1935-03-15

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 38 to amend the Railway Act (Rates on grain).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which I am now asking for leave to introduce is one which would amend the Railway Act so as to give to British Columbia the same terms in the matter of freight rates on grain and grain products for domestic use within that province as are given to the other provinces of the dominion. In other words, this bill will make applicable the same freight rates on grain and grain products westward from Fort William to the Pacific coast as are now in existence from Calgary or Edmonton eastward. These rates were fixed by statute, first in 1897 and again in 1925.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice, for Mr. Bennett) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention concerning the creation of minimum wage fixing machinery adopted as a draft convention by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations at its eleventh session in Geneva on the 16th day of June, 1928, reading as follows:-
02582-110 J
Draft Convention Concerning the Creation of Minimum Wage Fixing machinery
The general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations,
Having been convened at Geneva by the governing body of the international labour office, and having met in its eleventh session on 30th May, 1928, and
Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to minimum wage fixing machinery, which is the first item on the agenda of the session, and
Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of a draft international convention,
adopts, this sixteenth day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, the following draft convention for ratification by the members of the international labour organization, in accordance with the provisions of part XIII of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace:-
Article 1
Each member of the international labour organization which ratifies this convention undertakes to create or maintain machinery whereby minimum rates of wages can be fixed for workers employed in certain of the trades or parts of trades (and in particular in home working trades) in which no arrangements exist for the effective regulation of wages by collective agreement or otherwise and wages are exceptionally low.
<i ^'or ^'e Purpose of this convention the term "trades" includes manufacture and commerce.
Article 2
Each member which ratifies this convention shall be free to decide, after consultation with the organizations, if any, of workers and employers in the trade or part of trade concerned, in which trades or parts of trades, and in particular in which home working trades or parts of such trades, the minimum wage fixing machinery referred to in article 1 shall be applied.
Article 3
Each member which ratifies this convention shall be free to decide the nature and form of the minimum wage fixing machinery, and the methods to be followed in its operation:-
Provided that,
(1)	Before the machinery is applied in a trade or part of trade, representatives of the employers and workers concerned, including representatives of their respective organizations, if any, shall be consulted as well as any other persons, being specially qualified for the purpose by their trade or functions, whom the competent authority deems it expedient to consult;
(2)	The employers and workers concerned shall be associated in the operation of the machinery, in such manner and to such extent, but in any case in equal numbers and on equal terms, as may be determined by national laws or regulations;

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
(3)	Minimum rates of wages which have been fixed shall be binding on the employers and workers concerned so as not to be subject to abatement by them by individual agreement, nor, except with the general or particular authorization of the competent authority, by collective agreement.
Article 4
Each member which ratifies this convention shall take the necessary measures, by way of a system of supervision and sanctions, to ensure that the employers and workers concerned are informed of the minimum rates of wages in force and that wages are not paid at less than these rates in cases where they are applicable.
A worker to whom the minimum rates are applicable and who has been paid wages at less than these rates shall be entitled to recover, by judicial or other legalized proceedings, the amount by which he has been underpaid, subject to such limitation of time as may be determined by national laws or regulations.
Article 5
Each member which ratifies this convention shall communicate annually to the international labour office a general statement giving a list of the trades or parts of trades in which the minimum wage fixing machinery has been applied, indicating the methods as well as the results of the application of the machinery and in summary form, the approximate numbers of workers covered, the minimum rates of wages fixed, and the more important of the other conditions, if any, established relevant to the minimum rates.
Article 6
The formal ratifications of this convention under the conditions set forth in part XIII of the treaty of Versailles and in the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace shall be communicated to the secretary-general of the League of Nations for registration.
Article 7
This convention shall be binding only upon those members whose ratifications have been registered with the secretariat.
It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the ratifications of two members of the international labour organization have been registered with the secretary-general.	.
Thereafter, this convention shall come into force for any member twelve months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.
Article 8
As soon as the ratifications of two members of the international labour organization have been registered with the secretariat, the secretary-general of the League of Nations shall so notify all the members of the international labour organization. He shall likewise notify them of the registration of ratifications which may be communicated subsequently by other members of the organization.
Article 9
A member which has ratified this convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the secretary-general of the League of Nations for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered with the secretariat.

Each member which has ratified this convention and which does not, within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided' for in this article, will be bound for another period of five years and, thereafter, may denounce this convention at the expiration of each period of five years under the terms provided for in this article.
Article 10
At least once in ten years, the governing body of the international labour office shall present to the general conference a report on the working of this convention and shall consider the desirability of placing on the agenda of the conference the question of its revision or modification.
Article 11
The French and English texts of this convention shall both be authentic, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which has just been read is the result of a draft convention submitted by the labour department of the League of Nations and which was approved on June 16, 1928, by the eleventh session held at Geneva. It is called a draft convention concerning the creation of minimum waige fixing machinery, and the approval of this house is now sought of the provisions of this draft convention. While this draft convention was passed in 1928 and submitted in due course to the various nations which make up the League of Nations, it was not formerly introduced in this house nor has a request been made heretofore to parliament for its approval. I may state for the information of the house that the convention has already been approved by the following countries: Australia, Chile, China, Colombia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, the Irish Free State, Italy, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Uruguay.
I fancy it is unnecessary for me to give any historical resume in regard to this matter. This draft convention is in a similar position to the other conventions which have been hitherto submitted for approval at this session of parliament. The convention as now submitted follows, I think, exactly the language of the draft convention. H approved by parliament a bill will be introduced with the idea of carrying out the provisions of the convention. If the convention is approved there will be an interval of twelve months before it can be brought into operation under its terms. If approved and ratified by the act which I propose to introduce, then it is registered at Geneva and, after due ratification and notification, becomes binding throughout the Dominion of Canada.

Minimum 'Wage Draft Convention
As the house is no doubt aware, in many of the provinces of Canada at the present time there exist minimum wage laws. I think this applies to seven of the nine provinces; the only two in which such laws are not now in force are Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. New Brunswick has already passed a minimum wage act, but that act is not to be brought into force until it is proclaimed, and I understand that it has not yet been proclaimed. But in the seven other provinces there are different minimum wage laws in force. The effect of the approval of this present draft convention and its subsequent enactment into law will be to supersede the provincial laws in respect of minimum wages. The authority of this parliament with respect to such a matter is I think undoubted, having regard to the fact that Canada became a party to the treaty of Versailles and to the covenant of the League of Nations; and under section 132 of the British North America Act this parliament is empowered to carry into effect such a convention and to impose it upon the rest of the dominion.
There will be in the bill-.perhaps I should not mention it now, but I do-a saving clause in respect to the minimum laws in any of the provinces which provide rates in excess of any minimum wages which may be provided under the dominion act. If in any province higher wages are authorized than those provided in the dominion legislation, the higher wages will still prevail. I think that is the only explanation needed of me at the present time, and I move the approval of the house of this resolution.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: With the principle of a minimum
wage in industry we on this side of the house are in full accord, and I am pleased indeed that in most of the provinces of Canada, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has just said-and I believe that they are the authority to deal with this question-such a provision is in force.
I do not desire to repeat in any way the arguments which I presented when another draft convention was laid on the table of this house for approval, but I wish to place before the house an aspect of the question which I have not dealt with in any way and which I believe is of the most serious importance. The government bases its claim for jurisdiction in this matter, as well as in the other draft conventions which have been submitted, on the treaty of Versailles and more particularly on the labour part of that treaty and on our adhesion to the League of Nations and our membership in the league.
I need not say that I have always been a strong supporter of the idea of the League of Nations. I supported it before it was established; I supported it when it was introduced in this parliament in 1919, and I have always supported it since. I am a believer in the principle of collective security for the establishment of peace in the world, and I do not think I am disclosing any secret in saying that so long as I was a member of the government of Canada I always worked to have our country accept the principles of the league. Indeed, on the question of the acceptance of the optional clause which bound Canada to accept the decision of the international court of justice -it was optional-Canada led the other countries of the empire in the acceptance of that clause, and I had the honour to speak for this country at one of the conferences in London which dealt with that matter. Even last week it was my privilege to address a large audience in my own city in defence of the ideas and the principle of the League of Nations. I have had the honour of serving as president of the League of Nations Society in Canada for the last two years, having only recently resigned, because I thought that in justice to the society as well as to myself I ought to have my full freedom in the discussion of certain matters connected with this question of the League of Nations.
I submit-and I am sorry to say so-that the new theory, the new doctrine which has been accepted by the government and which is being set forth for the purpose of transferring jurisdiction from the provinces to this parliament on certain matters is a blow to the prestige of the league and its work in this country. We entered the league and voted for the treaty of peace, the covenant of the League of Nations, and the international labour office, as I said, in 1919. Canada accepted that because of what was then stated was her obligation as a result of our joining these international bodies. What was stated at the time with regard to this section 405 of the treaty which the government claims gives jurisdiction to this parliament on the question of draft conventions? This is not in any way a new matter. In 1919, when the peace treaty was before the House of Commons, various documents explaining the many matters included in the treaty were at the same time laid on the table of the house. I have before me sessional papers for 1919, the special session which was held just for the purpose of approving the treaty, and there was laid on the table and printed by order of the house a certain report by the British delegates to

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
the peace conference. I wish to draw the attention of the house to what they said in their report with regard to this very matter of draft conventions, and I quote from page 8 of the report as contained in the sessional papers of 1919. When section 405, the present section, came before the delegates of the peace conference, there immediately arose trouble because of the situation of federal states. The United States delegates of course had an important standing at the peace conference. President Wilson was there with his associates, and this is what the British delegates said:
The American delegation, however, found themselves unable to accept the obligations implied in the British draft on account of the limitations imposed on the central executive and legislative powers by the constitution of certain federal states, and notably of the United States themselves. They pointed out that the federal government could not accept the obligation to ratify conventions dealing with matters within the competence of the forty-eight states of the union, with which the power of labour legislation for the most part rested. Further, the federal government could not guarantee that the constituent 6tates, even if they passed the necesary legislation to give effect to a convention, would put it into effective operation, nor could it provide against the possibility of such legislation being declared unconstitutional by the supreme judicial authorities. The government could not therefore engage to do something which was not within their power to perform, and the nonperformance of which would render them liable to complaint.
The commission felt that they were here faced by a serious dilemma, which threatened to make the establishment of any real system of international labour legislation impossible. On the one hand, its range and effectiveness would be almost fatally limited if a country of such industrial importance as the United States did not participate. On the other hand, if the scheme were so weakened as to impose no obligation on states to give effect to, or even to bring before their legislative authorities, the decisions of the labour conference, it was clear that its work would tend to be confined to the mere passage of resolutions instead of resulting in the promotion of social reforms with the sanction of law behind them.
The commission spent a considerable amount of time in attempting to devise a way out of this dilemma, and is glad to be able to record that it ultimately succeeded in doing so. Article 19 as now drafted

That is section 405.
-represents a solution found by a subcommission consisting of representatives of the American, British and Belgian delegations specially appointed to consider the question. It provides that the decisions of the labour conference may take the form either of recommendations or of draft conventions. Either must be deposited with the secretary general of the League of Nations and each state undertakes to bring it within one year before its competent authorities for the enactment of legislation or other action. If no legislation
' Mr. Lapointe.]
or other action to make a recommendation effective follows, or if a draft convention fails to obtain the consent of the competent authorities concerned, no further obligation will rest on the state in question. In the case of a federal state, however, whose power to enter into conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, its government may treat a draft convention to -which such limitations apply as a recommendation only.
Further on they said:
Though reluctant to contemplate an arrangement under which all states -would not be under identical obligations, the commission felt that it was impossible not to recognize the constitutional difficulties which undoubtedly existed in the case of certain federal states, and therefore proposed the above solution as the best possible in the circumstances.
In another house, an hon. gentleman who was responsible for the enactment of the law ratifying the treaty in 1919 said: How would the Americans act? They would certainly ratify those draft conventions and act as a nation, and not merely send those draft conventions to the various states. He was in error. This section 405 was drafted just to meet the ease of the United States, Canada and other federated states situated in similar circumstances. The Prime Minister said: Yes, but there is in the article mention of the discretion which may be used by the federal member of the league. Yes, there is a discretion, but not a discretion to do what is being done by ratifying these conventions in this dominion parliament. This is what the discretion is:
In the case of a federal state, the power of which to enter into conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, it shall be in the discretion of that government to treat a draft convention to which such limitations apply as a recommendation only,-
No legislative action is required.
-and the provisions of this article with respect to recommendations shall apply in such case.
The above article shall be interpreted in accordance with the following principle.
That is, there is this discretion that the federal state may treat this merely	as	arecommendation though it is a draft convention, but	when	it does not treat it	as	a
recommendation, there is another part of this section that applies, and that part states:
In the case of a draft convention, the member will, if it obtains the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, communicate the formal ratification of the convention-*
And so	forth.	So that the discretion	iseither to	treat	the draft convention	as	a
recommendation or to accept it as a draft convention and to ratify it only if the consent of the competent authority to deal with

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
it is first obtained to do so. The Prime Minister said, a former Prime Minister: But Canada is a nation, and we have the right to act as a nation. Yes, Canada is a nation, I am pleased to see that recognized even by those who did not like it when steps toward nationhood were being taken. I am proud to say Canada is a nation. But Canada is a nation as a federal state. Canada consists not only of this parliament but of the nine provincial legislatures as well. It is Canada as a federal state that is the nation, in exactly the same manner as the United States is a nation, although it consists of forty-eight states which are autonomous and upon whose powers congress cannot encroach; in exactly the same way as Brazil is a nation, as the Argentine republic is a nation, as Australia is a nation. But they are all federal states. And the fact that we are a nation does not give us the right to encroach upon the autonomy and the jurisdiction of the various provinces which form part of our confederation. No hon. member in this house who at that time agreed to enter the League of Nations did so with the idea that this would have the effect of changing the constitution of Canada, that it would have the effect of taking some powers from the provinces and transferring them to the dominion parliament. Every government that has been at the head of affairs since 1919, every Prime Minister, every minister of the crown who has dealt with this matter has taken no other attitude than the one I am taking now. Even the Supreme Court of Canada took the same stand. In another house a gentleman who has been Prime Minister and who is one of those responsible for what took place said, "I was wrong when I said that." He even said that the Supreme Court of Canada was wrong in 1925 when they gave their decision. Well, Mr. Speaker, if those gentlemen were wrong, if the government of Canada was wrong in 1919 when they told us what the obligations were that we were assuming, we accepted everything under a pretence, which I will not say was false, but which amounts to a breach of trust towards those who in good faith accepted the solemn statement and declarations of the statesmen who were speaking for the people of Canada at that time.
The radio and aviation judgments have nothing to do with this question of a draft convention for international labour. They were based on special treaties which were entered into with various other nations. If we accept this theory of the government what does it mean? Every year three or four
gentlemen leave Canada to go to Geneva to attend a labour conference. I have here the names of all the delegates to the labour conferences since 1921. There is nobody for whom I have more respect than my good friend Tom Moore, who is head of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. There is always a representative of the employers also, he is usually a manufacturer from Toronto or Montreal, sometimes their legal representative. And the government is represented either by one of the officers of the Department of Labour or by Doctor Riddell. They are all good fellows, but has it ever entered the mind of any Canadian that Mr. Tom Moore, or Paddy Draper, or a manufacturer of Toronto should go to Geneva and by simply assenting to or taking part in the passing of a draft convention concerning hours of labour or minimum wages or anything in the world would have the power to transfer from the provinces the jurisdiction given to them by the British North America Act? Nobody has ever dreamed that such a state of things could exist. Do you see what tremendous importance and responsibility those delegates to the international labour conference would have if the doctrine of the government is accepted as the right one?
There is more than that. Since the establishment of the international labour conference Canada has been a member of the governing body. The eight greatest industrial nations of the world had a permanent seat on the governing body, Canada being one. In 1922 I had the honour to go to the meeting of the League of Nations with the late Mr. Fielding to represent Canada, and as a labour conference took place immediately after I represented Canada at that conference. Then there was a movement to exclude Canada from the governing body, passed unanimously in the committee which dealt with the question. I opposed the report of the committee before the full conference, and I had the pleasure to get a unanimous vote rejecting the report of the committee and retaining Canada on the governing body. Since then Canada has continued to sit on the governing body until this year, but this year Canada is replaced by Russia. Of course being a member of the governing body gives prestige to a nation. The resolutions and recommendations and draft conventions that come before the conference are always prepared before the conference takes place, and the members of the governing body have indeed an important part to play there. But Canada is there no longer. Draft conventions
1738	COMMONS
Minimum Wage Draft Convention
which might be brought before the international labour conference by the governing body, of which we are no longer members, but of which Russia is in our place,-whether we here accept these conventions or not is not the question at all-'would have the effect of giving to the parliament of Canada jurisdiction and power which the British North America Act does not give to this parliament. Can this be contradicted or denied? I do not think it can. And /I think that you will agree that this is a serious matter, a most serious matter with respect to the prestige of the league and of the international labour conference in this country. In point of fact newspapers that have always criticized the League of Nations, always criticized our membership in it, are taking advantage of this new position to criticize further and to discredit what Canada is doing there and to say that its constitution is 'being changed at the behest of men coming from all parts of the world. Of course I do not admit that it is right. I do not think the position taken by this house is right, and I humbly submit that it will not be accepted by the courts. I think we shall come back to the constitutional status of Canada as it is, until it is changed in an orderly way, and not simply by assuming a jurisdiction which is not ours.
Now I see my good friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). He used rather vehement language in regard to my stand on this matter the other day, rather passionate. I do not blame him for that, but he is certainly wrong when he takes that stand. He is not alone in taking that position; I have heard other gentlemen say, " Well, what has the constitution to do with it? When we are facing difficulties we must look after the human constitution" and so on. That is soap boxing at its worst. Certainly human measures must be adopted; we all must do our best to achieve reforms, but they must be achieved in an orderly and proper way and not simply by saying, "We are the strongest; we are going to do it whether or not the constitution says so." And, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman speaks in this house as he does; if he speaks his mind openly in various parts of the country as he does-and he does well to do so-it is because he is protected by the constitution. The constitution is our safeguard. I cannot understand gentlemen who protest against the prevailing order of things in the world being impatient with regard to the constitution, and being willing to have it set aside if they do not like some of its provisions. I am with them when they ask that changes should be made, but I ask my hon. friend 
from Winnipeg North Centre what is the use' of the committee, to which has been sent his resolution, if we simply say that w-e assume responsibility, that the constitution need not be changed but that we are merely taking these steps by our own will and our own action.
I agree with my leader that before these measures were introduced in this house there should have been an understanding with the provinces. Not only is that the only legal and rational way; it would have been also the only courteous way, but instead the government are taking a position which will invite trouble, as I am sure they know. They ought to have the opinion of the courts with regard to the matter. The Prime Minister says he does not like references to the supreme court, that they do not amount to anything and that we should avoid them. Well, would it surprise you, Mr. Speaker, to learn that last year, not when my right hon. leader was head of the government but in 1934, no less than three references were submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada? I will mention them. There was a reference as to the constitutionality of the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act. There was a reference as to the constitutionality of section 110 of the Dominion Companies Act, and there was another reference with regard to the legality of certain provisions concerning the tariff -board. If these three references could be made last year in connection with matters a good deal less important than those now submitted to the house, why not take the same course with regard to these questions? We cannot refer to what takes place in a committee, of course, but the deputy minister of justice gave it as his opinion that the reference to the courts should take place afterward by way of an action instituted by some interested party, and then the courts could pronounce as to the validity and legality of the act. I submit that this should not be the situation. When matters so important as these, in connection with which industries will have to change their methods, readjustments will have to be made, and large expenditures of money may be necessary, I think the constitutionality and validity should be tested first rather than after the measures are placed on the statute books of the country.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am in favour of the principle of minimum wages. I am even in favour of this draft convention so far as it applies to dominion works or to those parts of Canada which are not part of any province. So far as the rest is concerned, I am in favour of it but it is for the provinces

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
to deal with, and I have no hesitation in saying that those who are in favour of these measures will see before long that the position I take is the correct position.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this measure, as in connection with the other social measures that have been introduced, I welcome the action taken by the government in attempting to honour our obligations under the peace treaty. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has asked why I have urged that a committee consider how we may best revise the British North America Act. Let me say that it must be nearly ten years since I first brought in a resolution to this effect, which resolution was sharply turned down. A few years later I again introduced a resolution along the same lines, and at that time the government promised that we would have some sort of action in the way of a conference on the matter between the dominion and the provinces. That, however, never took place, so this year I again urged that action be taken. I think it would have been well if years ago we could have had a decision with regard to the best means of amending the British North America Act, so I do not think the hon. member who has just spoken can very well say that I have been indifferent to that aspect of the matter. But it is a good many years since we first gave our solemn obligation to do something with regard to such matters as those we have before us to-day. I think the hon. member for Quebec East will admit that times do change and things do move on, and that social changes greatly change even legal interpretations.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My legal friends may say no; that is a pose with them. After the gold case in the United States I think we all began to understand a little more clearly that political exigencies as well as a completely changed condition do make necessary changes in legal interpretations. A few years ago in Canada our supreme court decided that women were not persons under the terms of the British North America Act. That might have been quite dearly and properly the strict legal interpretation; I am told by my friends that it was. I think, however, that the great majority of the people of Canada welcomed the decision of the privy council that under changed conditions women could have a place in the Senate. We cannot forever be tied down by interpretations given many years ago. The fact is that we live in a new
world under changed conditions and in some way or other we must attempt to meet those changed conditions. The hon. member for Quebec East rather suggests that I have been guilty of soap boxing when I have not paid too great attention to the letter of the law in such matters as the one before us. Well, I should like to say to him that in my judgment the constitution was made for Canada and for the Canadian people; the Canadian people were not made for the constitution. I believe that is a sound principle.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And it seems to me that under those circumstances some effort must be made to enable us to live-


Ernest Lapointe: Change it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are trying to
change it. Meantime, we must live. The hon. member for Quebec East was for a good many years a member of a government that made no effort to change the constitution.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not changed yet.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but the hon.
member made no effort to change it, and the government of which he was a member made no effort to implement the terms of the peace treaty.


