1937-04-07

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Moore.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince) moved concurrence in the third and final report of the standing committee on marine and fisheries, presented to the house on April 5.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 102, to amend the Immigration Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, more than two-thirds of the amendments provided by this bill relate to changes necessitated by the reorganization of the department into the Department of Mines and Resources. As hon. members are aware, formerly there was a department of immigration with its own officers such as deputy minister and assistant deputy minister. Under the reorganization these offices disappeared. Under the Immigration Act specific duties were imposed upon the officers I have mentioned, and it is necessary to have certain sections of the act amended in order to bring them in line with the reorganization.
There are some other amendments which I believe could be explained more fully on
second reading. As I recall, one relates to the matter of domicile. A Canadian who is absent from Canada for more than six years loses the right of domicile in Canada. That is a hardship, particularly as it applies to missionaries in foreign lands and agents of commercial companies in offices outside Canada. Indeed, in connection with our own Department of External Affairs there- may be secretaries or clerks resident in a minister's office in Japan, for example, and under the law if they remain there for more than six years they lose their right of Canadian domicile.
There are further changes relating to the more rigid examination of immigrants entering Canada from Great Britain or European countries in respect of an ailment known as trachoma. There is a further provision for the refunding of deposits made by steamship companies when one of a steamship crew deserts at a port such as Vancouver or Montreal. There is no provision in the law at the present time for the return of the $300 deposit exacted from those companies. In many instances a deserter may drop off one ship and join another in a couple of weeks, but we have no power to return the deposit we compel the steamship company to leave with the department. There are one or two other minor amendments which I shall be pleased to explain more fully when the bill is in committee.
I might say for the information of the house that there is not a single thing in this bill that enlarges in any way the matter of immigration into Canada. The amendments are all of the character I have described and are necessary for the efficient functioning of the act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Are there full-time civil servants of the internal service who have been granted loans on farm property through the Canadian farm loan hoard?
2.	If so, who are they, what is their occupation in the civil service, and what was the amount of each loan?
3.	Are they civil servants or farmers?


Mr. DUNNING:: The following reply is furnished by the Canadian farm loan board:
1.	Yes.
Questions

2.	M. J. Scobie, supervisor of juvenile immigration, immigration branch, Department of Mines and Natural Resources, $3,500 on first mortgage, $500 on second mortgage.
3.	Qualified as a farmer under the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


VALUE OP DAIRY PRODUCTION
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the value of production of the dairy industry in Canada (a) in 1935; (b) in 1936?
2.	What was the value of our exports of beef cattle to the United States, (a) in 1935; (b) in 1936?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	(a) The value of production of the dairy industry in Canada in 1935 was $192,410,423.
(b)	The complete data for 1936 are not yet available.
2.	(a) The value of our exports of beef cattle to the United States in 1935 was $5,228,040;
(b) The value in 1936 was $8,116,095.



PROSECUTIONS UNDER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT

Mr. LAWSON:: 1.	What number of prosecutions were conducted in each province by the weights and measures inspection service during the fiscal year ending March 31,	1937:	(a) of independentretail	grocery	stores	and	meat	markets	forinfraction of section 63 and of section 64, of the Weights and Measures Act, giving number under each section separately; (b) of local chain	grocery	stores	and	meat	markets	forinfraction of section 63 and of section 64, of the Weights and Measures Act, giving number under each section separately; (c) of national chain	grocery	stores	and	meat	markets	for
infraction of section 63 and of section 64, of the Weights and Measures Act, giving number under each section separately?
2.	What were the number of withdrawals and the number of convictions secured in each of the above groups of cases?
3.	What were the numbers in each province
of prepackaged goods inspected and the results of such inspections as to overweight, short-weight or correct weight, during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1937, by the weights and measures inspection service in:	(a) retail
independent grocery stores and meat markets; fb) local chain grocery stores and meat markets; (c) national chain grocery stores and meat markets?


Mr. EULER:: 1 and 2.
Department of Trade and Commerce Weights and Measures Inspection Service
Prosecutions
Total number of prosecutions authorized against grocery stores and meat
markets	
Prosecutions for short weight, section 63	 198
Prosecutions for unjust scales, section 64	 139
Summary of Results
Indepen-	Local	National	Under Section 63	dents	chains	chains	TotalNumber of convictions	
133	10	11	154Number of dismissals	
6	6Number withdrawn	i	12Number pending	
22	1	3	26172	11	15	198Indepen-	Local	National	Under Section 64	dents	chains	chains	TotalNumber of convictions	1	111Number of dismissals	7Number withdrawn	
12	. .	12Number pending	9138	1	0	139
For results by provinces see attached schedule.
337
139

Questions
Department of Trade and Commerce Weights and Measures Inspection Service
Number of prosecutions under section 63 and 64 of the Weights and Measures Act, by provinces showing results:	by independents, local chain stores and national chain stores;
including meat markets:
Section 63
Convic-	Pend-	With-tions	ing	drawnOntario-	Independent	55	12	3Local chain	2	National chain. ..	3	Quebec-[DOT]	Independent	42	7	1Local chain	3	National chain. ..	2	i	New Brunswick-	Independent	. .	2Local chain	National chain. ..	iNova Scotia-	Independent	10	5Local chain	3	National chain. ..	5	[DOT][DOT]Prince Edward Island-Independent	Local chain	National chain. ..	Manitoba-	Independent	6	i	. .Local chain	i	National chain. ..	[DOT][DOT]	l	Saskatchewan-	Independent	3	. .Local chain	National chain. ..	Alberta-	Independent	11	Local chain	1	National chain. ..	1	British Columbia-	Independent	6	2	Local chain	1	National chain. ..	i	Total-	Independent	133	22	11Local chain	10	1	National chain. ..	11	O	i-	-	-Grand total ..	154	26	12
Section 64
Dis-	Convic-	Pend-	With-	Dis-	missed	tions	ing	drawn	missed	Total3	23	4	100231	78	5	5	5	1441	, .	4[DOT][DOT]	[DOT]*	32[DOT][DOT]	i1	4	3	23. .	35[DOT] [DOT]	1	1	* '	1	10. ,	11[DOT][DOT]	1	43	3	1	18. .	1tt	[DOT][DOT]	11	9, .	. .	.,	, .	1[DOT][DOT]	[DOT][DOT]	16	110	9	12	7	310. .	1	..	12156	111	9	12	7	337
337
2664
Questions

3.
Department of Trade and Commerce Weights and Measures Inspection Service Short Weight Supervision Pre-packaged Goods
Summary, by provinces, of results of inspection of pre-packaged goods in grocery stores and meat markets, of independents and chain stores, showing number of packages found overweight, correct weight and short weight:
Number of Packages Found
Ontario-	Checked	Over- weight	Correct weight	Short weightIndependent	
29,879	6,586	17,643	5 650Chain stores	
11,818	4,328	6,714	776Quebec- Independent	
36,395	2,615	26,914	6.866Chain stores	
2,802	139	2,388	275New Brunswick-	Independent	
2,707	1,157	1,409	141Chain stores	
605	213	388	4Nova Scotia-	Independent	
3,510	765	1.386	1,359Chain stores	
513	250	214	49Prince Edward Island-	Independent	
995	28	967	Chain stores	....	Manitoba-	Independent	
1,686	303	866	517Chain stores	
1.500	496	734	270Saskatchewan-	Independent	
2,610	790	1,104	716Chain stores	
2,387	1,193	943	251Alberta-	Independent	
6,861	2,239	3,240	1,382Chain stores	
3,017	2,085	771	161British Columbia- .	Independent	
3,519	756	2,216	547Chain stores	
11,864	4,749	6,432	683Total-	Independent	
88.162	15,239	55,745	17,178Chain stores	
34.506	13,453	18,584	2,469Grand total	
122,668	28,692	74,329	19,647
Information with reference to local chains cannot be given separately without going over the year's records.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON CHastings South):
1.	What commissions were appointed during "the administration of the previous government,
from July, 1930, to October, 1935?
2.	What are the names of the persons who
were employed on these commissions, and what were their duties?	-
3.	What salaries, living allowances, and travelling expenses were paid to each of them?
4.	What was the total paid to each such individual?
5.	What was the total cost of each commission?
Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled herewith.


