907,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: What per cent of disability must a man have before he participates in this fund?


Murray MacLaren: A man who has a pension of SO per cent or over does not receive anything.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the minimum?


Murray MacLaren: I do not think there is any minimum now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes, there is.


Arthur Edward Ross: I know that men with 5 per cent disability have been refused relief. It very often happens that the man who is credited with only 5 per cent has 100 per cent disability but he gets no relief, whereas the man who has only 15 per cent total disability gets relief. Would it be possible to remedy that anomaly?


Murray MacLaren: There is no downward limit. Any man who has five per cent disability can get assistance from this fund.


Arthur Edward Ross: That may be true, but quite a few men in my city are refused simply because they are only 5 per cent disability cases. If the minister will Say that is so, I shall be satisfied.
Mr. MaoLAREN: I do not say unqualifiedly that that is so at all seasons of the year.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many have received assistance from what is known as the disablement fund, and who administers that fund?
Mr. MaoLAREN: It is not in the estimates, it is a private fund administered by the secretary of the department.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the. secretary of the department the whole say?
Mr. MaoLAREN: He has a very substantial say, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sheltered employment, $130,000.
Alfred Speakman: How are the vetcraft shops getting on? Some time ago their chief difficulty was finding markets for their products.


Murray MacLaren: There is considerable difficulty in disposing of the products. These shops have salesmen who travel about the country, trying to get orders. Some of the shops have a large accumulation of stock so that there is a good deal of difficulty. As time goes on the need of these shops will largely disappear.


Alfred Speakman: Are the proceeds returned to the men or are they taken in part by the department to carry on the shops?


Murray MacLaren: The men are paid so
much an hour. The shops cannot be expected to be self-sustaining; they are behind something like $30 per man per month.


Alfred Speakman: Roughly speaking, what returns were received by the department last year from the sale of goods?


Murray MacLaren: Last year the amount was $430,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pension tribunal, $55,000.
Alfred Speakman: I wish to submit to the minister certain statements made to me recently by a returned man who said he represented the organized unorganized returned men, if that title is understood. Those

Supply-Pensions
men who do not belong to any of the recognized soldier bodies have apparently some form of loose organization. He gave me a lengthy memorandum which I shall not read at the moment, but the gist of his request was that an investigation should be held into the working of the whole act and into the funds which come under the jurisdiction of the department directly or indirectly, including the last post fund. He included the canteen fund, which is not at present under the jurisdiction of the department. These men, it seems, have certain grievances and this ex-service man's suggestion was that an investigator should be appointed, paid by themselves but clothed with authority from the minister so that he might have access to the books and the records of the different departments in order to satisfy his organization with regard to these matters, particularly as they affect those men who do not belong to the legion or any other kindred body. He felt, apparently, that the men who do not belong to the legion were discriminated against, and he seemed to have a strong feeling in the matter. I suggested that he approach the minister himself. I do not know whether he has done so but I am passing on to the minister the gist of what he said to me. I can give the minister the memorandum for his private information.


Murray MacLaren: I do not recall the case.


Alfred Speakman: The name is W. Martin.


Murray MacLaren: The accounts.are audited and anyone who wishes to do so can come to the department and get the information.


Alfred Speakman: I will advise him to see the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pension appeal court, $23,209.68.
Milton Neil Campbell: What are the duties of the members of the court?


Murray MacLaren: The court comprises a
president and two members. The president receives $8,000 and the two other members $7,000 each. The president of the appeal court was a member of the Supreme Court of Alberta and he was retired with his superannuation allowance. It has been so arranged that his retirement allowance will continue in addition to the salary of $8,000. It was found necessary to obtain the services of someone who would have to be paid considerably more than $8,000 if we wished to get the ideal man. So that Judge Hyndman receives his retiring allowance as judge and also the $8,000 as president of the pension appeal court.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister's explanation is quite lucid as far as it goes, but I wish to repeat the warning I sounded when the item was discussed on a previous occasion. I would point out that this system of dual appeals is working to the distinct injury of the returned men. Anyone who studies the returns submitted during this session will find that of 560 cases heard by the court of appeal from the pension tribunals, the decision in 143 was favourable to the ex-service appellant, and unfavourable in 417. It seems to me very unfortunate that after an appellant has won his case, returning home in that belief, he should some months afterwards be notified from Ottawa that this successful appeal has been rejected by the pension appeal court. It is a most cruel thing.


Murray MacLaren: That happened during the early history of the tribunals. Instructions were issued and are now being carried out that all concerned are to be informed at the time of the award that the award is subject to appeal. In this way disappointment is avoided.


