1934-03-23

LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: A very considerable interest has been manifest in this house in the proceedings of the conference on the limitation and reduction of armaments and of all subsequent proceedings arising out of that conference. The Department of External Affairs has thought that it might be well if a short resume were prepared and published of the proceedings to date, and this has been done under the direction of the officials of the department. I now table two copies in English and French of the report of the conference on the limitation and reduction of armaments, 1932 to 1934.
. PRIVATE BILL


Mr. L. G. BELL (St. Antoine) moved:: That the petition of George Harold Allen praying for a bill of divorce from Marjorie Nelson Allen, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Tariff Board

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I have received, and I think other members have as well, letters and telegrams protesting against a certain clause in a section of a bill, being an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, introduced in another chamber and now being considered there. I refer to section 34, which states that every British company other than Lloyds shall, as a condition of being registered, make a deposit with the minister. Lloyds is not required to make that deposit. Has the minister received such protests, and will the government-this being a government measure-take cognizance thereof?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Obviously the question could not properly be addressed until such time as the bill is before the house. The question ought properly to be directed in the Senate at the moment, and we know not what form the bill will take when it reaches this chamber.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is it a government measure?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes and no.



CORRECTION-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Tcmis-couata): On page 1742 of Hansard of yesterday a correction should be made. I am glad to interrupt my remarks here to welcome the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) to the house. The passage in Hansard to which I refer reads:
. Mr. Mackenzie King: But the trouble is that like everyone else we are getting impatient.
Mr. Pouliot: Opinions are free, and the hon. member is not.
That remark was not addressed to my right hon. leader. In the meantime the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) had risen and said, " This is of course your own opinion," and it was in answer to him that I said, " Opinions are free, and the hon. member is not."


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for North
Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and the hon. member

for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) were advised by me the other day that I would inform them as to the order in council that had been prepared for the purpose of submitting certain questions relating to the jurisdiction of the tariff board, to the Supreme Court of Canada. The order in council has been prepared but has not yet received the approval of His Excellency or of his deputy and therefore I cannot lay it on the table today. But as soon as it has been approved a copy will be laid on the table, at least on Monday, and I may be able to-morrow to send a copy to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the absence of the hon. member for North Waterloo and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth.



IMPORTATION OF PARROTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. YENIOT (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health. I have received from New Brunswick an inquiry whether there are any instructions and what they are in regard to prohibition of the importation of parrots. Would the minister please explain what the prohibition is and whether it is under a law or under a regulation of the Health department.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Will the hon. member please explain whether it is a parrot or a macaw that is in question?


Peter John Veniot: Either one or the other.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: There are such regulations and they are under the administration of the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps it would be in order to let the minister of that department make a statement.


Mr. VEINIOT:: Having been informed by the Minister of Pensions and National Health that I have directed my question to the wrong minister and that I should ask it of the Minister of Agriculture, I now direct it to him. I believe he heard the question.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I am sorry I did not hear the question.


Peter John Veniot: The question was that I had received an inquiry from New Brunswick to let them know whether there was any prohibition of the importation of parrots and if so. whether it was under a law or a regulation of the department?

Fruit and Honey Act


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to give the hon. member that information in writing.


Peter John Veniot: I thank the hon. minister.



SALE OF FISH IN' QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murray MacLaren: May I make a reference to the question of eels as I see the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) is in his seat and is interested in that. I might say to him now that the supervision of the proper condition of food such as fish and eels comes under the local authority, but I have been informed by the federal officials that after inquiry the statement to the effect that the fish in question were in an unfit condition was not found to be correct.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to deal legislatively at this session with the question of contributory unemployment insurance?
Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the question
requires any answer. The intentions of the government are not made manifest by question and answer.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Notwithstanding this I thought perhaps the Prime Minister could indicate to the house the intention of the government.



FRUIT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 26, respecting fruit.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. STEVENS:: I understand the minister desires to have a slight amendment made to clause 1. It is just a slight amendment to the title. I move:
That section 1 be amended to read: "This act may be cited as the Fruit and Honey Act, 1934."
The amendment is to include the words "and honey" in the title of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask the minister why the home consumption of honey in 1932-33 as compared with 1930-31 has decreased by 9,535,000 pounds, and whether this legislation will remedy that?


Robert Weir: That will have to wait to be demonstrated.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the minister also why the home consumption of apples in 1932-33 as compared with 1930-31 has decreased by 1,209,000 barrels?


Robert Weir: Without accepting as authoritative the figures given by the hon. member, I may say that the situation is this, not necessarily that there is less production, but that there has been a greater export which might account, if his figures' are correct, for the smaller domestic consumption.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the minister should have resort to the old adage: "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." I notice from the explanation given by the minister, in the last year for which statistics are available, the home consumption of apples and honey has decreased considerably on account of the fact that our people have no money with which to buy those articles. I ask the minister to be kind enough to table a report showing the exports, the imports, the production and the home consumption of the fruit, also of honey, mentioned in the speech made by the right hon. Prime Minister on October 12, 1932, in which the right hon. gentleman told the house of his expectations in connection with imperial trade in relation to fruit.


Robert Weir: The information is available to the hon. member in the trade statistics.
Canadian Commercial Apple Production Years-[DOT]	Barrels
1929		 3,939,000
1930		 3,419.000
1931		 3,793.000
1932		 3.976.000
1933		 4,892,000
The production for 1933 being the greatest for all these years.


Jean-François Pouliot: What was the home consumption?


Robert Weir: The exports for the same years are as follows:
Years-	Barrels
1929-	30	
1,878,5251930-	31	
1.587,4971931-	32	
1,682,5061932-	33	
1,818,8011933-	34 (incomplete)	
3,224,749
The last year showring a very large increase.
Fruit and Honey Act


Jean-François Pouliot: What are the figures for home consumption?


Robert Weir: The home consumption I take it would be the difference between production and export.


Jean-François Pouliot: Are there no imports?


Robert Weir: And with the imports taken into consideration, yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: What was the average price each year?


Robert Weir: The records I have here are not complete in that respect. I shall be glad to let the hon. member have this information at the earliest possible time next week.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the hon. gentleman admit that the figure I have already given is correct?


Robert Weir: I could not say without checking it up.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister be kind enough to tell us about dried apples, the production in each year since 1930, the exports, the home consumption, and the imports?


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to give this information at a later time in connection with the estimates on fruit. We have not got all the information here. I do not know whether this is the proper time to prolong a discussion on the request for such information, but I shall be glad to give the information when the estimates are up.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman. But we have before us now a bill of importance which is supposed to assist the farmer in the sale of his fruit and honey. There is a large decrease in the home consumption of apples and of honey, therefore we must have that information before discussing the bill. If we take the estimates and pass them in the meantime we shall have to do it with our eyes shut. Therefore I ask the hon. minister if it is not possible for him to give that information right now, as he has the fruit commissioner of his department before him.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Shall the item carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, Mr. Chairman, I
would like the hon. gentleman to answer my question.


Robert Weir: I regret I was not able to hear the hon. member's question. If he would repeat it and it is possible for me to hear it-


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall repeat it as many
times as the minister wishes.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Order; may I ask the committee to
keep better order? It is very difficult to hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I .thank you very much,
sir, for the dignity with which you conduct the committee. I shall put it another way.
1	shall ask the minister to tell us what kind of fruit will be sold in greater quantity on account of this legislation, or what are the fruits the sale of which might be affected by this bill?


Robert Weir: No person could
answer that question, I believe. This is in great part a revision of an act that has been in force for thirty-three years. It has been submitted to the committee on agriculture and colonization, they have gone into it very fully and have adopted it without amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: It becomes important to
see the definition of fruit as given in section
2	of this bill, because the act is to be known as the Fruit Act, 1934. The first thing we have to know is what kinds of fruit are affected by the bill. It is said that:
"fruit" means fruit of every kind grown in Canada, known botanically as such, except wild fruit in respect of which no grades are prescribed.
I understand quite well that this bill has nothing to do with wild strawberries, raspberries, blueberries and so on, because they are considered as wild fruit, except some special kinds of strawberries and raspberries which grow in gardens and greenhouses. At this time of year I do not speak about wild strawberries. But there are greenhouse strawberries and cultivated raspberries which might be affected by this bill. Also I understand that this bill has nothing to do with bananas and pineapples that do not grow in Canada. Fruit means fruit of every kind grown in Canada; therefore we will leave aside the blueberries which grow wild. I wonder if the hon. gentleman is ready to accept that contention, that blueberries are not included under the word "fruit" in this bill. The same question would apply to cranberries.


Robert Weir: Cranberries are not included, and will not be included unless a special request is made by the provinces to have this done. Quebec has already made such request in regard to blueberries, and the word " fruit " will be interpreted to include that fruit.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. Now let us
be very particular. We have peaches, pears,

Fruit and Honey Act
plums and gooseberries; we have mentioned apples. Here we have four or five kinds of fruit largely grown in Canada. Would the minister be kind enough to give us some information as to the production, consumption, importation and exportation of these fruits? We have had some information already with regard to apples; could we have the same information with regard to plums, peaches, pears and gooseberries?


Robert Weir: We have not that
information with us. We did not think these questions would be asked except on the estimates, but I will be glad to get the information for the hon. gentleman.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret very much that
the minister takes that stand. We are willing to support him if he proves to us that this bill will be of some benefit to the fruit growers. Some hon. gentleman mentioned cherries, another delicious, Canadian-grown fruit, and there are also other fruits I have not mentioned. I am sorry the minister takes that stand, because that means we will have no information before this bill is reported by the committee, and this is where we must ask the minister for that information. When it was stated that this bill would come up today I was sure the minister would be fully prepared to answer questions of this kind, which are closely related to the bill. The estimates do not come up until later; we take only one step at a time. This is the first step; this is the act, the law of the country regarding fruit and fruit growers, and it is of the utmost importance because of some competition which arises early in the spring through imports from the United States and other countries. I believe the minister is too fair to insist upon putting this bill through the committee before the information asked for is made available to every member of the committee. Does the minister insist on his stand or will he reconsider his position.


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to
supply any information asked for by the hon. member.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I wonder if the minister
could tell me how this bill compares with the bill that was considered by the Ontario fruit growers' convention?


Robert Weir: The draft of this bill has been submitted to the various provincial fruit conventions held throughout Canada during the past six months. The Norfolk county fruit growers, communicated with the department concerning the bill. I can say that it has been approved by all provincial fruit growers' conventions throughout Canada, before which it has been placed during the past six months.


John Campbell Elliott: It is practically in the form approved by the Ontario growers?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I should like to direct the attention of the committee to the fact that we are still on section 1, the short title. I think it would be better to pass this section and get on to section 2. The discussion is wandering very far afield from section 1, which has only to do with the title.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and in that connection I would point out that the bill has been very carelessly drafted. Honey is mentioned in part 3 and in other places as well; therefore the title should have been drafted accordingly.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The title has been amended.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not mean to say that the amendment is wrong; I believe the amendment is very proper, but the bill should have been properly drafted and the title should have appeared as it is now suggested by the amendment.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: I believe I am in order in addressing these remarks to the minister at this time. May I say that the success of this act, which in its present form is wide open with regard to the specifications of fruit containers and so on, will depend entirely upon the way it is administered by the department. In that connection I should like to direct attention to the fact that on March 7 I asked for certain information in connection with the inspection of fruits and vegetables in the different provinces of Canada. The answers I received contained no information at all, and in my opinion were a straight attempt on the part of somebody to evade the necessity of giving proper answers. On February 15 I asked for the same information, and the answers I received then were erroneous, in my opinion; I believe the minister has acknowledged that they were not correct.
I am simply bringing up this matter at the present time to show that without the full cooperation of the fruit branch with the fruit growers under this act, the interests of the fruit growers will not be properly looked after. I should like to go further and place on Hansard a letter which I received from the Minister of Agriculture under date of March
Fruit and Honey Act

12. From the standpoint of the fruit growers in my riding this was the only way in which they could get the answers to the questions I had asked. Under date of March 12, the Minister of Agriculture wrote me as follows, in regard to the question to which I have referred:
Further to our conversation on the 8th, instant, I am pleased to supply you with the following information with respect to requested inspection of apples for export and domestic marketing, whether voluntary or compulsory.
Owing to different fees payable for less carloads, also coastal traffic and quantities in excess of carloads, destination inspections and reinspeetions, the records for such service are on the basis of the reports on each inspection, and possibly the information you desire would be more complete in this way rather than to attempt to convert the tonnage into carloads. Under this compilation reports of inspections were issued as follows during the fiscal year ending March 31 last:
British Columbia	 5,668
Ontario	 2,021
Quebec	 129
\ew Brunswick	 22
Nova Scotia	 4,514
In addition to the foregoing, there were administrative inspections for which no fees are payable which, if required, could be compiled, although it would entail considerable clerical work. These reports are not issued unless a violation is recorded. The violation reports issued on apples for the year in question amounted to 570 and no fee is payable for these.
The records of fees collected are also kept on the basis of the certificate number with no reference to the class or kind of fruit or vegetables. However, in order that you might have the information desired in regard to apples, the time of two clerks was continuously employed for a period equal to five days each segregating the revenue from inspections of straight shipments of apples but not including apples in mixed cars, and the following fees were collected for the inspections tabulated
above:
British Columbia	
$16,581	90Ontario	
5,972	30Quebec	
519	00New Brunswick	
46	50Nova Scotia	
13,397	25
The following is the total amount of the inspection fees collected in connection with all fruit and vegetable inspections in each province during the year ending March 31, 1933:
British Columbia	
$24,278	20Ontario	
16,797	80Quebec	
4.218	50New Brunswick	
9,737	00Nova Scotia	
13,725	25
If the above does not cover your requirements and you will so advise, we will endeavour to secure the information desired.
Clause (d) of subsection 3 reads:
To provide for the inspection, certification and grading of any kind of fruit and the inspection fees which shall be payable.

In regard to this clause of the bill I should like to ask the minister if it is the intention, under the bill, to continue the charge for inspection fees on apples in car lots?


Robert Weir: I would suggest
that the discussion be confined to the section now before the committee. The hon. member who has just spoken has directed his remarks to a clause which appears later in the bill. I believe we would make better progress by taking each section as we come to it. However now that the remarks of the hon. member will appear in Hansard I should like to make a few observations in regard to the statements he has made. In the first place, the questions as placed on the order paper by the hon. member were not interpreted by the officials to mean what he evidently had in mind. An hon. member on this side of the house who is interested in this matter stated to me that he did not think the information had been given which the hon. member wanted, or that the officials had riot interpreted the questions as would have been expected by the hon. member. I immediately got in touch with and discussed the matter with him, explaining matters as I felt they should be explained.
The hon. member has left the inference that there must have been some reason for this misinterpretation. I suggest that the best test of that is that I believe he now has the information he required, and I leave it to him or to any other hon. member in the house as to whether or not there is anything in that information which any of the officers in the fruit branch would have tried in anyway to keep from him. I believe the hon. member will agree with me that there is nothing in it which the officials would have tried to keep from him in the first place. There are likely to be different interpretations. In the anxiety of the department to get the information and have it forwarded as soon as possible in this instance they may not, perhaps, have given the matter fhe thought it should have had. I contend, however, that there is nothing in the information which has been supplied which the officers of the department could have desired for any reason to withhold.
With reference to the charges for inspection I would suggest that the questions asked by the hon. member should be left until we reach that part of the bill. Although conditions may change I may say that it is the intention at the present time that charges will be made. I believe there have been no requests from the fruit growers' associations that they should be done away with.

Fruit and Honey Act


William Alexander Fraser: I sincerely hope the minister did not misinterpret my statements in connection with these questions, inasmuch as he feels that I was of the opinion there was any particular reason for withholding information, I did not insinuate that. But if anybody will read the question, particularly those officials in charge of the fruit branch who understand not only the phraseology but the practical application and result of the questions, and tell me that the official, whoever he was, did not know what information I required, I would say that the minister should check up on his officials and deliver a copy of Webster's dictionary to them. They understood the questions perfectly well, and they knew what I wanted.
Let me go further: The third section of my question asked on March 7 is as follows:
How many inspection reports upon apples were issued free of charge during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1933?
And the answer was "570," meaning 570 reports. Can the minister tell me why those reports were issued free.


Robert Weir: In the case of
violations of the act there is no charge made.


William Alexander Fraser: May I
ask a question in connection with the inspection fee on apples under this Fruit Act, which will of course be left to the discretion of the minister and the department? Would it be the policy of the department to continue charging fruit growers an inspection fee for compulsory inspection, or is it the intention of the government to make that fee cover other horticultural and agricultural products as well? I may say to the minister that the fruit growers in my section of the country and throughout the province, with the majority of whom I come in contact, have felt and do feel that they have been and are being penalized in connection with the charge for compulsory inspection of apples. They do not feel that they are being treated in the same manner as are other producers who do not have to pay an inspection fee. It is my information, and I feel I am voicing the sentiments of the apple industry of Ontario, when I say that the department, particularly when the inspection is compulsory, should either indicate a nominal charge or eliminate the inspection charge altogether, and place the fruit growers on the same basis as the honey producers, or some other producers. Hon. members know perfectly well, as do the officers in the Department of Agriculture, that in the last few years the apple growers have had plenty with which to contend, without being penalized, as they feel they have been, by an inspection fee for compulsory inspection.


Robert Weir: These charges have been made, so I am advised, at the request of the industry itself. When there is any sufficient representation made objecting to the charge such representation will be given full consideration.


William Alexander Fraser: I appreciate the minister's reply as it concerns associations of fruit growers. I have followed the proceedings during the last few months of the committee of the apple growers' associations in the province of Ontario, and if it is the minister's impression that the apple growers of Ontario, and I might enlarge that territory to take in British Columbia and Nova iScotia, are satisfied with the inspection fee, particularly when other products are not penalized to the same extent, I am afraid his impression is entirely erroneous. I would like the minister to assure the committee that consideration will be given to eliminating the fee or that it will be used to advance the interests of the fruit growers throughout the dominion.


