1931-07-03

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Harris.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) made inquiries yesterday regarding the report of the recent session of the international labour conference in Geneva of the League of Nations. As the sittings only concluded on the 18th of June, no formal report has yet been received; but the interim reports as they come to hand are in our possession, and I will send them to my hon. friend in order that he may peruse them, after which they can be returned to the department.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Thank you.



NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 3 to amend the Naturalization Act.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.

Interpretation Act
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, may I
inquire whether the bill was amended by the special committee to which it was referred?


Mr. CAHAN:: Yes, it was amended and reported unanimously. The bill as amended has been distributed. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we discussed this bill fully on the second reading when a very subtle suggestion-which turned out to be a very important suggestion -was made by my hon. friend from Quebec East, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), recommending the division of one paragraph into two, and he also offered some criticism with respect to the original draft. Another suggestion was made bv the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I brought these two suggestions with the debate thereon to the attention of the law officers of the Dominions Office in London, who recommended that we should take those objections into our very favourable consideration and make some amendments accordingly. The bill as now amended and before the committee fully satisfies, I think, the two objections that were made, and it has in all its terms been approved by the law officers of the Dominions Office in London. The bill came before a select committee of the house. There I was able to give the committee briefly the result of some confidential communications which we had received, and the committee were unanimous in reporting the bill in its present form.


Ernest Lapointe: Carried.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Regulations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I might explain that in order to provide a new form with respect to the acquisition of British nationality the words "or acquisition" are inserted for this purpose in view of the extension of the main act.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Enforcement of act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was suggested by t'he
officials of the Dominions Office that we might delay bringing this amendment into force by proclamation in case they might desire an opportunity to bring a similiar amendment into force about the same time.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 105, to amend the Interpretation Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
On section 1.-Court of appeal, Ontario.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: The necessity for this amendment arises from the fact that at the last session of the legislature of Ontario the official titles of the superior courts of that province were altered. They were formerly the appellate division of the Supreme Court of Ontario and the high court division of the Supreme Court of Ontario. These names have been altered, and the former names of the Court of Appeal of the province of Ontario and the High Court of Justice for Ontario have been established. In 1913 section 32 was inserted in the Interpretation Act to comply with the then titles of these courts. Now there is nothing necessary but to repeal that section and allow the old section to stand, because the old names have been re-established.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2.-Date of commencement.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: I did not hear the first part of my hon. friend's remarks. Is there a change in the names of the courts?


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is proposed to repeal section 32 of the Interpretation Act, which was inserted in 1913 when the names were changed to the appellate division of the Supreme Court of Ontario and the high court of justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario. These names were adopted in 1913, and section 32 was placed in the statute to meex that change. At the last session of the legislature the old names of the Court of Appeal of Ontario and the High Court of Justice of Ontario were re-established, so if we strike out section 32 it allows the Interpretation Act to apply in respect of the former and the present names.


John Campbell Elliott: Then we get back practically to where we were in 1913? That is, the old court of appeal was changed in 1913 to the appellate division, and now we have the first and second appellate divisions. These names are being changed back to the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Justice, the high court of justice including the circuit courts. I believe there is some change, is there not, with regard to the chief justices of the different courts?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, there are other changes. They are going to re-arrange the
Companies Act

business of the various courts as the present incumbents of office in the courts disappear.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 108, to amend the Companies Act.
He said: This bill incorporates two proposed amendments to the Companies Act. The first section is an amendment to subsection 2 of section 33 which, in its present form, provides that the company shall in no case make any loan to any shareholder of the company.
Some years ago a number of the large industrial companies in Canada and some of the larger mining companies, particularly the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, made arrangements whereby their employees might subscribe and pay, usually by instalments, for shares of the company by which they were employed, on a basis satisfactory to the company and to them, so as to identify the employees more completely with the company. Subsequently, during the past year or so, housing schemes for employees have been proposed and are being carried out by a number of these companies, the proposal being that the company should advance money to employees who desired such advances or loans, to enable such employees to build or acquire their own homes. These schemes have become very popular indeed, particularly since the fall in the price of building material and the abundance of labour have enabled such schemes to be carried out on a very large scale at a minimum of cost.
The objection has been raised that those of the employees who, in years past, have invested some of their savings in five, ten, fifteen or twenty shares of the company by which they were employed, thereby became shareholders of the company, and it has been contended that by the existing section the company is precluded from making any loans or advances to such employees in connection with these building and housing schemes. I have gone very thoroughly into this question, and this amendment is one upon which I have set my heart. I thought the present law precluding such assistance being given to employees was not wise and should be amended. Therefore I have introduced this amendment in section 1 of this bill. I commend it to the favourable attention of the

house; I have spent some time studying the question and I think it is a perfectly proper amendment and one that should be approved by the house.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-Loans.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This section I explained on the second reading. It is the one dealing with loans.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is it the idea of the minister to avoid the common practice of companies erecting the dwellings themselves, leasing them and absolutely controlling them by that process? In other words, will there be more freedom for thie employees?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It has been represented to me that the employees prefer this scheme to the system of leasing. They prefer to own their homes in fee simple, and this is a departure from the old practice to that extent.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Pension Act be amended to provide that the number of members of the pension tribunal may be increased from nine to not more than twelve, of which the chairman and eight members shall hold office for ten years, and the other three for two years, subject to earlier removal for cause, and that the number of commission counsel may be increased from seven to ten, and to provide for the further reconsideration of applications.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I understand, from the Prime Minister's remarks last night, that his purpose in having the resolution moved to-day is to enable the minister to bring in the bill. There are one or two members on this side who are anxious to speak on it, but there is no objection to the motion carrying so long as it is understood that these hon. gentlemen will not 'be prejudiced in any way in what they wish to say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They can have the same discussion in committee on the bill as though the resolution were under consideration.

Pension Act
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (South Cape Breton) in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. MacLaren thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 110, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be read the second time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps we could give it the second reading now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly the
minister had in mind saying a word on the first reading of the bill. Perhaps he will say something at this stage.


Mr. MacLAREN:: The Pension Act was
amended at the last regular session. Its provisions were not operative until about seven or eight months ago, and so, as amended, it has been in operation for so brief a period ihat the time has not been sufficient to demonstrate its perfections and imperfections. It is not proposed, therefore, to deal in any sense with the provisions of the act generally; but it has become very obvious that the various boards that consider pensions are not able to deal with the large number of applications that are being made. The amended Pension Act of last year was widened in its scope, and this resulted in a largely increased number of applications. For instance, those applicants who previously had accepted a small amount of commuted pension have now been made eligible for reinstatement. This has resulted in something like 18,000 men being added to the list of those who may or may not be eligible for reinstatement. The provisions of the act are also broader in respect of the benefit of the doubt as well as in affording every pensioner an opportunity to come forward, even if his case had been refused by the federal appeal court. Altogether, the number of applicants for pensions cannot be dealt with by the tribunal at present in existence for that purpose. It was thought wise to facilitate as far as possible the operation of the act in the way of expediting hearings. These amendments do nothing more than take such steps in a moderate way as may assist in expediting the hearing of eases. I do not expect that the increased number of members of the board suggested in the amendment will be sufficient to avoid all delay, but in any case it is an effort to reduce the period of waiting of a substantial number of men. It will mean that probably several
thousand cases will be taken up each year which otherwise would not be dealt with under the present procedure. It is proposed to add three members to the pension tribunal, which will permit of two sections acting at the same time. There are other details of the amendment which I think could be discussed when the bill goes to the second reading. Another change is in the procedure so far as the pension board is concerned. Instead of the tribunal acting in the way it does under the present act, it is proposed that much of the work will be transferred to the pension board as a first board to permit of action being taken there instead of being submitted to a subsequent board. The pension board has been in existence for something like ten years, while the pension tribunal has been in existence for only eight months. I believe the work can be carried on more readily by a well trained board than by a new organization. It may be of interest to the house to know that these amendments have proved satisfactory to the headquarters of the legion.


Mr. REID:: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No debate can take place
at this time. It may be that I was moving a little fast when I put the first reading, but the minister's statement can be treated as an explanation on the first reading, and the motion is not open to debate.



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Stage Direction]
Scientific institutions - expenses connected with the Dominion observatory at Ottawa, $66,880; expenses connected with the Dominion astrophysical observatory at Victoria, B.C., $25,170.
Mr CHEVRIER:: Mr. Chairman, I inquired of the minister the reason for the dismissal or retirement from the observatory branch of the Department of the Interior, of five employees and on June 22 he informed me that they had been retired so that returned soldiers might be taken into the service. I would like to know why these five permanent employees were retired so that returned soldiers might be taken into the service. I have no objection to returned soldiers being employed, but I would like to know why it was necessary to retire five permanent employees.
Hon. THOMAS G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior): Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Interior is considered as a unit and when the staff was being reduced in the department it was not divided into water-

Supply-Interior-Observatories
tight compartments. Certain regulations or rules for guidance were laid down and those rules were followed out in all departments.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: There may be some
reason for these retirements, but I cannot get it. Apparently there were five people on the outside looking into the service and five permanent employees are retired. There may be a valid reason but up to the moment I have not been able to get it. If the minister will give me an answer which I can understand I am quite willing to allow the item to go through, but until that answer is given I am afraid I will have to oppose this item.


Mr. MURPHY:: I do not know that I can give any further answer to that already given.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It was highly improper that $850,000 should be appropriated for salaries without an investigation as to whether or not that would be sufficient to carry on the service. The observatory does not fall within those branches affected by the transfer of the natural resources. If these men were over the age of sixty-five years and were entitled to superannuation, there might be some reason for their being retired. I have received a letter from the wife of a man who was employed in the observatory, from which I desire to quote certain portions. This letter is dated June 28, and reads:
The whole time my husband worked there everything seemed satisfactory and he has the very best of references from Mr. R. Meldrum Stewart and Mr. J. P. Henderson. It was quite a surprise that he was let out being a returned man with four years service in the army, married, and with two children. It was also very hard on the family as up to date we have not got one cent from the government and as you know we have our rent, gas and light and the usual expenses of living which we cannot meet, as Mr. Pilon has been unable to obtain work elsewhere. Those people do not seem to care who are responsible for the holding up of retirement money. It will not be very much, about $26 a month, $336 yearly as Mr. Pilon was only in the service for eleven years. Up to three weeks ago we managed to get our living but since then we have been getting help from the Red Cross.
What is the sense of such action? There may be some valid reasons why these five men were let out, but in the face of this letter and in the face of the so-called explanation of the minister, I must insist on knowing the reason why Mr. Pilon, if the minister wants the man's name, was retired as one of these five men. I want to know why this man who has a wife and two children living was retired andi replaced Iby another returned man. This may be a joke or something else, but surely the minister has some reason to

give for retiring these five men and replacing them by others.


Charles Murphy: I think I have made the matter quite clear to the committee.
* Mr. CHEVRIER: Not to me.


Charles Murphy: I say I think I have made the matter quite clear to the committee. The transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces certainly reduced the services which the various branches of the Department of the Interior formerly performed. Owing to the transfer of the resources and the consequent reduction in services, numerous employees would be affected. Their positions would be abolished because there was no further work for them to do. When these reductions were being made during the present fiscal year, certain rules were framed on which the departmental heads acted with the knowledge and cooperation of representatives of the Civil Service Commission. In canvassing the situation we might find that certain employees in this branch or that, taking into consideration the department as a whole, would be affected. Certainly they would, whether they were in the geodetic, topographical or some other branch of the service which might not be directly affected by the transfer. But we are taking the department as a whole, not considering any branch as a water-tight compartment with the employees not being directly affected by the transfer, and such employees, being part of the department, enter into the scheme the same as the others. In the carrying out of these rules which were framed for the guidance of departmental heads, these employees were affected just as if they were in another branch which was directly affected by the transfer. I do not think I could make the matter any plainer than that.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister, in connection with the reduction in staff, made a survey of all the branches of the department?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: No branch was immune? Retirements took place from nearly every portion of the Department of the Interior?


Charles Murphy: Practically so.


Charles A. Stewart: So that in these retirements it would appear there were five from the observatory.


Charles Murphy: Yes.

Supply-Interior-Observatories


Charles A. Stewart: And those five were replaced from some other branch, the personnel being thus maintained at the same number?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am willing to go a considerable distance with the minister; I know he had a very difficult situation to handle which has resulted in a tremendously difficult outcome, not only in this city but throughout Canada and particularly in the western provinces. I am going to repeat: The cat is now coming out of the bag. The reason why large numbers of retirements were made was not because these branches were affected by the transfer of the natural resources, but because the Prime Minister, in order to balance or to endeavour to balance the budget, saw fit to say that instead of granting $1,500,000, fie would grant only $850,000 to the Department of the Interior, and therefore the minister would have to cut his coat according to the cloth. As a result of that, rightly or wrongly, justly or unjustly, the knife had to be applied somewhere. In the Dominion observatory there was no reason why any reduction should have occurred because the minister himself has said so. As reported on page 1300 of Hansard, when I asked the minister what branches were affected by the transfer of the natural resources, the minister replied that the dbservatory was not affected by such transfer. Nevertheless, they proceed to lop off five of those observatory employees. I have no great quarrel with the fact that they have replaced those employees by five others who were let out from somewhere else, but there was no justification in the first place, under the guise of the transfer of the natural resources, for retiring those five employees and then substituting five others from another branch of the department. I cannot make the situation any plainer; the minister cannot make it any plainer, and I must leave it at his own door to say that the whole thing has been done through lack of proper representation being made. These men have been let out; they have been replaced by other people who have come from within the service. I have no quarrel to find with that but the saving effected is only $4,670. I suppose the minister would say that this great saving is due to the transfer of the natural resources. What I am going to ask the minister is this: "What positions were vacated by these five employees who were let out in the classification of positions in the observatory? Were these positions abolished? Were they of a temporary nature? If they are of a permanent nature, why retire these five employees and substitute others? Is this just a scheme to let these people out and then at a later date endeavour to fill up all these positions with other people?


Charles Murphy: If the hon. member will look at page 86 of the estimates, which we are not dealing with at the present time, he will find at the bottom of the page the explanation of the sum which he mentioned, namely, $850,000. It reads:
The sum of $850,000 is submitted pending the final adjustment of staffs by the department and the Civil Service Commission, owing to the transfer of natural resources, such sum to cover allowances to those who may be retired and salaries of those retained.
Necessarily in making the reduction, the exact amount could not be known or estimated until the situation was fully canvassed and the services which were to be continued were decided on. Then and then only could one know the exact amount which would be required. In the meantime this sum was put in tentatively until that readjustment and reorganization could take place. In this reorganization the department was considered as a unit, and not as a system of watertight compartments. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that I could make it any plainer to the committee than I have already done.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I take it that the reason why these five employees were let out was not because of the transfer of the natural resources but purely and simply because the minister found himself with an appropriation of $850,000, whereas in the past he had an appropriation of $1,500,000. I would like to ask why one of these employees, a returned soldier by the name of Pilon, was retired to be replaced by another returned soldier.


Charles Murphy: The employees who were notified of their retirement certainly were affected by the transfer of the natural resources in the manner I have indicated. I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to get away with that statement. Certainly they were affected by the transfer of the natural resources because they were in the Interior department and the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces undoubtedly did affect that department to a very great extent. In the readjustment all employees had to take their chance-shall I say?-of retirement, whether they worked in a branch of the department that was directly affected by that transfer or not. Some branches were, of course, more directly affected in that sense than others, but they should have their rights
Supply-Interior-Surveys

in the service considered in just the same manner as those working in a branch which was not so directly affected by the transfer.


Charles A. Stewart: I take it
that that was the policy of the government in making the adjustments, that all branches were to be surveyed? Take, for example, the lands branch, which was transferred practically in its entirety. The Northwest Territories branch, however, was not affected by the transfer, but, nevertheless, as it was a branch of the department, and as it was the policy of the government that all branches should be surveyed in the readjustment, retirements took place, I presume, in that branch and in all other branches.


Charles Murphy: I think that every branch of the department was affected.


Charles A. Stewart: Was that
the policy of the government in dealing with this matter? That, notwithstanding the fact that this particular branch was not affected in personnel, yet as it was a branch of the Interior department, a survey had to be made of it along with all the other branches, and retirements took place in practically every branch?


Charles Murphy: Practically.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That may be all right,
but I am not prepared to accept that in view of the letters I have.


Charles A. Stewart: I merely
want to say to the hon. member that we now have declared the policy of the government on which these retirements took place. It seems to me, however, that it is quite proper to ask why retirements took place in any branch that was not directly affected by the transfer.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Quite so, and I have
the minister's answer, which I quoted a moment ago, that this branch was not affected by the transfer.


Charles Murphy: I said it was affected.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Oh no, as I will show
to the minister. Here is the letter that retired Mr. Pilon. First there is the memorandum:
The services of Mr. L. R. Pilon have unavoidably had to be dispensed with through the operation of the present departmental reorganization.
Then here is the letter retiring Mr. Pilon, dated April 29, 1931:
Dear Mr. Pilon,-	,
It is regretted that the reduction in the amount available for the continuing work of this department makes it necessary to terminate your services from and after to-day.
[Mr. Murphy.)
So his retirement was not due to the transfer of the natural resources, and the minister is in a hopeless situation when he tries to maintain that. He might as well be frank about it and say that in a number of instances retirements were due to that cause, but that in a number of other instances, and particularly in this case, the retirements were not due to that cause. In the case of these employees of the Dominion observatory who were retired, the retirements were certainly not because of the transfer of the natural resources, because here is the letter of the department itself stating that "the reduction in the amount available for the continuing work of this department makes it necessary to terminate your services from and after to-day." If the minister will cease to sail under false colours and will say that these employees were retired, not because of the transfer, but because they had not been taken care of by the previous administration, we will agree, but I cannot let the minister get away with his present explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Topographical Surveys
Topographical and aerial surveys and maps for the general development and administration of the country, including hydroelectric, forested, mineralized, agricultural and industrial areas; expenses of Geographic Board of Canada; centralization of all aerial photographic operations in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Air Force; traverse of northern rivers and lakes for administration of Northwest Territories; legal surveys of Dominion lands; surveys for administration of Dominion parks; testing of standard measures and instrument repairs; plotting and printing of maps and plans, etc., $250,000.
Amount required to pay the fees of the board of examiners for D.B.S. of the secretary and of the subexaminers and for travelling expenses, stationery, printing, rent of room and furniture, etc. (the fees of Messrs. F. H. Peters, W. M. Tobey and Harry Parry, members of the board, and J. A. Cote, secretary, are to be paid out of this sum), $2,000.
Charles A. Stewart: What services are going to be discontinued in connection with the topographical surveys?


