1933-03-06

Mr. GORDON:: I desire to lay on the
table of the house certain orders in council passed pursuant to the relief legislation.



PETITION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROSS W. GRAY (West Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the house a petition signed by Charles Hayward and over nine hundred other farmers residing in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. The petition is addressed to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The petition is directed
to the Minister of Finance and should have been presented to him, not to the house. The references of the hon. member to the petition will be struck out.
Duty on British Imports

DUTY ON BRITISH IMPORTS On the orders of the day:


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: 
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: I have not seen the
article to which my hon. friend refers, but so far as my knowledge goes I think the facts stated are not quite correct. I shall be glad to consider the matter and give an answer to-morrow.
PENSION LEGISLATION On the orders of the day:


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren) if the rumour which appeared in the press to-day to the effect that pension legislation will be introduced shortly is true.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: In reply to the hon. member's question I may say that a bill will be brought down this session containing amendments to the Pensions Act.
NEW ZEALAND BUTTER On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) whether he is prepared now to answer the question I directed to him last Thursday.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: What was the question to
which my hon. friend refers?


Thomas Reid: I will read the question as it appears in Hansard for Thursday last:
Have any representations been made to him by any dairymen's associations or other interests in British Columbia in connection with the increased sale of New Zealand butter at [Mr. Speaker.!
prices which it is claimed will be disastrous to the farmers of British Columbia? If so, what steps have been taken to protect the dairymen?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Representations have
been made and all reasonably adequate steps have been taken.



WHEAT MARKETING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. MeINTOSH (North Battleford):	I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). In view of the further representations which were made last week by representatives of the western pools in regard to a national wheat marketing board I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has any additional information to give the house beyond that which he gave on Monday February 13.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I have advised the representatives of the pools that the government has no intention of setting up a national wheat marketing board at this session.



NEW WESTMINSTER PENITENTIARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Reid: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) based on a communication which has just reached me with regard to some trouble in the New Westminster penitentiary. I wonder if the Minister of Justice has any report on the matter.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: I have had no recent information of any trouble at all in that penitentiary. Some three or four weeks ago I received a report that a disturbance had been planned, at all events, involving some seven or eight prisoners, but nothing serious developed although I may tell my hon. friend that I have received warnings from outside the penitentiary that an effort is being made to stir up trouble there. That came to me through an intercepted communication from outside, and it was back about the beginning of January. No trouble of any kind has occurred there so far.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 41, to incorporate the Samia-Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company-Mr. Gray.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Questions

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the amount of Dominion of Canada treasury bills: (a) payable in Canada; (b) payable in the United States, outstanding on December 31, 1931; May 31, 1932, and December 31, 1932?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Treasury bills and treasury notes outstanding:	31st Dec., 1931-payable Canada
and New York, $40,000,000; payable New York, $18,000,000. 31st May, 1932-Canada and New York, $40,000,000; payable New York, $14,000,000. 31st Dec., 1932-payable Canada, $85,000,000; payable New York, $60,000,000.


CANAAN RIVER FISH WARDEN
Mr. YENIOT:: 1.	What was the total amount of salary received by George Damery, fish warden on Canaan river, Queens county, New Brunswick?
2.	Has George Damery been dismissed or laid off?
3.	Does George Damery receive any pension for military services rendered?


Mr CAHAN:: 1.	$81.
2.	Term of employment ended.
3.	No.


ROYAL CANADLAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	How many officers and how many men are employed on the force of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the province of British Columbia?
2.	What is the total cost per year of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that province?
3.	Where are the headquarters of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police located in the province of British Columbia and how many officers and how many men are employed there?
4.	How many sub-stations are there in that province, where located, and how many men are employed in each instance?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Officers	   5
Non-commissioned officers and constables	164
Special constables	 11
2.	$278,305.44.
3.	Vancouver, B.C., and the following officers and men are employed there:-
Officers	 4
Non-commissioned officers and constables	126
Special constables	 8
4. 15 detachments, located at the following points with strength as indicated:-
Place Abbotsford	Officers	N.C.O's and Consts. 1	S/Consts.	Total 1Cloverdale	1	1Cranbrook	1	2	3Esquimalt	11	1	12Fernie	1	1Grand Forks	1	1Hazelton	4	4Kingsgate	1	1Newgate	1	1Penticton	3	3Prince Rupert	1	1Vanderhoof	1	1Victoria	9	9Patrol boat " Imperator ".. .	2	2Field	1	1-	-	-	-1	38	3	42
Note.-Although Field detachment is in the province of British Columbia, it is administered from " K " division, Edmonton.
271S

Questions as Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	What was the rate of dividend paid by each of the chartered banks in Canada for each of the years 1928 to 1932, inclusive?
2.	What is the total amount of such dividends in each year, 1928 to 1932, inclusive?


PUBLIC WORKS-LAVAL-TWO MOUNTAINS
Mr. DUPUIS:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works done any levelling work in the county of Laval-Two Mountains, from the month of July, to date?
2.	If so, in respect of what rivers was such work carried out rand what sums were spent in each case?
3.	Has the said department carried out any drainage and excavation works in the county of Laval-Two Mountains, from the month of July to date?
4.	If so, in respect of what water courses were such works carried out and what sums were spent in each case?
5.	Did the federal government pay the whole cost of these works? If not, what proportion was the government called upon to pay?
6.	Upon whose request were such works carried out?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EMPLOYEES
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	How many persons are in the employment of the railway companies owned by the Dominion of Canada?
2.	How many of these employees are British subjects resident in Canad'a?
3.	How many repair shops does the Canadian National Railway Company own?
4.	Where are such shops located?
5.	During how many days in 1932 were each of these shops operating?
6.	How many persons were employed in each of these shops during 1932?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. FAFARD:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams, petitions and other documents, respecting the dismissal of the postmaster of Cap St. Ignace station, county of Montmagny, Quebec.



UNEMPLOYMENT BELIEF

Mr. DUGUAY:: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and reports exchanged between the federal government and the government of Quebec, respecting the refund of certain federal contributions made by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Acts of 1930 and 1931.



RIVIERE DES ILOTS DE NEWPORT, QUE.

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of the paysheets in connection with work done at Riviere des Ilots de Newport, Gaspe county, in 1930, 1931 and 1932.



SAND POINT, ST. JOHN RIVER WHARF

Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of all paylists and a statement of 'materials used in connection with the work on the Sand Point wharf, St. John river, during the year 1932.



GRANDE-VALLEE, GASPE, POST OFFICE

Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams and report of the investigation into the resignation of Willie Mainville, as postmaster of G-rande-Vallee, Gaspe county.



INGONISH HARBOUR, N.S., LIGHT KEEPER

Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Marine or any of his officials and any person or persons in the province of Nova Scotia, regarding the dismissal of George MacDonald as lightkeeper at Ingonish harbour; also memorandum giving charges against said lightkeeper with copy of any evidence or reports made by William Noblett the commissioner investigating the charges against said MacDonald.



PORT DANIEL CENTRE POST OFFICE

Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of all telegrams, petitions, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, regarding the dismissal of the postmaster at Port Daniel Centre, and the appointment of a new postmaster, during the year 1932. Also a copy of all evidence taken and report made by the commissioner in connection with the matter.



GRANBY, QUE., AIRDROME

Mr. TETREAULT:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, reports, and other documents, exchanged between the Department of National Defence or any official of the department and the promoters of the airdrome at Granby, Quebec, and the former member of Sheiford, Mr. Ernest Boivin.



QUEBEC INDIAN LANDS

J.-Eugène Tétreault: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and communications exchanged between the government of the province of Quebec and the federal department of justice, since 1920, respecting the claim of $300,000 made by the province of Quebec in connection with Indian affairs.

Motions jor Papers



ST. ISIDORE-COULOMBE, QUE., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. BOULANGER:: For a copy of all letters, petitions and other documents on file in the Post Office Department, respecting the application of Mr. Jos. Dallaire, junior, of St. Isidore, county of Dorchester, for a contract to carry the mail from the Canadian National Railways station at St. Isidore to the Coulombe post office.



FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN

Thomas Reid: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, and telegrams exchanged between the Minister of Railways and Canals or any other minister of the government, and the premier or any minister of the government of British Columbia or any other person, regarding the matter of the reduction of freight rates on grain or grains used for domestic purposes, since the 1st of December, 1932, up to the present time, and including copy of suggestions as contained in the joint letter of Mr. Stephen, acting vicepresident of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and Air. Fraser, vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, sent to the Hon. Mr. Manion, Minister of Railways and Canals, on the 1st of February, 1933.


Mr. MANION:: I have no objection to this motion passing, but in a large measure it has already been answered; as a matter of fact the essential parts of it have already been tabled. I tabled them a few days ago, but if there are other telegrams and letters that have not been brought down I shall be glad to table them.


Thomas Reid: What has been tabled?


Robert James Manion: The essential parts with respect to grains, and the letter from Mr. Stephen and Mr. Fraser. In fact, pretty nearly all that the hon. gentleman asks for has been tabled. However, I will look into the matter and table anything else that is affected by the motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Thomas Reid: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not dropped.
Mr. SPEAKER,: I did not understand the minister to say dropped.


Robert James Manion: I have no objection to the motion carrying, but as I have pointed out most of the information has already been tabled.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CHEVRIER (for Mr. Fournier):: For a copy of all reports, letters, telegrams, recommendations, contracts, documents and
other papers in the files of the Federal District Commission, respecting the purchase of a piece of land on Laurier street, Hull, for the purpose of creating a park and playground.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member in
whose name this notice of motion stands is not present, but in any event I think the motion belongs to that class which should not be passed by this house. None of the documents referred to are in the custody or possession or under the control of the government of Canada. The Federal District Commission is an independent body transacting its own business using, it is true, money which we provide them with and with respect to which they make an annual report which is tabled in the house and which, under the practice, may be reviewed by the committee on public accounts. I do not think the motion should pass.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion will be
dropped.



CONTRACTS UNDER PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For a copy of all contracts granted by the preceding administration that were revoked or modified by the present administration since taking office to date.



TREASURY DEBENTURES AND BONDS

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For copies of the debentures and bonds of the treasury of the Dominion of Canada printed under chapter 71 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, printed and published in pursuance of section 133 of the British North America Act and section 10, chapter 2 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.



CANADIAN COINAGE

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For specimens of Canadian gold, silver, nickel and bronze coins minted under the authority of chapter 40 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. printed and published in pursuance of section 133 of the British North America Act, and section 10. chapter 2 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.



DOMINION NOTES

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For copies of Dominion notes issued and printed under chapter 41 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, printed and published in pursuance of section 133 of the British North America Act and section 10. chapter 2 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For a copy of the contract granted by the government of the Dominion of Canada for the printing of Dominion notes issued under ohapter 41 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, printed and published pursuant to section 133
International Exhibitions

of the British North America Act and section 10, chapter 2 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.



BILINGUAL COINAGE AND CURRENCY

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For a copy of all correspondence or petitions forwarded to the government or any member of the ministry, by any person or association, requesting the coinage of Dominion metallic currency and the printing of Dominion notes in the two official languages of the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the notices of motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) numbers 13 to 18 inclusive, the hon. member for Bellechasse is not in his place. The meaning of some of the notices is very obscure, and it is difficult, without some dates being added, to understand exactly what is meant by others. For instance with respect to number 13, almost every contract 'has had some slight modification made, either by extras or otherwise, by all governments. If that is involved it would take a very long time to get copies made of all those documents. Possibly the hon. member does not require that. With respect to the others it will be necessary to have some clearer expression of what is meant than a mere statement of statutes. I suggest that these motions stand until the hon. member comes to the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Numbers 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, and 18 stand in the absence of the hon. member.



INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS

Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I think there is little to add to what the Prime Minister has said. There is however one important provision of the convention to which my right hon. friend did not draw the attention of the house, of which it might be advisable to speak. It is one evidently intended to assist in making international exhibitions a great success:
In every exhibition to which the present convention applies, goods subject to customs duties and taxes forming part of foreign exhibits shall be admitted temporarily free of duty and tax on condition of being reexported.
In freeing commodities even temporarily from customs duties the convention sets an example to the nations that it might be well for some of them to emulate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact that is but a recognition of what we already have in our tariff, extended to other countries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is worth
mentioning.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this house has adopted the above resolution and requesting that their honours will unite with this house

Visiting Commonwealth Forces
in approving the above mentioned convention and protocol of signature, and that the clerk will carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 40, respecting visiting forces of His Majesty, and the exercise of command, discipline and attachments of commonwealth forces when serving together.
He said: I do not know that it is necessary to add anything to what is indicated by the notes that accompany the bill. Shortly put, the matters mentioned in the bill were vested in the Imperial parliament under the authority of the Army Act, with the passing of the statute of Westminster the responsibility rested with the dominions, and the various dominions that constitute the British commonwealth of nations have agreed upon a bill, with such changes as local conditions necessitate, and that is bill number 40, the second reading of which I now move. If there are any matters requiring explanation such explanations will be furnished during its progress through the house.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I accept the statement of the Prime Minister that this bill is necessary as a consequence of the statute of Westminster, and that its purpose is to facilitate training and cooperation as between different forces


Richard Bedford Bennett: Visiting forces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, of the
several nations of the British commonwealth of nations. The provisions of the bill however refer to service of these forces together. I shall ask the Prime Minister, when we get into committee, whether it is clearly understood that this service relates only to service together in cooperation for training purposes, not service together in time of war. I am not sure that the bill is not capable of the interpretation of also relating to possible service together in time of war, if, indeed, that is not exactly what is intended.
I assume that the provisions of the bill are all subject to the provisions of existing statutes which govern the placing of the Canadian forces at the disposal of His Majesty outside of Canada, whether it be the army, air forces or naval service, and that the bill as presented is in no way intended to override the fundamental provisions of those acts.
There is just one other point that I should like to mention. The use of the words or rather the designation, "commonwealth forces"
js a new one. The Prime Minister explained at the time of the introduction of the bill that it means the forces belonging to the nations of the British commonwealth. So long as it is understood in that way I take no exception to it, but I should not like it to be assumed that in adopting that term, we are creating under commonwealth forces so-called some new form of Imperial forces, some consolidated or centralized forces.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tummon in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the right hon.
gentleman will see that the definition of "the commonwealth" meets his difficulty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Application of section.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section
applies to the forces of all the dominions and of the United Kingdom. Paragraph (ii) of subsection (2) reads:
(ii) subject to anything to the contrary in the conditions applicable to his service, may place any member of a home force at the disposal of the service authorities of another part of the commonwealth for the purpose of being attached temporarily by those authorities to a force to which this section applies belonging to that part of the commonwealth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To which the other force belongs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend explain whether under that section, assuming, for example, that another portion of the empire were engaged in war, it would be possible for the Minister of National Defence of Canada to place at the disposition of the forces of that part of the empire members of the Canadian forces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what the
section contemplates. I think the explanatory note that is opposite the section is a fair statement of the situation. The explanatory note reads:
This section deals with the attachment of personnel and mutual powers of command. The cooperation in defence matters which has existed now for many years involves the interchange of officers and men, and it is necessary to enable such officers and men to carry on their duties on the same basis as if they were members of the forces to which they are attached. Subsection 4 deals with combined operations and makes it legally possible to have
Visiting Commonwealth Forces

a single command, subject, of course, to the consent of the governments of the component forces.
There is in the bill, so far as I have been able to understand it, nothing that in any way impinges upon the provisions of any existing act of parliament, but owing to the Army Act being no longer applicable this bill makes provision for those matters that were heretofore dealt with by the Army Act. As I say, there is no derogation from the powers of parliament nor any interference with the most complete autonomy and control by our own parliament and country. That is my understanding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend regard the section as having application in time of war or only in time of peace?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My understanding of it
is that it has no war application, because the question of war, with respect to our forces, is a matter that ultimately has to be determined by this parliament. This legislation is entirely subject to any existing statutes or any that may be passed. It deals with visiting forces or with those that technically are perhaps not visiting forces, that is forces that go from one country to another for the purpose of training. For instance, at various times we have officers attached to the forces of Great Britain, and, as the right hon. gentleman knows, it has been customary for many years to have the same interchange with respect to other parts of the empire. According to my understanding and reading of the measure, it does not apply to a war condition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to have my right hon. friend give that interpretation. Just to make doubly sure of the point which has been mentioned, may I direct his attention to thte concluding sentence of the explanatory note regarding section 6, which reads as follows:
Subsection 4 deals with combined operations and makes it legally possible to have a single command, subject, of course, to the consent of the governments of the component forces.
The Prime Minister has emphasized the importance of the control of parliament in time of war, but if the provisions of this act were to apply to service in time of war, it would give to the government of the day, in view of that explanatory note, the power which I think, and which I believe my right hon. friend thinks, ought to belong to parliament. In other words, the government of the country apart from express authority from parliament should not have the authority to place Cana-

dian forces under a single command in any other part of the empire or in any other part of the world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The former Minister of National Defence is familiar with the necessity for this legislation. I am not a military man. The necessity arises out of the Imperial conference of 1926 and the subsequent steps taken in 1930. The bill as I understand it was agreed to by the representatives of the various countries. The preamble makes it abundantly clear. It says:
Whereas it is expedient to make provision with respect to forces of His Majesty from other parts of the British commonwealth or from a colony when visiting the Dominion of Canada; and with respect to the exercise of command and discipline when forces of His Majesty from different parts of the commonwealth are serving together; and with respect to the attachment of members of one such force to another such force, and with respect to deserters from such forces:
It might well be that if parliament had taken action as required by existing statutes, "serving together" might be in time of war. That is clear, is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what I think it does mean myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I think it is clear that there is no interference with the power of parliament. The words in the explanatory note, "the consent of the governments of the component forces," mean in that instance the consent that is provided for by the statutes of this country which lay down the only method by which forces can be dispatched out of this country, which is of course with the consent of this parliament. If another country permits its foTces to come here and our forces are serving with those of another country, then section 4 provides that any member of the other force-we will say it is an Australian force that is serving together with the Canadian force-shall be treated and shall have the like powers of command over the home force as if he were a member of the home force of relative rank. That is, if you have the tjvo forces serving together here and commanded by an officer from, say, South Africa or Australia, he should have the same powers as though he were dealing with his home farces.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: If this
applies merely to forces on a visit for purposes of training, why is subsection 4 inserted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subsection 4 deals with
unity of command, and undoubtedly under certain circumstances would apply in time of

Visiting Commonwealth Forces
war. But no force can leave this country except with the consent of this parliament. That is clear under our own statutes.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend did not get my point. If the act is merely for the purpose of controlling visiting forces-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It goes further than
that. I stated a moment ago that it goes further than that with respect to matters of discipline, desertion, and matters of that kind. It goes further also with respect to unity of command where two forces are serving together, and the position which is occupied by whoever may be in command is made equivalent to the position he would have if he was serving with his home forces in his home country. But this legislation gives no power in any sense to alter the provisions of existing legislation with respect to the movement of armed forces from this country. That can only be done, as I understand the law, with the consent of parliament.


Charles A. Stewart: My point
is that if this act is merely for the purpose of governing existing forces-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say it is more than
that.