Alfred Speakman: I feel very strongly, as does the hon. member who has just taken his seat, about this whole system of appeal against the decision of the tribunals. I know the act provides for this precedure and the minister is not responsible, but the effect is to discredit the tribunal. I feel, as do many more vitally interested, that there should be finality as far as favourable decisions are concerned, and that that finality should rest with the body best qualified, the body which meets the applicant and hears his evidence. There should be no appeal except on the part of the returned men where an unfavourable decision is given. I hope the legislation will be amended in this regard.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I am very much interested in the remarks just made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman). Undoubtedly when a favourable decision is given by the court of first instance, the tribunal, and that decision is reversed on appeal, the general effect is bad. A sound principle of law is that the court of first instance which hears the evidence, sees the witnesses and observes their demeanour, and then finds upon the facts, should not have its decisions lightly disturbed. As I understand the law a court of appeal will not disturb a finding of fact made by the court below. If the court of appeal finds that there is no evidence to sustain certain facts necessary to support the finding, it is within its juris-
Supply-Pensions

diction to reverse the finding. I have no doubt that the appellate body in this instance takes into consideration the facts and frequently reverses decisions based upon facts. That is where the appellate court is going astray, and in fairness to those who submit their cases, there should not be the large percentage of reversals referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


Alfred Speakman: In view of the fact that the percentage of reversals is about fifty per cent, there would seem to 'be no doubt that the tribunal itself is taking less care in the consideration of these cases. It is losing its sense of dignity and importance. I have gone over 100 cases of appeals and I find a very strong feeling that the appeal court is ignoring largely what we call the benefit of the doubt clause and is insisting upon positive and conclusive evidence in almost every instance. This is contrary to the act itself.


Murray MacLaren: The pensions board, the tribunal and the appeal court are bound to give heed to that clause.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War veterans' allowances, $1,600,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What percentage of applications received have been granted?
Mr. MacLAltEN: Those granted number 2,219, and those refused 2,908.


Alfred Speakman: How many applicants had reached the age of sixty, and how many were under that age?


Murray MacLaren: Of those refused, 527
were sixty years and over, and 1,981 were under sixty years of age. Of those granted, 872 were under sixty,and 1,347 were over sixty.


Arthur Edward Ross: I understand that the disablement fund is a private fund, and I would like a little information in this connection.


Murray MacLaren: The disablement fund
had its inception in 1915. In the late summer of that year money was being paid to the government by public-spirited citizens for the purchase of machine guns which it had been claimed through an erroneous newspaper report were not being supplied to the Canadian troops owing to the lack of money. Sir James Lougheed, then president of the Military Hospitals Commission, and acting Minister of Militia and Defence, suggested to Mr. E. H. Scammell, secretary of the Military Hospitals Commission and now secretary of the department of Pensions and National Health, that he issue an interview to the press with a view 
to having some of the subscriptions then being raised diverted to create a fund which might be of use to disabled members of the Canadian forces. He authorized Mr. Scammell to administer any moneys thus obtained. As a result of an interview given to the press, correspondence, addresses, and so forth, the sum of $128,710.20 was raised. There was one very large subscription amounting to $100,000 made by the late Mr. James Carruthers of Montreal. Mr. Carruthers attached no conditions to his subscription, nor did any other contributors do so. The total number of subscriptions received was sixty-five, many of them representing collections made by various organizations among their members, so that in all probability the number of individual subscribers ran into some thousands. In addition to Mr. Carruthers,' large individual subscriptions were received from Mr. John Nichols of Souris, Prince Edward Island; Messrs. Goldie, McCulloch Company, Galt; railway mail service staff; Irish Charitable Institution, Halifax; Mr. M. P. Davis, Ottawa; Mr. A. Baumgarten, Montreal; Thursday Afternoon Club, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia; employees of Dominion Bridge Company and Montreal Ammunition Company, Lachine; collection per Mr. A. L. Kennedy, Aylesford, Nova Scotia; Prince Edward Island students' gift fund; Military Hospitals commission staff, Winnipeg; McMurrich School, Ontario.
I might read the financial statement. The following statement sets forth the present condition of the fund:
Subscribed	$ 93,710 20
Interest	 72,810 42
Total	'$166,520 66


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Public health engineering, $25,000.
Alfred Speakman: Just what is the class
of work carried on under this item?


