1937-02-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Outremont) presented the first report of the standing com-31111-82
mittee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. POULIOT
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, the newspaper " Le Journal," of Quebec, in its edition of Feb. 23, published the following report in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) to the national defence estimates:
The same members who had voted for the motion of Mr. Gauthier voted for that of Mr. Thorson, excepting Mr. J. F. Pouliot, who was absent from the chamber at the time.
I was in the chamber at the time, and I did vote for the item and against the amendment, for the reasons recorded in Hansard.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 18, to amend the Prarie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: In order that there may be no misapprehension I desire to place upon record my views with respect to this legislation, and as under our rules the mover of a third reading has no right of reply I shall endeavour to be scrupulously careful not to go beyond what was said during the discussion on the measure.
In the year 1935 the late governor introduced into parliament a bill which subsequently, on April 17 of that year, became chapter 23 of the statutes of Canada, It was intituled:
An act to provide for the rehabilitation of drought and soil drifting areas in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
It was cited as The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. By section 3 of that act it is provided that:
(1)	The governor in council may establish a committee to be known as the prairie farm rehabilitation advisory committee, hereinafter called " the committee," the members of which shall hold office during pleasure.
(2)	One of the members of the committee shall be appointed chairman by the governor in council.
(3)	The committee shall consist of the following:
(a)	one representative of the Manitoba grain growing farmers from the drought and soil drifting areas;
(b)	one representative of the Saskatchewan grain growing farmers from the drought and soil drifting areas;
(c)	one representative of the Alberta grain growing farmers from the drought and soil drifting areas;

1296	COMMONS
Farm Rehabilitation-Mr. Bennett
(d)	one representative of Saskatchewan live stock farmers from the drought areas;
(e)	one representative of Alberta range farmers from the drought areas;
(f)	one representative of mortgage companies of Canada;
(g)	one representative of the Canadian Bankers' Association;
(h)	one representative each from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways;
(i)	two representatives from the dominion Department of Agriculture; and
(j)	one representative of the government in each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The chairman, it will be observed, is to be appointed by the governor in council. Under the provision of that section of the act the following persons were appointed by the governor in council: Doctor E. S. Archibald, Ottawa, chairman; Dominion Department of Agriculture; James H. Girvin, Medora, Manitoba grain growing farmers; Olaf Nyland, Shaunavon, Sask., Saskatchewan grain growing farmers; P. C. Colquhoun, Maple Creek, Sask., Saskatchewan live stock farmers; Leonard Koole, Monarch, Alberta, Alberta grain growing farmers; R. P. Gilchrist, Wild Horse, Alberta, Alberta range farmers; Professor J. H. Ellis, Winnipeg, government of Manitoba; Dean A. M. Shaw, Saskatoon, government of Saskatchewan; 0. S. Longman, Edmonton, government of Alberta, E. W. Jones, Calgary, Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Doctor W. J. Black, Montreal, Canadian National Railways; F. J. Freer, Winnipeg, mortgage companies of Canada; Doctor E. S. Hopkins, Ottawa, Dominion Department of Agriculture; B. P. Alley, Toronto, Canadian Bankers' Association.
These gentlemen were selected by the bodies whom they purport to represent, having been communicated with for that purpose by the then Minister of Agriculture. The bill now before the house for third reading repeals section 3 and dismisses from office without cause given the gentlemen I have named. The section in question reads as follows:
1.	Section three of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, chapter 23 of the statutes of 1935, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
3. (1) The governor in council may establish one or more committees to be known as prairie farm rehabilitation committees, the members of which shall hold office during pleasure.
2.	One of the members of each committee shall be appointed chairman thereof by the minister.
My first objection therefore is that it is not fair to men who volunteer their services, who accept responsibility and serve without emolument, to dismiss them in this public fashion without cause and without opportunity 
to be heard. In other words reputable citizens of this country, giving public service, should not be subject to the humiliation of public dismissal by statute without at least some reasons being given why they are dismissed. To suggest that they may be reappointed is begging the question. They are dismissed by the repeal of the section of the statute under which they were appointed.
The second point to which I desire to direct attention is that the statute as amended -I have just read the new section 3-sets up one or more committees. I think it is axiomatic that advisory committees, dealing with a problem as vast as that to be considered in connection with the rehabilitation of the areas in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, should act as a unit, and that the advice which may be given from time to time by committees having different views upon the same problem would not be conducive either to economy in the public service or to efficiency and effectiveness in what they propose to do. The fact is that Swift Current was selected as the point from which operations were to be directed, and a laboratory was built there some time ago, but the central operations have now been removed to Regina. It must not be forgotten that there are three provinces affected, and the likelihood of completely efficient administration from a point like Swift Current is far greater than it would be from a city such as Regina, where the effects of the pressure of the government of one particular province will be much greater than they would be if the representation were from all the provinces.
Lastly I desire to point out that it is a little difficult to understand why such surprise should be manifested at objection being taken to the appointment of a new official in the person of John Vallance to administer this very important act. It was suggested that the preceding government had been guilty of appointing members of parliament, and a very strong attack was made on one gentleman who was appointed from this house to the position he now holds. If we take the language of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on a former occasion, if one can believe the reports that sometimes filter through with respect to caucuses, the hon. members for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) and Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) were not uncertain in their expressions of disapproval of Mr. Campbell on one occasion at that very important gathering known as the caucus. These are reports and rumours which merely filter through, and to which too much importance must not attach. The fact that in the

Farm Rehabilitation-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
appointment of Mr. Campbell it was provided that he could not be a candidate in an election apparently has been overlooked. But it is established beyond question that the gentleman appointed to administer this act resides within the area, and it has been rumoured- of course once more we must not attach too much importance to rumour-that he is not unwilling to be a candidate at a succeeding election. The manifest unfairness, therefore, if that should happen, of his being concerned in the administration of this act, must be painfully apparent to most of us.
I merely refer at this time to these objections to the measure in order that there may be no question as to the position we have taken, not out of ill will towards any individual but because it is a departure from what I conceive to be a sound principle. The possibility of an appointee again being a candidate in the area in which he is coming into such close contact with the people is something that was safeguarded in the Tariff Board Act by providing that members of that board who retired from office could not for a period of years be candidates in succeeding elections. The other point I have endeavoured to make is that it is detrimental to the public interest that those who serve without compensation or emolument should be humiliated by being publicly removed from office by statute. That is all that I desire to say, because I realize the desirability, on third reading of a measure, of being scrupulously careful not to go beyond the general statements that were made during the discussion of the measure in committee.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Before the third reading of this bill finally carries, and in reply to my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) who so kindly mentioned me a moment ago in regard to remarks in caucus, I may say that he is entirely wrong in what he said, and not only that but I suggest that he try to keep up the fences of his own caucus without endeavouring to look after ours.
This committee that was set up was appointed not by statute but, as I understand it, by order in council. The committee which was to give such valuable advice to the government was called together once while the late government was in office, and I believe the members were appointed some three days before they were called together by wire. The soil laboratory work that my right hon. friend speaks of has been going on for years at the university in Saskatoon, and any change from Swift Current to Regina therefore will not affect that work at all.
In speaking of Mr. Vallance, who is in charge of the work out there, I would say that surely in a work of this kind it is much 31111-82$
better to have in charge a man who has had actual experience, as Mr. Vallance has had, in Saskatchewan, rather than one even who has been in the government service on an experimental farm. Mr. Vallance came to Saskatchewan many years ago. He started in as a homesteader, went through all the trials and tribulations that every farmer in that country has had to face in recent years, and understands their situation from personal experience. Men who have been in government positions cannot see nearly as well as the ordinary farmer who has himself been through those experiences the troubles that the ordinary farmer has. Mr. Vallance is a practical man, a good grain farmer, a good live stock farmer, and a much better man to head such a committee or such work in that part of the country than any man who has been in a sheltered government position for many years and has never had to endure those hardships. As for Mr. Vallance coming back into public life, I hope some day he will do so. He was a great asset to this house and this country, and will be again if he ever chooses to run.
My right hon. friend accused Mr. Vallance of being that type of man who could not be in any town for more than an hour or two-before getting mixed up in politics. I do not think that is a fair statement in regard to Mr. Vallance or any other man appointed to public office who, in his work, is supposed not to deal with politics but with the duties of the position to which he has been appointed. For instance, just prior to the election, my right hon. friend appointed to the bench in Saskatchewan perhaps one of the bitterest partisans we ever had in that province. I make no comments in that regard; I believe that gentleman has made an admirable judge. I think he forgot politics, as he should, the moment he was appointed to the bench, and I am satisfied that John Vallance is not talking or thinking politics any more than that man now on the bench is thinking politics. Because the one happens to be a lawyer and the other a poor rural rustic from Saskatchewan is no reason why these men should be put in different categories. It may be so in the minds of some people but certainly not in the minds of the people of western Canada.
Speaking of appointments made by those in office which should not be made, my mind harks back to the election of 1926. I believe at that time my right hon. friend was in charge of the Department of the Interior, and at that time there was appointed-
1298	COMMONS
Farm Rehabilitation-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I was Minister of
Finance.


John Gordon Ross: Did not my right hon. friend also have charge of the Department of the Interior at that time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say that I was Minister of Finance. My memory is not good enough to say whether or not I may have acted as Minister of the Interior on some occasions; I certainly acted in many capacities in those days.


John Gordon Ross: At that time, if my memory serves me aright, my right hon. friend was at least acting Minister of the Interior.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may have been.


John Gordon Ross: I do not altogether blame my right hon. friend for what happened, because we do not expect quarter to be given in an election campaign, but at that time certain homestead inspectors in Saskatchewan were dismissed by wire, and a man was appointed, presumably to be a homestead inspector, who worked throughout the election campaign. When the election was over a check up was made and it was found that this gentleman had never made any inspections at all. He had a good deal of trouble getting his pay from the department, and at the time his statement was that he was not hired as a homestead inspector to do homestead inspecting; he was hired to assist Doctor Swanson in the election. But he got $250 for it, just the same.
Perhaps when some of us look over our past records we would be better advised not to make comments upon political appointments, even when elections are not in the offing. Mr. John Vallance is not a political appointee. He is a first-class man for the position, and I do not think you could find anyone in that part of western Canada, other than outright political partisans, who would have one word to say against the appointment of Mr. Vallance for the work he is doing. Not only that; I think it will be found that under his direction this act will be carried out in much better fashion than it would have been under a man who did not have the same experience that Mr. Vallance has had in Saskatchewan.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: I should like to express the opinion of at least part of Manitoba with regard to this act, because it happens that in my riding there are three municipalities adjacent to the drought area under discussion. It seems to me that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. 
Bennett) has done a great disservice to the proper functioning of this act in the future. As I understood his remarks to-day they were simply an attack upon the man who has been charged with the administration of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was a minor part of my remarks.


James Allison Glen: The right hon. gentleman referred to the removal of the office from Swift Current to Regina and to the dismissal of these men without cause, and his third point was a direct attack upon Mr. John Vallance. I am not here to say very much with regard to Mr. Vallance except, as has been well said by my hon. friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), that I think he is probably as capable and competent as many of the men appointed by my right hon. friend. If the right hon. gentleman is no better judge of the calibre of Mr. Vallance than he was of the calibre of some of his own appointees,
I think there is a great deal of hope that this act may be carried out in a proper way.
I recall that the right hon. gentleman enunciated the doctrine that those in high positions ought to be able to carry out their policies without interference. I remember that when my right hon. friend became Prime Minister in 1930 he looked around for an ambassador to London and chose Hon. Howard Ferguson. Well, we know that Mr. Ferguson started out with very high qualifications, but g he added to those qualifications by characterizing himself as a crusader who was going to convert the old country people to his point of view. We know his record during these years, and I venture to say that the ambassador appointed by this government has done more in his first year in office than Mr. Ferguson did during all the time he was in England. I might say also that the slogan "Canada Calling" that has been adopted by the present ambassador has met with a response which I think does great credit to our high commissioner, and I believe it will bring added benefits to this country.
I remember also that before my right hon. friend became Prime Minister he criticized some appointments made by the Liberal government, and in particular he picked upon the tariff board of that day. I remember the violent attack that was made upon the chairman of that board, the present hon. member of this house for Ontario (Mr. Moore). The reins of office were no sooner in the hands of my right hon. friend than Mr. Moore, as he was then, was fired from that job and the appointees of the new government put in. My right hon. friend spoke of the rumours with regard to Mr. Campbell. Well, I made

Farm Rehabilitation-Mr. Glen
it my business to look over Hansard to find out what the right hon. gentleman said at that time with regard to Mr. Campbell and his qualifications, and the only remark I could find was that Mr. Campbell was appointed because he was a western member. No other qualification was mentioned. Those of us who had some knowledge of Mr. Campbell were quite satisfied that he was no world renowned economist, and some of us did wonder why a Progressive, or a member of the Progressive body, should be appointed to an office which so directly affects people in western Canada.
What was the picture behind it? I am perfectly sure the right hon. the leader of the opposition did not approve that appointment, although he might have consented to it; for I am quite sure he does not suffer fools gladly. It might be interesting, however, to know just what services Mr. Campbell rendered the Conservative party which were sufficient to gain him an appointment from the then Conservative government. It must have been a most wonderful performance to be sufficient to gain him a statutory appointment at a salary of $10,000 a year. If he survives only two more years he will retire with a pension of $5,000. It is gall and wormwood to some of us to see anything done in that fashion. Further, it is serious for us to have to bear with it, but apparently the right hon. the leader of the opposition has made it as definite as the laws of the Medes and Persians, and it cannot be changed. The right hon. gentleman opposite spoke about rumours emanating from caucus. There was no need for rumours, because any hon. member on this side of the house would be willing to express here or on the platform exactly what was in his mind.
I can recall, too, that the right hon. gentleman, in his wisdom, appointed to the railway board a very distinguished judge, Mr. Fullerton. I have nothing to say against Mr. Fullerton, whom I know. I believe he has had a good record as a judge, but as head of the railway board in Canada surely a lawyer was not the man to appoint. As it happens, he has now retired from the office and a man who has some knowledge of his job has been placed in that position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member is confusing two things. The head of the railway board has usually been a lawyer; the hon. member is referring to the head of the board of trustees.


James Allison Glen: Yes, the head of the board of trustees. Whatever his denomination might be, the fact is that he had charge of the railways of Canada, and was responsible for the framing and formation of their policies.
As I said before, if the appointments the right hon, gentleman himself has made have shown such a lack of judgment, it ill behooves him to make an attack upon Mr. Vallance simply because he does not think Mr. Vallance is qualified for the position. My view is that the right hon. leader of the opposition has done a vast disservice to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in telling Canada that in his view the administration of the act by Mr. Vallance will not be a competent administration because he believes the head is not competent.
I am thoroughly convinced that as far as possible the act must be divested of any partisan affiliations on the part of those appointed. In looking over the constitution of the committee I can think of many people who should be represented on it but are not now represented. For instance, I find no members of boards of trade within the district affected. There are no members of the trustees associations in the district. They cannot serve because they are not named in the act. Many other organizations are not represented, and yet, Mr. Speaker, the act must be carried out by those who are directly affected. I know that there are many men of all political shades of opinion who would be willing to give of their services and their best wisdom in the carrying out of the measure. After all, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is no fool. He knows well enough that the successful carrying out of the act means something to his own prestige. Certainly a year hence if the act has not been carried out as it should have been, fault will be found, and under such circumstances I would say, the Lord help the Minister of Agriculture when the leader of the opposition gets his teeth into him in connection with any failures there may have been. The Minister of Agriculture has a perfect right to ask that those in charge of the administration of the act shall be men whom he knows, and in whom he has confidence, because he will be responsible, and should have some say in it.
The minister has stated he does not intend to change the committee. One can realize that that is a perfectly honest and frank expression of opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute repeals it; they are dismissed.


James Allison Glen: Oh, yes, so far as the act is concerned. But so far as the administration of the act is concerned, the minister has said
1300	COMMONS
Farm Rehabilitation-Mr. Hansell
time and again, although the leader of the opposition will not accept the statement, that he does not propose to dismiss the men who are now connected with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that.


James Allison Glen: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


James Allison Glen: In any case, if he wishes the act to be successfully carried out, why would he immediately arouse antagonisms and hostilities throughout the whole district by discharging the men now acting? The minister is entitled to have some say as to who shall administer the act, because upon him rests the responsibility. As I understand his capabilities, he will see that the act is carried out properly. Eor Manitoba's sake I am interested in a proper administration. When the time comes for the formation of the committees I shall be pleased to suggest the names of men who, although they may be Tories in politics, would carry out their duties in a proper manner.
For these reasons I approve of the amendment, and I believe the minister is entitled to passage of the measure. In that I shall support him.


Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). Among the many failings of the previous administration was not that of dispensing with the services of the chairman of the former tariff board. I am in a position to say that the previous chairman resigned, and when the present administration came into being he was a member of the house. I am glad to come to the defence of the leader of the opposition in that regard.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, there is one correction I should like to make. So far the discussion would seem to take for granted that Mr. Vallance is at the head of the rehabilitation organization. May I explain that the head of the rehabilitation organization has never been changed; Doctor Archibald is still its head. Mr. Vallance is simply one of the employees who is in charge of the office at Regina.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that it was otherwise; I was careful not to. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) did.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to criticize the personnel of any of the committees, but I do

know that under the new measure the companies and concerns represented on the previous committee are omitted. It does seem to me that if some of these concerns could be represented the work of the rehabilitation act would be greatly facilitated. Representations have been made from mortgage companies, the Canadian Bankers' Association and the Canadian Pacific Railway, all of which have an interest in the dried-out areas to protect.
I have no doubt those in charge of the administration of the act are conscious of the necessity for water conservation. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) stated that there was not a great deal of water to be conserved in some of these areas. I should like to point out that in southern Alberta there is considerable water which could be conserved in the spring. It would take a tremendous amount of money to build the huge dams necessary for this purpose, but I believe in the long run it would pay. There are several rivers in the southern part of the province which sometimes overflow in the spring. At times parts of the city of Calgary are under water, and there is no reason why some of this water could not be conserved.
The Bow river empties into the South Saskatchewan river, and then there is the Oldman river which has its source in the mountains and which also empties into the South Saskatchewan river. The Belly river has its source in the foothills and empties into Oldman river. Milk river runs along the southern boundary of Alberta and the United States. This river is fairly narrow, but is quite deep and sometimes overflows in the spring. Although some of these rivers are quite dry in the fall, I think much of this water could be conserved by the building of storage dams similar to the work being carried on by the president of the United. States in some parts of that country. I trust this committee will do what is possible to be done along these lines; for I believe in years to come it would mean the salvation of this part of the country.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 4, to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

Combines Investigation Act


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 14, to amend the Canadian Red Cross Society Act.
He said: Two small amendments are suggested. The first is to correct a typographical error, and the second is, in accordance with the suggestion made by my right hon. friend when the bill was before this house, to substitute the word "granted" for the word "given."
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend and consolidate the Combines Investigation Act and amending act of 1935, to provide for the administration of the act under the Minister of Labour by an officer to be known as the commissioner of the combines act, for the investigation of alleged combines by the commissioner, and for the appointment of such a commissioner, special commissioners and assistants; and to provide salaries, remuneration and expenses therefor.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps it would serve the interests of the house as a whole if, without prejudice to our position, the Speaker left the chair and we discussed this resolution under conditions which would enable the minister to answer any questions which may be asked.