Ernest Lapointe: Has the hon. member
read the report which was printed following the interprovincial conference?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: He must have seen that
I made some efforts there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was a very weak effort, one not worthy of the hon. member.


Ernest Lapointe: Not as strong as those
of my hon. friend of course,-but I did my best.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would not say one is doing his best when he is content to accept a very narrow interpretation of our rights under our constitution.


Ernest Lapointe: I never accepted any
narrow interpretation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the trouble with the hon. member for Quebec East is that he is so sincere in his beliefs that he assumes all the rest of us must, of necessity, concede that his interpretation is right.


Ernest Lapointe: We must never agree.

Minimum Wage Draft Convention


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: There are other
interpretations, and I fancy the hon. member for Quebec East is exaggerating a very great deal when he says that such a convention as the one before us is, in effect, a change of the constitution of Canada.
I shall illustrate by reference to another matter, altogether. During the last few years we set up an imperial conference for which there is no provision in the constitution. At that imperial conference certain agreements were made which resulted in certain tariff changes, and those tariff changes were agreed to by the government before they were submitted to parliament. Possibly the hon. member for Quebec East will argue that those imperial agreements really changed our constitution.


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all; we are within our jurisdiction.


James Shaver Woodsworth: He might argue as I have suggested; I am glad he does not. But I submit it is fundamental under our constitution that the people ought not to be taxed, without their consent and tariffs are of the nature of a tax.


An hon. MEMBER:: They had to be
ratified.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to hear
the hon. member suggest the reason; they had to be ratified by parliament. Very well; I do not think the obligations we undertook at the time of the Versailles treaty were undertaken with the understanding that we would comply without ratification. I take it that the resolution now brought before us is a ratification by this parliament; that is all it is. I say this because I do not believe the hon. member for Quebec East is at all right when he suggests that the obligations which we undertook at Versailles, in connection with the Versailles treaty in any respect whatever had the effect of changing our constitution. He would seek to frighten us by the idea that since Russia has now taken our place in the council of the league, what Russia determines in conjunction with other members in the council might have the effect of still further altering our constitution. Nothing done there will be binding upon Canada until it is ratified, and the whole problem is as to whether or not we have the right to ratify. It is not. a problem of changing our constitution at all. I do not believe the hon. member for Quebec East has been at all right in suggesting any result as serious as that, iMr. Lapointe.]
The question is as to whether we wish to ratify the convention. The nations signing the peace treaty recognized very clearly that there could not be permanent peace without the establishment of social justice. I fancy that all of us would agree with that general principle. But if we are to have social justice I believe it becomes necessary for us to have something like uniform international standards. We are recognizing that to a certain extent in connection with our monetary affairs. The world becomes a chaos unless we have something like uniform monetary standards. It would be quite impossible for us to maintain our Canadian standards of labour if Japan, Czechoslovakia or some other country were allowed to compete with us while their workers wore condemned to very low standards of living. It is obvious that if we are going to have free competition such as the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young) would like to have, in order that that competition should be fair we would require something like uniform standards. So even the hon. member for Weybum would be driven to accept something of this nature.


Mr. YOUNG:: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I take it, then,
that unless Canada is to fall far behind other nations we must seek in some way to implement our treaty obligations. The hon. member for Quebec East has stressed the fact that we are a federal country. Well, child labour was continued for a great many years in the United States under exactly the same plea- state rights. It required the new deal introduced by President Roosevelt to get rid of child labour. There are ways of overriding even these so-called state rights, rights which in actual practice frequently mean that certain individuals or certain groups who have personal or corporate interest in maintaining low standards and retarding progress are, under what they call state rights, able to make an excuse for perpetuation the existing state of affairs.
I realize that in Canada we have difficulties. But if this country is to be preserved as a federation we must have uniformity along certain lines. We have one set of tariffs which apply 'to all of Canada. In the west we have felt that for a good many years, because of the high tariffs which have been granted to eastern manufacturers, we have been very unjustly treated. We are told however that we could not very well split up into

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
Tegional divisions for purposes of tariffs, although I would say in passing that the present government has attempted to do that very thing so far as seasonal tariffs are concerned. They have imposed fruit and vegetable tariffs on the people in the west long before they have been placed on the people in the east. On the whole however I believe we have thought that we ought to have uniformity in tariff arrangements. If that be correct then surely we ought to have some sort of. uniformity in the conditions under which the manufacturer produces. I suppose it is thirty years since I heard a manufacturer in my own city complaining that we could not possibly introduce provincial minimum wage laws so long as the manufacturers in Montreal were paying their employees much lower wages than were being paid in Winnipeg. There is a good deal in that argument. Therefore we cannot have effective minimum wage legislation until it is standardized throughout the various provinces.
The suggestion has been made that already we have minimum wage legislation in those provinces. We have; but with the exception of one province such legislation is confined to female labour; it is not a general minimum wage scale. My labour friends have always been a little bit afraid of minimum wage legislation because they are afraid that the minimum wage may become the standard wage. I take it that there is some little danger along that line, but notwithstanding this I feel that on the whole minimum wage legislation is a move in the right direction.
Another question arises as to the basis upon which we are to calculate the minimum wage. This offers a real difficulty. Usually it is calculated upon the basis of what is sufficient to support a man and his family in decency. The average family is considered as being one consisting of three children, but it is known to all that we do not have average families. Some workers are not married, others have one child, others two or three children, while others may have six, eight, ten or fifteen children. There is no "average" family and if we provide a minimum wage based upon some hypothetical average family we will not be providing for the needs of actual families. Several years ago I supported a motion moved in this house by one of the Quebec members to provide for something in the way of dominion-wide family allowances. I think such allowances would be reasonable and would be a more just way of providing for the actual needs of families in this country. That motion was thrown out. I realize that there aie certain theoretical objections to such
an arrangement as some people think that the providing of family allowances would mean the subsidizing of very large familes, which would be disastrous. On the other hand, I would point out that when the standard of living rises, the size of the family usually decreases.
It seems to me that we should make it a crime to employ people in this country at less than a decent wage. Of course this legislation will put this matter within the criminal code, though I would not object to its being placed there. We make it a crime for a man to ill treat his horse by not feeding it properly or by treating it cruelly, but, so far, it has been quite proper for an employer to give his employee less than will enable him to live according to a decent standard of living and rear his family in decency. It seems to me that anything tending to make it impossible for employers to act in this way is a move in the right direction. I have not seen the bill so I cannot 9peak as to its terms but I hope that it will provide for a standard high enough to make it possible for every Canadian to live decently. Until such time as we get a change in our constitution or until such time as we get a new interpretation of our constitution I think the government is well advised to introduce legislation of this kind and have Canada placed side by side with some of the other more progressive countries in the world.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it seems necessary that I should make a statement in order to meet certain criticism which appeared last year in the public press and which I think was due to a misapprehension of the views which I entertain. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the question referred to it as to hours of labour and other matters I do not think has been clearly understood or expressed by certain speakers in this house and in another place. Referring to article 405, paragraph 5 of the treaty of Versailles which deals with labour matters, on June 10, 1925, Mr. Justice Duff said:
It seems very clear that the duty arising under this clause is not a duty to enact legislation or to promote legislation; it is an undertaking simply to bring the recommendation or draft convention before the competent authority.
That was the opinion given by the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference made to it by the government of the day. My personal opinion is that I do not think that opinion of the supreme court is likely to be overturned when read in connection with the question submitted to it. This is simply the personal opinion of one who has been a student of the

Minimum Wage Drajt Convention
British North America Act for a period dating from fifteen years after its passage during which time I have found it necessary to refer to the decisions of the courts on its various provisions and apply them as best I could. There was an important reservation in the decision of Mr. Justice Duff. He said:
No question is submitted as to the duty of the member arising under the succeeding clauses of the same article in the event of the competent authority or authorities giving its or their consent to the recommendation or draft convention; and upon this no opinion is expressed.
In my opinion, dealing merely with the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, they do not impose upon Canada an absolute obligation to enact legislation with regard to the hours of labour. Speaking from memory only, I believe that when the treaty was being framed it was suggested that the decisions of the delegates sent by the constituent members to the labour office should be binding upon their governments. I believe at one stage the British delegates were in favour of that, but the great body of opinion was that the delegates to the labour office should not be empowered, when framing conventions dealing with matters of special importance to labour, to override the authority or discretion of the governments or the parliaments which they represented at the labour conventions. I do not think there is any foundation for the suggestion of the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that we are bound to adopt recommendations and draft conventions which are submitted to the governments of the various members of the league.
If any obligation arises it arises after the parliament of Canada or the legislative authority of any other member has ratified one of these conventions. Does not the ratification of the convention create new obligations for the parliament which has ratified it? There is nothing in all that I have read in connection with the negotiations leading up to the treaty of Versailles and in all I have read with regard to the formulating of these conventions at the labour office that even suggests that the framing of the convention or the framing of the recommendations limits the discretion of this parliament in its dealing with the convention after it has been brought before parliament. Therefore in my opinion parliament to-day is exercising a free and unrestricted discretion in discussing this draft convention, with an absolute discretion as to whether it will ratify it or not. If parliament to-day, by this resolution, authorizes the ratification of this convention and, pursuant to that authority,

the government of Canada on behalf of Canada files with the office at 'Geneva its ratification, the convention having been duly signed and, in the ordinary parlance, sealed and delivered by Canada, then only the question arises with regard to the obligations of Canada which are created by its act of ratification and signature and delivery of the convention, so sealed and ratified in its name.
Now, with regard to the obligations arising under the convention after it is ratified by Canada, grave differences of opinion have appeared. That was not a matter which was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in the hours of labour case. That decision which I have noted of Mr. Justice Duff, now the chief justice of that court, reserves that question as to what obligations would ensue from the ratification of one of these labour conventions. That question has never heretofore been before the parliament of Canada; it has never been before the Supreme Court of Canada; and as to what decision wii! be reached when that question comes before the Supreme Court of Canada, each of us may make his own individual predictions.
In the practice of law for the greater part of half a century I have been called upon from week to week and month to month to advise as to what the law of the country is; but in giving an opinion as to what the law is on new questions of law, counsel is often called upon to predict, from his study of the law and his study of past and contemporaneous decisions, what a majority of the supreme court will find when the question is argued before it. There will be such predictions as the ex-Minister of Justice indicated in respect to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States where five justices decided one way and four gave an opinion to the contrary. On almost any nice legal question that arises men differ, and honestly and conscientiously differ in the opinions which they express on the bench as elsewhere.
It seems to me that the question that will come before the court when the proposed legislation, which will be framed on this convention with a view to carrying it into effect, is finally enacted, involving the obligations which Canada assumes by ratifying the convention, will necessarily include the issue as to the competence of parliament to carry into effect and fulfil the obligations which it has assumed, because there is no doubt that we shall assume obligations by ratifying this convention. By one clause of the treaty of Versailles the obligations which we assume may

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
be referred to the permanent court of international justice to decide whether we have carried them into effect or not. That clause, as to our duty, even goes further than a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada will decide with respect to the legislation which we enact as to what is its effect and as to whether it is in the competence of the parliament of Canada to enact the specific legislation which the government has in view and will bring down to the house within a few days.
With regard to that legislation I think it is just possible that grave differences of opinion may arise as they have arisen in this house. No one could have a more implicit confidence in the good faith and sincerity of the exMinister of Justice than I have, after having watched his career for some twenty odd years. On questions of civil law, of constitutional law and international law, while I may differ from him, I have not the slightest doubt as to his sincerity and good faith in giving expression to his opinions. And more than that, I do not think that in giving his opinion he is con-siously moved by political or partisan motives or considerations, because I think he has reached that status where in giving his opinions on pure questions of law, whether constitutional or civil, he will inform the house of his real views. But there are differences of opinion which are likely to arise. Professor Berriedale Keith, in 1928, in volume 1 of his work, states one view, and it has been the prevalent view in Canada up to the present time. It is found in the second edition of "Responsible Government in the Dominions," page 580, from which I quote the following:
The second point is whether under the treaty of peace the real obligation is not to bring a convention before the authority which can consent to ratify, and this authority is the parliament of Canada. This is ingenious, but it is not the natural interpretation of the treaty of peace provisions, which in point of fact were deliberately inserted to meet the case of federal states where the central authority has normally not a general power to deal with issues such as concern the labour organization under the treaty of peace. No doubt if Canada should ratify by executive action, then the dominion could legislate, but. despite the legality of such a course, it would normally be unconstitutional.
I infer from this that Professor Berriedale Keith, is of the opinion that if a convention such as this is ratified by authority of the parliament of Canada, then it is quite possible that legislation may be introduced to cany it into effect, which would be unconstitutional in the sense of overriding the powers of the
provinces, which have been constitutionally vested in them by section 92 of the British North America Act.
Further, in the decision made, as reported in 1932 Appeal Reports, by the judicial committee of the privy council in the radio case, I cannot find an opinion to the effect that, as regards international agreements made by Canada independently of the empire, such as the agreement then made, which was one between Canada and the United States, Cuba and I think Mexico, the effect of Canada engaging in such a treaty necessarily brings that treaty under section 132 of the British North America Act. Such an opinion may be there, but I have read that case many times and I have not been able to find it in the four comers of the radio decision given by the judicial committee of the privy council.
Fifteen years after the passing of the British North America Act, we were told in one of the best schools of law that I think has existed in Canada, that section 132 of that act arose in this way. Prior to the time of the passing of the act it was not necessary for the imperial parliament so called, to ratify all treaties by legislation. Treaties were made in the name of Her Majesty, and such treaties when once made in the name of Her Majesty and ratified by the filing of the documents of ratification relating to the treaty or convention, were binding on the governments of the United Kingdom and all colonial and other governments associated in the British empire. Many of those treaties did not require specific legislation by parliament to carry them into effect. In so far as, when once ratified, they could be carried into full effect by executive authority, they were so carried into effect without confirmation by the imperial parliament, and the imperial parliament was called upon to pass confirming legislation only in so far as such legislation was necessary to carry such treaties into effect by reason of the fact that they directly affected trade and commerce or property and civil rights within the United Kingdom or its dominions. When those who composed the conference in which the British North America Act originated met together and when they subsequently consulted in London with the authorities there, it was then suggested that inasmuch as a certain autonomy was being given to the new Dominion of Canada, its parliament in lieu of the British parliament should be competent to carry into effect by legislation throughout Canada those treaties affecting Canadian interests, which were made in the name of the empire by Her Majesty, that is to say, treaties

Minimum Wage Drajt Convention
regarding .which it was necessary to enact legislation to carry out their provisions and to give them full effect. Therefore that power was given to Canada under section 132, and inasmuch as the aeroplane treaty was an imperial treaty, the judicial committee of the privy council gave full effect to the legislation which had been enacted by the Canadian parliament to carry the provisions of that treaty into effect. But we always believed in our younger days that the parliament of Canada under the peace, order and good government clause had a legislative competence beyond that which has since in more recent years, been recognised by our courts. The intention of the so-called fathers of confederation was clearly enunciated by Sir John A. Macdonald in the confederation debates of February 8, 1865, when he said.
We have deliberately adopted a system different from that in the United States. We have strengthened the central government. We have given the central legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on it not only specially and in detail all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred on the local governments and local legislatures, shall be conferred upon the central government and legislature. We have thus avoided that great source of weakness which has been the cause of the present disruption of the United' States.
Furthermore, on the introduction and discussion of that bill in the imperial parliament, the intention as it was then understood by the fathers of confederation was clearly expressed by the Earl of Carnarvon who had charge of the bill in the imperial parliament, and this is what he said concerning it:
The real object is to give to the central government those high functions and sovereign powers by which general principles and uniformity of legislation may be secured in those questions that are of common import to all the provinces, and at the same time to retain to each province an ample measure of municipal liberty and self-government.
He added:
I ought also to point out that the residue of legislation unprovided for in the specific classification will belong to the central body.
In the early days we accepted those pronouncements as being a fair, full and complete enunciation of the purport of the provisions of the British North America Act. Since that day much has occurred. When under section 92 the provinces were given exclusive jurisdiction with regard to property and civil rights, property and civil rights I am convinced had a comparatively narrow interpretation in the minds of the men who drafted 
the provision and inserted it in the 13th subsection of section 92. Those men would regard property and civil rights first as civil rights such as had been conferred on the province of Quebec by its civil code, and in other provinces such rights as relate to property, personal and real, the transfer of property, the devolution of estates and all matters of that kind which were in the minds of men who lived in those days close to the soil, may I say, closer than we live at present. But successive decisions of the judicial committee have given widely extended scope to the term " property and civil rights," wider I think than was ever contemplated by the framers of the British North America Act. Decisions of the courts, like the opinions of people in the course of time swing like a pendulum. This recent decision in the radio case shows a disposition on the part of the judicial committee of the privy council to go back to the original view as to the jurisdiction of parliament under "peace, order and good government," and with regard to the vesting in this parliament of these legislative powers which are not specifically vested in the legislatures by section 92. Therefore you find, as I said, a backward swing of the pendulum, and a disposition to discover in the British North America Act wider powers for the federal parliament under section 91, and more restricted powers for the provinces in dealing with matters of property and civil rights. That being so, and reading the radio decision in that light, it seems to me that the judicial committee of the privy council said that that radio convention was a convention which did not come under section 132, and that therefore the legislation introduced to carry it into effect could not be sustained under section 132. At least that is my personal reading. But they did say that the time has come when we must go back and re-read section 91 and find out what was the real import and intention of the enactment of that section and its subclauses. They did find in section 91 under the general powers given to the parliament of Canada, authority to enact legislation relating to radio communication, although it applied generally and affected interests throughout all the provinces from sea to sea. I think in so doing the judicial committee was perhaps getting back to a clearer perception of the purposes and intent of the framers of the British North America Act. If that interpretation is followed it is now probable that the judicial committee may find within the purview of section 91 ample power to deal widely and generally throughout Canada with hours of labour.

