1933-03-17

PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 51, to incorporate Devonshire Jockey Club.-Mr. Morand.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Maisonneuve) moved for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. JEAN:: The object of this bill is to provide for a joint superintendent of bankruptcy who will be familiar with both official languages as well as with the civil laws of the province of Quebec. Representations have been made that the administration of the act as amended last year would be more effective if such an officer were appointed, and that is why I introduce this bill.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There is a point of order to be raised in connection with the introduction of this bill because if it proposes that a charge shall be made upon the revenue, it would be out of order.


Joseph Jean: I do not think there is any charge upon the revenue as the bill provides that the salary to be paid to the joint superintendent shall be subject to the approval of parliament. The act as amended last year provides that the salary and expenses of the joint superintendent shall be paid by the revenues obtained under the act. A special assessment is made upon every bankrupt estate to pay these expenses and I do not think an appropriation would be required.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the point of order is well taken. The bill provides for the appointment of an official and would therefore entail a charge upon the revenue. Such legislation can be introduced only by a minister on the approval of the crown.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members for greater Vancouver I should like to ask of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) a question based upon a telegram sent by the mayor of the city of Vancouver. I informed the minister's office this morning that I would ask this question. The telegram is very brief and perhaps I might read it. It reads:
Critical condition exists in Vancouver due to inadequacy of relief scale as allowed by provincial government to meet shelter. Wholesale evictions involving hundreds of families under way resulting in increasing threatening condition.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should not read that telegram.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then I
shall ask my question based upon the substance of the telegram.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am raising a point of order. The other day Your Honour at the instance of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) very properly directed attention to the fact that to read a telegram in this house is to indicate what may or may not be true. In many instances telegrams have been read which doubtless the hon. members reading the telegrams believed to be true but which upon investigation were found to contain absolutely improper and incorrect statements of fact. To spread upon Hansard a statement which an hon. member does not know of his own knowledge to be the fact is to introduce into this house another member. That member is making a statement when not actually a member of the house. I object to the reading of this telegram because to do so is contrary to the rules.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the
point of order, may I point out to my right hon. friend that the point of order raised the other day by the leader of the opposition was entirely different. He spoke of a telegram received by the right hon. gentleman which referred to certain proceedings of this house. If I am not to be permitted to read the telegram, I shall incorporate its contents in my question to the Minister of Labour. Surely when an emergent condition exists in one of 'the large cities of Canada and when a telegram is addressed by the mayor of that city to all members irrespective of party, it is a matter of which this house should take notice.
Unemployment Relief


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Whether or not it is
from the mayor does not make the slightest difference. The hon. member should proceed to ask his question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall
ask my question in my own way.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take that back.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I mean
nothing disrespectful. I shall base my question upon my knowledge of what is in the telegram. Is the Minister of Labour in receipt of information from the authorities of the city of Vancouver pointing out that very emergent conditions exist there and that wholesale evictions have been carried out? If his attention has been directed to this situation, what measures does he propose to adopt to remedy it?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: The answer to the interrogation is obvious. While I have not had any communication direct, the position of this government was stated by me on February 16. If hon. members will refer to page 2151 of Hansard, they will see that my answer to a similar question was as follows:
The only conditions which this government has at any time laid down with respect to direct relief have been to define direct relief as consisting of food, fuel, clothing and shelter or the equivalent thereof, and that there shall be no discrimination in the granting of relief to any applicant by reason of political, racial, religious or other considerations. No limit has ever been set by this government to the amount of relief which shall be granted to any applicant, this being constitutionally a matter wholly within the determination and judgment of the local authorities. It will also be obvious to members of the house that, even aside from the constitutional aspect, such matters are properly for the local authorities to determine.
Answering my hon. friend's third question, "On whose authority rates for direct relief are fixed?" I would say that municipalities must determine, first, whether relief shall be granted and, second, to whom and in what amount it shall be granted. I also presume that such decisions on the part of municipalities receive provincial approval.
From time to time the department does receive communications direct from individuals and provinces, but I do not think it would be even enlightening to hon. members for me to reiterate what I have said so often before. There is a proper method to bring this matter before the government, namely, through the provincial governments. If representations are made to a provincial government and if in turn that government, the municipality and the individual respectively find themselves unable to take care of the things outlined with respect to his main-

tenance, then the matter will promptly be considered by the government and such appropriation made as to take up the difference between what those primarily responsible are able to do and the total amount.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Have
any representations been received from the government of British Columbia in regard to this?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe not. I have
received this message from another member, but the department has not had anything direct.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: AVill the minister be prepared to investigate this particular situation in regard to the city of Vancouver?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The province must unquestionably have knowledge of the contents of the telegram. The provincial authorities are in touch with the department here almost daily. I do not think it is desirable that we should prompt the provincial authorities to exceed what in their judgment seems to be adequate provision for cases of this kind.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Is the minister not aware that when the municipalities apply to the provincial authority in British Columbia, the invariable answer is: We cannot help you to any greater extent because the dominion will not contribute their share of any larger rate?



STEAM TRAWLERS' LICENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Fisheries and in order to make it intelligible, may I make one or two brief remarks? Steam trawlers' licences expire on March 31 of this year and resolutions have been sent from a large number of boards of trade in Nova Scotia asking that those licences be not renewed on account of the difficulties which individual fishermen are experiencing. I would ask the government to consider refusing to renew those licences when they expire.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: I can tell my hon.
friend that the matter is now under consideration.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HEENAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEElNAN (Kenora-Rainy River):	I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterdby evening the Minister of

Supply-Railways-C.N£.
Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), in referring to some of my remarks, had this to say:
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Hernan)-I am sorry I do not see him here at present-spoke of the decrease in wages to be brought about, and said that already there had been a decrease on the Canadian National, as I understood him, of $125,000,000 fom 1929 to 1932.
I just wish to say that that was not the statement I made. It was to this effect:
Who suffers most in connection with the economies made on our railways?
Not the Canadian National Railways; I did not say that:
In 1931 the railway men were paid $74,000,000 less in wages than they received in 1929. I have not all the figures for this year, but I am satisfied that they will receive in wages $125,000,000 less than they were paid in 1929.
So that there may be no misunderstanding between the Minister of Railways and me on the 17th of March, I wish to make this correction.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but it was not quite clear. As a matter of fact, in order to keep the record straight, I looked up the figures for all railways, and it was $108,000,000 and not S12o,000,000.


Mr. HEENAN:: I had just the government's own statement; I was quoting from that and the statement I made was quite correct.



DEPARTMENT OP RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (Yorli-Sunbury) in the chair.
Deficit of Canadian National Railways
Amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway Company of the net income deficit including profit and loss incurred by the system during the year 1932 as certified to by the shareholders' auditors in the annual report of the company for the year 1932, but exclusive of all non-cash items including interest on Dominion government advances and eastern lines deficits as further certified to by the shareholders' auditors and approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals, this payment to be applied in reduction of temporary advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund under authority of the Canadian National Railways Guarantee Act, 1932, $53,422,661.67.
Mr. YOUNG:: We have not yet received
the report of the Canadian National Railways and we do not know what they have been doing for the year. The minister might give us some information in regard to this deficit on the national railways.


Robert James Manion: I thought I gave the hon.
gentleman enough information last night.


Edward James Young: It was not authentic.


Robert James Manion: I do not know what information the hon. gentleman wants.


Edward James Young: We would like to know how this deficit is made up. Some time ago I spoke about the Canadian National Railways being compelled to pay $1,000,000 a year more than was necessary for coal on the western division-and I presume the same is true of the eastern division-while in the United States they owned a coal mine which they had been compelled to close. How much of this deficit is due to that?


Robert James Manion: I cannot give any particulars to-day as to how much is due to that. Both railways in this country do patronize, so far as they can, Canadian coal mines, and without any doubt, in some instances at any rate, it costs them a little more to buy Canadian coal than it would if they chose to take coal from United States sources, but I do not think the difference amounts to any great sum of money.
This $53,000,000 odd, as the house knows and as I think my hon. friend knows although lie is asking the question as if he did not, is the difference between the net operating profits of the railwaj' and the amount of interest owed to the investing public, the interest owing to the investing public in 1932 amounting in round figures to $57,000,000 or $58,000,000, and the net profits of the railway amounting to something like $4,000,000, leaving a balance of approximately $53,000,000 which the government of Canada has to meet, being the interest on bonds purchased by various investors, the bonds to a large extent being guaranteed by the Dominion government, but raised for the necessities of the Canadian National Railways.


Edward James Young: That is very true, but when the new bill becomes law, all that this house will have to do is to vote the deficit. But the bill is not in effect now, and before we vote this deficit I think we should know how it is made up. If the statement I made a few moments ago is correct, that the western division is paying SI,000,000 more than is necessary for coal, perhaps a similar or a larger amount more than is necessary is being paid on the eastern division. I think the minister should give us that information so that we can see how the deficit is made up and whether or not we can reduce it.


Robert James Manion: This item will shortly come before the select standing committee on rail-
3102	COMMONS
Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
ways and shipping which examines the items of the Canadian National Railways budget, and when that committee meets, detailed information can be secured. I have not the information at hand. I did not know that anyone was going to ask for detailed information, and in any event the information is in the possession only of the management at Montreal. I could not give those details. I have given all the information I have as to the cost of coal.


Edward James Young: The trouble is that some of us are not members of the railway committee, and if we do not get the information in this house we may never get it. However, I will accept the minister's promise to let us have the information later.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What was the loss on exchange last year?


Robert James Manion: I understand that it was $4,500,000. There was a greater loss than that on American exchange, but that loss was partly made up by the favourable British exchange. The net balance against us I believe amounted to $4,500,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Further amount required for the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the allocation of this and other votes pertaining to this service to be as treasury board may direct, with effect from April 1, 1932, notwithstanding the provisions of vote No. 202 and vote No. 277 of the main estimates, 1932-33- the amount hereby granted being the equivalent of the half-yearly payments due under the provincial agreements, such payments having been made by the several provinces and paid into the consolidated revenue fund, $357,500.
Mr. VENIOT:: Wrhat share of the oost of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was paid by the province of New Brunswick to the federal government?


Hugh Guthrie: I think that information was put on Hansard a few days ago. I cannot give the figures offhand but I may say that the amount in the estimates represents the half yearly expenditure of the police in the various provinces of Canada. It is paid back into the treasury here in half yearly payments, but it goes into the consolidated revenue fund and we have to get it out. That is the object of this vote. As the provinces pay, the amount is remitted' to the consolidated revenue fund. I can furnish my hon. friend with particulars for each of the provinces. All of the provinces now have made agreements with the federal government with regard to police services except Ontario, Quebec and 
British Columbia. We have no agreement with those three provinces, but the other six have all come in under an agreement.


Peter John Veniot: I am content if the minister will provide me with the information.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Would the minister be kind enough to tell us the total establishment of the mounted police?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot give it exactly, but it is about 2,400.


Eugène Fiset: Does that, include
the new services which have been taken over by the mounted police, such as customs work?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. I think the total
establishment is around 2,400 or 2,500.


Mr. HEAPS:: Is there any increase as compared with last year?


Hugh Guthrie: Some increase, but not a
notable one.


Mr. HOWARD:: Possibly this is the only
item under which I can bring to the attention of the minister a matter that was drawn to my attention recently. Some time ago the mounted police purchased three motor boats for protective purposes. Those boats, under the control of the National Revenue department, were built in Canada, but the specifications called for United States motors of a size and kind which could have been just as well built in Canada. I should like to know from the minister if there was any special reason why . these patrol boats had to be engined with American motors.


Hugh Guthrie: There is an explanation
but I have not it by me at the present time. However, the estimate for the mounted police will be down I hope next week, and I will have full information when it comes up for consideration. I think the boats had been ordered by another department and that the engines were placed in them before the boats came into the hands of the mounted police at all. I will have full particulars for the hon. member when the mounted police estimate comes up shortly.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The reason I ask is that there is an industry in my section of the country, although not in my county, which is complaining very bitterly over this transaction.
I thank the minister for undertaking to give me the information.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to ask the minister as to the duties of the mounted police with regard to liquor enforcement. How do they wmrk in with the customs officials?

Supply-Justice

Mounted Police


Hugh Guthrie: Generally speaking, the Excise Act is one of the acts which the mounted police are charged to enforce, but the customs department has also a staff of men who to some extent take part in the same work. The Excise Act, however, is a dominion act and the mounted police are charged with its enforcement. In provinces where agreements have been made with the provincial authorities the mounted police are also charged with the enforcement of the provincial liquor acts. That does not apply in Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I noticed in the Montreal papers a few weeks ago an account of the seizing of a still in that city, about which complaint had been made for a considerable time past, but about which it is said the mounted police had failed to accomplish anything until after the customs officials had stepped in. I quote from the Montreal Herald of January 19, 1933:
It is believed that the Department of Justice at Ottawa, following many complaints took the matter in hand and ordered special investigators to work under the orders of the collector of customs in Montreal.
Even the lawyer for the accused appeared surprised yesterday when he appeared for police bail for his clients.
''My clients were arrested for allegedly being found with a still, not by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not by the Quebec liquor police, but by a man named Laing," he stated in surprise. Making a gallant effort to force the still into the open two weeks ago, R.C.M.P. officers, on a tip from the Herald, raided almost every garage in the west end of the city but failed to find anything but five American cars in storage. The still was then in operation on the same premises the officers raided about noon yesterday.
In the Montreal Gazette of the same date there is an account along similar lines ridiculing the mounted police and pointing out their inefficiency. I quote this paragraph:
The grim, taciturn, relentless, brilliantly-arrayed Royal Canadian Mounted Police shortly, if they have not already done so, grimly and relentlessly will destroy another monument erected by man to the God Bacchus, to wit an illicit still; in fact, what is said to be one of the largest' illicit stills ever unearthed in local communal confines. This establishment, furthermore, is believed to be the selfsame still rumours concerning which have been going the rounds for some weeks by word of mouth and in the pages of certain weekly papers.
Daily newspapermen, daring to brave the grimness, the taciturnity, the relentless and the brilliancy of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to raise a point of order. I do not think it is proper to read items from the press reflecting upon the very force we are now dealing
with. This is not the place to do it. No one is assuming responsibility for it, and it haippens that the very item the hon. member is reading is absolutely untrue. That is the difficulty.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman-


The CHAIRMAN:: I think the point of
order raised by the Prime Minister is quite proper. Unfortunately I was the only one of that opinion on the last occasion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If it is not true,
I think it should be so stated. This is an article from a reputable paper, the Gazette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Gazette is not doing it; someone else is writing it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister says it is not true.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, the Prime Minister says it is not true. If it is not true, it seems to me that is a very good reason why it should not be quoted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot quite get
your point, Mr. Chairman.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member says if the statement is not true, that is a good reason to read it; in my opinion it would be a good reason not to read it. I believe the quoting of the article is not proper. I have decided that on many occasions, but the last time I did so the house seemed to be unanimously against my decision.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot understand your ruling. Does it mean that we are not to read from a paper simply when the Prime Minister does not want an item to come before the public. If that is what it means, we should know it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the reflection
by the hon. member is quite uncalled for and fair neither to 'the Prime Minister nor to the chair.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, in
my opinion-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the house either directly or indirectly, is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinions, and not to quote the opinions of others.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On the point of
order, Mr. Chairman: I presume the rule referred to is No. 306, which says:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring
3104	COMMONS
Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
The article I am reading does not refer to anything said by a member, nor does it express an opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes it does.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is a matter-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Either it is or it is
not relevant to the issue.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is relevant to
the issue.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If it is, it comes under commentary No. 306, and should not be quoted in the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is relevant to the issue, but the rule distinctly states that to be out of order it must reflect upon some member of the house or proceeding in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, proceedings within the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This article does not refer to a proceeding of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be used at all then; it is irrelevant.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is in reference to the operations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the body we have under discussion.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon. member will allow me to say so, commentary No. 306 is only quoting a decision. The spirit of the rule is that members are here to give their own opinion. They may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any discussion in the house, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order. Hon. members are here to give their own opinions and they cannot base them upon commentaries or opinion coming from outside the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, again I submit that this rule distinctly refers to reflections upon members of the house or proceedings within the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I remind the hon. member that No. 306 is not a rule, but merely a commentary on a rule. Rule No. 41 is the one in question. I interpret the commentary to mean that members cannot quote opinions from outside the house on any matter being discussed in the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where do we find that?
[Mr. Woodsworth.l


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just read it.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: There is no such rule.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is a decision I am giving.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With all due deference to the chairman, I submit he has no right to interpret other than according to the written rules.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Then, the hon. member would give no latitude to the chairman or to the speaker. Standing orders are numbers so and so, and so and so, and the other paragraphs in Mr. Beauchesne's book are commentaries or decisions. The paragraphs I have mentioned are to guide the chairman or the speaker, and my intepretation is this-I may be right or wrong-that members are not allowed to quote any opinion commenting on the debate. Last time I decided I must be wrong because there seemed to be an unanimous opinion against me.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This has nothing to do with the debate.


Mr. POULIOT:: I rise to a point of order-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor. Has he finished what he has to say?-


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. I say this article is not a comment; it is not commenting in any way on the debate. This is a statement which has to do with actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is quoting facts?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quoting facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, you are not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quoting a newspaper.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon. member will read the article I shall decide, after hearing it, what he is quoting.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall continue to read, then?


Richard Bedford Bennett: But, before reading the article I should like to make some observations. I have no desire to curtail the debate. The hon. member suggested that because I directed attention to a point of order, therefore the chairman should decide that the point had been well taken. Far from it. As I understand the rules of debate in this house

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
a member who quotes from a newspaper, if he does, is taken to pledge his honour that the statements, if they are alleged to be statements of fact, are true. If he is unwilling to do that, he should not read them. That is perfectly clear. Certainly that is the rule in the mother of parliaments.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I ask a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, when I have finished. The rule as to quoting of opinions of people outside the house with respect to matters under discussion seems to be so clear that we should not have any difficulty in interpreting it when the house makes its own rules to govern its own conduct. That is clear. But there are 245 members in the house endeavouring to influence the conduct and opinons of one another. To introduce the 246th member by quoting in the house the opinion of someone not in the house with respect to a matter not under discussion is to add to the membership of the house an irresponsible outsider. That is clear, as I understand the rule. Certainly in England it is not done; wherever else it may be done it is not done there.
It has been suggested I have been an offender in this regard myself. I think we all have been. But, with the multiplicity of magazines and papers, and with the number of articles appearing in newspapers for which there is no warrant, does it not occur to the house that in its own interests it should limit the debate to statements of fact made by the members themselves upon their honour as members, after satisfying themselves that those statements are correct, rather than reading statements made by the correspondent of a newspaper, and then stating that "from such and such a paper I read so and so" and ask the house to believe it is true, because someone has said it is true. In my judgment that is not correct practice.
The matter under consideration is the making available a sum of money that has been paid by a province for police service. That is the item now under debate. One of the provinces has paid into the consolidated revenue fund a sum of money which should be available for this fiscal year. It can only be made available by the passing of this vote. The vote refers to an appropriation paid by a province into our consolidated fund for the police force, which this item would release. That is all. How that has anything to do with the conduct of police with respect to a still in the province of Quebec, I cannot understand. It would not be relevant; and
relevancy, at least with respect to debate, used to be necessary.
I mention this only because it seems to me that if we are going to get the business of parliament transacted at all, there should be some regard for these matters. If repetition is to be the measure of merit then you will have repetition and repetition and repetition, the same thing being said in every debate, as has been frequently done in this house. I only direct attention to this point for the reason that I think it is desirable that we should discuss the matter with some degree of relevancy in the first place, and secondly that we should not introduce the opinions of other persons, which may or may not be correct, for the purpose of influencing opinion in this house, or read statements as statements of fact for the accuracy of which we have no warrant.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Before the hon. member proceeds, let me say that, without having at least heard or read it, it is impossible for me to decide whether the article the hon. member wants to quote is relevant. I will ask the hon. member to send it to me so that I may read it, or I will let him read it and stop him if I think it is not relevant.