FARM LOAN BOARD-LOAN TO M. J. SCOBIE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the farm loan board of Canada grant a loan to Mr. Melville J. Scobie, supervisor of juvenile immigration, or to anyone else on a farm near Osgoode Station, Ontario (lot 26 or 27, front or first concession of Osgoode township, Carleton country) ?
2.	Who was the owner or who were the owners of that farm at the time the loan was made?
3.	What was the amount loaned, (a) on the farm, and (b) on the stock (chattel mortgage) ?
4.	When was such loan made?
5.	About the same time, did the said Scobie purchase a home in Ottawa, at 13 Oakland avenue, and, if so, was it or is it to the knowledge of the farm loan board?

Coronation Oath-Mr. Mackenzie King
6.	Were there or are there any juvenile immigrants employed on that farm?
7.	If so. who are they, and where do they come from?
8.	Is the said Scobie a full-time civil servant?


Charles Avery Dunning: Return tabled herewith.


CIVIL, SERVICE COMMISSION-APPOINTMENT OF FORMER EMPLOYEES
Mr. AHEARN:: 1.	In filling vacancies to permanent positions which come under the civil service commission, are former employees who were laid off subsequent to order in council P.C. 189-1118, May 15, 1931. due to abolition of positions, and who would seem to possess the necessary qualifications, notified of such vacancies?
2.	In the case of the position of purchasing agent, grade 3. for the Department of National Defence, now being advertised, were the qualifications of Mr. James T. Watt, who was purchasing agent for 13 years with the soldier settlement board, investigated?
3.	Was Mr. Watt notified of this vacancy?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled herewith.


ELK ISLAND-NATIONAL PARK WARDEN
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Has a park warden been appointed recently at Elk Island National Park, Alberta?
2.	If so, when was the appointment made and who was appointed?
3.	Was the appointment made by the civil service commission after the usual examination?
4.	Was the position advertised?
5.	If so, in what publications?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled herewith.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- REPRESENTATION OF RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government of Canada or any member thereof received any requests from any of the synods or other representatives of the Church of England in Canada, the presbytery or others of the Presbyterian church, the United church, the Baptist church or any other denomination or person respecting representation on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the same basis as that of one other denomination now represented?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	What action has or will be taken?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled herewith.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1. At whose request did the national research council work on each one of the 123 scientific discoveries mentioned in sessional papers 183 and 183A of this session?
2.	Was the work on each one of the said 123 scientific discoveries supervised by anyone?
3.	If so, by whom in each case?
4.	If any of said discoveries were made at the request of private individuals or companies, how much did the council receive in each case in return?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MITCHELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to all prosecutions in the province of Alberta, from November, 1935, to date, under the Weights and Measures Act.


GRAND MANAN SMOKED HERRING SCHEME
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions, reports, briefs, etc., with the Department of Fisheries in connection with Grand Manan smoked herring scheme, organized under Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, from inception to date.
2.	For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions, reports, briefs, etc. the dominion marketing board has had from time to time with any person or persons in opposition to said Grand Manan smoked herring scheme.


CORONATION OATH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, last night
the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) raised a question with respect to a change in the wording of the coronation oath. If my hon. friend had given me any intimation of his intention to bring up the matter upon going into supply, I would have made it a point to be here to answer his question.
With respect to the changes in the oath I might say that the 1911 and 1937 versions of the oath are set forth in the answer given to my hon. friend on March 3, and they appear in Hansard of that date. The main change is with regard to the description of the peoples and possessions governed by the king. In the 1911 oath the king promised "to govern the people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging." In the oath to be taken by King George VI, His Majesty will swear, "to govern the peoples of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, of your possessions and the other territories to any of them
Gold Clause Obligations

belonging or pertaining, and of your empire of India." In other words, instead of using in reference to Canada and the other selfgoverning Dominions, the words "dominions thereto belonging" the names of the different self-governing Dominions are separately set forth. It was not assumed by the government that parliament would take any exception to that change being made, and it was not thought necessary to bring the coronation oath before parliament for approval with respect to that one particular change.
The hon. member for Broadview stated that the words "defender of the faith" had been omitted from the coronation oath and similar statements have been given publicity in the press. I should like to point out to my hon. friend that those words do not appear at all in the coronation oath and never have appeared in that oath. The words form part of the king's title as settled by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act of 1927. With respect to parliamentary action, I may say that in the opinion of the law officers of the crown in the United Kingdom legislation was unnecessary. The opinion of the law officers of the crown in the other self-governing dominions was to the same effect. Our law officers did not feel that legislation was necessary and so the matter was not brought before parliament for purposes of legislation.
With respect to the tabling of correspondence, I would say to my hon. friend that as the correspondence has been carried on with all the governments of the British commonwealth, it would not be possible to table it without their consent. The correspondence has not been tabled in any of the other parliaments. In the circumstances I believe it will not be thought that the correspondence should be tabled here.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, in view of the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) which does not answer my question at all. This house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not think there is any question of privilege involved.


Thomas Langton Church: I understand-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I shall have to ask for a recorded division on the motion to go into supply.


GOLD CLAUSE OBLIGATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that obligations governed by the law of Canada and payable in gold or in gold coin or in an amount of money measured thereby may be discharged by payment of the nominal or face amount thereof in legal tender of the country in whose money the obligation is to be paid.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: If we go into committee on this resolution without discussion it is with the reservation that our right to speak on the question of principle involved is not affected and that the approval of the principle is not thereby assumed to be given.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, this resolution has appeared on the order paper for some time because of the fact that the government became aware of a certain case being considered by the privy council in London, the result of which might have had a clarifying effect upon the situation with respect to gold payments. The judgment in that case has now been received, and I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will be prepared on the bill to discuss the legal aspects of the matter.
It is sufficient, I think, to say at this stage, having regard to the reservation made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), with which of course I entirely agree, that the object of the resolution is to clarify a situation which has been in doubt ever since the country officially went off the gold standard. The effect of the legislation will not be to change any existing practice. Since the country went off the gold standard officially, payments have not been made in gold or in gold coin in any case, but there are situations in connection with the provinces, with the dominion, and dominion guaranteed securities, and also corporate securities, which make it desirable that the situation should be clarified so far as it can be clarified in Canadian law.
At the last conference of the provinces, which took place on the occasion of the meeting of the national finance committee, very strong representations were made by the prov-