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
But neither you nor I nor the Speaker may now make a final prediction in regard to that decision.
There is, however, one other aspect of the question, and I think when this matter comes before the higher courts some consideration will have to be given to it. Let me return. Whether or not parliament approves of this convention is in my opinion entirely within its own discretion. When parliament has approved, and legislation is introduced to carry it into effect, the enactment of such legislation is entirely within the discretion of this parliament. But when that legislation comes before the higher courts the question will arise as to whether in view of the fact that the acceptance of such conventions was provided for by the terms of the treaty of Versailles, and a particular convention having been submitted and ratified by Canada, the obligations incurred by ratification of that particular convention may not be regarded as arising or growing out of the treaty of Versailles, which is an imperial treaty. In other words whether this particular convention, the approval of which we have in view, having been ratified, and all the obligations under it having been deliberately assumed by the parliament of Canada, and in view of the fact that the convention arises out of the treaty of Versailles, then whether it will not by virtue of such close relationship to the treaty of Versailles be regarded by the courts as an imperial treaty which comes under section 132. Those of you who would like to read a lengthy dissertation on that aspect of the case, will find in the Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law of November, 1934, and February, 1935, a very helpful article by C. Wilfred Jenks. Mr. Jenks, I believe, is one of the counsel engaged by the labour office at Geneva, he comes from a very distinguished family and has had a rather brilliant career. He takes up and champions in these two successive volumes the idea that when once a labour convention has been ratified by the Canadian parliament, and legislation has been enacted to carry it into effect, the convention thereupon, by reason of its relationship to the treaty of Versailles, has all the effect of an imperial treaty and is covered by section 132 of the British North America Act. 1 think some lawyers will find some suggestions in Mr. Jenks' disquisition in regard to the competence of parliament with which they may find it difficult quite to agree. But there are the two issues. This convention once being ratified and carried into effect by a bill enacted into law for that
purpose, it seems to me that two issues may arise; first as to whether the act of itself is within the general powers conferred upon the parliament of Canada by section 91, especially the peace, order and good government clause, which confers upon parliament legislative jurisdiction in regard to all matters not specially vested in the provinces, and secondly as to whether that convention when so ratified and carried into effect by legislation is in reality and in effect an imperial treaty by reason of the fact that it has grown out of the treaty of Versailles, and was in, even then, in the contemplation of those who framed and ratified the treaty of Versailles, that was undoubtedly an imperial treaty which falls within section 132 of the British North America Act.
I doubt if it is possible to predict with certainty how five members of the judicial committee of the privy council will decide, whether unanimously, or three to two or four to one. But as I have been criticized somewhat in the public press and by others with regard to some statements which I have made previously on the British North America Act, I take advantage of this opportunity to state to the house in a very incomplete way the general views which I entertain. They are not political or partisan; they are simply views which have grown out of my experience as a student and as a lawyer during the last half century.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (East Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt in my own mind that my legal friends in this house, probably in all parts of the house, will characterize my intervention in this debate under these circumstances as the action of a fool wading in wheTe angels fear to tread. We have heard two very learned dissertations on the law and expositions of the constitution. I confess very frankly that in regard to the observations of my learned and hon. friend (Mr. Cahan) who has just taken his seat I find it exceedingly difficult to determine whether his opinion to-day is what it was in November last.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is exactly what it was in November.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, that is comforting indeed; my hon. friend says it is exactly the same. I recall that in November last, in speaking of this matteT, the hon. gentleman spoke with a great deal more assurance and certainty than he did this afternoon. I was a little amused, as a matter of fact, as a layman, as one of those stupid laymen who are

Minimum Wage Drajt Convention
more or less incapable of appreciating the intricacies of legal matters or problems, to hear him say "Decisions of the court swing like a pendulum." I thought it was heresy. Well, Mr. Speaker. I have been taught during some twenty-five years in this parliament, listening to very eminent legal men debating the matters of difficulty and complexity that come before this parliament, that decisions of the court are so sacred that one has no right even to question them, and if one does call them into question, being a layman, he simply rules himself out of court and his arguments are not listened to.
I am not so concerned at this time, Mr. Speaker, with narrow legal quibbles about this matter. I was a little disappointed in my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), who ended an otherwise very excellent speech in presenting his viewpoint by referring to the arguments on the human side as soap box oratory. I do not think he meant it; I think on reflection he would not repeat the statement. If ever there was a time in the history of Canada and in the history of every civilized country, particularly in western civilization, when it was necessary to view these problems from the human side, that time is now.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend but in the absence of the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) I think the hon. member is misconstruing what was in his mind and what he said with respect to soap box oratory.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot say what was in the hon. gentleman's mind; I am merely dealing with what he said, addressing the remark to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was referring to the hon. member's form of public address on occasion; he was not referring to his speaking on human subjects.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not going to quibble about it, but it was then that he charged the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with injecting the human side, which he said was more in keeping-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, he did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He took care to say that be took the human side of these questions very strongly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not going to allow the right hon. gentleman to distract my attention from the whole matter with a quibble of that kind; we will let the matter drop and let Hansard speak for itself. 'If I am wrong I shall be glad to make amends to the hon. member for Quebec East. I said I was sorry to see him take that attitude at the end of what was otherwise a very excellent speech from his standpoint. I say, Mr. Speaker, and apparently I carry the judgment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in this, that at this time we as a parliament have every right to look at the human side of this question. The subject matter of this discussion is the ratification by this parliament of a conference held under the treaty of Versailles. The gravamen of the whole matter, I suppose, could be included in these words:
Each member of the international labour organization which ratifies this convention undertakes to create or maintain machinery whereby minimum rates of wages can be fixed for workers employed in certain of the trades or parts of trades (and in particular in home working trades) in which no arrangements exist for the effective regulation of wages by collective agreement or otherwise and wages are exceptionally low.
My hon. friend tihe Secretary of State, obviously speaking for the government, says-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I must object to that. The views of the government on this matter have been given both in the Senate and in this house. I stated at the outset that I was giving my personal views of certain issues of laws, in view of such misrepresentations as have been made by others-by my hon. friend -without regard to veracity or accurate quotation. Therefore I deemed it best-


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will let that word "veracity" go; I just call your attention to it in passing, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Very well, we will let it go.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, Air. Speaker, I am under the painful necessity again of recalling that the hon. gentleman was one of those who gave very learned dissertations also on the question of cabinet solidarity. Now he says that although still a member of the cabinet and still enjoying the emoluments of office, he is giving his own personal opinion. That is rather a nice admission and somewhat comforting, I must say. However, the hon. gentleman does say, whether he speaks for himself or the government, "Does ratification impose any added obligation on parliament?" The question of jurisdiction, he says, will arise after ratification is given. I ask the

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
present acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley) who is in his seat, Is the government playing fast and loose with this resolution? Does it mean or does it not mean it? That is the question that concerns me. I am exceedingly interested in this matter and I am prepared to do anything in my power to ensure the passing of this resolution and the carrying of it into force, but I do not wish to be cajoled into supporting this or into supporting the government in this measure only to be told later on by the Secretary of State or some other member of the government that the measure is one that was passed as a matter of form, but that whether or not any obligation is imposed upon parliament will have to be debated at a later date.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, the question was asked directly as to whether the government was sincere in its intention. I had the honour to move the resolution and, as the mover and as a member of the government, I state that the government is entirely sincere and desires the passage of this resolution and to carry it into the fullest effect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For that I certainly thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and I accept his statement at its full face value.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I mean at its full value. Now, sir, the approach that I take to this question is this. This country is faced with a condition which is puzzling members of provincial governments and provincial legislatures, it is puzzling leaders of labour, it is most disturbing to employers of labour and it is a question which is disturbing the minds of many hon. members in this chamber. That condition is the variety or the vagaries of minimum wage laws in this country, and the question as to how this country as a whole, how this federation, how this Dominion of Canada is going to conduct its economic affairs in a manner equitable to employers and employees when in one province we have a rate of minimum wage far below the rate in another province, and when we have a condition whereby it is a simple matter to move an industry from one province to another, because of these various vagaries in the law regarding rates of wages and control of labour. That is a very important question to-day. It is agitating the public mind from one end of the country to the other. It is not a subject which in my opinion should be made the topic of narrow legal discussion. On the contrary I would have expected that the legal gentlemen in this parliament, and particularly 02582-111
great leaders like the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), whose legal knowledge and experience no one questions, would have lent their ability, their knowledge and effort to find within the compass of the British North America Act some reasons, some justification, some support for parliamentary action in this matter, without necessarily doing violence to the matter of provincial jurisdiction.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is what I endeavoured to do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the hon. member
be kind enough to retain his seat; I neither said a word nor interrupted him when he was speaking.
I find in the British North America Act, in its very opening paragraph, in its first words, what to my mind is the basis of this whole matter and should be the spirit, or shall I say-yes, the spirit-in which we interpret the whole act. If a preamble means anything at all, then it is to give direction to thought when interpreting the individual clauses which follow. This is what I find:
Whereas-
And I shall insert one or two words, to make it modem and clear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends titter.
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) titters. Well, I say for his purpose and foi his enlightenment that I shall insert the words "Ontario and Quebec" where the act uses the word "provinces", and I do that in order to make it more clear and bring the matter concisely to our attention.
Whereas the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expresed their desire to he federally united into one dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom:
And whereas such a union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British empire:
And so on. In other words, the very basis of the British North America Act is this: First, there is the principle of unity, the desire to unite together, and secondly united on the express desire of these four provinces. The provinces themselves initiated the movement to unite. They asked to be united, and they were united. They further expressed the view that such a union of these four provinces, and of course those which entered



Minimum Wage Draft Convention
later, would conduce to the welfare not of the dominion as a whole but to the welfare of the provinces.
Anything which conduces or is calculated to disunite this dominion must be considered to be at variance with the intention of the British North America Act. I ask parliament now to pause and consider this. What is there that is conducing or tending to disunite the provinces of Canada more than this inequality in provincial regulations covering matters common to the whole dominion? In this particular instance we refer to labour conditions. The labour conditions on the Pacific coast, in view of the minimum wage laws, are as my hon. friends know on a much higher basis, and higher rates are paid than obtain in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere. The minimum wage law in Quebec is at variance with the minimum wage law in Ontario. I am not going into any comparison in an effort to indicate which is which, which is better, which is higher or which is lower, but I shall state briefly that they are at variance one with the other. With what result? In the first place we have this result, that there is a competition among manufacturers and industrial leaders to have their factories where they may obtain labour at the lowest cost. In the treaty of Versailles to which this parliament gave its adhesion, its support, its ratification there are words indicating that one of the things sought was to achieve a condition throughout the world whereby variations in social status, labour conditions, pay and so on would be brought into a more equitable and more even position.
Surely if we were sincere in our adherence to the treaty of Versailles, then we ought to do everything we can in this country to set our own house in order and to put our own affairs in harmony with the principle involved. It was indicated in the treaty of Versailles that one of the causes of war was the variation in social conditions of different countries. It is set forth in that treaty that it would be desirable so far as possible to remove such social variations, in order to prevent a recurrence of the great war. That is a most laudable object. If in Canada we are unwilling frankly to face conditions obtaining in this country, and if we are unwilling to set our country in order then I say we cannot claim to be very sincere in our adherence to the principles set forth in tha-t treaty.
I am sorry the hon. member for Quebec East is not in his seat, because I wish to direct a few observations to him. He made the statement that we were taking powers away from the provinces. I would not defy or
fMr. Stevens.]
challenge, but I would invite hon. member's of the legal profession in this chamber to show just where we are taking .powers from the provinces. If they wish to turn to the judgment of Lord Atkin, of the privy council, they will find his words as they were given in connection with the case P.A.T.A. v. Attorney General for Canada, appeal cases, 2 D.L.R. pages 11 and 12. I ask hon. members to follow these words because I believe they are peculiarly applicable and significant at this time.
If then the legislation-
The Combines Investigation Act-
-is authorized under one or the other of the heads specifically enumerated in section 91 it is not to the purpose to say that it affects property and civil rights in the provinces.
In other words, in the powers specifically set forth in section 91 there are powers at variance with the property and civil rights provision of section 92. Then it goes on:
Most of the specific subjects in section 91 do affect property and civil rights but so far as the legislation of parliament is operating within the enumerated' powers there is constitutional authority to interfere with property and civil rights.
In other words, no one can challenge the right of parliament as to any legislation that is included within the specific provisions of section 91 on the ground that it interferes with property and civil rights. I think that is clear and not disputed and the learned justice states that. But there are what are known as border-line matters which are not specifically provided for. Down through the years the tendency has been for the provinces to enlarge the powers granted under property and civil rights and to challenge the right of parliament if in the exercise of its general powers it is presumed to invade their interpretation of section 92.
An obligation rests upon parliament to give effect to a treaty into which it has entered and to legislate in the matter. There has been a tendency to disunite this country economically and socially through the vagaries of these laws and there is imposed upon parliament a fundamental and underlying duty to legislate in these matters unless they are specifically and directly excluded. I can see nothing in the British North America Act which specifically states that they shall not intervene in this matter.
We listened to a very learned if circuitous dissertation upon section 132. Even a high school student knows that this country was not exercising its treaty making powers in 1880 or thereabouts. While it does not state specifically the powers of Canada to-day it

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
cannot be said that the language is therefore faulty because we did not have treaty making powers in 1880. There does not seem to me to be any question but that it was intended by the British North America Act that where Canada had entered into obligations with the peoples of the world or other parts of the empire, then the Canadian parliament must exercise its powers to give effect to the obligations so entered into.
I am not a lawyer but I remember reading a very learned argument by Alexander Hamilton. It would repay any Canadian to read these arguments of Alexander Hamilton. He was trying to work out and did work out for President Washington some very remarkable laws which he brought within the constitution of the United States. There was one principle which he fastened upon, and I should like to outline this to the house. I look upon Alexander Hamilton as being one of the greatest Americans, not only of his time but of all times. He said that where the constitution gave congress certain power as a federal body it was implied that congress had the right to enact laws which were necessary in order to carry that power into effect. I have not given the beautiful and chaste language which Alexander Hamilton used, but any hon. member who is interested can get this from the library. This was his argument in support of the establishment of a state bank in the United States. It was argued that congress had not the right to create a corporation, that that right rested with the states. Alexander Hamilton said: You have the right to control finance, you have the right to issue money and there is an implied right to erect a corporation to give effect to these matters. He argued that the federal authorities had that right, and the law was passed. That argument has been the foundation in a large measure of much of the interpretation of the constitution of the United States, and it is very apt and applicable to the Canadian situation to-day.
If the Canadian parliament is entrusted with the power to preserve unity or, as was stated a moment ago, peace, order and good government; if it is to give effect to international obligations, which it must do if it is to be an entity; if parliament is clothed with that responsibility then surely it must claim the right to pass the necessary legislation. My chief complaint in regard to this measure is that it was not ratified before. Perhaps I can claim exemption from blame in this respect, because in 1920 I seconded a resolution which was moved in this house asking for the ratification of labour matters. It is interesting 92582-llli
to read the opinion of the late Mr. Doherty, who was then Minister of Justice. He spoke against the resolution which Mr. Burnham introduced and which I seconded yet I have in my hand a copy of some of his statements which shows that in his opinion power rested in this parliament under section 132 to do those things which were then asked to be done and which were similar to what is now being asked. I think this convention which was passed in 1928 should have been ratified long ago.
I say to my colleagues in this house that one of the causes of the problems facing parliament to-day is the fact that parliament has failed to occupy the field properly given to it by the British North America Act. I shall give a very striking illustration of this. Under subsection 2 of section 91 there is a very specific power granted. This section reads:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,

2. The regulation of trade and commerce.
I know that legal gentlemen will say: Oh, that is all right but the courts have given decisions on this and that. I say to them and I say to parliament that that is one of the reasons why we are embarrassed to-day. We have had these adverse court decisions and parliament has never seriously attempted to occupy the field which is included in the term " the regulation of trade and commerce." We have tacitly left the domestic field to the provinces; we have interpreted that as meaning that we should deal only with extraterritorial or international trade and as a result there has grown up in this country the belief that we have not the power. We have failed to occupy the field, and there is in economics an old doctrine that if a field of activity is not occupied by one party and another party does occupy it, that party gets a vested right in the field. And so the provinces to-day-and I am not quarrelling with them for it-are claiming rights under property and civil rights, which properly come under section 91, subsection 2. Had this parliament, twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years ago set itself to the task of reasonable regulation of trade within Canada there would be no
1750	COMMONS
Minimum Wage Draft Convention
challenge of its rights at the present time. But it has never attempted to do so. It has kept away from it, and now we are faced with these adverse decisions and objections and arguments. I submit that in this matter of the regulation of trade and commerce within Canada, on this question of the social and industrial relations of the citizens of Canada, this parliament has a duty to perform; and instead of debating as we did in the early part of this session, day after day, technical matters with hairsplitting legal arguments pro and con-and to-day we have had two learned speeches from hon. gentlemen in this house, who gave this view or that view-instead of having such arguments, I say, if we could only enlist for one session of parliament the cooperation of the legal gentlemen of this house in trying to work out these matters, we could make some progress and have a successful issue of many of these problems.
I do not for one moment suggest that we should disregard provincial rights. I think that in the past there has been too great a tendency to approach these questions in an attitude of exclusiveness-the attitude that we have certain rights which we are going to exercise, and that we shall disregard the provinces. These provinces, all of them, are administered by human beings like ourselves; and I believe that if an approach were made to the provinces in a proper attitude, in a friendly spirit, in a conciliatory manner-and I know that some of them do recognize that this is a problem that must be faced and dealt with-I say that if we approached the provinces in a spirit of cooperation, with a desire to solve these problems in a spirit of harmony, we should make progress. That, sir, I think is important.
My hon. friend from Quebec East referred to the delegates to the conference of the league. He said that if we pass this legislation there will be a tendency in the future for delegates to the labour convention under the League of Nations to arrogate to themselves the right to vary or amend the constitution. I do not think there is any danger of that. I know that most of those who have been to the labour convention since it was inaugurated, representatives appointed by the right hon. gentleman opposite and representatives appointed on this side, are serious-minded, earnest, honest and reputable citizens of Canada, and I cannot conceive of any delegation such as would be appointed by a responsible government of Canada doing anything of that kind. They do come before us or present through the government the findings of the international labour convention.
! Mr St evens. 1
That is what they go there for; that is what they are sent there for. The international labour convention weighs these problems, studies them and comes to certain decisions. Will anyone question the soundness and advisability of the decisions regarding, for instance, international trade in narcotics? A great deal of good has been done in that respect. I fancy that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews), if he were speaking now, would tell the house that much valuable assistance has been given the officers of his department in dealing with this very perplexing problem, one of the most human of all problems. And this arose out of the labour convention. There are other matters of similar importance. This one is peculiarly appropriate at the moment. Here we are faced with this problem in Canada-the vagaries and differences that exist; and surely it is our duty, if we can possibly do so, to harmonize these differences in Canada so as to bring about an understanding one with the other so far as the provinces are concerned. Let this parliament, as the constitutional body to do it, take the lead and assume the responsibility, and in due process of performing its duty bring about a better condition and at the same time discharge a wry solemn obligation which we undertook at the time of the signing of the treaty of Versailles.
The hon. member for Quebec East referred to another matter. He spoke in rather emphatic language, with a warning to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) about soap box oratory and a few other things, and he said that the constitution is our safeguard. Of course it is. The inference from that language is that anyone who takes a view such as I now take is playing with the constitution, disregarding the sanctity of the constitution. I am just as jealous of the constitution of Canada as the hon. gentleman is, but no harm will ever be done the constitution by a frank discussion in this house, or by searching through it for powers in order to give effect to legislation which we think is good for the people of Canada. There ought to be a little more of the positive and a little less of narrow legal interpretation of the constitution, a little more effort to find within the confines of the constitution the power to do those things that will be in the interests of the people of the country as a whole, instead of throwing legal obstacles in the way. And the time for such an effort is now.