Jean-François Pouliot: As the question is ve-y
important may I say a few words on the point of order, stating certain general views with regard to constitutional law.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No, I think the hon.
member had better speak on the point of order and reserve his lecture on constitutional law.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it is not a lecture, but it is in order to prevent being lectured in the future. We are discussing a matter of the utmost importance, on which the right hon. Prime Minister and other hon. members have spoken, bearing upon what is to be the procedure in future in this house. Here I have the standing orders of the House of Commons. There is nothing about reading books or newspapers. We find in Beauchesne's book-which is made with pepper, scissors and glue-a reference to-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Bourinot's Parliamentary
Procedure-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. I ask the hon.
member to take his seat. Hon. members must speak to the point of order.
3106	COMMONS
Supply-Justice-Mounted Police


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to do so. If I may read this note-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I can read myself.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to read it for the
benefit of the whole house. At page 335:
But a member may read extracts from documents, books or other printed publications as part of his speech, provided in so doing he does not infringe any point of order.
That is something that anyone can see.
But there are certain limitations to this right, for it is not allowable to read any petition referring to debates in the house, and where the language of the document is such as would be unparliamentary, if spoken in debate, it cannot be read. No language can be orderly in a quotation which would be disorderly if spoken. Nor can any portion of a speech, made in the same session, be read from a private book or paper. It is also irregular to read extracts from newspapers or documents referring to debates in the house in the same session. (May 326.) In making extracts a member must be careful to confine himself to those which are pertinent to the question; it is not regular to quote a whole essay or pamphlet of a general character.
I wonder if the hon. gentleman is reading the whole essay or pamphlet!
Neither is it regular for a member to read a paper which he is asking the house to order to be produced.
This is not produced.
Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating from persons outside the house, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member, or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
There is a reference to English Hansard:
"Allusion to debates in the other house are out of order," says May, "and there are few orders more important than this for the conduct of debate and for observing courtesy between houses."
Then Bourinot continues:
During a debate on the tariff in the session of 1877, Mr. Mills referred to the opinions of Sir Alexander Galt, formerly a member and Minister of Finance. Subsequently one of the Canadian papers published a letter from Sir Alexander in answer to some of Mr. Mills' remarks; and the latter rose and proposed reading from the paper in question: but the Speaker interrupted him and questioned the propriety of this course,

a decision entirely in accordance with the English rules of debate. It is in order, however, for a member to quote from a printed paper, on which he proposes to found a motion.
The same thing should be said about a question he asks.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to disagree with some of the general statements made by the right hon.
[The Chairman.]
Prime Minister. I do disagree with you, sir, and the assertion that there is any rule in the book of rules of this house or the customs of this house that would justify a ruling along the lines that you indicated you might give.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There is no set rule.


Edward Joseph Garland: Exactly,
there is no such rule. Therefore any statement by yourself, Mr. Chairman, in connection with this point would be your opinion as to the proper conduct of this house. You would in that way be establishing a precedent.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon. member
will allow me, the chairman has to go by the well-known maxim stare decisis. He must be guided by the previous decisions of the speaker or chairman which have been voted upon by the house.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the chairman would be well-advised to be guided by the procedure which is customary in the British house also. I think he hardly did justice to his own well-read mind when he said it was not the custom in the British house to give quotations. Anyone who has studied the British Hansard recently will find numerous quotations. I recall for example that Sir Robert Home in the budget debate last year quoted from Allison's History of Rome very freely in connection with certain monetary questions-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It was written before
the debate.


Edward Joseph Garland: Time after time t/he right hon. leader of the government has attempted to influence the opinion of the house by quoting-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The new despotism!


Edward Joseph Garland: -in support of his own opinion from Salter to Gladstone and Bryce and heaven knows who. It is almost impertinence on the part of any hon. member at this stage in the development of parliamentary procedure to suggest that because it is inconvenient or unpleasant for him to listen he should wipe out the customs of the past. This house has established definitely the custom within certain limits of relevancy or appropriateness of quoting authorities, sometimes of value, sometimes of little value, depending on whose opinion it is. There is also the practice in connection with the estimates, I have noted for over eleven years, of quoting from newspapers and asking questions based thereon. The only way we can get information in connection with affairs with which we are not personally acquainted

Supply-Justice-Mounted. Police
is from newspapers. To correct items in newspapers we must ask questions in regard thereto. I have no knowledge of the newspaper item that brought about this discussion, but I think the subject matter of it justifies questions based thereon,-not charges but questions to the minister. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will reconsider your decision and not make a brand new rule of your own to go down in history as one of the most serious curtailments of free speech and public opinion that this house has been subjected to.


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Chairman, I gather
from the temper of the committee that this discussion bids fair to be protracted. It is of course, perfectly competent to the committee to debate this item at great length, if it chooses to, but may I point out respectfully that, as was indicated by the Minister of Justice, all that this item does is to release funds which have been paid by the provinces into consolidated revenue, and make them available for the use of the service within this fiscal year. And unless my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) would be prejudiced by the delay may I point out that he would have ample opportunity to discuss any point arising with respect to the mounted police in the main estimates. I would like to have these estimates passed at an early date. I do not suggest for one moment that it is not competent to the committee to discuss this item as long as it chooses, but inasmuch as there will be ample opportunity in connection with the main estimates, I suggest that that might ease us over the difficulty for the moment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has
already spoken on the point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I may be
granted a word in reply to the Minister of Finance.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member can
speak only once on the point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But this is the
point of order-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has
already spoken.


Edward James Young: We are in committee, Mr. Chairman.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I point out,
Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister spoke twice.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am endeavouring to
give a fair decision, but at the same time I cannot ask hon. members to follow the rules 53719-197
strictly if I do not follow them myself. The leader of the opposition wishes to speak to the point of order. I desired in the meantime to read the article and I asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to be good enough to let me see it, but he would not let me have it. Obviously therefore he puts me in a difficult position. In the meantime I must give the floor to the leader of the opposition on the point of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope it will not be necessary for the chairman to give a ruling. It need not be necessary if what, sitting here, I heard was correct. It seems to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the chairman are at cross purposes. The statement of the article which the hon. member was attempting to read has been denied. What the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said-at least as I heard him-was that the article which he wished to read, if not true, should be denied.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Should be quoted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, Mr. Chairman. I did not understand the hon. member to say that the statement it contained was correct. What he did say was that if it were not correct it should be denied, and I heard the Prime Minister himself say that it was not correct. The Prime Minister himself denied it. It seems to me that if that is the situation there is no need for any ruling at all. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has asked the ministry a question with respect to a certain statement that appears in the press but which does not bear any relation to this debate, because this debate has commenced only to-day whereas the article in question was printed some time ago. It is perfectly proper for him, when the house is discussing estimates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to ask any question with relation to the mounted police and to ascertain whether or not a statement referring to the police is correct. I think that was what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was doing. He read a certain article with a view to ascertaining whether it was correct or not. He did not himself say whether it was correct or not. If it was correct it was a serious reflection on the mounted police and therefore he thought we ought to discuss the matter; but if it was not correct, he said it should be denied. If the minister denies that the statement is correct that settles the matter without the necessity for any ruling whatever. Certainly, if the chairman takes a different view-



Supply-Justice-Mounled Police


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The chairman expressed no opinion. He asked to see the article to see for himself whether it was relevant and applicable to this debate, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre refused to let him have it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It could not possibly be a comment on this debate inasmuch as this debate started only this afternoon.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must read the article if I am to decide whether it is relevant.


Hugh Guthrie: Would it shorten matters, Mr. Chairman, if I were to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the two articles have been brought to my attention by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and that they are not correct?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I offer a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Some time ago the same point came up that we are discussing this afternoon and you decided that certain articles could not then be read. The house on that occasion was unanimous against your decision. Should we not regard the decision of the house in that connection as a precedent to guide us on this occasion?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The feeling of the house on that occasion did not change my opinion.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But does not the action of the House of Commons on that occasion constitute a precedent which should guide the chairman of committees or the Speaker?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It would, if it had been a decision. Had the house given a decision I should be bound by it. What did occur on that occasion was this. I said that if the house seemed to be unanimous against me I would not press my decision.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But you were convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the house was unanimous against your decision.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the right to the point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to add a word or two. The chairman has asked me to submit a certain extract to him privately, and this I decline to do. It does not seem to me that in this house we should have to run around submitting extracts to the chairman before we are allowed to read them. That is not the way parliament has been conducted heretofore.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I wished to prevent the hon. gentleman from being stopped while he was reading the article.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With due respect to you, Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to submit articles to you in order that I may know whether or not I may read them.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member will have to.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; I do not propose to.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Whether publicly or privately, he will have to.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the eleven years that I have been in this house we have never had to submit articles to the chairman before attempting to read them, and I do not propose to do so to-day.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I was doing it as a matter of courtesy to the hon. gentleman, but he can go on.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I appreciate the
courtesy but I decline to accept it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am not surprised.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not going to insist at the moment upon reading the article nor indeed am I going to extend the discussion. I quite agree that if the Minister of Finance is correct that the particular item before us does not refer to the general activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police there is no need for me to extend my remarks at the moment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Do I understand that the hon. member withdraws the point of order?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I do not.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Then I shall have to decide upon it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not raising the point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Then, if the point of order is disposed of, the hon. gentleman will proceed with his speech.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was reading an article that had been brought to my attention, conveying the information that although the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been informed with regard to the existence of a still they had not succeeded in unearthing it nor in making the arrest.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I rise to a point of order. A few minutes ago the Minister of Justice

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
denied the statement with regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police having made an investigation, and in answer to the hon. member he said that the information contained in the article was not true. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is now persisting in his statement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has the right to accept a denial made by any other hon. member with respect to facts personal to himself, but he can state any fact that he knows of, or has heard of or that has been published in the press, notwithstanding the denial of any other hon. member. I am therefore willing, so far as this debate is concerned, to let him proceed with his statement of facts.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Hasn't the point been decided, Mr. Chairman? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has endeavoured to read an article which, I understand, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have denied, and that ought to settle that point. But may I point out that so far as the article in question is concerned, as the leader of the opposition has indicated, it could not possibly refer to any proceeding that had taken place in this house. This is clear from paragraph 306, which reads:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
It could not be said that this article is expressing an opinion or is reflecting upon the proceedings within the house because the matter has just originated. The whole thing should be dismissed at once. The statement has been denied and it must be accepted and besides it has no bearing upon the proceedings of the house, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has pointed out.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Simply to read an
article does not mean that it must be accepted. Surely the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) cannot ask me to decide this matter without my seeing or having heard read the article in question.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I cannot conceive of any proceeding in this house whereby a member is asked to submit an article from a newspaper or anything of that kind to the Speaker or the Chairman before it is read.
53719-197i


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I agree with that. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


Eugène Fiset: What item are we dealing with?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Item 394.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will content myself at the moment with asking a definite question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Is it true that efforts were made about January 19 by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to locate a still which they were unable to do and that later on instructions were given to the collector of customs who succeeded in locating the still and having the men arrested and the still destroyed? If we can get back to the original matter, I should like to inquire if there is close cooperation between these two groups of officials. If this article is true and if the customs officials had to be sent out after a futile investigation by the mounted police, it would reflect upon the efficiency of the mounted police.


Hugh Guthrie: I can only repeat what
I stated before. Both these newspaper articles were brought to my attention by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who informed me that the statements contained therein were not correct. There are two forces in Montreal, one belonging to the customs department and called the customs investigation branch and the other, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The customs investigation branch claims certain rights and privileges in regard to these matters. It has been said that when seizures are made they are allowed part of the fine or penalty whereas the mounted police are not. There was some friction between the two bodies, but that has ceased. The new commissioner has been in Montreal and the various jurisdictions have been established. The articles which have been read in part by the hon. member are not correct and place an entirely untrue light upon the whole situation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Pacific Science Association towards expenses of the fifth Pacific Science Congress, $70,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is this meeting to take place?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This was arranged for before we came into office.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to know who and what is the Pacific Science Association?
Supply*-M iscellaneous


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The only information I have is that this vote is necessary as a result of an invitation extended by the preceding government to the Pacific Science Association which held its last meeting in Java in 1929. As to the details of the character of the organization and the subjects which it studies, I would have to ask that that explanation be given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who is not here at the moment. I find that I have not these details before me.


Alan Webster Neill: Seventy thousand dollars is a great deal of money to vote just "as is" and I suggest that we should have some information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I can assist the hon. gentleman. Canada has been represented at various meetings of this organization which comprises most of the countries which border upon the Pacific ocean. The last meeting was held in Java. We have extended invitations, I think twice, to the congress to meet in Canada but until the 1929 meeting our invitations were not accepted. We then became obligated as hosts to this organization. Owing to economic conditions, the meeting which was set for last year was postponed, but it became clear that it could not be postponed again. This organization discharges rather important functions with respect to various matters- the circumstance that it met in Java in 1929 is some indication of that fact-and it deals with scientific problems of the first order connected with various matters which arise in the Pacific area. I do not think any of us are anxious that we should spend this money but, on the other hand, this country occupies rather an important place in international matters and the invitation has been extended and accepted. I understand the meeting is to be held in Vancouver. There is no sum less than this vote that we could arrive at which would enable the matter to be dealt with properly. Doctor Tory has given a great deal of attention to the matter and various scientific organizations in the country are interested. Unless we become "welchers" we are not warranted in refusing to pass this vote. That is not a very excellent term to use, but it expresses exactly the true situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that I am happy to be able to agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). As I recall it, this organization is one of the world scientific organizations. It deals more particularly with problems relating to the Pacific and Canada, being a country that borders on the Pacific, is deeply interested in the study

and research carried on. As the Prime Minister has said, Canada has .been represented at previous meetings. Our representatives have been entertained1 by other countries and the turn of Canada had come to invite these other nations to our country. In doing so it was thought that we were not only performing an international courtesy but also doing something that would .be of real advantage to Canada itself.


Alan Webster Neill: We have heard from two of the most able men in Canada but both of them have failed to give us any real information as to the purposes of this body. One said that as they met in Java last year, that would give an indication of the scientific importance of this organization. I do not know very much about Java. I associate that country only with coffee and I do not know what scientific bearing the fact that this organization met in that country would have. The leader of the opposition is also vague in his remarks; he says that it is of great scientific importance. Would somebody, if he knows, tell me what was discussed at Java and is now to be discussed at Vancouver? Has it to do with the marine life of the Pacific or with trade or what? I am quite willing to vote the money; I do not want, as the Prime Minister suggested, to be a welcher, but I should like to know what we are voting and what we are getting out of this affair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that
the members of the organization comprise some of the most eminent scientists of the world. I am afraid, if I were to read one of their papers, it would not add greatly to the sum total of the knowledge of more than a few members of the house.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: It would be ruled out
of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would not be out
of order, because it would be merely a statement in answer to a question as to what was done at the meeting. I have not brought with me a copy of the proceedings at the last meeting. As a matter of fact I thought probably the committee would be content with an explanation of the circumstances under which we are called upon to make the expenditure in question. I promise the hon. gentleman between now and the consideration of the estimates of some department, say External Affairs, I shall endeavour to bring down the last volume and perhaps make it available for him so that he may be able to add to the sum total of his knowledge.

Supply-Miscellaneous


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many delegates are
expected at this congress?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking subject
to correction, but I think 100 eminent scientists gathered at the meeting in Java. The Japanese meeting was more largely attended. It is expected that probably 100 scientists will attend the meeting at Vancouver.


Abraham Albert Heaps: For a meeting of 100
scientists, it is necessary to vote $70,000?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say that the Japanese government, during the period this organization met there, expended $250,000 and the cost to Java was some $130,000, so that it will be observed that the sum we ask as compared with those figures is rather modest.


Mr. SPENCER:: How are the expenses allocated between the different countries?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A committee of Canadian scientists under the chairmanship, if my memory serves me aright, of Doctor Tory, has accepted the responsibility of preparing for the meeting and making the necessary arrangements, shall I say on a very meagre scale as compared with what was done at the last two meetings, to try to provide for the meeting in a way that will not be unworthy of Canada. The committee is not at the moment large, but I think additions have been made to the number. If my memory serves me correctly-and I speak subject to memory-there is a small local committee that Doctor Tory established at Vancouver in the course of a recent visit to that city. Last year the work was proceeding with a good deal of difficulty when it was concluded, with the consent of the organization. that the meeting would be postponed until jthis year. I would not like those who come here to read this debate as an indication of the welcome that will be extended to them if they come to this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Philip Campbell re illegal warfare claim, $1,460.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say that this particular item is not to be classed with those cases which may be considered Canadian and which were dealt with by the reparations commission. The facts of the case, as I recall them, are that this man was a member of the crew of a British trawler. He was for a time interned in Germany with his associates who were members of the crew. After the war he became a resident of Australia and in 1921 or
thereabouts he moved to Canada. He was in this country for some time before he discovered that his associates had all been reimbursed by the British government. He put his claim into the Canadian reparations commission and very properly in the circumstances it could not be granted. Then representations were made to the Imperial authorities who would have granted compensation as was done in the case of his shipmates, but unfortunately he made his application after the cases had been closed in the mother country and it was impossible for him to receive compensation. So the British government said this: Inasmuch as we have compensated a number of Canadians without calling upon Canada to pay, we think, as a matter of courtesy and of fairness in the circumstances, you might be able to take care of this man who now has a residence in Canada. So, as a matter of grace, we felt in these circumstances that to place this man upon a parity with his shipmates, we should ask for this particular appropriation. In view of the conditions of to-day, the cost of living, the value of the pound sterling and the comparable amounts which were paid to his shipmates in England, I think the figure in this item is rather high, and I am going to ask my deskmate to move that the sum be reduced by $160. I think the compensation of $1,000 is reasonable.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: That is compensation in
full?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, and it is admitted it is purely a case of a compassionate grant.