Mr. ROGERS:: That would be quite agreeable to me.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This resolution precedes the introduction of a bill designed to change the method of conducting investigations under the Combines Investigation Act and to strengthen the act in certain other particulars. It is proposed to have the act administered by a commissioner under the Minister of Labour instead of by the members of the tariff board in their additional capacities as members of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission. The proposed bill differs in a number of respects from the Combines Investigation Act as passed in 1923. Under that act all extensive investigations, other than preliminary
inquiries which were conducted by the registrar, were intended to be conducted by temporary commissioners specially appointed for the purpose. Provision will be made in the new legislation for the appointment of a permanent commissioner whose duty it shall be to carry through all investigations to completion. At the same time provision is being made for temporary special commissioners if circumstances should arise which, make such assistance necessary.
Other proposed amendments include changes which have been found to be desirable at various times since the act was originally passed. For example, the definition of monopoly which was introduced in 1935, but which was considerably modified before it was enacted, is restated in terms designed to include those large scale enterprises which are able to control prices to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the public. A more effective enforcement of the law is aimed at also through the removal of a provision which unduly limited the use of documents in court proceedings. This amendment was before the house last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is proposed to do away with the director of public prosecutions?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This does not affect that section of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that proposed to be done?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not provided for in the present bill. Provision is also being made to increase the maximum penalties which may be imposed on combinations acting to the detriment of the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, one can only say that this does involve additional expense in the setting up of another organization. While the report of the price spreads commission did not provide for the appointment of a director of public prosecutions, this was provided for by parliament. It was to be a similar position to that established in Great Britain. Although this official would have no power to prosecute, he was to cooperate with the attorneys general to see that violations of federal statutes were properly dealt with. As the minister knows, one of our difficulties has been in the efficient and effective administration of our criminal laws, especially that phase of our statutory law which has to do with the enforcement of purely federal statutes. For instance, every session we legislate and then we provide that under certain circumstances a certain penalty

Combines Investigation Act
shall follow, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) knows that complaints are always being received as to the ability to enforce the law. It was thought in 1935 when the statute was amended and provision was made for a director of public prosecutions that the commissioner of combines should be attached to the tariff board, the members of which were named as commissioners to administer the federal statute and conduct investigations in connection with fair trade-I am using the term in a very non-technical sense-fair trade in the large sense. Just why it is found at this time necessary to amend and consolidate the combines act and to pass a new act, I do not know; because it will be recalled that the present act was decided to be intra vires by the privy council some considerable time after it was enacted.
There are great difficulties in connection with ex parte investigations, and it is not without justice that people complain that to have an ex parte investigation carried on by an official, without affording any opportunity for the other side of the case to be heard, is not the best way in which to lay the foundation for a prosecution. The most noted of all cases that we have had in this country, as the minister will perhaps recall, was the one in connection with the fruit combine, in which the commissioner made investigations in all parts of Canada. The attorneys general of the provinces afterwards took proceedings against the fruit company concerned, and it was fined very large sums of money. That was many years ago. Why it is necessary to amend this act does not at the moment appear to me clear, in view of what the minister has said, unless indeed it is to create another branch of the Department of Labour, which I should not think the minister would find essential for the purpose of supplying him with adequate material upon which to act from time to time. But it does add to his duties and obligations.
It is quite clear that until we see the bill it would be premature to express an opinion on the questions to which the minister has referred. At the moment I do not think any adequate explanation has been given why at this time we should modify the existing conditions with respect to the investigation of combines. The government, however, in its wisdom thinks it is desirable, and has asked the house to adopt that view. The government is able, of course, to see its view enforced, but until such time as more complete disclosure has been made in respect of the matters dealt with by the bill than what has been made by way of explanation to-day, I confess I find it difficult to see the necessity for the proposed amendment.
[Mr. Bennett.!


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, in accordance with wThat I understand to be the established practice I had proposed to give on the second reading a much more extended statement in support of the objects of the bill. This, as the leader of the opposition understands, is merely a resolution preceding the introduction of the bill; it does not enter into specific details as to the legislation itself. I might say this, however. He has suggested that apparently this would only result in adding to the expenses of conducting investigations of this kind, but he will remember that the price spreads commission did propose the setting up of a separate board to deal with such matters. Parliament in its wisdom decided otherwise-


Richard Bedford Bennett: To save expense.


Norman McLeod Rogers: and placed that responsibility upon the tariff board. I am quite sure the leader of the opposition will agree with me that the tariff board under the existing legislation, and particularly in view of the important duties that have been imposed upon it, has quite enough to do within its own functions as a tariff board without undertaking the additional responsibilities which pertains to the trade and industry commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The two things are very closely allied.


Norman McLeod Rogers: At the same time no investigations under the combines act have been carried out by the tariff board in its capacity as Dominion Trade and Industry Commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the statute was
under review by the privy council.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was in part the
reason. I might add that a number of applications have been pending. I feel sure that the members of the tariff board would themselves readily acknowledge that their functions as a tariff board are sufficient to occupy their time very fully and very usefully. I shall be glad to give further reasons in support of the bill when it is before the house on second reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I think it only fair to say that one of the reasons that induced the administration to introduce the legislation in the form in which it was, arose from the fact that many charges of monopoly were closely allied to charges in connection with excessive tariffs, and matters of that sort; and to save expense and at the same time provide for the appointment of a body well qualified to deal with these questions the

Combines Investigation Act
tariff board was selected as the instrumentality to give effect to the recommendations of the price spreads commission. On the other hand, it was realized that there should be some one person charged with the responsibility, and as Mr. McGregor had previously been attached to the Department of Labour, he was detached from that department when the change was made and attached to the tariff board, so that he would be able to make the investigations which I understand are contemplated by this resolution and report on them to the members of that board in their other capacity as, so to speak, fair trade supervisors. He would thereby furnish information that might be available bearing upon any questions which the administration might be concerned about with respect to tariff matters; for as the minister knows, many of these matters, in fact practically all of them, have an intimate relationship with allegations in connection with the tariff itself, and it was believed that a useful purpose would be served by placing the two under the supervision and control of one body, with the commissioner in the position that he occupied. I should have liked to see it worked out in practice, but since the legislation was under review by the privy council, the opportunity to see how well it would have worked out in practice has not been afforded, and if this bill passes it will be impossible to do that because it is proposed now to dissociate the two. I take it that the members of the tariff board will still be left in the positions which they occupy under the fair trade statute. You do not touch that, as I understand it, by this change?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There are certain sections of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act which will be repealed by the legislation to be brought down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the first time the minister has intimated that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It will appear in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then it should have been in the resolution. When you are amending a statute that has not to do with the statute that is being consolidated the resolution should indicate that it is so proposed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps I might explain. I have said that certain clauses of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act will be repealed by the legislation which will follow this resolution. One of those sections is the section which places the combines act under the administration of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission.
Another is section 14 of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, which has been declared ultra vires, and there is one other section which is touched upon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the privy council said that section 14 was all right. The supreme court said it was bad; the privy council said it was good.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My impression is that the privy council in that respect upheld the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is wrong.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is one other section of the combines act as proposed which will conceivably affect certain functions which were to have been discharged by the trade and industry commission, but I doubt, Mr. Chairman, whether it would be to the advantage of the house for me to give any details of these matters at this time. I simply rose at the moment to indicate the two material changes in the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act which will follow if the present legislation is approved by parliament.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I do not know how
wide this legislation is going to be. It is to provide for the administration of the act by an officer to be known as the commissioner of the combines act, for the investigation of alleged combines by the commissioner, and for the appointment of such a commissioner, special commissioners and assistants, and to provide salaries, remuneration and expenses therefor. I do not know whether the minister by regulation or statute or otherwise is going to consider the granting of increased powers under this legislation, and I suggest that some consideration be given that question and that when he brings down the legislation he inform the house in that regard.
A few weeks ago a group of merchants in western Canada had occasion to take up a matter which they believed was due to the operation of a combine, and the reply they had from the Minister of the Interior, as he was then, or rather from his secretary, was that there was no legislation bearing upon the matter, nor was it possible to effect a remedy by legislation. The situation is roughly this. Just before the war certain merchants in western Canada organized what was known as the Merchants' Consolidated, a company at that time owned entirely by the merchants themselves on a cooperative basis. Since then, by death, removal and other causes, the company has become more or less a limited concern with about fifty per cent of the stock
Combines Investigation Act

owned by these merchants. They deal in all kinds of goods, and the particular commodity they are interested in just now is something which is widely used in the west, gasoline equipment. There is only one company in Canada manufacturing a wide range of such equipment, and there are two wholesale houses that handle hardware largely in western Canada, and the organization that is owned by the merchants-Merchants' Consolidated of Winnipeg-is unable to get delivery on the regular wholesale basis through this particular company, which is an American concern with a Canadian subsidiary enjoying quite a high measure of tariff protection. These merchants believe that this operates as a restriction of trade or a combine. I do not know whether the statement made by the minister's secretary is correct, that there is no legislation that can deal with this matter at the present time. If so, I would suggest that if any amendments are to be made to the act or if any change is to be made in the regulations or in the general set-up of this particular department of government, the matter I have just brought to the minister's notice should be taken into consideration. Quite recently the radio business has been brought to our attention and there is a widespread belief in Canada that there is a combine operating in that field, because when we compare prices of similar articles on both sides of the international line we see that there is a considerable difference in prices.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Radio tubes?


Leslie Gordon Bell: Yes, radio tubes, for one thing. I have taken this opportunity to bring the matter to the minister's attention because I think it should be looked into. Then, too, there are a number of agencies that operate in the sale of goods directly to the consumer and they appear to operate as a sort of combine, at any rate as far as the treatment of their salesmen is concerned. These are matters we do not often have an opportunity of bringing up in the house and I am taking advantage of the present discussion to ask the minister to consider, in connection with the legislation which he will bring down, matters of the sort I have just been discussing.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am. obliged to my hon. friend for the information he has given with respect to combines which, in his belief, exist in certain fields of industry. I am sure he will understand that the Minister of Labour cannot assume the functions of a commissioner under the combines act. If he will give

me the information by letter I will see whether the facts are such as will justify an inquiry under the terms either of existing legislation or of the legislation which will follow the acceptance of this resolution.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Apparently I sent the information to the wrong departmentt. I communicated with the Department of Trade and Commerce, which I thought was the appropriate department.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The Dominion Trade and Industry Commission, which hitherto has had the administration of the combines act, was placed under the president of the privy council. As a matter of fact the combines act had been formerly under the administration of the Department of Labour, and what is now proposed is really a return to that former position.
If I may revert to the point raised by the leader of the opposition, I find in the explanatory note that section 14 of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was no appeal.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, there was no appeal.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rogers thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41, to amend and consolidate the Combines Investigation Act and amending act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
European war pensions, naval, militia, and air forces after the war, $41,500,000.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Does the reduction signify a general contraction in the number of pensions to be paid in Canada?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: No, I do not think so. It signifies that that is about all we spent last year and all that it is likely we shall spend this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Employers' liability compensation, $40,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What does this item cover?


Charles Gavan Power: This is one which has been in these estimates since 1921, as a result of the recommendation of a committee of the

Supply-Pensions-European War
House of Commons which sat during that session. For a period of three years from September 1, 1921, the government of Canada assumed the workmen's compensation liability imposed upon employers of former members of the forces who received a war disability pension of twenty per cent or more. That has been continued from year to year ever since.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That means former
soldiers working in industries that have to provide for workmen's compensation?


Charles Gavan Power: It was alleged at that time that ex-members of the forces had difficulty in obtaining employment, since the workmen's compensation premiums in their case were higher because they were more likely to be injured in an industrial accident. At the present time, as my hon. friend knows, in I think every province there are workmen's compensation boards, and really all payments are made to those boards. It is a question whether or not this amount really serves the purpose for which it was originally provided, because I think in most provinces-I know in Ontario and Quebec-the premiums paid are based on the nature of the industry. For instance in the pulp and paper industry the amount paid to the board would be, let us say, 10 or 15 per cent; in some other industry, less or more hazardous, the rates would vary accordingly. However, the amount has been fully expended in former years and it is considered advisable to keep it in for fear some men might lose their jobs if the government withdrew the grant.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It has been fully expended?


Charles Gavan Power: For the last three years the expenditures have been as follows:
1933-	34	$36,4191934-	35	
23,1031935-	36	
27,1381936 to November 30	
9,060


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can the minister give the number of workmen covered?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.	For the	year 1936-37
to November 30, 1936	the number of claims	
and amounts paid were	as follows:	
	Number	Total
	of claims	paid
Alberta	. 27	$ 715 67British Columbia.. .	. 2	772 60Manitoba	. 25	936 84Nova Scotia	. 6	365 21Ontario	. 68	3,031 75Saskatchewan	. 11	1,081 17Quebec	.. 7	2,157 12


Mr. NEILL:: Is this system predicated on a claim being made in case of death or accident, and the department paying?


Charles Gavan Power: The department pays.


Alan Webster Neill: But does the department pay only when a claim is made?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, that is the basis of compensation.


Alan Webster Neill: Would it not be more
economical for the government to pay the rate per man, the same as the employer would? Then the department would get the advantage of the insurance principle.


Charles Gavan Power: I think I misinformed the committee. They pay the full compensation, not the premium. We guarantee the province against any loss because of the employment of these men.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but I want to know whether the department pays the compensation board when a man has been killed or injured. Does it wait until a man has been injured, and then pay, which is equivalent to the department doing insuring, or does it simply pay the rate per man employed?


Charles Gavan Power: We do not pay the rate per man employed. We pay the claim.


Alan Webster Neill: Would not the department be better off to pay the rate per man? They would then get the advantage of joint insurance covering a large number of cases.


Charles Gavan Power: As I have explained, this arises out of a situation which existed in 1921 in many of the provinces, if not all, where there were no workmen's compensation boards, and the employer was obliged to take out insurance against claims. Therefore he would not wish to take into his factory or industry a man who was more likely to be subject to industrial accident on account of his war disability. As a result of that situation, and in order to encourage employment of ex-soldiers, the department undertook to pay those claims.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Is the department notified when a returned veteran is employed by any company, under the compensation act?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Angus MacInnis: Or is the extra liability to accident by reason of his service as a soldier, or his disability, considered after the accident or death?


Charles Gavan Power: After the accident or death. Item agreed to.
Care of patients, medical examination respecting pensions, hospital allowances, and sheltered employment, $2,900,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the sheltered employment cover such things as the vetcraft shop at Christie street hospital?
1306	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War


Charles Gavan Power: Two factories, one in Montreal and one in Toronto, and one which is supported to a large extent by the department, the Red Cross shop in Victoria, B.C.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am convinced that money spent in that connection is well spent. I went through the vetcraft shop at Christie street hospital, and it was most interesting to see the men working there, many of whom if they were not in that shop would become mentally defective. I know quite a number myself. The department in providing this work is not only giving them an opportunity to supplement their pension; it is making their lives livable. I certainly am happy to support this vote.


Mr. QUELCH:: Why the decrease of
$100,000?


Charles Gavan Power: It is on the experience of last year. For the full year 1935-36 the vote was $3,250,000, of which we expended $2,892,531, leaving an amount of $357,468 unexpended. This year up to November 30 1936, we spent $1,595,932.96, and it is estimated that we shall be able to get through next year on $2,900,000.
Sainte Anne tie Bellevue
Camp Hill	
Christie Street	
Westminster	
Deer Lodge	
Colonel Belcher	
Shauglinessy Heights.. . Lancaster


Mr. MARSHALL:: Is the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary owned by the department or rented?


Charles Gavan Power: No, it belongs to an estate
called the Blow estate, and is on lease to the department. I think the lease expires on April 1, 1938.


James Alexander Marshall: What is the cost to the government?


Charles Gavan Power: The rental is approximately $26,000 a year.


James Alexander Marshall: Does the government
anticipate any change in the location of that hospital? It is on one of the main thoroughfares of the city, which to me is not a very good location. Would the government consider changing the location?


Charles Gavan Power: When I was out in Calgary about this time last year, as a result of representations made by different soldier organizations I went into that question to some extent in the short time I was able to spend in


Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: What hospitals are engaged in this work, and in what provinces are they located?


Charles Gavan Power: We have eight hospitals, as
follows:
Camp Hill, Halifax.
Lancaster, Saint John.
Sainte Anne de Bellevue, Montreal.
Christie Street, Toronto.
Westminster, London.
Deer Lodge, Winnipeg.
Colonel Belcher, Calgary.
Shaughnessy, Vancouver.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: Could the minister give us the amount designated for each hospital?


Charles Gavan Power: Of course all the hospitals
have not the same number of beds; some are very much larger than others. For instance, Westminster hospital has from 530 to 540 patients as a rule, while Sainte Anne de Bellevue hospital has in the neighbourhood of 500. As at March 31, 1936, the figures for these hospitals were as follows:
Number of	Total	Totalpatients	patient days	expenditure496	167,150	$379,687 54139	35,785	115,231 07347	113,076	403.848 37522	177,454	346.061 32189	67,082	131.955 7267	24,580	78,417 15142	50,199	164,108 5268	19,128	47,535 13
that city. I did not question each patient, but as far as I could ascertain the patients themselves seemed to prefer to remain in that location. I am quite aware of the fact that a large number of soldier organizations have protested and have continued to protest against having soldiers, especially those whose health is not very good, in a hospital which was once a factory, located in a congested district. But a large number of the patients there are walking cases, class 4, who prefer to be in the city where they can go down town at any time and go to the movies and so on. I can say to my hon. friend that I am still giving the matter some consideration. There will be complaints either way, and I am not quite sure whether it is to the advantage of the men themselves to maintain the hospital in that location or to provide accommodation elsewhere.


James Alexander Marshall: Did I understand the
minister to say that the lease expires in 1938?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.

Sup-ply-Pensions-European War


James Alexander Marshall: How long has that lease been in existence?


Charles Gavan Power: I imagine it was a ten year lease.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, a ten year lease.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: Could the minister give the cost per patient per day in those institutions?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. I perhaps forgot to say to the committee that apart from the hospitals I have mentioned, which are operated by the department itself, we have arrangements with a number of other hospitals, some belonging to the provinces and others privately operated, in which patients who come under the jurisdiction of the department may be treated.
The daily cost per patient is as follows:
Sainte Anne de Bellevue	
$2	27Camp Hill	
3	22Christie Street	
3	57Westminster	
1	95Deer Lodge	
1	97Colonel Belcher	
3	19Shauglmessy	
3	27Lancaster	
2	49
The average rate for all the hospitals is $2.55. The cost at Christie Street hospital is higher because there we carry on surgical work, while in some of the other hospitals that is not done. At Westminster, for example, the cost is much lower, because to a considerable extent that is a hospital for mental cases, and there is not very much required in the way of surgery.


Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister explain what probational training is being carried on by the department at the present time? As he will remember, the Hyndman commission made a recommendation in regard to probational training, which reads as follows:
That the regulations of the Department of Pensions and National Health regarding probational training be more widely utilized and be made applicable to non-pensioners.
Will the minister explain whether or not anything has been done to implement that recommendation?