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
We still have a million and a quarter or more of people on relief. I am not saying that as a reflection on anybody; the refleet-tion is upon us all. But there are a million and a quarter people on relief, and this is one of the measures, one and only one, and I might say one of the minor measures, that might be adopted towards the solution of that problem. Surely therefore it is time the house addressed itself in a positive spirit towards these things rather than in a negative spirit of legal interpretation-I endorse the phrase of an hon. member over here, and I say that we should have a human interpretation of these matters.
I am not going to detain the house at greater length, though there is much more that I might say. I wish, however, to refer to one thing more. The hon. gentleman said among other things that the house was being deceived, that when the treaty of Versailles was passed the house was told that any measures that were brought forward under No. 405 of the treaty would be subject to the proper constitutional body in the country, and he said that that was particularly provided for Canada and other federally organized states. And I think the Secretary of State repeated that. The inference was that by bringing this measure in, the house was being deceived. Well, in September, 1919, Sir Robert Borden, who represented this country as the senior delegate from Canada, and as Prime Minister of the country, returned from the deliberations with regard to the treaty and gave the dominion certain views in an official way. From these observations I will quote very briefly:
Side by side with the covenant-[DOT]


Mr. DUPUIS:: Where is the quotation
from?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is from a statement
made by the then Prime Minister in this house in September, 1919. The exact page on which his remarks appear I have not got;
I am quoting from page 335 of Hansard of March 10, 1920, a speech which I delivered on that date, but the quotation is in small type showing that it is properly inserted in this particular part of my speech. I would have taken the trouble to get the original, only I did not think it was necessary to do so. Sir Robert Borden said:
Side by side with the covenant stand the provisions of the labour convention.
I just pause there. Side by side with the covenant of the League of Nations, of the treaty of Versailles, stand the provisions of the labour convention. That was the first
intimation this house had of the attitude of the dominion government of that day-and parliament accepted that attitude-of the relation of these labour conventions to the treaty of Versailles, and what this house might expect in its attitude and obligation toward them. Sir Robert Borden continued:
It was my privilege to attend the earlier meetings of the commission which framed the articles on that subject now embodied in part XIII of the treaty. At one of these meetings the preamble of the labour convention was framed. It is as follows:
And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; an improvement of those conditions is urgently required; as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work.
Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries. . . .
Holding as they do, that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply so far as their special circumstances will permit.
This language was given to this house by Sir Robert Borden when he returned from the drafting and the passing of the treaty of Versailles, and I invite the house again to listen to these words:
Conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled.
I say that the conditions, the sense of injustice, of inequity of things and the hardship and privation suffered by workers today in Canada as well as elsewhere-and one has but to turn one's eyes to the United States to see this condition in perhaps its worst form-are, taking them from a worldwide standpoint, quite as serious to-day as they were when these words were penned and when they were submitted to the house.
An improvement of those conditions is urgently required-
No one will doubt that. Those were the words given to the house when this treaty was first brought here in 1919.
-as for example, by the regulation of the hours of work.
And so forth. So I conclude with this, that in my opinion the house should support the government in passing this legislation. We have the assurance of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), for which I again thank him, that the government not only intends
1752	COMMONS
Minimum, Wage Draft Convention
to have this convention ratified, but it believes in the position it assumes in doing so, it has a right to pass the legislation that is demanded thereunder, and it intends to implement the power that this will invoke and to give at least this measure of security to the workers of Canada, in the hope that it will be productive of greater harmony and concord throughout this country socially and economically.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, if anything were needed to make it perfectly clear that the position which the opposition have taken with respect to the government's so-called social legislation is the correct one, namely, that it would have -been advisable to obtain -in th-e first instance an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether it is within the competence of this parliament to enact the various measures of social legislation that are being brought down, it would be found in what we have witnessed in this house this afternoon. I have no desire to enter upon another long discussion of the constitutional aspects of the question. The debate, to which we have listened this afternoon, has, in that particular, been largely a repetition of arguments that have been presented before. It is true that, in what both the cx-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) have said, we have had important and very valuable additions in the way of opinion with respect to points that will come up in controversy. But of one thing there can be no uncertainty whatever, and that is that so far as the question of the competence- of this parliament is concerned in presenting for enactment measures of this kind, with any hope of their enforcement, there is the gravest possible doubt.
I much less wish to enter into what appears to be an irreconcilable -family quarrel among hon. gentlemen opposite; but I think I should point out that what there has been of controversy, of difference of opinion, in the house this afternoon, has not for the most part been between those of us who sit, sir, to your left as an opposition and hon gentlemen who sit to your right as the government and its supporters, but that the sharpest and most acrimonious differences of opinion we have witnessed in parliament this year have been among hon. gentlemen opposite. What we have been, I shall not say privileged but, forced to witness is in the nature of what evidently has taken place in the cabinet when these very measures have been under consideration. It is quite apparent from what
[Mr Stevens.]
the hon. member who has just taken his seat, the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), has said, there was a very serious difference of opinion between the ministers of the crown when these matters were under discussion, and that he held one view and that some of his colleagues held another. In that regard, just in passing, may I draw attention to the fact that the hon. member addressed his question as to the competence of parliament to enact this legislation and what was intended to be done about- enforcing it, to the acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley), but he was replied to not by the acting leader but by the Minister of Justice. That is a significant fact, one to which attention should certainly be drawn. It is quite apparent t-h-at however the forces have been divided, they have been divided in a very real way. Indeed one has only to look at the correspondence which passed between the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the ex-Minister o-f Trade and Commerce at the time my hon. friend's resignation was accepted to see that the Prime Minister told him then in no uncertain language that he was putting forward in the cabinet at that time views which could not be entertained by his colleagues, that he was raising with respect to legislation hopes in the minds of the people of the country which there was no justification for raising, and that he was at fault in so doing. If that has been the kind of thing that has been going on in the cabinet with respect to this social legislation, is it any wonder that after hon. gentlemen opposite have had some six months in which to try to reconcile their differences, we on this side, when all this social legislation is suddenly brought before us, should feel that at least there is need for a little more in the way of careful consideration of the authority of parliament before proceeding too far with these enactments.
May I ask this question: is it going to help to bring about the great objective which my hon. friend who has just taken his seat says he has in view, which members of the present government say they have in view, that the country now knows that in this parliament itself there is difference of opinion not only between hon. gentlemen who sit to the right and those who sit to the left of Mr. Speaker, but a cleavage in the ranks of the government itself and its supporters? There could be no more obvious evidence of the uncertainty of the whole situation. The government has proceeded to build its house on the sands of controversy and dissension, instead of seeking to construct it

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
upon the rock of constitutional authority, right and power, which admits of no uncertainty.
May I also say to my hon. friend that when he speaks about parliament itself deciding what it shall do in these matters, and taking upon itself not merely to enact legislation but also to interpret it; when he speaks about viewing the constitution as something which is sacred and therefore to be regarded with a degree of reverence, it must be remembered that under the constitution this parliament is only one branch of government. There are three branches of government under the constitution, each of which has a distinctive and known jurisdiction and obligation. Parliament is the legislative branch; it enacts the laws. There is the executive branch for the carrying out of the laws, and, there is also the judicial branch for the interpretation of the laws. We in this parliament may discuss the matter from now until doomsday, but we cannot give to any law enacted here, and make it hold, an interpretation other than that which the courts will finally place upon it. That is known.
I shall not say what I think must have been in the mind of my hon. friend when he tried to indicate that the ex-Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Quebec East was more concerned with the legal view of things than with the humane view. In so saying, he was simply playing to the gallery, he was simply indulging in claptrap.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was taking a course which as a member of this parliament, and knowing the hon. member for Quebec East as he knows him, was wholly unworthy of him; for he knows as well as I do, and every other hon. member of this house does, that no more humane man lives in this dominion than the hon. member for Quebec East. The member for Quebec East was very careful when speaking here to say in the clearest language possible that he was in sympathy with all this legislation because it was humane legislation and because he believed in the principles of it; but he wanted to see the legislation enacted in a manner which would give it a place which was beyond all doubt upon the statutes either of this parliament or of the legislatures of the country. Now if a battle is to be waged through this country upon the motives of men, in which one individual or party is going to claim a monopoly of all humane thinking and acting, some gentlemen are going to be very considerably disappointed,
because so far as humane sentiments are concerned I think it is apparent to all, that members of this parliament, irrespective of party, are interested in seeking to bettex- the conditions of their fellow men. However much I may differ with most hon. gentlemen opposite I .believe there will be found in their breasts just as much of the milk of human kindness as is to be found in the breast of the hon. member who has just taken his seat.
Something has been said about national unity and the uniformity of laws. The exMinister of Trade and Commerce voiced condemnation because years have been allowed to slip by without these conventions being ratified. He has, I should have said, condemned parliament for not having ratified these conventions. He said that away back in 1920 he moved for the ratification of some measure, some convention, or so I understood him. May I say to my hon. friend that if his words are in the nature of a condemnation, it is a condemnation of himself and the government of which he was a member for nearly four years? This is not the first session of this parliament, it is the sixth; my hon. friend was for five succeeding sessions a member of the government, of which he now no longer is a member, and in every one of those sessions he had opportunity to insist that these conventions be ratified. Why were they not ratified? Evidently because my hon. friend was not then prepared to take the stand he now wishes to take on the eve of a general election. W e are beginning to find out many interesting things as we approach the moment of an appeal to the people. The actions of public men will be judged not by the views they present at the eleventh hour but by the views they have stood and fought for year after year through the whole of their lives.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: You had nine
years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We had nine years, yes, and during those nine years we advanced steadily forward in social legislation.


Leslie Gordon Bell: You went forward crab-fashion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not
going to repeat what I have said previously. I think the record of the Liberal party in the matter of labour legislation is well enough known in this country not to require special emphasis now; its record in the enactment of social measures and the nature and extent of them are very generally known. But I
1754	COMMONS
Minimum Wage Draft Convention
ask my hon. friends: What about the past five years? Every time they seek to stress the argument that these measures should have been enacted nine years ago, they doubly condemn themselves for not having enacted them within the last five years. Some of these things were not possible years ago, as they are to-day and have been since 1930. Times change, conditions change, new problems come to the fore. W'hen the last Liberal government was in office it was dealing with post-war problems and the condition of the country as it had resulted from the war, questions that to the exclusion of others had to be dealt with immediately. This is an age in which social problems are being dealt with in all quarters of the globe, and it is natural they should come up in this parliament at this time. We on this side from 1930 until this present year, over and over again directed attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the fact that then was the time for them to bring about a conference between the provinces and the dominion with a view to settling the question of the legislative competence and authority of parliament on matters of social legislation; that during this parliament was the time to bring about a conference which would obtain the agreement of the provinces to many of these measures, and above all the time in which, if the British North America Act required amendment as we say we believe it does, that amendment should be brought about. But that step has not been taken, and the result is that to-day we are exactly where it was indicated five years ago parliament would find itself, unless some immediate step were taken to have the British North America Act amended and authority given parliament to enact measures of this kind.
When there is mention of the desirability of uniformity of minimum industrial standards there is as I see it no division of view among hon. members of this house. We may have individual differences as to the particular point at which a given standard should be placed, but generally speaking I think everyone in this parliament holds the view that uniformity of labour standards, constituting a national minimum, is a desirable thing, not only within one country but, if it can be obtained, throughout the world. Indeed, that is the whole objective of the labour office and conference of the League of Nations. We are all united as to the desirability of uniformity in minimum standards. The whole question of difference between us is the question of method. Until this year we have always assumed that the provinces .were the bodies
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
that had the legislative competence to pass minimum wage laws, eight hour day legislation and other measures of the kind. If we were not of that opinion, and if the provinces were not of that opinion, how is the fact to be accounted for that all the provinces of Canada have enacted legislation of that very kind? The very fact that you have the provincial statutes filled with social legislation is evidence of the fact that the provinces have regarded that subject as coming within their particular sphere. But as they have legislated, it has become obvious that there are differences in the laws of the different provinces. I am not so sure that some of those differences have not arisen out of the differences in economic development and the resources and the nature of the industries in the different provinces. In great industrial provinces like Ontario and Quebec the situation is bound to be different from the situation in the prairie provinces, and conditions in the maritimes and on the prairies are bound to be different from conditions in British Columbia. As time goes on industrial standards will come more and more to find the one level, but I submit that you are not going to bring about the level that is desired by adopting in this parliament a course which is arbitrary and unconstitutional, when all the while there is before you an obviously right and simple course to follow. What we on this side have been contending for is the course that we believe in the end will be the surest, safest and swiftest course in bringing about uniformity of legislation. The provinces can be brought together in agreement not only with themselves but also with the federal government on these matters. The social conscience is awakened at this time as never before, and there will be a desire, I am sure, in any great conference of the provinces and the dominion properly constituted and conducted to harmonize the views of all parties on these questions of minimum standards in industry. Our view all along has been that this was the step that ought to be taken first.
I believe there will be found agreement between the provinces and the dominion as to the desirability of amending the British North America Act first of all, so as to give to ourselves the power to amend our own constitution and to this parliament the right to legislate on certain of these matters of social legislation to be very clearly defined. But when that question is being fully discussed, I believe it will be found to be inseparable from the whole question of the financial relations between the dominion and the provinces. I believe that what will be as necessary as

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
agreement between the provinces and the dominion in matters affecting the amendment of the British North America Act will be very careful consideration of the financial relations between the provinces and the dominion, which will result in the dominion assuming some of the obligations that to-day belong to the provinces or giving to the provinces certain rights with respect to sources of revenue which at the moment	they may not
have. I believe the two subjects will be found to be interrelated and intertwined; but I do also submit that we will not hasten the day, and we will not make the situation any more secure, by taking a step in this parliament which, instead of seeking to bring the provinces and the dominion into closer relationship, is raising a question of difference between them.
That brings to mind what my hon. friend has just said about unity in Canada. One of the strong objections, I think, to the manner in which the government is proceeding with this legislation is that it is tending to divide this country instead of to unite it; it is tending to emphasize differences between the provinces and the dominion. Indeed, the whole underlying danger of the situation is that, as the result of political discussion during a general election, it may raise all kinds of controversy in connection with provincial rights versus dominion rights. Well, if we have that sort of thing added to all the uncertainty that exists in the country, and in the world to-day, I am afraid we are going to be much further away from national unity at the end of a political campaign, whatever may be its results, than we have been at any time heretofore.
Once more, in view of what we have heard this afternoon from the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), who gave us the benefit of his wide knowledge and experience with regard to these questions of constitutional obligation and law, and from the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce, who gave us the difference of view that existed in the government and what he put forth as the point of view he thought should be made to prevail, I would hope that even yet the government might see the wisdom, while in no way ceasing to go on with the enactment of these measures, of referring one or more of them to the supreme court for an opinion before an endeavour is made to put them all into force in this country. I do not say that with any desire to impede the enactment of these measures, or their operation subsequently, but I do say that if you have an eight hour day law put into force, immediately some injunction will be issued against
the enforcement of some essential provision, the case will be tested in the courts and the effective operation of the legislation will be held up. Then if an adverse decision is given, immediately you will have another test case with regard to the minimum wage legislation, and the same thing will happen in regard to these other pieces of social legislation that have been introduced. The result will be that neither labour nor capital, neither the employer, the employee or the public, neither the business man, the merchant nor anyone else will know where he stands or where he is likely to be with regard to the laws of the country. That is a very dangerous position in which to put a country when conditions are as serious as they are in the world at the present time. That can be avoided if hon. gentlemen will take the one step I have all along been urging; and may I point out that they have made the way very easy for themselves. As we were told by the Minister of Labour (Mr. jGordon) yesterday, he is allowing three months before his eight hour day bill goes into effect. The Prime Minister has told us that it will be some considerable time before an attempt will be made to assess any dues under the unemployment insurance act, and that all that will be attempted in the first instance is the creation of the commission. I have no doubt at all that we shall find the same amendment, as to delay in enforcement, placed in this act with regard to minimum wages, allowing another three months or so to elapse before it will come into operation. Then there is the amendment in regard to the day of rest, which means another three months or so in that case. Within that period of time any one or all of these measures could be referred by the government to the supreme court and an opinion obtained, just as was done with respect to the other measures mentioned this afternoon by the ex-Minister of Justice. If the court says the enactment of these measures is within the competence of parliament, then I think everyone will be tremendously relieved and will do the best he can to see that the decision given is upheld. If however the step suggested is not taken, I venture to say we will find the validity of every one of these acts contested in the courts. The controversy will run from the local courts to the supreme court, and from the supreme court to the judicial committee of the privy council. A year or two hence, we will probably find ourselves in the position where all the government's social legislation has been upset, with the result that the whole business of legislation will have to be begun de novo.

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
I believe what we have witnessed this afternoon is quite sufficient to justify every word I have said by way of observation upon rather than of criticism of the remarks of hon. members opposite, and certainly is sufficient to justify the attitude the official opposition has taken from the beginning with regard to all this social legislation.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry when I hear the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King) endeavouring to justify the position taken by his party regarding the measures brought forward by the government. Although I have only a few moments bo speak if I wish to conclude by six o'clock, I should like in those few moments to state that it was rather unworthy of the right hon. gentleman to make the reference he did to the question asked this afternoon by the exMinister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). My colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) moved the approval of the convention, and it was quite proper that he should answer the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I asked the
acting leader of the government.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Yes, but perhaps the right hon. gentleman does not know that as a rule during debate I do not answer questions. The answer my colleague gave is absolutely correct. The government is quite sincere in its social legislation, and purposes carrying it out in every possible way to a successful issue.
I should like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that he is endeavouring to fight the government but at the same time support its legislation. How can any man take that ground and expect the people of this country to believe he is in earnest?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was the
ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce who was fighting the government.