Charles A. Stewart: -then in
case of war, if parliament takes action and sends forces from Canada, those forces will be under the command of a superior officer in Great Britain or from some other part of the empire, and it will mean that we shall be passing control of our army into their hands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the contrary, they
might be passing control into our hands. It does not touch the substance or principles which have to do with peace and war and the movement of forces. But when a home force and another force to which this section applies are serving together, then any member of the other force shall be treated and shall have over members of the home force the like powers of command as if he were a member of the home force of relative rank. That is, if forces from New Zealand and Canada were serving together, and a New Zealander were in command of the two forces, he would have the same position as one of his rank would have if he were a Canadian in charge of the two forces. That is all. It is merely for the purpose of establishing, just as the section says, some cooperation in defence matters; and if reliance is placed upon cooperation, then there should be no conflict in case of two forces, one from New Zealand 53719-173
and one from Canada, serving together as to whether a Canadian of a given rank was in command or a New Zealander of the same rank. But if a New Zealander were in control of the two forces he should have the same powers of command over the forces as though he were a Canadian; and vice versa, if a Canadian were in command of Australian and Canadian forces serving together, he should have the same rank as he would have if he were an Australian of that rank under their statute.
The reason I am speaking with very great care about the matter is because it is not a matter about which I have any technical knowledge. I am only speaking by the book, as I understand it. The discussion that took place in the conference of 1930 is summarized by the note that appears on page 2 of the bill. As a result of that, discussions took place for the purpose of trying to draw up a bill that would not by any possible chance be considered as impinging upon the power of parliament or upon the strength of existing statutes that dealt with substantive matters of military defence. I think that that is a correct statement of the position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I feel sure that the assurance which the Prime Minister is giving the house is one which he believes to be absolutely correct, and one which certainly we are all glad to have. At the same time, I do think that the wording of the statute itself would seem to give, on occasions at least, some powers to the Minister of National Defence himself, and on other occasions to the governor in council itself which we have not up to the present assumed would be existing in relation to or in time of war. May I direct attention to subsection 5 of section 6 which reads as follows:
For the purposes of this section, forces shall be deemed to be serving together or acting in combination if and only if they are declared to be so serving or so acting by order of the Minister of National Defence, and the relative rank of members of the home forces and of other forces shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations made by His Majesty.
Just what is meant by "regulations made by His Majesty"? Does it mean by His Majesty as advised by the British government or as advised by the government of one of the other nations of the British commonwealth in the case of Canada, our own government? Also is there not a possibility that section 6 will be construed as giving to the Minister of National Defence power which up to the present time we have assumed would be exercised only by parliament itself? I raise that question more particularly because of



Visiting Commonwealth Forces
the wording of section 8, which we have not yet reached. When we come to section 8, it will be noticed that as regards any naval force it says:
So far as regards any naval force and the members of any such force, the provisions of this act shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation of such of the provisions of any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom or of the parliament of any other part of the commonwealth as are for the time being applicable to that force and the members thereof.
While that section is there with reference to the naval forces, there is no similar section with respect to the army or air forces, and the omission of a similar section with regard to the army and air forces seems to me to lend added significance to the powers that are given to the Minister of National Defence under subsection 5.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a very simple
explanation for that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I saw the
explanation, but I did not regard it as very satisfactory. However we shall come to that section later on.


Mr. CAHAN:: I believe if the right hon.
leader of the opposition will look at the definition of the term "member" where it is used in this bill he will notice that it applies to an individual person, either an officer or one serving in the ranks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: "Member" does not apply
to any particular ship of the naval service, or any particular company, regiment or battalion of the home forces or of visiting forces. The definition shows that the term "member" applies to an individual person and not to a company.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I saw that, but I think the minister will admit that if the Minister of National Defence wished to do so he could name a sufficient number of members to include a squadron, regiment or any other body.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He would have to name
dozens of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You would have broken formation, in that event.


Mr. NEILL:: The house seems to be passing this bill largely out of respect for the opinion of the Prime Minister that it is necessary and appropriate so to do, because there is no doubt that the language of the bill is so horribly involved, and such long sentences are

used that it is very difficult for the ordinary individual to have any accurate understanding of it. May I ask the Prime Minister if it was agreed at the Imperial economic conference or elsewhere, among the British commonwealth of nations, that this act should, so to speak, be a standard act that would be passed in these terms by British nations', or is this legislation merely indigenous to Canada? Is there any record of other nations in the commonwealth having passed such legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member who has just spoken would turn to page 2 of the bill he would find an extract from the summary of proceedings of the Imperial economic conference of 1030. It will be observed that the report was very simple but-
It was impossible to more than examine some aspects of the practical problems which will be involved in the carrying out of the recommendations contained in paragraph 44 of the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation.
It is assumed that all governments will desire to take such action as may be necessary to secure (1) that the military discipline of any of the armed forces of the commonwealth when present, by consent, within territory of another, rests upon a statutory basis. . . .
The reason for that is that the Army Act no longer applies to this part of the British Empire, it being passed at Westminster and1-
12) that there shall be no period of time during which the legal basis of military discipline could on any ground be impeached.
That is for purposes of discipline and control.
The methods by which the above two objects can best be attained must necessarily be a matter for the government themselves.
As the action to be taken to give effect to the recommendations contained in paragraph 44 of the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation is likely to take some time, it was agreed that all the governments concerned will take such steps as may be necessary to provide against possible difficulties d-uring that period.
In 1929, it will be remembered, a commits tee met in London to draft legislation to give effect to the principles enunciated in the 1926 conference. The then Minister of Justice represented the Dominion of Canada. Their recommendation did not undertake to draft this bill, but in 1930, when the matter was referred to the appropriate committee, resolutions were arrived at which are set out on page 2 of the notes to the bill. And this bill represents not the draftsmanship of the Dominion of Canada but a bill which is assumed to represent the views of all parts of the commonwealth, subject to changes in terminology and matters of that kind which

Visiting Commonwealth Forces
may be made necessary because of local conditions. I believe the right hon. gentleman said he had the British bill before him this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I was
referring to the convention concerning exhibitions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand; that was
in connection with another matter. When the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asks whether or not action has been taken by any other countries, I must answer that I am not definite as to the number who have passed this legislation. My understanding is that it has been passed, but of course in England they still pass their Army Act. The only difference is that the Army Act does not now extend beyond the confines of the United Kingdom, and, of course, the colonies included in matters of that kind. It does not extend to the Dominion of Canada; therefore we are passing this bill.
With regard to the point made by the right hon. leader of the opposition, I do believe that the note appended to section 8 is adequate explanation of the situation. That is, when the matter came before the council of external affairs we settled the general terms of the bill. Section 8 makes it clear that inasmuch as the Army and Air Force Acts are dependent for their force and effect upon the Army and Air Force Annual Act paissed annually by the parliament of the United Kingdom and are no longer, in themselves, subsequent to the passing of the statute of Westminster, applicable to Canada, we felt that we should take some steps in statutory form by appropriate legislation to deal with the position. We already had dealt with the military side of it in our Militia Act; we have already dealt with the air side of it in our Air Force Act, and we have dealt with it in a limited way under our Naval Act. Inasmuch as it has to be prefectly clear that there shall be no confusion of authority section 8 states:
So fair as regards any naval force and the members of any such force, the provisions of this act shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation of such of the provisions of any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom or of the parliament of any other part of the commonwealth as are for the time being applicable to that force and the members thereof.
Because there may be-and I believe it is contended there are-some provisions in United' Kingdom legislation that are still of empire scope with respect to naval matters. That is the position, as I understand it.
I shall not ask to have the bill taken out of committee until I can ascertain definitely whether or not all of the countries affected have passed legislation, and whether or not my information in this connection is exactly correct, because I wish to make perfectly clear the position of Canada with respect to this legislation. In 1926 we made it abundantly clear that we would be responsible for legislation of this character; in 1929 a committee met for the purpose of determining what statutory enactments would be necessary to give effect to the principle. In 1930 the legislation was agreed upon, in form, there being two or three sections left open until after, in this country, we had a conference of the premiers of the provinces in order that they might agree to certain sections of the statute of Westminster. Inasmuch as there would then be, after the passing of the statute and the expiration of the Army Act of that year, no authority dealing with this matter, it becomes essential that we should pass the necessary legislation. I do not know whether or not properly speaking it should not have been passed last year, but in conference with the officials of the department it was made clear that in keeping with our obligations and our position with respect to visiting forces which might, with our consent come to this country, or with respect to the union of forces from another part of the commonwealth with our own, there should be uniformity, and that the legislation should be enacted. That is the reason for it being before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pleased to know the Prime Minister says that he will allow the bill to remain in committee. In that connection may I point out to him that I believe his remarks left the impression with hon. members-certainly they did with me-that he is of the opinion that before any of the forces of Canada, whether they be militia, air or naval, can be placed at the disposition of another part of the empire or on service abroad, parliament must be summoned in the first instance and give its consent. The right hon. gentleman nods his head in approval. I believe he will find that such is not the case. I remember that at the time of the Chanak incident in the near east in 1922, we were asked if we would place at the disposition of His Majesty certain Canadian forces. The reply given at that time was that we believed public opinion in Canada would demand, in the first instance, the summoning of parliament, and the authorization by parliament of any forces to be sent abroad

Visiting Commonwealth Forces
I do not think there is any statute which places that obligation upon parliament. I believe under the Militia Act and also under the Naval Act the governor in council has power in time of emergency to place the forces of Canada at the disposal of His Majesty in different parts of the world. But if parliament is not in session at the time, it will have to be summoned within so many days.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that for overseas service?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is regarded as an emergency, which may affect this dominion it may be in any way. That is the law as it stands. I submit that under the wording of this act, in the light of that icircumstance, the governor in council could rtake the military, naval or air forces and place them at the disposal of His Majesty in parts of the British Empire or in other parts of the world, at the instance of the governor in council himself, and not at the instance of parliament. I think it most important that it should be understood that the forces of this country are not to be placed, at all events, by virtue of anything in this act, at the disposal of His Majesty without parliament being summoned and so authorizing in the first instance, or in other words that it should be made quite clear that this act is intended primarily to further efficiency and cooperation through training in times of peace.


Mr. McGIBBON:: How could they do that unless parliament was summoned to vote the money?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They could do it as they have done a multitude of things; the government could go ahead and meet the necessary expenses by issuing governor general's warrants, or on its own credit and ask parliament to ratify its action later on. I should like to read to my hon. friend the section of the Militia Act, which is chapter 132 of the revised statutes of 1927. Section 64 reads:
The governor in council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
Then section 66 states:
Whenever the governor in council^ places the militia, or any part thereof, on active service, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
Sections 19 and 21 of chapter 139 of the revised statutes of 1927 respecting the naval service of Canada are similar, and I submit that under the provisions of these statutes it would be entirely possible for the governor in council to place the different forces of Canada at the disposition of His Majesty in other parts of the world without having parliament in session and without the authority of parliament for so doing. In addition I submit that it would be within the power of the Minister of National Defence himself under the provisions of the bill now before us to transfer those forces to a single command, all this before parliament had any say in the matter at all. I believe that phase of the matter should be looked into very carefully before we proceed finally with the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to read sections 64 and 66 of the Militia Act, but I think the right hon. gentleman will observe two things. First, there is a limitation placed upon the power of the governor in council. If forces are sent beyond Canada it must be for the defence of Canada.


Mr. RALSTON:: It always has been so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the first point. Then it is provided that parliament must be called to meet within fifteen days in any event. That being so I submit that my original statement that there could be no dispatch of troops from this country without the consent of parliament is strictly true, for it would be impossible to mobilize and send any body of troops from this country in fifteen days. That at least has been the constitutional position that always has been taken in this country, that even for the defenoe of Canada there can be no such thing in practice as troops leaving the country without parliament having given its consent. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has raised the point upon which I think the argument always has been founded, that since parliament must meet within fifteen days and since there can be no warrants issued after parliament meets in order to vote the money, it therefore follows that parliament must give its pronouncement yea or nay upon the matter by providing or refusing to provide the necessary money.
I believe this meets the difficulty raised by the right hon. gentleman. There has been no change in these statutes for a matter of thirty-five or forty years. We always have predicated the movement of armed forces out of

Visiting Commonwealth Forces
Canada upon the assumption that it was necessary for the defence of Canada. Then, the governor in council having taken the requisite action as an executive act, since the obligation is to call parliament within fifteen days before any expenditure is made and before the troops in fact are dispatched, it follows in the very nature of things that if parliament met and declined to vote the money an expedition would be abortive and could not function. That is the law as I understand it; I believe that has always been the law in this country since we have had to consider these questions. Let me repeat that no troops can leave this country to engage in military operations without the consent of this parliament. I believe that is a correct statement of the position in view of sections 64 and 66 of the Militia Act.
Now let us turn to the Naval Service Act. The real reason for section 80 appearing in the terms in which it does appear will be found in section 46 of the Naval Service Act, which reads:
The Naval Discipline (Dominion Naval Forces) Act, 1911, enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shall apply to the naval forces raised by the Dominion of Canada and the ships provided for such naval forces, subjeot to the modifications, adaptations and exceptions set out in the last preceding section.
The preceding section has to do with the Naval Discipline Act of 1866 and all the amendments thereto, because in 1918 this parliament thought it desirable to adopt in that way the provisions of the statute passed by the United Kingdom in order to secure, as other dominions had secured, a measure of uniformity in the administration of the naval forces. As the right hon. gentleman has remarked, the Air Force Act deals with a new arm of the service, about which all our legislation is more or less experimental.
Is this not a fair way to put it: There has been no change in the substantive law of this country with respect to armed forces, naval or military, for many years. Even the great war did not bring about a change. Our naval act is a relatively new act, which was passed some fourteen or fifteen years ago, and that statute involved a great deal of labour because it had to do with conditions which were entirely different, since the movement of ships at sea is entirely different from the movement of forces on land. I understand that section 80 was passed because of the fact that under the statute we passed, adopting in terms the British statute, there is a residuum of authority resting in the central power. Mark you, it covers not the home forces of Great Britain but the naval forces of the dominions; that is section 46.
That is my understanding of the situation as it now exists. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman has had occasion during his legislative experience to deal with the Dominion Naval Forces Act of 1911, which I think came into force during the first eight months of that year. It was passed at Westminster, I believe following the Imperial conference of that year, as being a statute that embodied an agreement at which all the prime ministers were able to arrive, not to interefere with the autonomy of each of the dominions but to preserve uniformity of administration in connection with the naval forces of the dominions, if it was thought desirable' by the people of the dominion affected to utilize their forces for a common purpose. As this section stands it merely provides that by subsection 4, to which attention has been directed, we shall treat one from abroad within the commonwealth as though he were a Canadian, and the statutes of the other dominions treat a Canadian as though he were a New Zealander or Australian for the purposes of common command if there be such. I do not think it possible to say that any troops could be moved out of this country under any circumstances unless parliament gave its assent; firstly, because fifteen days is a period of time which would certainly elapse before mobilization and movement could be completed; and secondly, no government would move forces out of this country if on calling parliament such action were negatived by nonprovision of the moneys necessary to pay for the expedition. Therefore the first statement I made is I think a statement that has been made in this house frequently and generally accepted as true, that there could be no movement of forces out of Canada for the defence of Canada unless this parliament had approved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I just make doubly clear the position I take in the matter. I assume that this act has really been drafted by the British government and not by our own government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I would not say it has been drafted either by the British government or by our own. I think it is fair to say that it was drafted by a committee of all the dominions. The hon. member who sits behind the leader of the opposition, my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth, was himself present in England in 1929 and must know something of the circumstances in connection with the discussion of this particular aspect of the matter. In 1930 when I came in I found it regarded as having been, shall I say, a fact accomplished, the only question

Visiting Commonwealth Forces
being as to how to give expression to the common purpose, and the legislation now before the house is legislation which has been agreed upon by the parties, subject to such variations as local conditions bring about.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whoever drafted it undoubtedly had in mind two things, first of all the providing of means whereby the forces of the empire might operate together in times of peace with a view to preparing for more efficient service in time of war. That I think is the first object of the measure -that . in the event of this parliament deciding in time of war to place its forces at the disposition of the empire as a whole there would be practices which would be known, and methods adopted, which would facilitate, expedite and ensure effective cooperation. Some measure of the kind here proposed is necessary in order to enable this preparation in time of peace to take place. There is another object which I think would also be in the minds of those who had the drafting of the measure, and that is the possibility of the different forces of the empire serving together in time of war, and that the second object was so to draft the enactment at the moment as would make its provisions applicable also in time of war. Both these objects may be necessary and desirable, but I am inclined to believe that in drafting the measure those who have had the matter in hand have gone a step further than has been heretofore intended by anything this parliament has sanctioned or contemplated, and certainly anything from what he has said the present Prime Minister has in mind, and have made it possible for a subsequent administration say, if they desired so to do, to have certain of the forces of Canada placed under a single command prior to the time of this parliament's meeting. If there could be added to the act a clause which would ensure that in so far as its provisions are concerned they shall in time of war be effective only after parliament itself has given its consent to such a step, I think that would be advisable and would place matters beyond any doubt.


James Layton Ralston: May I say a word following what my leader has said. Section 6 is the section that gives me some difficulty, as perhaps it has also the Prime Minister and my leader. We have persistently and insistently contended that there should be no unity of command without consent; that is the point on which Canada and the other commonwealths have been very strong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is secured.


James Layton Ralston: I was going to speak
about that. Wrhen our troops went overseas unity of command was effected by putting all the forces under Field Marshal Haig, but only by consent; and later when all the allied forces were put under Marshal Foch it was the same thing. Subsection 4 of section 6 makes a slight inroad on that, and I should like to have the Prime Minister, while the matter is under deliberation after the committee rises, consider the question whether at least there should not be action by the governor in council rather than the Minister of National Defence. I am the last one to derogate from the responsibilities, the functions and the dignities of that high office, but at the same time this is the disposition of troops by His Majesty's representative, who is commander in chief of the forces, and therefore it seems to me to be an act solemn and serious enough to have the approval or the consideration of His Majesty's privy council. It is all very well to have visiting forces here, each one under its own command.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That always has been so.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, and to invest those
in charge of visiting forces with sufficient authority to carry out commands and enforce discipline. But when you combine forces you do something that has not been done before, and it should not be simply an order of the Minister of National Defence, because immediately you have done that you may have altered completely the ranks of the officers in the forces. The provision is that, automatically, there is unity of command the moment the minister gives his consent to the combination. Unity of command is effected under the officer of senior rank, whoever it may be, and further than that I notice that subsection 5 provides that the relative ranks of members of the home force and of other forces shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations made by His Majesty. It does not say whether His Majesty is to be advised by the government of Canada or by the government of the United Kingdom and I do not know what the Prime Minister has in mind. It would seem to me as if it were intended to be His Majesty in the right of the United Kingdom. I think we should have some say in deciding on the relative seniority of ranks of officers who make up the combined force.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of what has been said I shall discuss the section more fully with the legal officer of the Department of External Affairs and the chief of the general staff. It may be possible that the construction placed

Business of the House
upon the section is as wide as the hon. gentleman opposite suggests, but that was not my understanding of it when I came to the house with it. I shall therefore ask to have the section stand until I have had an opportunity of discussing it and reporting to the house exactly what the views of the legal adviser of the department and of the chief of the general staff may be.
Section stands.
On section 7-Application of act to mandated territories, colonies and other territories.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As regards
this section, it sems to me it might as well be dropped out of the Canadian act. What it really does is to authorize the governor in council to place any of the forces of Canada in other parts of the British Empire for the purpose of joining in service with forces in other parts of the empire in respect of mandated territories and in respect of the defence of colonies, or to services in some other force to be rendered to colonies. Unless we are going to take upon ourselves the obligation of agreeing to let our forces be placed generally at the disposal of other parts of the empire, I think that clause might well be dropped. I notice in the explanatory note it says that it is probable the provisions of this section will rarely be evoked and that it will be necessary to make a special order in council on each occasion. I really do not see why the section should be there at all. It is going to place by inference a new obligation on this country with respect to cooperating with other parts of the British Empire in their special defence relations to colonies and mandated territories.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the right hon.
gentleman has an entirely erroneous view as to section 7. What is intended is that in the rare case of the forces of any colony or mandated territory desiring to visit here, with our consent, this shall apply; because there is a limitation to commonwealth forces, namely forces of the British commonwealth of nations, and unless this provision were here it could not be applied to either mandated territories or colonies. The statute is extended by section 7 to meet that situation. When I first saw the statute I am free to say that my view was not very different from that of the right hon. gentleman himself. But it will be observed that-
This act shall, subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the governor in council may direct, apply

* The note indicates that it is thought the provisions of the section will rarely be evoked; yet it is desirable to make provision
for such a case in the statute. Certainly it does not contemplate a force being placed at the disposal of any central authority for use in mandated territories or colonies; that is clear. Such a power could not be derived by implication, and I think on mature consideration the right hon. gentleman will agree that it is desirable to provide in the one statute at the one time for contingencies that may arise with respect to these other territories that form part of the British Empire, namely the dominions, that constitute the commonwealth, as well as (a) the colonies and (b) the mandated territories under the League of Nations, for which responsibility rests with us as a signatory to the league, as well as others.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To an interpretation such as the Prime Minister places on this section I would take no exception, and will be quite satisfied if that is the correct interpretation. As I read the section, piecing it together with other sections, it seemed to me that it gave to the governor in council at any time power to deal with the forces of Canada as a whole for service generally in connection with mandated territories and colonies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not my understanding. If it were I should not ask the house to pass it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps section 8 had
better stand with section 6, in view of the observation made by the right hon. gentleman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that the opposition
thought it desirable not to proceed to-day with order number 18, Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Railway bill. In view of the events of the last few hours I think it is undesirable to proceed at the moment with order number 17, the Relief Act. It may be that we may think it desirable to offer to the house a further section to the resolution.
If it is agreeable we will proceed now with order number 18, and if hon. gentlemen1 opposite desire to adjourn the debate until to-morrow it will be quite satisfactory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not take exception to what the Prime Minister suggests were it not that I asked specifically at the
New Westminster Elevator

close of Friday evening of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), who was leading the house at the time, as to whether it was understood that the railway measure would not be proceeded with to-day, and I got the direct assurance that it would not. I have intimated that decision to some hon. members on this side of the house who expressed to me their desire to be here when the second reading of the railway bill was being proceeded with and I feel that I would not be protecting their wishes if I did not ask my right hon. friend in the circumstances to allow that undertaking to stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust the right hon.
gentleman understands that since Friday many events have transpired that make it desirable at least to reconsider many things from a different angle than heretofore. It was for that reason I concluded not to go on with number 17, lest it be thought desirable, as I said, to add another section to the resolution, which might enable the discussion to take place on both amendments, the one now before the house and another, and dispose of them promptly. But I quite appreciate the right hon. gentleman's position with respect to number 18 and we will not proceed with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I respect my right hon. friend's position with regard to number 17. I think he is quite right in not proceeding with the relief resolution this afternoon; I share his views on that entirely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to see that we agree upon something.
Then we will go into supply. We might take a League of Nations item in External Affairs.