Murray MacLaren: This is in connection
with water supply, for instance, protection against diseases in polluted waters, on railway trains, inland lakes, lake boats, and other services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $1,116,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I have had a large number
of complaints as to the way in which these appointments of fishery guardians have been

Supply-Fisheries
made. These men are what are called permanent seasonal men; that is, they are employed every year for a few months. The procedure that has been adopted for the last number of years has been that if they gave satisfaction, and there was no complaint from their superior officer, they would be taken on year after year no matter what their political affiliations might be. The result was that that system made for the efficiency of the department because the men understood that if they carried out their duties properly they would be kept on year after year, without any regard to political considerations. But a different system seems to have been adopted in the last few months. Last fall, after the election-I am speaking of that period only- thirteen appointments were made, and in only one case was the man a returned soldier. I forgot to say that the system that was always followed previously was of giving a preference to a returned man. Even though these appointments were not under the Civil Service Commission, but were rather political appointments, the well recognized principle of giving the returned soldier the preference was carried out. As I said, thirteen appointments were made last fall, and only one appears to be a returned man. I am not proposing to take up the time of the house to go into each of these cases, but I would like to give a couple as thoroughly illustrative of the system that is being followed.
At Qualicum Beach, on the second of September, a man was put on. He was not a returned man. I believe the reason was that he had to be put on in a hurry and there was no returned man available. That is a fairly good excuse if it happened to be true, but (t does not happen to be true. There was no rush about it because it had been known for six months before that his services would be required. In the next place, Qualicum Beach has a returned soldiers' organization of somewhere around fifty or sixty, which is right at that spot, of course. Then at Parks-ville there is another returned soldiers' organization, numbering about ninety, and three miles beyond that is the residence of this man who was appointed, and who is not a returned man. Both these returned soldier organizations are thoroughly alive, and they have very capable secretaries, both of them on the telephone, I believe, at all events both readily accessible, and they would have been only too glad to furnish a half-a-dozen names of returned soldiers for the selection of a fishery officer, but instead of that, they were all passed over and this non-returned man from a greater distance was selected. I might point 22110-268
out that the way in which his predecessor was selected the year before was this, that when the vacancy occurred the returned soldiers' organization was asked to nominate two or three, and then one of these men nominated, irrespective of his politics, got the position. But in the case I have mentioned it was done in the way I have indicated. I shall not stop to ask the minister for an explanation now, but will give the other ease so that he may answer both at the same time. In the case I have mentioned the appointed man's name was Craig, and the circumstances are as I have indicated.
In respect to the appointment at Sprout Lake, this summer, the man who had been there was a returned man, appointed according to the practice that had been followed for a number of years. I do not know if he had been actually wounded, but he had considerable disabilities due to the war, and he had held that position for six years. He had been appointed year after year as a matter of course, and he took it for granted that he would go on again. He had been there since 1925. Apparently there had been no complaint against this man. If there had been, why did it take six years to come to the surface? That man was put off and a gentleman who was not a returned man was put on. Another returned man, who had been three and a half years in France, named Below, also applied for the vacancy, and he naturally wants to know why he did not get the preference ordinarily and properly given to returned men. I would be glad if the minister would give me the official explanation as to these two cases. There are quite a number of others of the same character but I have given just a couple for the purpose of illustration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) I have no record before me nor could I have a record with respect to each individual appointment, but I shall be very happy indeed to take up Hansard to-morrow and make a personal investigation into each case raised by my hon. friend. I am advised, however, by my deputy that there has been no change whatsoever in the practice of the department with respect to the appointment of fishery guardians, but that the same practice which has obtained for many years has been followed.
My hon. friend is in error in assuming that the policy was ever laid down that a fishery guardian who had been employed for any number of years should have a prescriptive right to continue in office. As a matter of

Supply-Fisheries

fact, these appointments have been made for years in a manner which is known to hon. members of this house. They are not permanent. They are made on nomination, as my hon. friend knows; and I will say this to him, that I have been at pains to satisfy myself that in every letter sent out from the department calling for nominations for these positions it has been clearly stated that returned soldiers should be given the preference. I am not surprised that certain of these appointments are not acceptable to hon. gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the house. I may say, however, that while there are over 550 of these officials scattered throughout the country, I have had very few complaints with respect either to the individuals themselves or to the manner in which they have performed their work. Further information than that I cannot give with respect to individual cases, but any that my hon. friend cares to bring to my attention I shall be very happy to investigate to see if there is anything I ought to do to remedy what he claims to be an injustice.