Coronation Oath-Mr. Church
inces unanimously for legislation clarifying the situation with respect to the gold clause, and in some cases the provinces indicated their intention to take action in so far as it lay within their power as provinces so to do. I think the matter could be much more easily and coherently discussed in detail on the bill to be founded on the resolution. Of course I agree entirely with the leader of the opposition that on the resolution no one should be regarded as committed to the principle of the whole matter, but it will expedite matters materially to get the bill printed to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I regret that this matter has been delayed so long. The judgment of the House of Lords in the case to which the minister refers was that of the King v. the International Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders of a German company (Aktiengesellschaft). The particulars of the decision have been recorded for some time in one of our law reports. The court however proceeded in that case to give judgment upon the basis of the contract to be performed according to the law of the state of New York, in the United States of America, and did not deal with the larger question which we must consider. I would only make this suggestion to the minister, that he look carefully into the question as to how this may affect our position under the arrangement made by Mr. Fielding, the former minister of finance, in connection with trustee securities. It was provided by -the agreement which he entered into -that if we should enact any legislation which in any way detracted from the character of the securities which had been placed upon the list of trustee securities, the king in council might disallow -the legislation. That is still existing, because it was one -of -the exceptions that had to be made to our general contention when the Statute of Westminster was enacted.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I think it was the only one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Justice is quite right, as far as I recall, in saying that it is -the only one. That may become important. I have been thinking a good deal about this matter, and in view of that very positive undertaking on the part of the Dominion of Canada, which did authorize a disallowance of our legislation if it prejudicially affected the interests of those who held the securities-the securities, at least, that were made trustee securities-I think it would be -necessary that the Justice department look
into the matter with a little care. That however, in my judgment would not interfere with our enacting -the legislation, but I think we would have to make such representations as might become necessary for the purpose of protecting against disallowance in the event of the British government taking the ground that it in any way depreciated or lessened the value of the trustee securities, under the provisions of their statute. I raise that point now in order that the Minister of Justice may have an opportunity to look into it before the bill is considered. So far as I personally and those associated with me are concerned we will expedite the passing of the resolution now, without further discussing it until such time as the bill in detail is before the house.
Resolution reported, read -the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 103, respecting gold clause obligations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SUPPLY-CORONATION OATH STATEMENT OF MR. CHURCH ON MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['I desire to table a report made by the Bank of Canada on the financial position of the province of Alberta.']
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, last night before you left the chair I asked the government about a matter which I previously brought before the house. Before the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) had an opportunity of replying to it, another hon. member started another discussion. I do not wish to detain the house more than one or two minutes before it goes into supply, but the answer that changes in the oath are due to a changed status is not, in my opinion, a proper one; it is not an answer at all. I may say that this particular question is one in which, as I said last evening, I disagree with the policy of the government, as I believe a large majority of the people do. I may add that I also disagree with all these secret coronation oath changes.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous-Veterans' Assistance Commission Act, $400,000.
Mr. GREEN:: Before this item carries, will the minister tell us what action the government have taken and what action they propose
2668	COMMON ^
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
to take on the recommendations that were contained in the long awaited report of the Veterans' Assistance Commission?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Before dealing with the report which I anticipate will be the subject of discussion this morning I feel that, when approaching a subject so involved and so complex as that of the legislation dealing with ex-soldiers which has been placed on the statute books during the past twenty years, it is due to a house which includes in its membership hon. gentlemen who have not had the advantage of following the various changes in ex-soldier legislation that I depart from the rule ordinarily followed in dealing with estimates and give a full explanation of the position of the ex-soldier in Canada to-day and what the government proposes to do to alleviate that condition and to assist him in rehabilitating himself in the position to which he is entitled. I am reluctant to go over ground which has been traversed before, but in view of the misunderstanding and misconceptions not only in this house but throughout the country with respect to this legislation I think that I had better repeat what has already been said, perhaps many times, in the House of Commons.
Let me deal first with pensions. Pensions are awarded by the state to those who were injured or disabled in its service. Pensions are not a grant as a payment for service or even for valour on the field of battle. I may explain to new members of the house that the closest approximation to pensions would be payments under the workmen's compensation ' act. The men who went overseas and were disabled and returned with a disability are entitled of right to a claim upon the dominion. Of these there are now 79,600 who are drawing pensions greater or less. There are also some 18.000 widows or dependents of the 60,000 odd who fell on the field of battle. Then somewhat akin to pensions but based upon a different principle is what we call the war veterans' allowance. The War Veterans' Allowance Act was based upon an assumption by parliament that he who served for a period in the front line trenches must necessarily have suffered in health, and if his health was undermined to such an extent that he became incapable of earning his living, through physical or mental disability, then he had a claim such as a pensioner might have. The amount, however, is a great deal less and is a fixed maximum sum, $20 for unmarried and $40 for married men. That

is to say, under the act we presumed that in some cases service in the front line would disable a man to the extent that he became a care of the state. The number of war veterans' allowances being paid at the present time is 10,995.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Involving how much
money?


Charles Gavan Power: The pensions involved
roughly in this year's estimates $41,500,000, and the war veterans' allowances amount to $4,200,000. Then there is what is called hospitalization. The government of Canada operates eight hospitals and has contracts with a large number of other hospitals wherein are placed those who are suffering from some disability due to war service. Some are being hospitalized for a disability which has been incurred since war service, but in order to be placed on the hospital list they must have been pensionable.
Then there is what is called relief, for which there is provision in the estimates of this year, under item 193, of $2,600,000. Relief is given to pensioners and not to non-pensioners. It is given to those who have a pensionable disability due to war service, however slight it may be; and, speaking again roughly, it brings the amount which they receive from the state of approximately a thirty per cent pension in the case of a married man. An unmarried man receives a total of $18.75 per month even though his disability may be only five per cent, which would entitle him to $3.75. But automatically if he is out of work he can go to the department and draw the difference between his pension and $18.75. If he has a wife, but no children, he gets up to $30, which is approximately thirty per cent of the normal pension. Then the scale of relief rises according to his dependents. For instance, a married man with five children would receive $48; but owing to the regulation which provides that the department will equal the rate paid by the municipality, in the city of Winnipeg he would receive a larger amount for rental and fuel, while in Prince Edward Island the allowance would be lower, depending on the locality. Again, in Winnipeg, where the winters are colder than in Vancouver, he would receive a larger amount for fuel allowance than he would somewhere else. This relief may run up to any amount depending on the number of children, but in no case in any

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
part of the dominion is the relief recipient getting less than the civilian is receiving from the municipality to which he belongs.
That brings me to the question at issue. There is on the statute books ample legislation to look after the returned man who has a disability. I do not mean to say that every man who thinks he is entitled to a pension is receiving one, nor do I mean to go even so far as to say that every man is getting as much as he thinks he is entitled to by way of pension; but I do say that there is legislation which will permit every man who was injured in the service of Canada to get that to which he is entitled according to the ordinary rules of common, every day justice. These payments, to those who suffered through disability in the great war have cost the country up to the present a little over a billion dollars. That is not taking into consideration the interest on the money or the amount of money involved in the soldiers' land settlement scheme, approximately $167,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does include administration costs.


Charles Gavan Power: It does include administration costs, as my right hon. friend says. It also includes-and before I go any further perhaps I had better deal with that point, because there is an agitation arising throughout the country-what was known as the war service gratuity, which was in effect a bonus. In my own province, in some of the eastern provinces, and I anticipate in some of the western provinces, there is arising an agitation, possibly strengthened by what has happened in the country to the south, that every man who served in the war should receive a bonus for his service. As far as I am concerned I consider that matter was closed in 1919 and 1921, when $163,000,000 was paid out to soldiers for the services which they rendered overseas, in order, so to speak, to compensate them for loss of wages. A mechanic, for instance, instead of getting $1.10 a day in the army might have got $3 a day at home. It was paid in cash on the basis of the length of service overseas and length of service in Canada and in England, and I do not believe the Canadian people or this House of Commons would wish to reopen the question of bonus. I mention it here only because I am invited to speak to-night to a meeting in my own province of people who are agitating for a bonus which would amount to so many thousand dollars for every man who served overseas.
The question at issue is altogether different. Every government since the war, whether headed by Unionists, Conservatives or Liberals,
has drawn a very broad line of distinction between the man who suffered a disability and the man who did not. Those who were discharged as fit and who have not since been able to show that their present disability, whatever it may be, is due to their war service, have not been considered a responsibility of the federal government. By two commissions, one the Hyndman commission, and latterly the veterans' assistance commission, which was appointed by myself and for which I take full responsibility, the recommendation has been made that non-disabled soldiers should be taken on as a federal responsibility merely because they were soldiers and in distress. That is the question which I think we must discuss to-day and to which an answer must be given as clearly and as definitely as I can give it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister might have mentioned also the preference given to them as civil servants.