SUPPLY-NEW WESTMINSTER ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['I do know about a lot of promises made in the Liberal manifesto of 1919 which were not kept. I have no doubt that in some instances efforts were made to keep them, but there was a wholesale disregard of others. Undoubtedly they were but pious hopes. Perhaps one might say that it is a poor man who cannot make a promise.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.\n27C6', 'Duty on British Imports\nTuesday, March 7, 1933']
Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I have a very important matter to bring to the attention of the government and one which I think ought to be discussed. It relates to the New Westminster elevator. I have hesitated to bring this matter before the house in order to see if this undertaking which was commenced in 1928 would operate successfully. But there are certain serious matters concerning it which I think should now be brought to the notice of the government.
The history of the elevator is briefly this. After years of endeavour it was decided to

construct an elevator on the Fraser river. I might say that we in the lower Fraser valley and in the vicinity of New Westminster look upon the Fraser as the greatest river in the whole of Canada, if not on the American continent. After years of endeavour the government of the day was persuaded to assist in the construction of an elevator on the Fraser river in the vicinity of New Westminster. About that time a company was formed called the Fraser River Elevator Company. This company was formed with a view to getting control if possible of this elevator or ownership of it after it was constructed. The company consisted chiefly of one man by the name of Samuel McClay. He conceived the idea of forming a company so as to have control of this elevator. According to the return furnished to me by the provincial government last September the company consisted of this Mr. McClay and a Walter A. Wilson, chartered accountant, both of 207 Hastings street west, Vancouver. It was capitalized at $25,000. I am in some doubt whether any money was actually subscribed outside of the money for legal fees and incorporation expense.
The nominal capital of the company was later increased to $1,000,000, and in these days, when watered stock is under criticism, I would ask the house to take note of the fact-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be well to remember that this is a provincial, not a dominion company.


Thomas Reid: Yes, it is a provincial company. The information given to me from the provincial government at Victoria is to the effect that the company was originally capitalized at $25,000 divided into 250 shares of $100 each. These shares were subsequently subdivided into 25,000 shares of SI each and the capital increased to $1,000,000 divided into shares of $1 each. The present shareholders of the company are John Coughlan, who goes under the name of a shipowner, 160,000 shares; Charles Coughlan, of Connaught drive, 160,000 shares; Samuel McClay, now chairman of the Vancouver harbour commission, 300,000 shares, and two others, Mr. Sugarman and Mr. Maclnnes, 100 shares each. That was the report given to me by Mr. Garrett, registrar of companies, Victoria, in September, 1932, and as the Prime Minister has pointed out, this is a provincial company. This Mr. McClay, who is now chairman of the harbour commission, is the man who is said to have been appointed to that commission to look after the personal interests of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

New Westminster Elevator


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot allow any such
observation as that to pass unchallenged; there is not a word of truth in it.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member will have
to take my word that Mr. Samuel McClay made this statement to me in 1931, in the Chateau Laurier in this city, and I consider my word is as good as that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I simply state on a question of privilege that there is no truth in the allegation made by the hon. gentleman that Mr. MdClay was appointed to any harbour commission to look after my personal interests. The statement is without any foundation in fact and is absurd.


Thomas Reid: I am glad to hear that, because Mr. McClay made that statement and he made some others to me just as serious, but this one has some bearing on the case I am endeavouring to present to the government. I can say without fear of contradiction that that statement was given to me in 1931 by Mr. Sam McClay in the city of Ottawa.
After it was decided to go ahead with this elevator and after an estimate of some 8600,000 had been given by Messrs. C. D. Howe and 'Company, who were the engineers and who were asked to submit plans, tenders were called for the construction of the elevator and a contract was let to the Stuart Cameron Company of Vancouver, whose tender of $460,279 was the lowest.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What date?


Thomas Reid: The contract was let on
February 20, 1928, after approval had been received from the Department of Marine. Actual construction was commenced a few days later, but the unusual freshet that occurred in the Fraser river early in May of that year interrupted the work on the foundation and caused a delay of some two months. Before the work had proceeded very far, it was decided to make a change in the construction of at least part of the elevator. I should here like to make a slight criticism in regard to the fact that the change involved an expenditure of some $90,000. It would be interesting to know just how that sum of $90,000 was arrived at, because no credit at all was given for the woodwork for that portion as specified in the contract of $460,000 and I have grave criticism to offer regarding this $90,000 extra having been paid to this company who were constructing the elevator for this change in the plan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When was the work completed?


Thomas Reid: It was completed some time in 1929. The engineer's final certificate was issued in April of that year. Other changes made in the original contract to the Stuart Cameron Company were certain additional equipment required by the proposed lessee, changing the piling in dock and revetment from fir to cedar, besides sundry other extras. The contract price of February 20, 1928, was $460,279. An agreement of May 11, 1928, provided for a change from wood to concrete at an additional $90,000, and as I say, no credit whatever was given for that change over and I maintain the $90,000 was an overcharge. There was additional equipment amounting to $11,467.91, and sundry extras, including changing piling in dock from fir to cedar, amounting to $4,635.25.
Owing to the delay occasioned by the freshet and also by a carpenters' strike in the fall of 1928, construction was not completed until April, 1929, when the engineer's final certificate was issued.
In May, 1929, some subsidence in the fill-back of the revetment wall took place, and early in July a portion of the revetment collapsed, while the storage building showed some slight movement towards the river. On the advice of the engineers, work was immediately commenced to strengthen the storage and to repair the damage to the revetment, this work being completed in the fall of 1929 at an extra cost of some $23,000.
Messrs. C. D. Howe and Company, the engineers who had charge of the matter, then reported that the elevator was perfectly safe and could be filled up with grain, but the proposed lessees, who were known as the Fraser River Elevator Company, but who were in reality Mr. Sam McClay and Mr. Coughlan of the city of Vancouver, raised some objection and said that the elevator was unsafe and that they could not take over the lease. They said that they were afraid to put grain into the elevator, although the engineers, Messrs. C. D. Howe and Company, had given a certificate to the effect that the elevator was quite safe and would stand any strain or load in the way of grain. Messrs. McClay and Coughlan from then on raised great objections to taking over this elevator; they placed all kinds of difficulties in the way, stating that they were prepared to take a lease of it, but that they certainly could not do so as in their opinion it was unsafe. They prevailed upon the government to have three engineers appointed to look into the matter,
New Westminster Elevator

and the latter suggested further improvements which were carried out at a cost of $40,000. Plans, specifications and estimates of cost of this work were prepared and were forwarded to the Department of Marine on November 12, 1930, the estimated cost being $40,345.08, including engineering fees. The commissioners had to wait some little time for authority to proceed with the work, pending arrangements being made in connection with finances.
As I have already stated, when the elevator was finished, the company started to find fault with the structure declaring it to be unsafe and accordingly they refused to sign the lease. I believe that the object of the so-called company, consisting of two men, was to obtain at a reduced figure control or ownership of this elevator, which had cost this country in the neighbourhood of one million dollars, including of course all the improvement work done around it. At the outset they had agreed that when the elevator was constructed they would lease it for a period of twenty years at an estimated cost of $700,000. The $700,000 was to include elevator, trackage, wharf, and all pertaining to the elevator. It would have been quite a fine scheme for the company if they had obtained such a lease-and remember they had not put up a cent. Here was the country going to build an elevator and at the end of twenty years the company was going to be the complete owner of it. It would be very nice if any one of us could go to the government and ask them to build a house for us at the country's expense, and we rent it for twenty years and then become the absolute owner. That is just on a par with the scheme of this shadow company for obtaining this elevator. I believe, and I say this in all sincerity, that the object of that company was to so damn the structure that they would obtain possession of the elevator at their own figure, and both Mr. McClay and Mr. Coughlan told me when I met them at the elevator last year that they expected to obtain possession of the elevator over a lease of twenty years for some $500,000. They were going to get it at a reduced figure because they claimed they were entitled to compensation on account of delay in the completion of the elevator, which they claim resulted in a business loss to them and which they maintained the government should pay for. I cannot say definitely at the moment just what amount they claimed from the government or the harbour board as a business loss by reason of the elevator not being completed at the stipulated date. But I know it was some thousands of dollars.
An agreement was then drawn up with the harbour board by which the company was
r.Mr. Reid.]
given possession of the elevator to run it as a kind of storage elevator. They paid nothing for it. The taxes and the expenses of the elevator were borne by the harbour board, which had received loans from the government. This so-called company, The Fraser River Elevator Company, put up no money, but they obtained possession of the elevator. In the agreement which was drawn up it was stated that the company, on request of the harbour board, would move out on notice and give them quiet possession of the elevator. Notice was sent to the company by the harbour hoard quite a number of times to move out, but the company paid no attention to the notice; they simply sat there. I think it should be noted that this company, after they had obtained possession of the elevator, defied legal authority to oust them from it. It is true that the company were making some so-called claim from the government for not being able to obtain possession of the elevator at the time stipulated, in consequence of which they stated they had suffered a business loss which they themselves estimated at some thousands of dollars. But they should never have been given the right of entry into the elevator without putting up some money. There has been nothing but grief since they got in there.
The company I believe made a little money from the operations of the elevator. At various times considerable quantities of corn were brought into the elevator, which the company was operating without paying anything at all to the harbour board by way of lease.
Coming to 1932, the company was notified by the harbour board on several occasions to vacate the elevator. This it refused to do. It paid no attention to the request at all. After the harbour board had brought all the pressure it could to bear upon the company, the board decided to call for tenders for the lease of the elevator to be run as an elevator for grain. Two or three firms tendered, in particular the Fraser River Elevator Company, and the Searle Grain Company. The latter company has some 364 elevators, I believe, in this country and is in the grain business in a large way. Although it was stated by one of our local papers that I seemed to be more in favour of leasing the elevator to Yankee interests than Canadian, I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the harbour board itself recommended that the lease be given to the Searle Grain Company, a very reliable grain company, which, as I said, operates some 364 elevators in this country. But the tender of the Searle Grain Company was turned down by the Department of Marine and the harbour

New Westminster Elevator
board were notified to give the lease to the Fraser River Elevator Company.
To go back for a moment to the steps that were taken in 1932 to make this so-called company vacate the elevator before lease tenders were called for, the harbour board was pressing this so-called company fairly hard but the Department of Marine sent word by telegram not to press the company any further, and not to put them out, as all the matters in connection with the leasing of the elevator had not been finally settled. I make this criticism regarding the attitude of the Department of Marine, that they did not allow the harbour board forcibly to eject the company from possession of the elevator, of which it had been in possession since 1929 and without any cost to them. The company had been operating the elevator at a profit to themselves since taking it over.
Coming again to the leasing of the elevator, tenders were called for in 1932, and tenders were received from the Fraser River Elevator Company and the Searle Grain Company. The Fraser River Elevator Company offered $20,000, plus one-quarter of a cent a bushel up to six million bushels. If six million bushels had been put through the elevator in a year, that would have amounted to $35,000 a year. The Searle Grain Company offered $33,000 a year cash payable half-yearly.
The harbour board recommended to the Department of Marine that the lease be given to the Searle Grain Company for $33,000 cash, but the department wired the harbour board to give the lease to the Fraser River Elevator Company. I understand that that wire was sent by the hon. Minister of Marine, although the information was given to me that Mr. Ramsay, the head of the grain board, also recommended that the Searle Grain Company were the legitimate ones to get the elevator because they were a reliable company and really in the grain business, and not simply ostensibly in it like the Fraser River Elevator Company, which while operating a grain business was not really in the business, and had no grain connections. It is an actual fact that the New Westminster harbour commissioners had recommended to the government that the lease be given to the Searle Grain Company.
But that is not all; and it would not have been too bad. But the agreement drawn up by the harbour commissioners with the Fraser River Elevator Company provided that the lease was to run for some three years, and that the company was to put up $10,000 cash and $10,000 in bonds, and pay one-quarter of
a cent a bushel up to six million bushels. The company were very eager to get complete charge of the elevator. But up to the present time the information that I have both from the harbour board and others connected with the matter is that this company has not yet put up one cent, although the lease was granted in October last, and although the company has put over one million bushels of grain through the elevator.
Mr. Speaker, I believe urgent steps should be taken in connection with this matter regaining an elevator which has cost the people of Canada nearly a million dollars. It would seem that ever since completion it has been practically controlled and owned by the Fraser River Elevator Company, without them contributing five oents towards it. After a lease being signed in October of last year, despite the fact that about a million bushels of wheat have been run through the elevator, no money is yet forthcoming. My contention is that the government should take steps to see that this firm remain no longer in control, even though they have to be forced out in whatever manner the government deem desirable. In any event the firm I have mentioned should not be allowed to continue operation of the elevator. They have promised to put up money, and the lease calls for it. Having taken possession I do not know whether or not the government will be able to put them out. I know the harbour board would have liked to put them out last year, but were told not to molest them. They are sick and tired of this company.
I bring to the attention of the government the seriousness of allowing a firm such as I have described to have charge of an elevator costing close to a million dollars, and in allowing them possession of that elevator. In my view they should not have been allowed possession. Further, ,the chairman of the Vancouver harbour board should not be allowed to have anything to do with the operation of an elevator on the Fraser river. I make that complaint in all seriousness. No one connected with the harbour board of another port should have private interests in a grain elevator owned by this country.
I make a serious complaint against the company, and ask the government to investigate and to take immediate steps to dispossess the company of an elevator which, as I have stated before, belongs to the people of Canada. The company has put up no money-and I doubt if it has any-not one cent has been contributed by way of rental, even though it made money when it used the elevator for storage purposes, and are now making money.
New Westminster Elevator

I have merely touched, the high spots of all the circumstances. I have information upon which I could easily lay my hands concerning the whole transaction about which I have not spoken. I have not gone into minute details although the circumstances might warrant further discussion. However I believe it would be well if a commission or a commissioner were appointed to look into the whole matter. The government should also investigate the fees paid to engineers. Mr. Howe was engaged as engineer to draw plans and look after the construction of the elevator, and yet we find that over $30,000 was paid to another engineer. In addition to that large sums have been paid to Mr. Howe for his work. I am informed that the $30,000 in engineering fees went to a man named Major Swan. In my view .the whole cost of the elevator should be placed under scrutiny. My main complaint however at the present time principally concerns the firm now in possession, the people who are running the elevator and making profit, but who are not actually in the grain business. Mr. McClay is the one chiefly interested in the business, but he is also chairman of the harbour board of Vancouver, and Mr. Coughlan is one of the chief directors. Two other gentlemen have nominal holdings of one hundred shares each, valued at one dollar a share. This is on the information supplied me from Victoria as to who actually comprise that company. In my opinion the company should be put out of operation, because they are not really interested in the grain business. Either the harbour commission, the government or some responsible grain company should take over the elevator and run it so that the dominion and the country would receive some return for its outlay in the building of the elevator.
I have made my statement in all seriousness, with the desire of having this, the first elevator on the Fraser river, put into successful operation, as I expect to see many more on the Fraser river. It will not operate successfully as long as it is handled by the Fraser River Elevator Company. They have given it a black eye and have brought condemnation on it in every shape and form with a view, as I have said, eventually to obtaining ownership of it at some $200,000 less than its original cost, and without having to put up one dollar.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member (Mr. Reid) has given to the house a most interesting story, but I fear the manner in which he has spoken has left in the minds of
[Mr. Reid.l
hon. members an entirely erroneous impression. The view the hon. member has sought to leave with the house is that the government had entered into a lease of certain government property, namely an elevator, in a most improvident manner, with a company which really had no responsibility. From certain interruptions which I made it will be clear to the house that the origin of the alleged difficulty was before the present government took office.
The facts are comparatively simple. Prior to 1928 very strong pressure was brought to bear upon the then government to construct an elevator on the Fraser river at New Westminster. Those representations culminated in a contract for the construction of such an elevator. Before actual construction was undertaken I understand negotiations were carried on between the company which proposed to construct the elevator and a department of the government. Of that, however, I have no personal knowledge, and therefore cannot give any accurate information. In any case the negotiations culminated in a lease being granted to the company by the preceding government.
A word now, in regard to the construction of the elevator. I believe the superstructure, as a whole, was well done. But a question was raised by Mr. McClay in 1928, who was a member of the lessee company, concerning the adequacy of the foundations. I believe he is on record as complaining that the provision made by the engineers at the time of construction in 1928 was not sufficient, because in his opinion the erosion caused by the flow of the Fraser river would probably result in the loaded elevator slipping. This is what actually occurred: When the elevator was finally constructed and possession was taken by the lessees, the insurance companies refused to place any insurance upon grain stored in the elevator. The result was that the lessees could not use the elevator. The point raised by the engineers of the insurance company was that if a load were put into the elevator it would probably slide into the river, resulting in a complete loss. As I have said, the lessees could get no insurance upon grain placed in the elevator; consequently, while in the first year they did pay certain rentals, they were deprived of the opportunity of doing business, and their guarantees and banking arrangements were to them only a dead loss.
When the present government took office we took action. We appointed a committee of engineers to examine the point raised regarding foundations, and my recollection is that that committee, composed of reputable

New Westminster Elevator
and experienced engineers of the government, reported that certain work costing approximately $300,000 would have to be done in order to make the structure suitable! for occupation as an elevator. Of course it must be borne in mind by all hon. members that an elevator must carry a tremendous weight when it is loaded with grain. I think this elevator has a capacity of something like one million bushels, though of that I am not sure. In any case, the weight would be terrific, and this committee of engineers decided that work to cost about $300,000 would have to be done before the elevator was safe for occupancy. So steps were taken-I confess frankly very reluctantly by the government of the day-to spend this $300,000; it was felt that here was a structure costing half a million dollars or more which was useless unless this subsequent work was done. So this government authorized the harbour commissioners to have the work done, the government advancing the money, and the work was done and the elevator declared suitable for occupancy as a grain elevator.
Then there was a dispute between the lessees and the new government as to what damage they were entitled to, if any, and as to what amended terms should be offered for the occupancy of the elevator. That dispute continued for some time. The Fraser River Elevator Company made certain claims for damages; they claimed that allowances should be made for losses for lack of occupancy and for money expended during the period of dispute. Then, if I remember correctly, the harbour commissioners of New Westminster were waited1 upon by another company, called the Searle Grain Company, who made offers for the elevator. This, of course, was subsequent to the elevator being repaired and made suitable for occupancy. The lessees, the Fraser River company, who had possession in name only and who had been unable to do business because of the difficulty with regard to construction, naturally protested the loss of the property and the handing it over to another company. There was a hiatus, a period of time when there was more or less a dispute. The final settlement with the Fraser River Company-I am speaking now with a little hesitancy as I have not the documents before me, but I think I am correct- was that the company agreed to waive their claim for damages provided they were given free and safe occupancy of the building, and to pay a rental of $20,000 a year as indicated by my hon. friend and a quarter of a cent per bushel for the grain which passed through the elevator. I believe they represented that
they expected to move from four million to six million bushels yearly through the elevator. The other company offered $35,000, my hon. friend says.