Charles Murphy: Speaking generally, there
will be a reduction in the survey work which the department has been carrying on. The subdivision surveys formerly carried on by this department will not be carried on at all except in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and very little will be done there. The topographical survey and photographic work is still being continued, with the aerial work being done, as formerly, by the National Defence department.

Supply-I nterior-Surve ys


Charles A. Stewart: I presume
that because of the reduction of $180,000 in this vote a number of topographical surveyors will be retired. That would account for part of this reduction. As to the balance, is there to be any topographical survey work in the way of aerial surveys done in the three prairie provinces this year, or are they on the same basis as the other provinces of Canada?


Charles Murphy: The Department of
National Defence, through the Royal Canadian Air Force, is carrying on in the western provinces on about the same scale as in previous years.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no reduction in that work?


Charles Murphy: Practically none.


Charles A. Stewart: How many
topographical surveyors are there on the staff now? What reduction has been made in the numbers of that staff?


Charles Murphy: The total number of permanent retirements was eighty-seven.


Charles A. Stewart: How many
remain?


Charles Murphy: One hundred and
eighteen.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: At page 1300 of Hansard of May 6, the hon. minister, in answer to a question of mine, said that in the surveys bureau there has been ninety-one retirements of the permanent staff at Ottawa, and that subsequently six more had been retired. At this date how many have received notices of retirement from the topographical survey?


Charles Murphy: On May 6 nine were
retired.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: In the answer to which I have referred of May 6, the minister stated that in the surveys bureau ninety-one of the permanent staff at Ottawa had been retired and twenty-five of the non-permanent. That, does not make very much difference, but I should like to know how many of the permanent staff in Ottawa of the topographical surveys have been retired to this date.


Charles Murphy: To date eighty-seven have been retired.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: What is the personnel of the permanent staff?


Charles Murphy: On June 20 the remaining staff numbered one hundred and eleven


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I believe the topographical survey is one of the most important
branches of our surveys, and it has been my privilege on a number of occasions to meet the men engaged in that work. Probably some members derive pleasure from reading novels, but I derive pleasure from reading maps, and I must pay a particular compliment to the various map services of the federal government. To my mind the topographical survey is one of the services that should never have been interfered with.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: My hon. friend will not get a bit further by trying to help the minister in that way. Anyone who has not an intelligent suggestion to make should keep quiet. I do not believe that this appropriation is sufficient to carry on the work of the topographical surveys in an efficient manner during the present fiscal year. It seems to me that any saving that may be made in this branch and in the geodetic and geologic branches will be more than offset by the extra cost which will be involved in resuming the work at the point where it has been left off, to say nothing of the mental anguish and suffering of those who have been so ruthlessly let out. I do believe that the minister would have been well advised in the national interest to have retained the staff at its full strength and so have preserved the efficiency of the service. Will the eighty-se\ en positions vacated in the topographical service be left vacant or will they be abolished?


Charles Murphy: The eighty-seven retirements related to positions which were formerly filled, some by surveyors and others by those doing clerical work. It is not correct to say that eighty-seven surveyors were let out of that branch; eighty-seven employees were let out. The hon. member expresses concern that owing to these retirements the branch will not be efficiently carried on, but just a moment before he had expressed confidence in the officials. I may say that I have the same confidence in them, and I can assure the hon. member that the work in that branch will continue to be efficiently performed. It may be that in certain lines they will not be as active as they were in other years, but I feel confident that the efficiency of the branch will be maintained during the present fiscal year.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The minister will recall that on a former occasion I asked him what branches were affected by the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces, and what number of employees were affected.
Supply-Interior-Surveys

According to his answer of the 6th of May to which I have already referred, the survey bureau was one of the branches not affected by that transfer. Why were the eighty-seven retired? And when will the activities of this branch be resumed?


Charles Murphy: The work of the surveys
bureau, sometimes known as the international boundaries surveys branch of the department, as such of course was not affected by the transfer of the resources, 'but again this branch was considered part of the Department of the Interior and some clerical positions were affected. They had to take their chances along with the rest of the employees of the department.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister told the hon. member for Ottawa that there were 111 employees retained on this staff, but he told me there were 118 retained. I can quite understand how that difference might have arisen, but the question I wanted to ask was .this:	Has the survey and readjustment of the department as far as the staff is concerned been completed? Has it been decided finally in what way the staff shall be re-adjusted, or is that survey still going on?


Charles Murphy: No, it could not be said
that it has been completed; that is the case to a great extent, but there is still some reorganization and reclassification of positions which will be carried on by the Civil Service Commission.


Charles A. Stewart: But as far
as the number of employees is concerned there is not likely to be very much of a change?


Charles Murphy: That might be taken
practically as correct, although I would not say so definitely.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Does that answer apply to the whole department or only to this branch?


Charles Murphy: I was speaking of the
department as such.


Mr. DONNELLY:: In connection with the return of the natural resources to the western provinces a case has been brought to my attention disclosing a condition which does not seem fair or reasonable. It is the case of a man who for the last thirty-five years had been working under the Department of the Interior in western Canada. When the natural resources were handed over to the provinces this man was retired. He will receive his full salary for the next six months, and

after that, for the rest of his natural life he will receive approximately seven-tenths of his salary. In the meantime, however, this man has been taken over by the province; he is working at the very same job and getting the very same pay.


An hon. MEMBER:: WThat is his name?


James J. Donnelly: I could give the names of several of these men; this does not apply to one case, but to several. If the man were getting $4,000 under the Department of the Interior, during the next six months he will get $2,000, as well as $2,000 salary from the province, and he will receive $2,800 a year for the rest of his life, in addition to $4,000 a year while he remains in the employ of the province. As against that we see men who have been with the department only one, two or three years, who were not permanent on the staff and who have been let out. These men will get no pension; they have no income at all and they are out of jobs. To my way of thinking this government should make some arrangement with the provincial government so that these people would still pay into the pension fund here and would not receive their pensions until they actualllv retired.


Charles A. Stewart: You mean
the man who is getting the pension?


James J. Donnelly: Yes. Has any such
arrangement been made, or has this question been discussed with the provinces?


Charles Murphy: I think the hon. member
for Willow Bunch has stated the case correctly, but these men have earned that which they are receiving from the Dominion government. I understand that it is not compulsory for the Dominion government to pay an employee on retirement his salary for two, three, four or six months; it is rather a matter of grace. I do not think the employees themselves or the hon. member for Ottawa, for instance, would take any exception to that practice. The pensions received by these men are worked out on an actuarial basis, and the employee has earned that sum by contributing 5 per cent of his salary over a period of years, whether it be ten, fifteen or twenty years. It is a kind of insurance for which he has paid. That the Dominion government should interfere with the activities of an employee after he has left the service is a principle to which I do not think this or any other government could subscribe. That is a matter which rests between that man and his prospective employer, and I do not quite see why the Dominion government

Supply-Interior-Surveys
should interfere with his possible employment by the province or by a private concern. I do not think it is anything with which this government should interfere in any way.


Mr. CHBVRIBR:: I am happy to be able
to agree fully with the minister on this point.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps I
might as well say now, Mr. Chairman, that I think some criticism was directed towards myself and the Liberal government because more care was not taken with respect to the placing of employees who were in the outside service and who, in consequence, might have had an opportunity of obtaining employment with the provincial governments who were taking over the resources.
Almost without exception the provincial governments took the ground that they could not bind themselves to take over in their entirety the staffs employed in the western provinces. They pointed out, for example, that in all probability they would not continue homesteading, and for that reason would not require homestead inspectors beyond the number required to clean up the patents which were not already issued. They were considering discontinuing other services carried on by the federal government in the administration of the natural resources, and for that reason no arrangement could be made other than a promise, which I believe was fairly well kept, to employ as many as possible of the civil servants who would find themselves out of employment owing to the return of the natural resources. I think in the case of Manitoba these men were largely employed to continue the services in effect when the federal government turned over the resources.
In passing I 'may say to the minister that I am glad to know that the topographical surveys branch has not been cut more than he has intimated to-dav. This branch has rendered a very valuable service, particularly in connection with aerial Surveys, not only to the western provinces but to all the provinces of Canada. Personally I think that is a service the federal government should undertake, because the department can give better service and has greater experience than the provinces would be able to obtain or even pay for themselves. It is needless to go into details to show the value of that service. I did not anticipate that the geodetic service would be interfered with at all. However, I will not discuss that aspect except to say that the question now under consideration is what shall be done with the civil servants who find their positions abolished and who, of course, are compelled to retire. I do not
see how the minister could have taken any other course than the one he pursued, namely, to end the contract with the individual who has to be retired, in accordance with the terms of that contract. These people are entitled to the full retiring allowance they earned and to their superannuation. What they will do or what occupation they will enter, whether in the provincial government or elsewhere, is in my opinion no concern of the federal government. There are some other matters I wish to mention before the items are disposed of, but I can speak more appropriately on civil government when those estimates come . up. I did not enter into a general discussion of this matter when we asked for information earlier in the session, and when it was intimated by the Prime Minister that I might have done a good deal from 1926 on. I intend to say a word or two in that regard before the minister concludes his items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geodetic survey of Canada, $175,000.
Charles A. Stewart: There is a reduction of $92,000 in the geodetic survey. Will the minister say what particular services are to be dispensed with as a result of this reduction?


Charles Murphy: I will give the figures to
show where the reductions are:
1931-32	1930-31 Reduction
Triangulation. . . .$12,320 $71,755	$59,435


Charles A. Stewart: That means that there are not as many parties in the field?


Charles Murphy: Yes.
1931-32	1930-31	ReductionGeodetic astronomy.$ 3,000	$ 7,100	$4,100Base lines. . . .	1,500	1,500Precise levelling. .	5,620	24,000	18,380instruments. . . .	500	500	Books, charts, etc.	500	500	General expenses. .	12,000	12,000	Salaries	141,060	149,945	8,885
The reduction, it will be observed, occurs in the triangulation work and in the precise levelling, which might be described as field work. It has been found that the office work is behind the field work and under the circumstances it is advisable to reduce field expenses this year in an endeavour to overtake the arrears in office work. We have practically the same staff but we have enough field data to keep them employed this year. We are sending out some field parties but not as many as went out last year or the year before.
Supply-Interior


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Where will the field
operations be carried on this year?


Charles Murphy: The triangulation work
will be carried on in northern Ontario and northern Quebec. There will be operations in the Belcher islands. The precise levelling work in Ontario will be carried on between lake Ontario and Algonquin park. In British Columbia there will be precise levelling from Midway, to Molson, Washington, and from Cascade, British Columbia, to Laurier, Washington. There will also be secondary levels in British Columbia, from Nakusp to Edge-wood.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government of the Northwest Territories- salaries and expenses connected with the administration of the territories, including the erection of buildings, investigation work, schools, hospitals, relief to destitute, maintenance of prisoners and insane patients, administration of the Northwest Game Act and the Wood Buffalo park, et cetera, $163,465.
Charles A. Stewart: What particular services are being eliminated through the reduction in this item of $26,000?


Charles Murphy: There is a decrease of $22,800 in administration services; a decrease of $6,645 in salaries at Ottawa; a decrease of $500 in administration of vital statistics; and a decrease of $440 in administration owing to the fur export tax. There is a decrease of $410 for unforeseen expenses. There is an increase in relief to the destitute, maintenance of insane patients, orphans and destitute children, amounting to $740. There is an increase of $3,520 for hospital and medical services. The net decrease amounts to $26,535.


Charles A. Stewart: Is there to be any new construction this year of schools or hospitals?


Charles Murphy: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government of the Northwest Territories- expenses connected with the purchase of reindeer and expenditure in connection with the maintenance of station at Kittigazuit, N.W.T., $99,400.
Charles A. Stewart: How near is the trek of these reindeer to its destination?


Charles Murphy: They are about three hundred miles from the delta of the Mackenzie river. They are making excellent progress and the herd is doing very well.


Mr. VENIOT:: How large is the herd?


Charles Murphy: It was three thousand when it started but we hope that it has increased.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
LMr. Murphy.]
Government of the Yukon Territory- salaries and expenses connected with the administration of the territory, including surveys, $65,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: How many people are there in this territory??


Charles Murphy: I am informed there are between 2,000 and 2,500 whites and about 1,000 Indians and Eskimos.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this special government to be kept up forever?


Charles Murphy: If the Conservative government were to keep on forever, possibly I could answer my right hon. friend, but not knowing that, I can hardly say. It might not be improper to state that the government of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories might well be a subject for investigation and possible change.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister is wise to make that statement while His Honour the Speaker is out of the chamber.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Yukon council for local purposes, the construction and maintenance of roads, and to provide for the payment of bounty on "wolves and coyotes under the provisions of an ordinance enacted by the commissioner in council, the sum to be paid not to exceed $30 each for wolves and $15 each for coyotes, the pelts of the animals on which bounty is paid to be surrendered to the government. The proceeds of the sale of such pelts to be placed to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, $120,500.
Charles A. Stewart: What is the explanation of the reduction of $40,000 in this vote?


Charles Murphy: The reduction is made up by a smaller expenditure this year on the construction of roads.


Charles A. Stewart: Where is His Honour?


Charles Murphy: His Honour has complete knowledge of the situation so my hon. friend need not express undue concern.


Charles A. Stewart: I congratulate the minister in being able to persuade His Honour that less money would be required.


Peter John Veniot: They have an aeroplane
service.


Charles Murphy: I do not think there is a service.


Peter John Veniot: There is a commercial
service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Interior-Forestry
Dominion lands, parks, etc.-Dominion lands, seed grain and ordnance, admiralty and public lands, salaries and expenses, including amount required to pay expenses connected with seed grain and relief collections and half of expenses of seed grain and relief adjustment board, etc., $125,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: Could the committee have an explanation of the decrease in this vote of $788,000?


Charles Murphy: For the fiscal year 193031 this vote was given in four items, as follows:
Dominion lands, salaries, $680,000.
Dominion lauds, contingencies, $155,000.
Seed grain collections, $49,860.
Ordnance lands, $28,2?0.-Total, $913,130.
This year these have been placed in one item, which shows a decrease of $788,130. I do not think there will be any disagreement regarding this decrease as it is due to the transfer of the natural resources to the three western provinces. Our administration costs have been reduced by that amount.


Charles A. Stewart: In that one branch; there is a further' reduction in the next item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Advancement of forest conservation in Canada; stock-taking of forest resources; investigations of forest conditions and rates of growth, and development of scientific management methods; technical and economic investigation; forest protection studies; operation of field research stations, demonstration forests, tree nurseries, and laboratories; cooperative undertakings in forestry and forest products, etc., $400,000.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: A reduction of $1,027,813 is shown in this item. Will that reduction have any effect upon the advancement of forest conservation, stock-taking of forest resources, investigation of forest conditions and so on?


Charles Murphy: As I understand the hon. member, he desires to know if the transfer of the natural resources will affect these items to that extent?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Not at this moment,
but I see there is a reduction of $1,027,000. I am very much concerned in these matters:
Advancement of forest conservation in panada; stock-taking of forest resources; investigation of forest conditions and rates of growth, and development of scientific management methods.
And all the other activities that are enumerated in the item with a view of conserving our forests. This is a national duty and it should not be sacrificed to the extent of
$1,000,000 even in trying to effect some reductions in the way of balancing the budget. If this reduction of $1,000,000 is to affect to any extent the conservation of our forests, their protection against fire; if it is going to curtail the studies that I have mentioned as to the growth of trees, their preservation, how they develop under certain conditions, and so on, then it is most unwise and the item should not be decreased to that extent. I should like to know from the minister just how this reduction of $1,000,900 will affect this particular item.


Charles Murphy: The Dominion, until the
natural resources were transferred to the western provinces, was directly and we might also say indirectly interested in all matters pertaining to the forest industry of Canada. In the three western provinces not only did the Dominion conduct an investigation in regard to rates of growth and forest preservation, but it actually administered the forests themselves and it also carried on a campaign for protecting those forests by maintaining a fire protection service and in addition a service to educate the people, especially in those western provinces, along the lines of preserving the forests from destruction. With the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces, the question arose as to what might be termed a continuing forest policy. The hon. member stated that he thought it was a national obligation that the forests should be protected from fire. I do not know that I quite agree with that, because now all the provinces have complete control of those forest areas; they derive all the revenue that may be obtained from them, and it would seem to me, although I am not dogmatic about the matter, that the duty of protecting those areas from fire should rest upon them primarily. We are, in the continuing service, maintaining at Ottawa our forests products laboratory which does general work in studies that are purely technical in their nature. I need not enumerate them to the committee. In Montreal we maintain a laboratory where questions in relation to pulpwood and the uses of pulp are especially studied. At the coast in British Columbia there is a laboratory where studies are made of the particular kinds of wood that grow in the coast region. In addition to that service we are maintaining stations at various points in eastern Canada, in the maritimes and in Ontario. There will be one in the western or central portion of Canada and one at the coast where the various services which are enumerated under this item will be continued, except that we cannot, conduct in those limited areas a survey of
Supply-In tenor-Forestry

the forest products of Canada. That information can be obtained in cooperation with the officials of the various provincial governments who have been carrying on that work for some time.


William Thomas Lucas: I believe it is under this
item that the forestry stations at Indian Head and at Sutherland have been carried on in the past. What effect will the large reduction in this item have on those two stations?


Charles Murphy: The tree nursery stations
at Indian Head and Sutherland are now being administered, and have been since the first of June, by the Department of Agriculture. They are being carried on in the same manner as they have been since their inception.


Charles A. Stewart: What was
the reason for the change made there?


Charles Murphy: One reason for the change might be stated in this manner: As the hon. member knows, one of the greatest problems with which the west is faced to-day is the drifting of soil. I have been told by officials in my department-and the hon. member will know this better than I-that the transfer of this particular service to the Department of Agriculture has been discussed before this for the reason that I have given.