Mr. HANBURY:: It is not a legal claim?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


Mr. POWER:: Who fixed the amount at
$1,460?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Due to exchange, I think
there was an error in the figures. Who prepared them, I cannot say. In the ordinary course the supplementary estimates come to my office and I do not examine them until they are presented to my colleagues in council. As a matter of fact the item came into the estimates at the instance of the Department of External Affairs after communication with the home authorities.


Charles Gavan Power: Has Philip Campbell returned to his home in the old country?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, he is a resident of
Canada to-day.


Mr. BROWN:: What amount was paid by the British government to his shipmates?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I move that the item be reduced in the sum of S460.
Item as amended agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time, and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933, the sum of $54,380,349.93 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 52, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Quarantine:	salaries and contingencies of
organized districts, public health in other districts, Tracadie and Bentinck island Lazaret-toes and leprosy generally, $162,000.
Mr. YENIOT:: I would like to get some
information from the minister respecting the appointment of a medical superintendent at the lazaretto at Tracadie. What I desire to learn is whether a permanent appointment of a medical superintendent has yet been made; who is temporarily in charge, and when does the minister expect a permanent appointment will be made.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: The appointment of the medical superintendent at Tracadie lazaretto has not yet been made. The medical officer who is temporarily in charge at Tracadie during the vacancy is Doctor Peloquin, a medical officer of the

Department of National Health. He has had experience in dealing with leprosy at our lazaretto on the Pacific coast. The position I understand is now being advertised by the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: May I ask if Doctor Hache of Caraquet was not placed in temporary charge in October last? If so, what position does he now occupy in connection with the lazaretto.


Murray MacLaren: Doctor Hache was in charge for a certain time; I do not recall the exact months, but he is not associated with the lazaretto at the present time.


Peter John Veniot: The minister has just stated that the vacancy is now being advertised by the Civil Service Commission. Is it not a fact that it was advertised last year and that applications were received, that Doctor Hache was one of the applicants among others, and that no action w'as taken by the Civil Service Commission at that time towards making a permanent appointment? If that is so, why is the position advertised a second time?


Murray MacLaren: I think the statement by the hon. member for Gloucester is correct, so far as I heard him. Doctor Hache was temporarily acting, but has not been appointed.


Peter John Veniot: What about the first call for applicants by the Civil Service Commission? Why was there a second call?


Murray MacLaren: Because his appointment was not confirmed.


Peter John Veniot: But there were other applicants? Why the necessity for a second call for applicants, when there were three or four other applications from medical men, men who had undergone the so-called examination, and some of whom were returned soldiers?


Murray MacLaren: I cannot answer that, because it is a matter which comes under the control of the Civil Service Commission. They decided the position would be advertised for, but I do not know anything beyond that. I am not familiar with their special reasons.


Peter John Veniot: I say the committee has a right to know those special reasons. I do not say the minister should carry them in his mind, but at least he should endeavour to obtain them. In practice, it is very seldom indeed that the Civil Service Commission call for a second tender-if I may use that term-without having received some intimation from the department. Here we have a

Supply-National Health
vacancy created by the retirement on pension of Doctor J. A.Langis, the man who for twenty or twenty-five years was in charge of the lazaretto. He was perfectly willing to accept his superannuation, but had to be replaced. The vacancy was advertised. A number of physicians, some of whom I know to be very capable men, applied for the position. As I have already said some were returned soldiers. Yet the appointment has not been made. Although almost a year has passed the appointment has not been permanently made, and the commission make a second call for applicants. There must be some reason for it, and I believe the committee is entitled to know what the reason is, if the minister can possibly get it from the commission. We are entitled to know why the applicants in the first instance are all thrown aside and new applications asked for. I am convinced it is not fair to the men who applied at first, and especially unfair to the returned soldiers.
Although I represent Gloucester county, through illness in the last six months I have been unable to keep in touch with my constituents. Until the minister announced it to-day I was not aware that Doctor Peloquin was temporarily in charge. I understood Doctor Hadhe was still in charge. Further, I was not aware that the Civil Service Commission had made a second call, and was greatly surprised to learn it. I contend we are treating those men unfairly who were called upon to go through the usual routine the Civil Service Commission requires in such cases.


Murray MacLaren: I cannot speak for the Civil Service Commission. I know what they have done; they have decided to advertise again, and all I can say to the hon. member is that I do not believe any previous applicant has been treated unjustly, because his application will be in order now just as it was previously.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: It cannot be in order. If I had learned of these circumstances before I left home, and had not been surprised by receiving the information to-day, I would be in a better position to speak. I claim an injustice has been done Doctor Hache. He will not have the same standing before the Civil Service Commission upon his second application that he had on his first. Doctor Hache was placed in charge of the lazaretto on October 2, 1932; the minister himself placed him in charge. Then the minister made a tour through Gloucester county, and when going through my home town was kind enough to call upon me. I believe the minister's call
was just at the time Doctor Hache was placed in charge. However, the date makes no difference. Doctor Hache and the minister, when on their way to Tracadie, called upon me at my home, and upon that occasion the minister informed me he was going to instal Doctor Hache temporarily. I was very happy to see that an appointee from the county of Gloucester was to be placed in charge of the hospital; I did not consider the matter from a political standpoint at all. I felt the work rightfully belonged to a doctor from the county of Gloucester providing he could qualify. Doctor Hache has been temporarily in charge of the hospital at Tracadie. He resides at Caraquet, a distance of twenty-one miles from the institution, and visits it three times a week, which was all he was called upon to do. I understand he was paid according to the services rendered; in other words he was not paid a full-time salary, but was paid a proportion of the full salary paid previously to the resignation of Doctor Langis.
Doctor Hache has been set aside. Is it because his services were not satisfactory? Was Doctor Peloquin called in to take charge of the lazaretto because it was found that, after serving three or four months Doctor Hache's services were not satisfactory to the department. Action certainly would not be taken through the Civil Service Commission because before they could act they would have to get a report of his qualifications as a temporaiy employee from the department. I claim what has taken place is a reflection on Doctor Hache, and that he does not stand the same chance on a second application or examination as he did on the first. He has been replaced, and an official permanently employed who is at the disposal of the department to be sent here and there for relief work, and to relieve superintendents in medical institutions. I claim that the department must have had some reason for taking that action. Having had some reason, they must report it to the Civil Service Commission, if Doctor Hache applies a second time. If he does apply a second time, whatever reason the department may give will militate against him. I claim the regular appointment should have been made when the Civil Service Commission received the applications and were in a position to decide upon the qualifications of each applicant. In five or six months they should not turn around and say, "We will call for new applications." What they should have done was to place Doctor Hache aside as a temporary employee and place Doctor Peloquin in charge temporarily. Then the Civil Service Commission could
Supply-National Health

have gone on with the applicants they had and made an appointment, instead of waiting until nearly a year after and then calling for new applications.


Murray MacLaren: As the hon. member
for Gloucester says, they might have, but they did not. The Civil Service Commission act for themselves, I cannot speak for them.


Peter John Veniot: Who displaced Doctor
Hache?


Murray MacLaren: I have stated to the
committee that his temporary appointment was not confirmed by the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: Who replaced him as a temporary officer?


Murray MacLaren: Excuse me if I finish
what I am saying. I would like to correct a minor point in the statement of the hon. member for Gloucester. I did not say to him that I went down to instal him, because Doctor Hache had been attending there previous to my arrival in Bathurst.


Peter John Veniot: Just two days.


Murray MacLaren: Well if it was one day. So it was not an installation. His appointment was on temporaiy certificate of the Civil Service Commission, not by the minister or the department.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I would like to broach a matter that comes under this item. There has been established in Toronto and Winnipeg and possibly other cities throughout Canada, sponsored by the provincial governments with the aid of the federal government, depots or offices for the interception and treatment of venereal disease. These offices have done splendid work, so much so that the discoverable incidence of this disease has been diminished fifty per cent in a comparatively short time. This year and last year and the year before no provision was made bj the federal authorities for this grant, and the province of Manitoba at least was forced to discontinue the service. In view of the very far spread1 incidence of this form of disease-and it is impossible to find an adjective which describes the devastating effect it has on society and the people of the country at large-I would like to plead with the Minister of Health that he would try and find a means of placing an item in the estimates that would enable this work to be carried on in the province of Manitoba. It would1 not only be a charitable work but a work for the protection and welfare of the whole nation.


Murray MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, I will
bring the views of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) concerning this matter to the attention of the government. I would not like to give any answer now, but I will be pleased to bring the matter before my colleagues. I notice he asks that this amount be available for the treatment of venereal disease in the province of Manitoba. I think probably it would have been better had the request been made to apply generally, as before.


John Power Howden: Quite so, but I am from Manitoba.


Mr. LUCAS:: I would like to ask the
minister how many stations there are in Canada where leprosy is being treated, and where they are located?


Murray MacLaren: There are two lazarettos in Canada, one on the Atlantic and one on the Pacific. The one at Tracadie, New Brunswick, is much the older institution, because leprosy became endemic there, it had its home there, in fact I think that is the only instance in Canada where leprosy has become seated among the people. It has diminished very considerably as years go on. I visited the lazaretto there something like thirty or forty years ago and there were about thirty cases, and all of them had developed within that area. To-day there is a total of ten cases. But it does not mean that these cases arose in the east of Canada or the neighbourhood of Tracadie. It has now become a hospital for oases of leprosy found to exist over the eastern half of Canada. There are comparatively few of the ten that came from the original source about Tracadie. That is an instance where leprosy has diminished slowly but very substantially.
The other lazaretto is at Bentinck island, Williams Head, Vancouver island. It is a small island near Vancouver island. There are five cases of leprosy there to-day. All are Chinese. In fact the history in western Canada has been that the cases of leprosy are largely Chinese. These Chinamen are sent back to their home, if possible, but in a number of cases it is not possible on account of transportation reasons.


William Thomas Lucas: Has scientific medicine developed to a point where a permanent cure can be effected?


Murray MacLaren: Leprosy is essentially
a long standing disease, usually very slow in progress. Certain cases come to a finality, apparently they are cured. No doubt they are assisted by treatment, but time is also

Supply-National Health
an important element. There are cases of leprosy that do not tend to progress, even apart from any special treatment. On the whole treatment is of value, it certainly relieves, it extends their lives and makes them more comfortable. The treatment is not a prompt curative agent, but is of value all the same. As I say some cases become quiescent and are apparently cured.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: How many cases
are there at Tracadie?


Murray MacLaren: Ten in Tracadie,
Gloucester county, New Brunswick, and now five at Bentinck island, Williams Head, British Columbia.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Are the ten cases at Tracadie members of the white face?


Murray MacLaren: Hon. members can
easily understand bow occasionally a case creeps into Canada. Most recently a case was found of a British subject, white, who had lived in South America and subsequently came to Canada. That was a case which no doubt originated in South America. They are all white, and there are a few from the neighbourhood and others from various parts who have come to Canada and afterwards shown the disease. There is one patient who is supposed to have become infected in South Africa. Naturally a case creeps in occasionally, as I say. There is a general impression that leprosy is a highly contagious disease, but that is not the case. It is contagious, it is true, because that is the explanation of its continuing all through the ages; but with proper care and attention, proper living, it is only slightly so. If, however, people live in one household and do not take care of themselves-it is pretty much the same in the case of tuberculosis-then the disease is conveyed. In the case of the lazaretto at Tracadie, the institution is in charge of a community of sisters. That community has been there for very many years, and no case of leprosy has developed among any of the sisters. This is a good opportunity, I think, of indicating the excellent care that the sisters show, the proper spirit, and the kindness which they exhibit in their work. They are devoting their lives to the care of these lepers.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to
add a word in support of the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. Boniface, that it is the grave duty, particularly under present conditions, that the Dominion government and its department of health should interest themselves directly, both financially and otherwise, in the growing problem of venereal disease throughout the country. It is not
necessary for me to tell the minister that under conditions of unemployment and underemployment, and under conditions of reduced income on the part of many of the middle and lower classes, there is a pressure which is greater than ever on the provincial clinics which have been maintained with some success-considerable success in many provinces. That strain, as the minister knows, has been very heavy owing to the fact that hundreds of people who formerly could afford to undertake private medical treatment now make application to the clinics, being unable to defray the cost privately. In view of the general conditions resulting from this state of affairs, and the conditions that will continue to result from want of adequate care of these cases, I would urge upon the minister that he give serious consideration to the proposal of the hon. member for St. Boniface, in the hope that next year if not this year there will be a large vote from this department for their responsibility in this matter.


Murray MacLaren: I shall keep the matter
before me.


Peter John Veniot: The minister did not give
me the date that Doctor Peloquin was temporarily in charge at Tracadie.


Murray MacLaren: I have not the date
here.


Mr VENIOT:: Will the minister obtain it
for me and let me have it by communication?


Murray MacLaren: I certainly will.


John Campbell Elliott: How long has the lazaretto been in existence at Tracadie, what was the greatest number of patients afflicted with leprosy at any one time, and at what date? I gather from what the minister has said, and I believe it to be the fact, that there has been a diminution in the number of cases in Canada in recent years and that the disease is now regarded as controllable, from the point of view of preventing any contagion to attendants. I should like to know how long ago the institution was established and when it had the greatest number of patients; also how that number compares with the number to-day. I take it that the patients in British Columbia come practically entirely from boats and largely from the orient. That was the impression I gathered, and I also gathered that no new cases have broken out there among residents in Canada.


Murray MacLaren: I should not care to give the exact date as to how long ago the lazaretto was established there. There has been more than one in that neighbourhood. I think how-
Supply-National Health

ever it goes back to 1830; it may be 1844, I am not quite sure. There has been a diminution in the number of patients, but as I said a few moments ago most of the cases now there are cases that are sent from the eastern half of Canada, and they are not Canadian cases because they have not developed in Canada; they have just drifted in. Actually there are now very few so called Canadian cases that have developed in this country. The Chinese come from abroad; in fact, most of the cases in Tracadie have come from abroad. There are a few however that originated in the area I speak of, where the lazaretto now is, and that is the explanation of the lazaretto being there. In the British North America Act there is a section providing that one of the duties of the federal government shall be to provide and care for lepers in Canada.


John Campbell Elliott: What was the greatest number at any one time in Canada, and when?


Murray MacLaren: I am informed that the greatest number at any one time in Tracadie was twenty-eight. I think there were quite that number there in 1886.


Peter John Veniot: And the number in Tracadie now is between nine and eleven?


Murray MacLaren: The total number of
cases at Tracadie is ten, but I do not think that more than two or three are natives of New Brunswick. The others are from large centres like Toronto and Montreal.


Peter John Veniot: In the past lepers have
been received at Tracadie hospital from the British WTest Indies. I think we have had one or two Chinamen and also some Icelanders. Leprosy was first discovered in Gloucester county some eighty or ninety years ago. It was supposed to have been brought in by a ship-wrecked crew. That was before confederation and before the federal government took over the care of lepers, this service was provided by the province. At that time the lepers were stationed at Sheldrake island on Miramichi bay. They became somewhat disgruntled and revolted and burned dowm the establishment. After confederation the federal government took charge and a colony was established on the western shore of Tracadie harbour. In 1887 the government made a grant and the present lazaretto was constructed. At that time the occupants of this colony were mostly residents of Gloucester county but I am pleased to be able to say that leprosy has been almost entirely eradicated from this district. This has been brought about by medical treatment 
and the watchfulness upon the part of the officials of the federal government in following up suspected cases and, despite opposition, placing them in the lazaretto. As the minister has said, at the present time there are about ten inhabitants in the lazaretto and of that number, not more than two or three are natives of Gloucester. These are old people who have been in there for years. There have been cases of absolute cure. I know of one old lady who was declared to be cured. She lived outside the lazaretto for years but finally asked that she be allowed to return there in order that she might die in the place where she had received such wonderful care. The sisters were employed after the federal government took charge and have had charge of this colony ever since. This old lady to whom I refer had been a resident in the lazaretto for some twenty-five or thirty years but due to recent medical discoveries, a perfect cure had been effected. I am informed that there are other cases now in the lazaretto well on the road to absolute recovery.


Peter McGibbon: If there are only five
cases in the institution in British Columbia, all from the orient, why could not they be deported or moved east in order that the institution could be closed?


Murray MacLaren: I think I indicated the reason a short time ago. With one exception, we have returned all that it was possible to return. Difficulty is placed against the return of the other inhabitants by the transportation company. If a man happens to be disfigured 6r his hands or face ulcerated to any great extent, it is not possible to have the shipping company accept him for transportation to China. There is one man who might be returned but he has been found to be very useful in looking after the others and making them comfortable.


Peter McGibbon: Could not they be moved east? Surely the difficulties of transportation could be surmounted.


Murray MacLaren: It is natural for one
to ask why these people should not be sent back to their country of origin, but I hope I have explained the difficulties in the way. It would be very desirable if that could be done but due to the attitude taken by the shipping companies it has been found impossible to do so.


Peter McGibbon: Why not move them
east and close the western institution? That would save some S80,000 a year.


Murray MacLaren: Would it? This is a
question about which one has to know a good

Supply-National Health
deal before he can offer an opinion. How much does the hon. member think it would cost to transport a leper from British Columbia to Tracadie? Such transportation would involve a special car as neither the Canadian Pacific nor the Canadian National will allow such a case even in a drawing-room which is quite separate from the rest of the car and believed to be absolutely safe. But the fact is that they will not do so. This means there has to be an attendant. As hon. members seem to be really very much interested in this matter, let me give them our experience of the last case we sent to Tracadie. It will cost about $700 to send that one case there from Toronto. We have to be a little cautious about advocating economy on those rates. If you bring those five cases from the coast and place them in Tracadie, what guarantee is there that next week there will not be another case, because they are liable to occur anywhere in Canada amongst the Chinese, and then the same process has to be repeated? The department was carrying on prior to my time-and I am not taking any credit for this-and is continuing to act in the wisest, sanest and most economical manner possible.


John Campbell Elliott: I know there was an
agitation some years ago to have all the lepers in Canada put in one place, and I think those in charge thought a certain quarantine station at Grosse Isle would be a suitable place. When you talk of sending lepers to any particular spot, you will find no enthusiasm on the part of the people of that district. I happen to know because I was in charge of that department at the time somebody suggested that being done and I quite agree with what the minister has said in regard to the inadvisability of attempting to move a patient affected with this disease either any great distance or from one station to another where there has not hitherto been a hospital for this kind of patient. It is a matter of great satisfaction to those in charge of the department from time to time that this disease is gradually diminishing and that the fear of contracting it is nothing like as great to-day as it was, say, twenty-five or thirty years ago. I do not think any good purpose will be served by attempting to move the patients who are now in Vancouver to Tracadie or any other place.