Robert Weir: I have already stated that consideration will be given.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would again direct
attention to the fact that under section 1, the short title, the discussion has wandered very far afield. It appears to me that it would be much more orderly to pass this section and then proceed with the other sections.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: We can
discuss the whole principle on the title, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. ILSLEY:: My understanding of the
rules, Mr. Chairman, is that the principle of the bill can be discussed on the short title. There are a few questions I would like to ask on the principle of the bill. Some of us who have to attend the many special committees of this house have to take such opportunity as presents itself for asking questions on measures in which we are particularly interested.
The first question is, was this bill in its present form presented to the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association, and was it approved in its present form by that body?
My second question is, what situation was the act drafted to meet? What particular abuses is it designed to remedy? What particular change in principle is there between the Fruit Act presently existing and the act as sought to be amended?
If I may be permitted to put all my questions at once, although they are somewhat un-
Fruit and Honey Act

related, my third question is in reference to the fees for fruit inspection. Is it correct, as intimated by my colleague from Northumberland (Mr. Fraser), that apples are the only agricultural commodity for which the producer is charged an inspection fee? If that is correct, then I submit as my colleague from Northumberland has so forcibly done, that that situation should be remedied. The minister has said that no representations have been made by the industry itself to the effect that inspection fees should not be charged, but I am confident that in the province of Nova Scotia there is the impression that we are being treated as regards apples as are the producers of other commodities, and if the fruit growers of the province of Nova Scotia felt that the producers of other agricultural commodities were receiving their inspection at government expense, wthile the producers of apples are having their apples inspected at their own expense, the minister would be overwhelmed with protests in a very short time. As the member for a constituency which is vitally interested in the production and exportation of fruit. I should like the minister to answer these questions.


Robert Weir: This bill in practically its present form was presented to the fruit growers of Nova Scotia, and I believe that a copy was also mailed to every member whose name was submitted to the department. There have been one or two minor changes in the bill since, but they are quite minor, and they have been endorsed by the Canadian Horticultural Council at a meeting here with representatives of the fruit industry from, I believe, each province.
In the main this is a revision of the Fruit Act which has been in force for some thirty years, in order to bring it more into line with modern practices in the industry. Apples are not the only commodity which pays a fee for inspection. Within the last two years, at least, the vegetable growers, the turnip growers of Ontario, specially requested that they be allowed to have their vegetables inspected. Vegetables are inspected as well as apples. It is also true that an inspection fee is charged for seed grain inspection. The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard) reminds me that there is also an inspection fee charged the wool growers. There is also a fee charged for potato inspection and grape inspection. Personally I think the sound thing would be to have each industry pay for its own inspection. That leaves the industry in an advantageous position to ask for any extension or improvement of the inspection. I

agree that if it is sound for one industry, it should bo the same for all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The minister's answer is satisfactory so far as it goes, but, on the vital matter of the principle of the bill he has scarcely answered my question. He said the bill was being passed to meet the practices in the industry as they exist to-day. My impression of the bill was that its main object was to eliminate rigidity of regulation. I understand that various matters which before were dealt with by legislation are now to be dealt with by regulation and that the minister has power to alter the regulations from time to time, maybe from day to day, as he may see fit. Is that the essential and central principle of the bill?


Robert Weir: I regret, Mr. Chairman, if I omitted answering certain parts of the questions asked by my hon. friend. I would suggest that if one question were asked at a time it might facilitate the work of the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was simply trying to shorten it.


Robert Weir: Power is being given to the minister to make regulations where it is felt by the producers as a whole that there should be greater flexibility to deal with situations that arise, such a situation, for instance, as arose in Nova Scotia two years ago, when the second last crop of apples suffered in a big windstorm which knocked down much of the fruit. I stated when this bill was introduced that as long as I held this position, regulations or any changes in them would be submitted to the industry for its approval.
Another change in principle, and this has been almost universally requested, is that brokers, commission agents and dealers, should be licensed and bonded for the protection of the producers.
Another change, perhaps not altogether in the principle, but to a certain extent it is because it comes under the heading of grading, is that fruit that is not fit for consumption cannot be offered for sale except to cider mills or otherwise where it will not come directly into human consumption without being processed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the minister tell the committee whether there is any other agricultural commodity the inspection of which is compulsory, as in the case of apples for export, where the producer is compelled to pay the cost of the inspection, and if so what?

Fruit and Honey Act


Robert Weir: The following are the commodities that are subject to compulsory inspection:	(a) All apples, plums
and pears exported from Canada; (b) All grapes moving from Ontario to any other province; (c) All fruit from British Columbia to any other province; (d) All potatoes and turnips from Prince Edward Island; (e) All potatoes and turnips from New Brunswick;
(f)	All fruit and vegetables from Ontario;
(g)	All fruit and vegetables from British Columbia.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Can the minister give the
list of commodities inspected by the government free to the producer?


Robert Weir: I cannot offhand,
but I shall be glad to submit that information.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That constitutes the great
bulk of agricultural commodities.


Robert Weir: No the grain growers pay for the inspection of their grain by a levy, and grain is a very large item, perhaps the largest single item in agricultural products in the export trade. Seeds and hay also pay for their own inspection.


William Alexander Fraser: In discussing the principle of this measure the minister made a reference a few minutes ago, when explaining how the bill was drafted, to the Canadian Horticultural Council. Does the minister consider the Canadian Horticultural Council a representative instrument of the fruit growers?


Robert Weir: I should say, from
the information available to myself, yes. I know personally a number of those who are members of the Canadian Horticultural Council and my understanding is that they are active apple producers and fruit farmers.


William Alexander Fraser: I am
very glad to have that reply from the minister because my information, from my dealings and association with the fruit growers and the officials of the Canadian Horticultural Council, is exactly the same as the minister's. I would therefore ask the minister, in view of the fact that this is practically a wide open act so far as specifications and grades are concerned, whether the regulations and changes involved in the sections of the bill will be submitted to the Canadian Horticultural Council, and whether the fruit branch will be guided by the advice of that body.


Robert Weir: The regulations will be submitted to the Canadian Horticultural Council as well as to any other representative
fruit growers' association in the dominion, and the branch will no doubt be guided by their recommendations.


William Alexander Fraser: Referring again to the official body known as the Canadian Horticultural Council, representing the fruit and vegetable growers, and affiliated industries, I would ask the minister this question. When considering the continued application of the inspection fee, which I take it from the minister's remarks is the intention of his department, will he take into consideration the advisability, if that fee is levied for these inspection charges, of contributing at least a part of the fee to the Canadian Horticultural Council or to any other established or acknowledged representative body of fruit growers, to assist their work in the interests of the fruit growers?


Robert Weir: I have already stated that any representations made with reference to the charge of a fee wil be given every consideration.


William Alexander Fraser: With
reference to the clauses generally of this bill, and particularly section 3, which provides that the minister may from time to time make regulations enumerated in the bill, may I point out that in the past, as a result of the issuing of regulations at an inconvenient time, the fruit growers have been placed in. an unfortunate position. On August 19, 1933, an order in council was passed changing the grade, after some of the crop had been sold. I mention this fact only for the purpose of eliminating in the future any possibility of these regulations being made at a date too late to enable the fruit growers to change their methods in order to comply with the new regulations. Again, changes might be made too late to allow of the change in package dimensions or something of that kind. Naturally-and I say this with all due respect-the officials of a department cannot keep in close touch with the particular industries with which the department is concerned, and unless intimation is made from time to time, and in time to take care of the necessary changes that may be involved, to the official body representing the fruit growers, the same condition may arise in the future as arose in 1933 in connection with the order in council of August 19.


Robert Weir: That is a very fair request.


William Alexander Fraser: I am merely trying to point out the difficulties which we have encountered in the past in the industry.
Fruit and Honey Act


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I have no objection to the fruit growers getting all the advantage possible in their industry, but I am interested in the fruit consumer, because if the fruit grower is going to make a success of his business, his fruit must be consumed. The minister said a few moments ago that a draft of the bill had been in the hands of the fruit growers associations and the horticultural council. Has he taken into full account, the interests of the consumers of fruit? I think he will appreciate the importance of this, living as he does on the prairies where we do not grow much fruit but should like to consume some. This bill I understand empowers the department to make regulations, and it sets out those regulations. Now, with regard to apples, so far as western Canada is concerned, a year or so ago the freight on bulk apples was increased to the prairie farmers, although that was about the only way that we could get apples; we depended upon shipments in bulk. The farmers on the prairies are not looking for great big red Mackintoshes or anything like that; they simply want good apples, and if this bill is going to make regulations in regard to packing and grade, whereby the farmer will not be able to buy the fruit which he has been accustomed to get in bulk, it will be unfair to him. I hope therefore that the minister has given the consumers every possible consideration. As regards honey, perhaps the minister would answer this question. Can a man who keeps bees produce honey and put it on the market without being licensed, even if the honey he produces is exported through an agency of some kind? Of course, he generally puts his name on the container. Will he be allowed to go on producing honey without a licence?


Robert Weir: He would require a licence if the honey is exported.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Can the minister assure me that he has taken the interests of the consumers of fruit fully into consideration in this bill?


Robert Weir: Yes, I believe so. One of the changes, in principle, made in this bill is to prevent, as in the past, the shipment in bulk in cars of fruit not fit for conshmp-tion. It would appear that in some cases, merely because there was no other market, fruit of low quality would be shipped in bulk, particularly to the western provinces. The enforcement of this legislation will prevent such a condition occurring, in that no fruit may be offered for sale in bulk or otherwise unless it is fit for human consumption.
TMr. W. A. Fraser.]


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But it may be offered
for sale in bulk if it is in proper shape.


William Alexander Fraser: In view of the questions by my colleague, I should like to go on record as saying in connection with this legislation that as regards the interests of the consumer as well as the producer, the clauses of the bill will improve the position of the consumer, assuring him of getting suitable apples, apples that are fit for human consumption, instead of those, as the minister has pointed out, that have been shipped in the past and that have been found not fit for human consumption. I should like to go one step further for the information of my colleague. So far as the apple business is concerned, the consuming public of Canada have available practically every year large quantities of good Canadian apples from the Okanagan, the Annapolis valley, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, at prices that have not paid the producer the cost of production.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That is not the case
when the apples reach us.


William Alexander Fraser: I am
speaking now in connection with the effort on the part of the department to improve the position of the fruit producer as well as to protect the consumer. I might go just one step further and say that the clauses of the bill as now drafted will not in any way increase the cost of apples but will be an asset to the consuming public of Canada for the reasons I have given, by protecting them against shipments of apples that should never be offered for sale, in addition to the fact that the very placing on the eastern as well as the western markets of those apples to which the minister has referred has given the Canadian consuming public a basis for condemning Canadian grown apples. This measure will have the effect of placing Canadian produced apples in at least an equal position1 so far as quality and grades are concerned with apples imported1 from New Zealand and other parts of the world.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I hope the hon. member did not gather the impression that I was trying to cast any reflection upon the apple and other fruit growers. That was not my intention. But the fruit grower is a human being and if all these measures in regard to his industry that have been presented to the commons were presented to him first for his approval, it would be only natural for him to take a little advantage if that were possible. I spoke just to try to see that the man who is not able to produce fruit

Fruit and Honey Act
and who may be eight, nine or twelve thousand miles away from where he can get an apple, would be fully protected and would be able to eat one once in a while.


William Alexander Fraser: I do
not wish to take up any further time, but I feel justified in stating in answer to my colleague that unless a catastrophe occurs, there is and will be for many years in Canada, an over production of apples and competition and volume of production will eliminate any possibility of exploitation of the Canadian consuming public by way of the price of apples.


Mr. NEILL:: As the whole of this discussion has been out of order for the last hour, perhaps I may also fall in line. We have wandered far afield; we have gone even to section 36, which is in part HI of the bill and we are supposed to be discussing the title. This, however, does not matter to me so long as I receive an equal privilege. I should like to ask the minister-and he has already in part answered the question-why he thought it necessary by clause 3, which we have not yet reached, to take out of the act the grades and to put them into the hands of Lis officials to set by means of regulations. I know he has stated that the reason was to make the regulations more flexible, but that argument does not hold if we look up the old act, because under section 5 it gives him full power to deal with what might be called emergencies. What we should have in the act are the standard, the, so to speak, basic grades. I have often spoken of and have noticed for many years the ever-growing attempt, too often successful, of departmental officials to take power away from the House of Commons and lodge it in their own hands. The way it is done is by means of taking these regulations, grades and forms out of the act and putting them by regulation under the power of departmental officials. A prominent official said to me a few weeks ago-and to prevent misunderstanding I may say that he is not associated with the Department of Agriculture-"You fellows in the house think you are running Canada, but you are not; it is run by officials and regulations and orders in council." It was only last year or the year previous the same minister introduced similar legislation taking grades of hay and straw out of the act and putting them under regulations. I received no satisfactory answer as to why that was done except that it suited the convenience and autocratic powers, perhaps, of the departmental officials.
Why should we want these grades in the act? One reason is that we would have a 74726-112
say as to what the grades should be. It is more than possible that so far as the bill before us now is concerned, the grades are in the minds and possibly on the desks of the officials. We might not agree to those grades, but we do not know what they are and we can only guess at them. The minister says that the act has been submitted to fruit conventions by which I suppose he means conventions of gruit growers, but they did not know what the regulations to be prescribed will be, and it would be selling their rights for a mess of pottage to give the officials full power. I notice when the minister introduced the act, he said that it had been presented to every fruit convention in the last twelve months, but to-day it appears that it is in the last six months, which is quite a different matter. As I say, however, we want these grades in some place where the common people can get at them. It is all very well for the fruit growers in the Niagara peninsula or in the Okanagan valley of British Columbia; they are in districts where the industry is concentrated in raising various kinds of fruit; an inspector is handy and he can give the grades and grade the fmit. But I am speaking of more distant places where people are engaged in a small way in fruit raising. A member of parliament has a copy of the act and he can tell the small grower what the regulations are, or a lawyer will have a copy of the act and it is readily available. But if the grades are contained in the regulations, some man may come to me and say: "What kind of blankety-blank thing have you placed in the act? It means so-and-so to me." All I can reply is that I do not know what it is; I shall have to write to Ottawa and get a reply. That will take a fortnight, and possibly longer. For that reason we should have the grades embodied in the act. We are told that the reason for the change is for flexibility in an emergency, but if that is what the minister wants, it was dealt with under the old act. Why not put the standard, the basic grades in this bill?


Robert Weir: The request to
make this change came from the fruit growers themselves. They felt that if occasion did arise for changing the grades, after submission to them.-as to which we have given our assurance-it could be done without delay. True, as the hon. member states, in the case of emergency we have power to do that. But I think we all agree that the people who are most concerned about this matter are the producers, and that they, at these meetings, are in the best position to give the question consideration, bringing their prac-

Fruit and Haney Act

tical experience to bear upon it. They have requested very strongly that the grades be taken out of the act and power be given to the department to change them or to set up new grades.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister think that the utter absence of stability is a desirable thing? As one member said, it might be changed in a day or a week. It takes nearly a fortnight to get word to the outlying places. Is it wise that the possibility should exist that at their whim two or three officials, or someone claiming to know all about it, or some horticultural society-my hon. friend to the right seemed to have some doubt about their ability-may get to the minister and have something railroaded through, and then it be discovered afterwards that it is not satisfactory? Meanwhile a lot of fruit has already gone on the market under the previous conception of grades.


Robert Weir: Allowance is made for cases such as those to which the hon. member refers; anything that has gone forward under a grade is allowed to be sold, even though the grade is changed.


Alan Webster Neill: Look at the complications
involved.


William Alexander Fraser: May I
ask when the specifications under this new act will be issued?


Alan Webster Neill: When they feel like it!


Robert Weir: They are being
drafted now and will be submitted at the earliest possible date after the bill passes.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not before? Would it
not inspire confidence in this committee if the regulations were drafted before the bill passes, even if they are not put in the act, so that the members could satisfy themselves that they are satisfactory at least at the start?


Robert Weir: We feel that the
industry itself having requested that authority be given to set up standards outside the act, under the regulations, they have the best knowledge of rvhat is in the interests of the industry. It can only be in the interests of the industry if it is in the interests of the consumer, because the more the consuming public get what they want the more they will buy; it reacts very directly upon the producer. Before sending out our draft of these regulations we wish this bill to go through. We do not think it would be in order to send them out before. Also we wish the bill to get through at the earliest possible date so that it may be submitted to the provinces.
[Mr. n. Weir.)


William Alexander Fraser: I am familiar with what took place in the course of the deliberations of some of the fruitgrowers conventions and meetings of the Canadian Horticultural Council, and I appreciate the statement made by the minister, acquiescing in the decisions of these bodies. Yet I pointed out very strongly to the representatives of the fruitgrowers, and would like to repeat here, from my knowledge of the industry, that I am very much afraid that difficulties and complications are going to arise through the elimination of certain specifications at least in the act. That is my opinion, having as I said considerable knowledge of the industry. I suggest that the minister with his departmental officials should give serious consideration to the question whether it would not be better even at this date to have an amendment to the bill embodying some of the standard specifications, so that they will be known not only to the fruit-growers but to the consuming public, and be standard.


Mr. REID:: Is the present bill, with its many regulations, designed to take care of the marketing of all fruit, whether for domestic use or for export?


Robert Weir: All fruit. With reference to the statement of the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) I cannot agree that after the consideration that has been given to the drafting of this bill, for several months past and from one end of the country to the other, we could now consider changing the draft in such an important particular. Following the principle that has always been followed in connection with the Fruit Act, that all changes be submitted to the industry, it would necessitate months of delay, in fact it could not be dealt with before the next session of parliament.


William Alexander Fraser: I
appreciate the position and I wish the minister to understand that my purpose is to be of assistance, in the interests of the industry, not criticism or opposition, as far as these specifications are concerned. But I still feel that there are very strong reasons why these regulations should be embodied in the bill.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Power to make regulations.