Charles A. Stewart: By whom?


Charles Murphy: I am informed by the
officials of the department that it has been discussed. I cannot say by whom.


Charles A. Stewart: Not by the forestry branch.


Charles Murphy: Possibly not by the forestry branch. I do not know. But that was one reason namely, that this matter of protecting our soil from drifting was more of an agricultural problem and the service which has been given in the past could be greatly extended by cooperation with the provinces. In the past those stations have done splendid work in the west. They have changed in many districts the aspect of the prairie, but the service has not been taken advantage of to such an extent as I could have wished. The trees were planted mainly around buildings; they were used as shelter belts to protect buildings, to a certain extent the animals and also the gardens of the people. But now if the service is enlarged as I hope it will be, these shelter belts will be extended around the fields of the farmers in those provinces and with the use of grasses which are so much needed there we shall help to solve,
	*
at least to a certain extent, the problem of soil drifting in the three prairie provinces. That is one reason why these three nursery stations were transferred to the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. BROWN:: The minister is of course
aware that this has given us in the west a great deal of concern. When it was intimated in the early part of the session that this work was likely to be abandoned, I think the minister knows and other members of the government know that a very strong protest arose from the west. This is a matter on which we would like, if we can, to have some definite assurance. The minister has indicated that this was a deliberate policy entered upon by the government to transfer this work from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. Of course the people know just what has taken place so far in that regard. Is the minister in a position to give us any indication that this work will be carried on either by the Department of Agriculture or by the Department of the Interior? We have not yet had the estimates of the Department of Agriculture before us so that we could deal with the question. We do not want to let this opportunity pass without protesting against any suggestion that this work be discontinued. Although it is not in the minister's department we would be very pleased if he would give some assurance on the part of the government that this work will be continued by one department of the government.


Charles Murphy: The hon. member has
practically supplied the answer to his question. As the order in council has already been passed transferring this work to the Department of Agriculture, any assurance from me such as he asks would hardly be in order. I think the proper time for my hon. friend to ask that question will be when the agricultural estimates are up.


John Livingstone Brown: I realize that, but what is giving us concern is whether the new arrangement under this order in council is to be merely temporary, or whether the work is to be carried on permanently by the Department of Agriculture as it has been in the past.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the government have made another blunder, amongst many they have made since taking power, in transferring this work to the Department of Agriculture. I am certain that they have made a blunder in this particular case because I happen to have had the administration of the branch doing this particular work. It is a branch of the department

Supply-Interior-Forestry
that has rendered splendid service to western Canada. No one will deny that. This work was properly placed under the forestry branch of the Department of the Interior, and I want to congratulate the minister that he is keeping up some of the very valuable services of the forestry branch. These tree-planting stations were in no way connected with agriculture, except that a farmer, when he wants to grow trees secures them from these stations. There may be something to be said for the change on the ground of inspection, but the men who actually inspected the land and laid out the program for the preparation of the soil and the planting of the trees were all men trained in the forestry branch and under the control of the Department of the Interior. There might have been some reason for the change if there had been any failure in this work, if it had not been a splendid success in every particular as outlined by the minister, and as is well-known to every man who is acquainted with the results. The work having been such a success, a change of this character is a retrograde step, and I protest against it as strongly as possible. I have nothing to say against the present Minister of Agriculture. I would have protested just as vigorously had my friend and colleague the Minister of Agriculture in our own government attempted to take this important service into his own department from the Department of the Interior. I cannot help thinking there was some attempt on the part of the government to transfer these stations to the provincial governments. If there is any such thing in the mind of the government I for one am going to protest vigorously and keep on protesting, because this service is too important to be interfered with in any way. It oovers the three prairie provinces, and probably eventually will extend into the other provinces. I think it is a work that can be well done by the federal government. If this federal government is going to carry on scientific investigation in tree-planting and technical research in timber and such like matters, then why in the name of conscience take away as important a service as this is to the western people from the branch which has made such a splendid success of it? I view this change with a good deal of apprehension. We had a most enthusiastic band of men in charge of this work, particularly the man at Indian Head, who inaugurated the work and changed the face of a barren country there to a splendid forest in a very short period of time. I cannot help but think that the government is making a very serious blunder in making this change, and I say 22110-213
this without casting any reflection at all on the Department of Agriculture. It is true that I am a farmer and I know something about agriculture, but I do not pretend to know all its intricacies. I do, however, want to protest most vigorously against this change, particularly if an attempt is going to be made by this government to turn the operation and maintenance of these stations over to the provinces.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I feel some sympathy for the Minister of the Interior. I think he was the victim of a general desire to cut expenses. As each minister would bring his estimates before the treasury board or the cabinet there would be a general ripping into them all around, with all the enthusiasm of new converts desirous of doing something. This particular item is one of the victims. I understand that no provision was made at all for this work originally in the estimates, and that the question of transferring the work to the Department of Agriculture, regardless of its merits or demerits, was entirely a second thought. 1 am very glad, however, that the service is going to be continued by some department. There never was a time in the history of our country,-not only this spring and summer, but also last winter-when we needed shelter on the prairies more than we do now, and for the federal Department of the Interior to think of eliminating this work at this particular time seems ridiculous, although I realize it is only on a par with a hundred other things which this government has done since it came into power. I am glad that in this particular instance the mistake was corrected before it was too late, and perhaps it will be in order for me to extend congratulations that the work is going to be continued. It was an awful thing for the government even to contemplate doing away with this service. I do not believe it was the Minister of the Interior who thought of it. I think that as a western man he would have been delighted to have the work continued in the way it was being done. Ministers have to be crucified from one angle or the other, but in this instance the crucifixion did not continue quite to the end, and the service has been salvaged up to a certain point. We must make the best of it, I suppose, and we shall no doubt get the trees through some department. I do not feel so strongly as the former Minister of the Interior over what department has charge of this work, but certainly I should not like to see it handed over to the provincial authorities. It has been administered well from Ottawa,

Supply-Interior-Forestry

and it affects not only one province but the three prairie provinces. One of the things that at the present time is adversely affecting agriculture in the west is lack of shelter against the ghastly hurricane winds that we have been having during the last few years, and anything that will mitigate that evil should be welcomed, no matter from what department it comes. I repeat, I would not like to see the work turned over to the provincial authorities, but the particular department of the federal government by which it is administered is not a matter of so much concern to the people out on the prairies.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I was happy to concur
in the opinions expressed by the former Minister of the Interior, and I am very happy to concur in the expression of view as given by the ex-Minister of Agriculture. When I said that this was a national obligation I used that term in a broad sense, and I do not think I need to retract it. Forestry is one of the four basic industries of Canada, and as such I believe it is incumbent upon the federal government to keep at least a supervising eye upon the preservation of our forests and the work of reforestation. True, responsibility for the protection of the forests may devolve in some degree upon the provinces, but if the decrease in this item will result in any way in prejudicing the safeguarding of our forests, I must strongly protest against it. If I understand the situation, and if I am wrong I want to be corrected, the transfer of the natural resources included the turning over to the western provinces of the care of a certain amount of forest territory in the west.


Charles Murphy: All of it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I do not know just what binding agreement was made between the federal and provincial governments, or whether the western provinces incurred the responsibility of keeping up the work of forestry protection to the same degree of efficiency which has been maintained by the federal department up to this moment. But if we have divested ourselves of that responsibility, then it is too late to speak about it. If there are any other portions of Canada where we have not so divested ourselves, then I do ask that the minister be careful that the decrease represented by this item does not in any way interfere with the efficiency of the protection. If the minister will assure the committee that where the protection is continued it will be maintained at 100 per cent, I shall be satisfied.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: No, the item is not
carried. Is there any part of Canada at present over which the Department of the Interior exercises any supervision or protection in the way indicated by the third paragraph of this item?


Charles Murphy: The hon. member is speaking of "protection." I am not quite certain as to the meaning which he applies to that word.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: In the terms mentioned in the third paragraph of the item.


Charles Murphy: The only area over which the Dominion exercises control is the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The provinces exercise full control over all the resources within their respective boundaries. The hon. member knows as well as I do that there are very few forests of any magnitude in the Northwest Territories or in the Yukon. The services which the department is presently giving with respect to the forests of Canada is as I indicated a few moments ago.


Mr. SPENCER:: Some years ago Alberta made application to the federal government to have a forestry station established within the province. One of the officials of the forestry department was sent to Alberta and a location for the station was actually chosen. Has the government made any change in those plans? If not, when will the station be commenced?


Charles Murphy: To the best of my knowledge the plans discussed were only tentative plans. I understood the hon. gentleman to say the area had been actually selected. I think he is in error. The area had not been definitely selected because the matter was brought to my attention shortly after assuming office in this department. However, if I am in error as to this my predecessor will perhaps correct me. At that time various areas were represented as being suitable, and representations in connection with all of them were made to the department. As far as I am concerned, I understand that the proposal was under advisement and would become a matter of government policy at a later date if such a station were established.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I might remind the minister that the department at Ottawa went so far as to send to Alberta their representatives to look over the various sites. I will not say a definite place was chosen, but the provincial government indicated where they thought would be the best place for the station, and naturally the final decision was left with the authorities in Ottawa. These deliberations

Supply-Interior-Forestry
were in progress at the time the transfer of the natural resources was under discussion. It was therefore recognized then that this work would not be thrown on the province. Also, I understand that the continuance of tree-planting stations that the federal government thought at one time of closing down was a subject entirely outside the natural resources agreement. I take it that the government have not changed their plans with respect to establishing a tree-planting station in Alberta. Am I correct?


Charles Murphy: I could not give the hon. member any assurance on that point, because governmental policy in regard to the matter has never been decided.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Knowing the policy of
the late government, if nothing is done to the contrary, I take it that that policy will be continued?


Charles A. Stewart: To clear
up the matter, Mr. Chairman, I may say that we did have an investigation made by Mr. Ross in various sections of Alberta, and while he, of course, would not assume the responsibility of definitely stating that one particular point was much better than another for a tree-planting station, it did appear from the tenor of his report that a location at Camrose would perhaps be the most satisfactory. Nothing was done in the way of purchasing a site for the purpose. Undoubtedly it was our policy to establish a tree-planting station in Alberta.


Mr. COOTE:: I think it would be difficult to overstate the benefit to the farmers of the prairie provinces of the service given by the tree-planting station at Indian Head. The service has been so universally satisfactory that personally I regret its discontinuance by the forestry branch, but I am glad the Department of Agriculture is undertaking the work. I think perhaps there is a greater necessity for continuing the work now than there was at the time the farm was originally purchased.


William Richard Motherwell: Hear, hear.


George Gibson Coote: The excellent work they are doing, cannot, I think, be duplicated by any other organization, and certainly this is not the proper time to attempt to load such a service on the shoulders of the provinces, for they are having great difficulty in financing their various services. The work has been done so satisfactorily by Mr. Ross and his assistants that I certainly think it would be a mistake to make any extensive changes in the service.


William Thomas Lucas: I wish to endorse what my
hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) has said with regard to the services rendered by the tree nurseries at Indian Head and Sutherland. I was going to make my protest and also take up with the minister the question of extending these services to the province of Alberta, which, I think, was contemplated by the late government, and also by the present minister before it was decided to transfer the work to the Department of Agriculture. But when he stated that the service was being taken over by the Department of Agriculture, I thought it would be well to reserve anything I had to say until the estimates of that department were under discussion. However, I should like to endorse what has already been said, and I hope that now the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is in his seat and has heard the discussion he may decide to extend these services to-some of the other provinces, especially to-Alberta, because I believe every one realizes the importance of tree-planting in western Canada. In view of the conditions that have-prevailed during the last two or three years owing to soil drifting, we begin to realize the importance of this service, and I certainly trust that the splendid record that has been made will be maintained and that the work will be carried on with even greater vigour than in the past. I have known Mr. Ross personally for many years; I know he has built up a splendid service, and I sincerely trust he will not be disturbed in the work he has started and carried on so efficiently. I hope when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are up the minister will be able to tell us that this work will be continued permanently.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I am at a loss to
know whether the work has been abandoned, is being abandoned, or is about to be abandoned. I received a letter yesterday, I think, from an estimable gentleman who is connected with this tree planting division. He was in the employ of that branch for some nine years, but together with several others he has been laid off and is no longer in the service. This matter of transferring the tree planting division from one department to another does not signify very much if the men connected with the work have been laid off and are not functioning.
I wish to protest very strongly against any cessation of the tree planting policy of the federal government in the province of Saskatchewan. I have had some experience with the trees put out by the department from the Sutherland farm. A year ago last spring
Supply-Interior-Forestry

I personally set out 3,600 trees. Before being given the trees the inspector was sent around to see that the land was in proper shape; his o.k. was necessary before I received the trees. After they are planted he comes around year after year-he was there last fall-to inspect them. That gentleman now is laid off; he will come around no longer, and I am wondering how that work is to be continued. Some time ago, I think, I read that some nine inspectors had been laid off. If the inspectors are laid off there will be no land inspection and no supervision of the trees that have been planted. Is that not evidence on the face of it that the work is to be discontinued? I am just wondering if this talk about transferring the branch from one department to another is not a way of getting out of making the statement that this service is being discontinued.
If that is so I wish to protest against it most vigorously. If there is one thing we need in that prairie country it is trees and more trees, and the government that should be responsible for putting in those trees is the federal government. As another hon. member has said, the provincial governments have .[DOT]a little more than they can handle now, and if in the interests of economy the federal *government have laid off some men in the tree planting division, I sincerely hope they will give further consideration to this service and carry it on as efficiently as it has been carried on in the past, and in fact I will go so far as to say that it should be carried on a little more efficiently in the future. We had experience this spring with soil drifting; for days at a time you could not see your neighbour's buildings, and in fact you could not see live rods ahead of you because of the dust-raised on the open prairie on summer-fallow land. Surely that indicates the need for a great many more trees, which will counteract the effect of the wind. I join with other hon. members in protesting against any cessation of this tree planting policy, and I should like to be assured that it will be carried on in the future just as effectively as it has been carried on in the past.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The hon.
member for Kindersley has raised the question of the dismissal of inspectors. I think the minister should inform the committee how many inspectors have been dismissed, and for 1 what reason.


Charles Murphy: The work which has been carried on at the Indian Head and Sutherland stations is being continued in its entirety. By that I mean to say that the work which

has been done at the stations themselves is being continued in full. The orders for trees sent in a year ago have been filled, and the work at the stations is still going on as it did in former years.
There were a number of inspectors whose services were of an outside nature, such as various hon. members have described, among the farmers themselves. They inspected the ground, gave advice as to its preparation and later inspected the care given these trees by the settler. Those nine inspectors have been retired, but the Department of Agriculture assured me that their officials, the men connected with the various experimental farms or plots throughout the west will continue the work formerly done by those men. I may say also that one of the provincial governments has been very anxious to cooperate with the Dominion government in extending that work. As it was outlined to me, their proposition is that they will utilize their gaoi farms and asylum farms so that this work will be greatly augmented in the future, which will meet the wishes of the hon. member for Kinderseley. Whether in these times which have come upon us the ardour of the province will be dampened I do not know, but I can say that the province of Saskatchewan was very enthusiastic in the matter. In that province the problem of soil drifting is perhaps more acute and this service is possibly more appreciated than in the other provinces where we have more of the natural woods. However, I think I can assure the hon. gentleman definitely that the work which has been carried on in the stations themselves is being continued, at least at present, with no curtailment whatever.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I quite appreciate the necessity for very largely reducing the staff of the Department of the Interior, but I believe the forestry branch needs a full staff, particularly of technical men. I understand that certain very well thought of technical men in the forestry branch have been let out, and I should like to ask the minister how many technical men have been let out from that branch, and the reason for that action being taken.


Charles Murphy: I am informed that before the transfer there were 48 foresters, technical officers, and I am told that the present number is 23.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can the minister give me the reason why these men were let out, and in what order they were dismissed. Who were dismissed first, who were dimissed next, and so on?

Supply-Interior-Forestry


Charles Murphy: Those first retired from the service would be such men as fire rangers. They are not technical men.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I mean the technical men.


Charles Murphy: And men who carried on studies in those areas in western Canada. When the Dominion government administered the forests there, a greater duty devolved upon it to serve those areas than rests upon it at the present time, for the reason that the areas in question were under the crown in the right of the Dominion and the Dominion government actually administered them. There would be more men retired in the west at the time of the transfer than in other parts of Canada where we were not charged with the same administrative duties as in the three prairie provinces. I cannot give the order in which they were retired, but it has been going on now for a period of seven or eight months, and possibly longer.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was particularly interested in the forestry engineers. Surely there must have been some system under which the men were let out. I presume that those who were over a certain age would be let out first, while those with large families, or with families at all, would be given consideration before those who had no dependents. I take it that returned men would have a preference. Has not the minister some regulation to go by?


Charles Murphy: The first ones to be notified of their retirement would be those whose positions were abolished. After the readjustment throughout the department the same rules applied to these men as applied to other employees in the various branches of the department.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I take it for granted that returned men, if competent, would have a preference and be given an opportunity to stay on 'before those who had never seen war service.


Charles Murphy: I can only give the general rules that were laid down.


Henry Elvins Spencer: That is what I want.


Charles Murphy: Preference is given in the following order, provided always that no employee will be retained unless efficient to perform the service. That is to say, efficiency is the first test. Then there are these rules or regulations: (1) Those who enlisted in Canada and saw active sendee in any theatre of war and have now domestic responsibilities. (2) Other employees with domestic responsibilities. (3) Those who enlisted in Canada
and saw active service in any theatre of war and have no dependents. (4) Others with any dependents. Generally speaking, it will not be possible to retain any employee who has reached the age of sixty-five years and who has put in the full thirty-five years of service, unless such retention is a matter of special necessity to the department.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have in mind a forestry engineer, a returned man who spent several years on the other side. He is very well qualified and is married. He was let out after a few hours' notice. No consideration has been given him and no reasons assigned for his dismissal. Nothing has been said with regard to his work, which I believe has been most satisfactory throughout his time of service. Why men of that calibre, doing efficient work in the department-men who have seen overseas service-should be let out on such short notice is a matter that calls for explanation.