Charles Gavan Power: At the present time probational training really comes down to this: If an ex-soldier comes to us and says that if he had the requisite training he would be able to find a position in a certain industry, and we are assured by the employer that that is so, we find means to give him the necessary training and to pay him while he is receiving it. Of late years, however, very little of that has been carried on. Last year we had only two or three who applied and were accepted.


Howard Charles Green: Is that only for pensioners or is that privilege available to non-pensioners?


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite sure it is only for pensioners. For instance, to indicate what we try to do, at the present time, we are training a man to be a bootmaker. He is the only one we happen to have on the strength at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible to extend that privilege to the younger unemployed veterans who have registered with the veterans' assistance commission? There may be quite a number of them who could be put into positions if they had a certain amount of training.


Charles Gavan Power: If the veterans' assistance commission make a report to the minister along that line I shall be glad to go into it thoroughly. In fact, at the present time in Montreal the association known as Workshops Limited does intend to go in for something of the kind. As the hon. member is no doubt aware, it is a voluntary organization of ex-soldiers formed under the aegis of the voluntary committee in Montreal. On recommendation of the veterans' assistance commission the amount of $15,000 has been granted.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will be prepared to assist in training of that type?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: Some time ago I had
protests from some of the orderlies in Shaugh-nessy hospital as to the long hours of duty. Some of them work twelve or thirteen hours each day. I believe the same conditions prevail in some of the other hospitals. Have the hours of work been reduced, or is there any hope that they may be reduced shortly?


Charles Gavan Power: I think the matter will be settled within a short time. It is now the subject of conversation and discussions with the amalgamated civil servants, and others. Of course, under certain circumstances, it would involve increasing the staff, but not to a very great extent. I do not doubt that within a month or so arrangements satisfactory to the people interested will be made.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I have in mind a pensioner recently changed from the regular pay staff, who is now occupying a bed in' one of the hospitals. He has had many misgivings concerning the possible cures which may be effected by the experimental work now under way. The man may leave the hospital, under a nominal pension, to go out
1308	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
into the world. If in three or four years he suffers a recurrence of some form of his old trouble is there any limitation as to the time within which he would become disqualified for further hospitalization?


Charles Gavan Power: I take it the person in
question has a pension, although he claims it is not sufficiently large.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: There is no doubt that he may return at any time, and his pension will be increased if it is found that the disabilities from which he is suffering have increased. That is probably one of the reasons why our pension expenditures are not decreasing very rapidly. Men pensioned for disability or disease get increased pensions as their disabilities increase. A man may receive a pension of ten per cent or twenty per cent for a heart or rheumatic condition, but as time goes on and he becomes older his disability increases, and with it his pension.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: This man is still in the hospital. He has observed cases which have left the hospital apparently cured, while others have had difficulty in getting back into the hospital on the basis they think should obtain. He has written me on several occasions, and I should like to be able to assure him that in the event of his leaving the hospital in the near future he will receive every consideration.


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. member will be good enough to give me privately the name of the person in whom he is interested, I will get a full report and Let him know definitely what the situation is.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I shall be glad to do so.


Howard Charles Green: In connection with proba-tional training, would it not be of some help if the minister were to write to the honorary local committees stating that the department would be willing to provide probational training for suitable unemployed veterans?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know that it is my duty, nor would it be proper for me as minister of the department, to write the honorary local committees telling them what they should or should not do.


Howard Charles Green: No, but I suggest that the minister could tell them that there is that chance of obtaining help. They may not know about it.


Charles Gavan Power: I should be glad to draw it
to the attention of the veterans' assistance commission, but I do not think it -would be

proper for me to indicate to the committees the line they should follow. They are appointed for that purpose, and are devoting a great deal of time and energy to the work. I believe if it is drawn to their attention in any way, even through the mention of it on this occasion by the hon. member, within a short time that field will be explored and there will be reports upon it.


Howard Charles Green: There is the point I mentioned earlier in the week with regard to getting some of the unemployed veterans work, on a day labour basis, on the new projects under the control of the Department of National Defence. Could the minister do something to help carry out the suggestion? It should be possible to place a great many unemployed veterans on that work, and it is particularly fitting that they should get it. Then there is the further question of extra help at Christmas time in the Post Office Department. Would the minister explore the possibilities of getting employment from that angle?


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be glad to do so.


Mr. STIRLING:: Will the minister place on record the representations he has with respect to Shaughnessy hospital, the name of the doctor in charge, and the staff under him?


Mr POWER:: I am not quite sure that I have the list, but I shall be pleased to get it for the hon. member.


Grote Stirling: Perhaps the minister
would be good enough to do so. He mentioned just now that in addition to the hospitals he enumerated, on occasions others were used. Cases have been brought to my attention of pensioners in the interior of British Columbia who have suddenly become ill, and, at least in the opinions of people in the locality, it would have been desirable to have taken them direct to the local hospital. Will the minister explain what course of action is necessary before such a decision can be made? Would the doctor in charge at Shaughnessy hospital make the decision, or who would decide whether a case may or may not be taken to a local hospital?


Charles Gavan Power: It has to be referred to the district administrator.


Grote Stirling: In my case it would be Shaughnessy.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, Mr. Derby. There are many hospitals; although I have not the exact number, I know there are three pages of them in my book. I shall be pleased to place them on Hansard.

Supply-Pensions-European War


Grote Stirling: I do not ask that.


Charles Gavan Power: There are about twenty-five or thirty of them in British Columbia, and I shall be only too glad to give the names.


Grote Stirling: No, that is not necessary. I merely wanted an answer to my question as to who would settle the point which might arise in connection with taking a pensioner to a local hospital.


Charles Gavan Power: It would, be the district administrator.


Howard Charles Green: Is any medical care provided for veterans and the families of veterans on relief? I have received several complaints about unemployed veterans being unable to get satisfactory medical attention. Has the department any information as to the facilities available?


Charles Gavan Power: The department looks after the pensioners only. The non-pensioners are looked after by the civilian authorities.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will remember that in the pensions committee last year we dealt with the question of the Canadians who enlisted in the inland water transport section of the Royal Engineers. I understand that the men who enlisted in this unit and who are pensioners are asking for class 2 hospital treatment, which I believe is given only to men who are indigent and who suffer from disabilities not incurred on service. They are also asking for assistance from a Canadian soldier's advocate. Would it not be possible for the department to give some consideration to these matters? The expense should not be very great. After all, they are Canadians and they were more or less inveigled into the imperial service. Many of them believed that they were going to get the same treatment as the Canadian soldiers.


Charles Gavan Power: A considerable number of those who enlisted in the inland water transport section of the Royal Engineers were Canadian born or domiciled in Canada prior to the war and are now receiving the same treatment as that received by other imperial soldiers. We do not give them class 2 treatment because that is given only for certain diseases or disabling conditions which are not related to military service. The men to whom my hon. friend refers asked for treatment for disabilities which were not due to their war service. This treatment is given to men w'ho served in the Canadian expeditionary force, but it is not given to those who served in any other force, except in cases where we receive authority from the British Ministry of Pensions. In such cases the costs are refunded to us.


Howard Charles Green: These men were Canadians before the war and I do not think it would cost very much to provide this class of treatment or to arrange that they have the assistance of a soldier's advocate in making their claims for pension.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no recollection that that particular point was considered in the committee last year. A very large number of Canadians enlisted in other forces. For instance, 34,071 enlisted in the Royal Air Force; 710 in the imperial motor transport; 3,971 in the inland water transport; 2,814 in the naval service; 42 in the Jewish Palestine draft, making a total of 41,608. To this total must be added reservists who left Canada at the time war broke out, making a total of 56,198. These men are in approximately the same position with respect to treatment as are the members of the inland water transport.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister know how many of those men are pensioners? It would be only the pensioners who would be entitled to that class of treatment.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not that information.


Howard Charles Green: Could that be obtained from the British Ministry of Pensions?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister make inquiries along that line?


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be glad to do so. My hon. friend knows that this question was pretty thoroughly gone into in the committee of last year, and no recommendation was made to take these men under the care of the department.


Alan Webster Neill: Were there not instances where men of the type referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) thought they were enlisting as Canadians? Has that ever been investigated?


Charles Gavan Power: That claim has been made on two and perhaps more occasions, but I do not believe it has ever been substantiated. The hon. member for Vancouver South made a very strong case before the committee for this particular class of men, but I do not think the other members agreed fully with him. They did not feel that the men who enlisted in the inland water transport section should become the responsibility of this government.


Howard Charles Green: They are not asking that the government become responsible to the same degree as in connection with Canadian troops.
1310	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
They are asking only for this hospitalization and the help of the veterans' bureau. Is there any reason why these men could not get some help in presenting their cases?


Charles Gavan Power: I am told the veterans' bureau will be only too glad to do whatever they can. If I am not mistaken, some of the imperial organizations are requesting the department to name a particular advocate for imperials only. Is that what my hon. friend had in mind?


Howard Charles Green: That might remove a great deal of the present dissatisfaction.


Charles Gavan Power: The matter came to my
attention only within the last two or three weeks. It is being considered, but I do not know just what the decision will be. If this action were taken it would be equivalent to the Canadian government paying an advocate to press imperial ex-soldier claims against the imperial government.


Howard Charles Green: It might prove to be a great deal cheaper than keeping them on relief, should you succeed in getting any money out of the imperial government.


Charles Gavan Power: I am afraid they will not
succeed in getting much money out of the imperial government. I endeavoured to make myself their advocate, without salary, and I must admit that I did not meet with very great success.


Alan Webster Neill: Is there any record of an
advocate or anyone else being successful in presenting a case to the imperial authorities in Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: The department has no
direct contact with the Imperial Ministry of Pensions here which would indicate just what pensions they pay and why they refuse pensions, therefore it is impossible for me to say whether the representative in Canada of the British Ministry of Pensions is more difficult of approach than the Canadian pension commission.


Alan Webster Neill: They are not more difficult
of approach, but it is utterly impossible to get anything out of them.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):: The eximperials in Canada have been more or less at a disadvantage in presenting their claims, and have not had the benefits of the services of pensions advocates. It would be a splendid thing if we could select an advocate to act for these ex-imperials, not because it would be cheaper, as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), but more or less because it is the right of

these men who have taken up residence in Canada. They served for the same cause, and because they happened to have left the mother country and come over here should be no obstacle when they desire to present their case to the imperial government. If it were possible I think it would be a splendid gesture on the part of this government to appoint an advocate to plead the case of the ex-imperials before the proper officials, and I would strongly support such a move.


Mr. BARBER:: May I ask under what item provision is made for the purchase of medical supplies for the Department of Health generally?


Charles Gavan Power: Under this one.


Harry James Barber: Are these supplies purchased by tender?


Charles Gavan Power: In every case.


Harry James Barber: And the department supplies other departments of government, the Department of Indian Affairs, for instance?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Harry James Barber: How many years has the Department of Health been supplying the Department of Indian Affairs?


Charles Gavan Power: I am informed that it is from about 1928. It was a long time before I came into the department.


Harry James Barber: Do the other departments submit their requisitions to this department, and are supplies then shipped by this department to different parts of Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. We do not buy the entire supply, but most of it. The staples that are necessary are purchased by us, but probably emergency supplies and such as are not in our general stores would be purchased directly by Indian Affairs.


Harry James Barber: Yes, I understand that the supplies that are sent out are very complete. They are shipped to all parts of British Columbia, and the Department of Indian Affairs informed me that such an arrangement had been made. I was wondering how long it had been in effect. The minister says since 1928.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not sure about 1928, but for five or six years past, at all events, and probably more.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a fact that class 2 treatment for the Canadian pensioner is available only in centres where there is a military hospital? If a pensioner is suffering from

Supply*-Pensions-European War
some disability for which he is not pensionable and resides in a small town, will the department give him hospitalization in that town?


Charles Gavan Power: Treatment under class 2 is confined to Canada only; that is to say, an ex-soldier in the United States is not admitted to class 2 treatment. It is available only in hospitals operated by the department or in hospitals with which the department has a contract, where treatment may be carried out under the care of a salaried medical officer of the department.


Howard Charles Green: Does not that really discriminate against pensioners who do not live in a city such as Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal? Does it not mean that a great majority of the pensioners cannot get class 2 treatment because they do not live where there is a military hospital or a military doctor?


Charles Gavan Power: They come in and get their treatment, and as a rule they are pretty well satisfied with it. I have no doubt that it would be more convenient, as my hon. friend suggests, but he will readily see that it would be impossible for us to establish hospitals in all the centres of all the provinces. He will, I believe, agree with me that it would be taking a bit of a risk to leave to the ordinary medical practitioner, much as I appreciate his high standing and character, the duty of looking after our pensioners in all cases and keeping them as long as he wished in a hospital under his own surveillance for a non-pensionable condition.


Howard Charles Green: After all, a doctor is a doctor, and sickness is sickness, regardless of whether it is a war disability or not. Surely doctors in these small towns would be quite capable of looking after the pensioner who has a nonpensionable disability. Why cannot the department make a contract with the different hospitals in our cities and towns across Canada? Could that not be done?


Charles Gavan Power: We have contracted with hospitals in a large number of towns; there are approximately twenty in British Columbia, and similarly throughout the country.


Howard Charles Green: Have you military doctors in each of these twenty towns?


Charles Gavan Power: No. AVe have them as a rule only in the larger centres, but it must not be forgotton that this is treatment for a nonpensionable disability. It is treatment for a disease which is not due to war service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he gets the treatment because he was a soldier.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, and a pensioner, of course. He is pensioned for some other disability, and is being treated for a disease which is not due to his service. My hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Green) will understand how difficult it would be for the department to allow anyone who could obtain a certificate from a medical man in any part of the country to be treated without some kind of check being imposed by the department. It is a matter of administration, and in the interests of good administration I do not think it would be well to relax that regulation.


Howard Charles Green: Of course it could not be done without proper checks, but the minister will see the unfairness of the present position.


Charles Gavan Power: They usually come in.


Howard Charles Green: A pensioner in Vancouver can get treatment, and a pensioner in a small town twenty miles away cannot.


Charles Gavan Power: They come in to Vancouver, just as they do to Christie street hospital.


Howard Charles Green: At their own expense, or does the department pay transportation?


Charles Gavan Power: They are helped a great deal by the Canadian Legion, and if it is found that they have such a disability as will entitle them to pay and allowances, we do give them their transportation.


Howard Charles Green: That is only available, after all, to indigent pensioners, is it not?


Charles Gavan Power: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask the minister to look into that question and see if there cannot be some extension of the present service.


Charles Gavan Power: The regulation automatically bars a single man whose income is in excess of $45 a month, and a married man with wife only whose income is in excess of S86 a month, but below S86 or 845 a month there is a pretty wide margin before you get to the absolutely indigent class.


James Alexander Marshall: When these estimates were last before the committee it was stated that the South African veterans were on the same footing as to hospitalization as men who served in the great war. Is that correct?


Mr.   POAVER@: That is not quite correct. There are cases of South African war veterans who, because they are really indigent, are by exception admitted to our hospitals, but they are not admitted as of right.


James Alexander Marshall: AA7ould a statement that a man was indigent and a South African veteran enable him to get hospitalization?

1312	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War


Charles Gavan Power: No, I think there would have to be a pretty fair case made out for compassionate treatment.
The right hon. leader of the opposition, when these estimates were under discussion on Tuesday last, asked for a statement with respect to the Patriotic Fund. I have a statement here. It is a lengthy one, and I will send it over to my right hon. friend; or I shall be only too glad to read it or put it on Hansard if he wishes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only question I desired to raise was whether that fund, which I think had roughly 8100,000 to its credit in 1914-I am speaking from memory; I was an officer of the fund, and that figure may be excessive-


Charles Gavan Power: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: That fund, with the funds collected during the succeeding years, was administered by a committee. Quite a number of South African veterans from time to time received the benefits of the fund. Inasmuch as the fund is now depleted, and we have provided a very special body to give succour and assistance to those who are unable to care for themselves although they are not pensionable, it occurred to me that something might be done for the small number of South African veterans who are left, because we depleted the fund in caring not only for the South African veterans themselves, in a limited way, but also for those who had become charges on the fund by reason of the great war.
There are two or three cases that have come to my personal attention that make one feel a bit ashamed-if I might use so strong a term-of the treatment which we accord to them; and in view of the large measure in which the fund was used in caring for all kinds, and the fact that we have seen fit now to make special statutory provision for them, might we not find some method to take care of that very small number who are left in this country? I profess I do not know the exact number, but I do know that it is a reasonably small number who are in a position to make a claim on the fund.


Charles Gavan Power: A statement has been furnished me on the question. I cannot find it at the moment -but I shall look it up. The number who sailed for South Africa in the first or second contingent was approximately 5,200; then a later contingent sailed of approximately
2,000.	That contingent arrived in South Africa after the cessation of hostilities, after the peace had been signed, and they turned round and came right back. They never saw any active service whatever. On the basis of

what occurs in cases of men about that age in the Canadian expeditionary force it is estimated-and of course it is only an estimate- that approximately 5,000 South African war veterans would still be living.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that so? The number is larger than I thought.


Charles Gavan Power: That is an estimate, but I will check it. Of that number-and this again is more or less an estimate-about 830 would be indigent. Of course, this is almost a pure guess. The amount payable, were these 800 to be placed on war veterans' allowance is something in the neighbourhood of $250,000 annually, taking into consideration those who are unmarried, married, widowers and so on.
The point raised by my right hon. friend would bring up the discussion of a principle which I think operates in a different way in the case of the South African veterans from that in which it operates in the case of those who served in the last war. The War Veterans' Allowance Act was passed in order to permit the country to look after men whc could be presumed to be burnt out as a result of the hardships and the difficulties they had to undergo in modern warfare-not that I wish in any way to belittle the services rendered by those who served in the South African war or to minimize the hardships they endured. The presumption is, however, that the trials of climate, the life in the trenches, the strain on the nervous system, and so on and so forth, endured during a period of trench warfare, and the heavy bombardments which took place during the last war were such as to argue that men who served in the front line in that war would be pre-aged and that t'heir mental and physical capacities would diminish more rapidly than those of the ordinary civilian. We are really establishing a presumption of disability due to the war, whereas those who served in the South African war, though they rendered patriotic service to the country, though they went -a long way from home to discharge their duty to Canada and the empire, could not be said to have endured the same hardships as those who served in the great war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, there was no chemical warfare then.


Charles Gavan Power: No; nor was there any heavy bombardment, or living in trenches in water up to your knees for days on end, and the war did not last quite so long. In many ways the strain of service in the South African war cannot be said to have been as severe as the strain suffered by those who served in the last war.