Thomas Reid: The minister answered a
moment ago that this bill was designed to apply to fruit for domestic consumption as

Fruit and Honey Act
well as fruit exported, whether to another province or abroad. If that is the case I would point out that the enforcement of these regulations in the lower Fraser valley is likely to work a grave hardship on the farmers there. I know that the object of such legislation is to improve quality, so that only the best product shall reach the market. We have districts in Canada, such as the Okanagan, where they are engaged in growing fruits such as apples in great quantities, having large packing plants and so on. But in the Fraser valley the farmers are engaged largely in mixed farming, they grow a certain quantity of apples, not very great except in the Chilliwack valley, quite a lot of strawberries, some black currants, some raspberries, etc. which are marketed mostly in the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster. There is a market every Friday and the farmers come to that market with this locally produced fruit. Enforcement of these regulations there would cause difficulty and hardship. That is true for instance in connection with marking the containers, transportation, and the right given to inspectors to stop fruit coming in. Take also the clause by which it is provided that when fruit is held up the owner shall be notified by telegram; if these provisions are enforced in the Fraser valley grave hardship and loss of revenue will result to the small farmer, and I must register my protest. If these regulations are only to apply to fruit exported to another province or beyond Canada I see a good deal of merit in them, because of course we want to export only a first-class product.


Robert Weir: The matter has been given consideration and will not interfere with farmers in the lower Fraser valley, they will still be free to offer their own products for sale on the markets if in open containers. All that is required is that they shall have on the containers their name and address. That matter has been given every consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Offences.
Alan Webster Neill: I do not know where the minister got some of the information he gave a moment ago, but I certainly want to have it embodied in .this section, not merely stated by the minister, before it passes. I do not care whether this act has been approved from Halifax to Hongkong; this thing is wrong and is going to work a great hardship on the small mixed farmers. In answer to the hon. member for New West-
7472fi-112J
minster the minister said that provision had been made to allow the farmer to sell his produce provided it was in an open container, and so on. I will not be satisfied to pass this section as it now stands unless it embodies something more than the assurance of the minister. I do not wish to make any reflection upon the minister; I would take his word for anything in a private capacity, but I have a very vivid recollection of something that happened some years ago in connection with a bill dealing with soldier settlers. I asked the minister if it meant so and so, because I suspected that it might be read in a different way. He gave his word as a minister of the crown that it did mean so and so, and that appeared in Hansard. Six months later I produced that reference, demanding that the bill be interpreted in that way, and I was told by the very same department that they were not responsible for what the minister or anybody else said in the house; they were guided by the act. So I propose, for the moment at any rate, to be guided by what is in this section, which contains two vicious principles. The section reads:
No person shall transport, pack, or repack, advertise, display, offer for sale, sell or have in his possession intended for sale any fruit in closed or open packages-
Mark that.
-or in bulk, unless such fruit has been graded, packed, repacked, marked and inspected in accordance with the provisions of this act and regulations.
I will deal first with the question of transport. I am thinking of the small mixed farmer; I am not dealing with the great areas devoted solely to apples and so on. A farmer wishes to send a couple of crates of strawberries to the local grocer and he asks someone who is passing, "Will you take in these two crates of strawberries?" If the passerby says yes he is liable to a penalty of not less than $25 if the fruit has not been graded, packed and repacked in accordance with the act, and it must be inspected as well. It is utterly absurd to ask a man who may transport fruit in a small way to be responsible for the contents. If this goes through he will have to say, "I am sorry, but I cannot take that fruit unless you can prove to me that it has been inspected according to the act."
The other vicious principle is contained in the words "and inspected." I am going to move that those words be struck out. Here we have a small mixed farmer. I do not refer to those who deal only in apples, which are more or less a standard crop, the great bulk of which can be marketed at once. A farmer
Fruit and Honey Act

may get two or three hundred boxes of apples and then send for the inspector. I am referring to the farmer who grows strawberries, which do not ripen in one day or in two or three days and which cannot be held over and picked up all at once. Everyone knows strawberries must be picked day by day; the whole patch must be gone over and the berries that are ripe must be picked. The farmer may not ship more than two crates to-day and two more crates to-morrow, but he would be liable to a penalty of not less than $25 unless he had those berries inspected before they left his little five-acre farm. He might, with the greatest desire to obey the law, grade them, pack them, repack them and mark them; he might put his whole family pedigree on the box, but unless he has them inspected he may not sell them. He may be 150 miles away from an inspector. How is he to have that inspection done day by day? He may be selling only to his next door neighbour, but unless the berries are inspected he is liable to this penalty.
The minister says this bill has been referred to all these conventions. Yes, but these are the big growers, and it is possible to put over something even at a big convention. People do not always grasp the full meaning of these things. It is not the convention that will be held responsible for this bill; we will be held responsible when we go home. The hon. member for New Westminster said this will bring about chaos in his district, and to a smaller degree it will have the same effect in mine. We will have to explain why we kept silent and let this bill go through. I recall that many years ago in the British Columbia legislature we passed an act dealing with boiler inspection. There was only one man in the house who knew anything about it, and at the time he happened to be away. The rest of us put through the bill in great shape; we vied with each other in showing our ignorance. This gentleman turned up on the last day, when the bill was to go through, and picking up the bill in a rather casual manner he said, " This is a nice bill, but I do not see any provision for a safety valve." Someone said, " Look at section 6." He did so, but found that section 6 dealt with something else. Then he was referred to another section but that did not apply either. Finally he sat down saying, " It seems to me that hon. gentlemen do not know much about boilers." As a result the minister in charge hastily withdrew the bill, which had to be recast in accordance with the casual suggestion made by the man who knew all about the matter.
I only give that illustration to show that possibly conventions, which are not composed

of lawyers and which very often are in a hurry, do not always give due consideration to these matters. No doubt they were thinking of their own interests in the big districts where they have inspectors at their back doors, and perhaps they were not as well acquainted with the possibilities as they might have been. I propose to move an amendment to strike out the word "transport." It should not be an offence to transport the goods; the penalty should apply to the man who grows or offers the fruit for sale. I propose also to strike out the word "inspected" and to insert the word "and" before the word "marked." Surely if the grower does not comply fully with the law and sells the fruit when it has not been graded and properly packed, the responsibility is on him. The penalty also is excessive; formerly it was not more than $25 while now it is not less than that amount. I do not know why this change has been made;
I should like some information on that point. I move those two amendments, that the word "transport" be struck out in line 12 and that the words "marked and inspected" be struck out of line 16, and that the words "and marked" be substituted therefore. Then this part of the section will read:
-unless such fruit has been graded, packed, repacked and marked in accordance with the provisions of this act and regulations.
I submit that the minister might consider those amendments and perhaps let this section stand for the time being.


Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member for Comox-Alberni appears to see a great deal of difficulty in this section, but if he had read and considered the section as a whole I think perhaps he would have given it a different interpretation. The section reads:
No person shall transport, pack, or repack, advertise, display, offer for sale, sell or have in his possession intended for sale any fruit in closed or open packages or in bulk, unless such fruit has been graded, packed, repacked, marked and inspected-
Here is the important part.
-in accordance with the provisions of this act and regulations.
This is effective only in accordance with the regulations. A good deal of thought has been given this part of the bill with regard to meeting certain situations which we feel might be very detrimental to the fruit industry, especially in the movement of fruit from province to province or even within a province, in relation to the carrying of disease. So far we have been successful, and perhaps

Fruit and Haney Act
lucky; I believe there would have been a greater repercussion if some of the shipments that were sent out had not been caught by our inspectors. All that is meant is this: We do not know of any other way that will enable us to check the movement of fruit unless we can take the authority that is given here, and the fruit industry are as one with us in that connection. But provision will be made in these regulations, and we do not know any other way in which everything could be covered so as to exempt the small fruit farmer or any person marketing his products in open packages, or in the ordinary manner in which the small farmer markets his products, on the open market or otherwise. They will be exempt. This will be applicable only in accordance with the regulations which will be set out, and I can assure hon. members that the matter has been given a great deal of consideration. When the bill was before the committee on agriculture I can assure hon. members that this matter was the subject of a great deal of discussion, and those who were vitally interested agreed that it should stand as it is.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister's assurance is
very much to the point. Were he forever to remain in charge of the department I would ask no other assurance because I would take his word. Unfortunately, however, as I said when I was speaking previously, it is not what the minister says it means, but it is what some lawyer says it means a year later. There is no question that when it is stated in the section that one must not move or sell the product unless it has been inspected1-I admit the section contains the words " inspected in accordance with the provisions "-it will be so interpreted. The fact that the word used is " inspected," requires that it must be inspected in some shape, and according to the interpretation section the inspection could be done only by an inspector. The inspector may be situated one hundred and fifty miles away. The minister has said that it was impossible to use language which would take care of the conditions I have described. But if the human brain could conceive the provisions to be placed in the regulations it could also conceive similar language to be placed in the act. That is all I want. It is quite possible to draw up a provision which would state that the section would not apply to the small man who is selling direct to the consumer, or some language of that kind. Right at the moment I have not the exact wording in my mind. I am sure however that if the minister would put his mind to drawing up a section such as I have indicated I would be satisfied.
I have in mind a man who in the summer time, the holiday months, trying to make a few odd cents has his children put up a little stand on the side of the highway from which they sell fresh fruit at first hand, right from the orchard or berry patch to the passerby in a motor car. Unless some provision were made he would not be able to make those sales, because he would not have his stuff inspected. I do not see how one could make an order in council to say that something which has been ordered for inspection shall not be inspected, unless such exemption appears in the act.


Robert Weir: The section contains the words " inspected in accordance with the provisions of this act and regulations." The regulations will state that such cases as have been described will be exempt from inspection, and will set out those who shall be exempt.


Alan Webster Neill: The word " inspection " will not allow for such exemption.


Robert Weir: The regulation will set out when inspections shall take place. The hon. member mentioned the instance of people who wish to operate small stands at the sides of their farms for the sale of fruit. It was just such conditions as those which led us to use the language we have used, because there are so many questions which could arise. It is felt that the best way to prevent injury being done to such persons is to leave those in charge free to meet each exigency or each case as it arises.


Thomas Reid: I should like to draw to the minister's attention something which could and might arise when this bill comes into effect. It may be true, as the minister has stated, that through the regulations the small men will be cared for. I was pleased to note that he was aware that if the bill came into effect without such regulations a hardship would be worked on the farmers in the Fraser valley:	Last year in that section of the
province there were idle men who took their trucks, went up into the Okanagan valley and brought down No. 1 and other grade apples to the farmers' market. If this bill becomes law and no specific regulation is made these men might complain to the minister or to the deputy that the farmers who were coming in with their local produce of apples were not complying with the law. The minister knows, also, that it is almost impossible for us in the Fraser valley to compete in the apple business with the apple growers in the Okanagan valley, due to the fact that in the vicinity of Vancouver and in the Fraser valley the climate
Fruit and Honey Act

is a little too moist, with the result that the apple is not of as fine texture, and is more or less diseased due to excessive moisture. Last year these men brought apples from the Okanagan valley and sold them against the farmers' pack in the open market. I can imagine that they might complain to the minister and say that the farmers are not complying with the regulations, because they are not trasporting them properly, packing them properly or grading them properly. Unless some regulation is placed in the legislation I must join with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in stating that the legislation is not a good enough safeguard.


William Alexander Fraser: As I understand the situation, the word "inspected" does not imply that every shipment or every crate or package of apples has to be inspected.


Thomas Reid: The minister said it did.


William Alexander Fraser: I did not understand that to be the practice. I understood it to be a case of inspection if there is any reason for inspection, on account of the quality of the fruit.


Alan Webster Neill: Insert the words "inspected where called for by regulations" or something of that kind. Or, added to the end of the section could be the words "but so as not to interfere with local sales of small quantities." It cannot be gainsaid that when one says a thing must be inspected he cannot by regulation say that it does not have to be inspected. The words in the section are "ins-spected in accordance with.. ..regulations." The regulation can only qualify the inspection when it takes place. If it said "inspection when called for by regulation" it would be all right.


Mr. MARCEL:: I am interested in wild fruit, and I see in the interpretation clause the words "except wild fruit in respect of which no grades are prescribed." Section 4 however applies to any fruit. Why not put in the proviso "except wild fruit," or something like that.


Robert Weir: "Fruit" is interpreted by the act.


Charles Marcil: There is no interpretation of it in section 4.


Robert Weir: Fruit is set out in the beginning.


Charles Marcil: The interpretation clause
contains the words " except wild fruit- in respect of which no grades are prescribed," but section 4 states "any fruit."


Robert Weir: There is at present no grade set out for wild fruit.


Charles Marcil: There is no exception in
section 4.


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps the minister would
allow it to stand.


Mr. MICHAUD:: In view of the discussion which has taken place I should like to ask for some further enlightenment or explanation. I understand that inspection which will be required will have to be made in accordance with the rules and regulations which will be enacted under the provisions or the authority of section 4. Will these regulations and rules regarding inspection and sale be compulsory on the mixed farmer who grows apples or berries in the spring and fall, and who takes them from the orchard to the markets. I refer to the farmer who peddles them to the stores or other places in the vicinity. In the St. John valley of New Brunswick we have farmers who make it profitable to cultivate apples and take them in the fall of the year from the orchards to the markets along the St. John river, a distance of one hundred or one hundred and fifty miles. Will the inspection be compulsory on these people, or will it not?


Robert Weir: It will not.


William Alexander Fraser: I should like to ask one question in regard to section 4. May I give an illustration for the purpose of securing information from the minister? One of the largest fruit growers of Ontario has been accustomed to selling his apples on the trees at so much a barrel. The company to which he sells picks his crop and transports it a matter of twenty-five miles to their warehouse, where the apples are packed in hampers or barrels as the market demands. This man has written me asking how, under this clause, he can get over the regulation in connection with the transport of the crop from the orchard to the warehouse, twenty-five miles away. I have written him in reply, that in my opinion those apples would be subject to inspection when they were packed and offered for sale by the purchaser of his crop in the purchaser's warehouse. Is that correct?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Alexander Fraser: He was
afraid that he would not be permitted to have the crop trucked without a special permit.

Fruit and Honey Act


Alan Webster Neill: The case cited by my hon.
friend would certainly be covered by this section which says that no person shall transport fruit unless it has been inspected according to the regulations.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I wonder if I might make a few observations. The committee when this section was before them, hesitated for some time before passing it but we had the advantage of having the fruit commissioner with us and we had a thorough discussion of all the intricacies involved which this committee has not had. I have had some experience in passing and administering this kind of legislation, and I have found that you always have to have what seems to be a lot of unnecessary severity and a wide application of the law in order to make it generally applicable and cover all possible abuses, in order to catch those who want to get past the inspector and put poor goods on the market. It is better in the main to have the section or whatever it is apply generally, and then make your exceptions afterwards. It may not appear so to those who are not familiar with the administering of this kind of legislation, but that has been my experience. The agriculture committee after hearing the explanations that were given by the fruit commissioner and after hearing the minister, took the ground that it was better to have this section as it stands. There have been a great many abuses in the marketing of fruit in the past. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) has mentioned some of them, and as a buyer of fruit I have frequently run across such abuses myself. I think at this stage of our marketing experiences it is better that we should make our law pretty strict, and then by regulation make the exceptions for the small man. Producers are often exempted from the application of a general law applied to traders for sound and valid reasons. I have confidence in the fruit branch staff, knowing some of them, and I believe the minister has, and that is the reason he believes from his experience with the staff up to the present that they will be faithful and sanle in carrying out what will seem to some a severe law. If I had not this confidence myself I might feel exactly as my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) does, and I might want many things put in the act itself herein left to regulation. I used to think that way myself, but after wrangling over many pieces of legislation involving grading of almost every farm product I have come to the conclusion that it is best not to clutter up the
bill with almost interminable provisions only to end up in the committee of the whole house with a compromise bill which leaves you sometimes with a very poor piece of legislation after all. It is better to deal with the exceptions afterwards by regulation So while I understand the attitude of my hon. friend from Comox-Alfoemi, if he presses his amendment to a vote I shall have to vote for the bill as it stands. I should not like to have to do that because there is enough in what he says for me to suggest .to the minister that perhaps he might get together with the minister some of the other hon. members who have raised these objections with a view to getting something that would be mutually agreeable and that would not interfere too much with the purpose the minister and his staff have in mind. That would be my suggestion. I am prepared to support the bill as it is if there is any vote but I prefer not to have to do that if it can be avoided.


William Alexander Fraser: Following the remarks of my hon. friend from Melville with regard to the administration of the fruit branch, I should like to say that with the exception of February last when somebody in the branch tried to be funny in answering questions I put on the order paper my experience in dealing with the officials of that branch has been very satisfactory. I think that the hon. members who have taken exception to the phraseology of clause 4 can rest assured that the officials of the fruit branch in conjunction with the industry and the consuming public have only one objective, and that is to regulate the handling of fruit in Canada in the interests of the three branches of the industry and the consuming public. Like my hon. friend from Melville I am quite prepared to support this bill in its present form, having confidence in the officials of the fruit branch and knowing their conscientious anxiety to help the industry in every possible way. That has been our experience-I am speaking of the fruit growers-with the fruit branch. I have no doubt that this act as presented to this committee will be administered by the fruit branch to the satisfaction of everybody just as they have performed their administrative duties in the past. The only fear in my mind has been the point I have brought up. They may under certain conditions, owing to recommendations that have been made by fruit associations in different parts of the country, feel it is necessaiy for them to put into force
Fruit and Honey Act

regulations under this bill either too soon or too late to suit the conditions of the industry. I am satisfied, however, that if the fruit branch will keep in touch with all branches of the industry and keep well informed, as they generally do, we shall have no difficulty under this bill as it now stands.


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. member for Melville and the hon. member for Northumberland are going to desert me perhaps I had better withdraw my amendment. If they prefer to deal in trust and hope and faith and charity as compared with the strict letter of the law, that is their privilege. For my part, a long experience has taught me to fear God and trust no man, and I much prefer to see what I want put in the act, rather than trusting to the good judgment and fair-mindedness of somebody else. If I withdraw the amendment does not the minister think he might meet me to this extent, that after the word "inspected" he might put in a word or two to convey the idea "when or if the inspection is required by the provisions of this act and regulations." I would say to the hon. member for Melville that if it is possible to put suitable language into a regulation it should be possible to put it into an act.