William Richard Motherwell: I presume that
some of these retirements were due to the fact that there was really no vote to pay them all. This service, valuable as it is, is going through a period of orphanage-the department has charge of it. I presume they are paying the staff out of some contingency vote until they get their real vote in the supplementary estimate^. That, I take it, is the condition of affairs; otherwise they would not be paid at all, which, of course, is unthinkable. So that I can imagine the department retiring some of the staff until they get a proper vote to pay them. After that they will take up the work with the same vigour and force that has hitherto characterized it. Am I right in these assumptions?


Charles Murphy: I have already said that the work is being carried on with the same vigour as before at the stations themselves.


Charles A. Stewart: It is hardly fair to men who have been in the civil service for years, men who chose that calling because there was in it the promise of permanency, to find th'emselves on an occasion of this kind, owing to the transfer of a particular branch to another service, thrown out-seven or eight of them-and officers, also permanent, with whom I have no fault to find, given work to do in another department. I understand that the inspection work is now to be done by the inspectional staff of the Department of Agriculture. I am not suggesting that the department should be loaded up with excessive inspectional work. But at the same time there is something to be said for the permanent

Supply-Interior-Water Power
official who, when a transfer is made, loses his job while a permanent civil servant in another branch takes it up. In that case the position cannot be said to have been abolished. I protest against a situation of that kind and I hope that the minister will extend to unfortunate individuals who have lost jobs in this way every assistance in order to place them in some other branch of the service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For investigations of water and power resources and of international waterway problems, the Dominion hydrometric survey, the western provinces water board, and for the administration of the Dominion Water Power and Irrigation Acts, etc., $250,000.
Charles A. Stewart: I appreciate the fact that there is a considerable reduction in the service in this particular branch. Is this all owing to the fact that this service will not be required in the three prairie provinces? They will take over many of the services we formerly performed-. Can the minister give us the reduction of staff in that branch?


Charles Murphy: In August, 1930, the total number of employees at Ottawa and outside Ottawa, 164; in May of the present year, at Ottawa and outside Ottawa, 92.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I notice
there is a total decrease in this vote of $2,764,053. Is that all due to the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces?


Charles Murphy: It is, to a great extent.
However, there are reductions in other sections of the vote, such as the parks vote, which would not be affected by the transfer.


Robert McKenzie: Are there
other reductions due to the transfer of the natural resources?


Charles Murphy: There is a reduction of
$30,000 in the item to provide for the construction of the Golden-Revelstoke highway. There is a reduction of $124,660, in the vote for scientific investigations. These reductions are caused by the transfer and I will explain them when we reach the particular items.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Do I understand the
minister to say that the reduction of $277,082 in the parks item is due to the transfer of the resources?


Charles Murphy: I said it was not.
{Mr. C. A. Stewart.]


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: To what extent does
the transfer of the natural resources affect the $225,000 reduction in the item covering investigations of water and power resources?


Charles Murphy: Prior to the transfer the
Dominion government administered the various water powers lying within the different provinces.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That has all been transferred?


Charles Murphy: Yes. Except those within the national parks.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: In 1930 the vote was
$475,000, and it has been reduced to $250,000 for this year. If that branch has been discontinued why should this amount be asked for? I know that a considerable part of this branch still remains in the department. If all the water powers were turned over to the provinces no vote would be necessary.


Charles Murphy: While the provinces now
administer their own water powers, there are certain services which the Dominion still performs. We have agreements with some of the provinces whereby we are obligated to carry out certain hydrometric measurements of streams. We have one agreement with the maritime provinces, another with Ontario and others with the western provinces. The government also carries on a study of the various waiter problems which affect this country and our neighbours to the south. There are many intricate and pressing problems upon which expert advice is needed at all times, and this branch carries on these studies and advises the government accordingly.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I happen to know the
value of this branch of the department; other branches are important, but so is this one. According to a return made on May 6, there are twelve permanent and three temporary employees in Ottawa and twelve permanent and three temporary employees out of Ottawa who have been notified of their retirement. Is this reduction the result of a proper investigation, and if so, by whom was it made?


Charles Murphy: The reduction is brought
about by the smaller amount of service to be rendered by this branch.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The minister could say
in a few words the number of employees whose work related to the western provinces. It would seem as though an arbitrary reduction of $225,000 was arrived at. Was there an investigation and did someone go through the department to weed out the employees and say who was to stay and who was to go?

Supply-Interior-National Parks


Charles Murphy: The head of the branch
*working with the knowledge of and in cooperation with the Civil Service Commission determined who should remain. He determined the stall which in his opinion was best qualified to carry on the services of that branch of the department.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: On May 11, the minister answered a question which I asked by saying that these retirements were made on the recommendation of the department, and, that the Civil Service Commission had concurred in those recommendations. I have never heard of anyone concurring in anything until an opinion has been indicated. Apparently the Civil Service Commission had nothing to do with this matter in the first place, and I want to know who made the recommendations and for what reason.


Charles Murphy: In this case, the reason for the reduction was the transfer to the western provinces. The head of the branch certainly was the man who would best know who could most efficiently carry on the services which the Dominion was to perform. The personnel would be determined and the recommendations would be made by the head of that branch. The Civil Service Commission were advised immediately; their officials were working with us in the department; they knew from day to day, if not practically from hour to hour, what was being done, and I use the word "concur" in that sense.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am not taking this particular branch as a sample, but I am taking the department when these retirements were being made. Does the minister mean that officials of the Civil Service Commission worked in conjunction with officials of the department, sat together and decided who was to go, or does he mean to say, as his answer would imply, that these recommendations were made by officials of the department and then submitted to the Civil Service Commission which later, as the minister said, concurred in them?


Charles Murphy: I do not think I can make the matter any plainer to the committee than I have already done; I detailed the steps that were taken and the manner in which it was done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to meet expenses of lake of the Woods control board, $8,000.
Mr. HEENAN:: How does the 82,000 reduction come about?


Charles Murphy: This reduction is simply carrying on the work in a more economical manner. I can give the various items if the hon. member would like to have them. They are as follows:
One senior engineering clerk, $2,160.
One hydrometric recorder, $1,800.
One junior hydrometric recorder, $1,140.
Gauge readers, $700.
Field expenses, $1,700.
Travelling and incidental expenses, $500.
I am sorry I cannot give the comparative figures for the last fiscal year, but it might be that the reduction is explained by a lesser amount for field expenses and for travelling and incidental expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses connected with the national parks of Canada, historic sites, care of indigents in the parks, the appointment of stipendiary magistrates in the parks and the payment of their remuneration, etc., $1,319,200.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to put in a special plea on behalf of the national park at Prince Albert. As my hon. friend knows, the Prince Albert national park is, with one exception, the latest of the parks to be developed. Not merely is it helping to meet the recreation needs of the more immediate localities, but it has come to be recognized as of service to the entire province of Saskatchewan. An association known as the Saskatchewan Provincial National Park Association has been formed which I believe includes representatives from all the constituencies in the province, so that what I am about to say will be said on behalf of the province as a whole and not merely in the interests of the constituency which I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons.
What I wish to direct the minister's attention particularly bo is the fact that the park being in the preliminary stage of development, a great deal of work has to be carried on there which years ago was completed in the older parks, especially such work as is required for sanitary improvement purposes and the subdivision of lots so that citizens of the province who are anxious to acquire small properties in the park may avail themselves of the opportunity to build immediately. While I notice the minister is cutting down the appropriation for national parks, I hope the last cut will be made before it comes to Prince Albert. I trust that for this particular year, for the reasons I have mentioned, that not only will he find it unnecessary to cut down at all as respects Prince Albert National Park, but rather that he will in-

Supply-Interior-National Parks
crease a little the outlay there. An increase is necessary in order to enable these preliminary developments to be made. The thousands of people who visited the park last year and the year before were very much embarrassed by the fact that the arrangements generally were not at all adequate to the needs of such numbers of people visiting the park and not at all such as to permit of persons residing there for any length of time. The situation as regards sanitary requirements, and accommodations generally has already become quite serious. The minister is probably aware of it as representations I know have been made from other quarters as well. I wish, however, to stress the importance of the much needed development along lines of sanitation and particularly as regards the subdivision of lots so that building may be carried on at once. Especially in weather such as this, my hon. friend will be able to appreciate what the one stretch of country in northern Saskatchewan which has been set apart as a National park, the one part that has Lakes, rivers and forests in abundance, must mean to the rest of the province as a whole when it is remembered that the rest of the province, as my hon. friend well knows, for the most part does not enjoy anything of the kind. I am sure I hardly need mention the matter to the minister; I know he has had it under consideration, but I know I speak for all members from Saskatchewan, regardless of which side of the house they are on, when I make this special plea on behalf of the Prince Albert park.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I am sorry to note the decrease in the amount to be spent on the national parks. At this time when we have such a large amount of unemployment, we might very well undertake in the parks work which under ordinary circumstances might not be undertaken for a good many years to come. At the present time we are paying out large sums of money for direct relief purposes and there is nothing to show at the end of the season for these large amounts spent on direct relief. It would be far better for these men who are necessarily in receipt of relief, to do something in return. I do n.ot mean to say that they should simply have their board or anything of that kind. They should receive proper pay for doing good work. But I believe this would be a splendid opportunity to organize on a large scale relief works. Perhaps even the Minister of the Interior might take this matter into consideration. I know there is a tendency to throw the whole burden upon the IMr. Mackenzie King.]
Department of Labour and to say they must work out a scheme, but it ought to be worked out in connection with the different departments. The Minister of the Interior would be very well advised largely to extend the expenditures in his department at this particular time.


Peter John Veniot: In connection with national parks, what progress is being made in the province of New Brunswick? The question of a national park in New Brunswick has been discussed in the last two years-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Please let us
first get an answer about Prince Albert.


Peter John Veniot: The minister bowed to you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want something more than a bow, something that can go on Hansard.


Charles Murphy: I am sorry if I appeared
discourteous to the right hon. gentleman, but other members rose as I was about to speak. I can say with the right hon. leader of the opposition that the people of Canada, I believe, are increasingly coming to a realization and a proper appreciation of what these areas which have been set aside as national parks mean to the country, and not only from a dollars and cents standpoint, which is considerable. and which can be augmented It may not be out of place for me to say that I believe our national parks can be made a wonderful financial asset to the Dominion for they approach the ideal where you can both eat your cake and have it. That is, our scenery does not disappear with use. It is only necessary for those who administer these parks to see that their natural beauty is preserved and that the attractions and relaxation that they afford not only to our own people but to people of other countries are maintained. I appreciate to the fullest extent the concern which the right hon. leader of the opposition feels for the Prince Albert park. It is one of the latest parks to be established, the only later one being that established in the Riding mountains in my own province of Manitoba. I deeply regret any curtailment of the work which might otherwise be carried on in these parks for I believe that the people of the country-I am speaking generally now of those inhabiting the cities and the countryside-increasingly appreciate the benefits which may accrue to them and their families from a sojourn in these areas.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.

Criminal Code
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 98 respecting a certain patent application of Emma E. Tait-Mr. Chevrier.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee on Bill No. 16, an act to amend the Dairy Industry Act (Increase of Penalties)-Mr. Gobeil.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The discussion on this
bill was interrupted at nine o'clock last Tuesday, but through some inadvertence the bill was not put at the foot of the list. It should be No. 57 instead of No. 42.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Neill for the second reading of Bill No. 43 to amend the Criminal Code.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I have read over this
bill and have heard the discussion which so far has taken place upon it, and speaking for myself I do not think the bill as drawn will advance the objects which the hon. member who proposes the measure has in view. The bill has also been examined by the officers of the Justice department, and while I do not want to prejudice the bill in the opinion of the house, I may say that the bill is not favourably viewed by them, or by other parties who have communicated with the Justice department on the subject. Personally I want to admit that I have received a good many letters from retail merchants throughout the country favouring the passage of this bill. I also have received a considerable number of protests, among others one from the Canadian Bankers' Association, and several from boards of trade and chambers of commerce and bodies of that kind.
The object which the hon. member seeks to attain by this bill is a very laudable' one. It is to decrease, if possible, the habit of issuing cheques for cash or in payment for goods for which there is not in the bank at the time a' sufficient balance to the credit of the drawer of the cheque; consequently the cheque
is dishonoured at the bank and returned to the drawee. We have a section now in the criminal code, as everyone knows, to provide against obtaining money or goods by false pretences. Many prosecutions have taken place under that section in respect of dishonoured cheques, but it generally has been considered by magistrates that when a man has some balance in the bank and issues a cheque, he has not done so fraudulently or with intent to defraud, because it can always be said he assumed he had credit at the bank and was not aware of the exact balance which stood to his credit at the time he issued the cheque. In that way many issuers of what we call worthless cheques have been relieved of responsibility under that section of the code which provides against obtaining money by false pretences.
The view I take is that the proposed amendment would open the door to the issuers of worthless cheques-would invite them to continue the practice rather than discourage them. It actually lays down that if a man issues a cheque when he has no bank account, or thinking he has a sufficient balance at the bank, or thinking that the bank will honour the cheque, he is not guilty of an offence. Under the law to-day if a man issues a cheque honestly thinking that he has a sufficient balance in the bank to meet it, or thinking that his credit is good enough at the bank to ensure that the cheque will be paid, it cannot be said that he does so fraudulently. But if he issues a cheque upon a bank where he has no account and no banking credit, he would be guilty of fraud. This bill merely points out a comparatively safe way to the issuer of these cheques to go ahead. As long as the issuer can establish that he thought he had some small balance in the bank, or that he thought he had credit at the bank, he will not be liable in respect of his worthless cheque if he makes the default good within a reasonable time.
I cannot see, Mr. Speaker, how this proposal will secure people who receive such cheques in payment for money or goods or in settlement of accounts to any greater extent than they are secured at the present time. If my hon. friend would propose an amendment making it an offence to issue a cheque for which there are no funds or not sufficient funds in the bank, he would go a long way towards stopping the issuance of worthless cheques, but he has not done so. In his amendment he merely says that any man who issues a cheque and has reasonable grounds to believe that he has some balance at the bank or that the bank will honour his cheque is not
Criminal Code

liable to prosecution. I think you would very effectively stop this pernicious practice of issuing bad cheques if you were to provide by an amendment that a man who issues such a cheque, without funds or without sufficient funds at the bank, is liable to prosecution and conviction. In its present form I fear that the bill will merely invite issuers of bad cheques to proceed as they have been doing in the past, and will render the operation a little less hazardous.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: I have had a great many communications from business men of the city of Vancouver, endorsing this amendment. After carefully reading the bill I thought it was so framed that at least it would not work a hardship upon anyone; I thought the words "within a reasonable time" would take care of any contingency of that kind, and I was prepared to support the amendment. But after listening to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), and admitting that he knows much more about these matters than I do, if he believes this would rather open the way for that which we are trying to prevent, then I have nothing further to say. If the mover can so amend his bill as to accomplish what we have in mind, I shall be pleased to support it.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I
find myself very much in the position of my hon. friend, from Vancouver South (Mr. Mac-Innis). I also have received several hundred communications supporting the principle of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), and I may admit quite frankly that I have not received a single representation in opposition to it.
With all due respect to the very considered opinion of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), I do not think he described in exact detail the purport of section 1 of the bill, the purpose of which is to amend section 405 of the criminal code, which deals with obtaining goods by false pretences. With the permission of the house I should like to read exactly the words of the amendment:
Everyone who draws and issues a cheque on a chartered bank in Canada for the payment of money and at the time he draws and issues the cheque has no funds or insufficient funds on deposit in that bank to meet the cheque, and has no reasonable grounds to believe that the

cheque will be paid by the bank, and to whom no credit has been extended by the bank at the time of the presentation of the cheque . . . .
If the section stopped there I believe most of the representations submitted by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice would be justified, but the sponsor of the bill goes further and says:
.... and who, upon the refusal of the bank to honour the cheque does not, within a reasonable time, deposit in the bank to his credit a sufficient amount to meet the cheque ....
In other words, according to my interpretation of this section, there is a double opportunity offered here. The innocent, bona fide issuer of a cheque without sufficient funds in the bank to his credit has a second opportunity after the refusal of the bank to honour the cheque. The section proceeds:
.... does not, within a reasonable time, deposit in the bank to his credit a sufficient amount to meet the cheque or pay the amount of such cheque to the holder thereof ....
If he does not do this he is guilty of an offence. I consider that while the section may not be perfect it provides a very reasonable protection both to the issuer of a cheque in good faith and to our retail merchants. All the representations I have received have come from the city of Vancouver, not only from retail merchants 'but from many organizations, all of which are members of the Vancouver board of trade. My hon. friend told the house that he had received representations against the principle of this bill from boards of trade and banks, and of course I accept his word. I am quite prepared to believe that representations against this section might come from banks, but I do believe that at least the principle the hon. member for Comox-Alberni seeks to establish would meet with the approval and sanction of ninety per cent of the business organizations throughout Canada, and would be approved also by ninety-five per cent of those who issue cheques in the ordinary course of business.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) should be congratulated upon bringing in this amendment, but when one reads it carefully it will be seen that it would be rather hard for a magistrate to apply the law. Who can say that a person had no reasonable grounds to believe that the cheque would be paid by the bank? A distinction should be made here between a man who has an account at the bank and one who has not.

Criminal Code
The man having no account at the bank should be found guilty, while the man who has an account should be considered in a different way.
Consider the case of a man who has a current account with the bank, and who has endorsed a note signed by a third party, which note has been credited to his account. He sends a renewal of that note to the other person, telling him to take it to the bank, but the other person neglects to do so. As a consequence this man finds himself overdrawn. Thinking he is not overdrawn he issues a cheque on his account which is returned marked n.s.f., because the note has been charged to his account without his knowledge. Would it be fair to find that man guilty? I think not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He has
a reasonable time in which to make it good.