Supply-Pensions-European War
If we granted war veterans' allowance to men who served in South Africa, it might be quite difficult to refuse, as we do under the legislation, to grant war veterans' allowance to those who served only in Canada or in England during the last war. It opens a wide field and I suggest to my right hon. friend that if he will think the matter over- I shall do the same myself-we may be able next year to bring down some recommendation to parliament with respect to this matter. I can only say that last year during the sittings of the parliamentary committee the question was considered and the committee did not deem it advisable to make a special recommendation to have the South African war veterans placed on war veterans' allowance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With a great deal of what the minister has said I am wholly in accord. I realize the difficulty of establishing with respect to pensions a principle that cannot be supported on any broad grounds, but it is because of that very fact that I venture to put before the committee the suggestion I have offered, not that I am doing it for the first time, for the suggestion has been put before the minister by others. The truth is that a substantial fund with which we began at the time of the war became merged into the larger fund and was utilized for the common benefit of all-that is, including those of the great war and those who fought in South Africa. It is quite true that at this time of day to speak of the privations and sufferings of the men who were in South Africa, suggesting that they are in a burnt-out condition in 1937, would be rather to impose upon the credulity of those upon whom you press that argument. Realizing that, I was trying to see whether the claim could not be put on the other ground. For it is quite clear that if the fund had not been exhausted they would still be receiving-I am speaking of the extreme cases-some support from that fund. From time to time we did take care of outstanding cases, and it was with regret that we found the fund entirely depleted; it was because of the great claims upon it during the later years subsequent to the war that it was so rapidly depleted. It must be remembered, however, that the "burnt-out" allowance provided for by statute has taken the place of any claims which might be preferred against that fund. That is beyond question. I realize that the matter cannot be dealt with merely by the minister's saying so; it must be covered by statute. All I wish to do is to suggest that it is worthy of the most careful consideration in the light of the
circumstances to which I have alluded. But I should like also to point out that there must be some error in the computation. There were 5,200 men who went to South Africa and subsequently 2,000 who turned round and came back. I believe they landed only for exercise and did not take part in hostilities. That left, therefore, 5,200, and it must be an error to say that 5,000 survive.


Charles Gavan Power: I am beginning to think that. I shall be only too glad to check and give the figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the suggestion that 5,000 or 5,200 survived is, of course, entirely astray.


Charles Gavan Power: No, 7,000 all told.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But 2,000 did not figure in the matter at all.


Charles Gavan Power: In proportion there would be something like 3,000 surviving.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is what must be meant. One speaks with great reserve, but I think that is too large a number, because it must not be forgotten that a substantial number of those who served in South Africa volunteered their services in the great war, and in the early stages there were great losses of that type of experienced soldier. In addition, a number have departed this life because they were of an age subject to mortality at a higher rate than would otherwise be expected. The guess that there are 843 survivors who would be in a position to make claims, could, I believe, be subject to a very exact check. My information, whatever it may be worth- and one must always remember that there is no accurate information available-is that something less than 500 are, under any circumstances, liable to make claims, and one could reduce that again to something less than 300 as the number throughout Canada who would be likely to do so. I think in the interim the minister might have a close study made, and while this would involve some time, the records are such that it is possible to do it. Those who, it is asserted, are not otherwise engaged might find in this ample scope for their activities during their very desirable leisure. Perhaps that would meet the situation as sometimes expressed by hon. members on the other side of the house.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be very glad to have an inquiry made.


Mr. DUPUIS:: In this connection I avail myself of the precedent which the right hon. leader of the opposition is trying to establish to go a little further into the past and ask for something for those who took part in the repression of the Northwest Rebellion in 1885.
1314	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War


Charles Gavan Power: They are looked after.


Vincent Dupuis: Well, I have a case of one of my oldest electors, Medard Boulais, who is, I think, now eighty-six years of age. He was under General Laurie in the Northwest Rebellion. He used to be sent ahead of the army as a scout; he did that very dangerous duty for the whole period of the rebellion. He was also the scout for the Queen's Own of Toronto, and as a consequence of his service in 1885 he lost his right to his homestead. In those days these regiments used to take horses, and General Laurie asked him to take with him a team of horses for that purpose. He lost his horses and he lost his homestead. After the rebellion he decided to go to the Yukon where he engaged in prospecting. He is now sick and he has no means whatsoever. He is starving, if I may use the word, because he has to rely upon the charity of friends. I think the Department of Pensions and National Health should do something for a case like that. Mr. Boulais wrote to the department and was told that he had no right to a pension. The last letter he wrote to the department was on December 12, 1936, and on January 27, 1937, he received from the president of the pension bureau a letter stating that his request had been studied and the department regrets to inform him that there is no statute or bylaw by virtue of which he can obtain a pension for his services in that rebellion. If there is no statutory provision for pensions for Northwest Rebellion veterans, there must be something to allow this department to save this man from starving. He is eighty-five years of age and very sick. I have put the matter before the minister in the hope that he will find a way to do something for this citizen.


Charles Gavan Power: Pensions for Northwest Rebellion veterans are awarded on recommendation by the Department of National Defence, but to establish his right to pension a man must show that he was disabled during the rebellion. The matter to which reference was made in the discussion between the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and myself dealt with the statute which provides for war veterans' allowance, that is to men who are burnt out. It provides that such burnt-out men, whose disability is presumed to be due to service, shall obtain S20 per month if unmarried and $40 if married, if they are permanently incapacitated from carrying on their occupation or if they have reached the age of sixty.
In the case cited by my hon. friend the same result could easily be obtained if the man in question would apply for old age pension in Quebec. He would receive $20 per month under that.
fMr. Dupuis.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: And in the one case he is eligible and in the other he is not.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


James Alexander Marshall: I should like to add my voice to that of the leader of the opposition in regard to the plight of South African veterans. I appreciate very much the fact that the minister is interested and is going to give their problem serious consideration.
I have had numerous letters from men who served in the South African war, and I know their plight is sad indeed. I would ask the minister to give this problem as early consideration as possible, because as far as. I can find out the majority of these men are from sixty-five to sixty-eight years old and so are not eligible for an old age pension.


Charles Gavan Power: My difficulty is to find a broad principle which will permit the South African war veterans to come in under this act, and at the same time keep in force the restrictive provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act as now existing. It was instituted on the presumption that men who served overseas in the last war were in some cases prematurely aged, and if I can possibly find any such principle as that to apply to South African war veterans I shall be only too glad.


Howard Charles Green: In fairness to the South African war veterans it should be pointed out that the principle is not quite as clear as the minister suggests. The War Veterans' Allowance Act I understand applies to all men who served in France or other theatre of war. There are thousands of Canadian soldiers who were in France but were not in the front lines, and possibly not under as heavy shell fire as those in South Africa. Then there are Canadians who served in Great Britain, or only in Canada, who are eligible under the War Veterans' Allowance Act provided they are small pensioners. On the other hand the South African veterans were subject to disease to a far greater extent than were the Canadian troops in France.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no inoculation for typhoid then,


Howard Charles Green: Probably they had to undergo sufferings at least as great as those of a proportion of the Canadians who were in France. I do not think the principle is quite as clear-cut as the minister says, so I would add my word to that of my leader in asking that the question be given further consideration.


Mr MACDONALD (Brantford):: Far be it from me to compare the sufferings of those who served in the South African war with

Supply-Pensions-European War
the sufferings of those who suffered .in the recent great war. I am sure, however, that those who served in South Africa suffered much more from the effects of heat than did the soldiers in France. I am sure also that the former did not get as good food supplies that we received, nor could they possibly get as good water supplies that we obtained. Further, as has been pointed out, there was no inoculation for typhoid at that time, and I believe typhoid was rampant among the soldiers in the South African war while there was scarcely a case of it among those who served in the last war. Also, as has been said by the right hon. leader of the opposition, most of those who served in the South African war also enlisted in the last war. They had a great sense of loyalty, and I would think a very large percentage of those veterans enlisted under the colours as soon as the last war broke out. I certainly believe they should receive every consideration from this government.
But, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that another class which should also receive consideration is composed! of those who did not serve in France but who left Canada and got only as far as England. A great many of these men are not receiving a five per cent pension. The difference between a man who cannot get a five per cent pension and a man who does get it is very small, because a five per cent pension means a very minor ' disability indeed. But if a man receives a five per cent pension even though he served only in England, he is entitled! to the war veterans' allowance. My point is that the man who does not happen to get a five per cent pension is in most cases, just as much entitled to the war veterans' allowance as the man who gets a pension of that percentage. When a man enlisted he had to give up his former m,ode of living. Many of those who got only to England had to devote long hours to the service of their country. They worked in offices and did other kindls of work to which they were not accustomed, but because they have no disability they are not entitled to the allowance.
While we are on this question I think something should be said about the widows of those veterans who, at the time of their death were receiving the war veterans' allowance. As I understand the law, at the present time the veteran who is entitled to this allowance gets $40 a month if he is married, but on his death the widow is notified that she will continue to get the allowance for one year only. If the man became pre-aged and incapable of working because he served in the war, surely when he dies his widow should not be cut off entirely. When this survey is being
made in order to determine how many South African veterans are entitled to this allowance, I would ask the minister that it be extended to include also those who left the shores of Canada and served in England, who may claim this allowance. I would ask also that great consideration should be given to the claims of these widows. I do not suggest that they should receive $40, but I think the widow should receive a small amount of money not , only for one year after her husband's death but during her lifetime. I would ask the minister to give that point very careful consideration.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be very glad to do so.


Vincent Dupuis: 
Charles Gavan Power: Among others, two points have been raised by the hon. member, the first of which deals with the preference given under the Civil Service Act to ex-soldiers. Speaking offhand, but I think fairly accurately, I believe I may have to correct the hon. member in some of his statements with respect to preference given to pensioners over non-pensioners who served overseas.
1316	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
The preference to pensioners is a peculiar one, and is given them provided they have not as yet successfully reestablished themselves. There are one or two other conditions, but the important point is that if after his return from overseas a pensioner has been successfully reestablished, he does not enjoy the preference. I believe I could give an instance which may make the matter more clear. We will take the case of a man who, prior to his service in the war, was a railway conductor but who, when he returned from overseas, was able to follow his former occupation on the railway, and did so for a period of five or six years. It does not matter what period of time he serves, he is considered to have been successfully reestablished, and even though he be a pensioner the civil service commission will not give him a preference over the ex-soldier who is not in the enjoyment of a pension, but has seen service overseas.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He still has the exsoldier's preference.


Charles Gavan Power: But not the pensioner's
preference. Then, there are a number of other cases. Only recently there was an endeavour in my department to establish preference in a case something like this: The civil service commission called for applications for the position of nurse at one of the hospitals. A person who immediately after leaving the army had got married and had no experience in nursing for twenty years following the war endeavoured to set up a preference for herself on the ground that she had had service overseas and had not been successfully reestablished. I am not quite sure yet as to whether I shall not be obliged to reject this person's application, if she comes at the head of the list, on the obvious ground that not having been in nursing service or training for the profession of nursing for that period of time she would not be as competent to look after the rapidly aging ex-soldiers in our hospitals as would some other person who had been training or acting as a nurse in the past twenty years. I believe the illustration will cover one of the points brought up by the hon. member, namely preference within the preference accorded the pensioner.
The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Elliott) was about to discuss the second matter on Tuesday last, namely as to whether or not those who obtained pensions should be permitted to continue in the enjoyment of it and at the same time draw reasonably high salaries in the civil service. Concerning this point I have had a memorandum prepared. I 
do not wish to tire the committee by reading all of it, but the matter contained therein goes back to 1916. In a special committee formed in 1916, of which I believe the only member now present is the right hon. the leader of the opposition, a recommendation was made:
That, to encourage industry and adaptability, no deduction be made from the amount awarded to such pensioner owing to his having undertaken work or perfected himself in some form of industry. The welfare of the state demands that so far as possible those who are at all able should endeavour to augment their pension allowance. If the pension granted were subject to reduction owing to the recipient having remunerative work, your committee are of the opinion that a premium would be put on shiftlessness and indifference.
The principle seemed to have been accepted by the house, without very much discussion, with the exception that Mr. W. F. Nickle, K.C., of Kingston, one of those who in 1919 framed the first pension legislation, said this:
The committee took perhaps a radical step in another matter, but a step that seems to me to have been fair. They said that a man in receipt of a pension should be entitled to the fruits of his labour, that if a man who had lost his eyes adapted himself to circumstances and was able to earn the means of life, if he had lost his feet or his hands and had the pluck to again face life and through the advantage of vocational training or otherwise was able to secure employment in another sphere of activity, that man was entitled to keep what he earned. The committee took the stand that if those who had suffered greatly in this war had the courage when they returned to endeavour to earn a fresh place for themselves in civil life, they' should be paid their pension in respect of the physical disability they had suffered, and should also be entitled to what earnings they made, and that the earnings should not be deducted from the pension.
To adopt any other scheme than this seemed to the committee to have as an inevitable result the encouragement of shiftlessness and laziness and the committee felt that in a country like this everything possible should be done to encourage the men to take on themselves fresh employment when they again returned to this country.
The same principle was carried on, all through the recommendations of the various parliamentary committees, down to to-day. I need not quote the findings of other committees. The Ralston commission, which thoroughly investigated every phase of soldier problems, reported in a similar manner.
In 1933 it was thought there was some intention on the part of the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Mr. Rhodes, to change the principle or in some way take away from those who were in receipt of pension either such pension or some of the salary attached to the positions they held in the civil service.

Supply-Pensions-European War


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he modified that.


Mr.   ROWER@: Yes, I am coming to that. On reconsideration the Hon. Mr. Rhodes said:
The last thing in the world that we had in mind was any interference with the sanctity of a contract concerning pensions. Whatever merit there may be or may not be attached to the suggestions contained in the budget speech with respect to pensions, it was never intended to interfere with pensions as such.
The point is that when the men came back from overseas they were told, "You will receive pensions, but go ahead and get jobs wherever you can. Not only that, but we will give you preference in the civil service of Canada in order to permit you to augment your pension by working for the government." I submit it would be something almost equivalent to a breach of faith if at this late date, after a great many of them have successfully reestablished themselves and have succeeded in filling some of the highest positions in the civil service, and despite their physical handicaps have been able to overcome them and render good service to the state, we were to deprive them of their pensions or to decrease their salaries. More-ever, an example such as that to private firms or organizations would not be in the best interests of the state or of industry.


Vincent Dupuis: I was anxious to obtain from the minister a statement concerning those against whom there has been discrimination. They do not want others to lose their pensions. However, they are told, when seeking a civil service position, that if they had pensions it would be easier for them to obtain that position. They are met with the statement, "although you have no pension, those who have are in a preferred position, when they apply for this work." There are a great many ex-soldiers living in my riding and many of them have become distinguished citizens. They did their share in the last war and are proud of having done it, but a certain number of them are handicapped in the way I mentioned. I think it is my duty to bring this matter before the minister.
By the way, I was invited to some of their meetings and they unanimously passed a resolution approving the government's policy of national defence. Many of them told me that while they hoped there would never be another war like the one in which they took part, they would still be ready to do their part should the need arise. It is for such citizens as these that something should be done to help them, not to receive pensions, because they were not wounded, but to obtain the work they want. It may be said that civilians are discriminated against in favour
of ex-soldiers, but I think any reasonable citizen will agree that that is only right. The only point I want to make is that the returned soldier without a pension should be on the same level as the returned soldier who receives compensation for his services in the war.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: When a man receives $6,000, $8,000 or $10,000 as salary, would his pension be discontinued? Is there a certain peak in earning when that action is taken?


Charles Gavan Power: That is not taken into consideration in any way. As I have indicated, the pension is based upon war services and has nothing whatever to do with civilian occupation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the minister referred to the report of the committee which sat during the recess in 1916 and 1917. Ever since we established pensions in this country we have kept two principles in mind. The first one is that the pension is in no sense wages or salary; it is compensation, inadequate in many cases, for injuries suffered by the recipient. The second principle is that in the computation of salary or wages which a man might receive, it is to be taken that that is based upon the service he renders and the service he renders can have no relation to the pension he receives for the injuries he suffered during the war.


Charles Gavan Power: May I interrupt my right hon. friend to call to his attention another principle. The scale of pension is based upon a man's capacity to earn in the common labour market and has no relation to the occupation which he followed prior to the war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the minister suggests, the pension which a man receives is in no sense predicated upon what he was receiving, but is based upon his then value in the labour market. The hon. gentleman wants to know what would be done in the case of a man receiving $8,000 or $10,000 as salary and being paid a pension of, let us say, $500. I remember having to meet that argument and I found it difficult to do so until I thought the matter out. The answer is that the services which the man is able to render in his then condition are worth $8,000 a year and presumably he would get that, if he renders the services adequately and efficiently, whether or not he had ever been to war. The fact that he went to war and suffered injuries which entitles him to $500 has no relation to the salary which he receives for the services he now renders, whether they be to the state or to someone else. That matter was discussed
1318	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
by the committee in 1916. I sometimes regret that I was not a candidate in 1917 so that I could have followed up some of the work done by that committee during the recess.
There is another matter upon which the private member who is now Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) had very strong views. This matter was raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis). There is a question whether the preference given to returned men might not be open to criticism in 1937. Conditions are to some extent different to-day from what they were in 1919 or 1920. A new generation of younger men has arisen and we now have the possibility of older men being given preference, say for a post office job, when a younger man might be more suitable for the position. I believe I am right in stating that no consideration is given to the matter of age.


Charles Gavan Power: Quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question arises as
to whether or not that greater preference is fair to the public service. At this time I think much may be said in this regard. However, the statute is there and notwithstanding the views that may be taken with respect to the desirability of it when one is not in office, it is an entirely different matter to say whether or not one is prepared to suggest this repeal when one is responsible. May I say to my hon. friend, the member for Chambly-Rouville, that the act will likely remain. It will terminate its usefulness only by what is euphemistically spoken of as the effluxion of time. I notice in the report which the minister handed me a moment ago that there are only forty pensioners left from the South African war. These pensions were paid originally by the British government.


Charles Gavan Power: There are forty disabilities and three dependants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That indicates that the
number we were mentioning, 863, is probably an over statement.


Charles Gavan Power: There were only 219 deaths among Canadians who served in the South African war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
York West (Mr. Streight) was one of those who early went to South Africa, and during the last war he took with him quite a number of those who were in South Africa. Perhaps he would give the committee the benefit of his knowledge, which he has just communicated to me, and which I am sure will be helpful in the future with respect to the

matter we have just discussed. The pensions paid to the men who went to the South African war were paid by the imperial government. In 1920, after the great war, we raised the pensions being paid to these men to what they would have received had they served in the great war. It seems to me that this fact offers an additional reason for looking into the matter from the angle I suggest.


Mr. STREIGHT:: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister where he got his information regarding the hardships of the South African campaign as compared with the hardships in the late war. I also think his figure of 7,000 troops who went to South Africa from Canada, if he took the trouble to look it up, would be raised to about 10,000, and I think his figure of about 5,800 South African veterans being alive to-day would be reduced perhaps 3,000.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe that is correct, but I shall have the exact figures to-night.


John Everett Lyle Streight: I would be surprised if there are 3,000 South African veterans alive in Canada to-day. Speaking of pensions for these veterans, it is quite true that the South African campaign was not comparable with the late war so far as slaughter was concerned. Nevertheless, the South African veterans did go through hardships and trials that we did not experience in the late war. For instance, in South Africa we had to contend with bad water, poor food, and severe climatic conditions. We had not only the heat but the cold. Anyone who knows what the South African climate is like, knows the nights are very cold, and the veterans had to sleep on the cold veldt sometimes with one blanket, and sometimes with a couple of inches of snow around them. I feel that any veteran who has served in any campaign-go back to the rebellion of 1885, or even back to the veterans of 1866-should come under the same heading as the South African veterans. I do not see why they should be discriminated against in any shape or form. Take the South African veterans at the beginning of the great war. Who formed the framework of every battalion in the first division? It was the South African veterans. They were at a premium. They were made sergeants and officers. I was one myself; I know. The framework of our first contingents and of some of the later ones was made up of those who had seen service in South Africa. I hope the minister will not forget to remember these veterans who served in Africa, and if he will look into the matter he will find that a great number of these veterans gave their lives in the great war. I had in my own

Supply-Pensions-European War
unit twenty who had served in South Africa, and they never came back from the great war. It was stated a few moments ago that the average age at present of the South African veteran was sixty-six or sixty-seven. I am only fifty-six myself.