Thomas Reid: $33,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My recollection is that
they offered $22,500 and subsequently increased the offer, but I do not think it went to $35,000.


Thomas Reid: 


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not in a position
definitely to dispute that figure, but I know their original offer was nothing like that. True, the matter was discussed by the Department of Marine, as all these matters are, with the harbour commissioners, and that was done in this case particularly in view of the fact that in the meantime we had advanced the necessary money to correct the defects in construction. True, the Department of Marine was in touch with the situation there, necessarily and properly so. Finally, however, having in mind the several years during which the Fraser River company had not been given quiet possession and had been unable to get insurance or do business, it was decided that they were entitled to some consideration, and that consideration was given them. Briefly these are the facts and that is the story.
Now I wish to refer to several observations made by the hon. member in presenting his case. He complains very bitterly that a change was made during the period of construction and that an additional $90,000 was spent. If that is so it was spent by my hon. friends apposite; I am not complaining, but my hon. friend complains. He spoke of it several times, and seemed to insinuate that possibly there was something in the nature of a scandal behind it. I know nothing of it and have never heard of it. My hon. friend may know something that I do not know, but that was what I gathered he intimated. If so he should inquire from hon. gentlemen opposite who had control of the whole situation at that time. I want to make it abundantly clear that I am making no such insinuation myself.
In the second place the hon. gentleman calls into question Mr. Howe, the engineer. All I have to say is that Mr. Howe was retained by my predecessor in the Department of Trade and Commerce for the expert engineering on all the government elevators constructed during the period they were in office.


Thomas Reid: I said Mr. Howe was the
engineer in charge and that he O.K.'d the plans. I made no criticism of Mr. Howe.
27d6
New Westminster Elevator


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very good. It is rather
a narrow difference when you criticize a given plan or operation O.K.'d by an individual and at the same time exculpate that individual from all blame. My hon. friend can do that if he likes; it takes a more adroit mind than mine. I have this to say, however:	Mr. Howe is no particular personal friend of mine but he has been recognized by the United Grain Growers, by the pools, by the preceding government, by my predecessor in office and by almost everyone in Canada who has had anything to do with elevator construction as one of the most experienced elevator engineers in Canada. That is not my testimony; it is the testimony of all those to whom I have referred, so I think in retaining Mr. Howe the preceding government did a perfectly proper thing. I am not calling him in question at all, but my hon. friend is doing so. Mr. Howe was responsible for the plans of that elevator. He designed them and he supervised construction.


Thomas Reid: He however washed his hands of the elevator later on when they interfered with him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When who interfered with him?


Thomas Reid: When the harbour board interfered. Here is his letter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The fact is that Mr. Howe was in charge. I do not call him in question nor do I call in question the Department of Marine prior to 1930, when this elevator was built. I do say this was a very difficult piece of ground upon which to construct an elevator, and an engineering error may have been made. The fact is that no insurance company would insure the building; certain work had to be done to put it into proper shape, and this work was done. No blame in this regard lies at the door of this government, nor am I placing the blame on any other government. I am merely stating facts. My hon. friend goes on to say that Mr. Howe was paid a huge fee; those are his words, and the suggestion is that he did not earn it. I suggest that Mr. Howe is an honourable man in his profession, and is entitled to his fee.


Thomas Reid: It was the other engineer to
whom I referred.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am just coming to that, and I am sorry my predecessor in office, the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) is not in his seat. Major Swan is well known to the friends of my hon. friend, the members of the former government; he is a gentleman

who frequently was retained by the government in these matters. As a matter of fact, if I am not mistaken, at the very time he was engaged on this work he was consulting engineer for the Vancouver harbour commisr sioners. I knew Mr. Swan before he went overseas and I have known him since his return. I know him as an honourable man, a gentleman of repute, an engineer of parts and a very strong supporter of hon. gentlemen opposite. My hon. friend says he was paid $30,000. If he received that fee I have no doubt that it was in accordance with the standards of engineers, but there again that has nothing to do with it. That was under the control of the government who preceded us. I am not calling it in question and I think my hon. friend had better discuss that with the gentleman with whom he is now associated.
My hon. friend says that the contract was let in February, 1928. He says that the elevator was completed in April, 1929, and that there was a refusal on the part of the Fraser River Elevator Company to take the lease. So there was. There was a refusal after they had taken possession and found that they could not get insurance. They could do no business in the elevator and it was perfectly proper that they should refuse under these circumstances. Then my hon. friend brings in at very considerable length the organization of the Fraser River Elevator Company and he repeatedly, time after time, stressed the fact that Mr. Sam McClay, president of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners at the present time, was a member of that company. That company was organized-I am speaking from memory-some time in 1926 or 1927. At that time Mr. McClay was in private life and was quite entitled to engage in any line of business he wished. He had nothing to do with the then government and nothing to do with this government so far as that period of time was concerned. He was a member of that elevator company, I believe. Mr. John Coughlan, a splendid citizen, a man of about seventy-seven years of age, who has carried on business in British Columbia to my own knowledge for thirty years, is a man of repute, a man of substance, and in every sense is entitled to consideration in any business deal to which he places his hand or gives his attention. After Mr. McClay became chairman of the harbour board in Vancouver he was dissociated from this company and had nothing to do with it.


Thomas Reid: He still possessed 300,000
shares.

Swp-ply-External Affairs


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is probably the
original record.


Thomas Reid: That was last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Thomas Reid: There is no record of a year's rental. They put up $30,000 in bonds which they lifted later on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know that they put up $30,000 in any case, but they had no quiet possession, they were unable to operate, and they could not get insurance. It was in view of these facts that subsequently, when it came to the 1932 period, consideration was given them. I may say to my hon. friend that if that company under its present lease, which is a legal document-and I have no doubt that Mr. Coughlan is held responsible for that; if he is not he should have been-if the company, I say, are violating the terms of that lease, if they are falling down in their part of the agreement, then I have no hesitation in saying that the harbour commissioners certainly should enforce the lease. That is my position and it is as clear as day. They must observe the terms of the lease. I do say, however, that in my opinion the harbour board and the Marine department were not only within their rights but did the fair thing when they permitted the continuance of that lease in the light of the experience which the company had had prior to the rectification of the faulty construction.
My hon. friend in his concluding remarks said that Mr. McClay, who is president of the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners, ought not to have anything to do with the company. With that I entirely agree, and my information is that he has nothing to do with it. I trust that assurance will calm the perturbation of mind of my hon. friend-


Thomas Reid: He still takes a supervised
interest in it-his son is running it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My information is entirely to the contrary.


Thomas Reid: I have, however, seen him
there; I saw him before I came to Ottawa.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is all I wish to say at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I have not before me the documents and details but the house may, if it wishes to do so, examine the records which will bear out the outline of the situation as I have given it.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle) in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Publications of League of Nations for distribution to members of parliament and a grant to the League of Nations Society in Canada, $3,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I am calling this item in the
Department of External Affairs to have the department in committee. The item is noncontentious.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The administration of the acts respecting food and drugs, opium and narcotic drugs and proprietary or patent medicines, including the laboratory of hygiene, $140,000.
Mr. SPENCER:: What is the reason for
the reduction in this case?


Murray MacLaren: The reduction is $5,000 out of a sum of $140,000. It is almost immaterial. It is accounted for by the endeavour to administer as carefully as possible under present circumstances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not represent much of an endeavour.


Murray MacLaren: No, it is comparatively immaterial.


Peter McGibbon: Perhaps the minister can give some explanation of the activities of this branch.
Supply-Health-Narcotics


Murray MacLaren: This appropriation is for providing laboratory and1 inspection service dealing with adulteration and misbranding of human food and of drugs employed for the treatment or prevention of disease in mam or animals; the control of export, import and sale of all! habit forming drugs; investigations and prosecutions in connection with traffic in narcotics, and payment of lawyers' fees in connection with 'the various prosecutions; and the protection of the public by .seeing that all proprietary or patent medicines sold are of some value and not dangerous, and that false or exaggerated Claims are not made either on the label or in the advertising.


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister carry out the provisions of the act by the aid of the mounted police, or has he special officers?


Murray MacLaren: The department keeps in close association with the mounted police in reference to the detection and prosecution of cases arising under the narcotics act.


James Layton Ralston: Those are the only officers the minister has to enforce the act?
Mr. MacLAREN; As far as narcotics are concerned wie cooperate with the mounted police. Regarding adulteration of food we have inspectors placed at intervals across the country, twenty-seven or twenty-eight of them. When cases arise reports are sent in to the department, and- food that is suspected is examined in our laboratories and the necessary action taken.


James Layton Ralston: Do the mounted police take charge of the prosecution?


Murray MacLaren: In which case?


James Layton Ralston: Where adulterated food is found and report made to the department and the department is convinced that an offence has been committed, is the matter then placed in charge of the mounted police?


Murray MacLaren: No, our connection with the mounted police is restricted to narcotics. Food comes under our food inspectors, and the action is taken by the chief inspector.
I might say for the information of the house that while there were a number of reports and prosecutions, in the last two years the principal food which has come under the observation of the department and in connection with which prosecutions have been instituted and fines fixed1 is sausages. I say this for public information as well, that there are certain substances which have been added to sausages in the way of preservatives, and I think per-

haps in thie way of colour, and the department is doing what it can to suppress this adulteration. I .mention it because quite a considerable number of cases have come before the department.


Alan Webster Neill: Do I understand that the minister or his department is responsible for the administration: of the Meat and Canned Foods Act?


Murray MacLaren: That is under the Department of Agriculture. The matter of foods comes partly under my department, partly under the Department of Agriculture and also in some cases under the provincial authorities. Misbranding and adulteration of canned foods are dealt with by this department, but on the whole canned foods are under the Department of Agriculture.


Alan Webster Neill: Let me make my meaning quite clear. Was the minister or his department privy to or cognizant of or in any way responsible for the perpetration of P.C. 206 that we talked about the other day, in connection with the inspection of canned salmon? It was certainly issued under the provisions of the act dealing with meat and canned foods. I am anxious to know who is responsible for that offspring.


Murray MacLaren: The answer is that the department does concern itself to a small extent with canned foods, that is to say as regards labelling. If it is mislabelled, then the department is concerned.


Charles Gavan Power: Do the functions of the inspectors of this department extend only to the labelling of the canned foods, or do they go beyond that?


Murray MacLaren: I understand the hon. member asks, is the department limited to misbranding and mislabelling. That is largely what we are confined to. The Department of Agriculture actually deals with canned foods, but should a case of adulteration be brought to its attention then the department analyzes and reports on the condition.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it a fact that the department has inspectors to examine foods that are placed on the market?


Murray MacLaren: Well there is a Meat and Canned Foods Act, that is specially under the Department of Agriculture. I was suggesting a moment ago that there are various departments and organizations having to do with the adulteration of food-the Department of

Supply-H ealth-N arcotics
National Health, the Department of Agriculture, which deals particularly with canned foods, and food under the provincial authorities.


Charles Gavan Power: At this point will the minister explain how the work is divided? Surely there is not any overlapping. I understand from the minister there are three bodies which deal with the adulteration of food.


Murray MacLaren: I quite agree that there is a possibility of confusion as to just where the responsibility lies in different cases. This is a memorandum on the subject.
The control of the manufacture and sale of foodstuffs comes under the Department of Pensions and National Health, the Department of Agriculture, the provincial departments of health and the municipal departments of health. The Department of National Health prescribes standards of quality and fixes the limitation of variability permissible in any article of food. Through its inspectors and analysts certain foodstuffs are collected, examined and analysed for adulteration and misbranding. Under the Meats and Canned Foods Act the Department of Agriculture controls foodstuffs that are manufactured for export and interprovincial sale, according to the standards of quality set up by the Department of National Health where they apply, hnd, in other instances, according to their own standards. All manufacturers who export and sell interprovineially are obliged to obtain a permit from the Department of Agriculture. The inspectors of this department supervise the foodstuffs during the course of manufacture and examine them after they are placed on the market. In some isolated instances provincial departments of health have set up standards of quality for certain foodstuffs, for example, milk, but in the main they follow the standards set up by the Department of National Health. Municipal departments of health confine their activities to the examination of premises in which foodstuffs are stored or exposed for sale. I think that indicates how the work is apportioned.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Does the department regularly analyze all now patent medicines that' are put on the market before they are allowed to be sold?


Murray MacLaren: They are not examined
until application is made to the department to have them registered. When the application is duly made, they are passed on by the department.


John Power Howden: They are examined?


Murray MacLaren: Yes. Patent medicines
are examined. If they are not in accordance with the labelling, action is taken.


Mr. McGIBRON:: Some time ago I asked a question and I do not think the minister got the purport of it. What I want to know is the activities of this department in enforcing the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act, how much money was spent under it, what success the department has had, and a resume of what it has done during the past twelve months.


Murray MacLaren: In reference to opium
and narcotics, there were the following expenditures :
Legal services, $32,541.07; witness fees and expenses, $315; secret investigational work, $291.92-Total, $33,147.99.


William Duff: In regard to the $32,000 for
legal services, will the minister give the names of the lawyers who received this very large sum of money in these times of depression?


Murray MacLaren: They will be found in
the Auditor General's report. I am sorry I do not have the names here.
The cases of prosecutions are as follows:
Possession of drugs	 173
Selling or distributing	 45
Importing without a licence	 3
Smoking opium	 42
Frequenting opium den	 39
Possession of pipes, etc	 24
Professional cases under sections 5,
6 and 9	 7
Total	 333


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member for Anti-gonish-Guysborough asked the minister to give the details of the expenditure of $32,000 on legal fees; we have not as yet had that.


Murray MacLaren: I have not those details with me, but I know, for instance, there have been cases of appeals to higher courts and this has added materially to expenses.


Mr. POULIOT:: Higher courts mean higher
fees.


Mr. SULLIVAN:: Is the sum of $32,000 for one part or for the whole of Canada?


Murray MacLaren: That is the total legal
expense in connection with narcotics.


Charles Gavan Power: I think we are entitled to some kind of reply. To say that some cases were taken to the higher courts and the fees were higher is not a reply. I think the information should be put at the disposal of the committee.

Supply-Health-Narcotics


Murray MacLaren: Pardon, me, I said nothing of the kind.


Charles Gavan Power: Then I absolutely withdraw what I said.


Murray MacLaren: I did not say that the expenditure of $32,000 was incurred because of the higher fees, but a case that is appealed and goes to a higher court involves more expenditure, as I think my hon. friend will agree.


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, quite.


Murray MacLaren: The expenditures for
legal services were as follows: Elie Beauregard, Montreal, $1,757.10-


Charles Gavan Power: He is a good Liberal.


John Alexander Sullivan: He is chief Liberal organizer in Montreal.


Murray MacLaren: There was also paid to R. L. Maitland, Vancouver, $4,175.70; Gustave Monette, Montreal, $10,668.70-


Charles Gavan Power: May I say for the benefit of my hon. friend from St. Ann that Mr. Monette is a good Conservative.


Murray MacLaren: One must remember that a large percentage of these cases are in the province of Quebec, particularly in Montreal.


Charles Gavan Power: Is that persecution or prosecution?


Murray MacLaren: There was also paid to Preland and Richardson, Toronto, $1,539.33; Arthur Sullivan, Winnipeg, $5,849.08; R. A. Wootton, Victoria, $1,619.10; accounts under $1,000, $6,512.08. All these accounts have been taxed by the Department of Justice.


Charles Gavan Power: Has Mr. Monette acted in several cases or only in one?


Murray MacLaren: He has acted I think in nearly all the Montreal cases. Incidentally I may say that it is desirable to obtain the services of those who have had experience and training in this peculiar class of case.


Charles Gavan Power: I can quite understand the reasoning of the minister that we should have barristers who are trained in this particular class of work. When did Mr. Monette's training with the department begin?


Murray MacLaren: He has been handling this class of case for a number of years: I cannot say just how many. The experience of the department is that it is advantageous to have continued those legal men who are familiar with this particular class of case.


Peter McGibbon: I do not wish to embarrass the minister in any way, but I should like to impress on the house that this is a very serious question. Tens of thousands of people in this country are being demoralized by the use of narcotics; and that is one of the big things which this parliament and the country has to fight. I should like to hear from the minister, if I may, what progress has been made in the last twelve months in suppressing the smuggling of opium, the use of which has demoralized tens of thousands of our people. It is one of the really serious questions before the people of Canada. I am not particularly interested in who got the money for enforcing the act, but I am interested in knowing how well the act was enforced and with what results.


Murray MacLaren: The suppression of the illegal use of narcotics is one that is very closely studied by the departmental officers. There is no evidence of an increase; on the whole I believe there is a diminution in the use of narcotics, if the convictions are a guide, and I believe they are a fairly safe guide. The convictions have been as follows, 1925, 835 convictions; 1926, 743; 1927, 490; 1928, 430; 1929, 567; 1930, 458; 1931, 333. So far as one may judge from the convictions, the use of narcotics is less than it was in previous years.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Perhaps the minister
would give us a little further information regarding those convictions. What becomes of the addict who is convicted? Is he punished by being sent to gaol, or is hospital treatment provided for him?


Murray MacLaren: So far as the penalties are concerned, there are heavy fines or imprisonment, or both. So far as treatment is concerned, arrangements are made for giving suitable treatment to the individual.


Frederick William Gershaw: What treatment is provided? Does the department pay for the treatment, or how is it provided?


Murray MacLaren: The department does not pay for the treatment.


Frederick William Gershaw: Who provides the treatment?


Murray MacLaren: It depends upon the man. A man may pay for his own treatment, for instance, or if he is sent to a public hospital he becomes a public charge.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the minister say that
a man convicted of a crime under a narcotic act and sentenced to imprisonment is obliged to pay for the treatment he receives as a prisoner?