Charles Gavan Power: I had not thought of that. In 1919 when the Civil Service Act was revised and put in its present form a very broad preference was given to returned soldiers, because it was considered that perhaps they would not be able to compete in ordinary civilian life with those who had remained at home during the war. That preference has to a large extent been observed. There have been here and there charges that patronage has entered into questions of appointment, and I do not wish to deny it either for those who sit opposite me or for those on my side.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The preference was particularly valuable to disabled men.


Charles Gavan Power: At the present time I think it is less valuable because as they grow older they are becoming more and more unable physically to fulfil the duties of the positions for which they apply. Out of that arises an agitation that nothing is being done for the returned men. Take for instance a returned man who has lost an arm or a leg and who receives probably S75 or $S0 a month pension. He applies for a position as elevator man. He might not be a competent elevator man, and the minister in charge of the department could very properly say: After all, the elevator must be manipulated by someone and unfortunately I cannot take this man on. On the other hand, I have heard the criticism from many hon. members in this house, and we have it throughout the country, that it would be far better if those men who have had that preference and who are now enjoying fairly remunerative positions in the civil service were to take their pension and retire from the service. As a matter, of fact-and
2670	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
I hope my right hon. friend will pardon my making reference to it; I do so without any intention of criticizing his action-in the 1933 budget speech it was suggested that persons in receipt of pensions who held good civil service positions should relinquish either their pension or their civil service position. And, speaking in a political sense, if my right hon. friend had insisted on his original proposal, I am convinced as a politician that it would have met with a better reception from the country than his withdrawal of it. I will give an example. In a small country town in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick or Quebec, is a man drawing $40 a month, a pension which is a fairly reasonable living allowance in such communities. A post office position is open, and he makes application for it. On account of his disability, and perhaps being the only disabled returned soldier in the parish, he obtains the job. Naturally the rest of the people in the parish are not satisfied. There is no question about that. I think perhaps a hen my right hon. friend reflected further on the matter he came to the conclusion that an agreement of some kind had been made with the returned men that their disability should not be used against them in employment, and that in all probability if the government were to set the example of so-called discrimination against pensioners it would flow all down the line and might affect their ability to obtain positions in civilian life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that the
voice of the minister was not raised in support of the proposal.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister's voice was
not raised because he was in rather a difficult position. He himself was drawing a pension of $62 a month and considered himself still quite capable of carrying on his duties as a member of parliament and drawing therefor the sum of $4,000 a year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he is now a minister of the crown.


Charles Gavan Power: Unfortunately, as a minister of the crown, to such an extent was he subject to outside influences that he abandoned that pension, of which he was very proud when he returned from overseas, and for the abandonment of which he sees no justification to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Gavan Power: It was only to meet the so-called public clamour of those who say that if you are disabled to some extent you should not hold such a position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did satisfy myself that there had been a tacit understanding between the government of the day and the returned men that they were to be treated as he has suggested.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, that is correct. I hope my right hon. friend understands that when I bring this matter to the attention of the committee it is only in order that the explanation I am giving shall be broad, clear and complete on the records of the house, and there may be no misunderstanding. In my mind there is no criticism of the action taken by my right hon. friend or of his reactions to the representations made to him.
What we have to face is this: The commission appointed by myself reported that throughout the country there were a large number of ex-soldiers who were not pensioners, who were not disabled in the sense I have mentioned, who were not entitled to pension, to war veterans' allowance, to relief, or to hospitalization, but who were in distress. In the interim report there was the following recommendation:
That consideration be given immediately to this problem-
That of unemployed, non-pensionable exservice men.
-with a view to making an endeavour to relieve temporarily the acute distress of ageing unemployed veterans, particularly those who saw service in a war zone.
I think the committee will agree with me that very naturally, having suggested that a committee be appointed to tell me what to do, I asked that committee what consideration should be given, and wrote them a letter to that effect. After considerable correspondence the following definite recommendation was made-
That should an ex-member of the Canadian forces who has seen service in a theatre of actual war; or an ex-member of the imperial forces domiciled in Canada prior to January 1, 1930-
And I would ask the committee to take note of that date.
-who has seen service in a theatre of actual war during the great war, who is not in receipt of a pension, be in receipt of relief from the municipality, city or province in which he resides of a lesser amount than the basic rate of the Department of Pensions and National Health, the department be authorized to supplement municipal, city or provincial relief by a grant of unemployment assistance to an amount not exceeding $10 per month for a married veteran, with dependents, and $5 per month for an unmarried veteran, with the proviso that if the amount of unemployment assistance to be paid by the department in order to bring the municipal, city or provincial

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
relief up to an amount equal to the basic rate of the department is less than $10 per month for a married veteran and $5 per month for a single veteran, then the lesser amount shall be paid by the department.
These recommendations embodied two principles. The first is that the unemployed non-disabled

and I use that expression wishing to call back to the minds of hon. members the fact that the disabled men are looked after, in so far as any legislation of this country can look after them-the unemployed non-disabled who has no established or presumed claim for service disability, and who up to the present has been considered a municipal or provincial responsibility, similar to any other class of the population, because he is unemployed and because it is alleged that municipal relief is not sufficient, should now have this municipal relief supplemented from the federal treasury.
That is the broad principle, and there is a secondary principle with which possibly I might deal at this time, namely that those who did not serve in the Canadian army, who were not residents of Canada prior to the war, who were not domiciled here, who had no connection whatsoever with this country but who have arrived here since 1924- that is, after ten years subsequent to the outbreak of the war-should now be taken on as a responsibility of the federal government and be given relief on a different scale and in a different manner from that applicable to ordinary citizens who were bom, domiciled or naturalized, in Canada prior to the war.
With respect to that principle, in so far as imperials are concerned I think hon. members will agree that we have no responsibility whatsoever to those who came here long after the war, and that it would be the acme of imperialistic jingoism now to take them on as wards of the Canadian people. To the questions which have been put to me by returned soldiers' organizations from coast to coast and which, in the course of the next summer, I hope to be able to answer personally, I say that so long as I remain minister of this department those imperials should look to their own government and not the government of Canada for any assistance in addition to that which they receive at the present time. At present they are treated exactly in the same way as any ordinary Canadian citizen, and I doubt very much whether any important section of the committee or the country will ask that they be treated differently.
With regard to the Canadian non-pensioner, for the moment I do not wish to go into details with respect to the recommendations. An examination of them will show that it is
not proposed, either in the majority or in the minority reports,-because there were two of them-that all those who wore a uniform and are unemployed should at present be placed on federal relief. Generally speaking, looking over the country from one end to the other, those who are residing in cities of less than 25,000 population, where the relief scale is low, would, if the recommendation were carried out, have their relief raised to the departmental relief scale. In cities such as Montreal, Verdun, Toronto, Winnipeg, Oshawa, Windsor, Brantford and Kitchener the municipal scale is higher than the basic rate of the federal government. The veterans residing therein would get nothing whatsoever out of this recommendation. As laid down in the recommendation, those in smaller centres would receive an additional amount. For instance, in Saskatoon I believe the amount to be paid to a non-disabled nonpensioner would be eighty cents a month in addition to the amount he receives from the municipality. That is to say, the department would have to set up machinery to pay eighty cents a month to persons living in Saskatoon who served overseas. And so on down the line, in numerous other cases, where municipal relief payments are exceedingly low, undoubtedly S10 per month would be paid to married men and $5 to single men.
To my mind, however, that does not touch the general principle. Long experience in dealing with returned soldiers' problems I think has taught all of us here that once the door is opened there is no closing it. Assuming that this house were to accept the recommendation of the commission, which according to the secretary of that commission would involve an extra expenditure of only a million dollars per annum but which would give nothing to any of the larger cities of this dominion except Vancouver, does anyone in this house believe that the ex-soldiers in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Calgary and in other cities would not say, "What are we going to get out of this?" Immediately there would be reiterated demands, extremely difficult of refusal by politicians such as we are, that all the soldiers of this country, whatever their municipal status, be made the wards of the federal government. Again I repeat that as yet this principle has not been accepted by any government. I am asked to say definitely, clearly and formally what my stand is on this question, and my answer is no. So far as I am concerned, as long as I remain minister of pensions in this government I cannot and will not recommend to my colleagues that service alone-and however you put it
2672	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
that is what the recommendation amounts to -shall establish a claim on the Canadian people for special treatment beyond that given to ordinary civilians.
Lest I be accused-as possibly I shall be- of setting up straw men in order to knock them down, I need only go back over the history of pension legislation, and I think hon. members who have been long in the house with me will know that I have followed it fairly closely. Time after time particular cases have been brought before this house or before committees, in relation either to types of cases or to particular individuals, and because of the sympathetic view taken by the house or the committee we have passed legislation. That has been followed by hundreds and, I may say, thousands of cases without merit at all but in which, because the legislation was made broad enough to cover some individual cases, the claimants were allowed to draw pensions or relief from the Canadian government.
The proposal suggests also that the relief be only temporary. I dislike to refer again to the political nature of this house. Let the relief be temporary for the fiscal year 1937-38. Does anyone think any minister of the crown will have the courage in 1939, the year before an election, immediately to cut off all relief? Or, if he does not do it in 1939, I am absolutely convinced that in 1940 not only will he not cut off relief; he will probably ask that dt be augmented. We might as well face these facts. Probably I will be accused of saying that the suggestion is for general pensions, and that this is not so. But I am giving my own view from, as I said, a long period of study of this question, and in my opinion it will be extremely difficult for any member of parliament, either the year before or two years before any election, to say we shall not give relief to soldiers.
Then in municipalities where the federal government would make this contribution of, say, $5 to single men and S10 to married men, knowing the financial plight of most of the municipalities and particularly those which will be affected, that is to say, those with a population of less than twenty-five thousand, is it not conceivable and even probable that the first thing to confront us will be a demand on the part of these municipalities through their councils-and already I have received many-that the federal government take over all relief? There will be a divergence of opinion as to whether John Jones should receive $10 or $15 from the municipality when he is getting $10 from the federal government, and immediately they