William Richard Motherwell: There is this difference, that you have to wait for another amending act of parliament to change the act if changes are found desirable and that would take a year probably to do, while frequently you want changes in mid-season to suit the vagaries of the weather and changes in the type and quality of the fruit. Regulations therefore can be changed at any time of the year, and that is why they are much more serviceable to those whom we are trying to serve, mainly the consumers and the producers.
I might make another observation to overcome one of the difficulties that might otherwise arise. In no case should a copy of the Fruit Act be sent out to an applicant who requests it unless a copy of the regulations is nailed right on to the act as a part of it. If that is not done you will have this difficulty and misunderstanding multiplied by hundreds. I would make it so that the regulations could not be separated from the act. I suggested in the committee that the enabling legislation passed by the various provinces concerned should also constitute part of this law; that is to say, the law should be in triplicate: the act itself, the regulations, and the enabling legislation of the provinces. That would get over a good deal of the difficulty. We seem to be buying a pig in a poke, though we are not really doing so.
[Mr. W. A. Fraser.1
Mr. "WEIR (Melfort): I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Melville has brought this point to the attention of the committee. It is the intention that the regulations and the act will be included in the same pamphlet or publication.


William Richard Motherwell: That is good. I remember they used to be separate and the two would get separated and one might be lost.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister's remarks as they appear in Hansard be embodied in it so that people will know what it means?


Robert Weir: The substance of it.


Alan Webster Neill: Does not the minister think that he could see his way to put in the words I suggested, "when and if?"


Robert Weir: We will give it consideration.
Amendment withdrawn.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall the section carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No; it stands.


Robert Weir: I do not think anything would be gained by allowing the section to stand. I have stated that the regulations sent out will be published with the act, and that should be sufficient. If any extra words would help we shall be glad to consider them. I do not wish the committee to think that I am over-anxious not to receive any amendment such as has been proposed, but my concern is to get the measure through as quickly as possible so that the provinces may have it this coming week.


John Campbell Elliott: I happen to come from a riding in which a great deal of excellent fruit is produced, and I understand that the act as presented was passed upon by the Ontario fruit growers at their convention. I have a great deal of regard for any suggestion coming from the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, but I submit that, unless he is very warmly wedded to the suggestion he makes, the more nearly the committee keeps to the act approved by the fruit growers the better it will suit, at any rate, the Ontario district that I represent, because I know that they gave it a good deal of consideration at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 13 inclusive agreed to.

Fruit and Honey Act
On section 14-carelessly destroying fruit, etc.
Alan Webster Neill: I call the attention of the minister to this section:
Every person who carelessly handles, destroys or pilfers any fruit in the process of packing or handling in transportation, warehousing or otherwise, shall be guilty of an offence.
The penalty used to be not more than $25, but now, under section 20, it is provided that the penalty for a first offence shall be a fine not exceeding $50 and not less than $25. That is too drastic for any very trivial offence. This is not a matter of fraud or the misrepresentation of grade, or trying to put anything over the public; the offence might consist merely in careless handling. Who has not carelessly handled fruit? A man may get a contract to truck fruit to be taken twenty-five miles away and while loading it, a pretty girl comes round the corner and his attention is momentarily diverted; one of the boxes falls and a corner is broken. The man has no opportunity to evade punishment even for a first offence and the minimum fine is not less than $25. I suggest that this is out of keeping with the penalty imposed for any ordinary offence such as careless handling. I believe it is the experience in all criminal jurisprudence that severe penalties do not lead to the enforcement of law but rather to the evasion of it, because the magistrate, who is generally a decent man, will not impose a heavy penalty as a minimum, and rather than do that he will let the defendant off. Moderate penalties should be resorted to. I will not put the point to a vote, but I would ask the minister why he thinks it necessary to double the penalty that was formerly imposed.


Robert Weir: This was one point on which there was no difference of opinion in the recommendations of any of the associations. They were all of one mind, that because of the lightness of the penalty as it existed it was not a sufficient deterrent to offences.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
On section 17-Powers of inspectors.
Thomas Reid: How many inspectors will be
appointed under the act?


Robert Weir: A total of 344 were employed under the existing act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Detention of fruit and notice.
Mr. STIRLING:: I move that the word
"immediately" be inserted before the word "notify" in line 13. With the present wording it might be that the inspector might allow several days to elapse before notifying, and it is desirable that he should do so immediately.


William Richard Motherwell: That was agreed to in the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 19 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On section 22-Offences against sections 4 to 15.
Alan Webster Neill: This is another example of
the take him out and hang him business. For any offence connected with this act, however trivial, the fruit may be placed in detention at the expense of the owner, or forfeited to His Majesty and destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the minister directs. One could understand it if the fruit were unfit for human consumption, or if there were any misrepresentation in regard to grade. But that is not the provision; it applies to any offence, however trivial: it refers to all fruit in respect of which any offence has been committed. That, might apply to offences under section 14, where the fruit had been carelessly handled on the truck. An offence is committed in respect of it and under clause 23 the fruit may be forfeited to His Majesty. Why should it be forfeited to His Majesty and what is the provision for doing so? Is the inspector once again to have the power to do this just on his mere say-so, or is there provision for going before a court and ordering the forfeiture? These words mean nothing and should not be in the clause or else there should be provision for proper, legal forfeiture. It is very drastic to say that for any offence, however trivial-and it may be a most casual one-the whole consignment may be or shall be forfeited to His Majesty. The word used is "shall." I should like an explanation of that.


Robert Weir: Section 23 is to enforce the observance of the act from the time the shipment leaves the producer until it reaches the consumer. Perhaps too much emphasis has been laid on any offence, no matter how trivial. I have no doubt any offence will be given the same consideration that has been given in the past in the
Fruit and Honey Act

interpretation of the spirit of the act. For example, during the past year we have been particularly fortunate in the work of our inspectors with reference at least to one matter and that is inspection in connection with the apple maggot.	In the United
Kingdom where there is great concern about the danger of this apple maggot being imported and becoming a menace to the fruit growers there, they have been very careful in checking up on all shipments going forward. As regards the result of the work done by the inspectors in Canada during 1932-33, the figures are as follows:
Number of paid inspections	 26,681
Reinspections asked for	 [DOT][DOT]	245
Reversals in the inspection certificate. 16
That is of grade. The percentage of reversals over the total number of inspections was -06.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of having sufficient teeth in this legislation so that there will be no inducement for any person to try to evade in any way the provisions of the act. That is why we have had to insert the privilege of entering for inspection any type of transport and the provision that no transport, rail, truck or otherwise, may accept fruit unless it is covered by these inspection certificates. The producers' associations insisted that such a penalty be incorporated as would prove a decided deterrent to infractions of the act.


Alan Webster Neill: The attitude of the minister sems to be that the legislation is very drastic but it will be enforced in a manner less drastic than called for by it.


Robert Weir: I admit that it is Irastic. They wish it to be drastic.


Alan Webster Neill: I wonder whether the people vho agreed to that fully grasped the meaning of these words:
Or shall be forfeited to His Majesty.
Would the minister ask his colleague the Minister of Justice how that will be interpreted? Will the inspector do the forfeiting, or will there be provision for going before a court? It will be recalled that the same question came up the other day on the Meat and Canned Foods Act. The section was withdrawn and I understand it is to be replaced by providing that confiscation may take place on the order of two magistrates. Will that apply in this case, or is it just to be the inspector who shall have power to come along, wave his hand and say that the goods will be forfeited?


Robert Weir: No, after conviction.


Alan Webster Neill: But that is not in the legislation. I really must draw the line in continually accepting the minister's assurance. Surely provision should be made in the legislation that forfeiture shall be only after conviction and after such forfeiture is ordered by a competent court. As the clause reads now, it means either nothing or too much.
On section 23.-Detention of fruit.


Grote Stirling: With regard to section
23 I beg to move:
That in line 29 the word "shall" be struck out, and the words "after conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction may" be inserted instead.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does
not the word "conviction" there relate back to the word "owner" in line 27? Should it not be " after a conviction "? It has to read " or may after conviction," I understand. The conviction is against the owner.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The owner is the only
one mentioned in the section, is he not? Perhaps it should be "after conviction of the owner."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,
that makes it quite clear.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I ask the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Guthrie) if that makes it clear that the court will do the forfeiting, not the inspector?


Hugh Guthrie: It cannot be forfeited
until there is a conviction. The forfeiture will follow the judgment of the court. Then the subsequent destruction or disposition is in the hands of the minister. He can give it to a hospital or use it himself.


John Campbell Elliott: Is the Minister of Justice
adding anything to this section by the amendment?
All fruit and all fruit packages in respect of which any offence against this act or regulations is committed . . .
Nobody knows whether it is committed or not until after the conviction.


Hugh Guthrie: It was only to clear up
the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that there could not be any forfeiture until after a conviction, that the words were added.


John Campbell Elliott: It is not clarifying it, it
is making possible two constructions.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.

Fruit and Honey Act
On section 20-Head packers.
William Alexander Fraser: Relative to clause 20 I would like to ask what the purpose is or what the department has in view in connection with the registration of foremen or head packers?


Robert Weir: The request for that was quite general, I believe, and particularly from Nova Scotia. They thought that by licensing the foreman packer responsibility could be fixed, and it would improve the quality of their pack.
Mr. FRASER. '(Northumberland): Is it then the intention to vest in the head packer any authority of inspection?


Robert Weir: No.


William Alexander Fraser: I ask that because one of the Ontario fruit associations has, I believe, approached the provincial department in connection with just this sort of thing with another object in view, that is that they would have available on the premises an official inspector. I want to guard against any possibility of division of authority between the handler and your department.


Robert Weir: That would defeat its own purpose, I should think.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Section 20 does not impose any restriction upon the employment of unregistered packers, does it?


Robert Weir: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It merely authorizes the preparation of a book here in Ottawa in which the names will be written.
Sections 24 to 36 inclusive agreed to.
On section 37-Regulations.


Thomas Reid: Will this bill conflict with the provincial regulations? Am I right in assuming that the regulations contained in this bill are for the sole purpose of regulating the grading of honey for export only, not for home consumption?


Robert Weir: There are no provincial regulations with regard to the grading of honey, I am informed. This grading will only be compulsory for export out of Canada.


Thomas Reid: I think this section should be more specific, because the explanation says that the purpose of this part HI is:
to establish classes and grades for all Canadian honey shipped from the province in which it is produced to any other province or out of Canada;
But subsection (a) reads:
to provide for the classification of honey . . .
I think the words "for export" should be added there to make it clear that what is being classified is honey for export.


Robert Weir: Within the province it is optional. We expect there will be a demand to have it made compulsory, once the people see the advantage of it.


Thomas Reid: Reading the section right
through, subsection (b) says "intended for export." From subsection (c) those words are omitted. I claim those words should be inserted in that subsection, it should read "all containers in which honey 'for export' shall be packed." . . . Then you find the words "for export" in the other clauses until you come to (i). If it is the design of the bill that it shall relate to honey for export that should be specifically stated in every clause. Why are those words in some clauses and not in others?


Grote Stirling: I beg to move that section 37, subsection (c), be amended by inserting the words "for export" after the word " packed."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 38 and 39 agreed to.
On section 40-Registration.
Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister explain
what is meant by the assembling of honey, and also how the registration is to take place?


Robert Weir: The purpose of this section is to provide that the individual who may assemble honey from different farmers will have to be licensed so that it will be possible to check up, if any complaint is made, as to whether the sources from which he secured his honey are supervised to ensure proper sanitary conditions.


Alan Webster Neill: It would not apply to a
shipping broker?


Robert Weir: He would be an
exporter, I should say.


Alan Webster Neill: And how does the registration take place?


Robert Weir: This applies to
the man who collects honey from the various farmers.


Alan Webster Neill: How is the registration to be carried out? Does the man apply to someone, or what is the procedure?
177S
Fruit and Honey Act


Robert Weir: This is done also
by regulation.


Thomas Reid: Will this affect the ordinary
apiarist who has enough honey of his own to export?


Robert Weir: Yes. It is just
a matter of form, getting the registration or the licence.


William Richard Motherwell: Will this honey be assembled at the usual points of export, as has been the case during the voluntary grading, that is, at Montreal and Saint John, or will it be assembled on the Pacific coast also?


Robert Weir: The inspection will take place at any of the various warehouses where it is assembled.


William Richard Motherwell: In the interior
also?


Robert Weir: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.
Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall I report the bill?


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: I was
called out a moment ago, and I was particularly interested in section 18. I wonder if that section was amended.
Bill reported.



DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No.
38,	to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No.
39,	to amend the Destructive Insect and Pest Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No.
40,	to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agreulture and colonization.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Tummon in the chair.
European war-naval, militia and air forces after the war-$42,000,000.
Mr. RALSTON:: The minister is aware of the discussion which has already taken place with regard to the action of the board of pension commissioners in making deductions from or completely suspending pensions of pensioners in cases in which it was considered there had been some irregularity as to marriages, or where proof of marriage had not been sufficiently established. A short time ago a statement was made in the house by the Prime Minister to the effect that pensions were being paid, and that a review was taking place. Would the minister make a statement as to the nature of the review which is taking place, and the proceedings going forward with regard to settling the merits of the cases and rights of the pensioners?


Murray MacLaren: The reviews as carried on by the pension commission began on or about February 1, 1933. The amended Pension Act did not become operative until October 1. 1933. During that interval while the amendments to the act were not operative reviews were held regarding a considerable number of cases, without the application of the principles which were laid down in the amended act. That is to say, the cases concerned were not considered before quorums of the pension commission, and decisions were reached in those cases a,s a result of inquiries and completion of forms submitted to the men concerned. As a result, in some cases pensions were either cancelled or reduced. Had the amended Pension Act then been operative the procedure would have been different. It was laid down in the act that before these cases are considered the people interested shall have an opportunity of appearing before a quorum, and be given a hearing. Following that, decisions may be reached.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does
that section of last year's legislation apply to the marriage cases?


Murray MacLaren: I understand that it does. It is true that the hearings are held on the ground of basis of entitlement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was an omission made in last year's legislation.


Murray MacLaren: As these cases were then dealt with in a manner different from that which would have been followed had the act

Supply-Pensions-European War
been operative, and in a way which parliament had intended should be followed when the act became operative, it was felt that in conformity with the general principle of, shall I say, British justice, those who came under the present amendment, whether or not the act was actually operative, should have an opportunity to be heard. As the house is aware, that policy has been followed. As was announced in the house by the Prime Minister, the present position is that those cases which were dealt with between February 1 and October 1, 1933, should be restored to their former status, that such reductions, or amounts arising from such reductions or cancellations should be restored to all those whose hearings before quorums are pending. I understand that very largely the refunding has taken place. A considerable number of cheques were to be made out, and they have all been, or soon will be, refunded.
As to marriage cases I have this to say: There is a good deal of difficulty reaching decisions in such cases and the course which has been followed has been that they are referred to the Department of Justice. I do not know that all such cases have been forwarded, but I do know that either that has been done or they are being prepared for forwarding to that department. I do not know what the advice of the Department of Justice will be, but the pension commission will be advised. I understand that these irregular marriage cases may be classified in certain groups, and that decisions will be reached in accordance with the conditions formed in the different classifications. I have no definite information on that point. So far as I am aware the Department of Justice has not yet advised the pension commission in this connection. If there is any other point about which the hon. member would like to ask, I would be pleased to answer.


James Layton Ralston: The matter to which the minister first referred is not the particular classification I had in mind. However since he has opened the discussion we may as well deal with that angle of the matter. In section 5 of the act passed last year provision was made that pensions should not be cancelled or, due to a change in the basis of entitlement, before the pensioner was afforded an opportunity of appearing before a quorum of the commission. On that point I complain and complain very bitterly that notwithstanding the fact that that was in the act, simply because of the fact that the act was not proclaimed until October 1 the board of pension commissioners proceeded to review nearly 77,000 cases and cancelled or reduced many of them on the ground of a change in the basis of entitlement without any hearing of any kind. That complaint remains, notwithstanding the remedial measures which have been taken. That, it is true, was not in defiance of any act which was in force, but it is in defiance of the spirit of the legislation. I feel quite satisfied that the minister concurs in the idea which parliament had at that time, and that was from the time that this act was passed parliament accepted the principle that a change should not be made in pensions where the basis of entitlement was concerned without giving the man a hearing. The minister concurs, I think, in that principle. It was at least contrary to the spirit of the act that such a change should be made. That is one class of cases to which the minister has referred, but I am not dealing with that class at the moment. I understand from the minister that these pensions where a reduction or cancellation was made on the basis of a change of entitlement have been restored. Is that correct?
Mr. MacLARElN: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: To the full extent which existed before the review was made?


Murray MacLaren: So I understand. They have been either restored or are in the process of restoration. I think they have been restored, but there were a good many to deal with, and restoration proceeded at once after having been announced in the house. I would like to make this clear, without reflecting on the board of pension commissioners at all, that my view, as a non-legal man, is and has been that it was simply an act of justice that every man, whether in the end he was proved to be in error or not, should have the opportunity of having his case presented and being heard. That is the principle that is pursued in all our courts, that a man has the opportunity of being heard however clear apparently the case against him may be. That is a primary requisite. That has been my view and I am pleased to say that it is the course that is being followed to-day. It is an essential of justice that a man should have the opportunity of a hearing before his case is decided.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that the minister made known his views in that respect to the board of pension commissioners, did he not?


Murray MacLaren: That is the case, yes, and I think the correspondence will show it. What I should like to say about anything in
1780	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
the correspondence is that my views apply to all these cases of entitlement or irregular marriages. I drew no distinction because I thought the same principle applied to both. Naturally everything does not appear in the files because, as hon. gentlemen know, my offices are located in the same building and we find it advantageous to have discussions and conferences of which no record is kept.


James Layton Ralston: I presume the minister means by that, that in conferences as well as by correspondence he made known those same views to the board of pension commissioners.


Murray MacLaren: I made my views clear.


James Layton Ralston: That, as the minister says, applies to all cases-


Murray MacLaren: Except assessments,
naturally.