Mr. POULIOT:: Supposing this man has a certain amount of money coming to him monthly, say S100, S200 or S300, and that money is deposited in the bank. He has a note for $500 signed by a third .person, and through the negligence of that third person in not returning the renewal in time he finds himself overdrawn. He cannot put in the bank more money than he receives monthly. That is one difficulty. Then it would be pretty hard for the magistrate to define the words "has no reasonable grounds to believe." This man would have reasonable grounds to believe that the cheque would be honoured, but because of the neglect of the other person there are not sufficient funds in his account to meet that cheque when it is presented to the bank.
Then there is another point. The section contains the words:
.... and who, upon the refusal of the bank to honour the cheque does not, within a reasonable time, deposit in the bank to his credit a sufficient amount to meet the cheque. . . .
What is "reasonable time"? Is it three days of grace, a week, or a month? We are not told. "Reasonable time" is not defined, and it should be defined; otherwise magistrates are likely to hold different views until the question is settled by the supreme court. And very seldom do these offences come before the Supreme Court of Canada. My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni modifies his amendment by making it a criminal offence for anyone who has no account with a bank to issue a cheque, leaving aside the man who has an account when he issues a cheque or who believes that the bank will honour his cheque for special reasons. This, I think, is the only distinction that can be made between those who issue cheques in good faith, though they may not have sufficient funds to meet them, and those who issue cheques simply as a means of obtaining goods, which they virtually steal. If my hon friend will make that amendment clear, I shall gladly support it. But if the proposed change is left as it stands, I cannot reasonably accept it, although in principle I agree with the hon. member.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): If the theory of the hon. member for Temis-couata is accepted, there is no need of this bill because to-day the moment a man issues a cheque without an account he is found guilty of false pretences. There is, therefore, no need of such an amendment as is proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I am inclined to agree with the Minister of Justice. This bill will afford a defence in cases which are doubtful. When a man issues a cheque without an account or for which he has not sufficient funds in the bank, the magistrate can only decide that he is guilty of false pretences. This bill would furnish a defence that could not be quashed, because it asks the magistrate to be the judge of the intent of the accused. The accused might have thought when he issued the cheque that he had funds, or he might have had reason to believe that the bank would honour the cheque. This would establish his bona fides and the charge would fail. But this bill goes further. It tells people that they may run the risk of committing a felony, of issuing a cheque without sufficient funds, and if they are caught they will have a chance of defending themselves by depositing the money in the bank. This is an unsound principle, which can have but one effect: people will be only too ready to issue cheques when they have no funds. It defeats its own purpose, and I think the house should vote against it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am wholly in accord with the principle of the bill, but I think it might be differently worded to meet the purpose it has in view. For that reason I shall be glad to vote for the second reading and let it go to committee.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: This
bill will be strongly favoured by a large body of creditors because it is the best method yet devised of using the criminal code for collecting debts. I think I know the reason why the bill was introduced. It is an offence under the criminal code to obtain goods or money by false pretences. If you issue a cheque when you have no account and obtain
Criminal Code

goods or money thereby, you are obtaining such goods or money by false pretences. If you issue a cheque on an account in which you have some funds but not sufficient, you may be obtaining goods by false pretences, because in your own mind you may know that there are not sufficient funds. And many people follow that practice rather than go without an account. The purpose of the bill was to get at those who issue cheques in return for goods or money when they know they have not sufficient funds, thus obtaining the goods by false pretences. It is difficult to prove the element of false intent in such an event, because there is money in the bank. In this country there is unfortunately a large debtor class, and it is a common practice for the collector to bring pressure to bear upon people when they are not able to pay for goods they have already got. They will say to them, "Can't you pay to-day? If not, can you make monthly payments?" The debtor may be able to do that, and the collector says, "Give us a series of post-dated cheques to cover the debt by monthly payments". The person who has taken the cheque gives nothing in return beyond an extension of time for payment of a debt which otherwise would not be collected. What will happen next? As soon as one of these cheques is overdue the collector goes up to the debtor and says, "There are not sufficient funds to meet your cheque. I want that money within a reasonable time or I will put the criminal law in force against you". If the bill could provide for the man who obtains goods or money on the strength of an n.s.f. cheque, I should be more inclined to support it. But it goes further and provides that where a man gives an n.s.f. cheque in payment of an old outstanding debt he shall be regarded as a criminal and shall go to jail because of his inability to make good the cheque. I am strongly opposed to that feature of the bill and must vote against it.


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: Under the
law as it stands, it is difficult to secure a conviction. I agree entirely with the opinion expressed by the Minister of Justice. I believe that if this amendment becomes law it will open the door wider to the practice of fraud and deception in the issuing of n.s.f. cheques. If a man were charged under this bill, what is the first question counsel would ask? He would ask how many ingredients constitute the offence. How many elements would have to be proved before the accused was found guilty? Reading the section carefully, one will see that for a man to be found guilty under this provision the crown, upon 
whom the burden of proof always rests, would have to prove four distinct ingredients before the offence could be fully established. For instance, the crown would have to prove that the accused had no funds or insufficient funds on deposit in a bank to meet the cheque. It would have to prove that the accused had no reasonable ground to believe that the cheque would be paid by the bank. It would have to prove that the accused was a person to whom no credit had been extended by the bank at the time of the presentation of the cheque. And it would have to prove that the accused had not within a reasonable time deposited sufficient funds to meet the cheque. There would also be a doubt as to the meaning of "a reasonable time". The clause which reads, "and has no reasonable grounds to believe that the cheque will be paid by the bank" is an element in the offence which could not be circumvented by the crown.
I know that many representations have been made by commercial organizations to have the law amended in this respect. A prominent commercial institution in the city of Winnipeg proposed that I draft an amendment to this particular section of the code in the hope that the measure would be passed by parliament. I do not think the institutions which are supporting this proposal realize that the door is being opened to a wider extent. If this bill becomes law it would be almost impossible to convict a man for issuing an n.s.f. cheque. In many cases our criminal courts are being turned into collection agencies. If the money is paid the person who lays the information will very often go before the magistrate and ask that it be withdrawn. The practice in Winnipeg has been not to turn the criminal courts into collection agencies, and I do not believe that a court of criminal law should be used in this way. Our courts would be glutted with all sorts of informations and they could not carry on their work as well as they do at the present time.
The introducer of this bill (Mr. Neill) should be congratulated upon the attempt he has made to improve the law, but I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie.) was right when he said that if this proposed legislation becomes law the door would be opened much wider to facilitate the efforts of those who are obtaining money and goods under false pretences. This is a difficult point in criminal law, and I do not think we ought to legislate upon it in haste. For these reasons I intend to oppose the bill.

Criminal Code


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am in sympathy with the hon. member who has just preceded me (Mr. Stitt). I think there is one feature of this legislation which has not been brought to the attention of the hon. senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). If this amendment were passed it would strike at the law merchant and the customs and laws which have grown up with regard to cheques and vouchers for money. Let me put this case to the house. I buy something from an hon. member and I give him my cheque as a deposit. He presents that cheque to the bank but it is not ,paid. He could obtain what I was to give him from somebody else, but he cannot do that because I have a contract with him. That contract is that if my cheque is not paid by the bank I have a reasonable time within in which to honour it. The question would be how is "a reasonable time" to be determined. The courts would step in and probably would decide that the cheque was not to be paid on demand, that payment was to be extended for some time and the difficulty would be, as was stated by the last speaker, that that time would not be determined until determined by a court of law. I submit that this legislation being framed as it is does not accomplish what the hon. gentleman for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) his in his mind. He is perfectly justified in seeking to remedy a situation which although covered by the criminal code is not covered as definitely as he and others would like to see it. This bill would cause more trouble than ever conceived by the mind of man with regard to the issue of cheques and their being payable upon demand.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, if the criticism of my unhappy offspring had been along one definite line probably I would have felt that it was justified, but I find that it has varied considerably. The last time this bill was before the house we were told by a minister of the crown that it was felt by many people that the bill went much too far. To-night the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has told U3 that he has received protests against the bill, but I am inclined to think that those protests were from people who have made but a superficial observation of the bill. Those protests must have been because it goes too far, but the minster said it does not go far enough.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I did not say that.


Alan Webster Neill: At least that it lends itself to increasing the opportunities for crime, which is practically the same thing. I have
not the time or the knowledge of the constituencies of the various gentlemen who have spoken to refer individually to their remarks, so I will deal with them collectively.
One hon. member said that he would be in favour of this bill if it were made applicable only to those who had no accounts. That will be a simple matter to overcome. The professional criminal who goes about doing this sort of thing is not a fool. It would not take him long to realize that fact and he would come into a town and open up accounts in three or four banks. He would withdraw all the deposits with the exception of a few dollars and then go about his business. This argument already has been found to be unworkable.
Many hon. members of the legal profession *-apparently well up in their profession or they would not be here-seemed in doubt as to the meaning of "a reasonable time." I think it will be found that this is not the first bill which contains that expression, and that fact must be or should be known to hon. members. I think this phrase is used in the Bills of Exchange Act, for one. I presume that the defining of this phrase would be left to the magistrate before whom the offender was brought, who would give him a few days in which to make good his cheque.
Another hon. member said that this bill would permit the use of the courts as collecting agencies, but whether this bill is read upside down or inside out nothing can be found to suggest that it will be possible to use the courts to a larger extent than at the present time. It is a well known truism that people are apt to threaten criminal proceedings against a man in the hope of having their bills paid: that is human nature, but there is nothing in this bill to facilitate that sort of action. An hon. member who presents an argument such as that in my opinion is putting it forward simply to find fault.
Then it was claimed that it would have to be proved that the man had no funds in the bank or not sufficient funds, but that would be easy to do. Another argument was that reasonable grounds would have to be advanced that he had no credit at a bank. That could be established easily by the bank coming forward and swearing that they had never given any credit and had no intention of doing so.
The next argument was in connection with the definition of "a reasonable time". That again is very easily established.
The Minister of Justice pointed to the fact that, as we all know, there is at present a section in the criminal code dealing with the matter. The reason why this bill is introduced
Criminal Code

is to endeavour to remedy the well known defects of that procedure. As we all know, the offence comes under the obtaining of goods under false pretences, and the first essential is to prove what was in the man's mind at a certain hour on a certain date. As that is almost impossible to prove, ninety cases out of a hundred go by default. Every lawyer knows that and every court recorder will tell you so. The weakness of the section is that we have to prove an intent to defraud, and this bill is an attempt to overcome that defect.
Some hon. members wished to widen the scope of the bill to provide that it should be a criminal offence simply to issue a cheque for which there are not sufficient funds. That opens up the ground taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) the other night. We must protect the innocent man; we must not legislate that a man who carelessly or accidentally overdraws his account is liable to be sent to gaol.


Mr. ERNST:: Supposing the bill went this far:
Every one who draws and issues a cheque on a chartered bank in Canada for the payment of money and at the time he draws and issues the cheque has no funds or insufficient funds on deposit in that bank to meet the cheque, and has no reasonable grounds to believe that the cheque will be paid by the bank, is guilty of an offence.
Suppose we stop there; would that be satisfactory?


Alan Webster Neill: Hardly; it was claimed it was necessary to go the extra distance as mentioned in the section and referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). You must give the man an opportunity to make good his cheque. The honest man who has made a mistake can easily arrange the matter; he may need a day or two in which to do it. But that is where you catch the crook. He has no standing, no domicile, and that is where he falls down. The honest man is protected by giving him that reasonable time, but the crook falls down because he cannot make his cheque good in a reasonable time. After all it is important to see that an honest man who innocently overdraws his account does not suffer for so doing.
The hon. member who has just sat down has suggested a change in the wording of this section. That leads me to the suggestion, which I think is a suitable one and one which was, I believe, voiced by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), that the second reading should be allowed to pass and the bill be sent to the banking and commerce com-

mittee where it can be modified according to the wishes of the members thereof. I am not wedded to the details of the bill; I wish only to introduce the general principle of it.
Considering the limited time and the comparatively small importance of the matter, I have received an enormous amount of correspondence from people supporting the bill. I have communications from the Vancouver Board of Trade, the Bureau of Businessmen's Credits in Winnipeg, the Better Business Bureau of Montreal, the Royal Bank of Canada and other institutions. There is only one criticism amongst them all and this is only in regard to a matter of detail. It points out that I use the language "a chartered bank," whereas I should have made provision for cheques drawn on trust companies, savings banks or other institutions that issue cheques. I have also received the model bill proposed by the Associated Boards of Trade of New York where an enormous business is done. I have also received a copy of the act which is in force now in certain states, Minnesota and another adjoining state of which I forget the name. Every one of these is along the lines of this bill, only in many instances they are a little more severe. The only difference I see in them is that they do not make provision for the man who innocently overdraws his account.
I cannot see that this will open the way to any further violation of the act because it is practically wide open now. The penalty provision covers the case where a man has, as somebody has said, the "ingredients" or, as I would say, the "essentials" of the crime, no funds, no reasonable ground for supposing he had credit and who does not, upon the refusal of the bank to honour the cheque, deposit within a reasonable time the necessary money to his credit. That, I think, takes care of the objections in that regard.
I shall not delay the house longer. As I say, the house will take my word, as it took the word of the Minister of Justice, that I have received many letters from all parts of Canada in support of this bill, and I know many, because they have told me so, are writing to their member asking for his support. It seems that the one thing we can all agree upon is that there is a widespread need for some legislation of this character. When a businessmen's credit association of Canada goes on record that in one year they had to handle 70,000 bad cheques amounting to around $5,500,000, one can imagine the cost if it is only the protest fees and incidental costs to omit mention of such of the principal as is finally lost.

Civil Service-Returned Soldiers
Somebody said the other night that I had been speaking with a good deal of pathos- I do not just know what was meant by that- aibout the man who got stung by accepting a bad cheque and that a man does not need to take a cheque unless he likes. How long would a man stay in business who refused all cheques? That is a very poor argument. W'hat about the pathos, if you call it pathos, in regard to the general public?-because it is the general public that pays in the long run. It does not matter whether it is a boarding house or hotel or store or bank who is first robbed, it is the general public that pays, because the amount is added to the cost of doing business; I do not see the pathos of it. There is undoubtedly an insistent demand for legislation of this character. My chief hope when I introduced this bill was to start a discussion in the house and the country. Then I hoped, when the attention of the country was drawn to the matter and influential pressure was brought to bear on the government, they would see tlheir way on an occasion like this to say that if I dropped the bill they would take it up this session or another session when they were bringing in an amendment to the criminal code. That would be satisfactory to me. Otherwise I would suggest that the bill be allowed to receive its second reading and be sent to the committee on banking and commerce if the house so desires.


Hugh Guthrie: May I have the indulgence of the house to answer my hon. friend's last suggestion? I quite agree with him that the evil is one which should be remedied. I am sorry that I cannot see the remedy in this bill, and I believe if it be passed in its present form it will defeat the object of my hon. friend who has introduced it. I contemplate bringing in some amendments to the criminal code during the present session. I do not know that I can include the subject matter of the bill, but it is worthy of our best consideration and some clause should be drafted which would provide against an evil that has grown to enormous proportions in Canada and in other countries.
What I said when I spoke before was that this bill rather opened than shut the door. At present if a man issues a cheque upon a bank in which he has no account he may be found guilty of obtaining money under false pretences. Under this bill he will not; he will have a reasonable time within which to cover the amount of the cheque. In this bill there is an invitation to a reckless man to issue cheques in the hope that he will
be able to adjust the matter satisfactorily at a later date. The law as it stands to-day is more stringent. I believe, however, the law in respect of worthless cheques is defective and some remedy should be applied, but I do not think the remedy lies in my hon. friend's bill. If he is willing to drop his proposal, I will undertake to have the matter carefully considered in the department in the hope that later a clause may be drafted which will cover the matter.


Alan Webster Neill: With that assurance I would ask leave to withdraw the bill.
Bill withdrawn.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. JMaclnms for the second reading of Bill No. 45, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Mr. MadINNIS:	The last time this bill
was up for discussion the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) adjourned the debate. As I do not see him in the house this evening I think the bill had better stand.
Bill stands.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 9. consideration of the motion of Mr. Bi-asset for the second reading of Bill No. 42, to amend the Bankruptcy Act as respects locality of a debtor.
Mr. SI LAKER:: Is the house ready for
the question?
Motion negatived.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TV. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg) moved the second reading of Bill No. 97, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 23. consideration in committee of Bill No. is! to amend the Civil Sendee Act (returned soldiers' preference)-Mr. Boulanger-Mr. La-Vergne in the chair.
3376	COMMONS
Supply-Interior-National Parks
Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise.


Charles A. Stewart: If that
motion carries, undoubtedly it will kill the bill.


Hugh Guthrie: There can be no debate
on the motion.


Edward Joseph Garland: On a point of order, may I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether it is in order to move that the committee rise before any business has been transacted in committee?


The CHAIRMAN:: It is a legal motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
going to raise the same point. In many of the provincial legislatures and in the British parliament they have a motion that the committee rise. I should like to ask if it is a proper motion to move when the house is in committee on a bill. Undoubtedly if the motion carried it will kill the bill.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is a proper motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) I ask leave to withdraw Bill No. 33, to amend the Companies Act.
Bill withdrawn.



DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Charles Murphy: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was making a few observations in reply to the right hon. leader of the opposition. National parks are a great asset to the Dominion, and are becoming increasingly so. And the people are becoming-shall I say?-park conscious. Requests are being received from various parts of the Dominion extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific that the number of these parks be increased. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) drew attention to the Prince Albert park in Saskatchewan, and rightly so, as he is the representative, I believe, of the riding in which the park is located. I can assure the right hon. gentleman that the needs of that park are considered the same as are the needs of our other national parks,
[The Chairman.]
and we are making this year a considerable improvement there, which we hope will not only add to the enjoyment of the people of Saskatchewan but will attract tourists from other parts of the Dominion as well as from the United States and other countries. I think the right hon. gentleman will be interested to know that we are establishing a water system for the convenience of those who patronize the park. I mention that in particular because I think he had that in mind when he was speaking this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Charles Murphy: As I said a moment ago, requests for additional parks are coming from all over Canada. I do not believe these requests can be ignored for any great length of time. It is unfortunate that at present conditions are such that we cannot extend the services as rapidly as the people desire. The spirit is willing, but the pocket book is weak.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the government is contemplating a large expenditure for unemployment relief, I should like to reecho the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that perhaps there would be no better way in which relief work could serve a double purpose than by putting men to work in these parks making roads and other improvements, and providing for them while at work and paying them. This would be to the advantage of everyone concerned.


Peter John Veniot: Has any application for a
national park been received from the government of New Brunswick?