Murray MacLaren: Just to complete this
subject, I should like to say that opinions vary in reference to the care of lepers. Everyone is agreed that under ordinary circumstances this disease is not contagious to any substantial extent. For instance, of all the sisters at Tracadie with all their contact, nursing, dressing wounds, and so forth, not
one has contracted the disease. That is because they are careful and understand the matter. Recently letters have come to the department from quite an outstanding physician stating that we were too strict about this matter and that the act was too severe in calling upon those cases to go to a lazaretto. First, let me say that nearly all of the cases that I have seen in Canada, with perhaps one exception, are of poor people and they must be cared for in some way; second, if a subject of leprosy is able to care for himself in the way of a home and nursing, it seems to me that the most practical thing to do is to allow him to go to the lazaretto. Such a patient will have somebody with whom to associate, the opportunity of gardening, boating, fishing and be able to live in a more wholesome, natural and happy manner than if allowed to remain in some other place where the public would have fear of the disease.


John Power Howden: I should like to make a further observation on this appropriation. It is true that in the constitution of this country provision has been made for the care of lepers, but that constitution was framed nearly a hundred years ago. I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health whether he does not consider that there are other infectious diseases of a venereal nature which are much more important to the Canadian people in this day than the incidence of leprosy. I have been a medical man for thirty years in reasonably active practice and I have never come across a case of leprosy, but I should like to state to the minister that I find syphilis in about every tenth patient. This is a matter of vital importance to the Canadian people, and I have no hesitation in making that statement on the floor of the house. The vast majority of people never see leprosy; it is not a very important matter. I would not for a moment have the government of this country ignore it or not make for it the provision that they do, but I say without hesitation that so far as the health of the Canadian people is concerned, the discovery, cure and prevention of syphilis are infinitely more vital matters. There are couples who have married and raised large families of, say, six or seven children w'ho have grown up imbeciles or something of the kind, and it is a fact that neither the parents nor anyone else realized that the trouble was due to this disease. This has been discovered probably only when it was too late to do anybody any good and possibly when the disease might have spread indefinitely. If the government of Canada feels disposed to curtail and, if possible, destroy infectious
Supply-National Health

diseases which threaten the health of the nation, the provinces are reaching out their hands for a little help in order to take the best and most efficacious steps that can be taken. The best we can do so far is to institute clinics. We have had two or three clinics which did splendid work in Canada until suddenly, almost overnight, the assistance from the federal government was shut off.


Murray MacLaren: It was not a sudden, but a gradual reduction.


John Power Howden: Well, it did not take very long to put an end to the grant. It has been ended for years although it was for a work that has not been exceeded in importance in this country. I desire again to urge the minister to confer with his colleagues in the cabinet in order that this matter may be seriously considered and that some assistance may be extended to the provinces so that we may once more, if possible, institute these venereal clinics.


Murray MacLaren: I am sure my hon. friend fully appreciates the difference between the two diseases. Leprosy is an obligation of the Dominion government to take care of.


John Power Howden: If the Dominion government had known as much about syphilis as about leprosy, that would have been a dominion obligation too.


Murray MacLaren: Please allow me to finish. We had no option in the matter. We did it in the case of leprosy because it was there for us to do, but venereal disease is not an obligation of the federal government. That is the difference.


John Power Howden: It should be an obligation of the federal government.


Murray MacLaren: The federal government made a grant, which was at one time very considerable, to assist in the treatment of venereal disease. That grant has gradually been decreased, but the grant was made originally to help the movement get on its feet. There is no obligation for us to continue. The cases are fundamentally different, but I quite sympathize with my hon. friend in the views he has put forward, and I shall bring them to the attention of my colleagues.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a matter which might not strictly be considered a federal matter, but rather provincial, but yet I think the federal authorities would have at least some interest in it seeing that these items come under the heading of national health and the particular item we are dealing with deals with

public health in other districts, among other things. The matter I wish to mention is the length of hours which nurses are obliged to work in taking care of the sick. I know that it is a provincial matter but I think it is worthy of being brought to the attention of the Minister of National Health. Our nurses in the various hospitals throughout the country are required to work twelve hours a day, from seven in the morning to seven in the evening, and the night shift from seven in the evening to seven in the morning, often with scarcely enough time to grab their meals while they are working. I have been connected with a hospital for several years, sitting on the board, and I have often wondered why our provinces do not take action and reduce the working hours of the nurses. Surely the health of these nurses should be considered. They have no labour organization like our masculine sex has to present their pleas and petitions even on the floor of this house, and try and get reasonable working hours. Generally speaking, men do not work more than eight hours a day, but here are young girls plodding away for twelve hours a day, and by so doing many of them ruin their health and prematurely shorten their days. Seeing that this comes under national health, I wonder if the minister would not think it worth while taking the matter up with the provinces, through the provincial departments of health, with a view to having the hours which the nurses are required to work brought down from twelve to, say, possibly eight hours a day.


Murray MacLaren: That is primarily a
matter for the provinces. The question of the number of hours a day they should work would raise a very difficult question no matter under what authority it comes. Hosiptal orderlies of course, work similar hours, as well as that splendid branch of humanity, the medical men., although I am not making a personal reference there. The hours can hardly be avoided, but I may say for the comfort of my hon. friend that I appreciate what the nurses have to do, the long hours they have to work, and their faithful services, but in the majority of instances I believe that they have many opportunities to sit down and rest during their period of duty. It is not a continuous occupation like that of a girl in a factory.
I should like first of all to have some helpful suggestion from my hon. friend. It is a matter that is brought to our attention frequently, although it is hardly in our field, but that of course does not prevent us taking a proper interest in the subject. Just at the moment I do not see any solution.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-National Health
Immigration medical inspection, $141,500.
Edward Joseph Garland: Would the minister tell the committee why the expenditure is still so high? I understood that immigration had been reduced most materially and that the offices abroad had been closed, but here we are spending $141,500 for medical services in connection with immigration. Do we still keep a staff of doctors in England or where are these doctors who are being paid?


Murray MacLaren: The amount does seem considerable in view of the fact that immigration has been reduced so very greatly, but still it will be noticed that there is a decrease in the expenditure from last year, and the figures for the last few years, which I expect to have in a moment, will show a similar reduction. No matter how small the immigration, it is necessary to maintain a certain organization at the various seaports; in this country, at Halifax and Saint John, Quebec, Montreal and in the west. Then in Europe we have a medical office in London, with two medical officers, and one at Liverpool, Glasgow, Belfast, Paris, Hamburg and Antwerp, together with stenographic staffs. In 1928-29 we had twenty-nine medical officers overseas as compared with eight to-day, a reduction of twenty-one, and that of course means a material reduction in the expenditure. In the year 1931-32 the total expenditure in Canada, Great Britain and the continent was $178,947.13. That is as against $162,000 this year. In the year 1930-31 the total expense was $254,160.10. That shows a substantial reduction. If hon. members wish, I could give the items to show how that amount is made up. The estimates for this year for these medical officers and their staffs are as follows:
Salaries, $85,433.50.
Allowances, including clothing, $10,000.
Wages, $1,000.
Professional services, $1,000.
Equipment and supplies, $15,000.
Rent, $9,000.
Travelling and incidental expenses, $14,000.
Miscellaneous, $6,006.
Or a total of about $141,500.


Edward Joseph Garland: While I
have no complaint with regard to the reduction in immigration explained by the minister, I do think that in view of the statements by this government to the effect that it intends very seriously and drastically to limit migration to this country under present conditions, there is not a valid excuse for an expenditure of $140,000 for medical inspection. I believe those offices at Antwerp and in European countries generally, outside of Great Britain, should all be closed. I strongly recommend
to the minister that the closing of all European offices outside of those in Great Britain would be a great step in the direction of cleaning this matter up.


Murray MacLaren: That has not been overlooked by the department. The advice of the immigration department is asked concerning the number of medical officers who should be in Great Britain and on the continent. Within the last twelve months there has been a reduction of twenty-one medical officers. That is evidence of withdrawing with considerable speed. At the present time we have only one man in Paris, one in Hamburg and one in Antwerp. I am advised by the Department of Immigration that that is a minimum number which we should have at those points. Then, there are two in London, one in Liverpool, one in Glasgow and one in Belfast. That is a very small number, even with immigration where it is to-day. As we have come down to only eight officials on the continent and in Great Britain, hon. members must realize that the saving is very material. These medical officers are paid between $3,000 and $4,000 a year, with the addition of some living allowance. Therefore I believe I can assure the hon. member for Bow River that the matter is being considered from a practical standpoint, and staffs are being steadily cut down.


William Thomas Lucas: Has there been any reduction in the staff in Canada?


Murray MacLaren: There has been a small reduction; I may be in a position to give the figures later. The number employed is in proportion to the amount of work required to be done. There are always ships coming in to Halifax and Saint John. For that reason there must be officers at those points. During the' summer months they come to Quebec, and provision must be made at that point.
While in the year 1931-32 we had forty men on the staff that number has been reduced by nine.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I note from the
report of the Department of Immigration and Colonization for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932, that there were only 7,332 British immigrants from the British Isles and 4,123 from all other countries, other than the United States. That would mean that there were only between 11,000 and 12,000 immigrants, and it would seem to me that the staffs are still too large to handle only that number of people. Further, if the staffs on the other side are doing their work effectively it seems strange to me that we should still have a total rejection of 324 at ocean
Supply-National Health

ports for the fiscal year 1931-32. Would the minister explain why it is necessary to have so many people to handle so few immigrants, and if they are well handled on the other side why there are so many rejections on this side.


Murray MacLaren: I would suggest the
number is very small. We have only four in the British Isles. People sail from many ports, and, if we have immigrants examined by our own medical men, I do not believe we could get along with a smaller number of officials. Were the 324 immigrants mentioned by the hon. member all coming to Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have given the
figures appearing in the report showing rejections at ocean ports, nationality and sex, for the fiscal year 1931-32.


Murray MacLaren: Let me say that all
immigrants who come to Canada have not necessarily been previously examined. Those coming from Great Britain, and the parts of the continent I have mentioned, are examined. But, for instance, those coming from Norway, Sweden, or Denmark are not examined, and when they come to Canada a larger proportion of these are refused admission.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What is the method of procedure in the examination of immigrants coming from the British Isles? Have we Canadian doctors there to examine them, or is there a roster of English doctors? What is the pay given to English doctors for examining immigrants?


Murray MacLaren: We have both plans;
we have our own medical men and we have British medical practitioners on a roster. As I have mentioned several times, there are five Canadian medical men in Great Britain, but they cannot examine people from all over a large area, although they are located at the principal points; so they are supplemented by those from the roster. They are paid for the examination by the immigrant.


Mr. ROSS:: At what points are Canadian
medical examiners placed in Europe, and what amount of work have they done during the past year?


Murray MacLaren: There are in Great
Britain two Canadian medical officers-


Arthur Edward Ross: On the continent.


Murray MacLaren: I will make a complete statement. There are two in the head office, one in Liverpool, one in Glasgow, and one in Belfast. On the continent: one in Paris, one in Hamburg, and one in Antwerp. As to

the number of examinations, there has been a marked reduction. In 1929-30 they numbered 131,185; in 1930-31, 62,975; in 1931-32, 16,958. This year, with incomplete figures it is estimated that there will be 6,000 examinations.


Arthur Edward Ross: At what points were these
examinations made?


Murray MacLaren: I cannot give the points I am merely mentioning our own medical officers.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many examinations did
the man at Hamburg make?


Murray MacLaren: I am sorry, but I have not the figures here.


Arthur Edward Ross: I can hardly see the possibility of an examiner at Paris doing all the work for the southern part of Europe. If he cannot, of what use is he to this dominion? Do immigrants coming from Russia have to come to Antwerp or Hamburg to be examined, or does the medical examiner go to certain ports to examine?


Murray MacLaren: Only to some extent.
For instance in Paris our immigration authorities wished us to have a medical man there to advise them.


Arthur Edward Ross: Why? How many have come from France?


Murray MacLaren: I cannot give the figures.


James J. Donnelly: What medical examination or inspection is made of American immigrants coming into this country, and where are they examined?


Murray MacLaren: As far as I know there is no difference in the examination. They are passed by the medical men as they come through.


James J. Donnelly: Where are they examined?


Murray MacLaren: They are seen by the medical officer, and if he is satisfied he lets them come through.


James J. Donnelly: Have we Canadian medical examiners at the line to examine them as they come through? I have never seen any. I have been at Canadian ports when immigrants were coming through and I have never seen any Canadian doctor or anyone else examine them. In my constituency a man who some time ago came into this country from the United States developed in the last few years an incurable disease and is a charge

Supply-National Health
on the municipality. I think it is the duty of the federal government to examine immigrants; if they are negligent, or have no medical examiner it is up to them to look after the patient, not leave it to the municipality.


Murray MacLaren: The system followed by the Canadian authorities is the same as that followed in the United States. While they are not actually examined, if there is a suspected case the immigrant is detained for examination by the medical officer. But examiners are not posted all along the border, either by us or by the Americans.


James J. Donnelly: I wish to lodge a protest. Where an immigrant comes into Canada from the United States and is accepted by the immigration authorities, and subsequently develops an incurable disease and becomes a charge on the municipality, the government should either have him deported or take care of the case.


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member understands, of course, that if a man is in such a condition that he should be deported, he can be sent back.


Charles Gavan Power: Since it would appear that we are not now encouraging immigrants, and we have heard on all sides that it is not the policy of the government to do so, I propose to move a reduction in this vote. I move:
That vote No. 212 (immigration and medical inspection, $141,500) be reduced by $100,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: I imagine this amendment would not have been moved if I had been able to get information-


Charles Gavan Power: We cannot get information, so vote for the amendment.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think we ought to wait until after six o'clock, and give the officials time to get the information. It was my intention, Mr. Chairman, in asking the questions I did, to obtain information that would enable us either to justify this estimate or to condemn it.


Charles Gavan Power: Condemn it.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the officials should be able to tell us how much work these men at Paris, Hamburg, Antwerp and so on have done in a year, to justify their existence or the money they get. I may be stupid, but I cannot understand how a man in Paris can take charge of this southern part of Europe. Is he only there as an A.D.C. or an ornament to the office in Paris? I think that if we give the officials time to furnish the minister
with the information perhaps there will be no reason for the amendment, and I suggest that we might wait until after six o'clock to find out what work these men have actually done, if anything. I have come across several cases in connection with which I think very good work has been done. I know of one case of trachoma which people have persistently endeavoured to get into this country, and I think you have an example in the west of one case that cost the department some $30,000 for treatment. So that if these men have done a certain amount of work in the way of prevention they have probably justified their existence and the money which we spend on them. It was with that idea that I asked the question as to what work had been done.


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member asked for the number of examinations. I cannot give information in regard to each individual; those details are not available. I suggest, however, that the hon. member read the last report of the department wherein he will find the particulars he wants. The number of British examinations by Canadian medical officers was 16,888, by roster doctors, the number was 7,817. This gives a total of 24,705. On the continent, the examinations by Canadian medical officers show very few there, and they are scattered; but they do manage to make examinations. For the year the total is 26,818.


Jean-François Pouliot: In connection with these 26,000 cases, did the doctor take the blood pressure.


Murray MacLaren: Is the hon. member asking that question seriously?


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask it with a smile but I am serious.


Murray MacLaren: The total examinations, both on the continent and British, number 51,523. There is an interesting figure at page 118 of the report. On the continent, in April of last year, there were 7,263 examinations. That is the evidence I would submit that these three medical men are as a matter of fact making examinations. Paris is one of the thoroughfares immigrants tend to pass through. I presume that the man in Paris does his share of the work.* The examinations in April, as I say, numbered 7,263.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where were the 26,000 examined?
Immigration Act


Murray MacLaren: That is the total for the year by Canadian medical officers.


Arthur Edward Ross: On the continent?


Murray MacLaren: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: I thought the minister said the number was 7,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Murray MacLaren: No; it is not carried yet. I want to explain this important point and I want if possible to convince the hon. member for Kingston, which is no easy matter. With all respect to my hon. friend, I must say that the questions which he puts he generally contrives to make rather puzzling. According to the report of the department, which I have no doubt is correct, the number of examinations on the continent was 26,818. I think that is the question my hon. friend was asking. The total for Great Britain and the continent was 61,523.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. M. McDADE (Northumberland) moved the second reading of Bill No. 48, to confirm an agreement made between the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. 39, to amend the Railway Act (return tickets)- Mr. Jacobs-Mr. Bury in the chair.
On section 1-Return tickets good on railways between same terminals.
Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps this bill could be
explained in the same manner as the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) explained the Pacific Science Congress.


Robert James Manion: After the very fine performance last night by the hon. gentleman I

dislike objecting to anything which he proposes, but this bill impinges upon the whole question of cooperation covered by the main railway bill now before the house. I think this bill might wait for another year and, therefore, I move that the committee rise.


Charles Gavan Power: Is this the forerunner of
amalgamation?


Robert James Manion: No, cooperation. I move
that the committee rise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woods-worth for the second reading of Bill No. 43, to amend the Immigration Act.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Woodsworth) which was negatived on the following division.
Beaubien,
Bouchard,
Brass et,
Brown,
Butcher,
Coote,
Dupuis,
Fiset, Sir Eugene,
Gershaw,
Kennedy
(Peace River),
++YEAS
Messrs:
Luchkovich,
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre). Neill,
Reid,
Roberge,
Spencer,
Totzke,
Veniot,
Woodsworth,
Young.-20.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Anderson (Halton), Barber,
Bennett,
Beynon,
Black (Halifax), Bourgeois,
Boyes,
Burns,
Bury,
Cowan (LongLake), Davies,
Dickie,
Esling,
Fraser (Cariboo), Gagnon,
Garland (Carleton), Gobeil,
Guthrie,
Ilanbury,
Hay,
Johnstone,
Loucks,
Macdonald (Kings),
MacLaren,
MacNicol,
McDade,
McGillis,
McGregor,
Manion,
Plunkett,
Price,
Robinson,
Rogers,
Ross,
Ryerson,
Sauve,
Simpson
(West Algoma), Smith
(Victoria-Carleton),
Smoke,
Spankie,
Spotton,
Stanley,
Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds). Stewart (Lethbridge), Stirling,
Stitt (Nelson), Sutherland,
Thompson
(East Simcoe), Wright.-50.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I was paired with the hon.
member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr Bowman). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH
[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Bury in the chair.
Immigration medical inspection, $141,500.
Murray MacLaren: I should
like to give the committee some particulars that I now have in reference to the number of examinations held at the different ports in Great Britain and on the continent. I give
first the figures for 1931-32: City-
London	
Liverpool	
Glasgow	
Belfast	
Paris	
Hamburg	
Antwerp	
Number of examinations 720 415 799 314 1,175 1,037 1,287
For the ten months ended the last day of January, 1933, the figures are as follows:
City-
Number of examinations
London	 712
Liverpool	 388
Glasgow	 384
Belfast	 193
Paris		994
Hamburg	 794
Antwerp	 511
Further, I should like to make this statement, which was not, I think, made this afternoon, that these officers have the care of two infectious diseases hospitals, one in Halifax and one in Quebec, both hospitals calling for medical service. I wish again to say that this department keeps in close touch with and acts on the advice of the Department of Immigration as to the necessary number of medical officers both in Great Britain and on the continent I might say further in reference to deportees that these officers examine such cases, and I have no doubt I have not exhausted the list.
Supply-National Health


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: The amendment is that vote No. 212 be reduced by $100,000.
Amendment (Mr. Power) negatived.
Item agreed to on division.
Civil Government - Pensions and National Health - salaries, $165,870; contingencies, $40,500.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
the duties of the large number of chemists, some ten in all, listed on page 88 of the details and drawing salaries totalling about $28,700?