Alan Webster Neill: Neither the minister's deputy nor anyone else can deny the fact that the system has been changed, because hitherto it has been as I have stated. Returned men were given the preference, and the returned soldiers' organization in the locality was asked to nominate a man, and where they were unable to nominate a man, as in years gone by when work was plentiful, I have had to go and practically beg men to take these rather petty jobs, and sometimes men who were not returned men were put on. I know what I am talking about. I am talking of the policy that prevailed in Comox-Alberni, not of the policy that may have been followed throughout the country. The system that was followed in Comox-Alberni was wherever possible to appoint a returned man on the nomination of the returned soldiers' organization, and there was no discrimination on account of politics at all. There are men who have been carried on in these positions year after year since before I was first elected, and they are there still regardless of their politics, or at least were there until the election, and I certainly would challenge anyone to deny that out of thirteen appointments made last fall only one was a returned man I accept, of course, the minister's statement that he cannot be cognizant of every case, and I am also glad to hear that he has given instructions that the preference to the returned men should be recognized. I can only regret that his instructions have been very poorly carried out, and I would ask him to put 
some pressure on his subordinate officers in British Columbia in order to see that the proportion of returned men appointed in future is a little better than one in thirteen.


Mr. VENIOT:: May I ask what is the
cause of the delay in the appointment of the regular fishery inspector at Miscou and Shippigan?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: So far as the department
is concerned, there has been no delay. We are awaiting the action of the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: I wish the minister would
urge the commission to make the appointment, because the acting inspector is busying himself with other work rather than looking after the work of the protection of fisheries. I refer to Mr. Albert Robicheau.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that within the last few days the Civil Service Commission were requested to hasten the appointment concerning which my hon. friend has spoken. Mr. Robicheau, however, is not an inspector but a guardian.


Peter John Veniot: Hs is acting in the place
of the inspector.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Pending the appointment
by the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: He is a temporary inspector; my statement is correct in that regard.


Mr. McLURE:: The other evening when
the estimates of this department were under consideration I made some statements concerning complaints of the crew of the steamship Amla. I desire at this time to put the remainder of the facts on record.
On the former occasion I presented letters showing that the crew of the Amla had not been paid, despite the fact that many promises of payment had been made. I wish to read a letter under date of July 25, 1930, addressed to one of the crew of that ship. The particular letter in question is addressed to Lemuel Winchester, and is as follows:
Many thanks for your kind felicitations regarding my appointment to the Senate. We understood when leaving Ottawa that the wages due on the Amla were to be paid at once. As there was no word of it last week we wired the minister to have no further delay in effecting a settlement, but we have no word yet. We expect it be attended to at onee.
Yours truly,
John E. Sinclair.
On the previous occasion I said that representations had been made by the hon. members from Prince Edward Island in favour of paying the crew. In spite of promises which

Supply-Fisheries
have been made we find that on July 12 the then Minister of Fisheries wrote the captain of the boat as follows:
Captain W. 3?. Burke,
148 Elm Avenue,
Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Dear Captain Burke:
I have your letter of the 10th instant. I have taken up with the department the case of yourself and crew of the Amla and have been pressing for an immediate settlement. I am glad to inform you that the department has approved of payment and has forwarded the recommendation to the treasury board for approval. Because of the peculiar circumstances of the case, payment cannot be made until this approval is given and I confidently expect that this will be done at the first meeting of the board which, I am told, must be at an early date. I have every hope and assurance of an early and satisfactory settlement,
I am,
Faithfully yours,
Cyrus Macmillan.
At that time Cyrus MacMillan was Minister of Fisheries.
On July 19, 1930, when the election campaign was in progress, Doctor Grant, the gentleman in Kings county who was running against the Honourable J. A. Macdonald, had received complaints concerning wages paid to the crew of the Amla. The then Minister of Fisheries wrote him as follows:
With reference to the claim for unpaid wages submitted by Captain Burke and the crew of ss. Amla mentioned in your recent letter, I have to inform you that this claim which has been pending for nearly a year was finally approved by the Department of Fisheries some time ago. There is no departmental appropriations from which the amount can be taken and payment can therefore only be made by the treasury board. This board has not met for some days because of the absence of so many ministers. A meeting will be held at an early date, possibly within the next few days, when the matter will be finally adjusted.
I confidently look for an early and satisfactory settlement.
With all good wishes, I am,
Faithfully yours,
Cyrus Maemillian.
With reference to the claim of the Amla we have had reports from two different ministers of fisheries, and they each assure us that the claim was justifiable and should be paid. I have learned that the sum of $3,650 is claimed by the crew and has not been paid. We hope that the present minister will consider the matter favourably and that as a result the crew will be paid. It is bad enough for men to have no work, but in this instance men have had work but have not been paid.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has continued some remarks he made when the estimates were previously under 22110-2681
consideration. I think I can place the facts briefly before the committee. An agreement was entered into between the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries and one O. W. Nordin, President of the International Fresh Fish Corporation. The agreement covered a period of six months, and a portion of it provided that Nordin was to purchase from the fishermen all the fish available in a certain area of the waters of Prince Edward Island, at a certain price set forth in the agreement. For the services to be performed he was to receive during a period of six months a subsidy of $1,800 per month. This agreement was approved by order in council passed on March 20, 1920. The terms were that the services to be performed were to be commenced on the first day of June of that year. As a matter of fact, on the first day of June the services did not commence, and in consequence of the negligence of the company which had contracted to perform the services notice of cancellation was given and the contract was cancelled on the 17th day of July following. In other words, the services to be performed were never even commenced, and the contract was duly cancelled.	'
Subsequently there were a number of claims made by seamen for wages and by merchants who had supplied goods to the company which owned the ship, and an action was entered in the exchequer court, Prince Edward Island admiralty district, and judgment was rendered by Mr. Justice W. S. Stewart. He found, not that there were due for services in connection with this ship five month's wages, as has been alleged on different occasions, but that there were due one month's wages to each member of the crew. The amounts which he found to be due were as follows: to the captain, $117.75; to the mate, $125; to the cook, $125; to the engineer, $210; to two firemen at $140 per month $280; and to two seamen at $120 per month, $240; or a total of $1,097.75. I think it would be admitted by any fair-minded person that there is no claim either in law or in equity against the government for the month's services which were found by the judge to have been rendered to the owner of the ship, because he performed no services for the government under his agreement and his agreement was cancelled.
There is one regrettable phase on whidh I do not desire to dwell,-apparently an understanding was given these unfortunate men that in some manner or otheT the government may have been connected with the enterprise. But that understanding came from nobody in authority with the government. Possibly in virtue of it the men had in their minds that
Supply-Fisheries