Supply-Health-Narcotics


Murray MacLaren: Arrangements are made for the treatment of individuals who are imprisoned.


Charles Gavan Power: At whose expense?


Murray MacLaren: At the expense of the
public. Arrangements are made with the gaol physician who carries on the treatments.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the Department of
Pensions and National Health pay the physicians for those treatments?


Murray MacLaren: We incur no expense.
But in cases where there is no imprisonment we do everything possible. We advise the people affected to go to hospitals or sanataria to receive treatments, and show an interest in the welfare of each individual.


Charles Gavan Power: Who carries on the work
of advising and showing interest in the welfare of individuals?


Murray MacLaren: The medical officers of
the department. Then we have a special staff dealing with narcotics, who do all they can, from a humanitarian standpoint, to assist the people affected.


Mr. ROSS:: Does this matter not come
under the control of the provincial legislatures? After a successful prosecution the individual goes to an institution, and such institutions are maintained by the provinces, therefore all expenses fall to the provinces.


John Power Howden: I understand there are
no provincial institutions to care for narcotic victims. I understand, further, that for a long time there has been an agitation to have the federal Department of Health take steps to provide such institutions. Is the department giving the matter any serious consideration, and is there any likelihood of the government supplying a fund for this purpose?


Murray MacLaren: The view of the department is that the matter is of a provincial nature, and it has not been considered by the government. Outside of that, however, it is the disposition of the department in every possible way to help in connection with this very important matter. While the care of the sick and of those who indulge in narcotics is a responsibility of the provincial legislatures, yet in many cases our own departmental officers can and do help individuals. In any event they are interested in seeing that the best possible treatment is given.


John Power Howden: If the federal department assumes the responsibility for locating narcotic victims, and those who are guilty of infractions of the law, one wonders that it does not take any responsibility whatever in connection with relieving the unfortunate condition in which those individuals find themselves. It seems reasonable that if the government assumes the one responsibility it should assume the other concerning the cure of these people.


Murray MacLaren: As the matter is within the control of provincial legislatures I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member. I do not believe one would want both federal and provincial governments attempting to do the same thing. As a matter of fact curative measures come under the provincial and not the federal control. Whether or not the action suggested by the hon. member is advisable is a different matter.


John Power Howden: Do I understand from
the minister that provincial legislatures have no responsibility concerning trafficking in narcotics, but that the constitution has placed the matter, so far as that angle of it is concerned, solely under the responsibility of the federal government? Do I understand, further, that the federal department takes no responsibility for cure?


Murray MacLaren: I have explained what
the department is doing and believe I have covered the ground sufficiently. I do not say that the provinces have nothing to do with the apprehension of offenders, because the fact is that provincial and local police do t'heir duty in connection with the detection of the improper use of narcotics.


John Power Howden: The matter of what should be done with narcotic victims is widely debated not only in this House of Commons but throughout the country. As a matter of fact the ordinary hospital is not the proper place to deal with such people. There are institutions throughout the United States where much better treatment is provided than is given in Canada. For a long time there has been an agitation in Canada for provision for similar institutions. So far no provincial legislature has accepted the responsibility of establishing such institutions, and the federal government adopts a similar attitude. In my view this is a matter to which the department should give very serious consideration, because until in Canada we have some means of properly treating these victims, we will not get very far.
Su pply-Healt h-Narco tics


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Perley, Qu'-Appelle):: Shall the item carry?


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the objection to-
The CHAIRMAN	(Mr. Perley, Qu'-
Appelle): It is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Power Howden: I should like to add one or two remarks to what I was saying when the committee rose for dinner. We were talking about the narcotic drug traffic, and I should like to say that there are a few things in Canada which seem to fall between the two stools, the federal government on the one hand and the provincial government on the other. What is the drug traffic? It simply amounts to this, that a number of unscrupulous individuals enter into this traffic and victimize whomever they may for their own profit. Unfortunately the victims often are prominent persons of high social standing, and frequently are women. I can say that without fear of contradiction. Eventually the criminals who sell the drugs, as well as their victims, are brought to justice. Those who indulge in the traffic for purposes of gain are sent to gaol; but the victims also come before a judge and are fined, and what happens? They can be sent to gaol or to hospital, but unfortunately the hospitals will not take in these people unless they have special guardians. So for the most part they have no other place to go but the common gaol.
Before recess I maintained that somehow or other the federal government should make advances to the provincial governments for the construction of institutions where these people could be looked after. Unfortunately some of the first families of the land-and I apeak with knowledge-number victims of the narcotic trade among their members, and there is practically no place to send those people because the hospitals wash their hands [DOT]of the responsibility of looking after them. That is the position in connection with this matter. When I broached the subject to the minister before dinner I was simply reviving an old question that has been discussed in various quarters for a long time. There is no doubt that there is a crying need for at least one institution in every province for victims of alcohol and drugs, where they may be sent for succour.and care and in the hope of being retrieved. When victims of narcotics are sent to common gaols they suffer the torments of

hell and apparently there is no other place to send them. In Manitoba the province has what we call a psychopathic hospital for the care of incipient and minor cases of insanity, and fortunately this hospital does care for these people. There may be other such institutions in Canada, but I do not know of them.
Surely this is a responsibility of the federal government, because the question is a national one. If the government are sufficiently interested in the matter to bother running down these people and taking them to court, at least they should give them some care and consideration after they have been run down. I am bringing up this matter again so that the minister may give it his attention and in the hope that the federal authorities will consult the provincial authorities and provide places for the care of such cases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public health engineering, $17,000.
Mr. BROWN:: Explain.


Mr. GRAY:: What is the reason for the increase?


Murray MacLaren: This vote is for the enforcement of the regulation under the Public Works Health Act and for investigations with regard to the pollution of boundary waters. The engineers of the department are engaged in checking the purity of the waters in international rivers and lakes.


Ross Wilfred Gray: What is the reason for the increase of $2,000?


Murray MacLaren: The	previous amount
was not quite large enough to provide efficient service.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Murray MacLaren: I do not say that in order to be amusing. The examination of the waters of international streams and lakes is a very interesting and important work, requiring the services of a number of engineers. Last year we would have liked one or two additional men but were not able to get them.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I should like to know what public health engineering is.


Murray MacLaren: It includes the examination of international waters, under an agreement with the United States; it has to do with the inspection of federal buildings from a health standpoint as well as checking the purity of the water supplied on trains, and similar matters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Health-Hospitals
Marine hospitals, including burial expenses of destitute deceased mariners and grants to institutions assisting sailors, $187,500.
Peter John Veniot: This fund is made up principally of mariners' fees paid in the various ports. Does the government contribute to it?


Murray MacLaren: This item provides for
medical and surgical attendance and such other treatment as may be required for sick and injured mariners belonging to vessels that pay sick mariners' dues in conformity with the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 186 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. With certain exceptions, dues at the rate of 2 cents for every ton which a ship measures, registered tonnage, is collected from every vessel arriving at any port in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, and from any place out of Canada or from any port in another province; and the revenue thus obtained is generally speaking approximately equal to the expenditure incurred. The department operates a hospital at Sydney, Nova Scotia, and one at Lunenburg for the exclusive use of sick mariners entitled to the benefits of the act. At other ports provision is made as far as possible for care and treatment at contract rates at the various local hospitals. Where there is no marine or designated hospital the collector of customs, who approves the application for treatment, sends the sick mariner to the port physician and if considered necessary provision is made for his care and treatment in some private residence. Owing to the decrease in shipping activities here has been a decrease in the number of vessels paying these dues and also a decrease in the expenditure.


Peter John Veniot: I know all about the operation of the act. What I want to know is whether the fund is entirely taken up for the purpose indicated by the minister or whether there is a deficit to which the government must contribute.


Murray MacLaren: Last year the receipts
were $184,485.47. The previous year they were $201,767.


Peter John Veniot: What were the expenditures?


Murray MacLaren: For the year 1930-31
they were $209,085.55, and for 1931-32, $208,845.90. In the year 1930-31 the deficit was $7,237.83, and last year, $24,360.43.


Peter John Veniot: Did the government contribute to the deficit out of the consolidated revenue fund?


Murray MacLaren: There has been a surplus in previous years and with that we have been meeting the deficit.


Peter John Veniot: How much of the surplus
is now left?


Murray MacLaren: Since confederation there has accumulated a net surplus of $273,538.70.


Peter John Veniot: With such a surplus I do
not see why the expenditure should be reduced this year. This is not money that comes out of the government of Canada; it is money contributed by the vessels the sailors on which are supposed to receive this hospital aid when necessary. I cannot see therefore the necessity of reducing the expenditure when it is so absolutely essential to look after these men. In addition to the amounts collected from vessels coming from foreign ports and from vessels sailing from one province to another in Canada under Canadian register there is also a payment made to look after sick or injured sailors locally-fishermen. The fishermen pay into this fund and are looked after locally. The minister says that where-there is no hospital arrangements are made for the treatment locally of sick or injured sailors. I have in mind a fisherman who was injured in the harbour of Shippegan. The vessel to which he belonged had paid sick mariners' dues, and in the course of his calling a codfish hook ran into his hand. There was no local doctor authorized to look after sailors in Shippegan and this man would have had to drive twenty-one miles to see a doctor. He could not stand the drive; the suffering was too great. The sub collector of customs at that port therefore gave the man an order to be treated by a local doctor, but that local doctor not having an appointment through the department has been refused payment for the treatment of this sailor. I hold that the doctor is entitled to payment. It would be a hardship-I will not qualify it with any stronger word-to force a sailor to drive twenty-one miles with a large fish hook stuck in his hand, and that it what this man would have had to do; he would have had to go to Caraquet. He could not undertake that drive, he was treated by the local doctor, and the doctor gets nothing.


Murray MacLaren: I need hardly point out that in emergencies no regulations hold.


Peter John Veniot: Why then was this doctor
not paid? I have the correspondence, and it says that the collector of customs had no authority to order a local doctor to look after this man; he should have sent him to Caraquet.


Murray MacLaren: He had not under
ordinary circumstances, but in a case of emergency he had every reason to do so. If the hon. gentleman brings the matter to my atten-
Supply-Health-Hospitals

tion, with the name, I shall have that promptly put right. The rule in ordinary cases is that they go to the regularly appointed man only. But in case of emergency these men must be looked after, and the department will see that they are looked after. I presume the hon. member for Gloucester has in his mind the small boats. I think the men who use these small fishing boats are receiving very fair treatment compared with the general medical attendance. For instance in the last year vessels of less than thirty-four tons produced a revenue of $1,236; and on cases of members of crews of these small boats $10,313.82 was expended.
Mr. MaclINNIS:	Would the minister tell
the committee how much of last year's vote was given in grants to institutions for assist ing sailors?


Murray MacLaren: The total is $2,600. It is divided in amounts of $200 to various sailors' institutes on the Atlantic and the Pacific-Navy League of Canada; Sailors' Institute, North Sydney; Navy League, Sydney; Seamen's Mission Society, Saint John; Catholic Sailors' Clulb, Saint John; Catholic Sailors' Club, Montreal; Catholic Sailors' Club, Hochelaga Branch; Montreal Seamen's Institute; Montreal Sailors' Hospital; Catholic Seamen's Club, Quebec; Quebec Seamen's Institute; Vancouver Sailors' Home; Victoria Sailors' Institute. These different organizations received $200 a year towards their facilities for looking after sailors.


John Power Howden: Does this item really
constitute a form of insurance that is afforded sailors, or why does the government of Canada give special consideration to sailors as a class?


Murray MacLaren: Yes, I would consider it a form of insurance. Two cents a ton is charged on vessels coming to our ports from outside the country or the province, to form a fund to pay for the expenses of sick mariners. Otherwise they might be left uncared for or go ashore without proper means of support. The insurance, if you wish to call it so, is paid by the owners of the vessels.


William Duff: I notice there is a decrease
of $20,000 in this item. I would like the minister to explain why this very important vote is decreased by that amount. He told us a short time ago that there were certain marine hospitals in different parts of the country. These hospitals are kept up by the appointment of marine doctors by the department. In my own town there is a marine hospital which for a number of years has been of great

benefit to the fishermen and sailors coming into that port. After this government came into power the doctor who had had charge of the hospital, a very capable man, was dismissed without cause and another physician, a Conservative, appointed, without reason and without justification. Then for some reason, within eighteen months that new appointee of the Conservative government was dismissed. I would like to know why this very capable doctor was dismissed and another man put in his place.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: There must be something wrong about that statement.


Murray MacLaren: That is a question that I would prefer to take up with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough in the department. I suggest that it is not advisable to discuss a matter of that kind here, because I believe it would give rise to harm, certainly to no good. But I wish to say this, very emphatically and without any doubt, that the officer he refers to was not displaced without cause. I suggest that the hon. member come down to the department and I will show him the files; I would rather not put the matter on Hansard unless he insists upon it. Neither that officer nor any other has been displaced without good and proper cause.


William Duff: Of course I appreciate the minister's delicacy in not wanting to deal with this matter on the floor of the house. The first physician dismissed was a Liberal. Without telegraphing this gentleman or getting his consent to having .this matter discussed publicly here, I am willing to take the responsibility for asking the minister now, without going to his department, why this very capable doctor who had been the physician in the hospital for a number of years and who had the confidence of the fishermen and sailors, was dismissed in 1930. That is the first point. The second thing I want to say is that after this capable doctor was dismissed upon the present government coming into power, a very capable Conservative doctor was appointed-to that hospital and within twelve months that Tory doctor was dismissed without cause. Surely the minister does not want me to go to the department and discuss with him privately why a good Conservative, a man who always voted for the Conservative government, who went out and worked during every one of -the last ten elections, was dismissed without cause as medical officer in the Lunenburg marine hospital. I think it is time the minister should give the public and me the reason why this good Conservative was dismissed without cause.

Supply-H ealth-H ospitals


Murray MacLaren: I should say that what the 'hon. member has stated is evidence that the department is administering its affairs without regard to politics. As I said, I am not, if I can help it, going to drag the affairs of these men into public in the house. I do not think it is a proper thing, and I ask the committee to support me in that.


William Duff: I think we have a right to know why these capable men were dismissed. As to the first doctor, I have no objection to that, because by dismissing him the minister and the government have made of him a good canvasser against the present government in the next election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why worry?


William Duff: In the 1930 election, due to
the fact that this first doctor had an appointment from the previous government, he did not stir from his place on polling day; he did not do anything at all to help return the Liberal party to power. Now, of course, since his dismissal, he is a good Grit and in the next election he will go out and work to elect a Liberal candidate. Since this government came into power, without reference to the Civil Service Commission, without reference to anybody except the patronage committee, they appointed a Conservative doctor to take charge of the hospital, but not satisfied with that, within eighteen months after this very capable doctor had been appointed, they dismissed him.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: Perhaps he turned Grit.


William Duff: The cute old fox from Cape
Breton South is right. That former Tory doctor, because of his dismissal, is going to vote Grit and work Grit in the next election. I am not complaining. What I want to know from the government and the minister himself is why this capable doctor, who was a friend of the party and should not have been dismissed, was let out. It is up to the minister and his officials to give reasons for the dismissal of this doctor and the appointment of another Conservative.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Duff: No. I am going to demand
that the minister give me a good reason for what was done in this case. First, a gentleman of his own profession, of good standing in the medical profession, was dismissed from his position as marine physician because he happened to be a Liberal. I have no particular objection to that. What I want to know is why, after this Liberal doctor was dismissed
and a Conservative appointed, within eight-teen months the latter capable gentleman, who was a Conservative and a good follower of my hon. friend, was dismissed from his position, and I am going to demand an answer.


Murray MacLaren: I can go this far with
my hon. friend. I would do a great deal to meet his wishes. I may say that the first vacancy was caused by death. As regards the other, an investigation was held, the various aspects of the case were looked into and it was decided that his services should be dispensed with.


William Duff: I agree with the minister that the first dismissal was caused by death, political death. I think I should know exactly what happened in regard to the dismissals from this hospital. It is true that a year before my hon. friend was appointed Minister of National Health, the gentleman who was in charge of the hospital in that town did die, but I had the honour and pleasure of recommending a new man; in fact I recommended not one but two, because they were in partnership. When this government came into power, those gentlemen were dismissed. As I said a moment ago, during the 1930 election they felt that because they were getting SI ,000 in salary from the government, they could not very well go out and work for the Liberal candidate. Therefore, I was delighted that they were dismissed because in the next election they will be the best workers we have in that part of the country. I believe to the victors belong the spoils, and I have accordingly no objection when my hon. friend, of course on representations made by his party- and I am not complaining of that; I would have done the same thing-appointed a good Conservative. It was the proper thing to do. What I do object to is that within twelve or fifteen months after this Conservative, a respectable, efficient physician, who looked after his work and who had the confidence of the fishermen, sailors and citizens of the town, was appointed, he was dismissed. I am sure every hon. gentleman opposite should sympathize with me in my argument, because I am trying to defend their own party. It may be all very well for the minister to try to get by this with a smile, but he must not forget that in that little town where the hospital is situated, the fact that this good Conservative, a reliable physician, was dismissed from his position, would have some reflection on his standing and character in the community. I, who am a neighbour of this man, resent that my hon. friend, for some reason which I do not know, dismissed this capable physician, who had the confidence of the fishermen and sailors, and
Supply-Health-Hospitals

appointed another man in his place. It is due to the community and to the Conservative party that the minister should explain why this was done.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Duff: With regard to this dismissal and the new appointment, I want to ask the minister whether the new appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission or by his department?


Murray MacLaren: All these appointments
are departmental, none being made by the Civil Service Commission-or rather, I understand that for some years there has been an understanding or agreement between the Civil Service Commission and the department, and the latter makes the appointments.


Mr. VALLANCE:: How long has this
agreement been in force between the department and the Civil Service Commission giving power to the former to make the appointments?


Murray MacLaren: That was brought about by an order in council.


John Vallance: When?


Murray MacLaren: It was some time ago,
in 1923.


John Vallance: I happened to be a
member of the committee which investigated the administration of the civil service last year, and what the minister now says simply bears out the evidence that was submitted to that committee, showing that the Civil Service Commission was not performing the functions for which it was created. In nine hundred and ninety cases out of a thousand, before an appointment is made by the Civil Service Commission, it has to be O.K.'d by the head of the department.


Mr. QUINN:: You should know.


John Vallance: I should know because
I was a member of that committee.


Murray MacLaren: The commission does
not appoint these men.


John Vallance: That is what I am
saying.


Murray MacLaren: That is what I say.


John Vallance: This is just another
case that goes to bear out the evidence that the Civil Service Commission is not performing the functions for which it was created. As the minister has told us to-night, an agreement is entered into between the head of the department and the commission whereby the commission waives its right to make the ap-

pointment, and in nine hundred and ninety cases out of a thousand it will be found that the department makes the appointment. We had deputy ministers come before that committee last year and point out to us definitely that time after time an eligible list would be presented to the department and be torn up, that a second list would be presented and be torn up, and then the head of the department would invite or suggest to somebody to make application, and that application would go through. The Civil Service Commission is not allowed to function.


Mr. COTNAM:: Now you have put your
foot in it.


William Duff: The hon. member for North
Renfrew said that the hon. member for South Battleford had put his foot in it. It would be better if some people would put their foot in their mouth and keep quiet.
The minister said a moment ago that these appointments were made without reference to the Civil Service Commission. My understanding of the order in council of 1923 was that all appointments to positions over $200 had to be made by the Civil Service Commission and be advertised in the regular way, and that positions under S200 were left to the government to fill. If I had my way the party in power would make all the appointments. I agree with my hon. friend from South Battleford that the Civil Service Commission is now and has been purely a camouflage. I see by the newspapers of the last few days that a gentleman from Prince Edward Island is coming to Ottawa to be made chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and that two other gentlemen are to take the places of the two now serving. I say that the best thing for this government to do, especially in view of the economic conditions today, would be to do away with the Civil Service Commission, and let the ministers of the different departments and members of parliament take full responsibility of all appointments of whatever kind.
Coming back to this particular case, the Minister of Health, on the representations of somebody, dismissed a capable Conservative physician.