James Layton Ralston: Except assessments. Let me point out to the minister that as I understand it any reviews which are taking place are only reviews in connection with cases where there is alleged to have been a change in the basis of entitlement and pensions have been cancelled or reduced. Is that correct?


Murray MacLaren: I do not quite understand whether the application is to the first of February or to the present time.


James Layton Ralston: I am asking the minister whether the new reviews or the re-reviews which are taking place are in connection with all cases of assessment or are in connection only with cases where there is alleged to have been a change in the basis of entitlement.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 9, to incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic (as amended, and recommending that the title of the said bill be changed to "An Act to incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of England in Canada").-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 35, to amend the Criminal Code (Race Meetings).-Mr. Morand.

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
James Layton Ralston: Before six o'clock we were dealing with the procedure which was being adopted in connection with the re-reviewing of cases which had been reviewed by the board of pension commissioners at the instance either of the board or of the auditor general since February, 1933. I was asking the minister what steps were being taken to secure a re-review of the cases particularly dealt with in the proviso to section 5 of the consolidated Pension Act, that it the cases where the pension has been cancelled or reduced due to an alleged change in the basis of entitlement. By whom are those reviews being conducted, and what machinery is being provided to do the work?


Murray MacLaren: The pension commission consists of eight members divided into quorums usually of two., and as two members remain at headquarters, this means that three quorums are moving about the country hearing the cases. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


James Layton Ralston: I understand from the minister the review is being conducted by the members of the pension commission themselves.


Murray MacLaren: I am not now speaking of the reviews; I am speaking of the hearing of the cases. At the present time cases regarding entitlement are being heard before quorums. As I understand the matter, this is not a review.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps I misled the minister in using that term. I meant a re-review of cases which had already been considered and regarding which action had been taken.


Murray MacLaren: As regards the review of those cases which had been dealt with prior to October 1, they will be heard before quorums.


James Layton Ralston: That is to say, those
quorums which travel around will at regular sittings give notice to the pensioner to allow him an opportunity to come in and be heard as to the claim being made that his pension should be reduced.


Murray MacLaren: Let me put it in this way: Those cases that have been dealt with prior to October 1, 1933, that is which have

Supply-Pensions-European War
been dealt with without a hearing, will be heard. The pensions have been restored in the meantime. The men who are affected will be notified and their cases heard before a quorum.


James Layton Ralston: My difficulty in connection with that class of cases is this: The members of the Canadian pension commission are only human and, as the minister knows, the decision has already been made in connection with those cases. That is, deductions or cancellations have been made presumably on evidence which the board of pension commissioners consider to be sufficient. Does the minister think it is quite fair to the pensioners to refer them again to the same court? That is what I bring to the attention of the minister, and, as he knows, I have already called it to the attention of the government. The decision having already been made against the man and a reduction in pension having taken place, I feel he starts under a handicap, particularly as the restoration has been made not voluntarily by the board of pension commissioners but on account of an assurance given to the house by the Prime Minister. Is it quite fair to applicants to ask them to go before the same tribunal which has already decided their cases?


Murray MacLaren: I do not know how far
that point has been considered. I can quite understand it would be more suitable for those men to be heard before a different tribunal, although it consists of two members of the commission. It would be a fair procedure if those men were heard by a tribunal other than that which has already passed upon their cases. I wish to get this correctly. Those cases which have been dealt with were dealt with at headquarters here and no doubt that would involve only a certain portion of the commission because the men's cases were considered on their records here. I would think it could be readily arranged that those men when they had their hearings would come before a quorum which had not already given decisions from the records at headquarters. Have I made that clear?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: I do not know whether it might have happened that they were all present here at some time and took part, but I think it would be desirable so far as possible to arrange that the hearings which are to take place before the quorums in regard to those
men on whose cases decisions have already been taken, should be before members of the pension commission who had not taken part in the previous decisions.


James Layton Ralston: I agree with the minister as to that. I feel there is a good deal to be said for going further than that, that the fact that members of the same tribunal have made a decision, makes it a little more difficult for the applicant to reestablish himself, if I may use that expression, before brother members of the same court. I certainly agree with the minister that this is at least going part way and recognizing the principle in which I think he agrees with me, namely, that a man should not rejudge a case on which he has already formed an opinion and rendered a decision. That has to do with cases which were dealt with on the ground that there had been a change in the basis of entitlement. Has the minister the approximate figures of the number of cases in which reviews were made from February 1 to October 1, 1933, and where the pensions were either cancelled or reduced because of what was alleged to be a change in the basis of entitlement? How many cases are there in that particular class?


Murray MacLaren: While the figures are
being looked up, I might say that I am unaware of what the pension commission may have arranged in regard to these hearings. They may have already decided upon some procedure that they thought was the fairest that could be adopted. I am not aware of what was in their minds or what they proposed doing, but I shall see to it that this viewpoint is brought to their attention. I do not wish to imply that they are not already arranging for hearings in accordance with a similar method.


James Layton Ralston: I have not suggested
that.


Murray MacLaren: I know that. They
may have done so, because naturally as they administer all these matters, this does not come under my observation except casually or accidentally. I believe I made the return which answers the question put by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. The figure I have here is 1,420. Does that correspond-


James Layton Ralston: No, but I recognize that
figure. In the first place that has to do only with dependents' pensions, and in the second place it has to do as I understand not simply with pensions which were changed on the
17S2	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
ground of a different basis of entitlement, but pensions which were reduced because of a change in the rate of assessment. That is not the figure I asked for.


Murray MacLaren: I believe the figure is
1,003.


James Layton Ralston: I want to be sure about
that. I have that figure too; it was given me in sessional paper 123B as the number of disability cases in which pensions were reduced from January 1, 1933, to September 30, 1933. What I want to know is whether in all those cases they were reduced on the ground that there was a different basis of entitlement, or whether some were scaled down on the basis of there being a different degree of disability.
Mr. MacLAREiN:	I believe it was on the
basis of entitlement.


James Layton Ralston: Then can I take it that
all the 1,003 cases to which the minister refers, which are mentioned in this return, will be reheard by the Canadian pension commission under the assurance given by the Prime Minister, but not reheard by members who have already heard the cases here?


Murray MacLaren: My answer would be that they will be reheard, or opportunity given to have them reheard-for some of these men may not be found-and as far as possible reheard by others than those who have already adjudicated upon them. I can see a possibility that if all the commission were here and all took part in adjudicating on any cases, that would not be possible. I do not know, but I presume that was not the case. I think I can assure the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, as far as my representation would go, that these cases will be heard by a different personnel of the commission.


Mr. GEARY:: The new commission was
appointed some time in the autumn, I understand. A great many of these cases were ruled upon by what must have been the old board of pension commissioners. I think it would be quite simple to find out which members of that board heard the different cases.
Then it is entirely incorrect to speak of these as rehearings. These men have not had a hearing at all. Their pensions were cut down in the first place from the head office of the board of pension commissioners, and in the second place by the newly constituted body. I take it they are having a hearing for the first time. I think the minister will find that the great majority of these cases

were dealt with by the old board of pension commissioners. It would be a simple matter to let them know that it is the sense of this committee that they would be doing what they had no business to do if they undertook to hear these cases, after having once ruled upon them, ex parte as it were.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I quite
agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. I think all these 1,003 cases were decided by the board of pension commissioners, and it is also reasonable to assume that the chairman of the old board was one of the quorum of the board that decided the cases. I suggest very strongly that that chair-mam', who is now chairman of the Canadian pension commission, be not permitted by the department to take part in the adjudication of these cases. I think it would be very unfair. These are to be new hearings, as promised toy the Prime Minister. The men were not present before; the cases were heard in secret, and I suggest strongly to thie minister that the chairman of the old board, who is now chairman of the pension commission, do not adjudicate at the new hearings at which the pensioners are to be invited to be present.


Murray MacLaren: While the discussion was proceeding I overlooked this fact, that during the period we are speaking of there were only three members of the old pension board, perhaps with a medical adviser who was a member ex officio, making four. So as a matter of fact there would be only four at the most, which would leave the other four who could not possibly have dealt with any case, because they had not been appointed. That will make it all the easier to carry out the idea.


James Layton Ralston: I am putting this on
record for the use of the minister in dealing with this matter as he has suggested. He has mentioned the 1,003 cases in which pensions were reduced. Let me point out that that is only the number of disability cases in which pension was reduced. In addition there were 960 disability cases in which pension was cancelled.


Murray MacLaren: The figure I have in
my book is 690, but 960 may be right.


James Layton Ralston: There may have been a
transposition of figures in copying. Now in addition to those which are disability pensions, and, as I understand, disability pensions which were either reduced or cancelled because of alleged change in the basis of entitlement, there were 277 dependents' cases

Supply-Pensions-European War
in which pension was -reduced and 59 in which pensions were cancelled. So the grand total is, I think, 2,299 cases. I put that on record now so that the minister in checking up the matter with the Canadian pension commission can see to it that that number are given the opportunity to which he referred to-night. Will the minister correct me if I am wrong?-because I want to be sure about this. The minister's information is that all these pensions were altered on the basis of a change in entitlement?


Murray MacLaren: That is what I understand.


George Reginald Geary: Does the return which my
hon. friend has indicate how many of these were altered on account of the point concerning marriage?
Mr. RALSTON; Yes, that is separate altogether. I was coming to that next. In addition to the numbers I have mentioned, according to this return there were, between January 1, 1933, and September 30, 1933, disability cases to the number of 166 in which pensions were suspended entirely or reduced, due to alleged overpayment on the ground of invalidity of marriage. In addition there were two cases of dependents' pensions which were either suspended or reduced for the purpose of recovering overpayments claimed on the ground of alleged invalidity of marriage.


Murray MacLaren: I think the pension
would not actually be reduced, but payment, or a portion of *it, would be withheld.


James Layton Ralston: The minister is quite
right in the expression he uses; I think one should say suspended or partly suspended.


Murray MacLaren: Or withheld.


James Layton Ralston: I am not suggesting that the pension was cut down, but that a portion of the pension was withheld in order to recover an alleged overpayment. There are 168 such cases, and I should like to deal with those for a moment because those are the cases to which I was particularly referring in the house the other day. Under section 5 of the Pension Act parliament imposed upon the board of pension commissioners the duty of considering and adjudicating upon all questions relating to the award, increase, decrease, suspension or cancellation of any pension under this act and the recovery of any overpayment which might have been made. I take it that in the exercise of that power the board of pension commissioners from January 1, 1933, to September, 1933, suspended either entirely or partially 168 pensions, and I may say
that from October 1 to December 31 they suspended 64 more, one a dependent's pension and 63 disability pensions. This is water gone over the dam, and I do not want to go into it at length to-night. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Pensions have both realized the unfairness of the attitude which was taken, and these cases are covered by the assurance given by the Prime Minister that the pensions would be restored and opportunity afforded for a hearing.
Now I want to ask the minister what opportunity is being given or what is being done with regard to these cases. He partly answered me before the dinner recess, when he said that certain cases were being referred to the Department of Justice. I submit to him that this is not going far enough. With all deference to the Minister of Justice, and I am not reflecting on the Department of Justice in the slightest, it seems to me that the minister, the department, the government and the board will have to go much further than that. Let me put it in this way: There may be cases in which it is impossible to prove the death of a spouse. Insistence may be made on a certificate of death. I hold in my hand a letter written by C. E. Jones for the secretary of the pension commission under date of March 13, which indicates what is being required to-day by the board of pension commissioners with regard to the proof of death:
With reference to forms recently completed by you with regard's to your claim for additional pension on behalf of your dependents. Until such time as you can submit the death certificate of the woman you first married in February, 1912, no additional pension can be paid on behalf of your marriage on the 16th February, 1922.
I submit that this is neither good law nor good policy in connection with these cases, and I do not think the Department of Justice will say that any such evidence is required in order to validate what is alleged to be an existing marriage. Further, there will be cases which I think this house will be called upon to consider, in which a ceremony of marriage has been gone through in absolute good faith; children have been born, families have been raised and the responsibilities of domestic life have been undertaken. Those children have been supported by the man or woman, as the case may be, and the money which has come from the board of pension commissioners on behalf of the dependents has been spent for the purposes for which it was intended. Now, ten or fifteen years later, because they cannot get a death certificate and cannot prove



Supply-Pensions-European War
conclusively the death of a former spouse, the board of pension commissioners proposes to withdraw the pension from that man or that dependent and to suspend the pension which he is getting now until he repays to the board all the money that has been received and spent in support of the wife and children in regard to whom he undertook the responsibility. I submit that this is a class of case with which the house will have to deal, and may I say that it is not in the slightest degree out of line with pension legislation already on the statute book. In the first place illegitimate children are expressly recognized by the Pension Act as children. In the second place, in cases of death, where an absolutely legal marriage cannot be proved, the woman may still be considered to be the man's wife. Where you have people who are living in the community as man and wife and are recognized as such, I believe parliament and the country intended that for the purposes of the act they should be recognized as such.
That is my first point, Mr. Chairman. Then I say a man should not be deprived of the pension to which he is now entitled in order to repay something which he has received honestly and in good faith and which has been devoted to the purposes for which it was intended. That class of case, I submit, cannot be effectively dealt with even by submission to the Department of Justice, because it is quite possible that the Department of Justice may advise that the evidence which is submitted does not prove a legal marriage, and we will still have the difficulty of providing for these cases. I can assure the minister, and no doubt he knows it of his own knowledge, that there are many such cases. I am not going to ask as to the intention of the minister, but has the minister considered amending the act in order to cover these cases?


Hugh Guthrie: Before the minister
replies I should like to say a word. I understand from what my hon. friend has just stated that, according to the figures before him, there are 232 cases, which we term the marriage cases, in which the validity of a marriage is involved. The figures submitted to my department are greatly in excess of that number. My information is that there are between 550 and 600 of these cases; I think the department has already received more than 200 files as a first instalment.
I fully realize the difficulty which has been so well stated by my hon. friend from Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), and at the present time I cannot see what advantage is

going to result from a reference to the Department of Justice in regard to these cases. At the present moment, through special assistance which we have had to secure, the department is endeavouring to arrange these various cases into categories. I think they will probably fall within seven or eight different categories. There are some cases which I have read over rather hastily which at once present certain difficulties with which we shall be confronted in the majority of these cases. Let me cite one case from British Columbia, where before the war a man and wife were legally married and living together. The woman left her husband, went to Seattle, in the United States, and obtained a divorce from the United States courts. The husband had no domicile in the United States. That divorce was not valid or legal in the Dominion of Canada, but after a few years, just before the war, the husband married again. He thought he had a legal right to marry. He went to the war and became entitled to pension and now, after his death, the question arises as to whether or not he was legally married and whether his children are lawful children or bastards. In my own experience I can recall many marriages, not in military but in civil life, under practically the same circumstances. In all the cases I can recall, not only in Toronto but in Hamilton and Guelph as well, people who have remarried under such conditions have always been considered by their friends in the community as being legally married. Technically I suppose they are not legally married, and if the Department of Justice, on looking into such a case, were bound to give a strict legal opinion, I am afraid we would have to say that the marriage was not valid, or at least that the validity of the marriage was extremely questionable. And if we referred such a case to the court I fear we would secure a decision against the strict validity of the marriage. Both in this country and in Great Britain there is a very strong legal presumption ^ in favour of the validity of marriage; I think perhaps it is one of the strongest of all legal presumptions, and can only be rebutted by positive evidence. Without committing anyone but myself to the views which I now express, I believe that where people have been living together as man and wife the presumption of legal marriage should be allowed to prevail unless there is _ positive testimony to rebut such a presumption.
Let me cite another case which is of some interest, a case where the parties were married in Canada but subsequently removed to the

Supply-
-Pensiom-European War
state of New York and established legal domicile there. In the courts of New York, the wife sued for and obtained a divorce, but in the decree of the New York courts a condition was imposed upon the husband forbidding him to remarry. The husband came back to Canada, took up his residence again in Canada, and after the lapse of a few years remarried in this country. There is a very strong legal opinion that the condition imposed by the courts of New York had no validity in this country and consequently that his marriage in this country was valid; and so I would hold. But I believe the board of pension commissioners have taken a different view of the husband's second marriage. I could relate from the cases I have so far read many very peculiar circumstances, but in each case which I have read the parties have been living together as man and wife, and have been assumed by the whole community in which they resided to have been legally married. In such circumstances there is a very strong presumption in favour of a legal marriage, and as I said before unless that presumption can be overcome by positive evidence, the marriage should be held to be legal in all respects. I do not see any way of getting around the difficulty without some further amendment to the act. In the meantime the Department of Justice is endeavouring to separate these marriage cases into various categories. But when this has been done and we are ready to submit the cases for the adjudication of the courts if judgment is to be given on strict legal principles, I am satisfied in a great number of cases the courts will pronounce the marriage to be invalid, just as the board of pension commissioners has done. In that way I believe in the vast majority of cases the applicants would not get the relief to which they are entitled.