Charles Murphy: A request was received
some time during the autumn of last year that a survey be made of New Brunswick with a view to reporting upon the suitability of certain areas in the province for the purposes of a national park. This was done by an officer of the department. No action has as yet been taken upon his report. The information is not available except to the department for a reason which I think the hon. member will understand, that until a definite decision is arrived at in regard to this matter it should not be made public.


Peter John Veniot: The situation is different
in New Brunswick from what it is out west, where you would have to obtain land from the provincial authorities. Has the government of New Brunswick made any offer to cooperate with the Dominion by providing a park site in their wooded territory?

Supply-Interior-National Parks


Charles Murphy: I think it may be stated
that it is understood that the province is agreeable to donate an area for park purposes. The hon. member is not quite correct in stating that other provinces are not willing to grant free areas-


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that.
Mr. MURPHY': -because the province of British Columbia has also made an offer.


Peter John Veniot: I said the situation down there was different from what it was in the prairie provinces, because until recently the natural resources of these provinces were not under provincial control.
Mr. MacMILiLAN (Saskatoon): I desire to associate myself with the remarks just before recess of the right hon. the leader of the opposition in reference to the Prince Albert national park. I happen to have been president of the association to which he referred- the Saskatchewan Provincial National Park Association-and I want to say to him that we in Saskatchewan appreciate most sincerely what the late government did to provide the Prince Albert national park. I am sure the committee will be glad to know that that park is the poor man's paradise. I have been through most of our national parks, and have come to the conclusion that Banff and Jasper are paradises for millionaires; but Prince Albert park is a place where the people on the prairies can go at little cost and find one of the most beautiful spots in Canada. On behalf of the boards of trade of Prince Albert and Saskatoon, with both of which I am associated, I should like to convey an invitation to every member to visit us. It won't cost them very much and we promise them a good time.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad of the opportunity of agreeing for once at least with the right hon. leader of the opposition in the remarks he has just made. It may be the last time I shall have the pleasure of so agreeing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


James Langstaff Bowman: I hope not. Last fall after the short session the Minister of the Interior appropriated from the $20,000,000 relief fund a certain amount of money to be expended in some of the national paries. Of that fund $24,000 was set aside for the Riding Mountain park, the newest, and-I must say it with all modesty-by long odds the most beautiful of our national parks. The expenditure of that money during the 22H0-214
winter months afforded great relief to the municipalities in and around the park. As soon as I was advised that this money was available I got in touch with the reeves of the various municipalities and the mayors of the various towns and villages and advised them to form a committee. I also got in touch with the acting superintendent of the park and requested him to meet this committee and arrange as to the distribution of the work. It was decided that only married men with families would be entitled to work, and the most needy people in the district were placed on the employment list. In that way the money was expended to the very best advantage. Doubtless this coming winter we shall have to expend large sums of money for the relief of unemployment. I do not know of any better way of applying the money than by improving our parks, and I shall be ready to most heartily endorse any proposition of that kind.


Peter Heenan: About 1922, I think, the
federal government intimated to the government of Ontario that if they would turn over sufficient land up around the Lake of the Woods the federal government would be willing to establish a national park. There was some controversy about it, but to make a long story short an area was considered partly in Ontario and partly in Manitoba. Since that time the natural resources have been returned to Manitoba. In the event of the government being still willing to establish a park comprising an area both in Manitoba and in Ontario, would it be necessary foe those two governments to consent before that action could be taken?


Charles Murphy: At the time the area now known as the Riding Mountain national park was set aside for that purpose I believe there was also an agitation and representations made to the government to the effect that an area in eastern Manitoba should be made the site of the national park in that province. I do not know whether or not this is the same area to which my hon. friend refers, but I take it to be so. After considerable controversy, and a great deal of thought on the part of the then government, the present site in Manitoba was chosen. As to the question whether or not the Dominion government would establish a park in Ontario and Manitoba at the present-


Peter Heenan: I have not asked that
question as yet; the minister is probably anticipating me. I asked if it would be

3378	COMMONS
Supply-Interior-National Parks
necessary for the governments of Manitoba and Ontario to agree to donate the necessary area if this government decided to establish such a park.


Charles Murphy: I thought that was what
the hon. member had in mind. Certainly it would be necessary, if a park were established there, for the governments of the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario to donate the area. That would be my reaction to any proposal of that kind, because the other areas which were set aside for park purposes in the three western provinces were taken out of the resources of those provinces, and no contribution has been made by this government for their alienation. Therefore I take it that the other provinces in which parks have not been established will be in exactly the same position; in my view it would be necessary for them to donate the land for the parks.


Peter Heenan: Following that question
and the very satisfactory answer, may I say that I do not believe there is a national park in Ontario to-day.


Charles Murphy: Yes, there are three
areas which come under the classification of national parks. One is at Point Pelee in Essex county, on lake Erie; there are some islands in Georgian bay which have been set aside, and there are certain islands in the St. Lawrence river classed and administered as national parks.


Peter Heenan: At any rate, Ontario is a
very large province, and I do not know of any area, even Prince Albert, which offers such a fine location for a national park as the district surrounding the lake of the Woods. In view of the fact that the federal government has intimated on several occasions to the people in that part of the country that a national park might be established there if the province acquiesced, will the minister give the matter very favourable consideration?


Charles Murphy: I should be very glad to do so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister	mentioned an area in British
Columbia in regard to which representations had been made to him. Is the minister prepared to disclose the location of that area, or would he rather not do so?


Charles Murphy: There were several areas
suggested, which were inspected by an officer of the department, who made a report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was
Garibaldi park one of the areas?


Charles Murphy: No, I do not think so.


Robert McKenzie: I should
like to ask the minister if there is any appropriation here for the establishment of a park in the Moose Mountain area in Saskatchewan. There is a growing feeling there that this would be an ideal location for a national park in Saskatchewan, which is a very large province. The thickly populated portion of Saskatchewan is a considerable distance from the Prince Albert national park, and I believe representations have been made to the minister that a park should be established in the Moose Mountain area. Has any appropriation been made for that purpose?


Charles Murphy: The only time my attention was directed to this matter, I think, was when the hon. member for Regina spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne at the special session. I think at that time the hon. member mentioned some area in southern Saskatchewan, and I believe I have had one letter in regard to the matter. Up to the present it has not been considered by the government.


Robert McKenzie: I had this
matter up with the former minister during previous sessions, and I remember he told me that until the Manitoba park question was settled the government would not consider a second park in Saskatchewan, but that as soon as the park question was settled in other provinces the government would take into consideration the establishment of a second park in Saskatchewan. I believe this would be an ideal location when the matter is considered, so I would impress it upon the minister now and ask him to keep it in mind. We are looking forward to the time when we shall have a national park established in the Moose Mountain area of Saskatchewan.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I should like to say
just a word with regard to the advantage of our national parks, and I desire to support everything that has been said in that regard, particularly by the right hon. leader of the opposition. Northern Canada now is, and in the future will become more and more, the playground of North America, if not of a large part of the rest of the world. You cannot find any area with greater natural advantages, and in my opinion we cannot spend our money to greater advantage than in connection with these parks, because our tourist traffic is one of our greatest assets. Everything we can do which will induce people,

Supply-Interior-Notional Parks
particularly from the United States and the old country, to spend their time out of doors in the ideal surroundings which we have all across Canada will increase our national wealth as much as anything else we can do.
I also support very heartily the suggestion with regard to the possibility of providing work for many of our unemployed in improving our national parks. Certainly you can employ many men, particularly in the summer and fall, in making these parks more easily accessible and more enjoyable to the people who visit them.
As regards the location of the parks, I believe that only this year, or perhaps last year, it was looked upon as a responsibility of the Dominion government to provide the parks in the western provinces where the Dominion controlled the natural resources. The provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, controlling their own resources, were in a large measure taking such steps as they could to provide facilities for themselves. But now that it has become a national matter, certainly the attention of the federal government should be directed to making provision in the eastern provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia for these same facilities. I do not wish to be regarded as setting up one part of Canada against another. The whole country is wonderful; anyone who has traversed Canada from end to end must agree with that. But I doubt whether there is anywhere in the world greater opportunity for providing national parks, outing grounds, attractions for tourists, than there is in the northern part of Ontario and the northern part of Quebec, down through New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. And I believe that the western provinces have national parks. I agree with my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River; I am not going to say where the parks should be. I have no doubt that some of the vast areas set apart as reserve parks of one kind or another, could be used as national parks, by arrangement with the governments of Ontario and Quebec. I will not speak for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, because I am not conversant with the situation there. There is in northern Ontario an area which is the largest game preserve in the world. In Quebec the same facilities are to be found. I think the department should give particular attention to this matter, making provision in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick for proper facilities. It would add to the national wealth in a way which in my opinion cannot be exceeded by anything else.


Charles A. Stewart: It certainly warms the cockles of one's heart to hear the words of approval uttered to-night with regard to the national park policy of the government. There was a time when the minister in charge had to fight for every dollar he could get. I am more than pleased to see my honoured leader so enthusiastic now about national parks. Back in 1923, when I was working for an increase in appropriations from the government, and later in the house, I met with strenuous opposition; but I struck to my guns, and to-night it is a real pleasure for me to hear hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house saying how pleased they are with the expenditures on national parks. The only regret I have is that the appropriation has been cut this year. I fought for increased appropriations every year. My policy was to get a national park in every province. I was not willing to accept Algonquin park, though it was well taken care of by the Ontario government, but wished to secure in Ontario an area of land as nature had left it and to establish there a national park. And the same in Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Indeed, negotiations had proceeded satisfactorily with the New Brunswick government.
I believe that the greatest drawing card for bringing to Canada the $300,000,000 of tourist money which we are told oomes into this country annually has been the setting aside of national parks in the Rocky mountains. That was where they were first established. I may tell my hon. friend from Saskatoon that it is not at all a millionaire's paradise. He will enjoy the same facilities at the same cost in Banff and Jasper as he will get in the Prince Albert national park. No favourites are played. By the payment of a small sum a man can secure a campsite and enjoy himself as well as the millionaire who pays $100 a day for a room in the Banff Springs hotel. That is one of the things we prided ourselves upon-that the parks were available to the common people.
I hope the agreement is not completed, because I would urge upon the minister the importance of taking in what is known as the Robson area in British Columbia, which is quite valuable from the scenic point of view, and adding it to Jasper park. There is urgent necessity that something be done at once-[DOT] I hope it will be done this winter * by way of appropriation either from the amount voted for unemployment relief or from some other source-to continue that highway through the Robson section of Jasper national park. And it should no longer be known as the Robson national park but should form
33S0	COMMONS
Supply-Interior-National Parks
a part of Jasper national park. There are 35 miles of roadway to be completed and when it is all constructed we shall have a highway through northern Ontario, through Jasper national park and on to the coast. I trust that the British Columbia government, for the same reason, will find it expedient to complete those portions of this northern roadway connecting Prince Rupert and Vancouver with Edmonton by way of Jasper national park. I shall be glad to know when the agreement is completed that the Robson area has been added to the park, because it is something upon which I set my heart. The matter was discussed frequently during the time the transfer of the natural resources was under consideration. That highway is very necessary. It will provide employment for a large number of people this winter when employment will be badly needed, and it will give two highways through the Rocky mountains and on to the coast, making the district more attractive to American tourists, whom we are glad to welcome and whose money we are equally glad to receive. The highway will provide a circular tour through the mountains, and that is what we had in mind with regard to that program.
The southern road must be on the way to completion, the road by way of Columbia river, so that one could leave Calgary and drive to Vancouver entirely through Canadian territory. The completion of the northern road will give settlers in the northern sections of both provinces proper intercommunication.
Let me congratulate the minister on his reticence in announcing where he will select the area in New Brunswick. From personal experience in connection with selecting two areas as a result of which there was a good deal of dissension, I have been led to realize, as I am glad the minister realizes, how dangerous it is to suggest where a selection is to be made until one is prepared tb make it; because factional quarrels ensue, sometimes making the selection more difficult.


Mr. MULLINS:: Hon. gentlemen are
anxious for national parks. For their information I may say that the Riding Mountain national park is in the constituency of Marquette, and in view of the trouble I have had in Marquette on account of the national park I do not know that I am so keen to have it in the constituency. If some hon. gentlemen had the same trouble to contend with that I have had, they would probably be not so keen on national parks. It is one of the most beautiful parks in western Canada, as the hon. member for
IMr. C. A. Stewart.]
Dauphin has observed. He lives quite close to it. I know the national park at Prince Albert is a very nice one and I agree with my hon. friend in his statement with regard to it. But I see an item here of $1,319,000 and I would like to know how much of that item is going to be spent in the Riding Mountain national park. That is a beautiful park in the centre of Manitoba and would prove to be very attractive to the people from the Dakotas and throughout Manitoba. Many tourists could be attracted from the northern states, and I would like to know the amount to be spent for this purpose.


Charles Murphy: The item under discussion is divided among the parks situated throughout Canada. AVhile the hon. member for Marquette claims that this particular area is situated within his riding, I do not think the hon. member for Dauphin will relinquish all claim to it. The constituency of Neepawa, which I have the honour to represent, is also contiguous to that area.


An hon. MEMBER:: The park is all right, then.


Charles Murphy: I can assure hon. gentlemen that the Riding Mountain national park will not be overlooked, but in making that statement I do not wish to be misunderstood. As long as I have the honour to administer the department of which I am now the head, I do not propose to make any distinction on account of geographical location as between these various areas.


John Livingstone Brown: Who is the superintendent of Riding Mountain national park?


Charles Murphy: Mr. James Smart is the acting superintendent.


John Livingstone Brown: When did he assume that office?


Charles Murphy: Some time in July, 1930.


John Livingstone Brown: Where was he loeated when he assumed that office?


Charles Murphy: Before coming to the park he carried on his duties at Prince Albert.


John Livingstone Brown: But on assuming his duties, from what point did he administer the affairs of the park?


Charles Murphy: F.rom within the park
itself.


John Livingstone Brown: Are there any buildings in the park?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: F'rom where does Mr. Smart administer that office now?

Supply-In lerior-Nalional Parks


Charles Murphy: In the Riding Mountain national park.


John Livingstone Brown: Does he live there?


Charles Murphy: I have not kept track of him, but my officials assure me that he and his family are living in the park at the present time.


John Livingstone Brown: Since when?


Charles Murphy: I suppose since the park opened in the spring,


John Livingstone Brown: Is Mr. Smart not living in the town of Neepawa?


Charles Murphy: No.


Mr. LUCHKO  VICH@: I beg to differ with the hon. member for Dauphin and the hon. member opposite with respect to their claims in connection with the scenic beauty of parks; the most, beautiful park in Canada is Jasper park. The hon. member for West Edmonton took the words out of my mouth when he spoke of the strategic value of building a road through that park. There are about forty or fifty miles of road to be built in order to connect Alberta with British Columbia and the coast, and if the minister would put two hundred or two thousand men to work on that road, he would not only be doing much to help the park but he would attract more tourists to this park from other parts of Canada. I am thoroughly in accord with what the hon. member for West Edmonton said with regard to Jasper park.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to supplement the remarks of the hon. members for West Edmonton and Vegre-ville with regard to Jasper park. These remarks would apply also to Mount Robson park in British Columbia, because the two parks adjoin one another. Mount Robson park is just west of the interprovincial boundary, and Jasper park is just east. The road of which mention was made would be very easy to construct. The Grand Trunk Pacific construction people built a road through the park in order to transport supplies from Edmonton down to the Fraser valley. That roadway i3 still there and the new road probably could be built on the same location, or at least very close to it. The road from Jasper to the west end of Mount Robson park would be about fifty miles long, and would connect with the road system of British Columbia. One part of the road would go through Mount Robson park, down the North Thompson river to the city of Kamloops, where it would connect with the interprovincial highway system. The other part would continue down the Fraser
river from Mount Robson park towards Prince George, where connection also would be made with the interprovincial roadway system. Neither of these roads is completed, although the one from Mount Robson park down the North Thompson will be completed this summer if the provincial government completes the program of road construction which it has in view for the present season. Much of the work on this road was done last winter in connection with unemployment relief, and I notice that both these roads are in the program announced within the last few days by Premier Tolmie of British Columbia for unemployment relief. I do not know of any way in which more work could be supplied than by the construction of these roads, which are necessaiy in order to carry on the development of British Columbia. There are good lands contiguous to them, as well as. mining prospects and timber.
I consider that the key to the situation lathe transfer of Mount Robson park to the federal authorities. During the early session of last year the former Minister of the Interior told me that he was perfectly willing: to take over this parf from the British: Columbia government, and Premier Tolmie has advised me that he is anxious to turn it over to the. federal authorities. There is nothing to prevent the present government going ahead and completing the transaction and building what would be one of the finest highways on the whole North American continent. The hon. member for Gloucester shakes his head, but I want to tell him that compared to British Columbia New Brunswick is not in the picture at all as far as scenery is concerned.


Charles A. Stewart: I agree with that statement.


Peter John Veniot: I disagree.


John Anderson Fraser: But that is the fact, just the same; I suggest to the minister that nothing will provide more unemployment relief than the completion of that work. It is in the interests of all concerned-British Columbia, Alberta, and the dominion as well -that the park be taken over without further delay and that the work be undertaken and proceeded with vigorously, because there is a great deal of work for the unemployed even in that construction of fifty miles. In addition it will assist the British Columbia authorities to construct necessary roads as a matter of unemployment relief. I hope the present government will not be in any way backward, but will insist on the completion of this transaction so that this very necessary work may be carried on.
33S2

Supply-Interior-National Parks


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I have in mind a question that I wished to ask the minister some time ago, and I have been waiting with a good deal of patience for an opportunity. Before putting the question may I be permitted to associate myself with one phase of what has been said by a number of other hon. members in regard to the value of the work that might be done in relation to the problem of unemployment. It has been stated that in the construction of roads leading into and within parks-I had Jasper park in mind as one of the largest and least developed-[DOT] an enormous amount of profitable work remains to be undertaken. From what we have found during the year and what we anticipate in the future, there will be great need for providing work for that unfortunate class of unemployed known as single men. Although they are useful men they seem to have no right on the earth in most plans for affording employment. As they are not married and have no dependents, we sometimes forget that they also must eat. I would make the suggestion-it is not a new one-;hat in connection with this work it would be a good plan, easily worked out, to establish a number of fairly sizable camps through that part of the country to which could be taken those transient single men whose condition of unemployment is such a tremendous problem to all the municipalities. As no municipality :seems to be willing to aid them, a few thousands of those men, taken from the different provinces and centralized in such camps as I have suggested, would be provided for, and this would ensure a most necessary work being done.
The question I wish to ask is this: I notice in the estimate there is provision for taking care of indigents in the parks. Just what is the plan for expending that money? How much is expended? Does the federal government assume the entire responsibility for indigents within the parks, and does it invite indigents from any other part of the country to go there, or is there some stipulation as to residence?