Murray MacLaren: We have laboratories in various parts of Canada, two in Ottawa, and one each in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
these chemists doing?


Murray MacLaren: They examine food and drugs for adulteration.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is to
these various laboratories that the samples are sent in by the departmental inspectors for chemical examination?


Murray MacLaren: They are referred to our laboratory at Ottawa or to the nearest labors^ tory, where the purity of the samples and the presence of adulteration in spices and foods and various other substances is reported on.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
the duties of the chief of division of child welfare?


Murray MacLaren: Her duties are largely
of an educational character, to prepare for distribution leaflets and pamphlets on public health matters, and to cooperate with the child welfare organizations throughout Canada, and generally to further child and maternal welfare.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I understood that the
vote for venereal diseases had been left out of the estimates, yet I see here a salary of over $4,000 for the chief of division of venereal disease control. I would like to know what this official has to do.


Murray MacLaren: This official is still in
the department, which may be some encouragement to those who are encouraging the government to continue that particular vote. This is the officer who formerly supervised for the federal department the venereal disease problem and he still keeps it under observation. The fact that the government is not making a grant this year does not mean that this official has ceased to take an interest in the problem, for on the contrary he is observ-

Supply-Pensions

ing it throughout the country. This officer has also other duties apart from those to which I have first referred, such as the physical examination of civil servants many of whom are sent to him for examination and report. Though the vote is not in the estimates this year, I can assure my hon. friends that the services of this official have not been precipitately disposed of.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I take it that this officer would from time to time get into touch with officials of the provinces who have to do with the control of venereal disease and collaborate with them in that regard?


Murray MacLaren: His duty in that sense
is the same as that of the chief of the child welfare division, to cooperate and keep in touch with the provinces and be of as much assistance to them as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-pensions payable to militiamen on active service, northwest rebellion, 1885, and general pensions, $25,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister explain
this item?


Murray MacLaren: This is to meet the pensions principally of those who were in the northwest rebellion.


Edward Joseph Garland: How many pensioners are there?


Murray MacLaren: The total number of
disability pensioners is 53 and there are 6 dependent pensioners. The number is naturally decreasing and the expenditure also.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-European war-naval, militia and air forces after the war, $45,000,000.
Charles Gavan Power: Will the minister give a
general explanation of this vote before we start discussing it in detail? Perhaps he would give us information particularly with respect to the proposed pension legislation.


Murray MacLaren: Answering the last part of the question first, I do not think that I can inform the house of the proposed pension legislation until the bill is brought down.


Charles Gavan Power: With all due respect I submit this estimate should not be assented to until such time as we are familiar with the pension legislation. I do not know what other hon. members feel, but I believe we should not consider this large item of $45,000,000 until we know on what basis the money is to be paid out. If we are to believe the rumours which we hear, there are to be radical changes in the pension legislation. In all

seriousness I suggest to the minister that the house not being informed concerning the proposed measure the government is bringing down, he would not serve any useful purpose by endeavouring to put the item through to-night.


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member for Quebec South need not be exercised over this matter. I believe he asks for something to which he is not entitled, namely a statement regarding amendments to be brought before the house. In my view such a statement would not be in order until the bill is presented. His request is entirely different from postponing consideration of the item or allowing it to stand. If my hon. friend will say, "It would be well for the item to stand", it will stand.


Charles Gavan Power: I think it would be well. We might as well let it stand voluntarily; there is no use getting into a row about it.
Mr. MaCLAREN: There is no occasion to believe that suggestion would be resisted- not at all. If it is the wish of the committee, it will stand, without further difficulty. I trust that is satisfactory.


Charles Gavan Power: Quite.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister tell us why there is to be a decrease of $3,000,000 in the amount of pensions for 1933-34 as compared with 1932-33?


Murray MacLaren: I have just said to the hon. member for Quebec South that this item will be allowed to stand. For that reason I do not believe it advisable to deal with it piecemeal. When the proper time comes I hope to give to the hon. member for North Winnipeg all the information he desires. I believe we would do well now to take up vote No. 195.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I should like to bring a local matter to the attention of the committee before the item is allowed to stand. One day last fall before the orders of the day were called I brought to the attention of the house the special case of private Joseph Hussin. I believe this is the proper time to discuss the matter.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If the item is to stand I think the hon. member should speak when consideration is resumed.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Not necessarily.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If the item is allowed to stand until the bill is considered, there should be no further discussion at this time.

Supply-Pensions


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I direct the attention of the committee to the matter of two returned soldiers; the sooner I put the circumstances before the house, the better it will be for the men concerned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: An item has been called by the minister. Unless it is retired by a vote of the committee, it is still open for discussion.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: But the feeling of the committee, expressed very clearly, was that the item should stand.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not all
the committee.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If the item stands, the matter can be discussed when the item is under consideration.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I refer to a matter
which is very important to two returned soldiers in my section of the country. I believe the committee will be indulgent enough to allow me to state the circumstances. One day last fall before the orders of the day were called I directed the attention of the 'house to the case of Private Joseph Hussin.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is it the
will of the committee to hear this matter now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If the committee knew the situation they would have no objection. I realize there is not one man in this committee who would want to do an injustice to the two men in question.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It is
entirely a matter for the committee to decide.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Again I
rise to a point of order. I submit the procedure is entirely irregular. The minister has offered an item for discussion in the proper way. Because one hon. member in the committee says "stand" is no reason why we should not continue consideration of the item. The hon. member is quite within his rights.


Murray MacLaren: At the request of the
hon. member for Quebec South I said the vote would stand.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
say to the minister that he and1 the hon. member for Quebec South are not ruling this committee?


Hugh Guthrie: The minister may have
an item stand if he wishes.
hir. BRADETTE: Surely the committee-


Murray MacLaren: I move that vote-


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for North Timiskaming has the floor.


Murray MacLaren: I move that vote No.
80 stand.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have the floor, and I believe this is the proper time to speak.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member has not the floor until the question is settled as to whether or not the item shall stand.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe I am absolutely in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member will be allowed to speak if it is the will of the committee that the matter shall be debated.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order, and protest most emphatically against that ruling. Surely a member may speak to an item that has been called by a minister of the crown in committee of the whole. Surely he is not precluded from debate because some hon. member says "stand." Surely he is properly in order until the minister moves that the item be withdrawn from consideration, and is supported by a majority vote.


Murray MacLaren: I have made that
motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But you are not in order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Chairman-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat until this matter is settled? The ruling of the chair is that it was not merely a matter of one or two members deciding the matter should stand; it was the wish of the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I declare
that the item should stand; is that the wish of the committee?
Item stands.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I shall
now call item 79.


Murray MacLaren: I understood that vote
79 had carried.
Supply-Pensions


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It carried last year.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It has not been put before the committee.


Mr. COOTE:: We should have some
explanation about item 79 in the estimates; it was not carried.
Civil flying-$1,000.


Murray MacLaren: Item 79 concerns compensation or pension for injuries resulting directly from a flight undertaken in the course of duty. The injury must be suffered while in the public service of Canada, by any person employed in the public service or employed under the direction of any department of the public service.


George Gibson Coote: Was there any money spent under this vote last year?


Murray MacLaren: Up to December 31,
1932, $207 had been expended.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In the case of accident to
any person in the employ of the government, would such persons be entitled to compensation by the government? Is that the general policy of the government in that respect?


Murray MacLaren: If it is a case of civil flying, flying on duty.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does this apply to all departments of the government? When a person is injured in the employ of the government does he get compensation?


Murray MacLaren: It applies to all with the exception of those in the flying corps-those in civil duty.


Charles Gavan Power: Is there a special rate of pension set up for civil flying?


Murray MacLaren: In computing the rates at which compensation is to be paid, the annual rate of the total emolument which the person was receiving from the crown at the date of the death or the injury in question shall be taken as a basis. That is to say, if $1,200 or less, the scale of pension shall be as provided for a private. If over $1,200 and not more than $1,800, the scale of pension shall be as provided for a sergeant-


Charles Gavan Power: But may I ask the minister, have we privates and sergeants and colonels in civil flying? We are talking about civil flying.


Murray MacLaren: It may be. It is based on the pay he is receiving at the time.


Eugène Fiset: Surely there is a mistake somewhere. When you called this item, Mr. Chairman, you said: civil flying, $1,000. Surely there is no question of pension in this vote; it must mean simply compensation for injury received while flying.


Charles Gavan Power: If you killed a general you would be out of luck.


Eugène Fiset: There is no case of pension involved.


Charles Gavan Power: I think I must repeat my question, there is a mistake somewhere. The minister is giving the rate of pension based on military rank, and this is an item for civil flying, limited to 81,000. I did say jocularly that if you killed a general you would be out of luck; if it goes up on that scale-a private at $1,200, then a general would be given pension on the basis of $6,000 or $7,000 yearly. It would appear that if unfortunately a general fell out of an aeroplane there would be a deficit. I submit we are entitled to some accurate information.


Murray MacLaren: I can only tell my hon. friend the facts; the pension is computed on the amount of pay the injured person was receiving, on the basis I have mentioned.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the minister then keep on reading the rates of pension? He had got as far as a sergeant; I would be very much interested to find out about people higher up, and also how we get military grades in civil flying. Surely the committee is entitled to some information.


Murray MacLaren: I would refer the hon. member to P.C. 2187; I am quoting from that.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask where that order in council is to be found, and if the minister will be kind enough to send us a copy before the item passes?


Mr. STEVENS:: It is in the Canada Gazette.


Murray MacLaren: Certainly, I shall send it with pleasure. In the meantime I may say that the order has been in force since October 20, 1922.


Charles Gavan Power: It may have been in force
since flying was invented, but that does not explain how we are basing pensions on military ranks when it is civil flying we are talking about. I understood the minister at the beginning of his explanation to say that this referred to flying other than military flying.


Murray MacLaren: I said civil flying, persons engaged in civil service occupations and not. the flying corps.

Supply-Pensions


Charles Gavan Power: Then is there a corps of
civil flyers, graded according to military rank?


Murray MacLaren: It has nothing to do with the flying corps, but one can think of a civil servant proceeding on his duty in an aeroplane.


Charles Gavan Power: And called a sergeant? The
minister started to read the scale of pensions, and as I understood him he said that if a man were a private there was pension on a certain scale; if he were a sergeant there was another scale.


Murray MacLaren: No, that is just what
I did not say. Let me try to explain it to my hon. friend. I said it was based on the pay he was receiving, and I said his pension in that sense would correspond to what a soldier would receive, on that basis, up to $1,200; over SI,200 and up to 81,800; over $1,800, and so on. It does not mean that the man is a private or a sergeant; it means he is receiving such and such a rate per year as his pay. Then in case of accident-fortunately there have been almost no accidents-they base it on that scale.


Charles Gavan Power: Now I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, $467,436.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would call the attention of the minister to the case of a great war veteran in my riding. This is a non-political matter and I think it is deserving of the attention of parliament. Last fall I brought to the attention of the minister the fact that this man was not receiving the attention he deserved from the pension board, and which he asked for two years ago. He was an early volunteer, a Belgian by birth having his domicile in Canada. At Valcartier he was inoculated, and following inoculation one arm became useless and has been useless ever since. Owing to this bad arm he had no active service overseas. When he was discharged he went on his farm in the Porcupine district and there for sixteen consecutive years carried on the work of a pioneer settler and farmer, never asking any help from the government. But two years ago, after putting up this long struggle, he realized that he could not support his family on his holding, and he then made application to the pension board to have his arm examined. Last fall, when I brought that matter to his attention, the minister was kind enough to refer it to the board. Under the orders of the pension board Private Hussin was sent to the Christie
street hospital in Toronto-that was the second time. There his trouble was diagnosed as hysterical paralysis. He was discharged as cured of this ailment and returned to his holding, and after trying to carry on for a number of months he was unable to support himself and had to receive relief. Throughout that time he has suffered untold misery and has had great difficulty in keeping his family. Now, I have every confidence in the medical men, but I may tell the minister that in my section of the country we strongly resent the conclusion reached by the medical board as a result of their examinations. The man undoubtedly suffered from the electrical treatment he received when he went to Christie street. I would ask hon. members to read the editorial articles that have appeared in connection with this case in the Porcupine Advance, as well as articles published in the Globe, and they will see that what I have said is fully corroborated by these newspapers. They urge, not so much upon the government as upon the Board of Pension Commissioners, the reopening of the case.
It is really a sad spectacle, and although I am a poor man I w'ould gladly pay the travelling expenses of this unfortunate ex-soldier to have him brought before a committee of this house so that the medical men and the members here could see for themselves just what his condition is, because there is no doubt whatever that the man is absolutely helpless. He is entirely without the use of one arm and is utterly unable to get employment in the mines, nor is he able to work on his own farm. I have no hesitation in mentioning these facts because I think it is important for the house to have the information. I know the minister is sympathetic to the case, as will be seen in the fact that only last fall he found it advisable to send the man back to Christie street hospital.
I repeat, I would gladly pay all expenses of this man in order to have him appear before a committee of the house. If hon members could see him they would agree with me that he is not a hypocrite; he is not playacting but is actually a cripple. To send him back to Christie street would be a crime. He is afraid of the treatment he received there, and he knows from past experience that he cannot be cured of his present ailment.


Mr. STANLEY:: I would point out to the hon. member that at Christie street hospital they have all the means of making a thorough examination, and after going fully into the case they made their diagnosis.
Supply-Pensions


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The diagnosis was
wrong; I defy anyone to dispute that. We are intelligent people in our section of the country and we are convinced that this man has not received fair treatment. It is therefore my bounden duty to present the case to the committee. I know that within the four corners of the act there was room for fair treatment of this man's case. The people in my part of the country are of the opinion that we should have the whole list of pensions paid to the war veterans. I do not think we shall get it, but it seems that because this man has been able to carry on for a number of years the medical board has come to the conclusion that he is not entitled to consideration. That is why I protest against the treatment he has received, and I appeal to the fair-mindedness of this house whether it is not simple justice to have the case reopened so that this man may receive the pension he deserves.
I can assure the minister that the case is not by any means settled so far as the people in that section of the country are concerned. This man is entitled to fair treatment. He enlisted in the war and gave his services to the country and, I say, it is my duty to bring his case before 'parliament. I know that the Minister of Health has been trying to deal fairly with these cases, but I must tell him in all frankness that we are not satisfied with the present situation so far as this case is concerned. Some remedy should be found for this man's condition. I have sufficient confidence in the Board of Pension Commissioners and in the minister himself to believe that this matter will be taken up again, not in two or three years' time, not in two or three months, but immediately. If the minister wants the newspaper articles to which I have referred I will send them to him, just as I did last fall. Strong editorials have appeared in the Porcupine Advance, an independent Conservative newspaper which has taken up this question. That newspaper has discussed matters pertaining to northern Ontario and has always kept its articles on a high level. It does not play politics, and there is certainly no room for politics in this particular matter. It is one in regard to which the house should be properly seized of the facts.
Hon. members may say that this is only an individual case, but I would remind them that individuals make up the collective community. I know that some veterans who have not suffered nearly so much as this man have received compensation from the board, and were entitled to it. We are satisfied that they
[Mr. Stanley.!
should have received the compensation they were given, but it is our opinion that there should be a general rule applicable to all alike. And this applies more forcibly to the case I have just brought to the attention of the minister.
There is one more case which I wish to deal with on this occasion. I refer to private H. H. Joanisse, of Cochrane. He appealed to the board a few months ago but his appeal was rejected last January. This returned soldier went overseas and is now suffering from a heart attack. He has also defective eyesight and this makes it impossible for him to engage in any remunerative occupation. I plead now with the minister to acquaint himself with all the facts in connection with these two cases, because, I -cannot repeat it too often, it is my solemn duty to bring these matters to the attention of the house so that these men may receive that treatment to which they are entitled.


Murray MacLaren: I recall fairly well the case referred to by the hon. gentleman; it has been declared to be a case of hysterical paralysis. Apparently the hon. gentleman disagrees with that diagnosis, but that is the considered opinion of the medical examiners. However, I shall ask to have the whole matter reinvestigated, but I do not wish my hon. friend or others to consider that appeals should be taken to the minister to have these matters put right. That is not the province of the minister, nor is it in his power; and I do not know that it is desirable that it should be. It is a matter that rests with the pension board, the tribunal, and the pensions appeal court. They are independent bodies. They were created so with a special object in view, namely, that they should be free to form their own opinions and not be influenced by others. That is the position, and I fancy that when my hon. friend thinks it over he will agree that he is taking fairly strong ground when he suggests that all these medical men are wrong and he is right. There is of course always a possibility of error, but as I recall it, this case was sent to Christie street hospital; an examination was made by a large number of medical men, and there it was the consensus of opinion that it was hysterical and not actual paralysis. I cannot say anything more about the matter, but I will ask that it be again gone into. I repeat, however, that I do not wish this to be interpreted as an opinion on my part that they were wrong or anything of that kind; on the contrary I know that the matter has been carefully studied for a considerable period.

Supply-Pensions


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want to add another word. I am prepared to make the statement outside parliament that in this case the doctors were wrong. In the first place, they were not unanimous in their diagnosis. One doctor, indeed, reported that the condition of the man was pitiful, and the final word of the Board of Pension Commissioners was that he was suffering from hysterical paralysis. The diagnosis has now been changed to that of malingering. They have no right to make such a statement in connection with this man. There is no hypocrisy about him and he was not trying to malinger. I do not understand why that was said about this man. Surely parliament shoud be able to deal with this matter if these doctors or the commission cannot. Considerable dissatisfaction has been caused in my section of the country by this judgment. I am not a medical man but I know it would be impossible for Private Hussin to do any work. That would be impossible because one of his arms is absolutely helpless. Five hundred doctors could not make me think that that man can use his arm. There was no need to use the word "malingering."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Some hon. members may think it is all right to laugh, but they have the full use of their limbs and are enjoying good health. This is no laughing matter to a man who enlisted and has been suffering for years. This man was vaccinated and inoculated; by that medical action he practically lost the use of one arm, making it impossible for him to provide bread, clothing and shelter for himself and his family. As far as I am concerned, I feel it to be my duty to bring this situation before the house as often and as forcibly as I can. I repeat that I am prepared to pay the expenses of Private Hussin so that he may appear before any committee of this house when the medical men and members of the house can then see that he is unfit to do any manual work and should receive a reasonable pension.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister stated a few minutes ago that he himself did not have any power in these cases because tribunals had been established in Canada to deal with pension applications. I desire to take this opportunity of drawing to the minister's attention five outstanding pension cases which do not come within the category of the reply made by the minister to the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). I should like to refer to the
repoi't of the committee appointed to investigate into the administration of the Pension Act and to quote the findings of at least a section of that committee in regard to these cases. This section of the report is signed by General Ross, Mr. Myers, Mr. Me-Donagh and Colonel Wood, and reads as follows:
Another matter to which our attention was drawn refers to five applications in which entitlement was recommended by the old Federal Appeal Board. The Board of Pension Commissioners took exception to the jurisdiction of that board to give entitlement in these cases. However, the judgment of the board which is in effect a judgment of a court of record, has never been set aside, and according to the record, these men should be entitled to receive the moneys awarded to them. We did not go fully into the cases as they could not be considered within the scope of our inquiry, but the attention of the government is drawn to the matter as a source of irritation making it difficult for the pension machinery to function smoothly. I submit that it is the duty of the government either to have the judgment of the Federal Appeal Board set aside if it is in fact in error, but if not, it stands as a judgment in favour of the men and should be carried out. Such irritations do more to interfere with the smooth operation of an organization than anything else that can be imagined.
Parliament is the last resort for cases such as these. The minister has refused to pay pensions in these cases, the Board of Pension Commissioners has refused to pay pensions-


Murray MacLaren: Upon what authority does the hon. member say that I refused to pay pensions in these cases?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad to be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe my facts to be absolutely beyond question.