James Layton Ralston: Along the lines of what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has said, may I mention an inquiry which was made by the minister and the chairman of the Canadian pension commission, showing how thoroughly the minister is in sympathy with what the Minister of Justice has just said as to some way of expeditiously disposing of these cases. In a return which the minister was good enough to bring down, No. 213, there was a letter under date of January 2 from the minister to the chairman of the Canadian pension commission, in which this question was asked: "In a presumption of death is there any way in which cases can be acted upon more expeditiously?" And the chairman answered, "Not in the opinion of the 74726-113J
commission." I understand that the Minister of Justice is expressing his own personal views and is not committing the government. I believe he indicates how anxious he is to have these matters disposed of expeditiously and not to have people dragged through the procedure of having to secure legal opinions or make a case before the Department of Justice or before the courts. I do submit that it must be possible to follow out some such suggestion as that offered by the minister and to evolve some amendment to the act whereby there may be a quick and expeditious disposition of meritorious cases. Those are the only cases with which any of us are concerned. I know that in connection with pension applications, just as in other types of applications, fraud has been practised, and I use that word advisedly. I know it is being used a good deal by people who perhaps have not as much sympathy with this matter of pensions as have the House of Commons and the country in general. But I want to say this about the whole matter of fraud, and the talk of illegitimacy, bigamy, crime, and things of that kind, that I believe the record for honesty of ex-service men in connection with applications can be put up against the record of the general public of Canada with regard to income tax returns or any other returns which have to be made to the government. I think it will be found that the percentage of fraudulent cases is exceedingly small. Going over the cases it would seem to me that about one per cent would be cases in which there has been any attempt to defraud the government or the Canadian pension commission. The point is that none of us has any sympathy with those cases, and they are not the cases for which we are speaking. What we are endeavouring to do is to secure justice for those cases we consider to be meritorious, and the cases which this country intended to benefit when the act was passed. For hon. members on this side of the house I can say that we will join most sincerely and heartily with the Minister of Pensions and the Minister of Justice and the government in endeavouring to work this matter out, because I realize from the answer made by the Prime Minister that the government has every desire to do that.
While I am on my feet may I say this further word:	The minister has said with
regard to reviews that he will consult the Canadian pension commission and if possible have them carry out this procedure. I realize that the commission is not directly under the minister s jurisdiction, but in some way or

Supply-Pensions-European War
other this government has succeeded in getting the pension commission to act in regard to the matter of these premature reviews. I believe if the government takes the same stand with regard to this matter it, too, can be dealt with.


Hugh Guthrie: Delay is causing no inconvenience to the pensioners; they are being paid. It may cause some inconvenience to the treasury, but we are trying to find a solution of the difficulty just as quickly as possible, and particularly in regard to the two questions of presumption of marriage and presumption of death. My own view is that we will have to have legislation to clear up the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should
like to ask a question in regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister on February 13. What method has been adopted by the government to enable them to send out cheques to pensioners whose pensions were suspended?


Hugh Guthrie: The pension commissioners and the committee of the cabinet discussed the matter together, and after a discussion the commissioners intimated that under the circumstances they would order the cheques to be sent out and would at once refer the particular cases, namely marriage cases, to the Department of Justice. Pending notice being given to all of the enumerated list of cases, and until final decision was taken, payments would be continued.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Could the Minister of Pensions tell the amount of money which has been sent out since February 13, upon which date the Prime Minister made the announce^ ment of the restoration?


Murray MacLaren: I have not that figure, but I can get it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: It seems strange to me-and I need not enlarge upon what has been said by hon. members on both sides of the house that all down through pensions legislation which we have had since the days of the Ralston commission, all through the various committees which have been set up, in view of what has been indicated by the minister, in view of the correspondence tabled for the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) in which is shown a sympathetic and sincere desire that these men should be heard and appear for hearing; in view of what has been said by the Minister of Justice, by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) and other hon. members-it is strange that 
through all these years in which we have been studying pension matters we should be defied by the former chairman of the board of pension commissioners and the present chairman of the Canadian pension commission. And it does seem strange that it should require an ultimatum from the Prime Minister, when the matter was raised in this house by my two colleagues to my left, before any action could come. I do not know where the Prime Minister obtained jurisdiction to give that ultimatum, but he did, and it was effective. It is worthy of note, however, that as late as February 26, thirteen days after the announcement was made by the Prime Minister, the chairman of the Canadian pension commission was going blithely on as he had been doing since January, 1933, giving statements to the minister in preparation for this bluebook showing the men who had been cut off the list, and as late as February 26 we have four statements wherein the reason given is "legality of marriage not established." Notwithstanding what had been brought to the attention of the house by my two colleagues, and notwithstanding what had been stated by the Prime Minister, the chairman of the commission goes blithely on his way as he had done previously without regard for what had beeD done, reporting to the minister that in preparation of the bluebook he had these three further cases, although I am quite satisfied that what was said by the Prime Minister was known throughout the length and breadth of this country immediately after the Prime Minister made his announcement. Reading this file from beginning to end you will find, instead of a sincere desire to see justice done to these men, as the minister wished, that his recommendations have been entirely ignored by the chairman of the old board, and indeed by the chairman of the Canadian pension commission. If you will read the file you will see that the minister would write to the chairman say on the first of the month, and he would be lucky if he received a reply by the end of the month, if at all, and then it might be from some official of the department. In the meantime each week he would report to the minister the number of cases that he had succeeded in cutting off, whether on the ground of illegality of marriage, bigamy or something else. I protest, Mr. Chairman, and will do so more vigorously when we come to consider the personnel of the Canadian pension commission, but I say quite frankly here and now that if the chairman of the Canadian pension commission is not prepared to follow the will of

Supply-Pensions-European War
parliament as submitted through the members representing the various constituencies and passed on through the Minister of Pensions, who is responsible to the country, then the sooner the minister sees that that gentleman is removed the better it will be for this country as a whole.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I would like to say a word or two along a certain line that I have not yet heard touched upon concerning what seems to me the crucial point in the case of these married people who had pensions cut off, and that is that evidence was given sufficient to satisfy the board of pension commissioners in many cases many years ago that the marriage was legal. I have a case, and I think nearly every member of parliament has one or more similar cases from his own neighbourhood, in which the point at issue was this: The couple were married in 1919. The husband and his wife considered that they had proof that the former husband of the woman had died. They were married and their certificate of marriage was accepted by the old board of pension commissioners as proof positive. Now if the board at that time had raised the question of the legality of the marriage it seems to me that a number of these difficulties would have been solved at that time and would not now be arising. In the case I speak of a form was sent out last year asking for the death certificate of the wife's former husband. The parties endeavoured to get that and found out that the man had not been dead at the time they married, as they thought he was. He did not die until 1929. The case again came before the commission; the pension was withheld, and recovery commenced. In this particular case these people remarried immediately to regularize the thing. But if the old board had asked for the death certificate in the first place the case would never have come up. These people could have been legally married in 1929 and the wife would then have been entitled to her allowance, but having gone beyond the first of May of this year they are not legally entitled to it. That is a case in point where evidence was given of the marriage which was accepted as satisfactory at the time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) on the stand he has taken with regard to the legal position in respect to these cases, and I should also like to put on Hansard a memorandum that was submitted
by the present president of the Canadian legion, a judge of one of our courts in Saskatchewan, in reference to these cases:
It is a well recognized principle of English law that when a marriage is alleged and it is proved that the parties went through a form of marriage and thereafter lived together as man and wife and were by general repute regarded as man and wife this constitutes not an irrebuttable presumption but a presumption rebuttable only by the most conclusive evidence of the validity of marriage.
In the case of Morris vs. Davies, 7 English Reports, page 365, Lord Lindhurst, at page 404, speaking of this presumption said, "that presumption of law is not lightly to be repelled, it is not to be broken in upon or shaken by a mere balance of probability, the: evidence for the purpose of repelling it must be strong, distinct, satisfactory and conclusive." Then in a leading case on the subject, Piers vs. Piers, 9 English Reports, page 1118, the Lord Chancellor, page 1129, expressly approved of the law as stated by Lord Lindhurst. There the fact of the ceremony was not in doubt but no evidence was available to prove that the special licence required by law and necessary to the validity of the marriage had been secured, nevertheless the House of Lords held that the onus was upon the parties seeking to attack the validity of the marriage and upheld the rights of the parties claiming thereunder. To the same effect is the judgment of the privy council in the case of Aronegary Vaigalie, 6 A.C., 364. Once this presumption arises the onus is upon those who seek to attack the validity of the marriage. Goodman vs. Goodman, 28 L.J. ch. 745; Haviland vs. Mortiboy, 32 L.T.O.S., 343; Harrod vs. Harrod, 69 English Reports, 344; Homanuke vs. Homanuke, 13 Saskatchewan L.R. 186, and Hedge vs. Morrow, 20 D.L.R., 561.
This by no means exhausts the law on the subject but it is sufficient to show that the commission are proceeding upon the wrong principle. If the pensioner is apparently legally married the commission have no power according to English law to require him to prove the legality of the marriage other than the fact of its existence. If they question its validity on the ground of incapacity of either party or for any other irregularity the onus should be upon the commission to establish that fact and to ask a man to go back twenty years and establish the death of a previous wife is to my mind absurd.
I think that entirely endorses the stand taken this evening by the Minister of Justice, and again I wish to congratulate him on his statement with regard to the merits of these
cases.
I also wish to endorse what has been said by my colleague the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray), and also what has been said by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth (Mr. Ralston) and by the Minister of Pensions (Mr. MacLaren). I wish to congratulate the minister upon the stand he has taken. For the last four months the minister has been endeavouring to obtain some results
1788	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
in connection with the arbitrary action taken by the chairman of the old pension board, the present chairman of the Canadian pension commission, in regard to these marriage cases. I wish also to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for West Lambton in regard to what I would call a callous disregard of the minister's requests for information, evidenced in this correspondence. There are on this file some letters that have never been answered by the present chairman of the Canadian pension commission, and there are other letters on the file answered by supplying further additions to the list he was going to give, while there are others answered by members of the board of pension commissioners and other officials of the board.
I thank the minister for the stand he has taken in the- last three or four months with a view to having justice done in this matter, and I think the cabinet should be congratulated on the peaceful persuasion which they have exercised on the present commission in securing the dispatch of cheques to pensioners whose pensions were cancelled or suspended. I trust that, in the interests of the cause which everyone in this house has at heart, that same peaceful persuasion will be carried still further and that the present chairman will be removed from jurisdiction inasmuch as he has lost the confidence of ex-service men throughout Canada.


Murray MacLaren: I think I can explain
the difference in the figures as between those quoted by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth and those quoted by the Minister of Justice. As regards marriages, the figures quoted by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth were from January, 1933-


James Layton Ralston: From January 1, 1933,
to September 30, 1933, and I also included the figures from October 1 to December 31, 1933.


Murray MacLaren: Considerably larger
figures were given by the Minister of Justice, and the explanation is that his figures went further back than January 1.


James Layton Ralston: There are two letters which I think we should have on the record. There is, first, a letter from the minister dated January 2, 1934, to the chairman of the Canadian pension commission. In this, the committee will observe that the minister is asking for information with regard to the procedure followed by the pension commission and also

for information in connection with these cases. This is the letter:
The Chairman,
Canadian Pension Commission,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Your memorandum of the 28th of December, in reply to my memorandum of the 18th, regarding suspension or reduction in payment of pensions, will be quite helpful, I believe, in avoiding hardships and lessening criticism.
There are several important points on which I shall be pleased' to be informed. Many of them are matters which might go a long way towards meeting complaints.	_
]. Regarding your paragraph 1 (a), is the affidavit of a pensioner regarding his marriage acted upon as such, or is he given an opportunity of appearing before a quorum before action is taken?	.
2.	What will be the procedure followed in those cases where a man has not been given an opportunity of a hearing before a quorum before a decision was reached?
3.	In the case of those applicants who have not had an opportunity of a hearing and whose payments of pensions have been reduced, what can be done to meet this situation in whole or part until there has been an opportunity of a hearing before a quorum?
4.	Regarding 2 (a), in eases where there has already been a reduction in payment of pension, there have been numbers of cases where the present policy does not seem to have been previously acted on. Can this class of case be dealt with? There will probably be a considerable interval between the time at which the payment was reduced and a hearing before the quorum. Is it feasible to reinstate these cases or deal with them in any suitable way? I am attaching a few cases which seem to be examples of this.
5.	In presumption of death, is there any way in which the cases can be acted upon more expeditiously?
6.	There are representations with reference to this class of men. A man was enlisted, went overseas, stated he was married, drew separation allowance, on discharge was pensioned, with allowance for his wife. After years, it is found that there was an irregularity in the marriage. Can anything be done to avoid the present hardship and difficulties arising from the allowance of the wife and children being discontinued and a reduction made in the payment of the man's pension?
Murray MacLaren,
Minister.
On the same date the following reply was
dispatched:
Memorandum to:-
The Honourable the Minister,
Department of Pensions and National Health.
I would refer to your memorandum of the 2nd instant and the various paragraphs therein.
Your memorandum assumes that the man is entitled to appear before the commission before any suspension of pension is made. I would point out that a man is only entitled to a hearing before a quorum before his pension is cancelled or reduced on the ground that the basis of entitlement is changed. This applies

Supply-Pensions-European War
only to his basic pension, it does not in any way apply to allowances. He may ask for a hearing as any pensioner may who complains about his assessment; and I would point out that with regard to assessment, the assessment remains reduced' or discontinued unless or until the man establishes his right to a higher rate.
1.	The affidavit is acted upon.
2.	The pensioner is not entitled to a hearing; the pension is suspended after a reasonable opportunity has been given the man to establish that his marriage is legal.
Quite the reverse of what the Minister of Justice suggests should be the basis of procedure.
3.	My memorandum of the 28th December sets out the situation. The pensioner is not entitled to a hearing.
I do not see on the file the memoradum of December 28. Perhaps the minister will make a note of that and send it to me.
4.	The statute does not provide for any hearing before a quorum. It is not feasible to reinstate these cases.
It has been found possible since the matter has been taken hold of, and I understand they have been re-instated under the present arrangement.
5.	Not in the opinion of the commission.
6.	Not in the opinion of the commission, except as set out in my memorandum of the 28th December concurred in by the whole commission.
J. Thompson,
' Chairman.
In regard to this letter, I would point out that it was written when there was on the statute book an act which expressly provided, in section 5, that the commission should be charged with the duty of considering and adjudicating upon all questions relating to award, increase, decrease, suspension or cancellation of any pension, or the recovery of overpayment made. Now, the first principle of adjudication, as I think everyone will agree, for it does not require a lawyer to perceive this, is that there should be a hearing for the person whose case is being adjudicated; yet it is [Categorically stated by the chairman of the board, "You are not entitled to any hearing." In other words, the attitude is this: The pension may be granted, but by reason of the fact that we happen to be in a position where we can say that you have not proved that your former spouse is dead, inasmuch as you have no legal evidence of death and do not produce a death certificate, we will hold your pension and recover the amount already paid on account of your present spouse or your children.
I submit that the correspondence shows an attitude of mind which is absolutely repugnant
to the whole spirit of the act. I know that it is difficult for a man who occupies a judicial position to go outside the statute; but there has never been a time in the history of this country, and I do not believe that that time will ever come, when a chairman of the board of pension commissioners could not come to the government in power, whatever government that might be, and say, "We find that an anomaly exists and there are hardships resulting therefrom. We cannot believe that parliament intended this, and we should like to have your assurance that if the pension is granted the government will pass an act validating the payment." I should be disappointed in any government in this country that would not give such an assurance. The board of pension commissioners was in that position, not in the position of a judge far removed from parliament, but in close touch with parliament; and it seems to me that this is a procedure that would commend itself to the public at large. Moreover, it is a procedure which is just to those for whom we are legislating at the present time.
Mr. MacLAREN; May I direct the attention of the committee to this fact, which I do not think has been mentioned, namely, that the auditor general and his staff have been inspecting the files for some considerable time and have drawn the attention of the pension commission and, I believe, of the pension board to certain things which they thought were incorrect, and I believe this has had a very considerable influence on the commission in the direction of an effort to meet the views and criticisms of the auditor general's staff.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver); Is it not a fact that every pensioner who is called before the board is required to bring a marriage
certificate, birth certificates of children, and divorce certificate, if any? I understand a good deal of resentment has been caused recently among people who have been called before the board.


Murray MacLaren: : All I know is that pensioners are supplied with a form which they are asked to fill in and on which are certain questions about marriage, previous marriage, and an affidavit at the foot of the form. That is all that occurs to me at the present time.
Mr. GRAY;:	Is that practice still continuing, in spite of what has been said?


Murray MacLaren: I think so.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is there any necessity then for those men to be given a hearing?
1790	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War


Murray MacLaren: They are asked to make an affidavit that the statement is correct, and I see no objection to that; but I do not think it is sufficient to end the inquiry there. That is all.


James Layton Ralston: In that connection, in the last return from which I read there is a document mentioned called a life certificate. Will the minister tell me what that is? Evidently the Canadian pension commission are issuing a certificate called a life certificate.


Murray MacLaren: It is an annual statement that each pensioner is asked to make that he continues to support his wife and children and that there is no material change in his condition.


Ross Wilfred Gray: If no other member wishes to discuss the marriage phase of the question I should like to ask the minister some questions as to the formation of the personnel of the Canadian pension commission. But before doing so, I should like here and now to place myself on record, as I have done in the past, as paying tribute to the ex-members of the tribunal which was established in 1930 and which disappeared on October 1, 1933. I think it is the experience of all members, certainly of ex-service men, that in their appearance before the tribunal, they received a fair consideration of their cases. Not always did the pension tribunal agree with them, but in any event I believe they came away satisfied that they had had a fair hearing, and although I may be condemned-perhaps I may condemn myself for not having voiced my opinion more strongly last year when the amendment was introduced

I for one felt and stiJ feel that the pension tribunal should have been given a further opportunity under the act as passed in 1930. I feel sure that if we as a parliament had taken a decided stand with respect to those appeals that were made by the pension commission, a great deal of the difficulty in which we find ourselves to-night would have been eliminated. But the committee of last year in its wisdom saw fit to make the amendment which came into force on October 1 of that year.
I now propose to ask the minister some questions with respect to the personnel of the Canadian pension commission, and in particular with respect to what became of the old tribunal. I want to ask him first: Of the eight members of the Canadian pension commission that has been established how many of the old pension tribunal were taken in and appointed as part of that commission?


Murray MacLaren: There is one who had
previously served on the tribunal.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Sir Richard Turner?


Murray MacLaren: Yes.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I would like to know what
became of the substaff, that is the under officers and staff of the tribunal, and how many of them were taken over by the Canadian pension commission.


Murray MacLaren: Many of them have
been absorbed.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I am not concerned with
how many were absorbed in other departments. How many were taken over by the Canadian pension commission?


Murray MacLaren: As regards the substaff?


Ross Wilfred Gray: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: I am afraid I have not
the figures for the personnel. For instance, there were registrars and various officers part of whom have been absorbed in the present commission, because it is larger than it was before and is doing more work than it used to do. It has therefore absorbed a considerable number of them, while the services of others were discontinued, but I have not the figures.	.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I know the minister will be
glad to give the committee, first, the number that were absorbed by the new Canadian pension commission; second, the number that were absorbed in other departments of the government, and, third, the number that were let out altogether.