George Halsey Perley: Only a few days ago the right hon. gentleman read a long statement in regard to the position of the Liberal party, and when he had finished I was not quite sure which side he was on. No person can tell. The right hon. gentleman said:
The Liberal party approves the principle of the social legislation thus far introduced and desires to see it in operation.
Then he goes on to say that it should be referred to the supreme court. Well, the right hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that in legislation of this kind a reference to

the supreme court would be only a pious reference, and would have no binding effect. Legal actions could be brought all the same and the cases could be carried through to the highest court in the British empire. If the right hon. gentleman really washes to have social legislation why did he wait all these years? Why did he not put it into effect? He makes the statement that the Liberal party during the time he was in office had had negotiations with the several provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So we had.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, you had,
time and again, but never got anywhere with them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Old Age
Pensions Act is the answer to that.


George Halsey Perley: He made no
arrangements with the provinces towards having a change in the British North America Act, despite the fact that in many of the provinces there were Liberal administrations. This government has had two or three provincial conferences in which we were unsuccessful in seeing eye to eye on the question cf amending the British North America Act. To-day the government is acting, whereas the government led by the right hon. gentleman opposite did nothing but say that through all those years they were considering the matter. They were in favour but they had not the courage to put their views into operation.
The right hon. gentleman cannot rim with the hare and hunt with the hounds. How can he reconcile being opposed to the action of the government and at the same time favour the legislation? One day he takes one side and another day he takes another. One moment he votes against, the government and the next he votes with the government, and on the very same measure. I submit that his position is untenable and that he cannot maintain it. He should give the present government credit for having the courage to bring down social legislation and doing everything it possibly can to have such legislation work properly and for the comfort of our people.
I believe I have said all I wish to say. The matter has been debated at length and some very interesting points have been brought out. I do not suppose it will be necessary to take a division, as the right hon. gentleman seems prepared to vote for the resolution. Yet he stands up and criticizes the government for bringing in the legislation he favours. Why

Price Spreads Commission
has he not the courage bo stand in his place and offer the government his congratulations upon its courage in putting through reform measures?


Leslie Gordon Bell: He would not say yes and he would not vote no.
Motion (Mr. Guthrie) agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the bill not to be introduced?


Hugh Guthrie: There is no bill yet.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, l'Ulustra-tion of to-day's date contains the following article:
To-day, the house established three records: this afternoon, for speed; this evening, for weakness and imbecility. The weakness, alas, was that of Hon. Arthur Sauve, whose estimates were voted. The imbeciles were those who, for two whole hours by the clock, with incredible meanness, vented criticism and attacks on the Postmaster General. First, Mr. Pouliot went after the minister with might and main and attacked him with the utmost fury.
The Attack
In justice to Mr. Pouliot, let us say that, while his attacks were the most violent of those showered on Mr. Sauve, they were the most intelligent, the most methodical and, therefore, the most formidable.
To write that an imbecile made the most intelligent attack, one must have reached the depths of stupidity. That such a person should use the word "imbecile," I care very little; but when he adds that an imbecile made the most intelligent attack, he perpetrates a grave insult.
If I catch him at it again, I will amuse the house with the strange tale of the knife and the no less strange one of the Nelson column.



PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, apparently my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) is leading the house at the moment. I rather hesitate to ask him the question I have in mind. However, I think I
should have it immediately of record. The other day I asked the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) if he could give the house some information as to when we might expect the report of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying. In this evening's Ottawa Journal I notice an article which no doubt appears in other evening papers. This article is headed:	-
Stevens' Program on Price Spreads Presented.
Abolish Rebates Exceeding Total of Five Per Cent.
Suggests Application of Dumping Duties in Domestic Trade to Overcome Special Prices to Mass Buyers.
Would tax Salaries Over $10,000 and Regulate Set-up of Firms.
Hon. H. H. Stevens, former Minister of Trade and Commerce, has presented his recommendations to the price spreads commission to establish fair and just practices in the marketing and distribution system of Canada.
I should like to know whether the government regards this commission as a judicial body or whether it is a publicity bureau. Can the government give any information to the house as to when we may expect to have an authentic report of the commission's work? I should like to know also whether the commission can be advised in the meantime that parliament has certain rights and privileges and should be informed of the work of bodies of this kind before the general public is so informed.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman asked his question of the acting leader of the government, who responded that he would inquire of the chairman of the commission and that he might be in position to give some information at an early date. I think it will be necessary for the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) to make the reply to the questions asked by the right hon. gentleman. Nevertheless I think it is the view of both sides of the house that this commission is in its character a quasi-judicial body, but it would appear that there are bureaux of publicity outside of the commission from which reports are emanating to the public press.



CANADA-FRANCE TRADE AGREEMENT   BILL TO CONFIRM ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL OF 1935 TO THE CONVENTION OF 1933

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. 32, respecting the additional protocol of 1935 to the Canada-France trade agreement of 1933-Mr. Cahan-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Canada-Franee Agreement
Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Chairman, when this
bill was receiving its second reading I indicated that I had some statements to make with regard to certain conditions which had arisen under the operation of the old treaty, and the minister in charge of the bill indicated that it would be acceptable for me to make these statements at this stage of the bill.
I think it is generally agreed that if we are to recover world trade and eliminate restrictions on trade, it can be done only by way of treaties such as this. These treaties should be devised to facilitate trade rather than to act as restrictions, as certain of them seem to have done. It may be that the minister will be able to give a satisfactory explanation of certain conditions which have arisen. These treaties are supposed to confer a benefit upon Canada in two different ways: first, by allowing a greater volume of exports to the country with which we have made a treaty, and, second, by permitting the receiving of goods from that country at a lower rate of duty, thus conferring a benefit upon the people. There would seem to be some indications that the French treaty is not satisfactory from the latter point of view.
I have in my hand a letter which was addressed to Mr. McGregor, registrar of the Combines Investigation Act, by a firm styling themselves Drug Agencies. It would seem that before this treaty came into effect this particular firm was buying certain pharmaceutical preparations in the open market in France. They claim that they are now unable to do this because of article 9 of the French treaty, which reads:
Either of the high contracting parties may require that goods imported into its territory and coming from the territory of the other, shall be accompanied by a certificate of origin delivered in conformity with the laws of the country of origin; provided, however, that a presentation of the certificate of origin shall be obligatory in the case of importation of pharmaceutical specialties, toilet articles and articles of perfumery. Such certificate shall be issued or delivered by the competent authority in the country of origin and shall be visaed by the consular or other authority of the country of destination.
I had on the order paper a question which I withdrew asking whether both parties to the treaty were insisting upon certificates of origin. At that time I had not read this article, and it seems that it was optional with either country to ask for the certificate of origin except with respect to pharmaceutical preparations. Now the complaint is made by those who have brought the matter to my

attention that this particular article was introduced into the treaty at the request of the Canadian government. Of course the fact that it is here indicates that both parties have agreed to it. But I cannot understand why special emphasis should be laid on pharmaceutical preparations unless for the reason suggested by those who are making the complaint, namely, that the Canadian government wished to give to certain interests a monopoly of the importation of these preparations. It appears that certificates of origin are granted in France by the chamber of commerce; that is the body that has been delegated to give these certificates, and I understand that they will give them only to the manufacturers of these preparations. The result is, as complained, that they can no longer be bought in the open market and that certain interests in Canada have .therefore a monopoly in the handling of these preparations. It is claimed that about seven hundred different articles come within this category. I know that the argument is advanced that it is necessary to have the certificate of origin in older to protect our own country against importations from other countries via France. On the other hand it might be supposed that the French government would require these certificates of origin in order that France might have all the benefits of the treaty to which she is entitled. But in actual practice the price of these pharmaceutical preparations has been increased by reason of the situation that prevails.
I listened with interest to the explanation which the minister gave yesterday to the hon. member for Bonaventure with respect to the price of wines and liquors, in which he indicated that the depreciation of the Canadian currency was responsible in large measure for the increase in price. It is quite possible that this may be one factor in this particular problem, but it would be interesting to know whether the fact that under the operation of the treaty as it now exists the particular firms interested have a monopoly in the handling of these preparations is not also a factor in the increased price, because it seems to be generally admitted that the price of these preparations has been increased.
The statement is made in a letter which I have here that under the French treaty these same interests now handling these preparations made an application to the former government to have a clause similar to article 9 of the treaty inserted, but it was refused at that time. If any light can be thrown on the subject we shall be pleased to have it, because it does seem that the consumers of these preparations are not getting the benefit which we should

Canada-France Agreement
expect they would be entitled to under a lower rate of duty as provided for in the treaty; and if the effect has been, as it would seem to be, to restrict the trade to a few individuals instead of throwing it open to the general public who might wish to buy goods in the open market in France, then it would appear that the treaty is not working out as we should like.
Another instance has come to my attention, and though it may not have so direct a bearing on the French treaty, nevertheless it is connected with our trade with France. The complaint is made that importations of beeswax are coming from England under the preferential rates and that a large part of these importations comes from France and the French colonies. According to certain statistics received by the British trade commissioner in Montreal in April, 1934, it appears that Great Britain receives two-thirds of its imports from France and French colonies. The man who makes the complaint says that he is now no longer able to buy beeswax direct from France because of the higher rate of duty. I find, on looking over the treaty, that this article is not mentioned. At any rate, this man complains that he can no longer obtain beeswax direct from France and that Great Britain is being given an unfair advantage under the agreement with her, since a good deal of what she ships to us is imported from other countries. Personally I am not very much exercised as a rule over the fact that we are getting quantities of goods at a lower rate of duty, but if there is no reduction in the price and our revenue is suffering at the same time, this may be a matter to be looked into. Perhaps the minister has some explanation to give in regard to some of the statements I have made.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman gave
me no notice of his inquiry wuth regard to beeswax. My memory is not sufficiently accurate to say whether beeswax was one of the products from France brought in under the preferential duty. If I remember rightly it is not included, and if beeswax is not included in the Canada-France treaty I do not quite see how the government of this country can make arrangements for the merchant, whom my hon. friend is representing to-night, to purchase in France what the French merchants are not willing to sell to him. Possibly they send their large supply to Great Britain, and it is distributed from there throughout the other parts of the world.


Albert Joseph Brown: The complaint is with regard to the higher duty coming from France


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If a man buys directly in
France and brings the article in here from that country, then it comes under the terms of the French treaty, and if that beeswax is not on the intermediate tariff or the intermediate tariff less a discount, he cannot bring it in under a lower rate of duty from France. He therefore finds it to his advantage undoubtedly to buy in the English market and to bring it in from there. As to whether all the beeswax bought in England is produced in England, I cannot give my hon. friend definite information. If it is a matter of sufficient importance into which the Department of Trade and Commerce might inquire as to whether any prejudice is thereby effected to the Canadian importer of beeswax, I cannot say definitely.
On the other question as to article 9, it is obvious that in any trade treaty between Canada and France in which preferential rates are given in Canada on the one hand to French products and in France on the other hand to Canadian products, there must be some way devised by which when goods are imported into this country it may be ascertained that the products are really French, and that products going from Canada to France are Canadian. Therefore, as usual in such treaties, provision is made with regard to giving certificates of origin. In this connection article 9 states:
Such certificate shall be issued or delivered by the competent authority in the country of origin and shall be visaed by the consular or other authority in the country of destination.
We have not in this country any governmental authority which is authorized to give certificates with regard to products exported to France, and therefore the French have agreed to take certificates from those who produce these products in Canada, provided that the certificate so given by the producer in this country is visaed by the consular officer of France in Canada. Therefore if there is a sale of lobster's or salmon from British Columbia to a French importer, those who conduct the trade in Vancouver for instance, give certificates, which are then verified by affidavit or statutory declaration usually, and those together with the export documents are visaed by a French consular officer. On the production of those certificates and the French visa at the French port of importation, the products are passed by the French officials. On the other hand goods imported into Canada from France are accompanied by a certificate of origin. This
Canada-France Agreement

certificate is given in France under the authority of the French government, an authority which has been delegated to the chambre de commerce which is extremely desirous of ascertaining that the goods so exported are really French products. In connection with this article 9, a special clause is inserted:
Provided, however, that the presentation of a certificate of origin shall be obligatory in the ease of importation of pharmaceutical specialties, toilet articles and articles of perfumery.
France depends to a very considerable extent upon her exports of these specialties. Her pharmaceutical specialties are produced under government supervision and the perfumery production of France is very large and is exported to almost all foreign countries. I know, in visiting the ports of South America or 'Central America or Mexico, that one will find such French articles are on sale in those countries to the extent of constituting almost a monopoly. The French government therefore insisted upon the inclusion of this proviso in article 9, upon the ground that they wished to prevent misrepresentation in regard to pharmaceutical specialties, toilet articles and articles of perfumery which did not come up to their standard, and which when they went abroad ruined the reputation of the French production in those articles, which reputation it had taken years and very considerable expense to establish in the consuming countries of the world. Therefore, to prevent what I might call boot-legging in connection with those articles, to prevent false representations being made in foreign markets with regard to them, the French government insisted that there should be certificates of origin produced from the French authority as to the French origin of those articles in order that there might be no misrepresentation in the consuming country. That proviso I can assure the hon. gentleman was introduced at the request of the French government. In respect of importations into Canada from France of pharmaceutical specialties, toilet articles and articles of perfumery, the French government insisted upon a certificate l>emg given to the French manufacturers or producers that those articles which are exported to Canada under the preferential rates are manufactured or produced in France. Perhaps those who have made representations to the hon. gentleman are more interested in the illicit trade which exists in France and every other country in pharmaceutical specialties, articles of perfumery and so forth rather than in the purchase of the standard articles concerning which the French government has
[Mr. Cahan.j
exercised such great care. However the decision of the customs branch of the Department of National Revenue has been that perfumeries, ' whether produced in Italy or Switzerland or Belgium or some other country, if they have been bootlegged into France, cannot come into Canada as French products unless a certificate of origin is given as provided in article 9. That is all the explanation I can give to the hon. gentleman.


Albert Joseph Brown: I do not just follow the
minister's logic. If the preservation of the purity of these articles was as important to the French government as he indicates, they would see that no certificates of origin were given except to those who exported the standard article. There would be no necessity for putting it in the treaty; we would have expected them to attend to it on their own account. The fact that special emphasis has been laid upon it in the treaty raises the suspicion that it was inserted at the request not of the French government but of the Canadian government to protect certain monopolistic industries.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can only say that was the
reason given, that they wished to preserve not only the purity of their products ooming within these special classes but also to preserve the reputation of their products in foreign countries, because throughout the world France has a reputation for those articles. Whether the French government could have found other means of preventing the illicit sale of pharmaceutical articles which are not manufactured under government supervision I cannot say, because I have nothing to do with the administration of French affairs. But one thing is sure, that the means which they did take of insisting on the insertion of this proviso in article 9 have apparently been very effective in preventing the export from France to Canada of low standard products of these three classes, of which the French government does not approve.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Would the minister teH
us when this article 9 first appeared? Was that clause not in the old treaty? Article 9 is in the 1922 treaty. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, as you were in the house at the time this treaty with France was first introduced by the present opposition, that I took a very decided stand against the treaty from beginning to end. This treaty is not improved a great deal. I will admit that there are some improvements, but not many. The old treaty was cluttered up with lists

Canada-France Agreement
of two hundred articles specially mentioned as articles that we could ship to France but we never have made one of them. I object to some of the clauses in this treaty as much as I ever did. It has not been changed; the old treaty remains the same; these are additions to it, and I am not going to sit here and allow it to pass without making a protest. The minimum clause still remains, and that works a hardship on us. We made that treaty in good faith, and when we made it the minimum clause was there and our wheat went to France subject to a duty of ten cents a bushel. Under the treaty they had the right to raise that minimum tariff to anything they saw fit, and before long it was put up to a dollar, which was prohibitive. I say that a treaty made on that basis is wrong.
There is another feature. The goods that we take under this new protocol from France consist of what? Take a glance at them. They start with Rocquefort cheese and Camemlbert cheese. The next item is pepper, to which I have no objection because I think it is needed for certain purposes. Then we have canned mushrooms, candied chestnuts, liqueurs, cognac brandy and Armagnaic brandy. Fine. Now let us take a look at the list of stuff that we can take from France. Mind you, the duty on these articles is reduced very materially. Let us see what they are and whether the constituents of the hon. member for Lisgar are going to be much affected by them. Lace and embroideries, wholly of cotton; fibres of raffia or of sisal; lace and embroideries, wholly of flax, or of hemp, or of flax, hemp and cotton; women's dress gloves of kid, elbow length. For the life of me I cannot understand how it is that on luxuries on which we should collect the duty is reduced. Of course the hon. member for Lisgar is glad to see a reduction of duty, provided the reduction gets to his people. But imagine his people buying that class of goods! They work so hard they are not using any embroideries just now. My contention is that articles of this kind should pay duty and pay it through the nose; people using articles of this kind should pay for them. In my judgment the minimum tariff is an improper basis on which to make any treaty with any country. We can do without their trade if we cannot trade on better terms than that. If we wanted to change the tariff we could not do it unless we got their permission, but they could change it to our disadvantage. The only way that we could alter anything was by abrogating the treaty, which we were forced to do. Just think of that.
There are some other things I object to in this treaty as affecting my constituents. I would ask the minister how it comes that such a great reduction is made on cheap wines. My county is interested in wine manufacture. There is not a farmer in my district who has not a vineyard; in that district thirty thousand tons of grapes are grown in a year, and half of them are pressed into wine. I know one plant that pressed eight thousand tons of grapes. My people in three counties are dependent upon that; it is the best crop they have. I should like to know why a reduction of fifty per cent is made in the duty on French wines. Are we encouraging the growing of grapes in France? Is that the proposition? Not for me. I am encouraging the growing of grapes at home; that is what I am interested in, and that is why I am speaking on the subject.


Albert Joseph Brown: I had no intention at this point of discussing rates of duty on articles coming from France; I expected we should come to that later. I am simply making the point that wherever these reductions are made they should at least go to the people, and not lead to the establishment of what seems to be a contbine. Certain vested interests, certain monopolists, seem to have secured the privilege of dealing in these pharmaceutical preparations. As far as the general principle of a tax on luxuries is concerned I am in perfect agreement with the hon. member for Lincoln. I would go perhaps much further than he would in putting taxes on liquor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some pointed questions have been directed to the Secretary of State by the hon. member for Lincoln without reply.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was waiting until all the questions had been asked; I thought there was perhaps some altercation between the hon. member for Lincoln and the hon. member for Lisgar. Reductions have been made on the duties on French wines, I have no doubt in order to create an approach to an equilibrium between Canada's exports to France and France's exports to Canada. With regard to sparkling wines, in 1930 the exports of champagne to Canada in bottles containing more than a quart were valued at $418,871. In 1934 that dropped to 879,519. The total imports of sparkling wines from France dropped from $585,930 in 1930 to $111,159 in 1934.


James Dew Chaplin: Does not the minister think the depression might have had something to do with that?
Canada-France Agreement


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No doubt the depression had something to do with it, and the depreciation in Canadian currency as compared with the gold franc undoubtedly had something to do with it also. Nevertheless it was a fact, and to a very large extent Canada depends upon the French market for the export of its wheat. To preserve that market for wheat the government, through the Prime Minister, negotiated this protocol with France whereby our export of wheat to France is maintained under conditions fairly satisfactory considering the fact that on the average France produces nearly as much wheat as all Canada. But in return we have made a reduction in the duty on sparkling wines imported into Canada. The hon. gentleman- was referring to the old treaty, in force prior to 1932, which contained a large number of articles which were never imported into this country.