will say, "Why should not the federal government pay it all?" I doubt very much whether any hon. member of this house will take exception to that statement.
I have already said that it would be expected that returned soldiers in the municipalities not affected by this recommendation would immediately ask that they also should receive something out of this gratuitous distribution of federal money. So, though I anticipate that my statement will be challenged, I take it that if we accept the principle laid down the additional charge to this country will not be $1,000,000 annually, as suggested, but $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 annually. In arriving at that figure I am taking into consideration the fact that at the present time, under departmental relief given to pensioners to supplement their pensions, we are expending some $2,600,000. Taking into consideration the number of 19,000 reported by the commission and the fact that those men now have no pensions to be supplemented, I would say that at any rate $10,000,000 in addition would be putting the figure reasonably low. That would add this amount to our present pension expenditure of about $56,000,000, and we must remember also that the war veterans' allowance vote will increase annually until in 1959 we will expend $12,000,000 under that one heading alone.
Therefore I think I am fair, though I quite expect a large number of returned soldiers throughout the country as well as many hon. members of this house to disagree with me, when I assume that in the long run this recommendation means something equivalent to a pension or a payment of some kind for every man who wore a uniform simply because he served in the Canadian army and not because he incurred any disability during that service.
Up to the present every reputable returned soldiers' organization has resolutely set its face against the general principle of service pensions. I should like to quote what was said by Sir Arthur Currie when he appeared before a pensions committee in 1930:
In the matter of pensions and hospitalization, vocational training and gratuities, Canada has done well.
No fault can be found with the scale of pensions.
At that time the amount expended on pensions was not as high as it is now. I continue:
That is higher than in any other country of which I know.
We must recognize, gentlemen, that there are many men who can never be provided for by any pension act. I, for one and as a citizen of this country, speaking for the great

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
mass of returned soldiers, say that I am not agreeable to having any legislation enacted which makes every man a potential pensioner. That is not right, and the returned men do not ask for it.
I quote Sir Arthur Currie because I know of no man who holds more of the respect, admiration and esteem of the returned men in this country. I have tried to indicate that in spite of the fact that the organized veterans have not asked for what they call general pensions, there have been, suggestions, pleas and even demands from those who decry service pensions asking for something which, to my mind, is tantamount to service pensions. I quote a resolution of the Canadian legion made to a committee of the cabinet in January, 1937, as follows:
That relief be immediately granted to all unemployed ex-service men who saw service in France, the minimum basis of such relief to be not less than that recommended by the Hyndman commission at page 16 of the report.
I know the authorized spokesmen of the Canadian legion will not agree with me, but I can see no difference between placing these men on relief and giving them service pensions. I have explained already that I cannot and will not recommend to my colleagues in the cabinet that any such policy should be embarked upon.
Having said what I cannot do, I should like to explain to the committee what I should like to do. There has been established throughout this country under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Assistance Commission a large number of voluntary committees. These committees have been set up in almost every city of the dominion and are composed of men holding high positions in the life of the community who are interested in the returned men. The membership of these committees is made up of industrialists, lawyers, doctors, ex-soldiers and others, some of whom for the first time since the war, have realized that we have a problem in finding work for our former comrades. They are doing that. The voluntary committee in Montreal has been organized into what is called Workshops Limited. Before this organization was a month old it had placed 100 men in positions. That may not seem a very large number, but all the researches and classifications of the Veterans' Assistance Commission up to the present show that only 15,000 odd unemployed exsoldiers have answered the questionnaire. The employment commission also sent out questionnaires which were answered by only 23,000 odd veterans. I would say roughly that the problem which we have to face is made up
of about 20,000 unemployed ex-soldiers who are not being cared for by some agency of government. I think that number would be near to the maximum.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the minister has no idea of the ages.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes I have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want to interfere with the sequence of the minister's statement; he can give it to the committee presently.


Charles Gavan Power: There is still $400,000 left of the $500,000 which was voted last year, and I propose to use this money and if possible to obtain some additional amount to set up these Workshops Limited across the country, to be headed by prominent citizens in the different localities who will interest themselves in obtaining employment for exsoldiers. In this connection I shall ask this house to give some further financial assistance.
With respect to the ages, perhaps I had better quote from the report of the commission, as follows:
Number of national employment commission forms signed by
veterans in urban areas	 19,694
National employment commission forms signed by veterans in
rural farm areas	 2,479
Veterans' assistance commission forms signed by veterans in New
Brunswick	  ..	653
Proportion of unemployed veterans in New Brunswick who failed to complete forms	 226

	879
23,052
There is a footnote to the effect that New Brunswick did not supply registration service for the employment commission, and that it is presumed that veterans living on their own farms and registered as in rural farm areas would not benefit under any scheme of payment of extra relief to non-pensioners, because of benefits received by them from their farms. Prom this figure of 23,052 would be deducted 2,479 registrations in rural areas, which would leave a total of 20,573. A further deduction of 4,305 would be made for those veterans who saw service in Canada and England only. These figures are estimated, and there would be left the estimated number of veterans who saw service in the theatres of war and who are in receipt of relief from other than departmental sources. This total is 16,268. The estimated number of married veterans is given as 12,046; the estimated number of single veterans, 4,212, making a

2674	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
-total of 16.268, which according to the commission should be looked after. The estimated expenditure would work out as follows:
Married men, 12,056, at say $10 per
family		$120,560
Single men, 4,212, at say $5 per family 21,060

Owing to the fact that the rate of relief paid in -the following towns equals the basic rate of the department, it is likely that the above mentioned estimate should be reduced by 4,000 or more married men, making $40,000; so that the total cost would be in the neighbourhood of $101,000 per month. The towns named are Montreal, Calgary, Oshawa, Toronto, Windsor, Regina, Kitchener, Edmonton and Winnipeg, leaving, of our large cities in this country, possibly Halifax, Saint John and Vancouver veterans who would benefit by this recommendation.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question at this stage? Does not the figure of 23,062 comprise only those ex-soldiers who are getting relief from cities, municipalities and provincial governments? I have always understood that the total number of unemployed ex-soldiers is about forty thousand.