Murray MacLaren: I shall be pleased to
get that information.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I should like to know what
compensation, if any, was given or what arrangements for compensation were made as regards the old tribunal officers.


Murray MacLaren: That matter has not
been definitely settled. I believe I can say that provision will be made in the estimates this session.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will
that apply to the personnel of the old federal appeal board as well?


Murray MacLaren: I am speaking personally now, but I am speaking with some confidence, in saying that the estimates will contain provision for both the federal appeal board and the members of the tribunal. As

Supply-Pensions-European War
a matter of fact I made an announcement in the press, I think in September last year, intimating that this matter was being favourably considered by the government.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Before I deal with any
criticism that I may offer in connection with the personnel, may I follow up a conclusion on that particular point by asking what was the name of the reviewing officer appointed under the amendment to the Pension Act?


Murray MacLaren: Doctor Shields.


Ross Wilfred Gray: What had he been employed
at prior to his appointment as reviewing officer?


Murray MacLaren: Doctor Shields was a
medical adviser to the board of pension commissioners from September 1, 1916, until his appointment last year as reviewing officer.


Ross Wilfred Gray: How many cases has he reviewed since then?


Murray MacLaren: Eighty-seven.


Ross Wilfred Gray: In how many of those has the minister advised an appeal?


Murray MacLaren: Ten cases have been appealed by the reviewing officer.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I think if we had had some of that consideration on the part of the old pension tribunal, if the percentage had been more like that, we would not have had so much difficulty.
I wish now to go back to the personnel of the Canadian pension commission. It has been stated that one only of the members of the old tribunal was absorbed into that commission, namely Sir Richard Turner, V.C. Although it may be well known, I should like to have placed on record by the minister the names of the other seven commissioners, and the positions they occupied prior to their appointment to the new commission.


Murray MacLaren: First there is the chairman, Colonel John Thompson, who had been chairman of the pension board since I think 1920 or thereabouts, and was reappointed some years ago. Then there are Doctor Ellis, for a number of years formerly of the pension board-I am sorry I have not the exact dates; Doctor Kee, who was for many years the chief medical adviser of the board; Doctor Gray, who had been a member of the pension board for one or two years, and who had formerly been a medical representative for a number of years both in Calgary and in Vancouver; Sir Richard Turner, who had been a member of the pension tribunal for three
years; Doctor Lionel Robert, who was a medical officer with the Department of Justice from 1921 to November, 1929, when he was appointed a medical examiner at Montreal to the board of pension commissioners; Mr. Conn, who for some years was a commission counsel in Toronto; Mr. Stephen Jones, who was a departmental agent. He served overseas in an infantry regiment and subsequently in the Canadian army medical corps.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Would the minister explain what he means by a departmental agent?


Murray MacLaren: I do not know exactly what it means. I thought it was more or less a technical term.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I thank the minister for the information he has given. It illustrates what has been said already, not only in this house but throughout the country, by the returned men, that after some fifteen years of struggle to have this matter dealt with fairly and with due regard to the interests of the soldiers, after having had it investigated by royal commissions and parliamentary committees, largely upon the complaints of the returned men as to the operation of the board of pension commissioners, they have been delivered back, as I think the past president of the Canadian legion expressed it, into the bondage of that commission. I dwell on this at the risk of wearying the committee, although the matter is so important that I do not think that we should pass over it lightly, especially in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has suggested that there might even yet be brought down this session amending legislation with respect to another matter, so that perhaps something could still be done with respect to this one, which surely must have been brought to the minister's attention.
It has been said in the house-I heard it said to-night-that the committee of last year, certainly members on this side who have spoken, felt that in the creation of the new Canadian pension commission there would be what has been termed a merger of the board and the tribunals. Bearing out what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and others, I would like to place on record what was said by the past president of the Canadian legion, Major Roper, at its recent session in Ottawa on March 12 to 15, 1934. I propose to quote only parts of his speech, but it is important that the house and the country should know the feeling of the Canadian
1792	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
Legion as interpreted by the past president and heartily endorsed by the legion at the closing session of that convention. He said:
It was our distinct understanding, and, I am convinced, the understanding of all members of the committee, that the principle of merger between the tribunal and the pension board would be followed and, in fact, it was for the purpose of placing tribunal members on an equal status with the members of the old board that equal tenure of office for all was decided upon;-
They were to be appointed for a term of seven years, and I ask the minister to note that they were all to be on an equal status. -and it was for the purpose of providing for the retention of a substantial number of tribunal members that the number of commissioners was increased to provide for a maximum of twelve.
Then, turning to the appointments to the commission, Major Roper had this to say:
I now turn to the matter of the appointments to the new commission, which took place at the end of September, 1933, effective, as provided by statute, on October the '1st, 1933. I must make it clear, and it will be admitted by the authorities, that no effort in any way, shape or form was made by the legion to influence these appointments. We relied implicitly on the understanding reached at the parliamentary committee, to the effect that, the principle of merger between the tribunal and the pension board would govern the appointments, and we relied upon the authorities to make the best selection from each body. We had let it be known that in our judgment the amount of work in sight would require the appointment of the maximum number provided for, namely, twelve commissioners.
It was with the utmost astonishment and I say frankly, dismay, that we learned from the press that of the eight members appointed to the new commission (the minimum provided for), five were of the old board of pension commissioners and its staff; one was a former commission counsel; another was a newcomer to pension administration; and one member and one only had been a member of the former pension tribunal, namely one of our dominion honorary presidents, General Sir Richard Turner, V.C. Not only had the principle of merger, agreed upon with the parliamentary committee, not been carried out, but of even greater significance to ex-service men, the new commission had been placed almost entirely under the domination of the old pension board'.
This action, coming immediately on top of the other disturbing happenings to which I have referred, brought about a state of mind throughout the entire legion and amongst ex-service men generally that I can only describe as chaotic. The soldier felt that here was proof of what he had already begun seriously to suspect, namely, that powerful influences were using all the means in their power to his detriment. The immediate reaction was one of intense resentment, accompanied by strong evidence of lack of confidence in legion officers, the first and perhaps natural conclusion being that these appointments would not have been made without the concurrence
[Mr. Gray.1
of legion officers. I am thankful that we were fully able to dispel this impression; but in the meantime the legion became seriously threatened with nation-wide disruption. Fuel was added to the flames by the announcement of the appointment of the chief reviewing officer, as provided under the act, the appointee being another member of the staff of the old pension board, making a total of seven out of nine. Storms of protest from coast to coast rolled in upon dominion headquarters. Explanations were of no avail, or at least could give little satisfaction. I, as your dominion president, sensing that the very existence of the legion was in grave jeopardy, after consultation with available dominion officers, and in accordance with a resolution passed' by dominion executive council in January, 1933, decided to announce the holding of a dominion convention, to take place early in 1934. British Columbia, to whom the next convention had been pledged, unselfishly relinquished its claim, in order that the convention might meet in Ottawa, the seat of government and it is to deal with these issues we are here to-day.
Further he said:
At this point let me say that upon the appointments being announced, feeling that it was my duty to make a public statement, I ventured the opinion that the appointments would not prove satisfactory to ex-service men, a statement which I thought mild and conservative, and' I asked that the new commission should be given a fair trial before being judged adversely. Later, when the appointment of the reviewing officer was announced, I stated further that this but completed the delivery of ex-service men into the bondage of the pension board.
While we on this side of the house always have been kindly disposed towards the minister, and have appreciated his work with regard to ex-soldiers, at this time I cannot help but express my keen disappointment in the appointments that have been made. I feel that the minister himself, upon whom the responsibility must be placed, has failed the ex-service men in this regard. I hope there may still be some way out, but in the meantime I say without hesitation that the minister, knowing as he must have known wbat had been the cause of trouble from the time a commission was first established, appointed the old commission with the exception of two men, and, as Major Roper has said, and I think rightly, the soldiers were sold back into the bondage of the old pension board.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	Mr. Chairman, I regret
very much that the hon. member made the speech to which we have just listened. There were many members of this parliament looking after the interests of the soldiers before the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat became a member of this house, and I am convinced that after we have all

Supply-Pensions-European War
*departed there will be gentlemen here quite *capable of looking after them and anxious to do so. No matter what may be the hon. member's opinion of the persons who were appointed to these positions, I think it is most unfair to prejudge them and their work and make inflammatory speeches of this kind before we know what kind of service they are going to give. I say frankly that in my opinion such speeches will not result in any benefit to the returned soldiers. I have been on many committees and commissions dealing with this question, but I never heard such an inflammatory speech delivered in this house.
The hon. gentleman quoted Major Roper, who made a speech which to my mind he should not have made. It is nothing but common justice to allow these courts to function so that we may see what kind of service they will give. If they are not fair in their work, parliament is big enough, and I think independent enough, to make the necessary changes. We have done so before, and I have no doubt we will do so again. The personnel of these different commissions has changed greatly in the last twelve or thirteen years. At one time we had only the board of pension commissioners. Their work became very unsatisfactory, and I am sure I am correct when I say that the first suggestion of an appeal court was made by the late Mr. Hume Cronyn, at one time a member of this house from the city of London. For quite a long time that suggestion was opposed, but finally it was adopted. The change did not prove as satisfactory as had been expected by hon. members of the house. Matters went on for some years and the courts became clogged with cases. Those who took an interest in this work at that time will remember that the board had to try to make decisions not after a study of weeks, days, hours, or even minutes; the pressure of work was so great that they had to decide cases practically in seconds. They could not do the impossible.
Then came the tribunals. That legislation was drawn up originally by the soldiers themselves at a convention held in Regina, but it was not so presented to this house. It was presented to the house as a partisan measure, and hon. gentlemen tried to capitalize on it not only in the house but in the country as well. That change was adopted by the house. It was adopted also in the committee, but not without some objection, because I for one had grave misgivings as to its workability. We adopted it, however, because of the fact that it was what the soldiers wanted. It did not go as far as I thought it should
go, and when my hon. friend's leader was in power I had the distinction of being the only person to whose private resolution closure was applied. Closure was applied to a resolution that I brought in reversing the onus of proof. It never even got to a vote; closure was put on and it was sent to the committee. So far as I could judge, the personnel of the tribunals was satisfactory to the returned soldiers. Personally I was disappointed, and I think it was a mistake, that more of them were not reappointed, not because others could not do the work, but because at last we had found a tribunal in which the soldiers had confidence. I think all hon. members will agree that the machinery had become hopelessly clogged. A couple of years ago I made some remarks in this connection and I believe at that time in one court or another there were about 30,000 cases waiting to be heard. The clogging of that machinery led to an overhauling of it. I always thought the government made a mistake when the commission was appointed; I think all governments make mistakes when they place such matters outside their own power. Half were appointed by the returned soldiers and the other half by the staff of the department. It is a mistake for any government to put itself into the hands of a committee over which they have no control. When you put responsibility upon anybody you must also give him power; that goes without saying. The machinery was overloaded, and for the present we have another system of courts.
Whether we like it or not, I think in the last analysis we must admit that the government is responsible and that it must take the responsibility for the personnel appointed. Whether they have made a mistake or not I cannot say, nor do I think anybody else can; but I think it is only fair to these men that at least they should have reasonable time within which to prove their adaptability and their ability to handle matters placed before them. I have said before, the worst thing which could happen returned soldiers in this country is to have their case get into politics. If it were made a political question the country would be split in two, with half the people on one side and the other half on the other.
Returned soldiers can go only so far and get only such elements of justice as public opinion in Canada will support. I say to them to-night, as I have said to them before, that they should keep their demands within reasonable bounds of justice, because I am certain that parliament has always been willing to grant such demands. The country has taken the same position. But in the course of
1794	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
time conditions must be modified, and, as I have stated to returned soldiers, there is today a large army of young men and women about twenty-eight, thirty or thirty-two years of age who were not old enough to go to war; if they were only fifteen years of age when the war ended they are over thirty to-day. By act of parliament those people are to a large extent debarred from entering the service of their country, and the time is coming when, to my mind, we may have to recognize that fact. We cannot blame these young men and women for not participating in the great war when, as a matter of fact, during the period of the war they were mere children or young people in their teens. Neither can we forever keep them debarred from the service of their country. Everybody knows that when there is a vacancy in the public service and a returned soldier is available who can show that he has the minimum legal qualifications, he automatically is given preference over seventy-five or a hundred others who are debarred, not through lack of service or ability, but because in a time of distress they were not old enough to serve their country.
I believe we should give the courts time to prove what they can do; we should not damn them before they begin their work. As I have said, I would have been much better pleased if more of the tribunal members had been reappointed. When they deserted their callings and accepted positions on tribunals in the expectation that they would have a reasonable tenure of office of eight or ten years, it was hardly fair to cut them off with a service of two or three years. But at the same time we should be big enough and fair enough to give the new appointees time to prove whether or not they can dispense that element of justice which the people of Canada are willing and anxious should be given to returned men.
I must say I am disappointed that the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) has on this occasion spoken as he did. I was disappointed when Major Roper, standing at the head of the legion, made the inflammatory speech with which he is credited. A year hence such statements might have been all right, or might not; certainly in my opinion this was not the proper time to make them. Criticisms of that kind are detrimental to the interests of returned men, and that is practically all I am interested in. I believe that the people who went to France, placed their lives upon the altar of their country and came back to Canada crippled in body or in mind, have a right to recompense. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that

the law of Canada does not give a man anything as a pension for service. It never did give anything for that, and it is for that reason I have always opposed making deductions from pensioners. The law is such that if a man went overseas and came back minus an arm the country says to him, "We will give you in money what we believe to be equivalent to your physical loss brought about through service to your country," To those who contracted tubercular trouble while on service the same applies. For that reason I believe those people stand on a basis different from that of others who are drawing pensions or pay from the government of Canada. I believe their interests can be left to the care of hon. members from all sections of the house, and if the courts which are now dealing with the matter fail in their task, there are members in this House of Commons independent enough to see to it that legislation is brought in which will restore to the people affected any right which they have been denied.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the hon.
member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGib-bctn) was altogether fair to the hon. member for- West Lambton (Mr. Gray). I am sure it must be a matter of some satisfaction to the hon. member for West Lambton to hear the sentiments which he expressed stated, possibly in milder tones, but, knowing the earnestness of the disposition of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, I would take it that he was just as sincere as was the hon. member for West Lambton, but the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, I am sorry to say, is the first one to have interjected partisanship into this discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Layton Ralston: I am in the judgment of the committee. We have been getting along pretty wellll in connection with this subject, and his was the first suggestion I have heard of partisanship. I do want to say this, Mr. Chairman, in support of what has been said in regard to the old tribunal. Like my hon. friends I was very much disappointed that the services of the members of the old tribunal were not availed of for appointment to the new commission. Nobody has suggested that it was because of political reasons. It seems to me that it would have been well to take into the service those who had had experience in the field in connection with that work.
There is a feeling abroad, and this is the impression that I rose to correct, that the tribunals were too favourable to the soldiers.

Supply-Pensions-European War
In that connection I want to refer to a letter that was written by Mr. Soammell, the secretary of the department, on January 10, 1934, giving figures with regard to the work done by the tribunals. I want to indicate from these figures that the tribunals certainly could not be charged with being unduly favourable to the ex-service men, and on the other hand it will be found that their judgment has been well upheld by the appeal court. Let me give the figures.
Out of a total number of 10,438 oases dealt with by the tribunals, 6,593 were decided unfavourably to the soldier and 3,845 favourably to the soldier. Of these 3,845 decisions favourable to the applicant, 899 were not appealed. That left 2,946 'as the total number of tribunal decisions favourable to the applicant appealed by commission counsel. Of these, 488 had not been heard by the appeal court on January 10, 1934. I deduct those, and it leaves 2,458 oases heard by the appeal court, and in 906 of these cases the tribunals' decisions were upheld; 342 oases were remitted for rehearing, and in the remainder of the eases the decisions were reversed.
Here is the summary: Tribunal cases decided in favour of the applicant, 3,845; appealed to but not heard by the appeal court, 488; leaving 3,357 cases, and of that 3,357, 342 cases were sent back for rehearing, leaving 3,015 cases actually disposed of by the appeal court or not appealed from. The net result of those 3,015 cases which the tribunal decided favourably to the applicant is that 899 cases were not appealed, and in 906 cases in which an appeal was made the tribunal's decision was upheld. So that in 1,805 out of 3,015 cases, or an average of over 60 per cent, the decisions of the tribunal in favour of the applicant stood. I think that those figures should be put on record in justice to the tribunal and for the benefit of those-there are not so many of them in the house-in the country who feel that the tribunals decided too favourably to the soldiers. In the first place they decided 6,500 out of 10,400 cases against the soldier, and of the 3,105 cases that they decided favourably to the soldier 1,805 were upheld by the appeal court or were not appealed from. So it seems to me that there is some justification for the feeling that it would have been advisable to appoint some of the tribunal to the new pension commission. Of course we are going to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend from Muskoka-Ontario that the new men be given a chance to make good. But it is going to be somewhat difficult for
them, no doubt, on account of their lack of experience in dealing with cases in direct contact with the applicants throughout the country.
One thing more in regard to what my hon. friend from Muskoka-Ontario has said. He said that the tribunal system worked badly because it was too much clogged. I have never felt that the tribunal system should be blamed for that, because there was one thing that clogged it, and that was an act of this parliament which provided that there should be an automatic reference to the tribunal of every case decided unfavourably to the soldier, with the result that the tribunal got piled up with cases put on their doorstep by statute. We amended the act a year ago and provided that those cases should not go from the board to the tribunal unless the applicant expressly asked for it, with the result that a different situation exists to-day. Both the tribunal and the pensions advocates, did remarkably well to clean up as many as 10,000 cases which were dealt with by the tribunal, in view of the immense accumulation of work ahead of them. They were new men with a lot to learn, but they did their work expeditiously and well, and they should not be blamed for the damming back of cases with which they were flooded. The new commission will not have that situation to meet, because the soldier himself must say whether or not he wants his case to be proceeded with further.
I do not know that I have anything to add except to pay a tribute, as I think tributes should be paid-and not too many have been paid-to the work of the tribunals which certainly laid the ground for confidence among the soldiers from the fact that they had an opportunity to meet in person the men who were going to decide their cases. I think that that did a lot to allay the discontent and dissatisfaction which existed when men simply made a report to a medical examiner, saw their papers sent away, and in two or three or four weeks the soldier got an adverse decision without a chance to tell his story. The tribunal system was in advance of the system of deciding cases without meeting the applicant face to face, and the present commission will continue this idea, which is germane and fundamental to any humane and satisfactory administration of pension matters, by travelling around the country hearing cases in the field.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish
to bring to the attention of the minister a letter that I received from one of the commissioners dealing with the interpretation of