James Dew Chaplin: I understand that perfectly, but I was comparing the two treaties.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thought the committee might have misunderstood my hon. friend, because those articles were eliminated in the treaty of 1932. There is no article contained in the 1932 treaty to which we give any preference to France that was not included at the express request of someone in Canada who had an interest in procuring imports of that product from France or, on the other hand, who was interested in producing in Canada and exporting to France an article which was placed by that treaty on a better preferential basis in the French market. I cannot weigh the balance as between the producer of grapes in the Niagara peninsula and the producer of wheat in the prairie provinces. That is not for me to adjudicate; that issue is not mine to decide.


James Dew Chaplin: We are still working on a minimum tariff on wheat, are we not?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is the only tariff on which we can work.


James Dew Chaplin: They can increase their duty on wheat again within six months, if they wish, without abrogating this treaty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, there is a clause in this treaty which provides that if they limit or restrict the special rights we have for the exportation and sale of wheat and flour, we have the right at once to abrogate the privileges granted to certain French products including wines. We must expect to give

concessions if we are going to export our wheat. In round figures our exports of wheat to France have been as follows:
Bushels
1930	  6.698.000
1931		 18,807,000
1932		 17.184,000
1933		 11,261,000
Then it was reduced, because after the old treaty had been in operation for one year they imposed greater restrictions upon the importation of wheat from Canada which the Prime Minister sought to overcome in negotiating this protocol. Our export of wheat to France in 1934 dropped to 7,899,000 bushels and it was proceeding to drop still further. Therefore, in order to preserve what we have in the way of a wheat market in France and to increase that market to the greatest extent possible, certain concessions have been made to France in this treaty. That is all I can say in reply to the hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon.
friend from Lincoln quite satisfied now?


James Dew Chaplin: With the explanation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: Not at all.


Albert Joseph Brown: I was just wondering if the
hon. member for Lincoln remembered the discussion about bronze powder when the former treaty was under consideration.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, and I also recall
that a gentleman came to this house and said that bronze powder was being exported from this country to some other country. Every year I have carefully looked through the records but I have found no trace of any such exports. So rvhat was said about bronze powder does not count any more with me to-day than it did then. I happen to know something about it; I use it, and I never bought bronze powder made in Canada from anyone in Canada in my life.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I noticed that
when speaking on this bill the Secretary of State mentioned that negotiations had been delayed for some considerable time because of some of the clauses in the Canada-United Kingdom agreement. Can my hon. friend tell me how long negotiations were delayed on that account?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I really cannot say. The
matter was taken up, I think, soon after the treaty of May, 1933, was confirmed by an act of this parliament Some negotiations

Canada-France Agreement
ensued, first with regard to wines with Australia and South Africa and I think also with Great Britain in regard to brandies. I suppose those negotiations were conducted by the Department of External Affairs and I am sure that weeks and perhaps some months may have elapsed while correspondence was taking place. I remember that the commercial agent of Australia in Canada took some part, and then I think reference had to be made to the Australian government again. As to the exact date when consent was received from Australia and South Africa I cannot give accurate information, except that as soon as that consent was given the revision of the French trade agreement was taken up. This revision was discussed with Mr. Arsene Henry just before he left Canada, and I think he took with him to France some definite suggestions for the consideration of the French government. Mr. Arsene Henry was here during the Jacques Cartier centenary celebration, and it was just after that the Prime Minister left for Geneva. The Under Secretary of State, and I believe one or two of the officials of the department, accompanied the Prime Minister, and there the protocol which was subsequently embodied in the agreement now before the house was drawn up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any trade agreement other than the present one which, either in the form of a treaty, an agreement or a protocol, has been negotiated during the past year?
Mr. CAHiAJN: The right hon. gentleman will have to put that question to the acting Prime Minister, because I am not the official negotiator of treaties for the government. Perhaps out of turn I had to do simply with the negotiation of the Canada-France agreements. Perhaps no other member of the government could be so easily spared from his duties in Ottawa as I could be. At any rate it took three months with the help of the French experts for me to go through all the items found in the agreement of 1932, I did my best. Then later, in view of this experience I was informed as to the attitude of the French government respecting wine aqd wheat, the depreciation of Canadian currency, and the direct surtax levied on Canadian imports and I was authorized by the Prime Minister to open up conversations with Mr. Henry before he left Canada. I did that. Thereafter the negotiations were carried out and concluded in Paris by the Prime Minister of External Affairs, and his official assistants.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe the minister, despite his modesty, is entitled to most of whatever credit there may be coming to the government for the negotiation of this protocol. Those of us who are familiar with negotiations of the kind and know something of his services will realize that the minister did work very hard in the early stages of the negotiations in connection with the agreement, and I believe any credit coming to the government should go chiefly to him.
Listening to the minister, I have been most interested in learning of the difficulties which were encountered because of the United Kingdom-Canada agreements. I believe those difficulties bear out what hon. members on this side have been saying. Those Imperial conference agreements as drafted have stood in the way of the negotiations of agreements with other countries. It is quite clear that Australia has had to be consulted, Great Britain has had to be consulted and other parts of the empire have had to be consulted before the government could negotiate any trade agreement, even one as small as the one now under consideration. Coupling with that the fact that, within the past year, mo other trade agreements have been negotiated, it would clearly indicate' that the provisions of the United Kingdom-Canada agreements are presenting real difficulties. It is not long since we heard some talk about possible reciprocity in trade between Canada and the United States, but it now would look as though those negotiations too have fallen through. If they have, I have not the slightest doubt the greater part of the difficulty has been that of getting over the handicaps which the United Kingdom-Canada agreements have placed in the way of negotiations between this country and the United States. From the discussion we have had on this particular measure at least that much is clear.
One other point is apparent-in fact, quite as apparent this evening as it was from what we witnessed this afternoon-namely that as between themselves hon. gentlemen opposite are not much happier over their trade agreements than they are over their social legislation. It looks as though the function of the opposition, so far as opposing is concerned, or at least so far as discovering limitations is concerned, has to all intents and purposes been usurped by a large section of hon. gentlemen opposite.


James Dew Chaplin: May I say to the right
hon. gentleman that the old French treaty was more of a stumbling block in the way of the negotiation of any other treaty than

Canada-France Agreement

anything which has ever been known in this country. Under the treaty which was made with France, seven or eight or nine other countries were given all the privileges contained in the French treaty. I refer to the most favoured nation treatment. We could not make any decent treaty outside until that treaty was abrogated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was hoping I might bring my hon. friends opposite together. It would seem as though I had succeeded.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think the right
hon. gentleman has given due credit to the persuasive powers of the Prime Minister. Certainly in company with Doctor Skelton he did take up these negotiations in Paris, and was successful in alleviating or remedying certain occasions for irritation which had arisen between the two countries. It was of immense advantage to Canadian trade that this surtax should be removed. It was of very great value to Canadian trade that the French exchange depreciation tax against us, amounting to about eleven per cent, should be removed. Those were removed.
With regard to differences of opinion which prevail as to the views held by hon. members on this side of the house, I trust I am not lacking in generosity or in consideration when I say that if the leader of the opposition will carefully listen to what his supporters and colleagues are saying with respect to his own program and his enunciation of his views pronounced during the present session I am sure he will find more surprising differences of opinion prevailing on his side of the house than ever prevailed on this side.


Vincent Dupuis: I object.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If, for instance, the views
of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, which were pronounced with such a marked degree of emphasis a few evenings ago, and in which he stated that he was in favour of the issue of $425,000,000-was it not?-or $450,000,000 of paper currency-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Accurate as usual-wrong in both cases.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What was the amount?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Look up Hansard and find out.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was away up in the
hundreds of millions anyway. If those are the views of the right hon. leader of the opposition I may tell him that on his own side of the house and among his most ardent supporters there are graver differences of
(Mr. Chaplin.]
opinion than I have ever heard expressed on this side between my colleagues in the government or between members supporting the government. In this life we must expect, when going through the stress and strain to which we have all been subjected, that differences of opinion will develop in the minds of men. Perhaps it is fortunate that they are not always in agreement, and that out of the variety of experience of those who compose this chamber there finally results that unanimity with regard to public policy which is necessary for the advancement of the country, whether it be the unanimous view of the opposition or the unanimous view of the government. It is only through discussion that we find ways of compromising our views and reaching that unanimity of opinion which we may present and effectively carry into operation. I am not astonished when I see differences of opinion. The right bon. gentleman this afternoon made some rather sinister observations with regard to the views I had expressed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the contrary, if the minister will look at Hansard he will find that they were kindly remarks, so intended and so expressed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Nevertheless when put in
opposition to views expressed by another hon. gentleman the criticism was evidently intended to have a similar effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was quite
the opposite. I classed my hon. friend with the hon. member for Quebec East and said that both of them had made valuable contributions. I expressed admiration for what my hon. friend had attempted.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no right to enter into a discussion but if the hon. gentleman will read the report of what I said this afternoon he will see that there is no great divergence of view as between myself and the other members of the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid
that after this I shall have to pitch into my hon. friend instead of seeking to uphold him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my hon. friend will reflect I think he will realize that there is very little difference between the views expressed by his colleague, the hon. member for Quebec East, and himself and those which have been expressed on this side of the house. The only difference I can ascertain is the opinion that all legislation should be delayed until parliament is unanimous in the belief that it can be carried into effect by competent legislation. Legislation cannot be held up in that

Supply-Pensions-European War
way. I am digressing from the point but I assure the hon. gentleman that he will find just as great a divergence of opinion on his side as is said to prevail on this side.
Mr. BEAUB1EN:	I should like to know
if preference has been given to the wines of France and Australia because of representations made to the government by the wine drinkers of Ontario that the wines of this province are inferior to those of France and Australia?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have never heard any
expression of opinion with regard to the inferiority of Ontario wines.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
European war-[DOT]
Naval, militia and' air forces after the war, $42,000,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I notice the amount is the same as last year. How much of last year's vote was expended?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: The expenditure in 1933-34 was $41,839,830.90, and to December 1, 1934, $31,487,860.24.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When will the peak of expenditures be reached?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is expected that the peak has been reached under the existing legislation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that approximately $100,000 was authorized, I believe by order in council if not by legislation, as compensation for the members of the pension tribunal. If the minister has the information before him I should like to know the amounts paid to the various individuals.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not that information before me. The amounts have been decided with the exception of the amount to be paid to Doctor Morrison. This matter is in abeyance for the time being as he has another situation and some adjustment will be necessary.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was the basis of compensation the same as that in connection with the members of the old federal appeal board?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: As far as I know it was. The members of the pension tribunal got about $10,000 each.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In connection with the so-called disputed cases I understand that as a result of representations made a year ago the Skitch case has been finally settled. I am informed, although not officially, that the Ouellette case has been settled during the last few weeks. Has any disposition been made of the four remaining cases?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There were five cases in the series mentioned by the hon. gentleman. The Skitch case has been settled. The widow of Mr. Skitch has remarried. The Canadian patriotic fund had made certain advances to her and they were repaid. The widow received $1,256.92 as adjustment of pension up to the time of her remarriage. In the case of Arthur Smith the judgment of the federal appeal board was that the applicant was suffering from valvular disease of the heart, pre-enlistment, aggravated by service in France. A pension award has been made in connection with this decision and an arrangement has been arrived at for Mr. Smith's examination by a specialist and for assessment of the amount of pension to be paid.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When was that made?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That has been made very recently. With respect to Andrews, the decision of the pension appeal board was that he was suffering from a hip condition, preenlistment, and arrangements have been made for his examination in order that the disability may be assessed. As regards Ouellette, this has resulted in Mr. Ouellette's receiving an award of $4,494.56, half of which was paid to him last month, and the balance will be paid shortly, subject to any adjustment for relief which has been paid. With regard to Tom Kane, the commission have implemented the judgment of the board by authorizing the payment of pension from the date it was discontinued to date of the soldier's death in November 1929, less the amount of gratuity paid the widow. The adjustment is being paid to the late Mr. Kane's widow.
1766	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a very satisfactory statement. There is one other case in the same category-


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is the Fox case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No judgment has been given by the exchequer court. The action in the Ontario courts was apparently withdrawn by Mr. Fox's solicitor at Mr. Fox's request. The solicitor is in touch with the department; in fact, this afternoon he was in asking for further consideration to be given the matter, which is being done.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am glad indeed to hear that. If the minister gets the same considerate treatment with respect to Fox as he has obtained in the others, it will have been a very satisfactory disposition of these matters.


Mr. ROSS:: I wish to make a few remarks in general in regard to pension matters. In the first place I commend the work of the acting chairman of the present pension commission. For the first time, I think, the returned men feel that they have a sympathetic hearer on the board, and when I use the word sympathetic I do not mean that a pension will be granted in every instance but I do mean that since the' present chairman came to the commission we have had patient and fair dealing in all these cases, whether a pension was granted or refused.
In discussing this matter I suggest that there are three presumptions in regard to pension cases which we must take into consideration. The first presumption is that there are a small minority in this country and even in this house who believe that the returned man has received too much, that he has been too well treated. The second presumption is that this country and this parliament have always been anxious to have generous treatment given the returned man. But there is a third presumption that, in spite of this general wish on the part of the people and the parliament of Canada, there has been a certain antagonism from the beginning of the pension organization up to the present time. I wish to discuss what I regard as the obstacles that were encountered from 1921 to 1923 and 1924. Those of us who were interested then in pension matters will remember that we had to deal with what I might call threats made by certain officials of the pension board. Those returned men who were getting a small pension received a threat during those years that unless they commuted their pension they

would have it reduced or eliminated altogether by the medical examiners and the pension representatives of that day. There are certain men who commuted their pension and who do not yet know that they can return to the pension status under certain conditions. A second obstacle was the poor assessment that was made, and even to this day there is no systematic way in which the pension is estimated and disability allowed. If the procedure of the insurance companies were followed instead of having these nineteen different percentages, then each case would be fairly decided. In those first years these two factors caused a good deal of disagreement and discontent and the result was that an appeal court was formed. That court functioned for a time, but as soon as it began to give decisions favourable to the returned men the pension board immediately sat upon it and arranged a procedure and adopted methods to be followed, and in consequence there was antagonism between the two boards.
Those of us who sat on the different committees in .those years will remember that bwing to the difference of opinion, that antagonism which existed between these two bodies, the returned men did not receive just and fair treatment. A strong demand was then made for changes and the Ralston commission was appointed. This brought to light a great many injustices and the result was the legislation of 1928. The proposals were brought to us in the committee by the legion and other interested societies and they were adopted. The hon. member for Red Deer and I were the only two opponents of that legislation. We pointed out that it was impracticable and would lead to greater confusion. We asked that the pension board should be increased and that travelling quorums should be appointed, and that the hearing of these cases should be in public. They proposed the appointment of tribunals; they proposed the appointment of pension advocates ; they proposed an appeal board. The result was that the legislation broke down absolutely and the sufferers were the returned men.
While this parliament and the people of Canada desire to have generous treatment given the returned men, there have been from the beginning certain obstacles that ha\ e prevented the men from receiving that treatment which it was intended they should get, and in consequence the 1928 board has been done away with. We proposed that the appeal court should be resorted to by the returned men, but what happened? Instead of

Supply-Pensions-European War
being used by the returned men it was usurped by the pension board, and every case decided favourably to the returned men was at once appealed, even before the decision was handed down. Some twenty-four or twenty-five thousand cases have been passed along, kicked around from one body to the other. Death has reduced the number to some extent, and men have gone down to their graves without that generous treatment which this country intended they should receive, and this because of procrastination, because of the impossibility of these boards functioning properly, so that a great deal of money has been misspent. If that money, instead of being wasted as it was in the years that have gone, had been given to the applicants this country would have been dollars ahead and these men would not have suffered as they have done.
Then we come to the 1931 legislation, and again an obstacle was put in the way. What has been the result of all this? Instead of a returned man receiving favourable, generous treatment, he has not been treated fairly. Clever young counsel were employed by the pension board against inexperienced pension advocates, and in nearly every one of the cases the returned man lost out. The only benefit that I can see from this legislation is that parliament has passed measures by which members of organizations have received remunerative positions while the returned men have practically lost out.
I come now to some other factors which have also worked against the returned men. They were up against it from 1921 to 1923; they were up against it again in the legislation of 1928 and 1931; but when we come to 1933- and I do not want anyone to think I am talking in a partisan way because these things have happened under both Liberal and Conservative governments-the result was murderous. In that year the men were cut off wholesale, their pensions being reduced or limited. How was this done? I want to bring these matters before the present chairman because I believe we have a sympathetic chairman of the commission and a sympathetic minister. In 1933, files away back in the years gone by were searched by somebody, and if certain statements could be found there, the man's pension was reduced or eliminated. I do not want to take up the time of the committee in discussing a great number of cases, but I shall give one that is significant. A man was pensioned for epilepsy. In 1933 a search of his file was made and it was found away back in the file that he had made a statement that he had a headache when he was a boy
eleven years old. It was held that his epilepsy commenced then. The man had never had a seizure. He was examined in Canada; he took his training in this country and reached England without any seizure whatever. Yet on that statement his pension was cut by forty per cent. I have searched his file. The man disputes this statement, but even if it is true that he did make the statement, it is contrary to the act that his pension should be cut down. I want to draw the attention of the committee, the general public and the returned men to section 11 which states:
No deduction shall be made from the degree of actual disability of any member of the forces who has served in a theatre of actual war on account of any disability or disabling condition which existed in him at the time at which he became a member of the forces.
I want now to discuss an even more marked case than that. In 1933 a man had his pension reduced because he was said to have had pneumonia prior to his enlistment. He had served two or three years in France. According to that section his pension could not be reduced, nevertheless it was reduced. I do not doubt glaring mistakes have been made, but these should not be charged up against just cases which come within the act.
The question of marriage cases has been dealt with and a decision will be given. Then we come to the question of the immorality cases. I wonder whether the committee and the general public remember the promise given that men would be generously treated, yet a case was brought before the board where a woman had her pension cut off in 1920 and it remained cut off for fourteen years simply because some jealous or other person made a statement against her character. That sort of thing has happened in five or six cases in my constituency and vicinity, although it is contrary to' the provision of the act which reads:
The pension of any female pensioner who is found to be a common prostitute or who openly lives with any man in the relationship of man and wife without being married to him shall be suspended, discontinued or cancelled.
Yet not one of those cases in which the pension has been out off on the ground of immorality comes within the terms of section 39. Someone goes into the woman pensioner's house and finds a man's coat there, and her pension is cut off. There were three children, but of course their pension was continued. In this case a pension was cut off for fourteen years from a woman whose husband was killed in France and who is left with three children. I do not know how the decision was reached, because it was contrary to the
1768	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
act. It must be proved, first, that the woman is a common prostitute, or second, that she is living as the wife of a man to whom she has not been married, and in not one of those cases were those conditions fulfilled. The returned men are awaiting the decision in the marriage case. I think it was a great interference to disturb a marriage that had been in existence for fifteen or sixteen years, putting a name upon the returned man's wife because she could not produce a certificate of her first husband's death which had occurred twenty years before.
The compassionate benefit of doubt clause has been practically ignored. I will agree that the department have treated cases in accordance with that clause, but the pension part of it has been absolutely ignored. I would like to draw the attention of the committee and of the returned men to four factors in the great war in which compassion and the benefit of the doubt should be given. The men who served one year in the war at the front saw a certain amount of hardship, but only those who served four years at the front can really describe what the men went through. There are four conditions I want to bring before the chairman and before the new minister. The first is the conditions on Salisbury plain. Anyone who lived through those conditions knows that eighty per cent, yes ninety per cent of the men came out of there with bronchitis, and they had not recovered from that when they were suddenly thrust into the gas attack in April. The pension experts tell us, following the United States decision, that any person who suffered from gas would not have tuberculosis or would not have a tendency to tuberculosis. In fact the United States decision was that it helped to cure a case tending to tuberculosis. But unfortunately their statistics are based upon experiences which followed the use of almost, one might say, perfect gas masks through which the men suffered very little and where they recovered. The Canadian statistics cannot be made up, because our men who went through that first gas attack endured it when there was no protection and are in ninety per cent of the cases lying in Flanders field, and those who survived and came home I contend are liable to any pulmonary trouble that you can name. After gas masks have been provided and protection is perfected, the statistics are very different as with figures for those who endured a gas attack without any protection or help.
Then I want to take the third case. Those who were in the Somme went through conditions that no people in this country know
I Mr. Ross.J
much about. The men who served the first year and came home did not have the experiences of men who served the second, third or fourth years. When men lay in mud in the Somme valley, as they did for eight days, came back and slept in the Albert mud fields and brick yards for a night or two, and then went back for their three days' rest only to return to the mud fields again, they went through an experience from which any disease might result. Then, fourth, was the Passchen-daele field. When we of the Canadian corps went into Passchendaele there was a record there that the force that preceded us did not get fifty per cent of their wounded out of that ground. I have walked on those duck-boards, and the men who went in by daylight could see those bodies that were almost as sleepers under the duck-boards. Any men who went through a month of that and could come back and be the men they were before would be supermen. They are liable to any form of breakdown of their system.
Now in deciding those cases, and having regard to the benefit of the doubt, I can say without hesitation that no man who went through either the first year on Salisbury plain, or the first gas attack, or the Somme experience, and lastly through Passchendaele, could do so without some effect on his system. In these cases I think some consideration should be given to the experience instead of trying to cut pensions down. And in future consideration of cases there should be nothing of the kind which I quote now. Here is a returned man who has had an operation. He has adhesions. He has had them for a year or two. What do you think of this record put on his medical sheet? This is given by one of the surgeons. Just following an operation you may have adhesions, medical men in this room will agree, but when these adhesions keep on for a year or two years I do not think it deserves such a report as this on the man's sheet:
Think this man with the greatest security can get out and do the hardest of labour without the slightest ill effect, and it will help the pain.
What chance has that man before any board, with that entered on his sheet, signed by the surgeon of the department? Statements supposed to have been made by a man preceding enlistment should be checked up with the greatest diligence. Here is a man who says:
On my sheet is the fact that I have had pneumonia, that I had arthritis, but I never was sick in my life before my enlistment.