Murray MacLaren: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is not the statement I made. I said that an investigation was duly held, as a result of which it was considered advisable to retire this man.


William Duff: I accept the minister's explanation. I would not for a moment put my judgment against his, and I am sure my hon. friend

Supply-Health-Hospitals
from Long Lake will agree with that. Nevertheless the fact remains that the gentleman who was appointed physician of the hospital in Lunenburg by my hon. friends opposite after they came into power was a capable man, and I still say that there was no reason why he should have been dismissed.


Mr. BURY:: Go and look at the files which the minister has offered to make available to you.


William Duff: Go and look at the files yourself if you want to see them. You have nothing else to do; I have. I know the circumstances, which my hon. friend does not. He should not try to be smart about a matter that I know all about and that he knows nothing about. I say to my hon. friend from away out on the great prairies, from the ranches of Alberta, if he wants to go over the Rocky mountains, let him go. I come from down by the sea coast.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It is you who want the information.


William Duff: Then why don't you hold your tongue and let me get it? Surely, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend must realize that I am capable of getting any information I want, and he need not worry his brains about it.
As I was saying, the Conservative government, after they came into power in 1930, dismissed a Liberal appointee. I have no objection in the world to that; it was the right thing to do from my standpoint. Then they appointed a Conservative to that position. What I do object to is that this capable, efficient, decent, respectable, God-fearing citizen who goes to church every Sunday and teaches in the Sunday school, and who voted Tory-


Mr. McINTOSH:: He is not a Presbyterian, is he?


William Duff: Pretty nearly; he may be a
Lutheran. This gentleman for some reason or other was dismissed from his position, and there are certain people in the town who cannot understand why that should have been done. I am sure the minister did not do it himself. I cannot believe for a moment that he did it without knowing something about it.
Mr. MacLAJtEN:	The hon. member cannot put it that way. I have said that an investigation was held.


William Duff: The minister says that an
investigation was held. Being a political
partisan as I am, and as you are, Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why the minister had an investigation of a good Tory, for this man was a Conservative partisan, a follower who had given good service to the Conservative party, as well as to the hospital, to the fishermen and the sailors. Why should there be an investigation of a man when there was nothing against his character or his ability in performing his duties?


Mr. BOYES:: It is hard for a Liberal to
understand that.


William Duff: It is only a hard-hearted Tory who would do it. A Liberal would never do it. The fact remains that this good Conservative was dismissed from his position, and another good Conservative was appointed. What I should like to know from my hon. friend is what investigation took place resulting in the dismissal of this good Conservative, and what particular qualifications has the new appointee for the position?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In other words you want the facts.


William Duff: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: May I interject a word in order that we may get our (bearings. I have been greatly interested to learn that nearly every hon. member on the opposite side of the house is opposed' to the Civil Service Commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mir. HANBURY:: Absolutely the contrary.


Peter McGibbon: I happened to introduce a resolution last year in that connection, and I do not think (there was a single hon. member in the house, with the exception of myself, who spoke in favour of it. The committee was appointed, and where did we get? Just a little bit more trouble is heaped upon the member when he has to go out and scour the country to get someone to take a job which nobody wants. That is about the size of it. If I were to give my opinion of what I thought of the commission, I am afraid it would not be parliamentary.


Wilfred Hanbury: Try it; you cannot shock this house.


Peter McGibbon: However, like other Conservatives I welcome an advocate such as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. It is something new for him to stand in this House of Commons and plead for a Tory or a Tory cause. I am sure every hon. member
Supply-Health-Hospitals

on this side of the house, knowing bis ability and knowing how he can argue on any side of a case, will welcome his remarks. But I should like to remind the hon. member that he has made some very quack somersaults in this house. When 'he criticizes the Minister of Pensions and National Health for changing his mind about appointments and at the same time states that the minister should have full liberty to make any appointments he may wish, I suggest lie is inconsistent. I can remember that in a session not very many years ago the hon. member took credit for having a certain vote placed in the estimates. I have no doubt that at the time the vote was in the interests of the good Grits in his riding. But, lo and behold! the next year that very same item was kicked out, and by the very same gentleman. Further, he stood up in this house and on both occasions acknowledged the parentage of it. I wonder if he would now tell us what caused the great conversion in his mind on that occasion, AVhat was the great light which changed him from a Saul to a Paul?


William Duff: Damascus.


Peter McGibbon: In one year in Lunenburg he pleaded the cause of the Liberals, and as a result had the item placed in the estimates. The next year, simply because they did not bow down and worship him, he returned to this House of Commons, claiming and exercising the right of having the item kicked out of the estimates.


Wilfred Hanbury: That was consistent.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member says that is consistent-if inconsistency is consistency yes. On this side of the house we like the hon. member because apparently he is quite frank; generally we know where he stands. But certainly he ought to be a little bit consistent. Hon. members on -this side of the house know what they got when they sat on the opposition benches during the years the Grit government was in power. There was no doubt then as to who exercised the patronage.


Mr. SANDERSON:: You do not know what you are going to get after a while, though.


Peter McGibbon: We will let the future look after itself.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What you are going to get you know not.


Peter McGibbon: We know we could not get a penny postage stamp for our ridings when the Liberals were in power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter McGibbon: All hon. members on this side recognized that fact in those days. Why not be a little bit consistent? I say that this is not the time for patronage. But if the time ever comes, in my opinion hon. members on this side of the house should have consideration before hon. members opposite.


Wilfred Hanbury: Regardless of which party may be in power?


James Wright McGibbon: Oh, we will be here ; don't worry about that. I do not know why the doctor was dismissed, but the minister has told us that investigations were made. It is not likely that he made the investigations himself, but it is more than likely he appointed competent people to make them- people in whose judgment he had confidence. If he followed their advice I do not believe the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough should be quite so critical. I am sure that had the hon. member been in a similar position he would have been one of the first to follow such advice-and nobody knows it better than he does.


William Duff: I am sure I appreciate the lecture concerning patronage the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has tried to give me. My hon. friend and I came to this house in 1917. Ever since that time my voice has been raised against the Civil Service Commission, and in favour of the practice of allowing the party in power to make appointments. I never have changed my views in that connection. If the hon. member stated what is in his mind he would admit that I am making a true statement.


Peter McGibbon: Quite true. I merely made the statement that you did not give me any help last year.


William Duff: I voted for your report.


Peter McGibbon: There was no vote taken.


William Duff: My hon. friend was a member of the civil service committee, and knowing him as well as I do, when he brought in his report I could do nothing but support him, even though I knew he was wrong.


Peter McGibbon: I was not on the committee, and I never brought in any report.


William Duff: However, the matter I was discussing before the hon. member spoke is worthy of serious consideration. If I have shown anything, certainly I must have shown the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that I am trying to be fair. If a Grit doctor had been dismissed and I had objected to the dis-

Supply-Labour
missal, I might understand the hon. member rising in righteous indignation and criticising me. But the fact is that the gentleman I am trying to support and defend is a Conservative.


Peter McGibbon: There must be something wrong when you are defending him.


William Duff: Putting aside the fact that this good Conservative was dismissed, I should like to ask the minister something about the qualifications of the man who took his place. Were tenders called for or-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Duff: -or were application forms sent out by the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. WILLIS:: You are getting too tender altogether.


William Duff: No, no. Were applications called for by the Civil Service Commission? Did other physicians have an opportunity to apply for this very important position involving the lives of fishermen and sailors, or how was the appointment made?


Murray MacLaren: I am responsible for those appointments. I am glad to say there are many medical men in the department. The field is surveyed, and we ascertain who are available and would be suitable. As a result one is chosen and appointed. I cannot say who recommended him, because I have not the files before me. I could not say about most of these appointments, but I satisfied myself to the best of my judgment that this would be a proper appointment.


William Duff: I quite understand that the minister is willing to take the responsibility, and certainly I do not want to blame him for this appointment. But my hon. friend said he had officials in his department who looked over the field and selected the list from which the appointee was chosen. I should like to know what particular official looked over the field in this case and why this appointment was made.


Murray MacLaren: Because there was need for it.


William Duff: I do not think that is a fair answer. They might have gone out and picked a veterinary surgeon, a quack doctor without the necessary qualifications), or a chiropractor or any one. Surely in a case of this kind, where the appointment is important, the minister should be able to give some reason for the choice of this particular gentleman.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I should like to ask a question just to clear up one point in my mind. Did I understand the minister to say that the medical men in these hospitals are appointed not by the Civil Service Commission but by the department directly?


Murray MacLaren: That is quite right.


Alfred Speakman: Does that apply to all the hospitals under the department?


Murray MacLaren: It applies to all the hospitals in the marine section only and port physicians.


Alfred Speakman: It does not apply to the hospitals under the pensions department?


Murray MacLaren: To nothing else.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Annuities Act, $54,500.
Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Would the minister explain this item?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This amount is for the administration of the Annuities Act under which annuities are sold to those who care to invest in them and the contracts are issued by the government.


Peter McGibbon: Can the minister tell us if they are still on the same basis?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No: as hon. members will recollect, the limit was reduced from $5,000 to $1,200. I think everyone will agree that this was highly desirable.


Peter McGibbon: Are they still on the four per cent basis?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They are still on the same basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Combines Investigation Act, $25,000.
Frederick George Sanderson: What investigations
were held last year under this act?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There was an investigation into the Canadian basket pool; there is at present proceeding the coal investigation; there was an investigation into the tobacco industry and there was an investigation last year into the moving picture industry that lapped over into this fiscal year. I have not before me at the moment the details of all the investigations, but I think that covers practically all the investigations during the year.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the coal investigation completed as yet?
Supply-Labour


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No. A reference was made in the Senate as to the price of coal in eastern Canada. The situation was drawn to my attention and under the provisions of the act I instructed the registrar, who is the officer charged with such investigations, to proceed with an inquiry. That inquiry is not quite completed; as the hon. member knows this has been a difficult investigation to carry on. About the same time there was an application received in proper form with respect to the mining and sale of coal in western Canada. A preliminary investigation has been made with respect to western Canada, but I have not had a chance to do more than hurriedly review the evidence submitted by our investigators with regard to that situation. Whether or not the evidence we have would justify a further investigation by the registrar I am not able to say at the moment, but the coal inquiry in the east has been going on for some time. I believe the evidence is all in now, and I understand that the report is in course of preparation.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Does not the minister think the investigation should be national while he is at it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The act sets out the method that must be followed in investigations of this character. I think the investigation might be called national if it covers both eastern and western Canada, but whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify the expense of an inquiry into the mining and sale of coal in western Canada I would not care to say at the moment. I think hon. members will agree that it is not desirable to cause an investigation into private enterprise unless there is at least a prima facie case of something going on in contravention of the terms of the act, because the disturbance of industry by governmental investigations of this kind is not desirable unless such a case is made out. As yet I am not prepared to say that such a case has been made out in western Canada.


Frederick George Sanderson: When all the evidence in the coal inquiry is in and the minister receives the report will it be made public?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The practice in the past has been I believe not to make these reports public inasmuch as this would necessitate the disclosure of the individual's private business. My own view,' without having looked fully into the past practice, is that if it is determined that further proceedings should follow the report of the registrar in the interests of the public then of necessity that report would have to be made public, being the foundation of such further proceedings as might be deemed

desirable. If however the registrar's report were of such a character that proceedings should end with the reception of it, then, as I think the hon. member will agree with me, it would be highly undesirable to disclose a person's private business to his competitors and to the public.


Thomas Reid: Were any requests received from British Columbia last year with regard to gasoline prices? I understand that a man named Ormond was refused gasoline by four companies.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I remember the case to which the hon. gentleman refers. There was a garage man or dealer-


Thomas Reid: In Victoria.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In Victoria, yes. He was refused gasoline by some of the wholesalers. The case came under review by the officials of the department and if I remember rightly their report to me was that a case had not been made out such as would justify the registrar making an inquiry. Consequently no further investigation was made.


Henry Elvins Spencer: When will the coal investigation be finished?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It should be through in the course of the next few days. It will take some time to prepare the report based on the evidence but I think it will be ready in its final form before the end of this month.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration. Employment Offices' Coordination Act, $12,000.
Humphrey Mitchell: I understand that the Dominion Advisory Council came into existence in 1918 by order in council. The council met regularly unibil the advent of the present government, and only once since then has it convened. What is the reason for that? Is it the intention of the government to avail itself of the services of the advisory council in the near future, seeing that the appointees to that council represent organizations in the dominion which are very broad in their scope and which possibly could be of considerable service to the government in connection with the problems arising out of the present depression? I believe that the last time the council met there resulted from its deliberations suggestions which were quite valuable to the government.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The last conference was called about the beginning of 1931 or probably late in 1930. Those who are interested in the work have seen me from time to time

Supply-La b our-Pensions
during the past year. I shall be glad to take into consideration the remarks of the hon. gentleman and if I deem it desirable I shall certainly see that they are called together.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fair wages and inspection, $13,000.
Mr. HEENAN r Is it the practice of the department now to include in all federal contracts the provisions adopted in 1930 with regard to the eight hour day and fair wages?
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, in public contracts.


Mr. HEENAN:: Before tenders are called for does the government insist that fair wages shall be paid for the different works?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The provisions of the act are being administered very strictly by the department with respect to the status of the wage earner. If there is a schedule attached to the contract the contractors must live up to it; the department insists upon that. Occasions arise when it is quite difficult to harmonize the prevailing wages with what is just and reasonable. The departmental officials, with whom the hon. gentleman is well acquainted, are charged with the responsibility of seeing that the fair wages' provision and all the regulations under the act are given the broadest interpretation in order that wage earners shall not suffer.


Peter Heenan: I do not think the minister quite understood me; he said something about a schedule being included in the contract. My question is whether the department now provides for a schedule of wages in connection with all government contracts. We started the practice of providing a scale of wages so that contractors would know what they were bidding on at the time they sent in tenders. Does that practice still prevail?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: So far as I am aware, it does. I remember no instance where any other practice has been followed, because it is desirable that the contractor, whether the contract be large or small, should know when he is tendering what he has to figure on in the way of wages. I believe that practice is followed strictly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International Labour Conference, $12,000.
Humphrey Mitchell: In connection with a
discussion in this house early in the session the Prime Minister made the declaration that the question of unemployment insurance would be the subject of discussion at the interprovincial conference early this year. I would like to ask to what extent progress was
made at that conference towards the introduction of a dominion unemployment insurance measure.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I hardly think that question could be discussed under this item. I am sure the Prime Minister has no desire whatever to avoid giving opportunity for the discussion of that very important question, and I feel certain that before the session ends, if there is evidence of a desire to discuss the matter, opportunity will be given to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration, Old Age Pensions Act, $2,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I take this opportunity of
presenting to the minister a question in connection with the administration of the act in British Columbia. I reluctantly do it now, having exhausted every other method I know of.
We passed an Old Age Pensions Act, in 1926 I think it was, and the upper house defeated it. We went to the country and it formed a very considerable portion of the discussions on which the election turned. We came back and passed it again the next year, and I think it may be said to have received the very general support of the public throughout Canada. I do not think anyone would seriously propose to repeal it. There are a few reactionaries who think it clever to sneer at it as being socialistic legislation, forgetting that what you spend on the one hand you save on the other, but generally speaking Canada has accepted the spirit of the act.
I will not say that I charge the minister .vith instigating-I want to be as moderate as I can-but by his actions he has encouraged and condoned certain policies being carried out; and whether they had that intention or not the result has been to deprive a large number of deserving people of old age pensions who are fully entitled to them. The local board in British Columbia, acting on instructions-they must have been acting on instructions-suddenly turned a violent right about face. As to the question who gave these instructions, I will deal with that in a moment. They have by every known method of subterfuge and evasion gone directly against both the spirit and the letter of the act in refusing pensions. When I appealed to the minister, as I have done repeatedly-I am going to read the letters-he certainly has encouraged them in their action by ignoring complaints and more or less passing the buck. I have heard him say in this house that the matter is primarily one for the provinces to deal with, or that it was the duty of the provinces. I am inclined to the same view, in
Supply-Labour-Pensions

regard to the original action, but the province of British Columbia specifically and violently denies it. I am going to read the letter of the provincial attorney general on the subject. In any event the minister is responsible for not taking action when it was brought to his attention. It may be said: It is only a case of paying seventy-five per cent of what the province pays out, therefore we have no jurisdiction. That argument will not work. This government is paying out $10,000,000 in this matter; does anyone seriously suggest that the government which pays that $10,000,000 cannot exercise some oversight, cannot say: You are doing this too lavishly, or on too niggardly a scale? Can they not say, I do not think this particular man or woman is entitled to pension? Indeed I have known them to do it, and so they could in respect of an unjustly rejected application. When a case is brought to his attention it is within the scope of the authority and the duty of the minister to draw the attention of the province to the matter and say: Why are you dealing or not dealing with this particular case? It is the same as if I knew of a man in gaol for an offence, and some other person had confessed his guilt and I called that to the attention of the Minister of Justice; it would be his duty, having been apprised of the facts, to take proper action. I do not expect the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Labour to run around the back sections asking people: Have you had a raw deal? But when it is brought to his attention it is his duty to inquire; I will ever maintain that.
As a last resource, I wrote to the Attorney General of British Columbia, and said: "Did you know what was going on?" I thought perhaps it was the board going wrong. This is his reply, dated January 17:
I have your communication of the 13th instant complaining about the administration of the "Old Age Pensions Act."
In the first paragraph of your letter you refer to the provincial old age pensions department. May I state that the provincial government does not administer the Old Age Pensions Act.
That will be news I think for the minister.
This is administered by the Workmen's Compensation Board, it is true, and it is true again that the Workmen's Compensation Board is appointed by the provincial government to administer the "Workmen's Compensation Act," but this board, when administering the "Old Age Pensions Act" is acting for the Dominion government under the dominion statute and pursuant to Dominion government regulations. The board takes its instructions from Ottawa and not from the province.
Please note that.
UVtr. Neill.]
The only change in the system might have been that the Dominion government recently assumed seventy-five per cent of the financial obligations, instead of fifty per cent as was formerly the case.


Humphrey Mitchell: Who signed that letter?