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member made a statement and I am asking him to prove it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am going to proceed with my speech and give the actual facts. If the minister can question my statements, I shall be glad to be corrected.


Murray MacLaren: I question what the hon. member has just stated.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I say that the department over which the Minister of Pensions and National Health presides is the department which should and does pay pensions to successful applicants throughout Canada. Is that not a correct statement?


George Douglass Stanley: That is not what you said before.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I misled the minister I shall be very glad to withdraw my previous statement. I say that the
Supply-Pensions

Department of Pensions and National Health and the Board of Pension Commissioners have refused to pay a pension in any one of these five cases. I trust that that is a fair statement, and I think the minister will agree with me.


Murray MacLaren: I say that that is not correct and I do not wish the hon. member to repeat that statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am making a statement.


Murray MacLaren: I say it is not correct and I ask that it be withdrawn.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I say it is correct.


Murray MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister allow me to proceed?


Murray MacLaren: I wish to challenge what the hon. member has said.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Go ahead.


Murray MacLaren: I ask that the hon. member withdraw that statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will not withdraw that statement. I state upon my responsibility as a member of parliament that the Department of Pensions and National Health has refused to pay a pension in these five cases although a pension was granted by a superior tribunal then functioning in the Dominion of Canada. The exchequer court, to which the case was referred in 1930, declared that that court had full jurisdiction to hear these appeals.


Murray MacLaren: Will the hon. member let me clear up this matter?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let me clear it up.


Murray MacLaren: You may not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Have I not the floor?


Murray MacLaren: I think-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The minister is preparing to answer the hon. member.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He can
answer me when I have concluded my remarks.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: He rose
to answer the hon. member.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He cannot interrupt except with my permission.


Murray MacLaren: I rose to a point of
order to state that the hon. member did not make a correct statement.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon.
member has not finished his remarks? .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I certainly have not, I have hardly begun. I desire to go through the facts in these cases and deal only with such facts as I believe to be true. I shall first give a brief resume of the case of William D. Skitch, number 43,503.


George Douglass Stanley: The hon. member's statement is incorrect.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think
my hon. friend will agree that it is correct. If the statement is found not to be correct I will agree to withdraw it. I say that the minister as head of the Department of Pensions and National Health has refused to pay pensions in these cases. Skitch went overseas in October, 1915, with the 50th battalion from the city of Calgary. He arrived in France in December, 1917, and was sent to hospital because of a wound in the right leg. He returned to Canada on April 29, 1919, but his wound never healed and he died in September, 1921. He was survived by a widow and one son born on June 20, 1920. He received a pension from the date of his discharge from the army up until the time of his death. In 1922 his widow applied for a pension which was refused by the Board of Pension Commissioners. Her appeal came before the federal appeal board, the old board in operation before the new organization was consummated in 1926, and entitlement was considered on that occasion. The pension board refused to pay the pension upon the ground that the federal appeal board had exceeded its jurisdiction in dealing with the case. This particular case came before the parliamentary committee which sat in 1928 to revise the Pension Act. Many hon. members will remember that a reference was made to the Exchequer Court of Canada upon the question of jurisdiction, that is, decide whether or not the federal appeal board had proper jurisdiction to hear this appeal in the manner in which it was heard. The case was referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada in May, 1929, and in December, 1930, the Minister of Pensions and National Health applied to the Exchequer Court of Canada to withdraw the reference which had been made in 1929. I believe the reason for that, although the minister may be able to explain, would be the new legislation of 1930, which, as hon. members are aware, practically changed the entire basis of pension administration in the Do-

Supply-Pensions
minion of Canada. In 1931 the reference was heard by the exchequer court, which held that the federal appeal board had jurisdiction to entertain and determine the appeal mentioned in the reference at the time it heard and determined the same. I trust that this is quite clear. After that decision of the Exchequer Court of Canada, application was made to the Department of Pensions and National Health for the payment of the pension which was found by the federal appeal board to be due to W. D. Skitch at the time the appeal was made.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Would the hon. member give the citation of the exchequer court?
Mr. MACKENZIE Vancouver): I shall be glad to send both reports to my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to read them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are two different citations. The Board of Pensions Commissioners replied-and I have their reply before me-as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am instructed to refer to your letter of the 17th ultimo, addressed to Colonel the Hon. Murray MacLaren, relative to claim for pension in this case, and to inform you that, while the judgment of the exchequer court to which you refer was to the effect that the federal appeal board had jurisdiction to deal with claims of this nature, the judgment in question made no order regarding payment.
It would appear that the only action which may be now taken in this case is for the applicant to renew her application as provided for by the 1931 amendments to the Pension Act.
May I point out as fairly as I can-and this is for a thirteen year old boy now living in Victoria, British Columbia-this wras a judgment rendered by what was at that time the ultimate tribunal in regard to pension legislation in this dominion, and a verdict was given to the widow and to the little boy who was then a baby and who is now thirteen years old. That boy has not to this day received payment of a single cent of pension, because the department or the Board of Pension Commissioners has refused to implement the decision of the federal appeal board as interpreted, if you like, by the Exchequer Court of Canada.


Mr. CAHAN:: Will the hon. gentleman
allow a question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. gentleman explain how the minister of that department, in view of that answer of the board, could himself authorize payment? By what authority could he do so?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the
Department of Pensions and National Health had wished-may I put it in that way as fairly as I can?-to make payment of pension in any of these five cases which are known in Canada as "the disputed cases," they could have applied to parliament for authority, and I am sure that every humane hon. gentleman opposite would have immediately insisted on having the pension paid where the highest court functioning at the time-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. gentleman allow another question?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As the hon. gentleman says, there is always an appeal to parliament, but under the statute law, as it existed at that time, I suggest that the minister had no personal jurisdiction in the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend is correct in that, because there was a change made.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is quite correct. At the time this judgment was awarded, the authority to make payment of pensions was with the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Since
then that authority has been transferred from the Board of Pension Commissioners directly to the Department of Pensions and National Health, so that if the argument of the Secretary of State were sound prior to a certain time in the past, it has not been sound for some considerable time, because I suggest to him that the Department of Pensions and National Health have every possible authority to make payment of these pensions when they are due and payable and when they have been found to be due and payable and authorized by the Exchequer Court of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When they are authorized under the law, in accordance with the law.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Without disrespect, may I say I think my hon. friend is indulging in legal subtleties. Let us take a broad view of the case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Supply-Pensions


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Parliament may take that view.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
coming to that point. We have five applicants who made their applications to what was in those days the court of first instance, namely, the Board of Pension Commissioners. That board turned them down, not, I admit, on the same ground in every case. In each case an appeal was made and in each case the court of last resort said that the pension was properly due to each of these five applicants. After that, the Board of Pension Commissioners, in most cases on the ground of a change of diagnosis, took the view that they would refuse to implement the judgment of the supreme tribunal. A reference was made to the Exchequer Court of Canada as to whether the appeal board then existing had full and ample jurisdiction to make the decision it made with regard to these cases. After that higher court made a finding with regard to these cases, the Board of Pension Commissioners, while having, I admit, power to pay pensions, refused to pay a cent of pension in these five cases.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does my hon. friend not admit that his present statement entirely exonerates the minister personally?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
coming to that. I had no intention in the world of making any reflection on the minister. I refer to the Department of Pensions and National Health. The only person to whom we can appeal in parliament is the minister responsible for that department, and I say that once the power of paying pensions was transferred from the Board of Pension Commissioners to the Department of Pensions and National Health, the minister or the department could have come to parliament. A similar course was taken this afternoon for a man named Campbell in regard to a claim he had for reparations for service on an English trawler, and we awarded in this house, with great sympathy for such a case, the sum of $1,000.


Murray MacLaren: What is the hon. member's authority for stating that the power was transferred from the board to the department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall
be glad to give that. If the minister will read the evidence of Captain Hodgins at the recent investigation into the administration of the Pensions Act, I think he will find that this statement was made by several of the witnesses. I shall refer my hon. friend to the evidence given by Captain Hodgins.


Murray MacLaren: There must be something more convincing than simply the statement that some witnesses gave that evidence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is Captain Hodgins not the official accountant of the minister's department?


Murray MacLaren: Certainly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, he is the man who made the statement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is asking:	What is the law? Where
is the authority in law? That is the point.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has been part of the trouble in this matter all the way through. I am appealing on the ground of equity, on the fact that the highest tribunal then appointed by this parliament, wisely or unwisely-I am not criticizing or commenting on that at all-awarded a pension in each one of these five cases. A question was raised by the Board of Pension Commissioners in regard to the matter of jurisdiction. That question was settled by the judgments given by the exchequer court, which judgments I have cited to my hon. friend. That court held that the federal appeal board had complete jurisdiction. If my hon. friend would like me to read the evidence, it will be found that Mr. Justice Audette, who was an eminent judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, repeatedly throughout the evidence in the inquiry, criticized the present chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners for having defied the mandate of a superior court. The trouble all along has been as to finding out who was the proper official to undertake the actual payment of these pensions when found due. That is why I am bringing the matter before parliament. I agree with the minister that any case which can be referred to the existing tribunals should not be brought before the house, because those tribunals are intended to be the functioning machinery in such matters. But these cases have already been given the judgment, the finding. My hon. friend will understand the Latin motto: Transit in rem judicatem. My hon. friend may say: Why do they not appeal again? Why does not this little boy, now thirteen years old, and the other applicants, lodge an application before the pension board again and go from them to the new tribunal and from them to the appeal court? That is the argument that is used occasionally in this evidence which I have in my hand, but I ask the Secretary of State, who is an eminent lawyer, is it a matter of equity and justice for five claimants to a pension who have had a

Supply-Pensions
decision given in their favour by what was then the highest court in regard to pensions in this dominion, to be compelled to start all over again and possibly take two years to run through the whole gamut of uncertainty that lies in pension administration at the present time?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Since the hon. member put
that question to me I should like to answer it, and I will answer it in this way: In the meantime the law of this country in regard to pensions has been changed, and the new tribunal found that under the law as then existing they had no power to order payment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh no,
that is entirely wrong.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; the new tribunal absolutely refused to order or authorize payment in these cases.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, they say the Board of Pension Commissioners-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am talking of the Board
of Pension Commissioners.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Please do not call them the tribunal because that is an appeal court from the board.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well then, take an appeal
if there is one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There you are again

take an appeal! Here are five people who have had these judgments given in their favour for five, six or seven years by the highest pension tribunal then existing, and my hon. friend says: Take an appeal. These people have their judgments, and they cannot obtain payment of the pensions because the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners has resisted paying them pensions all the way through. I say that if the government can give an allowance to this man Campbell for whom we passed a vote this afternoon-I am not criticizing the government for doing that at all; I think they acted properly-for injuries he received presumably while serving overseas, surely similar action can be taken in these five Canadian cases.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is proper to appeal to
parliament, but it is not a proper ground for condemning the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
appealing to parliament now.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But you make that a ground for condemning the minister in the administration of his office.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not condemn the minister. I condemn the department for not paying pensions in these cases But if my hon. friend takes the ground that the department could not pay pension in these cases, I am content to disagree with him, and to bring my appeal from the Department of Pensions and National Health to parliament, because after all this is the court of last resort.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask a question to clear up one point which I think is rather important? When the appeal was lodged with the exchequer court, did not the exchequer court in its decision say that it was proper for the court of appeal that preceded it to hear the case, but that the ground upon which the commission refused to pay was that the appeal court had changed the diagnosis? But that latter point was never before the exchequer court itself for decision.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is partly right and partly wrong. He is correct in saying that the exchequer court gave that ruling, but they went further and said that as long as they had not heard any evidence that was not on the record before the Board of Pension Commissioners they were quite entitled to make the decision they did even if the diagnosis was changed. I have seen the two decisions of the exchequer court. One was on a reference by the minister in which he applied to have a previous reference in 1919 withdrawn, and the exchequer court refused leave to withdraw it; and the other decision was in this Victoria case which I have mentioned to the committee. The language of Mr. Justice Audette all through this evidence is very forcible and condemnatory-I do not want to read it unnecessarily

of the present Chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners. His language is very strong indeed. In this evidence taken before the Rinfret committee over which Mr. Justice Audette later presided, you find Mr. Justice Audette condemning the Board of Pension Commissioners for not having paid pension in these cases.
I am just putting these cases forward as a matter of equity. I think my hon. friend will agree that these five people have a claim. They won their pensions in the highest court there was. Then we changed the legislation in 1930 and set up new machinery, but the exchequer court held that the fact that we changed the machinery in 1930 should not be held to prejudice the claims already established by those who had won their cases back in 1924 or 1925.
Supply-Pensions


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did the exchequer court hold that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes indeed. You will find that in the evidence and in the judgment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would rather find it in the judgment than in the evidence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
held that the change in the legislation did not change the status of those who had obtained judgment in their favour. In these five cases the claimants have been absolutely locked out; they do not know where to turn for a remedy. The department says: We will not pay. They were ordered to pay by the decision of the exchequer court in 1931 and 1932, but both times payment was refused. When it is suggested that these claimants should now start all over again with the new machinery, I submit with all deference that that is scarcely fair. I do not know just how we can deal with these cases as a committee of parliament, but at least the government could take action as it did this afternoon in the case of Campbell. I think we should take cognizance of these judgments as a matter of judicial decision and act upon them and do justice to these people who really deserve justice. This little boy has been without pension since 1921, and he should have had a pension since he was a child. He is now more than twelve years old and he has not received a cent from the dominion. I know that it is not the proper procedure as a rule to bring up individual cases in parliament, but these particular cases are locked out from any other remedy except what can be afforded by the high court of parliament, and I feel that it is my duly to bring them to the attention of parliament. Here we have the judgment of the exchequer court, the judgment of the federal appeal court, the two references to the exchequer court, the evidence and the very strong and expressive language used by the chairmah of the Rinfret committee, Mr. Justice Audette, practically saying that it was a shame that these pensions were not paid. Now if there is a grievance surely this house can remedy it; if there is a wrong surely we can put it right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And I am now appealing to parliament to do so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understood the hon. gentleman to condemn the minister by reason of-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, Mr. Chairman, I give you my fullest assurance that there was no intention on my part to condemn the minister.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Tha't was the only ground upon which I intervened.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I had not the slightest intention of condemning the minister. I submit that these five cases should have the immediate attention of parliament. If the government itself cannot act, parliament can act, and we can deal with these cases in the supplementary estimates on meritorious or compassionate grounds, on the same basis as we dealt with the Campbell case this afternoon. But personally I regard it as a matter of strictly legal right that these people should receive a pension. Already it has been established that a pension is due, but we cannot establish who is the proper officer to pay the pension in each case. I appeal to the minister and to the Secretary of State to take notice of these decisions and to see that justice is done in these five cases which were decided favourably to the applicants by the then existing highest pension tribunal in the dominion.


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has stated that the method of payment had been changed and that what was formerly done by the pension board was now being done by the department. Let me put the matter as it is, because I think that the hon. member has fallen into some error. The same system is pursued to-day as was pursued in 1921. There is no change. Secondly, the department does not pay these pensions of its own motion and of its own authority. The department issues the cheques, but on the authority of the pension board. I think that is a plain statement, and it is not in accord with what my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre evidently thought at the time. Next I would say that this whole matter was referred to the Department of Justice, and the procedure and action taken was in accordance with the advice of the Department of Justice. Finally, I shall look into the case again and see if anything can be done.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who brought this matter up, if this was considered by a part of the general committee which probed administration during the summer?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The entire committee.


Arthur Edward Ross: Were they a separate committee?

Supply-Pensions


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: In what way have they acted?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I read
the paragraph to the committee when I commenced my remarks; perhaps the hon. member was not in his seat. It is as follows:
Another matter to which our attention was drawn refers to five applications in whcih entitlement was recommended by the old federal appeal board. The Board of Pension Commissioners took exception to the jurisdiction of that board to give entitlement in these oases. However, the judgment of the board which is in effect a judgment of a court of record, has never been set aside, and according to the record, these men should be entitled to receive the moneys awarded to them. We did not go fully into the cases as they could not be considered within the scope of our inquiry, but the intention of the government is drawn to the matter as a source of irritation making it difficult for the pension machinery to function smoothly. I submit that it is the duty of the government either to have the judgment of the federal appeal board set aside if it is in fact in error, but if not, it stands as a judgment in favour of the men and should be carried out. Such irritations do more to interfere with the smooth operation of an organization than anything else that can be imagined.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who is the "I"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
signed by four gentlemen, namely, Alexander Ross, Richard Myers, Frank G. J. McDonagh and W. C. Wood.


Richard Burpee Hanson: From the ex parte statement made by the hon. member it would appear that an injustice has been done. I have examined the reports of the exchequer court and the judgment of the president of that court. All he affirmed in the judgment was that the old federal appeal board had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, notwithstanding the repeal of the legislation I think the hon. member will agree with me that that ds the only construction which could be placed upon the judgment.
But there must be something behind the whole matter, or the Department of Justice would not have given the opinion which they gave. That department is the final legal resort of the government. I believe there must be something behind the whole matter which the hon. member has not set before the committee and the country. I suggest this, that the federal appeal board in excess of their duty and jurisdiction under statutory authority creating them, and by which they are bound, gave a different diagnosis of the case from that which they should have given, and it is on that account that the pension board have refused to pay the pension.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Even if my hon. friend's contention is correct, the exchequer court still held that the judgment should stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, they did not say that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; that is not a fair construction to place upon the judgment. All the Exchequer court held was that the federal appeal board had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, notwithstanding the repeal of the old legislation. The reports are here. I had to read them rather hurriedly, but I believe that is all the headnote or judgment indicate. That does not carry the matter as far as my hon. friend says it should go. The finding of the president of the exchequer court, which is to be found at page 102 of part IV of the Canadian Law Reports for 1931, is as follows:
There will be an order declaring that the pension appeal board as it existed on the date of the reference herein had jurisdiction to entertain and determine appeals from refusal of pension by the Board of Pension Commissioners.
It only went to the point of jurisdiction in hearing the appeals, not to the merits of the appeal at all.