Charles Gavan Power: My understanding before
the commission reported to me was that there were between forty and fifty thousand, but -that was a guess or an estimate made by members of the Canadian legion without having gone into the figures, and submitted to the Hyndman committee. I believe I am absolutely correct in making that statement, though I must qualify it so far as it implies that the 23,000 who reported would be all who are on municipal relief. And I should perhaps add that a fairly large number of ex-soldiers who have become more or less tired of committees and commissions paid no attention to the questionnaire forms, and probably did not answer at all.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that in addition to these there would be many thousands who are unemployed and yet not on relief?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, I would say so. My hon. friend as a member of parliament is unemployed but not on relief; and so am I.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think I am unemployed.


Charles Gavan Power: After all the problem that faces us is this. There are now in this country, roughly, 400,000 ex-soldiers. Of these,
100,000	are being looked after in some way or another by the government. Of the remaining 300,000 there are about twenty-three

thousand who may be assumed to need assistance. But my contention is that if you look after those twenty-three thousand you open the door for another hundred-odd thousand who will say, " If my friend Bill Smith, who fought alongside of me in the trenches at Vimy, is going to get fifty or sixty dollars a month from the government, why the devil shouldn't I?" And I would not blame him.
My right hon. friend has asked me to give the age distribution of these men. Those from 35 to 39 years of age-and perhaps this will astonish the committee-number 3,250. I may remind the committee that these men must have enlisted when they were far below the military age. From 40 to 44, 4,693; from 4o to 49, 3,425, and so on till I get into the category 50 to 59: from 50 to 54, 2,950, and from 55 to 59, 1,950.
With respect to these younger men, of whom about 7,000 are approximately forty years of age or under, I think the committee will agree with me that, whatever has been done for them since their return, they have not had a real chance to rehabilitate themselves, and that it is our duty to train these seven or eight thousand men, if it can be done after twenty years of more or less adverse circumstances, to come back to useful positions in the community. I propose to ask the house to vote a certain sum for what we call proba-tional training-not vocational training, which implies, as some hon. members know, anything from sending a man to university for four years to sending him to school and teaching him to be a carpenter or other mechanic. On that work we spent after the war $27,000,000. We trained in that fashion forty-three thousand ex soldiers, of whom more than sixty-four per cent carried on for six months or more. A follow-up was instituted a year or so afterwards and it was found that over sixty per cent of those who had been trained were still on their jobs. That followup was not continued after 1922. I propose to ask the committee to vote a certain sum of money which will be placed at the disposal of the commission, and particularly of the voluntary assistance committees in the various cities, for use when they find a position for a man, and not before. It is not for the purpose of putting him on pay, as was done after the war. As a matter of fact, if I may digress for a moment, under the vocation training system a man might receive $150 per month while in training to be, for instance, a carpenter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is included in the $27,000,000.

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. But he could not get a job at S150 a month as a carpenter after he got through, so it paid him better to keep on being trained. I purpose to ask the committee to vote a certain sum of money which shall be placed in the hands of these reputable, competent men in the different cities throughout the dominion, and when they have found a man a job he will be reconditioned and retrained to the point where he can take his place in ordinary civilian life. Apart from that we shall continue to the best of our ability the work which is now being undertaken, and which is proving fairly successful, of finding employment for the exsoldier. The contention I have already made, and I repeat it now, is that the wrong way to go about this would be immediately to give them assistance for doing nothing, when at the present time, owing to good luck, good fortune or good government, we are getting out of the throes of the depression. I believe it would be the height of folly to set up an entirely new direct relief agency under the aegis and jurisdiction of any department of this government. Much can be done by reenlisting sympathy-and there is a large amount of sympathy throughout this country for the ex-soldier-in favour of the man who can work and wants to work, of training the man who had no opportunity or possibly who wasted his opportunity when he came back from overseas. I believe that by following these lines, by educating our ex-soldiers to the understanding that this parliament, no matter how strong the pressure brought upon it may be, is not going to give handouts from the public treasury but is willing to assist those who are willing to help themselves, we can accomplish very much.
There is one other argument I wish to develop, and perhaps this will appeal more to my hon. friends in the corner than to any other section of the house. The men who went overseas in 1914 were to a very large extent civilians. They were not soldiers; they had not that militaristic spirit to which my hon. friends object. Civilians they were when they joined the army and civilians they were when they returned, and except those who were injured in their country's service, civilians they should continue to be. I do not think we should set up, as is proposed by different agencies and possibly by some members, a new militaristic class in this country. And may I say that all the brass hats are not among those who wear the crown and star or crossed swords and batons; for there are those who served in inferior positions in the army, and who, because they were in the army, despise the civilian population. I believe
that to encourage that spirit in Canada is un-British and it would be un-Canadian. We do not wish to set up, as there have been set up in other countries, Sons of the Legion, Daughters of Ypres, Descendants of Armen-tieres, people who year after year, generation after generation, believe that because their fathers or forefathers did their duty by their country they themselves are entitled to more than anybody else in the civilian population.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has said that there are about
300,000	returned soldiers in Canada who are not receiving assistance of any kind from the government.


Charles Gavan Power: May I check that by saying 350,000, who served in the Canadian army. I am not speaking of imperials.


Howard Charles Green: It does not matter what the number is. The fact is that the great majority of men who served in the Canadian army overseas have been able to reestablish themselves in Canada and have been carrying on for many years and have rendered great service to the nation. They have been a stabilizing force from the minute they got back, and the minister is quite wrong when he suggests now that there is any danger of a militaristic class growing up from that group. I believe that no group of Canadian citizens to-day hate war more than the returned soldiers do, and it is unfair for the minister even to suggest that there is any danger of a militaristic class growing up among Canadian returned men.
If we face this question from the point of view of these returned men who have been fortunate enough to reestablish themselves we shall not go very far wrong. They are asking nothing for themselves; they are carrying on, doing their bit as citizens of Canada. But they are asking that their comrades who were disabled and who are handicapped to-day should be given some consideration. That is all they are asking, and I put that point of view more particularly before the hon. members who were too young to serve overseas. I realize that more and more of these younger men will be coming into this house as the years go by, and I hope that they will always bear in mind that this is what the returned soldiers of Canada who are reestablished ask for their comrades-simply that those who are disabled and handicapped should receive consideration from Canada.
Over two years ago the soldier organizations pointed out to the government that the principal soldier problem facing the nation was what should be done about the
2676	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
unemployed war veteran.* To-day that remains the principal soldier problem. But in the meantime, during these two years, the subject has been carefully studied not only by the soldier organizations, but also by the Hyndman committee in 1935, by a special committee of this house on pensions and returned soldier problems in 1936, and now by the war veterans' assistance commission appointed by the present government. All the facts have been brought out and the time has come for this government to tackle the problem. Instead, I am afraid it is running away from it. I would not accuse the minister of running away from anything, because he is not that kind of man; but I repeat that the government is running away from this problem, because while it is doing something to help the employable veteran to get work it refuses to face the question of his care and maintenance until he gets that work; and it refuses to recognize-


Charles Gavan Power: They don't refuse; they
say "no."