Charles Murphy: Those indigents are cared for in a manner similar to that in which a municipality cares for its indigents. We do not encourage transients to come into the parks, nor do we let them starve if they do happen to be there. But we confine our relief measures as much as possible to those who are resident within the park areas. The relief is distributed through the park officials.


Alfred Speakman: The federal government assumes the full responsibility for indigents within the park areas?
Mr. MURPHY": Yes.


Alfred Speakman: About how much is
expected to be spent out of this fund for this puipose, or has any estimate been made?


Charles Murphy: A few thousand dollars.
It would be a relatively small amount, because some of the parks have no permanent population.


John Livingstone Brown: When Mr. Smart came from Prince Albert last July to assume the position of superintendent of the Riding Mountain national park, from what point did he begin to administer the duties of his office?


Charles Murphy: As far as I am aware he came to the park. There is a building there which was formerly a forestry office and which is at present used as the administration building. When I took over the duties of this position, it was used by Mr. Smart as his residence.


John Livingstone Brown: What staff has he?


Charles Murphy: I think an office staff of three. Then there are the park wardens. I am not just certain of the number-possibly ten or twelve.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Smart, then, did not for the time being administer the duties of his office from the town of Dauphin?
Mr. MURPHY': As far as I am aware, the area now known as the park was administered by the forestry officials and there was an office in the town of Dauphin. Mr. Smart, so far as I know, lived within the park itself in this building of which I have spoken, and he may have made use of the office in Dauphin. The Riding Mountain national park was created, I think, in December, 1929, and Mr. Smart came to that park in July, 1930.


John Livingstone Brown: Is it not a fact, then, that he was moved from Dauphin to Neepawa? Is that statement correct or incorrect?


Charles Murphy: Mr. Smart, as I have already stated, to the best of my information took up his residence within the park itself.


James Langstaff Bowman: Mr. Smart did, in my opinion, operate the park from Dauphin, having his office in the forestry office in the post office building in that town. It is quite true he spent part of his time in the park and performed part of the administration work in the park. But as I understand it the
33S3

Supply-Interior-National Parks
point of my hon. friend's question is whether or not the office has been removed from Dauphin to Neepawa. I have the assurance of the Minister of the Interior that such is not the case; that Mr. Smart is at the present time only acting superintendent. For the time being the administration work is being conducted by Mr. Smart and his staff from an office in the park, but so far as the head office of the park is concerned, the situation, so far as I am aware-and I have been in close touch with the minister-has not changed at all since the time Mr. Smart first came to Dauphin. I am curious to know why the hon. member for Lisgar is so much interested in Dauphin. I do not know that he has ever been in that constituency.


John Livingstone Brown: He has.


James Langstaff Bowman: If he has, it has not been for a number of years.


John Livingstone Brown: I have been there.


James Langstaff Bowman: When was the hon. member there?


John Livingstone Brown: I do not think I have to answer that.


James Langstaff Bowman: The hon. member, for
some particular reason best known to himself, seems to be somewhat interested in the constituency of Dauphin. I may say that for the time being I am the representative of that constituency, and to the best of my ability will look after its interests without any help from the hon. member for Lisgar.


John Livingstone Brown: I would not wonder if 1 represented the views of the electorate of Dauphin better than the hon. member.


James Langstaff Bowman: I resent the remarks ol the hon. member.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I am interested in this park, but from a purely altruistic point of view. I hope the hon. member gets everything he wants, and the same applies to the hon. member for Marquette. The reason I spoke in favour of Jasper park is that it is a large park with greater potentialities than all those other small parks put together. I should say the park in the constituency of the former Postmaster General rates as a puny hill compared even with our little mountains.


Peter John Veniot: There is no park in my
constituency.


Michael Luchkovich: Well, in New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: Nor in New Brunswick.


Michael Luchkovich: Then you have no troubles at all. I think Jasper park is larger than all of New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: I protest against that insinuation against the province of New Brunswick.


Michael Luchkovich: The question I want to ask the minister is this: What difference is there between an indigent, say, in a municipality, and an indigent in one of these parks? Whom does the minister class as indigents, and what attitude does the government take with respect to them?


Charles Murphy: As the cases arise they are investigated by one of our officials and by any police officer in the locality. After investigation the needs of the indigents are given proper attention.


John Livingstone Brown: Why is Mr. Smart spoken of as acting superintendent?


Charles Murphy: Simply because that is what he is.


John Livingstone Brown: I suppose the minister is aware that Mr. Smart was brought there to be superintendent of the park, but all through this discussion he is spoken of as the acting superintendent. I suppose that as soon as a person of the proper political persuasion is found Mr. Smart will be sent somewhere else and someone favourable to the views of hon. gentlemen opposite given the post of superintendent.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Smart is acting superintendent of the park. There are many officials in the government service who are acting in a certain capacity, and are so styled. For many months, if not years, a former Minister of Finance was called Acting Minister of Finance in this house before he finally became Minister of Finance. The hon. gentleman's suppositions in regard to what may be done in the future do him no credit. They might represent the action he would take under similar circumstances, but it does not necessarily follow that those who sit on this side take the same view.


John Livingstone Brown: If when the minister leaves ids office his record from the standpoint of political patronage is as good as mine, he will have a good record indeed.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. member for
Lisgar seems to be interested in Mr. Smart. Mr. Smart is a Liberal. If anyone should have to say as to the patronage in Ridmg Mountain district or in Marquette, it should

Supply-Interior-Historic Sites
be myself. For the information of the hon. member for Lisgar I may say that I have never made any request to have Mr. Smart removed.


Mr. CANTLEY:: The minister in the course of his remarks stated that this question of national parks was a live one from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I have heard a good deal during the last fifty-five minutes in regard to parks in the western provinces, but I have not heard a single word with respect to parks in Nova Scotia or in the maritimes generally. May I ask the minister what he has in view with regard to national parks in the maritime provinces?


Charles Murphy: At the present time the only request we have for the establishment of a park in the maritime provinces is from New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: That is the place.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend from
Gloucester says that that is the place, and I agree with him. I sincerely hope that it may be found possible in the very near future, figuratively speaking, to have a park established in that province.


Thomas Cantley: I thank the minister for
what he has been good enough to say, but I would point out to him that this question of a park in Nova Scotia was brought before the house, not last year, but two or three years ago, and I think on more than one occasion. In the eastern part of the province of Nova Scotia about the head waters of the Liscome river, at the corner of the three counties of Halifax, Pictou and Guys-borough, is a large section of country, perhaps the best large section that we have in the maritimes, and certainly in eastern Nova Scotia. It is a section of country admirably fitted for a national park. I ask the minister if he will be good enough to have one of his officers make some investigation of the district, and give the matter his consideration. I hope that that will be done.


Charles Murphy: I shall be glad to give
it some consideration.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: With what has been
said as to national parks and the desirability of keeping them up I fully agree, and so I shall add nothing to what has been said in that regard. These national parks have their value, but it lies largely in scenic beauty. A lot has been said, and quite properly, about the national parks, but not a word has been said about the educational value of the historic sites. There is a decrease of $277,000 in this item. Will the minister be

good enough to say to what extent that reduction will be applied to the maintenance of the historic sites? While I am very much interested in the national parks from the national point of view, I am also greatly interested in the historic sites, and I would not like to see this particular activity of the department go entirely by the board. To what extent will this matter of historic sites be affected by the decrease of $277,000?


Charles Murphy: The work will be carried
on in practically the same way as in the past.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then there is something here that I cannot understand. If there is a decrease of $277,000 in this item, a certain part of that reduction must apply to the national parks, a certain part to historic sites, to the care of indigents in the parks and so forth. What proportion of the reduction will involve cessation of work on the historic sites? Does this mean doing away with a certain number of employees in Ottawa? Does it mean doing away with the maintenance of historic sites in Canada? What activities will be curtailed as a result of this decrease


Charles Murphy: We are spending on the
historic sites this year about $8,000 less than last year, but the work is not being curtailed in any way. It simply means that we are not doing quite as much work this year in marking new sites.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Does it mean a decrease of staff in Ottawa, and if so, to what extent?


Charles Murphy: This work is carried on
by the parks branch generally, and is not a separate branch in itself.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: But have any employees of the parks branch in Ottawa been let out, and if so, how many?


Charles Murphy: There are fewer employees in the park department at present than there were a year ago.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: In the historic sites
branch have any employees been retired or received notice of retirement?


Charles Murphy: Major Pinard and two
stenographers.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Those are the only
ones?


Charles Murphy: That is my information.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: What is the reason for
their retirement? I did not understand that the historic sites department was affected by the natural resources transfer.

Supply-Pensions


Charles Murphy: The same explanation
applies that I have already given the hon. member.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Which is no explanation at all.


Mr. CAYLEY:: Has the minister made
provision for the marking of the sites of the first cheese factory in Oxford county? Doctor Ruddick mentioned it.


Charles Murphy: It has been recommended by the advisory board. Action has not yet been taken upon the recommendation.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: What sum will be expended?


Charles Murphy: Usually we erect cairns
which are all pretty much of the same type.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: That work will be done
this year?


Mr. SANDERSON:: Following the remarks of my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Cayley), I desire to advise the minister that a cheese factory was established in the county of Perth some years before the establishment of the cheese factory to which he has referred.


Jean-François Pouliot: When is it intended to
erect the proposed monument at Cafoano to commemorate the old portage road and the old fort?


Charles Murphy: I hope the work will be
done this year.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is any systematic plan
followed in advertising our national parks not only in Canada, but in the United States and other countries?


Charles Murphy: We do not expend any
money on advertising our parks, but we have been very fortunate in obtaining much free publicity for them. The hon. member will notice in the advertising sections of certain magazines that often the major portion of the space is taken up in advertising the scenic attractions of Canada, and this is a service which we are getting gratis.


Milton Neil Campbell: Since the natural resources were turned over to the western provinces they have set apart several areas for park purposes, and no doubt the provincial park departments will freely advertise these particular areas. I suggest to the minister that he keep in touch with the provincial departments in order to coordinate the advertising and so avoid unnecessary duplication.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
European war-naval, militia and air forces after the war, $50,500,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this
vote for the annual cost of all pensions paid to ex-servicemen throughout Canada?


Murray MacLaren: Yes, and
rather more. It includes pensions for disabled members of the Canadian expeditionary force, members of the active militia since August 4, 1914, dependents of disabled members of the expeditionaiy force, and also dependents of the active militia who died on service as a result of disability incurred thereon. It includes also the reinstatement of pensioners who commuted their pensions, and supplementary pensions to warrant officers and others of the imperial forces who were prewar residents of Canada, and the dependents of such pensioners; also pensions to ex-members of the French, Belgian and Italian forces; grants for burial of pensioners who died of their disabilities and whose estate was not financially able to bear the expense; lastly, grants to members of the permanent force subsequent to August 4.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It means the pension cost has gone up by $*>00,000 since last year as the result of the change in legislation?


Murray MacLaren: Did the hon. member
ask if the item was increased by $500,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. Is
that the result of the legislation passed last year creating additional facilities for granting
pension ?


Murray MacLaren: No, this is simply for
pensions. The increase over last year is $500,000 for the entire vote, but of the $50,000,000 voted last year only about $44,200,000 was spent. So that nearly $6,000,000 of the vote last year was unexpended, which will allow about $6,500,000 to meet the increased pensions of the coming year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
the information I desired to obtain. How much does the minister estimate will be the increased cost of pensions as a result of the legislation passed last year?


Murray MacLaren: That is the estimate,


Mr. RALSTON:: Perhaps this would be as
good a lime as any to bring to the attention of the minister a matter to which I think some consideration should be given. This
Supply-Pensions

afternoon the minister dealt with a resolution providing for amendments to the Pension Act, adding to the machinery particularly with regard to pension tribunals and the number of what are called commission counsel. Regardless of the fact that the legislation was concurred in by all sides of the house and was at least to be tried out, I believe there is one radical defect in this system of using commission counsel. I do not believe anyone realized just how far we were going in that respect when the legislation was passed.
To place my point clearly before the committee I want to submit that the term "commission counsel" is a misnomer, and that the function of commission counsel is entirely out of place in any scheme of judicial administra-tration. The situation is this: Under the statute the Board of Pension Commissioners entertain an application for pension, and if they do not see their way clear to grant the pension the application is automatically referred to the pension tribunal. As I understand it they do not exercise any detailed judicial function with regard to investigation which they previously exercised, perhaps feeling that there is another tribunal which can consider the matter further. But this is what I feel is wrong: After the pension commissioners have refused the application or have decided that the aj^dicant has not made out a case, the matter goes to the tribunal. Then counsel on the staff of and instructed by the Board of Pension Commissioners, which has made the refusal, appears before the tribunal and objects to the pension being granted, or at least puts before the tribunal all the factors which might possibly be invoked in opposition to the granting of the pension. It is exactly the same as if a court of primary jurisdiction were so far interested in upholding its decision that it engaged a lawyer to appear before the appeal court to plead its case and see that its decision was upheld.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this places the board of pension commissioners in an invidious position, and I do not think it is of assistance to the ex-service man. On the contrary it is a detriment to him. This idea of counsel being counsel for the commission should be done away with. If counsel are to appear before the tribunal to present the state's side of the case, call them federal counsel or whatever you like but let them appear in their true position. I repeat that when they appear as commission counsel it is not fair either to the commission or to the ex-service man.
As I said previously, I do not think we realized the unsoundness or the implications of our action when we provided for the
[Mr. Ralstoi 1
appointment of these gentlemen as commission counsel. I do not want to labour the point, but I am sure a statement of the case will convince the committee that the present position in this respect is not a sound one. I understand that those men take their instructions, as they are bound to do, from the board of pension commissioners, who say what case is to be appealed and what case is not to be appealed. The Board of Pension Commissioners give them the facts and arguments, and that is not a position in which a court should find itself, even though it is authorized by statute and called upon to perform that duty. The board of pension commissioners should be relieved from the duty of instructing these counsel, who should be put upon some other basis. I have been trying to think of some other title for them; I suggest "federal counsel" for want of a better name, and I submit that suggestion to the minister because I believe it is the cause of a great deal of heart burning, and probably some recrimination and criticism of the Board of Pension Commissioners which may not be justified. Ex-service men think it is the cause of their not getting pensions to which they believe they are entitled.


Alfred Speakman: Perhaps I might be
permitted to follow that argument a little before the minister replies. When this matter was dealt with by the committee last year the question referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Ralston) was fully discussed, and it was the impression of a number of members of the committee, and also of the legion, that it would be to the advantage of the applicant were such an official to appear. The legion apparently felt that if there were no officer whose duty it was to point out to the tribunal the weaknesses of any case, the tribunal itself might feel called upon to do so, and it was thought that this would detract from the position of the tribunal as a judicial body. A number of us did not hold that opinion, and certainly no one expected it to be carried to the extent that commission counsel should in such cases act as opposing counsel.
Going a little further, I should like to direct the attention of the minister to another evil which has resulted from the granting to the commission of the right of appeal. That is, the commission through their counsel may appeal to the federal appeal board from a favourable decision of the tribunal. It was the impression of many of us that, the tribunal itself being in the best position of any of the pension granting bodies to pronounce definitely on a case, since the tribunal is the only body before which the applicant

Supply-Pensions
may appear in person and so is the only qualified body to obtain the actual facts, their decision might well be final as far as the commission was concerned, though still leaving the further opportunity to the applicant of going to the court of appeal. Expressing my own [DOT] opinion, unquestionably this right of appeal has been abused. I took the trouble to study 105 appeals taken by the commission against favourable decisions of the tribunal, and in 102 of those cases the decision of the tribunal was reversed. Going through the cases as carefully as possible, and trying not to be too sympathetic but to look upon them in a judicial manner, I could not but believe that in many cases at least the appeal court seemed to have ignored the benefit of the doubt clause to which so much weight had been attached and which had been looked upon as a means of correcting many of the weaknesses and evils of the old Pension Act. It does seem to me that before long parliament will have to reconsider the question of appeals, not only of counsel for the commission appearing before the tribunal, but the whole question of appeals from favourable decisions of the tribunal. This has led to great dissatisfaction and in some cases to an absolute nullification of some clauses of the act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I endorse the remarks of my hon. friend to my left and those of the hon. member for Red Deer. As regards the commission counsel, I do not believe they serve a useful purpose. The gentleman on the pension tribunals throughout Canada render good service on the whole, considering the limitations placed upon their activities, and they themselves are jealous of the interests of the ex-service men and of the treasury as well. So that it is not at all necessary that the commission counsel shotdd appeal on a technicality to the pension appeal court at Ottawa. Formerly the ex-service man was granted the right of appeal, to hear the evidence adduced in his case. That benefit is now extended to enable him to bring in additional evidence, and sometimes the expense in connection with the evidence is paid for him. The manner of hearing cases before the tribunals is therefore much more advantageous to him than it was some years ago. But in the old days, as the minister will recall, there was an appeal to a single member of the old federal appeal board; then a second appeal to a quorum of three members of the board. That system was found in practice to be inadvisable. I am convinced that the system of dual appeals to-day will not be found to work out satisfactorily either to the nation or to the ex-service men. I do not
mean to be partisan when I say that there is to-day throughout Canada considerable dissatisfaction, not with the pension tribunals or with the pension advocates, but with the commission counsel, and with the federal appeal court sitting in Ottawa. I would ask hon. members to consider the return just brought down to some questions of mine. Consider the number of cases heard by the tribunals; the number of those that were reviewed by the appeal court in Ottawa; the annual liability in connection with decisions made by the pension tribunals and in connection with decisions made by the appeal court; consider these facts and you are forced reluctantly to the conclusion that we have established a very expensive pension machinery in Canada. It may be premature to condemn the system, but so far the results are not marked in any benefit to the ex-service men throughout Canada. My own opinion is that the tribunals are sincerely desirous of doing all they can for ex-service men, while they are anxious to guard the treasury, consistently with their duties. I believe that a radical revision of the entire system will be called for at least by next year, and that the system of commission counsel should be overhauled, looking to the revision if not the abolition of the federal appeal court in Ottawa.