Mr. McPHEE:: Read the preceding paragraph.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is very long. This is the finding and order of the court:
There will be an order declaring that the pension appeal board as it existed on the date of the reference herein had jurisdiction to entertain and determine appeals from refusal of pension by the Board of Pension Commissioners.
The finding of the court is exactly as I said it was, namely only on the question of jurisdiction and not on the merits at all.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is that not
all that is necessary?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; you have to go farther than that. The hon. member for West Edmonton knows very much more than the rest of us about most matters which are discussed. This is a legal problem however, and I venture to suggest he does not know anything about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I read to the hon. member the part of the judgment to which he has referred:
I should very much doubt if the statute ever intended, that a judgment rendered on appeal, by the board, should be of no effect,-
Supply-Pensions

That is just exactly what happened in all these cases.
-because the statutory directions which I have already mentioned were not complied with. It is perhaps unnecessary that I should go so far, because that point was not argued before me.
He finds that even if there were irregularities in regard to diagnosis, the judgmeint wa3 one which should be complied with.


Charles Gavan Power: The cases of Skitch, Isadore Ouellette and three others came before the committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems on several occasions in 1928. We heard evidence, as I have no doubt the hon. member for Kingston and the minister will remember; I recall that we heard evidence in particular on the Ouellette case, which is similar to the Skitch case. I have before me a portion of the evidence as it appears at page 311 of the journals of the House of Commons for the year 1928. In that evidence I find a letter dated November 11, 1924, addressed to the Board of Pension Commissioners, and from the letter the committee will learn that this has been a long standing complaint. It is addressed to the Deputy Minister of Justice, and is as follows:
Dear Sir:
I have had under consideration the questions regarding the jurisdiction of the federal appeal board submitted with your letter of the seventeenth September, ultimo, and beg to advise you as follows:
In this ease it appears that the difference of opinion between the two bodies

That is, between the Board of Pension Commissioners and the federal appeal board.
-relates to a matter of diagnosis and not to the question whether the disability, if any, was attributable to military service. The Board of Pension Commissioners found that the "error of refraction resulting in defective vision was a pre-enlistment congenital condition and was not aggravated during military service."
This is the Ouellette case.
Whereas the federal appeal board found that "the defective vision in this case is due to optic neuritis, and that the weight of evidence indicates that optic neuritis was incurred on service."
It seems clear, therefore, that the federal appeal board disposed of the case upon a different diagnosis than that upon which the Board of Pension Commissioners proceeded, and that no question of attributability within the meaning of the statute was involved. I am of opinion, therefore, that the federal appeal board did not have the jurisdiction to make the order in question.
Papers returned.
Yours truly,
W. Stuart Edwards,
Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice.
Mr. Edwards gave that opinion in 1924. That was put before the pensions committee.

Hon. members will note that the letter is dated 1924. In the 1928 hearings before the committee this matter was brought up and was the subject of much discussion. The result was that in the amendment put before and passed by the house we find the following:
Any dispute as to the jurisdiction of the board to entertain and determine appeals from refusal of pension by the commission shall be referred by the department to the exchequer court for determination.
That was the considered judgment of the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is on the question of jurisdiction.


Charles Gavan Power: These cases in the hands of the committee wore questions of jurisdiction.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Was not the reference which was made subsequently to the exchequer court confined solely to the question of jurisdiction?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Therefore if the reference was solely on the question of jurisdiction the opinion or judgment of the court must necessarily be confined to the question of jurisdiction, and not extend to the merits.


Charles Gavan Power: The point at issue between the Board of Pension Commissioners and the federal appeal board was one of jurisdiction. The Board of Pension Commissioners had granted a pension to Ouellette and then discontinued it. Ouellette asked to have his pension continued. The board refused. In those days there was a federal appeal board; the case came before that board and the appeal board found that he was entitled to a pension on the ground that his defective vision was due to optic neuritis, whereas the Board of Pension Commissioners said he was not entitled to pension because his defective vision was due to an error of refraction which was congenital.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not a fact that the federal appeal board changed the diagnosis, and had no authority in law to do it?


Charles Gavan Power: That is just the point; they changed the diagnosis. Admitting they changed the diagnosis, Mr. Edwards in his letter to the committee and in his letter to the minister stated:
I am of opinion, therefore, that the federal appeal board did not have the jurisdiction to make the order in question.
There was the contention of the Board of Pension Commissioners, there was the con-

Supply-Pensions
tention of the Department of Justice. That was placed before the committee. I am willing to admit now that the means we took were not the best, but we did what we thought best under the circumstances. We said: Since these two boards are in dispute as to jurisdiction, any dispute as to the jurisdiction of the board to entertain and determine appeals from refusal of pension by the commission shall be referred by the department to the exchequer court for determination. Acting on that, un-deT the law passed in 1928 this case was submitted-in 1929, if my memory serves me aright-to the exchequer court; and the exchequer court decided as my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has pointed out, and as my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has admitted. In December, 1931, the reference was heard by the exchequer court, which held that the federal appeal board had jurisdiction to entertain and determine the appeal mentioned in the reference at the time it heard and determined the same. Therefore the Board of Pension Commissioners should have granted that pension. That is, the contention of the Board of Pension Commissioners was set aside.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I
think that is a non sequitur. The concluding clause of the headnote reads:
That whether or not the appeal board in giving its decision complied with the statute did not go to the question of jurisdiction.
Now the Justice department, as I understand, have ruled-


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask when the Justice department gave a ruling?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Justice department was heard before the exchequer court on the point and its contention was not sustained.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, that
is not correct. That was not argued, and any remarks the judge made on that point are obiter dicta. The judge was asked only to decide the bald question of jurisdiction, and he decided that in favour of the pensioner. I think he was right. The mere fact that the statute had been repealed did not rob the federal appeal board of jurisdiction at the time when the matter was before them. I think that is sound. But it does appear from the finding of the exchequer court that the federal appeal board in giving its decision did not comply with the statute-that is the inference-on the merits. They had no right to change the diagnosis.


Charles Gavan Power: They did have jurisdiction?


Richard Burpee Hanson: They had jurisdiction to hear the appeal; that has been decided as a matter of record in the court. But they had no authority to change the diagnosis. I am not defending the case; I am just trying to elaborate it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Justice Audette, the chairman of the committee in the recent investigation, referring to these cases, said:
There seems to be something wrong there. If there are two tribunals, one of the first instance and the other an appellate division, and the appellate division gives its judgment, then it is no business of the court of first instance to criticize the judgment and say, that you are not to put that into force. There must be some remedy somewhere.
Again:
Then the Minister of Pensions and National Health applied ex parte in the exchequer court, representing to the court that new tribunals had been created-
By legislation of 1930.
[DOT]-for disposing of pension decisions and asking that the reference be withdrawn. The submission was made ex parte to the president of the court-
My hon. friend has the reference.
-and he said-We have already here before us a statement of claim from the Skitch dependents and we think their solicitor should he advised of this action. Notice was accordingly given to the solicitor and we apeared before the court. There was a full dress debate on the thing. The justice department was represented, and after an argument lasting all day the president of the exchequer court came to the conclusion that the references should not be withdrawn, that there was a vested and legal right in the people who had obtained judgments from the old appeal board, and that these rights had not been cancelled by the repeal of the sections which had created the federal appeal board.
Could anything be more specific? He said there was a vested and a legal right in the people who had obtained judgment from the old board, and this could not be destroyed by the legislation amending the appeal board system passed by this house in 1930. Mr. Justice Audette also said the tribunal below had no right to question the judgment of the tribunal above. That is the situation. It is really an impasse; no one would pay these pensions. A properly constituted court found in favour of the appellants, and some of them have been waiting now eleven or twelve years without a cent of pension. There is an obvious inequity in the whole situation, and I
Supply-Pensions

think it should be remedied. I am speaking entirely on the facts, not laying any blame on the minister. I would without any hesitation -lay blame on the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. member
not like for his own satisfaction to read the opinion of the Department of Justice, upon which the minister by virtue of his office is bound to act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not know there was any. I did not understand that the Department of Pensions and National Health referred the question to the Department of Justice. But even if it did, that was overruled, because when the minister made an ex parte application to the exchequer court-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, since then.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was not aware of any since then.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have heard this matter
mentioned before. It is not in my department, therefore I have no particular knowledge of it, but I was under the impression that after the judgment was given which the hon. gentleman has just read, a further opinion was taken from the Department of Justice as to 'what action the minister or his department should take in the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Could I have that opinion now?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am speaking only from
memory.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the minister that decision?


Murray MacLaren: All I can say is that I
know it was referred to the department, but I cannot say whether I have * the written opinion or not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am quite aware that it was referred to the Department of Justice before the reference was made by the minister to the exchequer court, but my question is this:	Was there a further
application for a written legal opinion from the Department of Justice after the Exchequer Court of Canada turned down my hon. friend's ex parte application?


Murray MacLaren: I am sorry, I cannot
say.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But that is important to my hon. friend's argument.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was speaking solely from
memory.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Having
made a fair statement of the facts, I should like to know from the minister what remedy this man can look for from the people of Canada. What is the remedy to be after the facts have been brought out and we have had the comments of these distinguished members of the judiciary? There were two judges sitting on the committee to which I have referred, one from Saskatchewan, Judge Ross, and the distinguished chairman of the committee. I should be glad to lend the evidence to my hon. friends if they would care to see it. If they will read that evidence they will find therein comments from these distinguished members of the judiciary as to what has happened in this case. They condemn what has taken place, and I think it is the fault of a bureaucratic system. I do not believe that a board has the right to refuse to pay a man a pension which a superior tribunal is of the opinion is properly payable. I do not think that is at all right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
general principle as enunciated by the hon. gentleman is correct, but I am not satisfied that he has told the house the whole story.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let us
hear the other side of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us
get word from the chairman of the pension board. Let us have a statement from him and we shall then hear both sides of the story, because I am quite satisfied that there is another side to it.


Charles Gavan Power: If there is a statement from the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners, it seems to me that we should have a statement from the other side, because this matter has been hanging fire for five or six years. I will not enter into an attack on Colonel John Thompson, with whom I have been on the friendliest terms, although we have not been able to agree in this matter, but I think he will admit that ever since this case has been before the public and those interested in pensions he has repeatedly taken the position that he would not pay this pension. I have here the evidence which was given in 1928 in the Ouellette case. There were five cases, and I would refer the committee to page 303 of the journals of the house of 1928 giving the proceedings of Wednesday, March 14 of that year. Let me quote. Colonel Belton, chairman of the

Supply-Pensions
federal appeal board, was called as a witness. He was duly sworn and was asked this question:


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Colonel Belton, have you any statement to make with regard to the workings of the Pension Act in reference to the federal appeal board or in reference to pensions generally ?
Colonel Belton: Mr. Chairman, I have thought that possibly I might recite what took place in the case of Ouelette that you have been considering; that is, what had happened in the federal appeal board. It might perhaps save a great many questions being asked later. . . . This man Ouelette had been on pension for some years, from 1919 up to April, 1923, for defective vision, due to optic neuritis. There was occasion to examine him again about this, and a report was given by a medical man that the condition was not optic neuritis, but an error of refraction, and as a consequence, his pension was cancelled. He also was on pension for disordered action of the heart, but that -was continued. He then made an appeal to the federal appeal board. His appeal stated that it was in respect of refusal of pension on account of sore eyes. That is the man's own- description. The case came on, and the appeal was heard in the city of Quebec before one commissioner, who, after hearing the case, reserved judgment. ... It was suggested that another specialist still might have the case sent to him. And the medical officers were asked to suggest some local medical man of standing for such an opinion, and the case was referred to him.
Mr. MacLaren: Who was he?
This Mr. MacLaren was no other than the hon. gentleman who now graces the position of Minister of Pensions and National Health.
Colonel Belton: I may say that I am purposely avoiding mentioning names, but they may be mentioned, if you desire.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: They may be mentioned.
Mr. MacLaren: I just wanted to know if it was Dr. Minnes.
Apparently the minister had a high opinion of Doctor Minnes. The evidence goes on for two or three pages and then we come to the judgment of the appeal board. I quote:
The judgment was then issued and the important paragraph is as follows. (Reading):
Upon examination of the record on which the board of pension commissioners gave its decision, I find that there was a marked difference of opinion with regard to the cause of disturbance of vision. I have accordingly found that it was desirable to consult with two specialists in diseases of the eye, as well as with the medical officers of this board. I am convinced from a review of the medical opinion available, that the defective vision in this case is due to an optic neuritis and that the weight of evidence indicates that optic neuritis was incurred on service.
The appeal is allowed.
That judgment was given in 1924. The exchequer court declared that this federal appeal board had jurisdiction to give such a judgment, yet these cases have been waiting since 1924 for final decision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are waiting to hear the appeal.


Charles Gavan Power: I will admit that the hon.
member is right-I do not believe it, but I will admit that he is right to please him.


Arthur Edward Ross: Did the hon. member read that pension had been originally granted on account of optic neuritis?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: Hold on. Will the hon. gentleman please keep quiet? He is not running the whole committee.


Charles Gavan Power: I will read the statement
again for the information of the hon. member. This statement was made by Colonel Belton, who was chairman of the federal appeal board.
He says:
This man Ouelette had been on pension for some years, from 1919 up to April, 1923, for defective vision, due to optic neuritis.
I do not know what it was due to; I am not a medical man.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the hon. member read
after that?


Charles Gavan Power: Then they cancelled the pension on the ground that it was not optic neuritis but that it was an error of refraction.


Arthur Edward Ross: In other words, they changed the diagnosis.


Charles Gavan Power: The Board of Pension Commissioners, after having given him a pension for optic neuritis, said that it was an error of refraction. He went before the federal appeal board and they called in their own doctors, including Doctor Minnes and a number of other medical men from Quebec, and they said they were convinced that defective vision was due to optic neuritis, which was incurred on service. But that is not all. Let me continue the statement made by Colonel Belton:
The Board of Pension Commissioners, according to the statute-
That is, as it existed in 1928.
-had then a month during which they might appeal this decision to a quorum of the board.
Members of the house who were members of that committee will recall that there was a sort of board to which you could appeal decisions of the federal appeal board. To continue:
That was not done, but our board was advised that they considered we had gone outside of our jurisdiction in the case, and that they did not intend to carry out the recommendation for pension.

Supply-Pensions

That was the attitude which Colonel Thompson took-that he would not pay the pension, no matter what you did. And the committee in its wisdom tried to do the best it could to settle the case by having it referred to the exchequer court. It was referred to the exchequer court and apparently Colonel Thompson persists in his view that no matter what court gives these poor devils a pension they will not get it. I say, Mr. Chairman, it is time that something was done in this matter. This afternoon we could give a man named Campbell some consideration-a man who had seen no service at all either in Canada or in the empire, but who had been on a trawler. He was caught on a trawler and taken to Germany and he found that he would have been entitled to place his case before the British authorities at the proper time and that he would have been entitled to some compensation under reparations. Apparently he had been in Australia. He finally drifted into Canada. He made application to the British board from Canada but was told he had no right to compensation. Out of the generosity of our hearts we said that this Englishman who, having served on a trawler, was not a soldier, should receive a pension because he happened to be loafing in Canada and Australia. He could not obtain a pension before his own courts but we out of our generosity said we would give him one. Yet every court except the Board of Pension Commissioners that has to deal with these cases has granted a pension to these men and still they cannot get it. If there is no other way of granting a pension to these men, I submit that the minister should bring in a compassionate grant.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In answer to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), I should like to quote further from the evidence given before the commission as follows:


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, you had no right to criticize the reasons which prompted them to arrive at the conclusion they did.
Colonel Thompson: The justice department said we had.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There is no common sense in it. Let us be guided by common sense. Surely an inferior court cannot say the judgment that has jurisdiction on appeal reverses me, but it is wrong.
Colonel Thompson: Well, supposing the man appealed on assessment?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not care. The court is there duly constituted. It is not for the inferior court to say, I am not obeying the judgment because I don't think you are right. If the administration of justice was constituted that way it would be a farce.

Colonel Thompson: But surely, sir, they must act within their limited jurisdiction. That does not apply.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, they did act within their jurisdiction. There was an appeal, and if you thought that the judgment was not right you could have taken it further; but it is not in your mouth to say that you are not going to obey the judgment. I think that with a little common sense and willingness, and with a heart, these cases could be brought before the department and dealt with just the same as any good businessman would deal with them. We are fighting over nothing, we are just fighting in the air; we are just standing on technicalities; you won't approach the question. It is a pretty bad example to give to the rest of Canada.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not a lawyer so I cannot discuss this case from the legal aspect. From what I remember of the case, it seems that the diagnosis was changed by the Board of Pension Commissioners. I do not know that they have the authority to change a diagnosis any more than anybody else. The statute says distinctly that a diagnosis must not be changed. I admit that but we organized these two boards and gave them medical men as advisers and permission to obtain other advice in connection with oases. The matter of changing a diagnosis does not come before the federal board, but in this case the Board of Pension Commissioners changed the diagnosis. I know of a concrete case where an ex-service man dropped dead in Rochester. The diagnosis was given as pneumonia. The man had been working on a ladder and when an examination was afterwards made it was found that although he had some congestion of the lungs he had also half a dozen other pathological conditions any one of which could have caused his death. The stand was taken that the diagnosis could not be changed. If the diagnosis could not be changed in that case, what right had the Board of Pension Commissioners to change another diagnosis? I am not discussing this case from the legal aspect but more along medical lines.


Mr. RALSTON:: I should like to inquire of the minister what the practice is with regard to the admission to hospital of an ex-service man applying for pension who has established by his own medical officer, at least to some extent, that he has a disability but is told that he must have some sort of technical examination. In the particular case I have in mind a cystoscopic and X-ray examination was necessary. Application was made to put this man into hospital but it was turned down, I understand upon the ground that the Board of Pension Commissioners did not consider him entitled to pension. He was told that he would have to have this examination before

Supply-Pensions
his case could be considered. This man had a good war record and he wants treatment or examination in order to establish his right to pension.


Murray MacLaren: I should like to reply first to the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Mackenzie). The discussion has been very full in connection with these particular cases and has showed a considerable lack of unanimity. I propose to have the whole matter reviewed, and that is as far as I can go at the moment.
In reply to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) I may say that I do not think there is any difficulty in obtaining all necessary examinations. A man makes application to the pension board for pension and that board makes arrangements for his medical examination. In many cases it is not necessary for the applicant to enter an hospital, but a cystoscopdc examination would require such admission. Admission to hospital is effected by the pension board directing that the man be admitted for examination. I understand from the hon. member that there has been some difficulty in the particular case to which he refers.