Charles Gavan Power: Did the hon. member run away from school?


John Everett Lyle Streight: Just about. I know there are in Canada a number around my own age who served in South Africa. I think not only the veterans of 1885 but even the 1866 veterans should be given a fair show with those who served in the late war.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I want to add a word in support of what was said by the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald). There have come to my attention quite recently a number of sad cases of widows of pensioners, and1 I have referred to the war veterans' bureau two or three very distressing cases. These widows have reached the age of fifty to sixty. Probably during the lifetime of the pensioner the nominal pension that was allotted was received. Then the husband died. There was possibly a small mortgage on the home. In these cases the widow is in ill health; she is not able to carry on and the property has been lost. It is a very distressing outlook for the widow, whose husband served and gave of his best, to be faced with a situation like that, and I do want to support and urge upon the minister what the hon. member for Brantford City has said in that connection.
The other matter I would mention was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). The minister intimated that there were certain hospitals other than military ones, being contacted by the department in connection with hospitalization. May I ask if that is correct?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, civilian hospitals under contract with the department.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: How many of those hospitals are there?


Charles Gavan Power: Nearly four hundred throughout Canada.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Are they all authorized
hospitals?


Charles Gavan Power: Nearly all of them. In practice any well known public hospital has only to write in and we will put them on our list; then they get patients.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I should like to support what the hon. member for Vancouver South has said. What is the great difficulty in extending that hospitalization service as he suggested. The minister has medical men in these
districts. I am thinking now of the Niagara peninsula, of towns like Niagara Falls, Welland and St. Catharines. Who are the minister's representatives, and why would it be so difficult to carry on that hospitalization? That is what I fail to see.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think there would be very much difficulty. Hamilton is not far away, and; we have a salaried medical man there. There would not be any very great difficulty in arriving at hospitalization of any of the class mentioned, and having them checked over by our salaried medical man in Hamilton. Then in London we have a whole staff of medical men, and a staff in Toronto. So I do not think there will be any hardship suffered.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Will the minister indicate that this service will be extended in the future? It 'has been restricted very much in the past.


Charles Gavan Power: I am afraid I cannot.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Charles Marsh Doxsey.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Phyllis Stanners Kitchin, otherwise known as Judith Stanners Kitchen.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Ivy Jackson Beaulne.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Charlotte Opal Moore Norton.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Mildred Tan-nenbaum Sufrin.-Mr. Jacobs.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries-staff, $3,517,600.
Charles Gavan Power: This item was discussed at considerable length on January 19 when the estimates were before the committee and I explained it, giving the reasons for the increase.
1320	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health


Howard Charles Green: How many pension commissioners are there at present and what increase has there been over the number o-f a year ago?


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Reilly was appointed to the commission. Doctor Kee was appointed to the pension appeal board and one ad hoc commissioner, Colonel Cyrus Peck, was appointed. The estimates last year provided for the appointment of six additional ad hoc commissioners, but so far only one has been found to be necessary, and one commissioner to replace Doctor Kee who went to the federal appeal court. As my hon. friend knows, Brigadier-General McDonald, who was secretary to the executive of the Canadian pension commission, was appointed to succeed Judge Taylor. There have been only two new appointments.


Howard Charles Green: The present total is ten?


Charles Gavan Power: The members of the Canadian pension commission are: Chairman, H. F. McDonald, G.M.G., D.S.O.; members; J. F. Ellis, M.D.; D. W. Gray, M.D.; J. A. L. Robert, M.D.; H. A. L. Conn, M.C.; Sir R. E. W. Turner, Y.C.; Stephen Jones; A. Chasse, M.C.; S. Mackenzie, M.D.; C. D. Crowe, M.C., appointed since last year; C. B. Reilly, K.C.; and ad hoc for a period of six months, which was later extended for another period of six months, C. W. Peck, V.C., D.S.O.


Grote Stirling: Does the ad hoc commissioner receive a salary?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, $6,000.


Howard Charles Green: Is the pension commission catching up with the cases that were in arrears? The minister undertook last year to have quorums stay in the different cities -one in Vancouver, one in Toronto and so on. Has that been done?


Charles Gavan Power: The chairman of the commission advises me that by March 31 of this year all arrears will have been overtaken. He has not yet issued instructions definitely fixing any quorum in any particular province, but it is proposed to do so as soon as the arrears are overtaken. As a matter of fact, however, I believe the quorum in British Columbia has been there almost constantly since last year. There is some doubt whether it will be advisable to keep a quorum in permanent residence in the maritime provinces, because once the arrears have been overtaken the ordinary routine may not be sufficient to warrant a quorum in that section.


Howard Charles Green: How many appeals were heard by the appeal court during 1936, and what was the disposition of them?


Charles Gavan Power: Something in>
the neighbourhood of 1,800, I would say. This is a summary of the decisions of the pension appeal court, that is all the decisions to October 31, 1936, since the inception of the court:
Appeals by the crown	 152
Appeals by commission counsel.. ..	2,947
Appeals by applicants	 7,572
10,671
Entitlement conceded	 1,222
Not conceded	 9,353
Dual decisions	 96
10,671
I have not at the moment the figures for the past fiscal year but I can get them. It seems to me, however, there was a return tabled in the house not long ago. I do not think the percentage of pensions granted has increased in the past year.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a fact that it will be only a question of time until we shall be able to do away with the appeal court?


Charles Gavan Power: I was und?r the impression that perhaps we could have done away with it last year, and introduced legislation to that effect, but as my hon. friend knows, the legislation was revised by the committee and the court remained as it was.


Howard Charles Green: Is the number of appeals decreasing at all?


Charles Gavan Power: I should not think so at the moment. Possibly when the full effect of last year's legislation with respect to first and second hearings and so on is felt, the applicants will not want to go to appeal so frequently. We hope they will feel that their cases have been thoroughly studied and all possibility of obtaining pension exhausted before going on to the appeal court in what appears to be in many cases rather a vain hope.


Howard Charles Green: I do not wish to reflect in any way on the appeal court, but we understood in the committee last year that probably its usefulness would be ended in a few years.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, the appeals taken now by the crown are practically nothing; I think there were eighty or thereabouts in the eighteen months prior to the report last year, and there have not been any more since the report was made public before the committee. So the appeals are entered by the applicants, and so long as an appeal court exists I have no doubt that persons who consider that they have a claim will continue to apply to that court.

Supply-Pensions and National Health


Jean-François Pouliot: It would seem evident to any member of the committee that if a soldier was fit at the time of his enlistment and was unfit at the time of his discharge, he became unfit during his service; but in numerous cases, although, according to the medical report, soldiers have been wounded or suffering from some illness during their service, on discharge they are considered as fit by the board and the appeal court.
At this point may I bring to the attention of the committee a very serious case. It is of one of the doctors of the pension department whose name I do not recall, who went to the war and had two or three years at the front or in the army counted as years in university. Afterwards some imagination was used in his case and he was received as a doctor without having the necessary knowledge. His experience in the hospital was very short; he is only a clerk, just the same as a municipal clerk or a man who writes or examines forms, but he is one of the examiners of the department. I do not care whether he is Liberal or Conservative; that does not interest me, but it does seem that doctors in charge of the examination of soldiers who ask for pensions should be well qualified. War service does not count in such qualification; it is the medical experience that matters. I draw the attention of the minister to that case, which he knows very well, in order that there may be some redress. At the present time, if a soldier suffers from some internal sickness like rheumatism contracted at the front, as may well be seen from his medical sheet, he does not receive much consideration from the board or from the appeal court. General Turner-I have forgotten his initials, I think it is R. W.-may be a great soldier but he is no doctor and his decisions are very poor ones. I say that with personal knowledge of the cases. I know soldiers who at times are hardly able to walk on account of their disability. I have in mind one case, regimental number 897, one of the first men to enlist, who has been most unfairly treated by the appeal board. I denounce the appeal board on account of that. We do not need a brilliant soldier; we need a good sound doctor on the appeal board. It is not a matter of considering the war record of any soldier; it is a matter of seeing whether this poor soldier has suffered any disability from the time he enlisted until the time of his discharge. That seems very simple and clear, but it is hard to make those people understand it. And it is the same thing with the other fellow who signs most of the reports. We have enough of that. It seems to me that
a poor fellow who is anxious to receive fair treatment should have it not only from a good fellow but from a competent medical man. Therefore I ask the minister if he would kindly do a little spring-cleaning in his department. There is bureaucracy of every kind in every department. I do not blame the minister for that, but there is the curse of bureaucracy in the Department of Pensions as well as in others. Once I recommended a soldier for treatment at Ste. Anne de Bellevue hospital. He went there and they extracted all his teeth and sent him home. They said, You are all right; go home. I had to apply to Doctor MacLaren, who is now Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, in order that this man should be supplied with false teeth by a dentist in Riviere du Loup. This is not the treatment that should be given to a man who has risked his life for his country. The man had a very good record. For all these considerations I ask the minister to use his broom in his department and see that the cobwebs are swept away.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to support the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in his plea for more consideration to some of the returned men who suffer from disease. I believe there are men whose records do not show very much or any disability during service, but who subsequently developed something that cost them a great deal of inconvenience or suffering for the balance of their lives. At the moment I have in mind the case of a young man named McEleese who served the guns in France for more than three years and who, in May, 1919, took his discharge, apparently quite well. Then, in November, 1919, he fell iff, and he has been paralysed ever since. The original diagnosis was sleeping sickness. This man is living in Regina. There is nothing on his sheet that would indicate any cause for his condition such as we sometimes find on soldiers' sheets, but it is believed that the condition from which this man is suffering is due in no small measure to nerve shock which he sustained during the war in the capacity in which he served. For a long time he was in Regina, cared for by friends, and then was transferred to an old folks' home. To-day he is back in the city which is maintaining him as an indigent, as it does for aged persons without means, paying I think it is a dollar a day for maintenance in a private home in that city.
Here we have a young man who has been paralysed for the last sixteen or seventeen years and who, during all that time, has been endeavouring to have his case reviewed. I
1322	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
am hoping that the commission will consider such cases sympathetically. I believe they will. I may say I took up this matter with the minister some months ago and he referred me to the commission, but up to the present time I am afraid nothing has been done. That is a type case, and I take it that there are many other cases of that kind. I have been informed also that sleeping sickness is now believed to be of long incubation. I know very little about that phase of the matter, but that is what I am told, and if that is so it is entirely possible that the germ was present when this man was discharged in May, 1919. I am asking the department to look into cases such as these, and I am sure members of this house would be only too glad to see something done for men who served but who to-day are bedridden and. without assistance because of a former or improper diagnosis.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Before this item is passed, Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind you that some time ago I endeavoured to ask a question of the minister. We have a quorum that visits the different provinces. In some cases a man is granted a five per cent disability and is recommended for pension, but when his papers come to Ottawa, for some reason or another the pension board here refuses to pay that five per cent. Then the matter is referred to a quorum or to the appeal board, and I have had two or three cases where the award which was recommended by the quorum was not paid. Even if it is a small amount, only five per cent, it would be of great assistance to him, because once a man is in receipt of a pension, though it be ever so small, there are other benefits which accrue to him. He can get free transportation to Camp Hill hospital; he can get assistance from the board during the winter months. So if he is refused this small pension, a real injustice is done.
I have voiced my disapproval of the appeal board refusing pensions such as these after the quorum has recommended that they be paid. The quorum is right on the spot; it examines the man and takes the evidence of the doctor who treated him, and if the quorum is satisfied that it is a genuine case surely the pension should not be refused here in Ottawa. It does not seem to me that these men are fairly dealt with.
A little later I should like an explanation from the minister, if possible, of a case which I have in my own home town. I doubt whether there is another case in Canadla; at the most there must be very few. This man enlisted in Newfoundland, with a Newfoundland regiment. He went overseas with that regiment and, being a seafaring man, when he

*was over there he requested permission to leave the regiment and join up with the navy. Permission was granted1; he joined the navy and served during the whole war with great distinction. He won recognition for prize money, and he was awarded different medals. All in all he had a distinguished career. After the close of the war he came back and was demobilized1 in Canada. To-day that man is a complete cripple. I have taken up his case with the government of Newfoundland and with the British government. I have taken it up also with the Canadian Department of Pensions, but while this man gave such splendid service to the British Empire, not one of these three countries he served is willing today to own him in any shape or form. They say, "No, he is not our care, but we will try in every way to get consideration for him." He has been refused a pension time and time again. His application was refused for so long, and he had such a poor education, that he was not able to present his case for the prize money awarded him by the British navy, so he lost that. To-day he is in our town on relief, unable to do a day's work and he is a burden on the community there. I think it is absolutely unfair that a case of this kind should receive no consideration from any of the governments concerned. In the first place I would like to ask with regard to the five per cent not being awarded this veteran.


Charles Gavan Power: I might answer all these matters raised by the last speakers by referring to the Pension Act. Section 5 of that act states:
Subject to the provisions of this act and of any regulations made thereunder, the commission-
That is, the Canadian pension commission:

shall have full and unrestricted power and authority and exclusive jurisdiction to deal with and adjudicate upon all matters and questions relating to the award, increase, decrease, suspension or cancellation of any pension under this act.
This would indicate that in its wisdom parliament has declared that the Canadian pension commission, within its sphere, is absolutely supreme. It never has been thought wise to give the minister or the government the right to adjudicate upon pensions or to adjust pensions. I know that in England under certain very restricted conditions the minister may award pensions. I fear that if such legislation had been in force in this country, however, the complaints which we hear now would be multiplied a hundred, yes a thousandfold.
Having regard to the twenty years in which I have been in the house, and in which I have been interested in matters concerning

Supply-Pensions and National Health
returned soldiers, may I say that if there is one department of government which has kept free from political influence and which has allowed the duly appointed judges to carry on their work without interference, it is this department. There is no possibility in any way, shape or form of influencing any of those who were appointed under the statute to carry out the duties in connection with war pensions. As a matter of fact, I have been in the department now for nearly eighteen months and I think there are at least four members of the pension commission whom I do not even know by sight. I do not know them, unless I happened to know them before I came into the department. Otherwise I have taken no steps to meet them.
The members of the appeal court are Judge Hyndman, a distinguished jurist from Alberta; Mr. Sherwood of Ottawa, and Mr. Richard of New Brunswick. Last year, as a result of the legislation and as a result of complaints made that perhaps the court did not give due attention to medical questions which arose in a great many of these cases, Doctor Kee, who had probably from fifteen to twenty years of experience as a medical officer, and later as pension commissioner, was afterwards transferred to the court of appeal, thereby becoming a member of the appeal court.
The pension commissioners, of whom one is Sir Richard Turner, usually carry out their duties two at a time, in what is called a quorum. We endeavour-and I think we nearly always succeed-to have one member of the quorum a man familiar with medicine, one who is in fact a medical practitioner. The other is a civilian, sometimes a lawyer and sometimes, as in the case of Sir Richard Turner, a man who has had a long experience in business.
Of course I cannot discuss with the hon. member for Temiscouaba the case he has in mind, or give my opinion as to whether or not in that particular case the claimant was entitled to a pension. These cases are fully considered. The evidence is taken down and is thoroughly weighed by the judges who, in these matters have as much authority as have any of the judges of the civil courts in the provinces. After they have given a decision, I am not in any way empowered, nor would I wish to have the authority to interfere.
Many people are of the opinion that all these judges should be medical men. I find that during the course of years these opinions seem to vary. At one time soldiers' organizations made representations that they did not want any lawyers or doctors to sit on any
of the courts. At another time and in another period they have said, "We want doctors" and, at another time, "We want lawyers."


Mr. LAWSON:: They were right the last time.


Charles Gavan Power: It depends upon the case in court, and what the decision of the quorum has been. In any event we have endeavoured to meet the wishes of all people by forming a quorum composed of one layman and one doctor.


Mr. REID:: May I say a word to the minister and the committee regarding the appeal court, and its operation since a doctor was appointed last year. If hon. members will recall, when the matter came up before the special committee on pensions last year, the thought in the minds of members of the committee and particularly myself was that if there was a doctor on the appeal court, any doubt with respect to physical disability would be considered by a man competent to give a proper judgment. But as one who has attended the appeal court on a number of occasions, may I point out to the minister one case in which I took part only a few days ago. I shall endeavour to show that the returned man is not now getting the full advantage of having only one doctor on the appeal court. The case I have in mind is one of a man who had been too young when he enlisted; as a matter of fact, at time of enlistment he was only fourteen years of age. He had suffered an injury, but before that injury he had been taken out of the ranks and sent back as being under age. Eventually he developed a tubercular bone in the foot and at the age of thirty-six years is now incapacitated by tuberculosis.
A few days ago he appealed to the court, three judges of which were not of the medical profession. The whole case resolved itself into the question whether or not the tubercular bone might be the cause of tuberculosis for a man one hundred per cent disability. I could not help but think to myself-in fact I so stated to the judge-that it would be just as competent for me to go before the Supreme Court of Canada to argue some of the involved legal cases as it was for these three men to discuss as to whether or not the ailment was as serious as had been stated.
May I point out to the minister that a decision was rendered there and then, with no medical man present to give his views and opinion with respect to the physical disabilities of the applicant. I say to the minister and to the committee that it is high time the court of review itself was reviewed. Hope is raised in the breasts of all pensioners who
1324	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
make application, after going through the pension commission, and from there to the quorum, that when their case comes before the appeal court there is yet some hope of a favourable decision being granted. I think the minister will agree that the percentage of cases going through the appeal court in which applicants are successful is very, very small, probably not half of one per cent. In the event of an appeal, however, the hopes of the applicant are raised, and if a decision is to be judged from or hinges on the physical disabilities of the applicant, a medical practitioner should be in attendance. I refer to the case in. which I took part a few days ago to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that the appointment of only one dioctor is not helping very much those cases which to a great extent depend upon medical evidence. If it is not thought advisable to appoint more doctors, then. I say to the minister it is high time we reviewed the appeal court.


James Earl Lawson: As one who has personally handled a great many pension cases, in view of the criticisms of the pension tribunal and the pension appeal court I feel it incumbent upon me to support the minister's statement. I would go still further. Probably because from 1928 to 1935 I represented a riding which had more people in it than had any other riding in Canada, one with an extraordinary percentage of returned soldiers, and because I have had occasion to handle a tremendous number of pension claims, my experience has been that the general administration of the act by the pension tribunal has been just and equitable, having regard to the limitations placed upon the commissioners by the statute. I have appeared before the appeal court as a lawyer only three times and the court ruled against me twice, so my opinion cannot be said to be biased by favourable results. I have had some experience in courts of law, and I want to say that I have never heard judgments more judicial and based upon sounder grounds than those delivered by the pension appeal court. When I appeared before the court, it had on it two members who are still there, Mr. Justice Hyndman and Colonel Sherwood. The other gentleman was not then a member.
I must disagree entirely with the reasoning of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). If he would like to have a demonstration of the considered unanimity of opinion to be got from a number of medical gentlemen, I should like to have him attend a meeting where a board of doctors is trying
(Mr. Reid.]
to decide some question of medical research with medical men appearing before the board who have different opinions.