Supply-Pensions-European War
section 12 of the Pension Act. I shall not place the name on Hansard, but I will read the second part of the letter:
This man died from aortic aneurysm, the result of specific infection. The initial infection, according to his military documents, was incurred prior to his enlistment, but the resulting condition was aggravated during his service, and as he had service in France, under section 12 of the Pension Act he received' during his lifetime pension for aggravation at the amount of his total disability.
He died in February, 1932, following which the relationship of his death to his military service was considered by the commissioners, and in accordance with an interpretation of section 12 of the Pension Act handed down by the Justice department, the commissioners ruled that the man's death had been caused by the aggravation during his service. The dependent widow was accordingly awarded pension.
In June, 1933, however, the pension appeal court gave a ruling regarding the interpretation of section 12, namely, that no pension could be awarded to the dependents of exsoldiers who had died from specific infection, whether incurred prior to enlistment and aggravated during service, or incurred during service, and accordingly the pensions of all widows and dependents in cases of death from preenlistment specific infection were discontinued. In this particular ease the discontinuance of pension was effective from October, 1933.
In view of this interpretation of section 12 of the Pension Act by the pension appeal court, the commissioners had no alternative but to take the action which was taken in this case, namely to discontinue this widow's pension.
I presume the action taken by the appeal court in that case was under the powers given to them by this house in section 65 of the act of last year, subsection (c), by which they have power in regard to "any question of interpretation of this act which may be referred by the crown or, by leave of the court, submitted by any applicant; and the procedure on such reference shall be as prescribed by the court."
I also recall that the royal commission of 1923, in regard to section 12, made a very strong and specific recommendation, that the discretion to award pensions should be exercised with regard to dependents, even where misconduct was on service. And this is a case, like many others, of pre-enlistment misconduct, widows being deprived of pension so many years after the war, notwithstanding that the royal commission recommended the exercise of discretion, and the Department of Justice having construed section 12 of the act as containing that discretion. This being so, it is unfortunate that the appeal court in their wisdom should have interpreted sec-

tion 12 as they have done, thereby bringing about the cessation of many pensions, without the pensioners concerned knowing the exact cause of such cessation.


Murray MacLaren: I understand that one of the class of cases referred to by the hdn. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) is now coming before the appeal court again, and the matter has not been lost sight of by any means. At the present time it is more or less under review.
I have found the information asked for by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). He is not in the chamber, but the information will be taken down and he will see it in Hansard. The question was with reference to the distribution of staff under the 1933 amendments to the act, so far as the pension tribunal is concerned. There were retained by the Department of Pensions and National Health 20 permanent officials and substaff; there were retained by the Canadian pension commission 20 permanent and 9 temporary; transferred to the Department of Finance, 3 permanent; retired by the Canadian pension commission, 19 permanent and 2 temporary. This makes a total of 62 permanent and 11 temporary.
Now I would say a word about the personnel of the pension commission. As I have already said in the house, I knew of no such arrangement as was given out by the previous president of the legion; I had no knowledge of it and have no knowledge of it now. And that has been so with two members of the commission who happened to mention it to me. I do not know how the misapprehension came about; all I know is that so far as I am concerned, I had no knowledge of it.
As regards the appointment, I am quite aware that there has been much criticism over the appointment of the personnel, although I must say I did not anticipate the amount of criticism that has occurred. This can be said of the personnel of the commission, that on the whole, and as regards a very large percentage of them, they are greatly experienced men in pension matters. We could hardly have selected as members of the commission men who had had more experience in matters of pension. I can say this as well, that they are most industrious; and as regards the number of cases to be heard, and the promptness with which matters are dealt with, the situation has never been so good as it is. I believe it will not be many months before such things as long

Supply-Pensions-European War
waiting will have passed. Apart from the commission, about which there is a difference of opinion, I cannot understand anyone having an objection to the reviewing officer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: None was taken.


Murray MacLaren: I believe there was.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; I do not think there was any objection.


Murray MacLaren: Not by any member of the house, but, I gathered, from an article that was read. However, I am glad to hear that there is no objection.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think
that as a matter of fact he was commended on the percentage of appeals; that was my understanding.


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member for
West Lambton made no comment whatever; he simply read the article. But what does the reviewing officer do? He reviews decisions and decides which should properly be taken to appeal; but that does not interfere with the returned man, because every returned man has the right to appeal. So that regardless of the reviewing officer the returned man is not interfered with; at most it can only mean a delay in the award as a result of the time taken in appeal. But why was it that Doctor Shields was selected as reviewing officer? It was because he had spent years in reading files and making reports thereon and was able to pick out the outstanding features in the files. An ordinary man cannot do that. He was a man specially trained for that work, and really it is difficult to see what objection can be made to his qualifications.
I do feel this, and I think it is only just for me to say so, that so far as individual cases go-and I am not referring to technical or legal questions-as regards fairness and integrity as well as from the point of view of freedom from influence, I really do believe that the present pension commission can merit our full confidence. It is important, especially in the country, to have that confidence. I do not think, so far as fair and honest dealing is concerned, that the men need be apprehensive of the members of the pension court. I say this again, with a good deal of comfort, that all vexatious delays- and they were vexatious and long-are being obviated, and I can see that in the near future cases will be dealt with, decided and disposed of within a reasonable time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was
the only case that was determined by going through the ordinary procedure of pension appeals. I would point out that Mr. Justice Taylor stressed the fact that a second appeal should not have been launched at all and that those paj^ments found to be due under the old federal appeal board system should have been immediately paid by the Canadian

____________Supply-Pensions-European War
pension commission. That is the finding of the appeal court at the present moment, yet it may be necessary, despite this judgment of the appeal court, for the other applicants once again to launch their applications and appeals. If the minister will be good enough to look into the situation, I think he should emphasize the point that the Canadian pension commission to-day should act upon the recommendation of the distinguished members of the appeal court. I believe the decision was given only a month ago, February 28.
Mr. MaoLAREN: I shall be pleased to make inquiries, but as this communication has gone to the Department of Justice on some point about the payment of pension-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is an entirely different point, I may tell the minister.


Murray MacLaren: I should like to wait to hear what the view of the Department of Justice is in regard to that matter. As to the question of the patriotic fund, I do not know anything about that. I do not see why that payment should count, but the commission appear to think it does. I shall be pleased to look into the matter and give the information as soon as it is available.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister will realize that there are two points to be considered: first the question of payment of pension to the widow, and, second, the question of paying pension to the other disputed cases, along the lines recommended by the members of the appeal court on February 28.


Murray MacLaren: I must say the case is an extremely unfortunate one, going from pillar to post; I cannot help thinking that there were several factors that were blameworthy. Whether it was a case of obstinacy or what, I do not know, nor do I know why it should have gone on to this time. Now I think some decision seems to be in sight.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I have no desire to prolong the consideration of the estimates, as the ground has been pretty well covered to-night, but I should like to make one or two observations. I deplore the tone of the speech made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) to-night- I see he is not in his seat now. I was a member of the special committee on pensions in 1928 and again last year, I have always taken considerable interest in the matter of pensions, but when the Liberal party were in power and since they have been in opposition, and I have never seen an instance of a member on either side of the house attempting to play 74726-114
politics in connection with pensions for exservice men. If there is one question that comes up for discussion here from time to time in connection with which I can say that politics have not been played, it is this question of pensions. But I am of the opinion that amendements to the Pension Act should be brought down by the government this session. In that regard there is one point I want to clear up, and may I say first that it is not done in any critical way or with the intention of casting any reflection at all upon the minister. On February 6 last, on the orders of the day, I addressed a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health. The question was, as reported at page 332 of Hansard:
I would ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren) if it is the intention of the government at this session to introduce any amendment or amendments to the Pension Act?
The reply of the minister was:
The question is under consideration at the present time.
On February 6 last the minister, speaking for the government, said that the question of amendments to the Pension Act was under consideration.
On March 19 I again addressed a question to the minister as follows:
Mr. Speaker, about three weeks ago I directed a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren). The question was this: Is it the intention of the government this session to bring down any amendment or amendments to the Pension Act. The reply of the minister at that time was that the matter was under consideration. Has he any further information to give to the house.
The minister's reply was:
The answer is in the negative.
I did not hear the minister very well when he made that answer, but on looking it up in Hansard the next morning I saw that the answer was ambiguous, so on March 20, on the orders of the day, I again directed a question to the minister, as reported at page 1784 of Hansard:
Yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren). The question was one I had asked previously, namely, on February 6, last. When the minister replied yesterday I was unable to hear him. The answer I saw in Hansard this morning is ambiguous, and does not convey anything. I shall put the question to nim again. Is it the intention of the government this session to bring down any amendment or amendments to the Pension Act?
Hon. Murray MacLaren (Minister of Pensions and National Health) :	My answer is very
similar to the one I gave yesterday: The government has not considered the subject.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: If my hon. friend from North Huron says it is out of order, Mr. Chairman, you may be sure that it is quite in order. I hope the minister will give that some thought at least.
Now I come back to the question whether we are going to have any amendment or amendments to the Pension Act this session. Will the minister be good enough to give the committee a definite answer, either yes or no?


Murray MacLaren: If my hon. friend who has just taken his seat will give me the numbers and names, privately, of those men to whom he referred, I will have the cases looked into.


Frederick George Sanderson: I shall be very glad to give the minister the information.


Murray MacLaren: My hon. friend has the virtue of persistence, which is a great thing in life. I believe I am acquiring something of a legal mind, because I do not see any 74726-114 J
real discrepancy between those two answers that I gave. After all, six weeks elapsed between the two questions, and if my hon. friend were to ask me again in six weeks my answer might be just as varied, because it would depend on the interval that had elapsed since the question was previously asked. Circumstances change. I am not joking now; I would be happy to give a frank answer and say yes or no if I could, but that is something I cannot do. AH I can say is that when I can make that answer I will make haste to let my hon. friend know. I would prefer that the hon. member should not press that matter for the present, because it is impossible to say yes or no. The answer given the other day may have seemed to him to be a little involved, but it was a guarded answer and was within the bounds of accuracy. I think we might well let the matter stand.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am perfectly willing to let the matter stand if the minister is referring to the question whether or not any amendment or amendments will be brought down. But I want to put this question to the minister now: Can he tell the committee if the government is giving any consideration to the matter?


Sir EUGENE FISET:: He is strong on consideration.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister was
strong on consideration on February 28, but on March 19 he was off consideration.


Murray MacLaren: I might have become
very weak by that time. One's condition of strength varies from time to time, according to 'circumstances. I shall do thie best I can, but I am sure that I cannot give the hon. member an answer which would satisfy him at the present time. I shall be delighted to do it when I can.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister could
easily give me an answer which would satisfy me.


James Layton Ralston: All he has to do is to
say yes, and you would be satisfied.


Frederick George Sanderson: If he would say yes, I should be satisfied, and if he would isay no, we woilld know that the government was not going to bring down any 'amendment. Does the minister wish to leave the matter just where it is?


Murray MacLaren: I should prefer that.
1802	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War


Frederick George Sanderson: Well then, I shall have to accept the minister's answer, such as it is, and he will have to take the responsibility of not satisfying me. I have given him every opportunity and every chance, not only once, but for the second and third times. This is now the fourth time. While on the first, second and third occasions he wavered, on the fourth occasion _he almost toppled over, and still he says nothing. I am perfectly willing to leave it at that.


Thomas Reid: Before the item passes I should like to make one or two observations. While most of the discussion this evening 'has been about marriage licences, I have before me the particulars of a case which, although not quite within the category of the cases under discussion, is important enough to bring before the minister. This man has been separated from his wife for twenty-six years. Five years ago he married a woman who was also a pensioner, heir husband, a returned man, having died, and she being in receipt of a pension. On her marriage to this man she lost the pension, but of course his allowance was increased owing to the fact that .he had married. Upon inquiry it -now turns out that he was not legally married to the woman he is n-o-w staying with.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?


Thomas Reid: Having been separated some
twenty-six years they say h-e fa still legally married to the woman in England.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is she living?


Thomas Reid: I understand that she is. But
the situation fa this: He married the second time in good faith, and if he is not legally married, the woman, who, was originally a pensioner, should have her pension restored. The board should be consistent.


Murray MacLaren: Where does -the matter stand? Is it now before the courts?


Thomas Reid: No, the matter fa not before
the courts. They ore deducting so much a month from this -man, stating that during these five years he has been over paid, although at the -time of his marriage to the woman with whom he is living he notified the board of -the circumstances, and no objection was then taken.


Murray MacLaren: This -case may have
been restored; I cannot state definitely, as a matter of fact, but restoration may have been

made, under the announcement made some time ago 'by the Prime Minister. If the hon. member will let me know the name I shall look into the matter.


Thomas Reid: I made inquiries from the
board of pension commissioners, and only a few days ago received a letter from the man in question in which he States he had not received pension. In making inquiries I was informed that this case would not come under the cases for discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It dearly would not.


Thomas Reid: If it would not it is an awkward position in which to be left. If she is not legally married to the man her pension should be restored. She is the wife of a returned man who had died, and before she married was in receipt of a pension. I believe this case is worthy of attention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. member
say she has not had the pension restored to her, either?


Thomas Reid: No she has not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is
quite sure of that?


Thomas Reid: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot have it both ways; that is reasonably clear.


Thomas Reid: I believe the case fa important enough to bring before the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member will
give the minister the name.


Thomas Reid: I shall do so privately; I have it before me.
M-r. RALSTON: I ibel-ieve the answer is that she is supposed to be living an immoral life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but I think that is nonsense; it is not fair.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member for South
Perth (Mr. Sanderson) spoke about the benefit of the doubt clause, and I am wondering whether hon. members have really touched the crux of the matter as it was put to me by the returned men's organization before I came to Ottawa. I think there is a great deal of merit in their claim. Subsection (a) of section 11 states:
Pensions shall be awarded to or in respect of members of the forces who have suffered

Unemployment and Farm Relief
disability in accordance with the rates set out in schedule A of this act, and in respect pf members of the forces who have died in accordance with the rates set out in schedule B of this act, when the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made was attributable to or was incurred during such military service.
The word "incurred" is in clause (a), but when one comes to clause (c) hon. members will find 'that the word "incurred" has been left out. The returned men's organization which interviewed me maintained that the board of pension commissioners took no notice whatever of clause (a), but that they based their findings on clause (b), and if that is the case section 73, the benefit of the doubt clause, has no effect. That is evident, because in subsection (c) the word "attributable" is left out, the word "incurred" alone remaining, and a man has to prove hospitalization during the time he was in France or England before he is able to prove that the injury from which he is now suffering was incurred in service. At the time the act was drafted the words "attributable to" were put in so as to give a man the reasonable benefit of the doubt of injuries attributable to war service and from which he might be suffering to-day. I believe it is because this expression is left out of subsection (c) that there is a good deal of unrest and dissatisfaction from one end of the country to the other, especially on the part of those who have been turned down, due to the fact that they were not able to bring proof or to show in the records that they had incurred disability while serving either in France, in England, or with the forces.
I think these matters should be taken into consideration. If the minister is contemplating any changes in the act he would do well to look into the wording of subsection (a) and note that while in that subsection the words "attributable to" appear, they are left out of subsection (c), and there is just the word "incurred"; so that in dealing with section 73 the board has been looking only at subsection (c) and ignoring subsection (a). That is the crux of all the trouble and the dissatisfaction of many returned men who find themselves suffering from ailments attributable to war service.
While the cases in which the question of marriage is involved have been discussed, I have before me a complaint which is entirely different but which I . believe should be mentioned. My understanding is that the act did not come into force until October 1 of last year. In the changes made last year there
was provision under which any children born after May 1 would not be granted a pension or could not be registered. I have had several complaints from my own constituency about children bom in the month of June. Apparently the board were acting ahead of time; at least they were acting before the law had been made operative by official notice. I think from the investigations I have made that we were perhaps a little to hasty last year when we enacted that legislation regarding children born after June 1, 1933. Many men who served at the front are still comparatively young men, and when that clause was put in we were, in a way, telling them that children they had in future would not be registered with the board of pension commissioners, nor would they receive any pension on their account. But cases that happened in June of last year should have been registered and should have received the small pension, at least until such time as the governor in council made the proclamation in October, 1938. I am sorry to have taken up the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, but these matters are very important.


Murray MacLaren: We have made a note of the hon. gentleman's point in reference to the drafting of that clause. Personally I think it is correct, but it is a difficult question, and if the hon. member would come to the department some time we could go into that fully.


Thomas Reid: I shall be very pleased to do so.


Mr. BRADETTE:: It is my duty to bring to the attention of the committee a case thait I have brought up in two previous years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will not proceed to-night, as the Minister of Labour desires to table some papers.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked for certain information in connection with the resolution that was then being dealt with in committee, and with the consent of the house I desire to lay on the table auditor general's reports, twenty in number; also
Questions

statements concerning expenditure by the federal government, by provinces, under the various relief acts since 1930; statements of loans and advances to provinces; numbers receiving relief by months, from January, 1933, to February, 1934, inclusive; also statement as to the number employed in trade unions.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) also asked that he be supplied with details of the work to which the federal government had subscribed in that constituency. The hon. member is not in his place just now, and I will lay that information on the table so that it will be available for him.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.68 pirn.
Monday, March 26, 1934