Alan Webster Neill: 
Wesley Ashton Gordon: What was the date of the letter to which the hon. member received no answer? Was it a letter to me?
Supply-Labour-Pensions


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. I think there were five, and later on, after bringing the matter up in the house, I think I got an acknowledgment of three of them. The first letter was dated July 28. I received a sort of blanket acknowledgment from the deputy later on, but not for some months afterward; I shall mention the matter when I come to it. I wrote the minister again on October 26, as follows:
Dear Mr. Gordon:
I would revert to the statement made in my letter to you of July 28 to which I have had no reply. The same situation is still going on, only worse.
The latest case brought to my attention is that of a woman, over seventy, who has been refused a pension although she is sick and over age, on the ground they they consider her husband who is apparently in good physical condition should therefore be able to maintain his wife. The facts are notorious. He is not able to maintain his wife as he cannot get any work, but they refuse the wife's application on the ground that he "should" be able to get work. I submit that that is no answer to the woman's rights under the pension act.
I mentioned a number of other cases in my letter of the date above referred to and suggested that you should have an investigation into the matter. It has got so bad that a lawyer in Victoria has aplied for a mandamus against the provincial official to compel them to grant a pension.
I wrote again on November 3 in regard to another case, and I am citing these because they are all different cases of injustice:
Dear Mr. Gordon:
In reference to the representations I have made to you under date of July 28 and again on October 26 as to the manner in which the Old Age Pensions Act is being administered, I will again call it to your attention with another specific case.
I was not asking him to change the act; I was asking him .to deal with specific cases.
A woman applicant had a property assessed at $3,000. The board insisted on regarding that as its true value although it is a notorious fact that assessments in British Columbia are greatly over-valued. They therefore charged her as if she were getting an income of five per cent on $3,000. Presently she sold it for $2,000 to be paid at the rate of $20 a month, which would naturally take a number of years to complete. The payments were not made very regularly, but on June 1, 1932, the amount due on it was $1,100 to be spread out as I have said at the rate of $20 a month. With the knowledge that the purchaser had defaulted ou several occasions in the past, and that the property was in a small mining town, the board nevertheless took the stand that the property was worth to her $1,100 in cash and that with $1J00 in cash she could buy an annuity of $177 a year. Consequently they charged her up as having that amount of income, which prevented her getting <a pension.
It is a notorious fact that people trying to sell an agreement for the purchase of real

estate have to take a very great discount. A firm in Vancouver, advertising to do such business, said they might have got $800 for this agreement if the property had been situated in Vancouver, but when they heard where it was, they would not touch it at any price, and suggested that I might get a local man to give $400 or $500 for it. It is utterly unfair to say she could purchase an annuity to the equivalent of $1,100 with this agreement of gale because. it will be quite a few years before the amount is received, if then.
One of the regulations says that they must consider the amount of the Canadian government annuity purchasable by the personal property of the pensioner. It is utterly untrue to say that $177 is the amount of the annuity purchasable by this particular piece of property. I would also point out that it is very doubtful whether this should! [be considered personal property. The title to the land is in her name, the agreement of sale has never been registered, and I claim she should only be charged with five per cetot of her interest in the property.
It may be said that this is a provincial matter, but I would point out that your department made an express bargain with the province that they were to grant pensions in ta,ooordanee with the act, and they are not granting pensions in accordance with the act. I submit it is the province of your department to inquire into why they do not.
Another case I will introduce here, and it is the last one, although I could go on for horn's because I have a stack of these oases a couple of feet high. Again I shall not mention the name. A mam was disqualified some years ago because he owned property assessed at such a high figure that at five per cent it produced an assumed income that disqualified him. I pointed out that the property was assessed at five times its true value, being assessed at about $8,000, speaking from memory, while it is worth perhaps $1,500.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Was that man paying the taxes on the property?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, and keeping himself poor doing it. It was a perfect incubus, a white elephant.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He should have got rid of that white elephant and saved his taxes.


Alan Webster Neill: It takes about three years
to get rid of it by not paying the taxes, and sometimes the government does not hold a tax sale. That was my own recommendation, to let it all go except the house they lived in. I do not know why they did not. But the pension was refused on the ground I have pointed out. Last February the minister's department changed those regulations. The original regulations were that the real estate of a person should be assessed at five per cent of the assessed value. The department found

Supply-Labour-Pensions
that that created injustice, probably in Ontario. At any rate they changed the rule, and made it read that in future real estate would be taken at the assessed value, or the market value, whichever was the more equitable. Surely that was a good idea because, after all, we all want equity. As soon as that change was made I applied to the board again and said, "Now I am in a position to get this man a pension because you have been given direct authority, not permission but authority, to take whichever is the more equitable, the assessed or the market value." I offered to show them over the ground so they could see where the property was located, see its poverty and its inability to produce anything at all, and to take their own opinion as to its valuation. What did they do? They said: No, we are going to take the assessed value as being the true value. I pointed out that that was not the true value and that the minister himself had changed his regulations to allow them to take the market value. But they said: No, we are going to take the assessed value.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The regulations read, the
assessed value.


Alan Webster Neill: Pardon me, but that was
changed in February a year ago to read, the assessed or market value whichever is the more equitable. I think the minister's deputy will agree with me, and because it was changed in that way this man was entitled to his pension. The board will take a chance today and refuse a pension; using one argument, and a week later they will use the very opposite argument to refuse one if it serves their turn. So they said in this case that they would not take the real market value although the regulations specifically say that they should. So much for that case.
May I add that I received no answer at all to all these letters? As the poet says, there was silence deep as death. But I brought the matter up in the house and made a protest, and next day I got a letter from the minister's deputy, dated November 24, acknowledging receipt of the letters that I had written and saying that "the points raised are being kept in mind for consideration along with a number of other angles which have come to our attention, and I might add to this end the matter of calling a meeting of the interprovincial old age pensions board in the near future is now being considered". But that begs the whole question and evades the point I was asking about. I was not asking the interprovincial board to cal! a meeting. I said:	Tom Jones
and Mrs. Smith have got a raw deal; they are not getting justice; you are the head of the 53719-175
department, and you have the power to give or withhold a pension; it is within your province and authority to deal with that. That was my contention.
At this stage I took the matter up with the Hon. Mr. Pooley, the Attorney General, of British Columbia, with the result I have described. Somehow or other, possibly because it was hard for me to believe that a minister looking so full of benevolence as the Minister of Labour, could lend himself to these cold-blooded acts, I thought I would try once more, hope springing eternal in the human breast.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Is the member referring
to me now?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. Was the minister surprised?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Considerably.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not think it possible
that anyone having such an air of genial benevolence could lend himself to such coldblooded acts, and so, Christmas being just over, with its genial spirit, I thought I would try once more. I wrote the minister on January 22, as follows:
Dear Mr. Gordon:
I wrote you three letters last fall on the maladministration of the Old Age Pension Act in British Columbia, citing instances. I had a reply from your deputy to the effect that the points raised would be kept in mind for consideration aDd that a meeting of the interprovincial board might be held.
But I would point out that I was not discussing the general act or its regulations but the flagrant ignoring of the act and overriding it which is being carried on by the provincial administration. I took a specific case up with the provincial attorney general, supposing as the act says and as you yourself have stated in the house, the province was responsible for the administration. The _ provincial attorney general says that the province does not administer the Old Age Pension Act but that you do it through the Workmen's Compensation Board which "takes its instructions from Ottawa and not from the province." This is new doctrine to me and I think untenable. However, if so, it certainly puts it up to you to deal with any specific case of non-compliance with the act. This is not a question of discussing whether the law or the regulations should be changed but of asking you to remedy the grievance of an individual and to give instructions that he be given a pension as entitled under the law. I could cite a score of cases but I am going to deal with a specific one.
Mrs	qualifies in every respect under
the act and the regulations hut has been refused a pension on the ground as stated in their letter now in front of me which reads as follows:
"We note that your husband is not physically incapacitated and that he is under seventy years of age. In view of this it is felt-"

Supply-Labour-Pensions

What business have they to " feel "?' It is the law, not their own petty ideas that should govern:
"-it is felt that he should be in a position to maintain you without receiving assistance from the public treasury. Your application therefore cannot be approved."
Note the suggestion that the woman is asking for charity. She is not asking for charity: she is asking for her rights. Then I go on to say:
They have no right to take this stand. It isn't a question of what they feel this woman should get. Neither the act nor the regulations forbid a woman getting a pension because her husband is under seventy years of age or whether he is able to work or not. The act and the regulations strictly provide how applicant's income shall be calculated and under those regulations she is entitled to a pension because neither she nor her husband are getting any income.
Later on representations were made that the woman was sick and quite unable to travel with her husband in a fishing boat and needed attendance in her home, consequently her husband couldn't even go out and fish. After much pressure the board paid some credence to this and asked a doctor's certificate which was furnished as per attached copy and certainly reveals a serious enough condition, even a non-medical man reading would know she could not go out on a fishing boat for days and nights at a time. You will note that the doctor is very specific about her condition. After receiving it the board advised her that they adhered to their former decision. There are scores of such cases, not similar except in that they refused to grant pensions to people entitled to them, but I submit this specific case to your notice and ask that you deal with it. The Attorney General of British Columbia says the board is under your orders, then I beg you to ask the board why they are not granting this pension. The Pension Act is not permissive but mandatory, if they qualify. No registrar of voters, for instance, would be allowed to refuse a person qualifying under the elections act to be placed on the voters' list because he, the registrar, "felt" that the party did not need a vote or would not make a good use of it.
Now I will quote the certificate of the doctor, and if I have not its terms strictly correct it is because doctors, as we all know, are such bad writers. The certificate is by Dr. 0. O. Lyons, B.A., M.D.C.M., and is dated December 8, 1932.
To whom it may concern:
I have to-day examined Mrs	 She
is suffering from prolapse of the womb, chronic nephritis, hypertension, and gall bladder disease. The hypogastric region is tender due to the gall bladder disease, and this makes it very distressing for her to travel and suffer the jar of a small gas boat. She is quite feeble and should have some one near or in attendance continuously Her condition is not acute and I would not recommend any operative treatment, for her general condition would not permit it.
0. 0. Lyons.
One would think that such a letter would produce favourable consideration, but they turned her down. Their reply was: "Your husband1 is under seventy years of age, and he can go out to work." I say the act does not state anything about a woman's husband having to be under seventy years of age. It does say that if anyone is in receipt of an income below a certain sum and comes within the qualifications concerning age and residence, a pension shall be granted.
There is the situation. I have but touched upon the matter; as I say, I could go on for hours citing cases along the lines I have read. Not always the same subterfuge or excuse has been given, but always to the same end. People 'have been turned down-I was going to say if it were humanly possible, but I believe that would be hardly correct. On one occasion I said: "Why do you not do like the wolf about which we read in the story of Little Red Ridinghood? After the little girl had advanced good arguments as to why the wolf should not eat her, the animal lost its patience and said: 'I am going to eat you anyway'." I suggested that they should simply say: "We are going to refuse you, anyway," and not trouble to make excuses. That is the situation -and I have only touched upon, it.
Is it fair and right? WThat is the government going to do about it? It comes home to everybody in the house; responsibility is upon us all. A few years ago there was a Conservative convention in Winnipeg at which that party firmly pledged itself to the extension of the old age pensions scheme. Therefore that party is committed. We come now to the government, every member of which is sworn to administer the laws. How often do we hear it said that no matter how painful the duty may be, a minister has to administer the laws? In case of a strike the militia are turned out. I have heard a minister say: "I am sorry to do it, but I am sworn to administer the laws, and it is my duty so to deal with the matter." In the present instance the same principle applies. I do -not say it is pleasant for them to do so,-but there is the 'law; why do they not administer it? It says in the scriptures: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all." I would not go that far, but I would say that if a government is capable of being privy to robbing a poor old .woman of $20 a month, I would not trust them with $2,000,000.
I am sorry the Minister of Justice has left the chamber, but the Minister of Labour is a lawyer. I leave it to any fairminded lawyer; faced with the conditions I have described, would they not carry out the law? Would

Supply-Labour-Pensions
they not go fair to carry out the law? As long as it remained on the statute books it is their duty to carry it out with fairness and equity. The minister says yes?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not said anything yet.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I thought you had touched only the edge of it.


Alan Webster Neill: There are gentlemen on the government benches-the Minister of National Revenue, and others sitting behind him -big masters of industry, who are heavily concerned in industrial enterprises; what would they think-


Leslie Gordon Bell: The Minister of
National Revenue is not here.


Alan Webster Neill: No, he is not there.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Yes, I say he is not there.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, I did not say he was present. I referred to anyone on the treasury benches. If he was not there at the moment, that was his funeral.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hamilton is not all there.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Who is not there?


Alan Webster Neill: I never suggested hon. gentlemen opposite were "all" there.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Which is even
better than not being there at all.


Alan Webster Neill: Hon. gentlemen are pleased to be humorous, but in my view this is a very serious matter. I was referring to those multimillionaires who are concerned with their fortunes. Supposing our friends to the left, the C.C. F.'ers, as my friend to my right called them, were in power-


Leslie Gordon Bell: Don't let us suppose that; it is absurd. We could not suppose that.


Alan Webster Neill: You could not suppose that?


Leslie Gordon Bell: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Are you sure.


Leslie Gordon Bell: It is only funny.


Alan Webster Neill: Some hon. members opposite are dubious about it, right now.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Don't believe it.


Alan Webster Neill: We will suppose some government-without giving it a name-passed a law involving extreme injustice to financial interests which they represented; how quickly they would raise a howl and say: "We want justice." Why not be as quick to ask justice 53719-1751
from this house to remedy an injustice such as I have described? They might look a little bit ahead,-"With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you." If you do not give justice to the poor old men seeking a pension to-day, do not ask us for sympathy if your toes are trod on in years to come.
The Liberal party claims credit for passing old age pension legislation; then certainly they should defend it. The Labour party also claims, with a good deal of sincerity, a great measure of the credit for having passed that legislation. And as the ranks of the old age pensioners are generally-although not always -recruited from the labouring class, they ought to be particularly sensitive about any injustice being done. Then apart from that there is the matter of precedent. If this law is abused, forgotten and ignored, why not others? There are people in Canada, and even in this house, who no doubt would think it a good idea to put the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in gaol, and keep him there-


Leslie Gordon Bell: We would lose all our fun if we did that.


Alan Webster Neill: Such action would not do the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre half the harm that is done to these poor old people. He would receive tremendous advertising through the press; he would soon be out of gaol on a writ of habeas corpus and would suffer no injury. He has been in gaol before, anyway. But we cannot help the poor old woman with a writ of habeas corpus; she is helpless. She has nothing to look forward to but old age and destitution. Then there is this main argument, which must beat a responsive chord in every man's breast, namely the sense of fairness as between man and man, and woman and woman.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is right.


Alan Webster Neill: This is not a matter of popular appeal. I have no press behind me. There are no great financial interests involved; they will not worry much about the old woman's position. No columnist will be able to write a snappy article about the drab dreary record of a poor old woman's efforts to live on a couple of dollars a month. You cannot make snappy copy out of that. In the very nature of things, these people are poor, financially down and out, unknown in public, private or political life. "There are only a few thousand of them-why bother? Their votes won't amount to much in a public way, anyway. Why bother about them?" Well, they belong to the same class as they about whom it was once said, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto
Supply-Labour-Pensions

one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me." At least they belong to that class. Perhaps in the sight of the Ruler of the Universe they are just as important as any king, knight, prince, premier or any of the rest of us.
I am not given to suggesting a filibuster or obstruction, but if I had six supporters in this house I would guarantee that not a cent of money in supply would be voted until this wrong had been righted. That is what supply is for; that is why we are here. I would not consent to supply until at least I had a promise-


Ira Delbert Cotnam: We would be here all year if there were six like you.


Alan Webster Neill: I am sorry I did not hear the hon. member's remark, but I recall it is said that the fresher the fish is, the better and more beautiful the fish. Of course that does not apply to the hon. member. It only puts him into the poor fish class, when he sees fit to make such interruptions.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: A pretty stale old fish, I tell you.


Alan Webster Neill: Quite so.
I place the responsibility on the house, on the government and on each individual member thereof. As to how they discharge that responsibility they will have to answer at the bar of public opinion at the next election, and possibly also at the bar of a higher court, the summons to which is inevitably drawing nearer for us all.
Now I want to ask the Minister of Labour specifically whether he endorses the statement of the Attorney General of British Columbia that his department is giving instructions to this board in that province. Whether t'he minister's reply is yes or no I want to ask him if he does not realize his responsibility as the supervisor of this large sum of federal money which is contributed, and whether he cannot and will not insist on justice being done. I shall be very glad to furnish the minister with the fullest details of these specific cases, names and everything, and I would beg him on bended knee, if that would be any good, to remedy the conditions which exist. I will be his henchman for ever and ever if he will do justice to these poor people.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am sure I appreciate the feelings of the hon. member when, during the course of his activities in his own province or elsewhere, he sees some human who is not enjoying as comfortable an old age as the ordinary person perhaps feels he is entitled to enjoy. It is a difficult situation; it is one of

those complexities of human life that we have encountered since history began and which I presume will continue to the end. No one sympathizes with the hon. member more than I do; I am sure that when he sees such conditions as he has described it does not give him any sense of satisfaction.
With respect to the act itself, it is a dominion statute passed by this chamber for the purpose of providing the money to pay a proportion of an old age pension to those who come under the provisions of the act and the regulations in connection with it. For reasons upon which I need not enlarge our share is in the nature of a contribution; the fund is administered by the provinces, and the act itself is administered through the agency of the provinces. The agreement is entered into with the provinces, and the regulations are submitted to the provincial authorities. The act contemplates that these regulations ^hall prevail for a certain number of years. The regulations, it is true, have been varied from time to time, and were changed but a short year or so ago.
This is social legislation of a kind that all countries have not adopted. All countries do not see the force of the principle that underlies this measure. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in his suggestion that there is not a direct responsibility upon the sons and the daughters to see that their aged parents receive that support to which they are entitled. I never have been able to bring myself to view with indifference the thought of children in positions of affluence or comfortably well to do who aTe permitted to take the attitude that they do not owe a responsibility to their parents far greater than any responsibility the state may owe. If we permit an undisciplined administration of this or any other act, thereby relieving those who are primarily responsible for the care of their immediate blood relatives, then I feel confident that we are not going along the path we should follow, because it will not be long until there will be no feeling of responsibility on the part of the children to contribute to the care of their parents in a large number of cases. To encourage the younger people of this or any other country whose aged parents are alive to follow that line of thought is something that will not help in the future and will not tend to build up that class of society I want to see in this country.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say it was a proper thing for the provinces to pass acts similar to that to which reference has been made, under which children who are able to contribute to the support of their parents and refuse to do so will find the law set in motion

Supply-Labour-Pensions
to force them to do their duty. I believe that is proper and sane legislation. On the other hand I say that any of these acts that tends to take care of those who happen upon misadventure or who are entering the twilight of their lives without adequate support should not destroy that sense of responsibility, of respect, of love and affection that the child should bear towards his parents.
With respect to the province of British Columbia, it is obvious that as Minister of Labour I cannot inquire into individual cases; I think hon. members will readily realize that it would be utterly impossible for me to do so.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not, in a specific case?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am coming to that in a moment. When a complaint does come to the department that those administering this act in any province are perhaps not administering it as the law and the regulations contemplate, then it is the practice of the department-and I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni say that the practice was not followed in his cases-to direct the attention of the provincial authorities to the case in question, asking them to investigate it and determine to what extent the complaint is well founded. After this item passes I should be very glad indeed if the hon. member would give me a list of the letters he has written to which he says he has had no reply, with their dates and the names of the cases, and I can assure him that I will have them investigated and a report furnished me in order to see to what extent, if any, the law and the regulations have not been enforced in British Columbia.
In order that hon. members may not judge the province of British Columbia only in the light of these cases to which reference has been made by the hon. member I think it desirable to give some figures. In the province of British Columbia the percentage of pensioners to the population over seventy years of age, actually receiving pensions under this act, is 50-72. Compare that with the province of Ontario, for instance, where the percentage is only 34-62. Having that general picture before us we will see that generally throughout the province of British Columbia there must have been a very generous interpretation of the act and the regulations with respect to those aged people who fall within the provisions of the act. That is as far as I can go with regard to the figures.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the minister the figures for Alberta?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Alberta, 51.20, about the same as British Columbia, and Ontario, 34.62. Ontario, I may say, has the law to which I made reference with respect to the necessity of children contributing to the care of their parents. I do not know that I can add anything more to what I have said. The province certainly sets up the machinery to administer old age pensions, and if the interpretation of Mr. Pooley's letter is that they do not administer the act, then I very respectfully suggest that that gentleman has misconstrued the position with respect thereto. The machinery in British Columbia I am told is operated through the agency of the Workmen's Compensation Board and unless there is something radically wrong with the set-up of that board I doubt whether there are people better able to determine who should or should not receive old age pensions, having regard to the experience of the board in workmen's compensation cases. I do not want to be unfair to those who are administering the affairs of the provinces, because they have great and difficult problems to face; but there are bound to be some instances in the administration of an act of this sort where it might appear that through one cause or another, or through a combination of causes, there has been a hardship, that someone has not been given that consideration to which his case entitles him. I can only repeat that if the hon. member will supply me with the dates of his letters and the name of the applicant, the department, on my instructions, will investigate as I have indicated and see that justice is done, if it is found that there has been injustice in the premises.