Thomas Reid: I did not advocate a medical
board.


James Earl Lawson: I do not suggest that the hon. member did, but he seemed to have an idea that the doctor appointed as medical adviser to the pension appeal court is not functioning.


Charles Gavan Power: He is not the medical
adviser; be was the medical adviser, but it was thought well to appoint a doctor as a member of the appeal court. Doctor Kee is the member of the court, but as the quorum is only three, he does not sit all the time.


James Earl Lawson: When he does not sit, the court have the advantage of the advice of a medical man who is removed from bias in the case. They have the advantage of his opinion in helping them to come to a judicial decision. I had a great deal of experience with Doctor Kee when he was acting in a previous capacity.


Charles Gavan Power: He was chief medical
adviser to the board of pension commissioners in the old days and was afterwards appointed to the board.


James Earl Lawson: I must say that I found
Doctor Kee in both capacities to be a well balanced and considerate medical man, always desirous of giving the returned soldier every possible consideration. I want hon. members to believe me when I say that I did not know Doctor Kee until I came into contact with him in connection with pension cases.
I realize there are individual cases where there would seem to be great hardship, but for every case such as those cited by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), and by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I guarantee that there are ten in which the judgments are entirely fair. From some of the utterances I have heard to-night I am inclined to think that this parliament is trying to load on to the pension board and pension appeal court a responsibility that belongs to us alone. We must face this responsibility. This parliament in its wisdom originally determined that every man who served overseas should not have a pension. Let us get that clear. This parliament said that before a man could get a pension it must be determined that the condition from which he was suffering was attributable to his military service.

Supply-Pensions and National Health


Charles Gavan Power: Or incurred on.


James Earl Lawson: That was then divided into two classifications: was it because of or incurred on his military service or, in the alternative, was the condition from which he is now suffering one which existed prior to enlistment and had been aggravated by his service. We in this parliament laid down that test and the struggle of the pension commissioners and the pension appeal court has always been to ascertain that. Once that has been ascertained, the matter of assessment of disability is not nearly so difficult.
The minister has pointed out that the pension commissioners and the pension appeal court had very wide powers under section five, but he did not emphasize the fact that those powers must be exercised within the limits of the statute known as the Pension Act. That statute was passed and the limits prescribed by this parliament. As a result of laborious and painstaking inquiries by pension committees from time to time-these pension committees were in the main, if not entirely, composed of returned soldier members of this house-this parliament has in its wisdom continued the act in its present form. In every case where you find a man who cannot get a pension and who feels he is entitled to one, if you take the trouble to trace the matter down you will find that he has not been able to establish to the satisfaction of a quorum of the pension tribunal the fact that his present condition was incurred on or aggravated by his service. We prescribed that limitation, so why put the blame upon the pension tribunal or the pension appeal court? If I had any criticism to make of the administration-I want to point out that this is only my opinion and better lawyers with wider experience may disagree with me- it would be that the pension appeal court does not give sufficient weight to that section of the act which provides that a man shall have the benefit of the doubt.
In conclusion I want to join with the minister in one statement he made. I want to make it clear to every returned soldier in this country who is seeking a pension that there is not and has not been at any time any political influence or interference in connection with the work of the pension commissioners or the pension appeal court. Moreover, I have such a high opinion of the gentlemen who occupy these quasi judicial positions on the pension tribunal and the pension appeal court that I am confident they would not tolerate any such interference if it were attempted.
Mr. O'NEILL: I cannot agree with the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Lawson). I am more inclined to agree with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). There is one matter I should like to mention, and that is the benefit of the doubt clause. When a man has been accepted by the army as one hundred per cent physically fit for service overseas, after he comes back from service in an active theatre of war and is discharged from the army and is not one hundred per cent physically fit, I do not think the onus should be placed on him to prove that his service overseas was the cause of his physical disability. The onus I think should be on the country to prove that that is not so. I have an outstanding case in mind. A man from British Columbia went overseas one hundred per cent physically fit. When he returned he was not physically fit, and he was discharged from the army as not physically fit. After doctoring for some' time he eventually died. From the medical records of those days it would appear that there was no doubt at all that his death was directly attributable to service overseas, but unfortunately the doctors' records were consumed in a fire before his widow could establish claim for pension. The only record available at the present time is that of the doctor who attended him in his illness, and that doctor has taken an affidavit that the man's death was directly attributable to service overseas; yet the widow of that soldier has never received a pension.
I have another case. One of the finest specimens of physical manhood that I ever saw came from Kamloops, British Columbia. He was an old countryman, a Scotchman or an Englishman; he was not a Canadian. He enlisted, and to-day that man is living in Victoria, a physical wreck. I do not think there is very much doubt that he came back from overseas a wreck directly attributable to his service overseas. He does not receive a pension sufficient to keep him and his family of three children and his wife. He gets a forty per cent pension and he has a one hundred per cent disability. The onus is placed on him to prove that his present condition is attributable to his overseas service. I think it was the present minister-and I give him credit for it-who was responsible for that clause in the act, but it seems to me to give the benefit of the doubt to the government rather than to the returned man.
Another outstanding case I might mention is that of a man now lying in King Edward sanatorium at Kamloops, who may never be
1326	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
discharged from that sanatorium as cured. He has been in it almost ever since he got out of the navy. About six months after he was discharged from the navy his case was diagnosed as tuberculosis. Since that man when he enlisted was accepted as one hundred per cent physically fit, and since he has served the empire in the day of need, I think that whether his present condition is directly attributable to his service overseas or not, we should try to pay our debt to him. He served us when we needed him, and we ought to serve him now that he needs us. We have plenty of money for defence purposes, plenty of money for anything and everything except for the returned men, and if there is one class of men in this country who are now entitled to something it is the returned men. That is the point I want to make, Mr. Chairman. I would like to see something done with a view to getting something more for the returned men when it becomes necessary to invoke the benefit of the doubt clause.


James Earl Lawson: If I may not be accused of monopolizing too much time, I should like to take up right where the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) left off. I said that the responsibility was on this parliament, and when I said that I meant it. It is all very well for the hon. member to rise in his place and say that we ought to dio this and do that. If we were going to accept as a principle of our pension legislation the very point which he raises, namely, that where a man had a one hundred per cent certificate of health when he entered the army, and did not have a one hundred per cent certificate when he came out, he is therefore entitled to pension, all I have to say to the hon. gentleman is, let him introduce a bill into the house and I will support it. I do not know how much more support he will get, but there is no use simply criticizing the administration and doing nothing more about the matter. The point
is,	there is the law, and the pension tribunal and the appeal court are bound to enforce
it.	All I have to say is, let us be fair and honest about the thing. Do not let us be criticizing the administration unless it becomes a question of administration. Under our Penson Act, at the present time a man must prove that his disability is attributable to service, either incurred on or aggravated by service, and you cannot change that until you change the lawn It is easy enough to give instances, but I shall not take up the time of the committee to do that. There is no question that there are returned men in this country *who are entitled to pension andl are not getting it; there is no question that there are returned men who have pensions in excess of
(Mr. n'K*!U.I
their disability, but no administration and no law can bring perfect and equal justice to all people. I think the administration of our pension legislation brings a measure of justice equal to that of our courts of justice, which function in respect of property and civil rights
Mr. O'NEILL: If I may ask the hon. member a question, has he ever attempted to bring in any such legislation?


James Earl Lawson: No.
Mr. O'NEILL: The hon. gentleman intimated that if I brought in such legislation he would support it.


James Earl Lawson: Yes.
Mr. O'NEILL: Probably when I have been sitting in parliament as long as he has and know as much about law as he does, I shall bring in such a bill.


James Earl Lawson: If I might be permitted one minute to reply, if the hon. gentleman sat here till doomsday he would never know as much law as I do, but as the length of his service in this parliament increases he will find that it is the part of wisdom and good judgment in pension matters to pay some heed to the recommendation of a parliamentary committee, itself consisting of returned men, which has spent hours and days investigating the problem and comes back to this house with a recommendation.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I do not think there are any members in this house, and there are very few people throughout the country, who do not wish to see the returned soldier treated fairly and squarely by this government and by the people of Canada. In my experience as a medical man I have seen throughout the dominion returned men who I believe are deserving of pension and who are not receiving it. On the other hand, I agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) that there are very, very many returned soldiers who are to-day receiving more pension than they deserve. They are receiving the benefit of the doubt. The doctors are trying to treat the returned soldiers fairly. They are giving them the benefit of the doubt, and many returned soliders, I repeat, are receiving more pension than they absolutely deserve.
But there is one thing, Mr. Chairman, that is troubling not only the returned soldier but the private citizen in this country. There are a great many returned men who have been wounded and are now receiving a pension of seventy-five or a hundred per cent, and at the same time they are working for the government and getting one hundred per cent salary. People cannot understand how

Sup-ply-Pensions and National Health
a man can be one hundred per cent disabled and yet be one hundred per cent efficient; it is absolutely impossible. We know men who at present are drawing one hundred per cent salaries, running from eight to nine thousand dollars a year, and at the same time drawing one hundred per cent pensions running from two to three thousand dollars. One or the other is wrong. When a man is receiving a one hundred per cent salary, if he is getting from seventy-five to one hundred per cent pension his pension should be stopped until he is no longer able to do his work, and then his pension should start again. This is something that is worrying the returned soldiers, because many of them to-day are on relief, and they believe that these other men are in their way, taking positions that they could fill. Either of these things should stop. The minister should investigate the matter, and I urge him to consider the possibility of rectifying what I regard as an evil.


Mr. LEADER:: Of all those who have
spoken to-night I am inclined to agree more with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) than with anyone else. As a member of this house I accept the challenge of my good friend the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson), that the government should introduce legislation to give justice to the man who went overseas and fought our battles. If they will introduce such legislation I will support them.
The hon. member for Kamloops says that the fact that a man offered his services when the country was in dire need should be sufficient to entitle him to proper consideration and a decent livelihood for the rest of his life, and I agree with that. I have submitted to the minister the complaints and requests of a number of returned soldiers; I have also gone to the pension board, and I must say that in all cases the members of the board have shown me the utmost courtesy.
I believe the board has been serious in its desire to rectify any wrong that has been done these men, but there is one particular case I want to bring to the attention of the minister to-night. I am referring now to a soldier who to-day is only forty-two years of age and who enlisted as a very young man. I believe he was discharged as physically fit; at any rate he did not ask for a pension until six or seven years ago when he began to feel the effects of his war service and requested a medical examination. After six years of medical examinations, during which time he has appeared before different boards, they have now reached the stage where they 31111-84
admit that they cannot do anything for him, notwithstanding that he had a wonderful record of service overseas. He was wounded three or four times; he was gassed; he had tonsilitis and a broken ankle and was buried by a shell and extricated by two of his comrades. The authorities have been impressed by his war service; yet they find they cannot do anything for him as far as a pension is concerned.
This man wrote to me two weeks ago and I was struck with his case as one that deserves the most serious consideration the minister can possibly give it. I asked this man whether he would allow me to submit his letter to the House of Commons and he said, "use it in any way you see fit." I wish to read this letter because it shows how bitter some of these men are becoming at the way in which they have been used. I believe this is an isolated case, because on the whole the returned men have been used very well; but there are cases such as this that should have the attention of the minister. The letter reads:
Dear Sir:
I am writing in regard my claim for pension. I am sure there is a mistake about that quorum in April 1936. I was told at that quorum that they granted in my favour. I was also notified to that effect, but they sent it to Montreal for hearing. I do not know what for and neither do they unless it was to do me out of it, so I think they have told you wrong. Such stuff to tell anyone, they don't think my disability came from service. ' I just wish the fool that said no had the ailments I have, they would belly ache. I suppose wounded, gassed and the rest done me a lot of real good instead of injuring me and my health leave out long service in trenches in mud and water to my waist for this country only to have dirt handed me always. Sir, if I had not of got clothing this winter from two different parties in the city I do not know how my children would of got to school and still they are short of sweaters and bed clothes a great country and fairness Eh? I don't think: I am sending you a copy of my old tribunal case that was held at Winnipeg, read it and then you will know why I am just plain mad and bitter. Please see if you can find out why they went against that, enough for any man to get a pension on. Will you please return that paper to me, I want to keep it. I am appealing but what good will it do. I am sending forms to Mr. Masterman, would you please see that they bring my case up and not hold it six more years if I get a pension or not. I am told that an appeal is supposed to be taken up at once.
I forgot to state that any doubt in the case was supposed to be given in my favour, is it? Same old thing, is the like of this to be allowed?
The hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) said that some of these returned men had been retired on pensions of one hundred or seventy-five per cent and were now

1328	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
in good positions enjoying reasonable salaries. Well, perhaps that could be objected to on reasonable grounds. But what about C. P. Fullerton, who, after serving the country for twenty years and receiving $250,000 from the taxpayers, has been granted a pension of $6,000 as an ex-judge? And he is not helpless; he has no disability that we know of. I say this because he has now started business in Toronto and will probably earn $30,000 or $40,000 a year in his law practice. There is no justice in this. The awarding of pensions in Canada is anything but equitable. However, this is by the way. What I am particularly concerned with at the moment is to make a plea for this man whose case I have brought to the attention of the minister, and I trust the minister will give it his most serious consideration.


Mr. SPENCE:: I do not think there is any use in bringing up particular cases. I believe it can be said that every man in this house, no matter to which party he belongs, is behind the minister and wishes to see the returned man get a square deal. The minister is a big-hearted fellow; I have known him a good many years and I trust him. I have never yet seen a minister who did not Want to give the returned man a square deal, and I think it is bad advertising to talk as we are doing in this house.


Mr. LENNARD:: I do not know that I agree with a great deal that has been said this evening. I wonder Whether we are sincerely behind'the minister to see that the returned soldier gets a square deal. It has been said this evening that there are a good many chisellers among the returned men. My short parliamentary experience leads me to believe that the governments since the great war have been doing their best to chisel on the returned men, and this particular government is no exception.


John Everett Lyle Streight: What about the last one?


Frank Exton Lennard: I said every government since the great war, and I said that the government in power at the moment is most decidedly no exception.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think I can let that go by. It was easy to let everyone have their word to say about the poor unfortunate commission and the appeal court, but may I say that, in my opinion, although there was only one member of the court with whose appointment I had anything to do, I believe the court is carrying on its duty as well as it can under the circumstances. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) has

said, it is interpreting the law placed on our statute books by the different parliaments of Canada which have succeeded one another since the war. This legislation is the result of the efforts of no one government and no one political party; this Pension Act, revised, amended, modified and changed, as it now stands, has been so modified on the recommendation of one parliamentary committee after another sitting almost every year since 1916. I suppose I am now the only member of this house who has been on every such committee since 1918, when I first came into the house. I should like to tell my hon. friend who is new to this house that in those committees there never was the least suspicion of any party politics-


Frank Exton Lennard: I never said there was.


Charles Gavan Power: Time after time these committees came before the House of Commons and the house decided that it was in the best interests of the soldiers and of the country to accept, I think in almost every case unanimously, the reports of those committees. That happened last year; it happened in 1933, 1930, 1928, 1924, 1922, 1921, 1920, 1919, 1918, 1917 and 1916. In no instance within my recollection has there been any partisan discussion of the reports of those committees. Yet my hon. friend says that this government, like every government since the war, is chiselling on the returned soldier. I have heard that accusation made many times. We are discussing pensions now; the returned soldier who asks for a pension should at least show that the disability from which he is suffering was incurred during or was due to his military service. There is no association-there has not been prior to recent months at least- no organization of any standing in the community, looking after returned men which has ever suggested that pensions should be given on the basis of service alone. It has been an accepted principle that for a man to obtain war pension from this country he must show, first, that he is disabled and, second, that his disability is in some measure due to or was incurred during service. In 1930, when I was chairman of the pension committee, there was inserted in the act a clause which provided that in cases of this kind the applicant should be given the benefit of reasonable doubt. I do not propose to discuss here the question whether or not the judges appointed under the authority of this parliament do in every case give the benefit of the doubt. But I will say that it must be extremely difficult for any award of pension to be made at this late date unless there is a great deal of benefit of the doubt given.

Supply-Pensions and National Health
There has been some discussion of the pension quorums and of the appeal court. Let me put this to the committee : When a pension application is first made, it goes to the Canadian pension commission. Without seeing the soldier, because the Canadian pension commission's head office is here in Ottawa, they examine the case on the basis of the documents on the file. A decision is arrived at as to whether or not the pension shall be awarded. The figures given last year before the committee indicated that at first hearing something like 30 per cent of the applications were granted;-and; it is now, mind you, twenty years after the
war.	so that without some benefit of the doubt being given it must be extremely difficult for the applicant to make any case. If the application is refused! by the Canadian pension commission, it can go before a quorum of the commission, which, as hon. members know, sits as nearly as possible in the locality where the applicant resides, sees the applicant, hears his case presented through a veterans' bureau by advocates appointed by the government, and there again it is decided whether or not he is entitled to pension. In this court the percentage of claims granted last year,
was,	I think, 15 per cent; I speak subject to correction; it may have run to 18 per cent. If the applicant is turned down there in the second instance, he has the right to go to the appeal court. Naturally, before the appeal court is reached the good cases are nearly all sifted out; nearly every one who has any chance of obtaining pension has been eliminated before the appeal court is reached. Nevertheless this country, which my hon. friend accuses of chiselling the soldier, pays his lawyer, pays the doctors to look after him, sets up all this expensive machinery and gives him the right to apply to the appeal court for nothing, and because the man knows it will cost him nothing, it is a sweepstake so far as he is concerned; he might just as well go to appeal because he has a possible chance of getting his pension and it costs him nothing to try. The whole machinery is paid for by the country. He goes to the appeal court, and I think it is only reasonable to suppose that that court could not in the ordinary course be expected to grant pension in such a high percentage of cases as is the case in the lower courts. So what may be meant by chiselling on the soldier I do not know.
We cannot give pensions to everybody; at least no one has ever asked that we give pensions to everyone. We cannot give treatment to everyone. A great many of the returned soldiers who are at present suffering 31111-844
from disabilities have now reached an age, forty-nine, fifty, sixty, when normally in civilian life their health is not as good as when they were twenty-five, and naturally they may think it is due to their war service. But it is very difficult to assess the degree, if any,, to which the disability from which they are suffering is due to their wrar service. For that reason a large number of them do not get pension. But I do not think it shows that the governments have been chiselling on the returned soldier when upwards of one billion dollars have been paid out to returned soldiers since the war, a sum equivalent to the whole amount collected in income tax from the people of Canada since income tax was instituted, and when we are paying an annual bill running from $41,000,000 to $45,000,000.
Before I close I should like to make this further point. I have said to my department; I have said outside; I have said at gatherings of soldiers and elsewhere, that it matters not one whit to me if the pension bill amounts to $45,000,000, to $50,000,000 or more. What I am interested in is seeing to it that every soldier who is entitled to a pension under the legislation which parliament has enacted shall get it and, as far as it lies within my power, I am making every possible effort to see that this is done. I am not trying to economize in pensions. I should not mind if the pension bill were very much higher, but I am opposed, in the interests of the soldiers as much as in the interests of the country, to any general distribution of funds for service only.