Supply-Pensions-European War
If the statement is there it should be shown and proven, because I followed it in one case and I could not find anything to justify any such statement. It seems that these statements are passed down as one board follows another. They are simply copied from the previous record without ever going back of it. I think the pension board should study these things thoroughly. I will give you four or five cases. Here is one man noted as having had pneumonia in 1902, as having had rheumatic fever in 1911, and his pension is reduced forty per cent. The man says he never had them. Here is a case within my own knowledge. The man has tuberculosis to-day. He was run over in France by a gun limber loaded with live shells weighing one or two tons. He had served two years, and never had a sign of a cough or lung affection of any kind until he was run over by this gun limber. Then he is home with tuberculosis and they find that some time previous to his enlistment he had pneumonia. They reduce his pension in spite of the section that I read in which it is provided that any previous trouble should not be counted in the reduction of his disability. Here is another: they wrote to the man and said, "Before your case comes on we want a little bit more evidence." I have two or three letters which contain this phrase: "We want a little bit more evidence." What kind of evidence? The man's comrade is not believed; anyone connected with him is not believed. There is only one way he can get . it, and that is from the record of the hospital in which he was treated in France or in England; yet, when that is searched for, it cannot be found. That is where the man could get his evidence. If the records of these hospitals were produced they would show the medical men who attended him, and the nurses; but the man has to suffer because the record is lost. See how it works against a good -man. I have had this in hundreds of cases: A man who is at the front comes to us in the ambulance and says: "I don't want to go back." He has a temperature, and the regulations say that if he has a temperature for three days he must be evacuated. But this man says, "I don't want to go back." We put him in a rest station and try to treat him. He comes out recovered and goes back to the front; he comes back again and again, he goes to the front. The record is absolutely lost or destroyed, but every week a return is made from the ambulances of the men and their complaints. Yet they say: "Go and get a little further evidence."
Here is another case: they say, "Investigate carefully all records of the Calvin Company." But the Calvin Company is long out of business and most of those who were connected with it are dead. The captain of the boat on which the accident happened is dead. The man cannot possibly get the evidence, but the accident on the boat is the reason he cannot get his pension for another accident that happened in France.
I hope I have made this clear. I am saying it perhaps for the last time. I shall give a summary of these things, but first I want to read a letter. May I- say I saw this thing through from the beginning to the end, having been among the first in and the last out of France, and I did think that my medical experience there would be worth something. I received a copy of this letter:
It is with considerable diffidence that I write, but the situation is urgent and demands public support.
This is not written recently, but I want to show the house the situation.
Such action before now has compelled parliament to act. Brigadier General Ross has questioned in the house decision given against the tubercular and disabled soldiers in many instances by the pension board.
Parliament exhibits a curious apathy to the question.
No one in Canada is better qualified to give an expert opinion on this question than Brigadier General Ross

I shall not read any more of that or it might be said I read it for my own benefit But here is the thing:
During the war time Canada in a more or less hysterical manner stated the returned soldiers would be looked after and the service rendered would never be forgotten.
Has it been so? I say emphatically it has not so far as our sick are concerned. Listen to this:
If a man on his enlistment was passed as fit by the medical officers then this country cannot morally refuse assistance if tuberculosis has developed within a reasonable period after his discharge from the service.
The writer of this was not then on, the pension board, but he is a member of that board to-day and I have not seen any more generous treatment being given our returned men. Here is a case of which I have personal knowledge. In the battle of Loos we had about seven hundred gas cases. Due to the fact that our treatment had been prepared we evacuated from the front line only twenty-six of the seven hundred, and this man was one of the twenty-six. Hon. members will agree that this man would not be expected to improve as the years went by; I know that

Supply-Pensions-European War
to-day he is in a chronic condition, but here is his experience with the pension board. In 1923 he obtained a pension of fifteen per cent, which continued until 1926, when it was increased to twenty-five per cent. In 1927 it was increased again to forty per cent and in 1928 to fifty per cent, where it remained until 1933. To-day that man is an absolute wreck, but in 1933 his pension was reduced to thirty per cent. Can that be justified? Can any reason be given for such action? His pension was gradually increased to fifty per cent, but in 1933 it was reduced to thirty per cent though to-day he is thirty per cent worse than he has been at any time since coming home.
I think I have given enough illustrations, and I should like to make certain proposals in this regard. I think the time has come when these permanent medical officers should be exchanged. These officers have given opinions; very often a man has had a decision given against him. He comes up for a rehearing against the same officer, and these officers are not big enough to change their opinions even though the condition may be progressing. So I think the time has come when these permanent officers should be moved. Let them be sent to some other stations; let the men from those other stations exchange with them. It is impossible to get these men to change their opinions no matter how bad the cases may be. Then again I think we have been just a little too ready to take these ex-service men from the eligible pension list and put them under the veterans' allowance. I think they deserve a little better treatment than that. I have mentioned four factors, and I think it will be agreed that any man who has been affected by one, two, three or all four is to-day in such a condition that age should not be counted. I would wipe out the age limit in regard to those returned men; I would make them total disability cases whether they were forty, fifty or sixty years of age. How can anything be determined by the age of the man? In 1923 I heard the then minister of pensions say, "We have reached the peak, and in about two years these pensions will begin to decrease." Why, we have not reached the peak yet; so long as there are any of these men left they are going to suffer from their experiences.
Let me say openly that I cannot understand why the chief medical adviser of the department is also a commissioner. Is it reasonable that a man who has given a decision should sit as a member of the board reviewing that decision? The thing is ridiculous; the chief medical adviser should not
fMr. Ross.]
be a commissioner. Perhaps I should be a little more lenient, Mr. Chairman, but if you had spent four years with these men and had seen how they suffered-and you must remember that some of them did not know what suffering was until they returned home -you would feel as I do. I may not appeal to the house again for fair treatment of these men, but I hope my experience has been worth something to them. I have refused to take any job, because I believe it my duty, after I have seen them go through so much, to back them up in their demand for the fair and generous treatment they were promised.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I have no desire to
delay these estimates, Mr. Chairman, but to a certain extent I must endorse what the hon. member for Kingston City has said as to the unrest among the returned men and what they think of the treatment they have received in the past. I have been fortunate enough to have been on every pension committee appointed since the war, I think, and we have always done the best we could, but sometimes, as the hon. member has pointed out, the best does not seem to be any too good.
In the early days following the war pensions were very readily granted and the greatest trouble of hon. members of the house was that it was thrown up to them that 'George Jones and Dick Smith had pensions which they did not deserve. That was the main complaint in those days. As time passed and the memories of the war faded, however, the contrary became the case. For many years we had at the head of the pensions board a man who was almost universally disliked by the returned soldiers. He was a gentleman of whose personal integrity I have nothing to say; undoubtedly he was an honourable gentleman, but he was said to stand so upright that he was in danger of falling over and injuring the back of his neck. He does not occupy that position now.
Another complaint has been voiced by the hon. member for Kingston City, and it has been a prominent complaint on the part of returned men's organizations for some years. It is that our chief medical officer was not likely to change his opinion in favour of an applicant for pension. I feel as my hon. friend feels that the appointment of the chief medical officer as a member of the commission perhaps was not a very wise move. We all know that cases have arisen from time to time in which the decisions of the board have been entirely contrary to the purpose of the act. Section 11 of the Pension Act distinctly states that a man who went to France apparently physically fit and who saw

Supply-Pensions-European War
service in an active theatre of war should have no charge made against him with regard to his eligibility for pension. That is to say, any disease that he might have had before enlistment should not couint against him unless-and I think the hon. member for Kingston City forgot this exception-it was a case of misrepresentation or deliberate fraud. I have known men who went overseas after passing not one but perhaps two or three examinations in Canada; they passed further examinations in England and did their duty in France, and yet because a man had measles when he was only two years old he is stated to be ineligible for pension, or if in fact he is getting a pension it is reduced. One instance in particular appealed to me. I have in mind a man whom I know well and who at1 present is totally blind. He saw service in France, and has been in hospitals in Canada. He applied for a pension. The statement was made that he responded to a Wassermann test-hon. members know what that means-and that his disability was a result of venereal disease. He has taken an affidavit that he never had any disease of that kind, nor did his people so far as he knows. I believe the man is honest. He was told that if he said he had the disease he would receive a pension for aggravation, but when he says he has not he cannot get the pension. I believe there are many cases similar to the one I have described which should have the sympathetic consideration of the commission. Perhaps in this house and throughout the country there is an element who think enough has been done for the returned soldier, but I am quite sure they form only a negligible portion of our population. I believe the people desire that every returned man who is eligible for pension shall have at least that compensation to which by law he is justly entitled.


Mr. SANDERSON:: To a great extent I concur in the observations of the hon. members for Kingston City and Parry Sound. I was under the impression that before the last amendments to the Pension Act were made one of the great stumbling blocks in connection with giving justice to ex-service men was the fact that the onus was on him to prove that his disability was due to war service. It was impossible to present that proof. I would say, not in any spirit of criticism- and I want the minister thoroughly to understand that-that in the many cases with which I have been connected I have not
known of one in which the ex-service man received the benefit of the doubt when consideration had been given to the question whether his disability had been due to war service. So long as that condition prevails justice cannot be given to ex-service men.
I believe a great deal of the difficulty now experienced by ex-service men applying for pensions is due to what happened in the days immediately following the war when the men were returning to Canada. Every soldier was tired of war and anxious to get back into civil life. That is where a great deal of the difficulty originated. Thousands and thousands of young Canadians returned from France and were discharged without any examination. To a great extent the fault was that of the soldier, because he wanted to get away from the army and back into civil life. Perhaps in many cases soldiers did not wish to admit there was anything physically wrong with them, and for that reason examinations did not amount to anything. In the years which followed, however, disabilities appeared in some of the soldiers who had been discharged. The statement was then made, "Well, when this man was discharged he was physically fit and his file did not show any disability." I believe to a great extent that is the difficulty with which we have to contend to-day. The hon. member for Kingston City made some observations regarding medical sheets and files. I know many applications have been turned down because the files did not show the applicant had been in a hospital or even that he had .been wounded or gassed. I have always contended that those refusals were ridiculous, because files were lost overseas. There was a war on, and in many cases no records were kept where men had been gassed or wounded. After a lapse of five or ten years, these men having since come back to civil life, nothing can be found on their files. That is the difficulty, and because of it I submit that in every case the returned man should receive the benefit of the doubt. He does not receive that benefit to-day, and in this observation I am not criticizing the pension commission. Perhaps they are more or less confined within the four corners of the act, but there should be more flexibility in its application; the humanitarian view should be taken. Speaking broadly I believe the Dominion of Canada has treated her ex-service men as well as has any country which participated in the great war. That however is no reason why injustices and weaknesses in the act should not be remedied and the proper amendments made. I fully expected that amendments would be brought

Supply-Pensions-European War
down during the present session, and I regret the minister and the government have not seen fit to do so. I hope that at the next session of parliament, no matter what party is returned to power, amendments to the Pension Act may be made. I have no desire to delay the minister's estimates. I could mention four or five cases which have come under my observation within the last few months but I shall not take the time of the committee any more than to emphasize this point, that soldiers discharged at the end of the war showing no disability have found difficulty in proving their cases.
Since the depression, if we choose so to describe it, a condition which has been worldwide in its scope, when thousands of men have been out of work, ex-service men receiving or not receiving pensions who are unemployed and depending more or less on charity find their condition of disability aggravated. The suggestion to reduce the pension of an unemployed soldier is in my mind quite wrong. The hon. member for Kingston spoke about this matter. Undoubtedly the state of mind of a man who is unemployed, especially if he has a family dependent upon him, will aggravate a disability. Such cases should receive the sympathetic consideration of the pension board. This country spends considerable money for pensions. There are some people, not very many I am glad to say, who think that perhaps the ex-service men have received all the consideration they should receive. I agree with the hon. member for Kingston City who has reminded the committee that when the war was on those who enlisted to go overseas were promised definitely that if they were spared to come back they would be taken care of, if they were disabled they would be pensioned and if they were killed their families would be taken care of. I think it is the duty of this parliament to see that the promises which were made to the men who enlisted in the great war are carried out to the very letter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I assume that every hon. member receives a great number of complaints from returned men as to the manner in which the Pension Act is administered. I come from a constituency in which there is a large number of returned men but I must confess that I have not followed the administration of this act very closely. As far as the business of the house is concerned, my colleague the hon. member for Red Deer represents us in this corner in connection with pension matters. We have turned over to him a great many cases and have left it to him to work out the details of the amendments

which might be brought before the house. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Kingston City in urging that the returned man be given the benefit of the doubt and granted not only fair but generous treatment.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Anything I may say in regard to this matter will be said simply as a civilian doctor, I not having had any military experience. The state of affairs to which the hon. member for Kingston City has directed attention undoubtedly is a blot upon the social life of this country which probably will not be erased until the last overseas casualty has passed on. One of the things which has caused much unhappiness and dissatisfaction among the returned men is the fact that a great many men in rather good circumstances are receiving extensive pensions from the government which they probably do not need. Another phase of the matter is the fact that many men were invalids before they entered the army. It is true that these men were aocepted by the examining boards, but they never did one day's service. I have met a number of such cases and undoubtedly they create dissatisfaction and unhappiness among the bona fide men, many of whom are wrecks to-day. I have in mind one old fellow whom I attended for many years prior to the war. This man has had bronchitis all the days of his life. He was accepted and went to Great Britain where he continued to have bronchitis. He came back to Canada and has been in the hospital on and off ever since. His overseas service has nothing whatever to do with his bronchitis. I have personal knowledge of other cases where men are receiving substantial pensions for overseas service when in fact they are just as healthy as I am. On the other hand, men who died in misery and agony, undoubtedly the victims of overseas service, had been unable to obtain a five cent piece by way of pension. It is not always easy to say whether or not a man's condition is the result of overseas service, but if a man has risked his life for his government and his fellow citizens, it seems to me that the least a government can do is to give him medical assistance and treatment as long as he lives, whether or not his illness may have been caused by overseas service.
The hon. member for Kingston City has referred to the staff of medical men. I think it would be a mighty good plan to do away with these men because they are such a hard-boiled bunch. Once it is decided that a man is not sick, in their eyes he can never be sick again. I think the best thing the

Supply-Pensions-European War
government could do would be to get rid of these permanent medical men and rely upon the ordinary medical practitioners to give the returned men the justice which they deserve. Any medical man who has any sensibility is disgusted with the way these things are handled. Many men appeal to us who are simply wrecks, and whether or not their condition is due to overseas service, it is the duty of this country to make some reparation for the disabilities they suffer as a result of the service which they have given to the Canadian people.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Have the marriage cases been discussed as yet?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Could the minister make a statement with reference to the situation now prevailing in connection with the marriage cases which were discussed in the committee on February 13 of last year? I should like to know the number disposed of and the number yet to be disposed of.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Before answering that question let me say that I appreciate the discussion on this subject which has been led by the hon. member for Kingston city. I have no doubt that many hon. members do not know the magnificent record of the hon. member. He was in charge of the entire medical arrangements of the Canadian corps and was responsible for the evacuation of the wounded. Wherever returned men gather they recognize the work he did and the great sympathy he has for them at the present time. One point which he brought out impressed me, as I am sure it impressed any hon. member who has first hand information. The hon. member referred to the conditions which prevailed at Salisbury plain in 1914 and 1915, at Ypres at the time of the gas attack and at the Somme. I cannot speak personally of the conditions at Passchendaele, but I have heard that they were just as bad or perhaps worse. Any man who faced the conditions at Salisbury or the other places in my opinion would not be in the same condition of health as when he went in, even though he did not receive an actual wound. It is not the ones with actual wounds that give difficulty, because there is not much trouble with respect to a man who has an arm or a leg off; it is the cases referred to, men who have possibly got along fairly well but who suffer from the strain and stress of life. I am confident that this is so, and I think that more and more of these cases will come to the fore and will have to be dealt with as sympathetically as possible.
I noted what the hon. member for Kingston City said with regard to the loss of records. That undoubtedly is a point that comes up frequently in the search for the medical history of some of the men. He also said-and others have voiced the sentiment-that sympathy has been in evidence since Mr. Justice Taylor took over the chairmanship of the board. I express my acquiescence in that view. Since I have been in charge of the department I have had repeated instances of the personal interest and sympathy which Mr. Justice Taylor has in these cases. I have had a very wide experience with pensioners in my practice of medicine, and I have never yet seen a man with a pension who I thought should not have it. You will see in the papers and you will hear from time to time that so and so has a pension which he does not deserve any more than someone else, and yet in a number of these cases in which I have been the medical attendant I know that the men have had serious troubles, deepseated, underlying and not evident to anyone passing them on the street. They were in receipt of pensions, and so long as they were quiet they got along well and looked well. But they could not have stood hard work; they would have gone down hill and died. Sometimes people are rather thoughtless in their attitude to those receiving pensions. My personal observation has been as I have stated; I have never seen anyone getting a pension who I thought should not have it. I think that as a general rule things are going along much better under Mr. Justice Taylor.
I have made notes of the suggestions put forward by hon. members and they will certainly be given every consideration. With regard to the marriage cases I do not know that I can do better than read, although it is rather long, a statement given me by the chairman of the pensions commission with regard to them:
With reference to the number of eases which have been dealt with where the validity of the pensioner's marriage has been questioned, I beg to submit the following figures. These figures only include the cases which have actually reached the pay branch to date, and might be supplemented, perhaps, by fifteen or twenty other eases which have been dealt with, but have not actually reached the pay branch. In all 632 cases have arisen which might be classified as follows:-
(1)	Granted: 160.
In these cases the commission have acknowledged the validity for pension purposes of the marriage in question, and the pensioner has been so advised.
This item would include a number of cases where the commission has obtained, or been supplied with, additional information which has cleared up the problem.