Murray MacLaren: This sum of 850,500,000 is for the pensions. It does not include payments for commission counsel. We must bear in mind that the act was amended only last year by a committee who had served on several occasions previously and who brought in a unanimous report which was accepted unanimously by the house. The amendments have been in operation only seven or eight months and one cannot yet judge what their eileqt will be. Sufficient time has not elapsed to show how the amended act will operate. 1 think there are a number of instances where it will fail, and other cases where it will be objectionable and will require further amendment. Still, the time has not yet arrived to express a definite opinion. The criticisms that have been made are valuable, but I do not contemplate dealing with the matter this session. The amendment which it is now proposed to make-if I may refer to the bill that is being introduced-has no reference to the principles of the act or to the various courts that have been appointed; it is simply to expedite the hearing of cases. Why? Because there is such a glaring deficiency today that it is a grave injustice to the men who are waiting. I felt that something should be done to remove so marked a grievance. That does not require time to decide; it is
Supply-Pensions

obvious. But as regards amending the act generally, that will involve many changes, and when such a revision is made it should be comprehensive and thorough. And it should be made after a reasonable time has gone by so that we may see clearly the defects as they appear. An endeavour is being made to administer the act as satisfactorily as possible, and we are bound to administer the department in accordance with the provisions of the act. There can be no variation from those provisions except by amendment, and that is something which will have to be taken up at a suitable time.


James Layton Ralston: I thoroughly agree with
the minister that the system should be given a trial, and I am sure that the ex-sendee men throughout the country wish to see this done. The amendments contemplated by the legislation he is introducing are intended generally speaking, to increase the personnel and enlarge the machinery in order that some general system may be carried out under as favourable circumstances as possible and to allow the largest volume of business to be done. I did not hear him if he made any explanation with regard to one part of the resolution which he introduced. I had taken it from the annual reports and from discussions with exservice men that the minister contemplates going as far as this: In addition to increasing the number of members of the tribunal and the number of commission counsel, he is doing away with what I referred to a little while ago as the automatic reference from the Board of Pension Commissioners to the tribunal.


Murray MacLaren: That is correct.


James Layton Ralston: He has my wholehearted
support, if that is the idea.


Murray MacLaren: I overlooked referring
to what the hon. member has just mentioned. As has been stated, the procedure is that application is made to the Board of Pension Commissioners. That body considers the application, and if they feel that a case has been made out an award is made and no further hearing is necessary. If as a result of examining the application it is found that there is not a clear case, if the commissioners feel that they cannot give a definite decision, they automatically pass on the reference to the tribunal. It is not a case of refusing the application, it is a case of not accepting it. These matters perhaps should be discussed on the second reading of the bill, but I might as well avail myself of this opportunity. It has occurred to me, as well as to others, that this is not a good procedure. In most

cases action is not taken until the application reaches the tribunal, the second court. I feel that the first court should look into the application as thoroughly as possible at the outset, and therefore the contemplated ' amendment is to provide that when an application is received by the pension board and is not approved, the applicant is to be informed of that fact and of the reasons for refusal and asked if he wishes the case to be proceeded with.


James Layton Ralston: The burden is upon him.


Murray MacLaren: Some think that as a
result of this amendment thousands of cases will be disposed of, but in any event a substantial gain will be made. One advantage will be that the applicant will be informed that his case has not been sufficiently proved; he will be advised of its weaknesses and given an opportunity to submit further evidence.


James Layton Ralston: To the first court.


Murray MacLaren: That evidence is sent
back to the commission, and if they are satisfied with the man's claim, it is then disposed of without being passed on to a further court. I think it will be admitted that out of 26,000 applications for pension there will be a number not based on good grounds. The applicants may think they have a good case, but if information is received that the board does not accept the evidence, on consultation with the pension advocates the cases may be dropped. In that way such claims as are based upon good grounds will be more quickly disposed of.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In this
vote of $50,500,000 is there any amount included for the payment of so-called disputed cases? There are six or eight cases which were refused under the old system by the Board of Pension Commissioners. These were brought before the federal appeal board and allowed but refused payment by the pension board because of some technicality. I understand that at least one of these cases was brought to the exchequer court within the last six months, which court found in favour of the appellant. I am informed that the Board of Pension Commissioners still refuses to make payment in these cases, and I wonder if any provision has been made for payment thereof.


Murray MacLaren: Every hon. member
knows that the exchequer court allowed one or more of these cases, but I had not heard until this moment that there had been any difficulty as to the payment.

Supply-Pensions
33S0


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister look into this matter and let me know definitely on Tuesday?


Murray MacLaren: So far as I am aware
no special provision has been made, but I think the estimates would provide for the payment.


James Layton Ralston: I thoroughly agree that
this system should not be condemned too soon; we should not be premature in our judgment. The minister has proposed certain amendments with which I thoroughly agree, and which have been offered with the idea not of revising the whole act, not of changing the system, but of trying to perfect it. What the minister has said with regard to the proposed change in the status of the Board of Pension Commissioners emphasizes the point I am trying to make with regard to the commission counsel. There might have been some excuse for making the counsel the servants of the commission when the commission itself was more or less in the position of a grand jury to find out whether there was a true bill or no bill. This might have applied when the commission was more or less in the position of an administrative body or a sort of sieve which passed on the good cases and sent the others on to the judicial tribunal. Under those circumstances there were some grounds for calling them commission counsel, to be under the jurisdiction of the commission. But the amendment which the minister is going to present, and in connection with which I believe he will receive the wholehearted support of every hon. member interested in this matter, will put the Board of Pension Commissioners in a position where they will have either to Tefuse or to grant a pension; they will be exercising judicial functions and if they do not grant a pension they will give reasons for their refusal. Under these circumstances it would be putting them in an invidious position to give them counsel and also the power of instructing such counsel to go before the pension tribunal in connection with cases upon which they already had given a decision. That the commission should have power to instruct counsel to appear before the tribunal on an appeal from the decision of the commission, and that such counsel should tell the commission how he can best work in order to uphold their decision, is not fair, is not sound, is not just either to the ex-service men or to the Board of Pension Commissioners itself. The board is human; any judicial tribunal likes to have its decisions upheld. A personal interest is involved from which there is no escape. The committee will understand that in saying this I am not
in the slightest degree reflecting upon the members of the pension board. But it is too much to expect of human nature that the commission should be so disinterested and so detached that they would have not some interest in seeing that the matter goes before the appeal tribunal with the expectation that their decision will be upheld.
What is the remedy? It is just what I have suggested: appoint a crown counsel or federal counsel. He may be under the minister's department if that be thought wise, although I would put him under the Department of the Minister of Justice because that is where counsel representing the state originate. I would say to such counsel: "Go over that case, but not with the idea of upholding anybody's decision, because the Board of Pension Commissioners are no longer involved. Go over the facts thoroughly; see if you think it is a case in which the state and the ex-service men have been fairly dealt with, and remember that not only the principle is but the statute itself says that the ex-service man shall have the benefit of the doubt." If having gone into the case thoroughly he is of the opinion that the decision was wrong, that the principle referred to has not been observed, then I would put upon him the responsibility of launching an appeal. That would be a much fairer position in which to put the ex-service man and the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Mr. MANION:: As the hon. member knows, we are all working for the best interests of the returned men. Would not his suggestion put the whole question of the appeal into the hands of the government? In other words, the appeal may or may not be right- I am not quarrelling with the argument of my hon. friend1-but the appeal, such as it is, is launched through one of the tribunals, that is the pension appeal board. Suppose what my hon. friend suggests were carried out, then the appeal would be launched by the government. It seems to me, from the standpoint of fairness, not particularly to this government but to any government, you would put the government in a very difficult position, because the next representatibn made would be-not necessarily from my hon. friend, but on behalf of the soldier-that the government has no right at all to launch an appeal. It seems to me the pension appeal board might instruct counsel to look over the cases, as my hon. friend says-and I see nothing to quarrel with there-and to appeal only such as they thought should be appealed. But if that responsibility were put upon the shoulders of any government, whether this
Supply-Pensions

government or its successor, it seems to me that in a very short time any government would be forced into the position of withdrawing the section altogether. I was on that committee and if I am not mistaken the appointment of appeal counsel was upon the recommendation of the legion itself. I think my hon. friend, in suggesting that the responsibility be put upon the shoulders of the government, is putting any government into a difficult position.


Mr. ROSS:: I should like to support the Minister of Railways on this matter. It looks to me as if the hon. member (Mr. Ralston) were seeking to create a judge advocate.


James Layton Ralston: I think that is an excellent term.


Arthur Edward Ross: Of course in creating such an official you are establishing a final appeal. Does the hon. member not think the real weakness of this legislation, which I did not support last year, although I finally gave in, is that the pension board has a legal adviser and the applicant for pension has an official adviser who has no legal training? I am not so much opposed to the pension board employing their counsel, because I think if they are going into the case at all-and to the surprise of every member of the committee last year they are going aggressively at this work-they should have counsel. But then would the applicant not have to meet the pension board's legal adviser with a legal adviser?


James Layton Ralston: Sometimes that is a disadvantage.


Arthur Edward Ross: It may be a disadvantage, but it is the only weapon the applicant can have at the present time, because the hon. gentleman knows that the official adviser is not in all cases a legal man. I have been up before the board in connection with two or three cases and I saw at once where the men failed. If it is desired to continue this legislation many changes will have to be made in order to give the applicant a fair deal. My opinion of the weakness of it is that one party, the pension commission, has a legal adviser, while the applicant has not. As regards the official that the hon. gentleman mentioned, a judge advocate, so far as his being an adviser to the applicant is concerned, my hon. friend is on pretty strong ground; but if you create a judge advocate such as you have in the Department of National Defence, his judgment is final. He gives an opinion to the government or to the department-"in my opinion this is fair or otherwise"-and on his opinion the matter is settled. That is the position of a judge
iMr. Manion.]
advocate. I do not think any government would be justified in accepting that situation, but I think the applicant's case would be very much strengthened if he were given legal advice the equivalent of that which is available to the Board of Pension Commissioners.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Kingston City hit the nail on the head in an expression which he used. We have talked about these commission counsel so much that we have the idea the commission is a party to the appeal. There are two parties, and only two: the applicant who wants a pension, and the state that pays it. The commission has no more to do with the appeal than I have or anybody else has. I fully appreciate the point of the Minister of Railways; I realize the difficulty and I assure him, if he will accept my assurance, that I have no desire in the world to get any government into trouble in this matter. It would be the worst thing in the world if pensions became involved in politics. We have been fairly successful in keeping them out of politics, but I believe there must be some way whereby we can find a solution of this problem so that the state or somebody representing the state can appoint these counsel rather than have the board put in the position, as suggested by the hon. member for Kingston City, of having its lawyer or legal adviser. The board is not entitled to a legal adviser. It has made its decision and its duty is to proceed with the next case.
While my hon. friend was speaking I was wondering whether there could not be in the minister's office 'or in the Dpartment of Justice a reviewing board that could sit and decide what cases should be appealed. This board would be just as independent as the Board of Pension Commissioners, and it would not be interested, as the Board of Pension Commissioners is, in having the decisions of the board upheld-I do not say this in any invidious sense. I have tried to watch pension legislation, but I must confess that this never occurred to me until the other day. when someone told me, that the Board of Pension Commissioners were instructing their own counsel to appeal. I said, "Surely they have not anything to do with instructing counsel." But I was told that they had a little panel of their own who look the cases over and decide what should be appealed. I want to say on behalf of the Board of Pension Commissioners that it is not their fault. I am glad that the Prime Minister has just come in. I think that he will agree that it is not sound to have a judicial body of

Supply-Pensions
primary jurisdiction having to assume the burden of deciding whether or not there shall be an appeal, and the burden also of instructing counsel to support that appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I caught the point.


James Layton Ralston: The amendment now
being made makes the board a judicial tribunal, whereas previously they may have been more or less administrative, or at least a court of first resort-a grand jury, as 1 described it. Now they are becoming a judicial tribunal, and I submit that we ought to get rid of the practice of having them instruct counsel to appeal. Let us get a board entirely outside the Board of Pension Commissioners who will decide whether or not an appeal shall be launched.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want to point out another weakness. Under the old system once a pensioner received notice that his claim was accepted, that was almost final in every case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not since the appeal board came in.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am coming to that point. I was referring to the old system. If the case went to the appeal board and the applicant was successful there, that also was considered final except in the case of a second appeal, which were very rare. But under the present system we have up to date 417 cases which were admitted by the pension tribunals throughout the various provinces, in the presence of the applicants, to ,be pensionable. The applicants, hearing that their cases were admitted as pensionable, naturaly returned to their homes .with the impression that the pensions were theirs, but these 417 cases went to the appeal court and every single one of them was rejected. So the principle I am trying to establish is this: it is unfortunate to notify the appellant in his own presence that his ease has been admitted when there is a possibility of its being finally rejected, with consequent disappointment and heart-burning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite appreciate the point, but I think that it has always been stated since recently that the case is subject to appeal.


Murray MacLaren: It is well to have
discussion, but it is well also not to be too hasty in coming to a conclusion in connection with these matters. The varieties of opinion are beyond enumeration. I believe that a good deal could be said to meet the objections and criticisms which have been
offered to-night. I would like to say one thing in reference to the commission counsel. The aet states that they are subject to the direction of the commission. I think it is only fair to say on behalf of the commission counsel that I believe they do not approach cases that are placed before them as prosecutors or anything of that kind. They appear as crown counsel acting in a fair and reasonable way to the best of their ability, and taking exception or objection or an appeal only in cases in which they think it is their duty so to do. I believe that the instructions given by the pension board are in keeping with that practice. It may be that the way they are appointed is not a perfectly logical procedure, but I think that the spirit in which they carry out their duties is a fairly reasonable one.


Peter John Veniot: May I invite the attention of the minister to what I consider a hardship on those who are applying for pensions. Let me give a concrete case, for which there may be a remedy. I have in mind the case of a soldier who applied for a pension. He was notified by the soldiers' advocate, and the tribunal also notified him, that it would sit at a certain place in a certain county. This individual lived nearly 110 miles away from where the tribunal was to sit, and he had no means of getting there. He would have to pay his own expenses all through till he got to the court. He had no means of his own, and no means of getting money to pay his way, and he would have had to drop his case if someone had not furnished the money for him. It is true that after he got to the tribunal and his case was tried, his expenses were handed to him, but why could there not be some means of providing at least transportation for the individual especially when he is living so far away? He might be given a certificate of transportation that would be good over the railroad to the point where the case v'as to be tried. For instance, there was a sitting in the town of Newcastle in February last, and applicants from the county of Gloucester who live on the islands in the gulf* of St. Lawrence had to go all the way from the gulf of St. Lawrence to Newcastle, a distance of 110 miles, and borrow money to get there.


Murray MacLaren: But it was refunded.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, but the trouble is
that often an applicant has no means of getting there, and he has to go about and collect money from his friends. There should be some way of meeting that difficulty. If the tribunal sat in the county of Gloucester
Supply-Pensions

for these Gloucester county cases, the expenses would not be one-half the expense of bringing an individual 110 miles away to the town of Newcastle. If the tribunal had sat in Gloucester county they would have been sitting within 45 miles of this man's home. There are many of these cases, and I would ask the minister to look into it and see if some means cannot be found for providing for this difficulty.
There is another point. A doctor's certificate is not admitted as evidence under the new system. The doctor must be summoned to appear in person before the tribunal and give his evidence. Under the old system the certificate of a doctor who had looked after the soldier was admitted as evidence, but to-day, I say, the doctor has to appear in person. The advocates, who are supposed to look after the soldier's interests, did not notify the applicants, at least, up to a month ago, that they should produce the doctor in person instead of a doctor's certificate. The result was that the particular case I refer to was turned down for want of evidence. When the case was heard on appeal before the appeal board I appeared myself in person for the individual because he was too poor to have anyone else do it for him, and I knew the case. The minute I examined the evidence before the lower court I knew that the appeal court could do nothing else but throw out the case. I asked them to issue instructions to have the case retried, and they did so. But look at the expense connected with that process! I trust that the minister will look into this matter, and see if he cannot find a remedy.


Murray MacLaren: I should like to assure
the hon. member for Gloucester and all other hon. members that the facilities which have been put at the disposal of the soldiers during the last year have been uncommonly good. There may be exceptional instances, and I should like to have a full report on the case that has been referred to by my hon. friend, but on the whole the provision is exceedingly generous. Let me mention for the bdhefit of the hon. member for Gloucester that last year the tribunal met in New Brunswick at Campbellton, Bathurst, Chatham, Newcastle, Moncton, St. John, Woodstock, Fredericton and Edmundston.


Peter John Veniot: On what date did they sit at Bathurst?


Murray MacLaren: I have not the date,
but they sat in nine places in New Brunswick since last November.


Peter John Veniot: Why is it they are making Bathurst applicants go to Newcastle? I myself paid the expenses of those men.


Murray MacLaren: If there is one thing
that is being done well it is this particular thing. Since last December these tribunals have met in different places in the hon. member's own province. The instructions are for them to meet in every centre where there are a sufficient number of cases to justify it. The men and their witnesses are paid their travelling expenses and for loss of time. If there is anything wrong it is probably because the man himself has mistaken the instructions or has failed to carry them out.


Peter John Veniot: I have seen the instructions.


Murray MacLaren: What is the committee
going to do?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are going to bed. It is after eleven o'clock.


Peter John Veniot: I am not criticizing, I am
pointing out what I consider a lack-


Murray MacLaren: I ask the hon. member
to give me particulars and I will have the case investigated.


Peter John Veniot: I will give him particulars Only yesterday I gave $35 to the man whose case I mentioned to pay his expenses in order that he might see a doctor and get a certificate.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is that bribery and
corruption?


Murray MacLaren: Will you put the vote,
Mr. Chairfnan?
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, July 6, 1931.