Mr. FINN:: I do not want the committee or 1he Minister of Pensions and National Health to think I am offering any criticism of the administration of his department by himself or by his predecessors since the great war. I have listened to the remarks of some hon. gentlemen in this committee, and I do feel that the trouble with the Pension Act is that it is not sufficiently elastic; that there is no discretionary power vested in any person to take into consideration the rights of the individual in any particular case and to treat that case as it should be treated.
In my constituency in the city of Halifax I have two particular cases which I am going to bring to the attention of the minister and hon. members of this house. One case, Mr. Chairman, is that of a nurse who went overseas. She might have gone over on the Llandovery Castle; to-day she might have been in the watery deep. I would call your attention, sir, to the fact that it is impossible to make remarks in this house while conversations are going on to such an exteht as to interfere with continuity of thought. That
1330	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
remark has reference not to the minister but rather to those who perhaps do not realize that they are interfering with the proceedings .of this committee.
This nurse reached the age of sixty-five a tew months ago. If she had served for another year and two months she would have been entitled to a pension. Now, however, she has been cast out into the streets without one dollar, without a home, without any person to protect her, and under the act there seems to be no provision under which her case might be given consideration or under which her time might be built up by service. Those in authority at Camp Hill hospital at Halifax say she is still competent as a nurse but that she must retire, and notwithstanding her splendid services overseas and at the hospital since the war she is left without a pension. She is practically on the poor list in the city of Halifax. That, Mr. Chairman, is a case where there should be elasticity; there should be some discretionary power vested either in the minister or in some board so that this nurse might be cared for and put on a basis whereby for the rest of her years- which may be only five or ten-at least she might receive some recognition of her services to her country, particularly as a woman.
The other case is that of a man of about thirty-five years of age, living in the city of Halifax. From this family four brothers went overseas. Three of them are dead. This chap of whom I speak was gassed and] wounded twice. He went into his last battle and was shot in the head. Now he receives the magnificent pension of $7.50 per month, and from the city of Halifax he receives $10 a month. That is a total of $17.50, all of which he has to pay for his room and board. He has very severe pains in his chest and some kind friends sent him to an outstanding specialist-, and now he has found that his patient has developed tuberculosis. So to-day in the city of Halifax he is receiving $7.50 plus $10 per month, and he has no recourse. There is no elasticity in the act; he has no opportunity to have his case reviewed.
In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, I believe some provision should be made for cases of this kind. I do not believe there is anyone more sympathetic to the returned men than the present Minister of Pensions and National Health, who is also a returned man. One has had to be there to know and understand what men go through, both physically and mentally, in the awful battles that take place in any war such as that which lasted from 1914 to 1918. Sometimes committees of this house bring in reports, but they do not get down to the practical thought that while
[Mr. Filin.j
a case may be made out, while a man may have a bona fide claim and may be honest, sincere and deserving, it may not come within the four corners of the act as it exists to-day, and that the act should be so amended as to permit of cases of this kind being looked after, so that the returned man who has gone through what this chap went through may be cared for. This man of whom I speak is the last of four brothers. They all went overseas, and as a matter of fact his father served in the South African war. This man to whom I refer is now receiving $17.50 per month, though he is suffering with his head and from tuberculosis. It appears to me that this is a travesty on the act, and I say it is up to the parliament of this country, in which I have the honour to have a seat, to remedy cases of this kind by the necessary amendments to the act in order to give the technical officers of the department the right to deal with such cases. I suggest that they should be handled in this way, submitted for the consideration of the government or the appeal board, and then dealt with by order in council.
I had the privilege of attending before the appeal court in Ottawa, presided over by Judge Hyndman. I want to say that that court is as human and as ready and willing to go as far as possible as any court could be. When the case before it had been presented by Mr. Hogan, the returned soldiers' advocate Judge Hyndman turned to me and said, "Mr. Finn, do you desire to say anything to the court?" I said, "No. I came here because I believe this is a worthy case." He said, "I only wish there was a greater interest shown by members in their constituencies. I wish they would come and give that moral support which sometimes is so necessary to those who feel they have not received justice." In that particular case the decision was that the returned man was entitled to a substantial pension. The war ended in 1918 and this case was last year, and it is only a matter of addition to know the number of years which have passed since then -nineteen years. During all that time he was not in receipt of a pension which the appeal court, the final tribunal, awarded him in a judgment handed down.
I offer these suggestions to the Minister of Pensions and National Health and to hon. members of the committee, and at the same time suggest there should be an amendment to the act whereby in equitable cases the minister might have the case presented to him, in consultation with the appeal court. Finally, a recommendation might be made to the governor in council so that specially

Sup-ply-Pensions and National Health
deserving cases which have been unfairly considered-not intentionally, but by reason of the narrow scope of the act-might be given further favourable consideration.
I have given two concrete examples in order to show the necessity for elasticity. That can be brought about only by an amendment whereby discretion would be given to some person so that a returned soldier might have an opportunity of a rehearing and final decision. The two examples I have given are sufficient for me, as a member of the legal profession, and are outside any sympathetic interest I may have in returned soldiers. I had the misfortune of losing a young nephew, Lieutenant Clifford Finn, who served overseas. Just before the armistice three machine gun bullets passed through the back of his neck and at the age of eighteen years he was killed. The colonel of his regiment wrote saying that his last words were, "Get the boys under cover. I am going out." I asked my late brother, Doctor W. D. Finn, how it was possible the boy could speak, three bullets having gone through the back of his neck, and his reply was, "Well, Bob, that is possible. The spinal column was cut off, but for a few seconds the clarity of the brain was so great that it gave him an opportunity to think of others." At that moment he, himself, was ready to drop, and never again did he breathe the breath of life.
I want to pay tribute at this time to the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Per-ley), and to thank him for the sincerity and the splendid sympathy he showed to all men who served overseas. He was the representative of Canada, looking after the interests of those men who were fighting the cause of democracy. I believe I would not be out of order in saying that I wondered if whether democracy had failed when last night, after going to bed, I read that the son-in-law of Haile Selassie had been shot within an hour after he had been captured, by order of Mussolini.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: Yes, I know-but I have said
it. If I am out of order I apologize^-but it is on the record.


Mr. FAIR:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish
to take up much time of the committee. A few minutes ago the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Spence) said there was no use in wasting time, and I agree with him. I believe we waste too much time, and we are not taking enough action. May I say here I did not take part in the great war. I feel, further,
that many men did take part who, if an opportunity was presented to them to-day, would not do so again.


Robert Emmett Finn: Were you there?


Robert Fair: I promise the hon. member
for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) one hundred per cent support, if he proposes to do something worth while for the returned soldier. In the past, when we needed cannon fodder, our men have been provided for. We have given them uniforms; we have given them $1.10 a day, and we have made millionaires out of our munitions makers. I believe the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Power) said that since that time we have paid one billion dollars in payment of war pensions and in addition we have paid millions of dollars in interest on war debts. Yet to-day we have thousands of our returned men on the breadline, or very close to it. What are we doing to help them? We are spending a good deal of time balking, but what action are we taking? It is about time we realized our responsibilities. If I wished to take the time of the committee I could, describe cases which have been brought to my attention, but on this occasion I shall' not do so.
I do not wish to criticize the minister, nor do I criticize the commission looking after this part of the work. If their efforts are within the law, that is all they can do. But as members of the House of Commons and as representatives of the people, including large numbers of returned soldiers, it is our duty to do something worth while, and to do "it at this session. Our returned soldiers have suffered long enough; let us now help them a little bit.


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not wish unduly to detain the committee, but may I say that I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) has the floor.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Chairman, I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member.


Mr. ESLING:: Mr. Chairman, parliament has been most earnest in its desire to bring pension legislation to the greatest point of efficiency. The minister has spoken about the advantages received by ex-service men through an advocate. I now appeal to him to give a resident advocate to the interior of British Columbia. When one was originally appointed, his seat of activities was supposed to be at Nelson, but his duties at Vancouver have become so onerous that he seldom reaches the interior. Four-fifths of the exservice men of British Columbia are located

Supply-Pensions and National Health
at the coast, a factor which works distinctly ito the disadvantage of the men in the interior as they do not have an opportunity to bring their complaints to his attention.
Something has been said about ex-service men discharged as physically fit. We know that when the war closed the great desire of the men was to get home. Sometimes they were discharged as physically fit, after only very short examinations. These are the men who to-day have the greatest difficulty in appealing for pensions. When quorums visit a community, applicants appear in person, and the members of those quorums are able to judge as to a man's physical condition. When the man's condition is supported by the word of a local physician, it seems unreasonable that an appeal court should take a view contrary to that expressed by the quorum. My observations are particularly applicable when the local physician is acting under the instructions of the department.
In this connection I urge, first of all, that the minister give thought to placing an advocate in the interior and, second, that the decision of the quorum be final without opportunity on the part of the government to appeal. I have appeared before the board of pension commissioners in a great many cases and my experience has been that they give a most sympathetic hearing to the cases which come before them. This is particularly so of Judge Taylor and General McDonald. I simply want to urge again that the minister give thought to appointing a soldiers' advocate in the interior of the province.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be very glad to look into the question of the appointment of an advocate in the interior of British Columbia. I believe Mr. Markham was at Nelson but was transferred to Vancouver. Because of the great amount of work at Vancouver, two advocates are located there. Mr. Drinnan and Mr. Markham are located at Vancouver and Mr. Sedger is located at Victoria.
In connection with appeals to the pension appeal court, I am assuming that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) is referring to appeals by the crown. From 193132 to May, 1933, there were 2,947 appeals taken by commission counsel, that is by the crown. On many of those appeals the decision of the old tribunals was reversed. Since 1933 there have been only 152 appeals by the crown, so surely it cannot be said that the crown has abused its power of appeal since that time. The ratio is 152 in approximately three years as compared with 2,947 in two years.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Mr. Chairman, the
minister has referred to section five as conferring wide powers upon the appeal court. I can understand that this court should have wide powers and be free from political interference, but I cannot understand why they should be empowered to brush aside what would appear to be well known British legal procedure and jurisprudence. As I understood the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson), when a man has established his claim before a commission quorum he is reasonably assured of his pension, but many appeals from the quorum tribunals are reversed by the appeal court. I know that many men in my constituency have established their cases before the quorum tribunal, but when the government appealed to the appeal court, which did not have the advantage of hearing the witnesses- a procedure which to my mind is contrary to every rule of British jurisprudence-the appeal was allowed.
I know of one man who was in the trenches for three and a half years. He did not receive a scratch, but he is one of those burnt-out cases. He is a physical wreck and is absolutely unable to earn his own living. As you know, we have no relief in New Brunswick at the present time and the condition of this man and his family is absolutely pitiful. His claim was allowed by a quorum of the commission but it was disallowed by the appeal court. It seems to me that something should be done for cases like this. The minister has stated that where cases have been disallowed by the quorum, an appeal could be taken to the appeal court. But in this case the claim was allowed by the quorum and appealed by the government. I think the law should be changed as it is hard to convince the man on the street that it is being fairly administered. This is especially so, when they see men who are apparently in the pink of condition getting large pensions.
I know of other similar cases but I shall not cite them this evening. I know of cases where men were received into the army as physically fit, and yet were demobilized for medical unfitness. Surely if they were fit when they went into the army and unfit when they came out, their unfitness must be due to their service. If the doctors made a mistake in the first place, then the government should be estopped from claiming that the man's disabilities dated back prior to enlistment. If the doctors had not their eyes open and did not do their work properly, I think the government should suffer the consequences.

Supply-Pensions and National Health


James Earl Lawson: 
Frank Exton Lennard: I do not want to be misunderstood. I was casting absolutely no reflection on the officials of the department. I believe the officials of this department are among the most efficient in the government service. I did not infer that there had ever been any political partisanship displayed.


Robert Emmett Finn: My hon. friend, says that there are seventy or eighty lawyers in this house, and suggests that they might draft the necessary legislation to meet these cases. I am sure he does not desire that statement to go out to the country because, while I happen to belong to the legal profession and know the rules which govern parliament and the expenditure of public moneys, and while I might be competent with the other legal members of the house to draft an amendment to meet these extreme cases which have been mentioned here to-night, the fact remains that no member of this house, outside the members of the government, can. introduce a bill and get it
to its second, reading if it involves the expenditure of public money. Such a bill must emanate from a member of the cabinet sitting on the treasury benches or meet with their approval.
My hon. friend spoke of the law of estoppel. It is perhaps one of the most intricate pieces of law to interpret and establish that come before our courts. While a person may 'be estopped, in the pension law as it stands upon the statute books to-day there is no provision dealing with the law of estoppel. That question can only be pleaded to courts of law. I do think, however, Mr. Chairman, that when a serious submission is made to the Minister of Pensions and to the government for an amendment that would make the law more elastic in order to deal with these cases, our efforts should not cease with the member who urges such an amendment trying to make himself au fait with his constituents-


James Earl Lawson: Hear, hear.


Robert Emmett Finn: My hon. friend says, "Hear,
hear," and I say, "There, there." When I suggest a thing in this house, it is not to gain votes. I have had too many of them; otherwise I would not be here again. When I speak in this house I do so in order that action shall be taken and a remedy applied, and that the word "gratitude," so plain in the English language and yet so forgotten to-day, should again appear, not in a statute or an amendment, but in our dealing with the human equation. I would ask the minister if he would not consider with his colleagues the question of an amendment to the act in order to give it that elasticity of which I have spoken to-night, so that these very deserving cases, based upon truth and honesty and right, shall have an opportunity of a rehearing, and then we may hope that the applicants may spend the remainder of their days not in poverty but with perhaps a sufficient amount that they can look forward to the next day and feel they were not like the man President Roosevelt described as the "forgotten man." In that very description of his was the reason for his great victory of four years ago, and for his practical annihiliation of all parties in the United States last November,. when, only two states, and those the ones nearest to us, voted against him. I am not talking to get votes; I am not talking to hear myself talk. I am trying to draw the attention of the Minister of Pensions and of the government to these cases. I see the Minister of Justice in. his seat. No more human man, no wiser legislator, no better draftsman, no man of keener intellect then he sits in this house, and I would appeal to him and to the
1334	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
Minister of Pensions if it is not possible to submit this matter to the government in order that they may pass upon the question whether an amendment shall be made to the act to deal with these cases of a deserving nature, which are now without the law because the law does not provide for them.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: May I say to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) that when I spoke of estoppel, I was thinking not of legal estoppel but of moral estoppel.


Mr. MASSEY:: I should like to ask the
Minister of Pensions a question^ based upon a communication which I have in my hand, and which does seem -to me to present a very interesting question. It does not involve any large sum of money, nor does it involve any radical change of policy. I think the letter is worth reading:
I am a returned man, nearly stone deaf through war disability. There is a bone conduction aceousticon on the market that enables me to hear nearly as good as before I got this head injury. Christie hospital authorities have been trying to get one for me for a long time, but the Ottawa authorities state there is no money available to purchase these things with.
I got a loan of one of these instruments once, and with it I heard my first talkie. My children's voices were a revelation to me, and they v'ere tickled to think they could talk to me without raising the roof or letting the people in the next town hear what they had to say to me.	.
The government supplies artificial limbs tor amputation cases; why not aids to hearing! The retail price is $100, but I am unable to o that high. I am a widower with four ealthy youngsters to feed, and being a one hundred per cent disability case I can't earn anything towards the purchase of this machine. Life would start all over for me if the government gave me one.
Then he gives his name and pension number. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the man who writes that letter presents a very interesting point. After all, if a man has lost his arm or his leg, he is supplied with an artificial arm or leg, or if he loses an eye, he is given something to replace the eye for appearance's sake. But if a man is deaf, and cannot procure something with which to hear, he cannot hear at all. In this particular case the man is not able to buy this instrument because the cost of the acousticon is too high. I know from my personal experience with friends and relatives that the acousticon is efficient in many cases of deafness. Accordingly I would ask the minister if there is not some provision for such a case as this, and when I ask him that question I realize that this will not open many such cases.


Charles Gavan Power: I am informed that we have on various occasions tried a number of acous-
tical instruments, and sometimes they have given satisfaction to the patient. We are quite ready and willing to try any instrument which is submitted to us and has a fair chance of being successfully used by those who are afflicted. If the hon. gentleman will give the man's name and number, I shall be glad to ask the medical officers to go into the matter.


Denton Massey: I gather from what the minister has said that if the instrument is satisfactory in this man's case, he will have a reasonable chance of having one supplied him?


Charles Gavan Power: Surely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to last post fund, $60,000.
Howard Charles Green: How much of last year's vote was used?


Charles Gavan Power: The whole amount.


Howard Charles Green: Is it used to pay for the burial of Canadians in foreign countries, and, if so, how much was used for that purpose last year?


Charles Gavan Power: It is used to a small extent to pay for funerals of Canadians in the United States and England.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the average cost per burial?


Charles Gavan Power: The grant is a maximum of $50 for the funeral, $25 for the marker and $25 for the grave.


Howard Charles Green: There is some complaint that the words " last post fund " are put on the grave marker. I do not know whether that is so. If it is a fact, I suggest that the department have the practice changed.


Charles Gavan Power: I am informed that sometimes the relatives prefer it; I do not know why. In the province of Quebec that is always done. I shall be glad to look into the complaint and see whether anything can be done. This last post fund is not operated by the department; it is a grant.


Howard Charles Green: It is also complained that the words "poppy fund" are used. I ask that that be estopped too.


Mr. POTTIER:: Is it necessary to have the approval of the officials of the fund?


Charles Gavan Power: Under the regulations, yes.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Does that not cause hardship at times?


Mr.   POAVER@: I do not know any other way in which the fund can be properly managed. Complaints have been made in a number of cases particularly where the deceased

Supply-Pensions and National Health
has been living in an outlying district, but I do not know any other way in which the last post fund could be controlled; otherwise it would be called upon to pay for almost every funeral. These people are volunteers who carry on the work without any assistance in the way of salaries from the department.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Last year $60,000 was allotted to the fund and this year the same amount appears in the estimates. It is expected that the number of these burials will increase year by year. How many were taken care of last year?


Charles Gavan Power: In 1935-36 there were 643 burials:
Alberta	 60
British Columbia	 105
Manitoba	 96
New Brunswick	 13
Nova Scotia	 11
Ontario	 218
Prince Edward Island	 3
Quebec	 85
Saskatchewan	 51
United States	 1


Howard Charles Green: In the report of the department for last year, at page 107, there appear these words:
In view of the number of Canadian ex-service men who are residing in Great Britain and the United States, it is considered that the activities of the last post fund should be extended so that it shall not be necessary for any Canadian ex-service man to be buried as a pauper, wherever he may reside at the time of his death.
What steps have been taken since 1935 to ensure that ex-service men shall be properly buried ?