Supply-Pensions-European War
(2)	Not Granted: 98.
These are cases in which either by the admission of the parties themselves, or by material already on the pensioner's file, or after a hearing before two commissioners, it has been decided that the marriage cannot be recognized as sufficient for pension purposes.
These include cases where pensioner has admitted that he never went through a marriage ceremony; cases wdiere former spouses of one of the parties have been located, and ascertained to be living at the time of the marriage to the pensioner, without any action having been taken to dissolve the previous marriage; cases in which the time has been very short between the separation from the first spouse and the contracting of the second marriage, and in which it would be impossible for any presumption of death to arise; and an odd case in which the pensioner has asked us not to make further investigation. Other cases might be included in this number, but the ones I have mentioned are the principal ones.
(3)	Investigating: 81.
These are cases in which we have asked the pensioner to submit further evidence; or to put in the form of a statutory declaration statements which may only have been made to us by letter, or in which we, ourselves, are trying to get the necessary information apart from the pensioner. I think every assistance is being afforded pensioners in this class of case; and the commission is even going to some expense in a number of cases, in order to assist the pensioner to get the necessary information. In addition, pensioner is being notified in each case that the district pensions advocate in his district will give him every assistance possible in the way of supplying any further information that may be required.
(4)	Awaiting Opportunity to Appear before the Commission: 54.
Some of these are cases in which we think the marriage of the pensioner cannot be recognized for pension purposes, but before cancelling the additional pension for his wife, we have given him an opportunity of appearing before the commission. Unless the facts are apparent from the file itself, or from the admission of the pensioner or his wife, we are not actually cancelling any additional pensions w-ithout first giving the pensioner an opportunity of appearing before the commission. In most cases of this kind, the additional pension is being continued until after he has a hearing. In a few cases, where the upholding of the marriage seems to be next to impossible, we have, in the meantime, suspended the nayment of additiona pension until the hearing.
Other cases which might be included in this class are those where we think, perhaps, the pensioner can best substantiate his marriage problem by attending, and giving evidence, before commissioners, instead of supplying affidavits. A number of hearings have been ordered in such cases, because the commission through it would' give the pensioner a better chance of retaining his additional pension for his wife; and also in cases where we had to consider the question of recovery of payments already made, and we wanted to inquire into the good or bad faith of the pensioner in
lMr. Sutherland.]
procuring payment of additional pension for a wife; or as to whether he was guilty of any fraud or deceit.
(5)	No Decisions Rendered: 239.
This number includes approximately 115 or 125 divorce problems where the validity of the pensioners' marriage depends upon the validity of a divorce obtained in the United States. These cases will probably all be settled by two or three general decisions. In many cases the circumstances are identical, but I have not yet given them final consideration; in other words, they were left to the last. They will be considered as a class as soon as the other cases are reasonably disposed' of.
The balance of the cases in which no decision has been rendered are cases which have not yet been reviewed and written up for my consideration. Mr. Wilson, departmental solicitor, is working continually on these cases, and it will not be long until they are all disposed of.
In nearly all of the eases where it has been found necessary to discontinue additional pension for wife, we have not cut off the additional pension for children, but continued to pay it under section 22 (4).
Generally speaking, the commission has adopted a principle that we will not recover moneys overpaid in connection with these marriage cases unless we decide that the overpayment was caused through fraud or deceit on the part of the pensioner. Fortunately, the number of cases w-here there has been fraud or deceit is not large.
New cases are arising from time to time which contain marriage problems, which the commissioners in the board room have thought it necessary to refer to me. Since the 1st of August, last, 250 cases, approximately, have been so referred, in addition to the number which were awaiting consideration upon my arrival. I think I might safely say that another six weeks or two months should see the marriage problem pretty well out of the way, except for cases that may be awaiting hearings before commissioners; and the cases which are arising from week to week.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this
the last item in the minister's estimates?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is another
one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
are two or three hon. members who would like one item to stand.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There will be a supplementary item for 1934-35 on which I suggest any discussion might take place.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I would like to say
one further word on this matter, because what I had in mind has been pretty fully expressed by other hon. members who have spoken, particularly by the hon. member for Kingston City.
In common with, I suppose, every other hon. member, and especially with those who like myself have been associated with this

Supply-Pensions-European War
work for a number of years, I have had brought to my attention a great many individual cases in which pensions have been refused or reduced and the applicants have felt themselves aggrieved. I shall not bring any of these cases before the committee at this time, for I believe no good purpose could be served by my doing so, but I must say that in a number of these cases I found myself utterly at a loss to understand the action which brought about this situation. It seems to me that ordinary common sense, let alone ordinary humanity, would have dictated a different and more generous policy.
As I conceive the matter, the great problem lies in this, that perhaps above all other laws the success of this one depends upon its administration. You cannot legislate to meet individual cases, and in almost every instance the plight of a particular applicant will depend almost wholly upon the discretion of the pension commission or those who serve imder and act for it. That is inevitable, because it is a law which above all others deals with humanity and naturally suffering humanity, varying in kind, in degree, and every case must be dealt with on its merits. This is what makes it so peculiarly important that the administration should be carried on by those who not only are intelligent and fully conversant with the subject, but have a really sympathetic and understanding attitude. That becomes more and more imperative as the years go by, because more and more it is becoming impossible for any new applicant to bring forward definite and convincing evidence, and the common sense of the commission must be exercised in deciding whether, in view of all the circumstances, the overwhelming probability must be that the application is worthy of consideration. It seems to me that we are faced again with the fact, that the most deserving cases are always the most difficult to prove. The man who from the beginning has made application or has camped on the doorstep of the department every time he has had an ache, is the one who can be taken care of; but the man who above all others deserves consideration, the man who without making application has done his best to carry on under his own steam despite disability, until the crushing weight of that disability and of increasing years makes it impossible for him to do so, finds through his own meritorious action that there is a gap of evidence which makes the proof of continuity almost impossible. I believe in those cases above all others the administrative bodies, the commission and those
serving it, should temper their justice with a good deal of discretional humanity.
There is just one other point I would like to make, and it is by way of support of a suggestion made by the hon. member for Kingston City, who knows whereof he speaks, namely that the medical officers at the various points should be changed around from time to time. In common with many others I have had cases come before me from time to time where men applied for a reboarding, and I must say that usually a reboarding has been granted. But when the reboarding takes place before the same medical examiners who made the former examination, human nature as it has been exemplified in many of these cases is such that there is almost an overwhelming disinclination on the part of the examiners to admit that they might possibly have been mistaken the last time. It seems to me that it would be all to the good from the standpoint of justice and of getting a fresh viewpoint, a fresh angle, a fresh application of medical skill, if the reboarding could take place under some medical officer who had had no former connection with the case, who would consider it without bias and have no former decision to hamper his present consideration. I believe such a move would go far towards bringing about justice in some cases and removing dissatisfaction in many more. Where I have had cases reboarded perhaps three or four times, the third or fourth time the men appeared before the medical examiner the first remark made was this: "Oh, you are back here again, are you? What do you want now?" Well, it is impossible for any man to get a satisfactory examination when that is the attitude of the examining officers even before the examination begins; the man might just as well stay at home. I shall not go so far as to suggest, as was mentioned by someone, that we should scrap the whole examining body and put in fresh men on the ground that although they may have benefited by years of experience, there has occurred a hardening of the mental arteries which later renders them useless. But I would suggest, from my experience as a result of any obesrvations I have been able to make, that in the case of reboarding, in the case of a second or third or fourth examination of the same man, he should have the benefit of at least a change of physician, a change of attitude, an examination by a medical officer who, coming fresh to the consideration of that particular case, would be

Supply-Pensions-European War
unhampered by any previous decision on the same man or any preconceived opinion arising therefrom.
Before I close, I must in justice 6ay this- and it has been one of the most pleasurable parts of pension work during the last months -that the men appreciate the changing attitude of the administration during the past months and under the present chairman. I received just the other day a letter from the legion bodies in my part of the country, with whom I have had a certain amount of contact for a good many years, and for the first time they did not ask for anything and made no complaints. They wrote to inform me that the situation and the feeling had materially improved, almost to paraphrase the words of the hon. member for Kingston City -and they used almost the same expression- not so much that there had been many increases in pension, not so much that a few of the applications formerly refused are now receiving consideration, but because of the manner in which the applications are being received. Instead of simply a curt note, "application refused," they receive a courteous notice informing them not only that it has been refused but why it has been refused, in many cases convincing them that the application had not the merit which they thought it had, and in others giving the reason and the meaning behind the evidence which had made proper consideration impossible, thus giving them a reasonable chance to strengthen their case and bring forward the evidence necessary to making it complete. I wish to pay that tribute to a gentleman whom I have never met, the present chairman, but with whose work I have had some contact, as well as having some knowledge of the attitude of the returned men in my part of the country at least in relation to the present administration. They do not think it is perfect, but they do believe it is steadily improving. With increasing experience and its application in new administrative methods- and possibly with some amendments that may be necessary, although at the moment I know of none; I think administration is the important thing now-with that experience sympathetically applied I believe we shall be able finally to close for all time what has been a rankling grievance on the part of a section of our citizenship who I think above all others should be considered. I certainly hope so. I can say this perhaps with the greater freedom and force because I am not a returned man, but have had contact with the returned men and have to some extent had their confidence. I believe that should be our attitude not merely on sentimental

grounds but on the grounds stated so forcibly by the hon. member for Kingston City, having regard to the fact that the experience through which they have gone in many cases must have burnt out their power of resistance and left them a prey to disease and premature old age. We hope that with this sympathetic and understanding administration we shall be able to meet the situation more fully than ever before to the end that that rankling sense of injustice may be removed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Empire settlement scheme, including grants authorized by the governor in council, $34,250.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the increase in this vote for?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: This has to do with the empire settlement scheme agreement, entered into I think in 1926 or 1927 between the British government and ourselves, whereby young British lads were brought to Canada. Under the terms of the agreement, within a period of time which brought them to the age of twenty-five, I think, they were entitled upon having saved $500 to obtain a loan from the dominion government of $1,000, from the province of $250, and from the British government of $1,250, making in all $2,500. Several young chaps are entitled to these loans; some of them were entitled some three years ago. I have seen a number of them and have urged upon them that they would be well advised not to start to take on obligations. A person having saved $500 in farm work is doing pretty well. Up to the present we have not had to advance money to any of these boys, but enough of them are entitled under the agreement to take advantage of the loan if they persist and it would come to the amount asked for. I am hopeful, however, that none of them will undertake such obligations, because I know what it means.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that the reason for the increase in the vote?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, that is the reason.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier and general land settlement-
Amount required for soldier land settlement advances, for advances under the British family schemes recoverable from the British government, for the cost of administration of soldier settlement and general land settlement, and for the cost of administration of soldier settlement staff, performing investigations for the war veterans allowance committee and Farmers' creditors Arrangement Act, $1,162,400.

Supply-Immigration-Soldier Settlement
Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: There is a matter I wish to take up with the minister under this item. It is in connection with an order in council, I believe it was, passed about 1933, under which soldier settlers who paid a certain amount of money were given credit for an additional amount, I believe double the amount they paid.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That was by statute.


Robert McKenzie: I have
had it brought to my attention several times, both by letter and by interviews with returned men, particularly in the dried out areas, that the men have not been able to pay anything in recent years because they have not had any crop. They want to know how they stand in regard to that provision in case they have a crop this year-whether they will get the same credit. In other words men who have a crop and are paying something get a credit on their loan, whereas those who have no crop are not getting any benefit whatever. What will their position be under that legislation in case they are able to pay something in the future?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It was not by order in council but by legislation. Under that legislation if they get a crop and are able to pay something this year they will get credit dollar for dollar on the amount paid in.


Mr. VALLANCE:: During the legion convention held here I think last year a resolution was passed asking that where a returned soldier say in any of the western provinces, who already had some farm land acquired other land through the soldier settlement board, which took security on all his land, including that of which he was in possession before he went to the war, this previously owned land should be freed from encumbrance because of any indebtedness to the government through the settlement scheme. Has the government given any consideration to that?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The resolution to which the hon. member referred has not come pointedly to my attention, although it has been under review by offiecrs of the department. I shall be glad to make myself more familiar with the resolution, and if it appears that there is hardship by reason of the attitude of the board, and it is possible to correct it without statutory amendment, I shall be very glad to take such action as seems proper.


John Vallance: The answer of the minister is indefinite. It is remarkable if .the resolution has not been forwarded to him;
it is more remarkable that, if it has, the minister is not more conversant with it. It seems to me that some legislative action should be taken to relieve this situation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It may seem strange, Mr. Chairman, but I have not had the resolution under my review. I know that I went through many of the resolutions passed last year with the representatives of the soldier organizations, but at the moment I cannot remember having dealt with the resolution to which the hon. gentleman has referred.


John Vallance: I have a copy in my
office. I did not anticipate that these estimates would be on to-night or I would have had it here.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have no doubt it was
passed.


Mr. REID:: I wonder if the minister has
the figures as to the collections in British Columbia for the year 1934.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The soldier settlement
collections in British Columbia for 1934-35, to March 7, 1935, not including prepayments, amounted to $108,847.98 in cash, and the bonus that resulted from the payment of cash was $101,463.53.


Thomas Reid: How does that compare with 1932?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am afraid I have not
the figures for 1932.


Thomas Reid: I wonder if the minister would be good enough to send them to me?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, I will prepare a
statement and send it to my hon. friend.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister any information as to the number of properties sold by the municipalities last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In 1934 there were 141
properties in British Columbia sold by the department. Of course these were reverted properties.


John Vallance: I notice that this item includes advances under the British family schemes, recoverable from the British government. How much of this item is being used for that purpose, how much is being spent on this British family scheme to-day, and are any families coming in under that scheme now?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, there are no settlers
coming in under the scheme, and there have been none for some years past. These are
1778	COMMONS
Supply-Immigration-Soldier Settlement
British funds that we are administering, including insurance and things of that kind, and of course this money is recoverable from the British government under the terms of the agreement.


John Vallance: The whole item amounts to $1,162,400. How much is repayable by the British government?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The breakdown of that
item is as follows:
Advances-
Soldier land settlement, $393,800.
British government, $10,000.
Administration cost-
Soldier land settlement, $447,600.
General land settlement, $233,000.
Investigations for other departments, $28,000.
Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and relief investigations, $50,000.
Then there is provided $3,91328 for losses under the British family agreement. You will note, Mr. Chairman, that when the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act came into force the services of the staff of the soldier settlement board were made available to those administering that act, for appraisals and matters of that kind. So, while that added to the work of the staff, I think we were fortunate in having these men available without adding to the cost of the civil service.


John Vallance: The other day I
directed the attention of the minister to a condition existing in northern Saskatchewan in connection with these British settlers. I should like to ask the minister, if he has the information there, how many British families were settled under this scheme, how many are still in Canada, how many have asked for deportation and how many have been deported.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As at December 31, 1934, the number of active settlers under the British family scheme, with loans, totalled 1,825. There were four families who had repaid their loans in cash and eleven families who had repaid their loans by sale agreements, that is, tripartite agreements. There were 1,323 families who had withdrawn from 3,000 family scheme after contracting loans; 180 families who had withdrawn from the scheme before contracting loans-that is, they never really got started-and three families who did not receive loans at all. Of the total number that came out under the scheme 135 families were deported. I do not use that word "deported" as the term is usually accepted; they just did not fit in and asked to be returned to Great Britain.


John Vallance: Has the minister the
information as to how many asked for deportation that were not deported?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am afraid I have not
the exact figures in that regard. I can say this, however, and I think I carry the percentages correctly in my mind. With respect to all people who were returned to Great Britain since August, 1930-and I do not refer only to this scheme; I include all Britishers-92 per cent first became deportable and then requested the department to return them to Great Britain. The other eight per cent were returned under orders of deportation. It has not been the policy of the department to be influenced too readily by pressure brought to bear for the return to 'Great Britain of Britishers who came to this country before 1930. At times some are prone to ask for return to the old land, and upon investigation it is found such people could get along if they tried. We do not encourage anything of that kind. The department does not like to see them return because while in some respects it may be true Great Britain offers more in the way of social insurance, or it may be that men wish to get back to their friends, yet we take the stand those men should have thought about such matters before they came here. I discourage action being taken because I harbour the view that this country presents great opportunities for anyone who wishes to take advantage of them, despite the fact that we hear it painted in rather gloomy colours.


John Vallance: May I again refer to
the people in northern Saskatchewan about whom I spoke the other day. They were brought in under the three thousand family scheme. It is unfortunate that most of those people were put on abandoned soldier settlement lands, and they never had a chance from the beginning. They have utterly failed, they are now destitute, and the information I receive is that their application for deportation has been refused. When this scheme was first suggested I pointed out the danger that these settlers coming into the country had not a ten per cent chance if they were placed on deserted soldier settlement lands, lands upon which the soldiers had not succeeded. I bring the matter to the attention of the minister because I have learned these people have asked for deportation. They cannot possibly make good, and I should like to know if it is a fact that deportation has been refused.

Privilege-Mr. Sauve


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The departmental officials in the locality in which these settlers lived have made investigations. The hon. member is not quite right when he states that they- I believe they are about a half dozen in number-have not made any payments. My information is that one of them paid something over SI,100. The fact that they were settled on reverted soldier settlement lands does not by any means indicate that those lands could not support families.


John Vallance: They could not support immigrants.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In any scheme, whether it be one affecting returned soldiers, a three thousand family scheme or any other land settlement scheme there is bound to be a considerable percentage of failures. The families who came to the western office, and to which reference was made in the house a few days ago, asked to be deported. Even if they had a proper case for deportation they are beyond reach of such action. I am told the British family scheme originated in 1924 and 1925, and they have been in this country more than five years. There is no fund upon which I could draw for purposes of returning them to Great Britain, even if it were desirable to do so. Of course there is no law which would justify my taking the action they suggest. I am not at all alarmed, because if we get fair climatic conditions in the coming season those people will take heart again.


Mr McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Is the
interest paid under the original soldier settlement scheme still standing at the rate of six per cent?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Five per cent.


Robert McKenzie: I should like again to refer to some circumstances I mentioned previously. I believe it is unfair to expect the returned soldiers in the dried out areas to be content to have this back interest charged against them, while the man who was fortunate enough to have a crop in the better districts got some relief by way of cancellation of half his interest, in the event of his paying the other half. It seems unfair to charge the interest against these men who have not had crops for the last two or three years.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They will come under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
Mr. McKENZIE Assiniboia): I do not think that will be satisfactory. In my view the government should consider doing something for these men by way of cancellation of a portion of the interest.


Alfred Speakman: There are three or four aspects of the matter about which I should like to speak, but as it is almost eleven o'clock I should not like to begin to-night. Possibly we could continue at another time.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Very well.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 18, 1935