Howard Charles Green: Well, the government refuses to recognize that thousands are unemployable. The minister in his remarks has said nothing about the thousands of these unemployed veterans wTho are unemployable, and he has failed to announce a policy with respect to unemployable veterans. This is strange in view of what has been said and done from time to time during the last two years. I would refer first of all to the order in council appointing the Hyndman committee in March 1935. This order in council recommended in paragraph 2:
Pursuant to the foregoing, the minister
recommends	That the said committee
be empowered to carry out an investigation into existing facilities for the provision of employment for ex-service men, for care and maintenance while unemployed, and to report thereon with such suggestions or recommendations as may be deemed advisable.
That was two years ago. Then in 1936 this parliament passed the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act. Let me quote paragraph (a) of section 6:
The commission shall,
(a) carry out as soon as possible an investigation to ascertain the extent of unemployment among veterans in Canada, and classify those who are unemployed according to physical and mental capacity or incapacity-
I emphasize those words "or incapacity."
-to undertake gainful employment in restricted and unrestricted occupations, and in any other categories which, after the investigation, the commission may consider applicable.

Then paragraph (e):
investigate into existing facilities for the care and maintenance of veterans while unemployed and report thereon with such suggestions or recommendations as may be deemed advisable.
These were the instructions which this parliament gave in providing for the setting up of the veterans' assistance commission. The minister, speaking in this house on January 19 of this year, as reported at page 96 of Hansard, said with regard to this phase of the problem:
As more and more become unable to cope with the ordinary competition of civilian life they will have to be looked after, somehow or another. Personally I have never cared to think of opening old soldiers' homes in this country. I do not think the Canadian people want them; I do not think the old soldiers themselves want them, but I am bound to say to the committee that the time will come when some measure or another will have to be taken to look after those who gave good service to the country at the front and who are unable to look after themselves otherwise.
Then, at page 98-this is the minister speaking:
I repeat, however, that in spite of that something will have to be done for those who are no longer able to obtain employment. I doubt very much whether we shall do it by a system of general hand-outs, such as I have just indicated, but something certainly will have to be done. It will be the duty of this parliament to work out the problem in a manner satisfactory to the Canadian people.
Then I quote from the report of the commission at page 7-and this is from the portion of the report which is unanimous:
Industrialists, whilst indicating that if trade continues to improve, there might be employment in some degree for the older type of veteran skilled in a craft, as well as for the younger trained men, they did not hold out much hope for the older man who is classified as unskilled. We have every reason to believe that it will be found that two-thirds of the unemployed ex-service men come under the heading of "unskilled labour."
Then lower down on the same page:
It is likely that about one-third of the men who signed our questionnaire forms will prove to be fifty years and over in age.
On page 4 there is an analysis showing that a large percentage of these men are unemployable:
The average age of the 759 registrants was 49-1 years. In view of the fact that it has been represented to the commission that a great many industries insist on an age limit of as little as twenty-five years when taking on new employees, this age of veterans presents an arresting and disturbing situation, to say the least.

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
And lower down:
Despite the continued paralysis of the building trades and the hope that their revival will put a great many of those presently unemployed into active work, there were only two bricklayers in this Edmonton list of unemployed veterans, only one stonemason and only twenty-three carpenters. On the other hand, there were 278 labourers, 72 clerks, and 72 listed as unht. In other words, over half the total group had a type of training that made any competition with men thirty years younger a rather hopeless struggle.
Then on page 5:
How many unemployables there are will be difficult to determine. In Regina, Saskatchewan, the veteran organizations had a medical examination made, and it is estimated that out of the 406 cases examined, at least 126 would be classified as unemployable.
That means that in that particular city over thirty-one per cent of the unemployed war veterans are unemployable. The commission goes on to state that:
An interesting report was presented by the Canadian Legion in Ottawa, where the organization operates a hostel for homeless ex-service men. A total of 168 men were examined by medical men. Of these 90 were certified as fit or suitable for full time sheltered employment. Ihe balance of 78 were found to be fit for no employment at all, or only for light and sheltered part time employment.
Their report on this particular phase of the problem may be summed up in their recommendation on page 16:
We feel that things should not be left as they are, and some definite decision in respect to the future of the unemployables will have to be considered and recommended.
Now the commission cannot help these veterans. Industry and business cannot absorb them, because they are unemployable. They will never be able to work. If they are to be helped at all it must be by the government. The government and the government alone must decide what is to be done about the unemployable war veteran. Apparently the government intend to do nothing and have no plan, although it is quite clear that the veterans' assistance commission, the veterans themselves, and the people of Canada have been led to believe that the government of Canada would do something about these unemployable veterans.
I have a suggestion to make to the minister in regard to these unemployables, which I hope he will consider seriously. I can see no reason why the situation could not be met in part at this session by amending the War Veterans' Allowance Act, by extending the third classification of those eligible for war veterans' allowances which was set up last
year, to make it include front line veterans from fifty to fifty-five years of age, as well as those from fifty-five to sixty, who were provided for last year. In other words I suggest that the third classification be made to cover a ten year age group instead of a five year age group. The War Veterans' Allowance Act would then provide for the two classes of veterans who have been covered from the start, those over sixty and those under sixty who are permanently disabled by reason of physical or mental disability. The main feature of course of the latter classification is that the applicant must be permanently disabled. If the act is amended as I suggest it would cover under the third class those veterans from fifty 'to sixty-and these are the key words-who are incapable of maintaining themselves. They do not have to be permanently disabled; they merely have to be incapable of maintaining themselves because of disability, pre-aging and general unfitness. This third class must have served in a theatre of war, whereas in the two other classes pensioners who served only in England or Canada are eligible, I understand, for the allowance.
Last year when this third class was set up some of us urged that it cover a ten year group instead of a five year group. The minister opposed that, claiming that he wanted to test it out on the five year group first, veterans aged from fifty-five to sixty. Apparently the amendment of last year has worked out satisfactorily. I quote the minister's statement on that point from page 1336 of Hansard. I asked the question:
Has that new classification caused any administrative difficulty?
Mr. Power:	Well, it brought a flood of
applications.
Mr. Green: One would expect that, but has it caused any serious administrative difficulty? Has it weakened the act at all?
Mr. Power: Naturally the members of the board were obliged to use their discretion more than before, but X 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.
Mr. Green: The new arrangement then is really quite workable.
Mr. Power: It seems to be.
Six or seven hundred veterans or perhaps more, of ages from fifty-five to sixty, have been granted war veterans' allowances under the amendment of last year, at an average cost, as the minister said during the discussion in February, of $30 per month. I urge most strongly that at this session, even though discussion of this report of the veterans' assistance commission has been delayed by the
2678	COMMONS
Supply-Pe nsions-Ve lerans' Assistance
government to this late date, the government bring in an amendment to the. War Veterans' Allowance Act, section 4, by changing the word "fifty-five" to the word "fifty." That is all that will have to be done-a very simple thing.


Charles Gavan Power: How many would that
take in?


Howard Charles Green: I am coming to that. If necessary the minister could put through an amendment to provide for further appointments to the War Veterans' Allowance Board.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):: Do I understand the hon. member to suggest that they must be front line men?