James Layton Ralston: I will finish giving the minister the particulars of this case, which I am using only as an illustration. This man was examined a year and a half ago. He came up again for examination claiming that his disability had not been recognized and the doctor who examined him recommended that he have a cystoscopic examination. I understand from the officials of the Board of Pension Commissioners that unless entitlement is recognized the admission to hospital which is necessary in order to have a cystoscopic examination could not be granted. I am mentioning this instance because it is the result of the adjudication of the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Murray MacLaren: Before a man can demonstrate his entitlement he must be examined and a cystoscopic examination would have to be made in a hospital. The pension board can and frequently does order that a man be committed to hospital for examination and observation.


James Layton Ralston: But if the Board of Pension Commissioners does not do that, has the minister not the power to send him there, and is it good enough for the board to have the right to refuse him admission or to refuse that certificate of admission to hospital, thus possibly precluding the proof of his case?


Murray MacLaren: I do not know where, in a bona fide case, this has been refused. The fact is that the man does not come under the observation of the minister or of the department. He is dealing with the pension board and their medical officers.


James Layton Ralston: In the particular case I have in mind, he does not come under the observation of the minister. My hon. friend is quite right; I did not mention it to the minister; I mentioned it to the director of medical services and he advised that the man could not be admitted. It was not the minister; it was bis official. It is the same thing.


Murray MacLaren: If the facts are as stated by the hon. member the official in question was a medical man. I presume he had no connection with the department.


James Layton Ralston: He was connected with the department.


Murray MacLaren: There must be some mistake. What I would expect to happen is that the man would be admitted for observation and examination.


James Layton Ralston: I am concerned not only in this case, but in having the rule established. I submit-and I believe the minister will bear me out-that it is not sufficient for the Board of Pension Commissioners to have the authority to say: yes or no; you shall or you shall not go into hospital for the purpose of examination to have it decided whether you have a pensionable disability or what your disability is. It seems to me that the Board of Pension Commissioners are more particularly concerned in deciding whether a man's disability is attributable to war service, but in the earlier stages it is the department who must look after him and assist him in proving his case, and that is exactly why the minister has scattered throughout the dominion officers attached to the department in order to afford that sort of service to applicants. I say that that should be supplemented by either those doctors or the director of medical services having the right to order that man into hospital in order that his examination may be completed as recommended by the doctor in the field. I do not think it is sufficient for anyone to say that the Board of Pension Commissioners is the one that decides whether the man goes into hospital or not. The hospitals are under the administration of the minister and not of the board.


Murray MacLaren: I do not think the hon. member is quite correct in that. The man was asking not so much for treatment as for a pension: therefore he goes to the pension
Supply-Pensions

officials and they take the proper steps. If the hon. member will kindly let me have a memorandum of the matter, I will check it up and see if there is not something a little different from his information.


James Layton Ralston: I am making it clear why I am bringing the matter up now. There is no quarrel between the department and me. But if the rule is as stated, then the minister ought as a general practice to take more jurisdiction in assisting these men in establishing their case, or, at least their disability, and not leave it to the Board of Pension Commissioners to say whether a man shall have assistance in proving his case. That is a point the minister might take into consideration.


Murray MacLaren: The Board of Pension
Commissioners do more than that; they frequently order men into hospital for observation and report.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think they should have the say as to whether a man shall or shall not go into hospital.


Murray MacLaren: If the hon. member will let me have the man's name and number, I shall look up the matter. I do not like talking about these hypothetical cases, because the reports on file often differ from what is said in good faith.


James Layton Ralston: The whole Pension Act is founded on hypothetical cases; it is drafted for the purpose of covering cases that have not necessarily been presented, and we must have certain rules on which to proceed. Regardless of this particular case, the question is whether the minister and the department will assume the responsibility of assisting applicants in proving their cases, more than simply appointing officers in the outside districts. If the men, in order that their disability may be established or examined into, need to be admitted to hospital, I feel the department should assist them in that way. That is merely a matter of justice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not hear the minister's decision in regard to the five cases which were brought to the attention of the committee this evening. Did he come to any conclusion as to what is to be done in regard to these cases?


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member surely quite misunderstood me. I said that I would have the matter reviewed. It will probably take a week to do that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If that is all the minister is able to promise, I suggest

that the matter had better be reviewed by
this committee, because we are sitting probably as the last court of equity in regard to these cases. They have been disposed of by the courts.


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member can
hardly expect me to dispose of the matter in the ten minutes just elapsed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister not give me any better guarantee than that he will review the case? Will he not report back to the committee?


Murray MacLaren: My word is the guarantee ; I say that I shall have the matter carefully reviewed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister report back to the committee as to his findings in these cases?


Peter McGibbon: What does the hon.
member expect?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Equity
and justice.


Peter McGibbon: What does the hon.
member want?


Charles Gavan Power: The payment of pensions.


Peter McGibbon: One cannot promise to
pay pensions unless they are honestly deserved.


Charles Gavan Power: I think one can. I do not
want to interrupt my hon. friend if he intends to speak on the subject.


Peter McGibbon: I shall make a speech if the hon. member wants me to do so.


Charles Gavan Power: I think the minister ought to tell the committee that he is going to do more than merely review these cases. They have been reviewed since before 1924 until the people are sick of hearing of them. I am not going to repeat, but every court except the Board of Pension Commissioners has given a decision in favour of these men. The Board of Pension Commissioners and Colonel Thompson, if he is consulted, will not say that these men are entitled to pension. There is perhaps a little stubbornness on the part of someone connected with the department. I am not speaking of the present minister, because this condition existed long before the present minister took office; but somewhere there is a stone wall that prevents people who have been declared to be entitled to pensions, from getting them. If the minister reviews the matter, he will just traverse the same ground. It has been reviewed time and again.

Supply-Pensions


Murray MacLaren: How does the hon. member know that the result will be the same?


Charles Gavan Power: I am saying so because I know the minister will not do anything else.


Murray MacLaren: That is where the hon. member is wrong.


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite willing to be considered wrong by the minister.


Murray MacLaren: That is the hon. member's impatience again.


Charles Gavan Power: I am doing the talking now, and I shall carry on with my job. If the minister does his job equally well, there will be no complaint.


Murray MacLaren: I thought the hon. member had finished.


Charles Gavan Power: I am only starting. It is useless for the minister to tell us that he is going to review these cases, because I know where he will go for his information. He will go to the Board of Pension Commissioners, and this board has made uip its mind that these men are not going to be paid.


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member is wrong again.


Charles Gavan Power: The boat'd have said so repeatedly; they have taken advantage of every technical point they could raise. The whole thing was started by a technical point raised by Colonel Thompson in the first place. He did not like to have a court over him. He was practically told so by Judge Audette in the recent investigation.
Mr. MoGIBBON: The tribunals were over him.


Charles Gavan Power: They were over him. These are federal appeal board cases, and if I understood the implication of my hon. friend the tribunals are not going to be over him much longer. In any case I think the minister should give us the assurance that he will personally study these cases and if he finds there is merit in them and that he cannot under the act-perhaps he will find that under the act, no matter how much he reviews them, he cannot grant a pension-do justice in these cases, he will come before parliament with a vote in order to settle these claims once for all, to remove from the department and from the people of Canada the stigma under which they have so long been labouring. I think that is a pledge which the minister ought to give us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interject one or
two observations? I have listened with interest and close attention to the presentation of these cases, and presented as they have been they are a serious and an interesting problem. I detected, however, as we proceeded, that there were one or two points which might be possible grounds for the Board of Pension Commissioners refusing to pay. I certainly, with what information we have before us, am not in a position to express definitely an opinion whether they were right or wrong, but I submit to my hon. friends that the minister's suggestion that the matter will again be reviewed by him should be accepted in good faith. I am quite certain that he makes it in good faith, and obviously he could not in his position as minister of the department pledge himself offhand to the payment of a pension apart from the technical provisions of the law. But if the minister after reviewing the cases is convinced that there are sound grounds for special treatment, he would then have to bring them before his colleagues in council and submit to parliament whatever action might be decided upon So I think my hon. friend in his enthusiasm for these cases, which I do not call in question for one moment, is hardly fair in asking the minister to give a definite promise.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not want that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I personally must confess that I should want to know something more than we have been able to gather tonight before I could be clear in my own mind. Two or three points have occurred to me on which I think there is need for further light. We cannot get it here, and so I shall not mention them. The minister has not all his records here and was not prepared to deal with these cases. So I think my hon. friends should accept the minister's offer to review the oases and undoubtedly discuss them with his colleagues, and then at a future time, when the other estimates are up, the whole matter can be discussed again.


Charles Gavan Power: I would be satisfied if the
minister wrould say that he would review the cases and if he finds that they cannot be conveniently settled otherwise than by presenting a special bill to parliament or a special item in the estimates-by that I mean that he will not ask these poor unfortunate people to go dragging their cases again through the
Supply-Pensions

whole gamut of pension board, pension tribunal, and pension appeal court-if be finds that these cases have the merit which we have urged here and which has been urged by other hon. gentlemen, all I am asking is that he will take it on himself to ask parliament as the court of last resort to pass on the matter. But if he only reviews the matter, we shall not get anywhere.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is scarcely fair to ask
for a pledge of that kind. The minister can only say now that he will review it because he does not know until he does reivew it what conclusion he will come to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
willing to accept the suggestion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that before the estimates are finally through we may expect to hear something further about these cases.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Do the salaries for the
pension tribunals come under this vote, Mr. Chairman?


Olof Hanson: No. This item applies to the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a special item
for the tribunals, No. 204.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The cases which have
been reviewed by my friends to my left are similar to a great many cases which no doubt can be found right across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I could cite many such cases in my own riding, and what I particularly want to point out is the unfairness of the way in which the cases are handled by the attorney or advocate who follows the pension tribunal around. Last fall in my home town a pension was awarded by the tribunal to two men-


Murray MacLaren: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that this matter comes under the item before us.


Mr.   Hanson-York-Sun-bury@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: We shall reach the pension tribunal
item later; it is No. 204.


Charles Gavan Power: May I say, Mr. Chairman,
that the Board of Pension Commissioners has working under it commission counsel who appeal cases from the tribunal to the appeal court, and as they are under the control of the Board of Pension Commissioners I think that any case that comes before the tribunal can properly be discussed under this item.
tMr. Power.]


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I should like to refer to one remark that was made by the minister to-night. He said that these cases were all reviewed by independent bodies. I would ask the minister on whose authority does this attorney or advocate follow the tribunal around and after the men have been awarded a pension take that pension away?


Murray MacLaren: He works under the
Board of Pension Commissioners.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Then all I now say is
that we shall have more to say about this when the time comes.


James Layton Ralston: Are we still on the item for the Board of Pension Commissioners, Mr. Chairman?


Olof Hanson: Yes, item 81.


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister feel
that he ought to press this item, and item 204 which the Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned, when there is overhanging this parliament the idea of a new Pension Act? I submit that it is not quite fair to vote these salaries and these amounts for the various tribunals when we have had in the last six months a pensions investigation and reports varying in effect from three or four different groups of members of that committee. I do not think we ought to go on discussing these items. Does the minister think that we shall really make time by pressing these items in view of the fact that this very item is a vote for the salaries of one of the bodies which is being considered in connection with any new legislation which is being brought down?


Murray MacLaren: I think my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth was not in the house when it was agreed to allow item No. SO to stand after a certain amount of discussion until after the amendments to the Pension Act were before the house.


James Layton Ralston: I was told that, and I
was suggesting that the same thing be done in connection with this item. It seems to me that we cannot go on voting money for pension administration when you are talking about radically amending pension legislation, and when you have had a pension investigation which has been reported on four different ways by four different groups of the committee that made the inquiry. I do not think parliament ought to vote these items now in view of the fact that we are going to

Supply

Natonal Defence
have legislation which may materially alter the present situation. There may be no Board of Pension Commissioners when we get through with the new legislation, or it may be that the board will be twice or three times its present size, and altogether differently constituted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
understood that legislation will be introduced which may alter the three courts now functioning in regard to veteran treatment. In this connection I support the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken. It is possible, almost probable, that the legislation may affect the size and personnel of the present Board of Pension Commissioners. When we come to the pensions tribunal it is possible that it may be abolished. How, then, can we intelligently vote appropriations at this time? How can we vote intelligently without first having before us the proposed new legislation? Surely we should not be asked to vote in the dark, and blindly to deal with an estimate based upon last year's figures until we know what the plans of the government are in regard to pensions legislation for the next year.


Murray MacLaren: I do not believe I have asked the committee to vote blindly. The hon. member who has just sat down has spoken a great deal; whether it has been blindly or not I must leave to the judgment of the committee. At the same time I am quite prepared to allow the matter to stand.


Peter McGibbon: I should like to ask hon. members opposite if they would be willing to vote that this item be deleted from the estimates?
Item stands.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
National defence-salaries, $441,378; contingencies, $35,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: What is the present strength of the non-permanent forces?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: This is a civil government item; the question of the hon. member cannot properly be asked at this point.


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps the minister could answer the question. Could he give me the figures for the permanent and non-permanent forces?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: On January 31 there were 3,524 in the permanent force.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia, $1,994,000.
James Layton Ralston: What are the plans for training next year? I refer to the number of days training, and the number of men who train.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Generally speaking, there will be a ten day training period for about 30,000 men. For specialists such as signallers there may be a twelve day training period.


James Layton Ralston: What about camps?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There will be no camps, in the general sense of the word as it was understood some years ago. There will probably be smaller camps used over a few week ends. With that exception, however, there will be no large camps.


James Layton Ralston: What about Petawawa?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There will be an artillery camp at Petawawa.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the minister explain the increase of $111,000?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The increase of $111,000 is made up of grants for training. There was artillery which in the year 1931-32 had no camp training at all. Last summer a very small number of batteries went to Petawawa. During the coming summer, however, it is felt that there will have to be a larger quota go to Petawawa in order to keep up efficiency. That accounts for the greater part of the increase. Then, as I have said, there will be a little more training for specialists, such as machine gunners and signallers.


Eugène Fiset: Was there any training at Valcartier last year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: A number of regiments in that dstrict took the funds they were given for training purposes and used them for short training periods of three or four days each.


Eugène Fiset: I am talking about rural units. Is it the intention of the government this year to have them train locally, or does the minister intend to have a quota of officers go to Valcartier for training?
Supply-Natonal Defence


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The following regiments went to Valcartier:
Thirteenth Infantry Brigade Headquarters:
Regiment Montmagny.
Regiment de Dorchester et Beauce.
Fusiliers de St. Laurent.
Les Franc Tireurs de Saguenay.
Les Chasseurs Canadiens.
Fifteenth Infantry Brigade Headquarters:
The Royal Rifles of Canada.
Les Voltigeurs de Quebec.
Le Regiment de Quebec.
Le Regiment de Levis.
5th Machine Gun Battalion (B Company).
No. 5 Casualty Clearing Station, C.A.M.C.
No. 5 Detachment, C.P.C.


Eugène Fiset: Does the minister intend to carry on the same kind of training this year so far as non-commissioned officers and officers are concerned?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The whole object of the training is to train the key men, namely the officers and the non-commissioned officers.


Eugène Fiset: There will be no local camps at local headquarters so far as whole regiments are concerned?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


Mr GARLAND (Bow River):: The minister kindly explained how the increased amount was to be expended. I understood him to say it was in additional field artillery training. Why under existing economic conditions does he consider it advisable to increase the vote for artillery training this year by $111,000? Is there anything ahead of us that we must fear? Are we going to be attacked in the near future, or is he going to send a force away somewhere? We got along all right last year.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The vote as a whole is down, but this vote for the non-permanent militia is really the key vote of the whole department. Everything else hinges on it, because if anything ever did happen it is the non-permanent militia which would have to be expanded to do the work. Therefore it is very important that the key people be kept on an efficient basis. It could not be kept on an efficient basis the way it has been going the last couple of years. I assure the hon. member that it is far from full battery strength; we have the lowest possible number from which we consider we can get efficient training.


Eugène Fiset: Would the minister also inform us if it is the intention of the department to pay to the local regiments-I mean rural regiments especially-the ordinary allowances they are entitled to per annum?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: For the care of
arms, yes.
Item agreed to
Naval services-to provide for the maintenance of the ships and establishments of the naval service including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, $2,422,000.


James Layton Ralston: What is the reduction?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Last year in the
vote there was an amount for preliminary work in connection with a new trawler. The naval staff have been very insistent that we needed one or two new trawlers, because the Thiepval that we had on the western coast was sunk some three years ago. This year the Ypres is out of commission; I do not think it will ever be going again. They urged that very strongly last year, and an item for preliminary expense was included. That is cut out this year and the idea given up for the time being.


James Layton Ralston: It was not spent last
year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


James Layton Ralston: What is the program in
regard to naval training this year-the same as last?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Practically the same. The two destroyers on the eastern coast this year have been taking a trip in southern waters The two on the western coast went further south in the Pacific. The general plan of training is practically the same as last year.


George Gibson Coote: How many boats have we?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We have six boats in commission-two destroyers and one mine sweeper on each coast.


George Gibson Coote: Is the bulk of this money used for salaries, or is it upkeep of the boats?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is practically all for salaries. These boats have to have a certain amount of refitting in the dry docks every year, and staffs are maintained at the dry docks for that purpose. '


George Gibson Coote: What is the total personnel?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: About 850.


George Gibson Coote: How many officers and how many other ranks?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are 89 officers; that would leave about 790 other ranks.

New Zealand Butter


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell me what the rate of pay is for the ordinary seaman? If he cannot find the information he can give it to me at some other time. I thought surely the officers would know the daily rates of pay.


Miss MACPHAIL:: They know the officers' rates.


James Layton Ralston: How is the minister getting on with the Canadian personnel?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We are gradually
getting on with the personnel. At the present time we have on loan from the Royal Navy 8 officers and 66 other ranks.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the minister if there will soon be some vacant positions in the royal navy?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: At the present time we are not taking on any men, because the estimates have been cut, and the wastage, that is the gradual dropping out of men, is very small. Consequently there are practically no new openings.


Jean-François Pouliot: There are only 66 men?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, the 66 are men that we have from the royal navy who have been on loan. Now I have the information as to pay: Ordinary seamen, $1.25 a day; stokers, $1.35; artificers, $2.10; artisan ratings, $2.10. Then they take on some younger boys at 60 cents a day.


George Gibson Coote: For how long do these men serve?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: A seven year term.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Air Force-all expenses in connection with the general maintenance of the air force, including training personnel for civil aviation, and provision of the necessary facilities therefor; also
Civil Aviation-all expenses in connection with civil aviation, including the control of commercial and private flying, construction and maintenance of airways and aids to air navigation. airship bases and flying clubs, etc., $1,600,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: I wish to say something on this item but I shall not have time now. I wonder whether the minister would call it eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, March 20, 1933