they were working for the government, and they .continued their services long after any work was performed on the ship. As a matter of fact Mr. Justice Stewart in his judgment makes reference to it in these words:
Although the claim was for five months, I allow each of the plaintiffs one month's wages, and I fix the allowance at so much. The crew seems to have been kept connected with the ship until the trial at the request of the captain, although it is not easy to understand why they were so kept.
Now, sir, on the merits I submit there is no claim in law, neither is there in equity, by these men against the government. It would be a very dangerous preicedent to establish if under the circumstances you are going to make suich a remotely distant contract with the government an excuse for a claim against the government for wages. I have gone this far, and I do not see how I can very well go any further, I have said: The government at the time took out a bond for the faithful performance of the contract with the. Fidelity Insurance Company of Canada in the sum of So,000, indemnifying the government' against any damages which might arise as a result of this contract and t-6 ensure bona fides on the part of the contractor. The Department of Justice has been asked to collect under that bond. Up to the present moment they have not succeeded in doing so. If they do recover, so far as I am concerned, I would be quite willing to recommend to the government that these men be reimbursed their wages as an act of grace, and as an act of grace only, because I submit, it would be too dangerous a precedent for the government to admit any liability whatever in the circumstances.
I am not going to impute any motives or find any fault with my predecessor, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of that day, who submitted the recommendation to council that these wages be paid. But I do say this, that while that recommendation went to council, there it remained and no action was taken on it. So I can only conclude either that the government were not in agreement with the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or that they considered it immaterial whether the wages were paid or not. It is true that when the first Minister of Fisheries was appointed a further recommendation came in on behalf of those who had supplied goods to this vessel. Well, I am not going to enter into the merits in that connection. These merchants must have gone into the contract with their eyes wide open, and they must have known that there was no liability on the part of the government. And I am not going to dwell upon

the circumstance that the recommendation, if my memory serves me right, went into council after the last general election. At all events, this I do know, that my predecessor as Minister of Fisheries, when he wrote the letter which was last referred to by my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. MoLure) must have written it in Prince Edward Island, because there is no record of it in the department whatsoever; we have no knowledge of it there. Needless to say, the recommendation to council for payment of those accounts received precisely the same treatment as the first recommendation to council with reference to wages.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I cannot take up very much more time on this matter for I see I have only half a minute left. I will add only this:	I hope we can recover under the indemnity bond, and if so I am prepared to recommend payment of these claims as an act of grace. Otherwise I do not see how I can possibly concur in the view that the government is under any liability whatsoever. I must take my courage in both hands in making that statement, because my hon. friend from Queens has been most insistent, persistent and consistent in demanding that these claims should be paid; but with all respect to him I must say that I cannot agree with him that the government is liable in any respect whatsoever.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will the bond be collected?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, July 28, 1931.