Alan Webster Neill: I am much indebted to the minister; what he says shows that my faith in his benevolence is not altogether unfounded. I am glad to hear him say that he will investigate these eases and I am quite satisfied to abide by his decision. He will find that they are as I have stated and that injustice has been done. Indeed, the situation is so bad that a lawyer in Victoria, acting probably without recompense, took up a case and entered a mandamus against the officials.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Did he succeed?


Alan Webster Neill: It was thrown out of the first court on a technicality, on the ground that he should have proceeded not by mandamus but by fiat, and in the second court it was thrown out on a similar technicality.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He never got to first base with his case.
Supply-Labour-Pensions


Alan Webster Neill: The thing has got to be so notorious that a society has been formed in Vancouver-there is nothing to be gained by it personally, so far as any member of the society is concerned-to try to have justice done these people.
I want to comment on one or two points made by the minister, wherein in my opinion he was not quite fair. He quoted the percentage of people over seventy in British Columbia as 50.72, and this he said showed that they must have been treated very generously in that province. Well, you can always prove anything by figures, but I submit that the figure quoted by the minister does not show the conclusion which he reached. What it does show is that there are more elderly people, especially bachelors, in British Columbia than young peojfie, and that makes the percentage of those over seventy years of age greater.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: More than in Ontario?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. There are not as many young married people in British Columbia but far more elderly people, bachelors particularly, and it is well known that all the cranks drift west and stop there. I am myself an instance. The minister also said that he hoped it was not due to the personnel of the board. No; the personnel of the board are all right; I know them personally. But if their instructions are wrong-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They must follow the regulations.


Alan Webster Neill: I sincerely wish they would
follow the regulations, but it is then- secret instructions that are wrong. If they would follow the regulations as I have outlined them, although I do not approve of some of the regulations the minister made last February, old people would generally be able to obtain pensions under reasonable conditions.
The minister dealt with the Parents' Maintenance Act and he took the sound standard ground that a man certainly should be held to take care of his parents if he is able to. But I am not dealing with cases where children are able to take care of their parents; I am referring to those who are not able to do so. Can it be said that a man receiving $5.60 a month on relief is capable of supporting his parents? I asked the province to administer the Old Age Pensions Act on the face of it, so to speak, and if they thought that the children were wealthy and able to pay their share then the province could sue. The province has the authority and the

money, and a poor old man or woman should not be placed in the humiliating position of having to sue his or her children when they know that the children would be quite willing to help if they could.
I deprecate the attitude taken by the board when they say, "You are asking for charity and we feel that you should not become a public charge". But I submit it is not public charity; it is a public right. These people have as much right to receive a pension if they qualify as I have the right to vote if I have the qualifications. I shall be glad to furnish the minister with the information he asks for and if he deals with these cases it will perhaps lead to a better interpretation of the act in British Columbia in the future.


Frederick William Gershaw: I would direct to the
attention of the minister one particular case with regard to which I have had correspondence, though not with this department. A man has lived thirty years or more in Canada and is eligible in every way for old age pension, except in this regard, that during the last five years he has lived three years in Saskatchewan and two in Alberta. When he writes to Alberta they say he has not been five years in that province and that therefore they cannot do anything; he writes to Saskatchewan and they say he has not been resident five years there and so they cannot do anything either. I understand that there is an arrangement among the provinces that if a period of twenty years has been spent partly in one province and partly in another they will divide the costs, but apparently there is no such arrangement with respect to the last five years. Will the minister let us know whether there is a possibility of a man in such a situation getting a pension. It so often happens that people living close to the border between two provinces move from one province to the other and thus are at a great disadvantage.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The question raised by the hon. member was given consideration at the provincial conference. I have the matter now before me and there is no doubt about it, if the principle of the legislation itself is sound, that there is what would appear to be the exclusion of a certain class by reason of provincial boundary lines. However, I hope that the difficulty will be determined by agreement.


Alfred Speakman: One phase of the question raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has been brought to my notice and it does seem to me to show a rather harsh interpretation of the law. I refer to the case

Supply-Labour-Pensions
where the aged person owns certain property which is non-revenue-producing and which still may be assessed at a fair figure. I might cite one case by way of illustration of this point. It is a man of eighty-six who put in forty-five years in my district farming. He came there from the old country, one of the fine type of old English farmers. He worked hard and did fairly well. Unfortunately he was of generous instincts, although a York-shireman, and the little money he made he loaned on mortgage to certain of his neighbours who, being farmers, are utterly unable at this time to pay a cent of principal or interest. He still has the old quarter-section, and manages to have it farmed and to get out of it just about enough to pay the taxes on it. But in applying for old age pension- and he ha.s paid taxes for forty-five years-he forgets that phase of the regulations; the department have taken an estimate of all his property, have placed a fairly high assessment on it, and assume that he is getting or should get five per cent on that amount. The fact is that for six years to my knowledge he has not received $2 on it, nevertheless he is down in their books as receiving an estimated income of five per cent on that property. He is perfectly willing to turn the property over to the department, and to sign a quit claim giving them the right of collection so that if anything comes in later they will get it. But in the meantime he has to live, and he is being refused pension on that ground; although, as I have said, there is no income from that property, it is assumed that he is getting five per cent on the assessed value of it. I think that is rather a harsh provision, and I would like to have it looked into. By the way, although the man is an Alberta man it was the British Columbia government that made that ruling.


Charles A. Stewart: I was just
going to speak about the same matter but from a different aspect. I came across several cases in our province last year, which I think indicates one reason why the percentages are swelled somewhat, in which parents who had children in comfortable circumstances and who owned property, apparently under some provision of the act are able to turn the property over to the department and receive a pension. I know three such individuals who in my estimation could not qualify for old age pension.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They do not turn their
property over to this department.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I mean to the authorities in the province, and they, I assume, administer the property. I cannot understand why the same procedure was not
adopted in the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Red Deer. The thought that occurred to me was that rather than being stringent there was considerable leniency exhibited in the administration of the act; for frankly I could not see why these persons should receive old age pension, why they should not carry on with their own property and live on the receipts. In one case particularly both husband and wife are in receipt of $20 a month each. No cases of hardship have come to my notice, but those cases caused me some surprise to find the act was interpreted so generously. The case mentioned by my hon. friend would come within the same category.
Mr. SPEAKMAN; The hon. member asks why the old man did not live on the receipts from his property. I stated that there were no receipts of any kind, but that it was assumed by the department that there were.


Thomas Reid: I was pleased to hear the
minister's remark regarding transients. Numerous cases with .regard to old age pensions have been brought to my attention, and I am going to cite one which was referred to me since I came to Ottawa, that of a woman of Canadian birth resident four years in British Columbia and sixteen years in Saskatchewan. British Columbia said: You have not been here long enough. She wrote to Saskatchewan; Saskatchewan paid no attention. I took it up with the Saskatchewan department but I have heard nothing from them. The minister says it is a provincial regulation, but I think there should be some dominion control in regard to such cases. I suppose Saskatchewan takes the view that these people having left the province, they need pay no attention to them. The act needs tightening up in that regard. I would ask the minister what he would do with regard to people who, having resided in another province for many years, move into British Columbia but are not there long enough to come under the British Columbia act.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I believe the old people
of British Columbia owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni for the very excellent case he has made in regard to getting the administration of this act improved. I was privileged to see much of the correspondence that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni had in regard to this matter. A good many cases of somewhat the same character have been brought to my attention. One man lived in British Columbia thirty-five years, brought up his family there, and now finds himself without any means. He was in every way entitled to pension under the
Supply-Labour-Pensions

Old Age Pensions Act, but when he made application they told him he could not qualify because he had adult children living in the province. Apart from the fact that some of his sons were out of employment, I think as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said it is asking too much to expect a parent to prosecute his son for lack of maintenance. If prosecution of that kind has to be undertaken, those administering the act should do the dirty work. The minister made reference to the duty of children to look after their parents when they come to an age when they are not capable of looking after themselves. That really is rather strange. I have heard biblical authority quoted in this house for many things; may I give one quotation on this point? I think it was St. Paul who said that it. was not for children to make provision for their parents, but for parents to make provision for their children. In any case I think that is fairly good philosophy.
The other point that I wish to make is in regard to the interpretation of the act in British Columbia. The minister quoted the percentage of old people receiving pensions in that province, suggesting that it showed the administration had not been unduly restrictive. I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni answered that very well. It must be remembered that British Columbia was the first province to come under the act, and for that reason would have more people receiving old age pensions than a province that came in later.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That would not have any bearing upon it.


Angus MacInnis: It would have a great
deal, because a province that has been under the act only six months would not have as many as one that has been under it a much longer period.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It applies to everyone
within the age.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so. We have other pension legislation in this country; does anyone suggest that some other act should be invoked to do these people out of their pensions? Would we suggest that because a judge has children who should be able to keep him, he should not get his pension? Why can we not apply the same measure to old people who because of poverty come under the old age pensions legislation, as we apply in the case of judges who for many years before their retirement received good salaries? Moreover, on some cases they are drawing other 
salaries in addition to their pensions. It is time we should deal more fairly with the old people who are not able to do anything for themselves.


Humphrey Mitchell: Along with the hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River, I had the honour of signing the agreement that brought old age pensions into force in Ontario. The members of the labour movement have always felt that this should be an old age pension act, providing a pension to be paid to the aged people for services rendered to the state and to the community. Mention has been made of the Parents' Maintenance Act. The minister says that the law should be set in motion to place the responsibility on the children, but the law is not set in motion. In Ontario the Parents' Maintenance Act was a dead letter until the passage of the Old Age Pensions Act.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: WThat does the hon. member mean by that?


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, it was not used.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not think the hon.
member is correct in that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am speaking in a
broad way. It is not used even to-day. I do not think there will be any contradiction of that statement.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Well, I contradict it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe the responsibility should rest upon the province. I want to qualify that by this statement, that I do not think it is anybody's business what the income of the old person is. The pension should be treated purely as one paid to the old people, as I said before, for the contribution they have made in building up this country.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Whether they need it or
not?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not the ques-
'ion. If they do not need it, they do not lave to apply for it. But as the hon. mem-)er for Vancouver South said, in relation to *he expenditure of the country, it stands in ;he same position as the pension of a judge who is paid one for the contribution he has made to the state. I am glad the minister cleared up the question with regard to the responsibility for administration of the act. From the remarks of and the letters read by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I felt that the federal government at least had given instructions in connection with the regulations and that the responsibility was

Supply-Labour-Pensions
taken away from the provinces and now rested entirely with the federal authorities. Had the federal government accepted the full responsibility for the payment of old age pensions, in accordance with the policy enunciated by them at the last federal election, it is fair to assume the whole administration of old age pension legislation would have to be taken over by the federal authorities.
There is a great deal to be said in connection with the residence provision. Before an applicant for a pension comes within the jurisdiction of the legislation five years' residence in a province is required. Supposing an old person lived in Manitoba for thirty years and then moved into Ontario, it is unfair that he should be disqualified from receiving a pension. That is a point which might well be taken into consideration by the government. But I want to reiterate, so far as Ontario is concerned, that the provincial commission has not proceeded under the Parents' Maintenance Act; it has just taken it for granted that the children can make some contribution to the maintenance of their parents. I am not going to weary the house by quoting many cases I could cite, but the fact remains that in many instances pensions have been reduced where, in my judgment, there has been absolutely no justification when one considers the income received by the children themselves.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member for East Hamilton put his finger on a very delicate subject when he said that he thought the federal government ought to take over in its entirety the administration of the old age pensions scheme. I am satisfied that the people of Canada are looking for the federal government to carry out its pledge in that regard. I am also satisfied there would be more complaints along the lines of those which have been brought up by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, were it not for the fact that the people of Canada are waiting, before this parliament dissolves, for the federal government to carry out its pledge and to take over the old age pension plan as a national obligation. In the meantime I think the minister will find that many of these grievances arise out of the fact that the provincial governments are complicating the matter by mixing up two statutes, the Old Age Pensions Act and the Parents' Maintenance Act.
The Old Age Pensions Act, as enacted in 1927, is very clear and specific, in that it provides a pension for a person who is a British subject and is not in receipt of an income of as much as $365 a year. It does
not say: "Provided the children cannot maintain their parents." It is true the Parents' Maintenance Act in the provinces contains that provision, but the Old Age Pensions Act that we have on the statute book of Canada provides that if a person is not in receipt of an income of $365 a year, he is entitled to an old age pension. Where the provinces come in is that they suggest that, notwithstanding the fact that a person is entitled to a pension under the old age pension plan, they can invoke the power vested in them by the Parents' Maintenance Act. I contend that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is right when he sas^s that the old people should receive the pension as provided under the Old Age Pensions Act and then, if the provinces have any rights in the matter under the Parents' Maintenance Act, they should sue the children under that act. But in no case does the Parents' Maintenance Act of a provincial legislature have any right to prohibit the payment of a pension under the Old Age Pensions Act.
With regard to the question brought up by the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Medicine Hat with respect to the five years' residence, I may say for the information of the minister, who was not in the house in 1927 when we enacted this law, that for the protection of British Columbia the five year residence provision was at that time inserted in the act. British Columbia was the first province that signified its willingness to come in under the act, and we realized that if only one province came in there would be a rush of older people from the rest of the country into British Columbia. So we inserted the five year residence provision in order to protect that province. The day for the need of that protection has gone by. Five provinces are now participating in the old age pension pl^n, and I am satisfied that the provinces would be quite willing to eliminate that five year residence provision, or leave it at one year if there is necessity for such a provision. I would urge the minister to give con-iderntiion to that question, because I know that before I left office the five provinces were quite willing that the five year residence provision should be eliminated from the act. I would ask the minister if there are now any more provinces participating in the old age pension plan than there were in 1930, and how many old age pensioners there are at the present time.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: At the present time the
provinces which have adopted the old age pension scheme are Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. The
Supply-Labour-Pensions

other provinces have not. The question of the five years' residence, of course, has been the subject matter of discussion and debate; at least, I saw some fragmentary references to it over the past few years in the files of the Labour department. There is the danger that aged people will cross the border of a province that is not under the act into a province that is, and the province that happens to be under the act will suffer acordingly a severe burden.
With respect to the administration of the act generally, while I cannot deny that there may be, and probably are, individual cases of hardship where perhaps the province in its administration of the act, or its officials, have not conformed strictly to the act or to the agreements and regulations, yet the volume of opinion which I have had the opportunity to review is that the act generally is being administered very generously. In fact, as was pointed out by the hon. member for West Edmonton, the officers administering the act apparently have rather tortured the regulations in order to bring people within its scope. I will bear in mind what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has said, and see what can be done. Answering his last question, the total number of pensioners as of December 31, 1932, was 70,516.


Peter Heenan: Can the minister give us
any information with respect to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, both of which provinces in 1928 I think passed acts enabling them to make agreements with the Dominion government, which acts were not to come into effect except on proclamation?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That proclamation has not yet been issued.


Peter Heenan: Does the minister know
any reason why?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Peter Heenan: Can the minister tell us
whether or not this government intends bringing into effect a national system of old age pensions and administering it federally?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Of course, constitutional
questions might arise between the Dominion government and the provinces if the Dominion government adopted that course. At the moment I am not in a position to answer that question.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Has the government made
any estimate of how much it would cost this government to pay old age pensions all over the Dominion of Canada out of the federal treasury?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That would depend in
large measure upon the number of those eligible by reason of age who took advantage of the legislation. I am afraid it would be difficult to hazard an opinion as to what it would cost.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No estimate has been made?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am told that there was
an estimate made in so faa- as it could be made. Unfortunately I have not the figures before me, but I shall be glad to give them to my hon. friend.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am asking now for the figures. I should not think it would be very difficult to make an approximate estimate of the cost. The government could take its experience in the provinces which have adopted old age pensions and make the necessary allowance for the increased number of those [DOT] over seventy years of age in the eastern provinces-because I believe there is an increased number there-and in that way arrive at an estimate of the cost. I was wondering if the government had not done that. I say that because, as the minister probably knows, this was one of the live questions in Nova Scotia in the election of 1930. I do not suppose there was any canvass that was responsible for getting more votes for the 'Conservative party in Nova Scotia than the definite promise to pay old age pensions in full out of the federal treasury. Those of us who went through that election have a vivid recollection of the strength of the canvass that was made against us because we were supporting a policy of a fifty-fifty contribution as against a policy of one hundred per cent contribution out of the federal treasury. The Prime Minister himself wrote a letter which went to a very large proportion of the aged people in Nova Scotia in which he definitely promised that if returned to power his government would see that old age pensions would >be paid in full out of the federal treasury. But the government has not done it, and so far as I know they have not any present intention of doing it.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Another broken promise.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It appears to be and was a cold-blooded violation of an exceedingly definite preelection promise.


Mr. YOUNG:: Did the people believe them?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, a great many of them voted that way on the strength of that promise. If possible I should like to get from the minister such an estimate, if one has been made. I should also like him to tell me, if

Supply-Labour-Pensions
he can, whether the government have abandoned that policy, or whether they have any intention of carrying it out some time, and if so, when.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I shall be glad to look into the question of the estimate and send the hon. member any figures which are available in the department on the subject.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What about the preelection promise?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I never make any promises as to the future.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked the minister the same question, whether the government has any intention of carrying out that preelection promise of 1930. Has the government any intention of carrying it out?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am not in a position at the moment to answer that question.


Peter Heenan: I think, Mr. Chairman, the minister ought to answer the question more seriously.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I was never more serious in my life.


Peter Heenan: I think, Mr. Chairman, that you coming from Nova Scotia do not want this item carried until we get that information because you are aware that no people were ever deceived so much as were the people of Nova Scotia in the last election on this question. I was down there during the election and I could not hear anything else but the Conservative candidates promising a federal system of old age pensions, and the Prime Minister himself iterated and reiterated that policy from every platform from one end of Canada to the other. The government has now been in office for nearly three years and nothing has been done to carry out that promise. I do not think the minister should get away with simply saying that he cannot state whether the government is going to do it or not.


Peter McGibbon: What about your promises to the soldiers of a gratuity for everyone in 1921?


Peter Heenan: Will any member of the government say that they did not promise a national system of old age pensions in 1930? Even in the Conservative platform of 1927 the words, as I recall them, were that the old age pension system as at present existing was
unworkable and inadequate, and the Conservative platform called for a national system of old age pensions. During the last election the Prime Minister and his colleagues and his candidates from one end of the country to the other, but particularly down in Nova Scotia, where the people were not receiving old age pensions at all, made a very definite promise. I recall very well the pledge of the present Minister of Finance. Surely we ought to have an answer from the minister with whose estimates we are now dealing. If they are not going to do it, we ought to know it; if they are considering it, we ought to know it; if they are going to do it, the minister ought to make an announcement. They ought to be proud to state that is one pledge they intend to carry out. I do not believe the minister should treat the matter as lightly as he seems to treat it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You are too good to stay in politics.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do know about a lot of promises made in the Liberal manifesto of 1919 which were not kept. I have no doubt that in some instances efforts were made to keep them, but there was a wholesale disregard of others. Undoubtedly they were but pious hopes. Perhaps one might say that it is a poor man who cannot make a promise.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
27C6

Duty on British Imports
Tuesday, March 7, 1933