Charles Gavan Power: I am informed' that a considerable number have been buried since the close of the last fiscal year, March 31, 1938. The matter has been given some publicity in the United States, and perhaps my hon. friend is aware that the Los Angeles branch of the legion made strong representations to both myself and the Canadian legion in convention assembled with respect to the burial of deceased Canadians in the United States. Steps have been taken to do whatever is possible in the United States, and certain sums of money have been sent to England to look after Canadian soldiers who may have died there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is so much soliciting on the part of undertakers seeking the right to bury returned soldiers who die in our hospitals that I was wondering what supervision the government exercises to see that every returned soldier receives a thoroughly adequate casket, is properly embalmed, and1 so on. Judging by what seems to be almost a competition amongst undertakers, one would suppose there was considerable profit, but there
cannot be much profit in the allowance made by the government.


Charles Gavan Power: We are speaking of the last post fund. That does not provide for the funerals of those who die in our hospitals. That is looked after by the department itself. Some years ago there was a good deal of complaint about the manner in which these funerals were conducted. It was the custom of the department to call for tenders from undertakers and a resolution was introduced into the house by General Ross of Kingston protesting vigorously against the practice. The result was that now we no longer call for tenders, but $75 is given for the funeral and $25 for the grave, and the relatives of the deceased soldier are allowed to nominate the undertaker. I agree that there is a good deal of such canvassing as my hon. friend has mentioned; I myself have received many letters.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What supervision does the department exercise to ensure proper burials?


Charles Gavan Power: The officers of the district look after that, to see that there is a proper funeral, and even if the grave costs more we pay a little more.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is thorough inspection?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


William Hayhurst: What is the salary of the dominion secretary treasurer of the last post fund?


Charles Gavan Power: We pay him $1,800.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment assistance, $2,600,000.
Charles Gavan Power: Would' the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) have any objection to taking the war veterans' allowances' item on the understanding that the unemployment asistance item stand, or which would he prefer to have stand?


Howard Charles Green: I should prefer to have them both stand.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member could discuss anything connected with the pensions administration and so forth under one item. It is not usually the custom to hold over two items.


Howard Charles Green: Very well.


Charles Gavan Power: Would my hon. friend prefer to hold over item 193? It has more reference to the work of the commission than the other.


Howard Charles Green: 
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Perhaps the minister will give a brief statement of wihat this vote is used for, how it is distributed, and why it is increased.


Charles Gavan Power: The War Veterans' Allowance Act provides for allowances to ex-members of the Canadian forces and to ex-members of the allied forces who were domiciled in Canada at the time of their enlistment and who served in a theatre of actual war, or, not having so served, are in receipt of a pension or have commuted a pension by final payment. The allowance is payable to such veterans upon attaining the age of sixty years or, not having attained this age, who are in the opinion of the board permanently unemployable by reason of mental or physical disability. The maximum allowance is $40 per month if the man is married or a widower with dependent children, or $20 if he is unmarried. The allowance may be continued to a widow for a period of one year.
I think it is well known to the committee that the War Veterans' Allowance Act will continue to rise in cost; the operation will be more expensive as the years go on and more and more men reach the age of sixty or become permanently incapable of carrying on their occupation.
Under the amendments of last year another class was admitted to allowances. I have already stated that the allowances provided for carrying out this act, beginning in 1930 with something like $300,000 have now risen to $4,200,000 and will rise to $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 a year.


George Halsey Perley: Who decides
whether the applicant is a proper subject?


Charles Gavan Power: The war veterans' allowance board, the chairman of which is Mr. Walter Woods and the two members, Colonel Carmichael and Colonel Garneau.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the act to-day not permit consideration of soldiers of age down as low as fifty-five years?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, in cases of pre-aging so as to render them unfit to maintain themselves. That is in accordance with the amendment passed last year.


James Alexander Marshall: Can the minister	give
the amount actually spent under this vote to the end of 1936?


Charles Gavan Power: I shall give the figures:
Expended	$1,646,313	63Unexpended	
3,686	37Vote	$1,650,000	00

1934-35- Expended. . Unexpended
Vote	
1935-	36-
Expended	
Unexpended	
Vote	
1936-	37-to Nov. 30, 1936-
Expended	
Unexpended	
Vote	
$2,017,074	80
2,925	20
$2,020,000	00
$2,531,488	77
18,511	23
$2,550,000	00
$2,015,831	55
1,384,168	45
$3,400,000	00
And this year's vote is increased by $800,000 which we expect to expend.


Howard Charles Green: How many applications have been granted under the new classification which was provided for last year covering men who are fifty-five to sixty years of age and incapable of maintaining themselves?


Charles Gavan Power: Since the act was passed last year, approximately 600 have been granted war veterans' allowances under the extended legislation.


Howard Charles Green: What will that class cost?


Charles Gavan Power: The number had reached
500 when this information was prepared; we estimated it would cost $150,000 extra annually. I think the average is about $30 a month for married and unmarried.


Howard Charles Green: Has that new classification caused any administrative difficulty?


Charles Gavan Power: Well, it brought a flood of applications.


Howard Charles Green: One would expect that, but has it caused any serious administrative difficulty? Has it weakened the act at all?


Charles Gavan Power: Naturally the members of the board were obliged to use their discretion more than before, but I think they have managed to give a fair degree of satisfaction. I have not heard any serious complaint, and I do not think my hon. friend has or he would have told me about it.


Howard Charles Green: The new arrangement then is really quite workable.


Charles Gavan Power: It seems to be.
Before we leave this item, while we were discussing this matter of war veterans' allowances this afternoon, I gave some information in reply to questions asked by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in regard to the South African war veterans. I was only quoting the figures from memory but they were substantially correct. From figures obtained from the Department

Supply-Pensions and National Health
of National Defence we find that 5,325 veterans from Canada saw service in South Africa, and that a further number of 2,041 arrived there subsequent to the cessation of hostilities, making a total of 7,368. Here is where I had not remembered by what procedure we arrived at the figure of 5,000. The insurance department expressed the opinion that after the mortality was deducted, the survivals from these two groups would now be 3.920 in the case of those who actually served and 1.569 in the case of the others, a total of 5,489. But we neglected to take into consideration the fact, brought to the attention of the committee this afternoon by the right hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson), that a large number of these men had returned to serve in the great war, who would, of course, if they had now reached the age of sixty, be qualified for an allowance under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. If we assume that the average age was twenty-five at the time of the South African war, the average age of South African veterans now would be approximately sixty. If 15 per cent of the total now living were found to be indigent- here is where the guess comes in-825 veterans would benefit the first year-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be including the 2,000?


Charles Gavan Power: That would include the
2,000.	This would entail, at an annual average rate of $320, an expenditure of $264,000. If, on the other hand, provisions were made only for those who arrived in South Africa during hostilities, the cost would be $188,000 the first year. But we must always bear in mind that in preparing this memorandum they did not take into consideration the fact that a very large number saw service in the late war, some of whom were killed in the war, some probably disabled and receiving pension, and others of whom would be entitled, by reason of service in the late war, to war veterans' allowances.


John Everett Lyle Streight: Does the number of
7,368 who served in South Africa include the 1,200 that Canada sent over to serve in the South African constabulary in the latter part of the war?


Charles Gavan Power: I have not those figures
before me.


Howard Charles Green: Before the item is carried,
I would remind the minister of this recommendation made by the pension committee last year:
Your committee also recommends that the Veterans' Assistance Commission to be appointed under the provisions of Bill No. 28 make an investigation into the position of those veterans under the age of fifty-five years who are by reason of disability, pre-aging and general unfitness, incapable of maintaining themselves.
Will the minister require from this commission a report in accordance with that recommendation ?


Charles Gavan Power: Very good; I shall be glad to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Forthwith?


Charles Gavan Power: Not forthwith. Let me get some of the others off my chest first.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-
Grant to the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare, $13,100.
William Hayhurst: Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering about the item on the preceding page under pensions and national health, "authorized by statute." How is it that the -amount varies and there is an increase of $100,000 in the amount authorized by statute? What is the explanation for that?


Charles Gavan Power: We cannot touch that in any shape or form; it is authorized by statute. If it is larger, I assume that more people are receiving pensions under the Militia Pension Act; that is all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $18,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the proposed act pertain to the proposed legislation in respect of the blind in any way?


Charles Gavan Power: The grant is being provided under these estimates. No one has asked me to withhold any portion of it, nor do I intend to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Victorian Order of Nurses, $13,100.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Would the minister indicate whether this grant is being made to the headquarters of the Victorian Order of Nurses?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, to the national organization.


Gordon Graydon: Is that grant made by
reason of the fact that the Victorian Order of Nurses does a very great deal of good work with regard to returned soldiers?

Supply-Mines and Resources


Charles Gavan Power: No; I think it is general good work all round. This item really comes under the Department of Health rather than under the Department of Pensions.


Gordon Graydon: I have a great deal of personal knowledge in regard to the work of the Victorian Order of Nurses in my home town of Brampton, and I should like to say that the splendid work which is done throughout Ontario and the dominion by these nurses cannot be overemphasized. I do not think this item should be allowed to pass without someone making this statement, because there are few organizations in this country that do as good work in as quiet and effective a way as the work which is done by the Victorian Order of Nurses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND RESOURCES Mines and Geology-
For investigation of mineral resources and deposits; of the mining and metallurgical industries, and of mineral technology; wages, expenses of testing and research laboratories; for publications, English and French, for purchase of books and instruments; for miscellaneous assistance and contingencies; and for investigations by the dominion fuel board, including salaries and all other expenses, $273,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like the minister to tell us, if he can, something about the development of the chromium mine at Collins, Ontario. When I was in the north last summer,
I ascertained that about eighty men or more were working there and that the raw product was shipped to Sault Ste. Marie. At Sault Ste. Marie I went to see the smelting of the chromium. When I was there, the plant making the ferro-chromium for the Algoma Steel works was not running at full capacity, and the reason they gave was that the ore could not be brought out from Collins because of the condition of the roads. It appears that the mine is about twenty miles from the Canadian National railway, and as this is a new industry in northern Ontario which, if developed adequately, would give employment to a large number of men and would render very great assistance to steel plants both in Sault Ste. Marie and throughout the country, I should like to know what is being done. This is a new industry in that part of Ontario. The government sent a number of geologists throughout the country to try to find mines, but having found them they said, in effect, " Now, go to it and see what you can do." I think there should be some branch of the department to follow up these matters further. In this case apparently it is a question of roads, and I should iiice to

see the department take whatever means may be available in order to induce the appropriate authority having charge of the construction of roads to get busy and see that the road is kept open so that the operation of the mine will not be interfered with. I should like to hear from the minister as to the prospects of the chromium mine of Collins, Ontario, becoming more completely developed for the benefit of the steel industry of Canada.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: This chromium mine, which, as my hon. friend has stated, is located in the Port Arthur district is, as I recall it, some eighteen or twenty miles from the National Transcontinental railway. The ore is taken to the railway by motor transport and then shipped to Sault Ste. Marie, where it is smelted. Some assistance was given in the building or improvement of the road from the mine to the railway last summer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: By this department?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, out of the vote passed a year ago for aid to roads to mining areas. I am afraid I have not information as to the actual amount of money spent last year in this connection, but I would say for the information of the hon. member that expenditures were made in cooperation with the provinces. The federal Department of Mines put up two dollars for each dollar advanced by the provinces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister mean two dollars a ton?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, not two dollars a ton. For each two dollars we put up, the province puts up one dollar for the improvements of the roads. The projects were agreed upon after consultation between the mines branch at Ottawa and the mines departments in each of the provinces. The latest information I have is that progress is being made by the company and that they are enlarging not only the capacity of their mine, so far as the production of ore is concerned, but also the capacity of the smelter at Sault Ste. Marie.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does one company operate both mine and smelter?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My information is that there is a great opportunity there at the present time. The Ford Motor Company, I am told, are considering taking the full output of the mine, which would involve the full output of the smelter at Sault Ste. Marie. However, the steel company at Sault Ste. Marie can utilize a quantity of the material, and anything that can be done to increase

Supply-Mines and Resources
the production of chromium in the area would be a great benefit not only to employment at that point but also to the motor industry in Canada. The plant at Sault Ste. Marie is not small; in fact it is very substantial. I talked with the heads of the company, and they struck me as being men who understood their business. Any assistance the department could give would be of great advantage to the country and an evidence of good work by the Department of Mines.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I agree with the observations of the hon. member. I find that last year $20,000 was spent on the road from the mine to the railway. As I said a minute ago, two-thirds of that amount was put up by the federal Department of Mines, and one-third by the provincial governments. May I say for the information of the committee that this development was commenced only a few years ago. From information we have there can be no doubt that there is a very considerable body of chrome ore in the area, and the value of chromium as a medium for the hardening of steel is recognized everywhere. I have not had an opportunity recently of talking to people engaged in the enterprise, but about a year ago I did have an interview with them. They called to see me in Ottawa and they were optimistic at that time as to the future prospects of their development, and asked for some assistance in fixing up their road. That assistance was given to them. So far as I am able to learn, they are expanding their operations.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe it was either July or early August that I was there. Was the road fixed after that, because at that time I was informed it was not in good condition?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, it was after that. As the hon. member will recall, last year we did not get the estimate through until about the end of June, and arrangements had to be made after that. I should think it would have been August or September when the expenditure was made.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the department know if the process in use at Sault Ste. Marie is giving all the satisfaction that was hoped?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So far as we are aware, they are operating successfully and have developed a process which is working out successfully.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thank the minister for his information.


Mr. HARTIGAN:: As a result of the treatment of coal in the last thirty years, in a
great many of our Canadian fuels we have about one-half of one per cent sulphur content. So far as I can remember, the method of removing the sulphur has never been improved upon. When I was a boy the coal was washed, and as much as possible of the sulphur was taken out of it. However, there was always a trace left. Would the minister consider allocating to the fuel board an amount of money sufficient to ascertain whether, by combinations or by chemical affinity, the last trace of sulphur could not be neutralized. I have made diligent inquiry, and I have been unable to find where any effort has been made to improve upon the old washing method. I am not speaking critically, and am only offering suggestions, but it is my belief that after we have had a research department for a number of years, and after we have expended so much money, the time has arrived when the people of Canada are entitled to have definite research work carried out. I make these observations only as suggestions. Perhaps by the coal being treated with hydrogen, the sulphur could be made to combine with the other elements, and in that way the difficulty might be removed. It is incumbent upon the research department of the fuel board to take the matter into consideration, in an effort to give coal absolutely free of sulphur to the people of Canada. At the present time the sulphur content is only a small fraction, but even that amount has a deleterious effect.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The point raised by the hon. member is an important one. However, I think he is under a misapprehension when he says nothing has been done. I am informed that tests are being carried on at the fuel testing laboratory which operates in conjunction with the mines and geology branch of the department. The hon. member has referred to a matter of research. I may inform him, however, that experimental work is being carried on, and the matter to which he drew attention is being studied. Of necessity we must operate the Laboratory within the limits of the vote given by parliament, but I can assure him the work is being carried on.


David James Hartigan: Has any progress been made?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am informed progress has been made. Apparently there are two classes of sulphur

and I must confess I am not altogether familiar with the subject. Perhaps the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie could give a better answer. I may say, however, that there are minerals containing sulphides, and on the other hand there are organic sulphurs. Experiments have been
Supply-Mines and Resources

carried on with greater success with the first than with the second kind. The difficulties to which the hon. member has referred are found in the latter, namely the organic sulphurs in coal. However, we are doing our best to eliminate the difficulty.


David James Hartigan: Is the fuel testing department supplied with money sufficient to enable it to go on with the experiments? If there is a lack of money, then I say a sufficient amount should be set aside to permit it to proceed with the work. A satisfactory solution of the difficulty would be worth millions of dollars to Canada.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should not want the hon. member to get the impression that there is a shortage of funds in this connection. The matter is really a research problem and I have no doubt that some day the scientists will discover a method whereby that substance can be taken from the coal.


Gordon Graydon: Near Campbell's Cross, which is in my riding, is a bromine well which has attracted considerable attention. We have been informed that this is perhaps the only well capable of producing bromine in a particular chemical state. Could the minister advise whether or not there are other wells in eastern Canada with a sufficient commercial productive capacity to compete with this one?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am afraid I cannot answer fully the question directed to me by my hon. friend. I believe he could get the information he desires by inquiring of the technical officers in the mines branch. I was unaware that there was a well of that type in his favoured district and I am at a loss to state at the moment whether there are other wells of a similar kind in eastern Canada. My deputy tells me that he is not aware of any. I shall be glad to get this information for my hon. friend or he can inquire of the technical officers who, I think, can satisfy him.


Gordon Graydon: I understand this is the only bromine producer in the eastern part of Canada and I thought t'he minister would have soime information. I shall be very glad to inquire of the officials of the branch.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As far as our information goes, that is the only well in eastern Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could the minister give us the location and the equipment of the different research laboratories connected with this department?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is only one associated with the mines branch, the one located on

Booth street. Experimental work is carried on in connection with the properties of coal and also in connection with the metallurgical processes best adapated to the treatment of certain ores. This laboratory has done excellent and useful work. Last summer I had an opportunity of visiting a number of large mines in Canada and I was given the voluntary information by different mine managers that the service rendered by this department for many years past had been most valuable.
I do not know whether I mentioned this a year ago, but it is worth repeating; when the representatives from the empire countries were in Ottawa in 1932 to attend the imperial conference, the Premier of Rhodesia visited the laboratory here. They had had trouble in working out a treatment for a certain kind of ore and he arranged to ship several tons here to the mines branch. The technical officers were successful in working out the correct treatment for this ore and as a result of that this mine in Rhodesia has been put into operation. This is a striking illustration of the value of the work being done in these laboratories.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A few days ago I referred to the development of the iron mines at Helen mountain in Algoma. Since that time the Ontario government has voted a subsidy of two cents per unit for the development of this mine. The minister referred a moment ago to the assistance being given to the chromium mine at Collins whereby this government was to pay two-thirds of t)he cost of a road.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, by arrangement with the provincial government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was wondering whether the same kind of arrangement could not be made in connection with these iron ore mines at Helen mountain. I believe this vote gives a great return to the country and perhaps the minister could give some aid by way of road assistance, to the development of this mine.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Any request to that effect would certainly receive careful consideration, but I would not want to commit myself or the government in connection with bounties, to which the hon. member referred the other night.


George Halsey Perley: Is this research laboratory at the service of companies and individuals interested in mining?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is correct.

Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could the minister give details of this vote and how the increase is accounted for?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The appropriation of the division of mineral resources is $22,000; for the division of ore dressing and metallurgy, $77,000. This is really the important division in this vote. Then there is $46,000 for fuels and fuel testings and $20,000 for ceramics and road materials. This is to cover a study of road materials, binding materials and so on. There is $5,000 for the chemical division and $43,000 for the mechanical section. There is $41,000 for general administration, printing, the purchase of books and contingencies, and $19,000 for expenses of the dominion fuel board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which item is increased over last year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The increase of $26,700 is due to some reclassifications which have been made, statutory increases and promotions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the whole of it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is due to promotions,
reclassifications, statutory increases and a few new positions created in extending the service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any revenue to
Canada from any of this?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The revenue does not
amount to a great deal. There is some revenue from assays and from the sale of publications. As a matter of fact, I have under consideration at the present time making a charge for services in connection with ore-dressing processes. If a man comes in with an ore that he has had difficulty in working out a process for, and we take that in hand and work out a process for it, I think a charge could quite legitimately be made for that service. That is under consideration now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason I asked is
that the matter has been discussed for some time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, March 1, 1937