Howard Charles Green: I said front line men, meaning by that the definition in the act-veterans who have served in an actual theatre of war. That is the qualification at present for those who come under the amendment of last year. My hon. friend will remember it applied only to those who had served in an actual theatre of war.
After all there is very little chance of a veteran ever getting work who at fifty years of age is found incapable of maintaining himself. If he did his allowance could be stopped, because each individual case is carefully considered by the War Veterans' Allowance Board. In practically every case these veterans are on relief and at the present time the government is paying the major part of the cost. An extension of this clause to cover veterans from fifty to fifty-five years of age would not involve any change in the principle established by the act; it would remove from the labour market a group who are competing, and competing hopelessly, with the young men; it would provide for at least a thousand of these unemployables, and I think it would raise the morale of all the unemployed veterans in Canada.
As for the care and maintenance of the unemployed veteran until he gets work or, if he is unemployable, until he is otherwise taken care of, it is also quite obvious and the minister has made it very clear that the government do not intend to do anything in spite of the warning of the veterans' assistance commission at page 17 of the report, as follows:
That consideration be given immediately to this problem with a view to making an endeavour to relieve temporarily the acute distress of ageing unemployed veterans, particularly those who saw service in a war zone.
The commission were unanimous in recommending that temporary assistance be given to those unemployed war veterans not in 
receipt of pensions who served in an actual theatre of war, and in the case of imperial veterans who came to Canada before 1930. They divided on the form of such temporary assistance. The chairman of the commission, in his minority report, recommended that a limited sum should be made available to the Department of Pensions and National Health which, after due investigation, could be used to relieve this need and distress, and he set this sum at $200,000. That means giving that amount to the department to distribute, saying nothing as to the basis of distribution, and I think the suggestion is entirely impracticable. The majority, as the minister has said, recommended that the government supplement relief now being given non-pensioners by certain municipalities and provinces. Many of the cities and towns are now paying as much as or more than the basic rate set by the department, so that no expenditure would be involved in those particular cities and towns. In fairness to the commission I think it should be pointed out that the Hyndman committee recommended the same type of assistance, and went even further in that they set no limit of $10 per month for a married man and $5 for a single man, and they included Canadians who had served in Great Britain and in Canada-the assistance was not confined to those who had served in an actual theatre of war; and they recommended that the supplementary relief be given to imperials who came to Canada before 1935, not 1930.
I realize that it is for the government to decide whether or not these recommendations are to be accepted. The entire responsibility rests on the government, and apparently they are rejecting both the majority and the minority recommendations. But the reason given to-day by the minister, that the recommendations mean service pensions, requires looking into. I am afraid it is a smoke screen, a bit of camouflage, put out because service pensions find little favour in Canada. A service pension really means a pension to all who served, whether or not they were disabled overseas, whether or not they were burnt out overseas, whether they are working or unemployed, whether employable or unemployable. The only basis is service. On the other hand both the majority and the minority recommendations of this commission call for assistance that is restricted in its application and of a nature similar to the forms of soldier assistance that have been given by Canada for many years. To indicate this I have only to point out the different forms of assistance that Canada is giving to returned soldiers at the present time. First

Sup-ply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
of all we have pensions given for diability attributable to service, and of course the pensioner must always get first consideration. Then there is relief or assistance to small pensioners in order to bring their income up to a basic rate of $18.75 per month for a single man. That has been given by the government for many years, and it is given on much the same principle as is now advocated by the majority of the commission for non-pensioners. Then there is the war veterans' allowance, which is given to burnt out veterans. It is not given for disability attributable to service; it is paid to nonpensioners, and it departs from the principle of helping only pensioners.
The majority recommendation of the veterans' assistance commission calls for assistance to non-pensioners on relief who receive less than the basic rate set by the department, in order that they may receive this basic rate, provided that they cannot receive supplementary relief amounting to more than $10 per month if married and $5 per month if single, and they must have served in an actual theatre of war. That is of a nature similar to the assistance now being given. I admit that it goes a step further; there is no doubt about that, but the simple question that must be decided by the government is whether or not they are going to take that further step. It is not a question of whether or not they are going to grant service pensions, and the government and the minister cannot take shelter behind any sweeping statement in connection with service pensions.


Charles Gavan Power: They have said no; the
decision is no.


Howard Charles Green: Do not call it a service pension, because it is not that at all. Apparently the only phase of the problem of the unemployed war veteran in which the government is interested at all is in regard to the suggestions made by the commission relating to the finding of work for veterans who are able to work, for the employable as distinguishable from the unemployable, such as giving the younger men probational training and financing projects that promise to give certain employment. I am glad to learn that these suggestions are being adopted. I hope they will meet with success, and I think the minister is to be commended for having taken this action.
This probational training is particularly important, because it will help some of these seven thousand odd unemployed veterans who are still under forty years of age. As the minister has said, those men enlisted as boys, and they deserve every opportunity we can
give them. I think perhaps with such help they may be able to make a further worthwhile contribution to the life of the nation. I suggest that the minister let all the local committees know that when they recommend a veteran for training, in a technical school, in a factory or in a business, the department will provide the funds. I think also the department will have to arrange to maintain these veterans while in training. It is not necessary to give them $150 a month or any such figure, but I know in vocational training among other men in Vancouver we have found, for instance, that they have not carfare to go to their work; they have not clothes; they cannot buy their lunches.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, before the recess I was dealing with the proposals of the minister in connection with the recommendations for helping to obtain jobs for employable war veterans who at present are without work. It seems to me that the proposed probational training and the schemes to give employment can succeed only if they are closely supervised by the honorary local committees in the different parts of the country. I say that because these committees will come into actual contact with the individual veteran, a fact which is of vital importance. For this reason I hope the government will give strong support to the local committees. Let it not be half-hearted in the support it gives to these men. The government should consider carefully all schemes suggested; there should be no delay in making decisions on recommendations made, and funds should be supplied promptly as required for the approved schemes.
These local committees are the front line troops in tackling the problem of the unemployed war veteran. They find the jobs for individuals and suggest schemes to make new jobs. They are helping to determine what veterans are unemployable and, best of all, they are showing keen interest and deep sympathy. Judging from the personnel of the Vancouver committee I would say that they are made up of leading representatives of labour, the business world and the professions. In my opinion the success or failure of the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act will depend on whether the government can retain the active support of these committees.
The minister has been strangely silent about one series of recommendations from the commission, namely, those which suggest a
2680	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
survey of all government departments, all harbour boards and all bodies under the control of the government in the hope that more veterans may be absorbed into the government service. The suggestion has also been made that the work on projects to be carried out by the Department of National Defence should be done by veterans and militiamen. That is a suggestion which I believe is worthy of consideration, and I see no reason why it could not be adopted.
The minister has said nothing about either of these suggestions. Then the recommendation is made that unemployed war veterans be given preference in seasonal employment. For example, each year in the larger cities temporary staffs are taken on to do work in connection with the Christmas mail. Surely it would be possible for the Post Office Department to go to the honorary local committees acting under the veterans' assistance commission and offer work to at least a certain number of unemployed war veterans, rather than going to the Liberal association and getting all the help from that source.
The recommendation has been made that contractors doing business with the government should be required when tendering to supply information as to the percentage of veterans employed and on page 16 we find this:
All things being equal, the contractor who employs the largest proportion of ex-service men should have preference in the awarding of the contract.
I do not know how far the government will go towards adopting these suggestions-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: May I interrupt the hon. member to say that so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned instructions were issued a year ago to the effect indicated by him. We are now proceeding with one project in which it is hoped all employees will be unemployed veterans.


Howard Charles Green: That is all to the good. I hope that practice will continue.


Mr. CRERAR:: The example will spread.


Howard Charles Green: I doubt it, but I hope it will. These suggestions are certainly worthy of very serious consideration, and they are important because if the government will give a lead by showing a firm determination to find places for unemployed veterans on government projects, and if it will make a clear-cut announcement to that effect, the result will be to raise the morale of the unemployed veterans, to encourage and to help the honorary local committees, and to set an example for employers in all parts of Canada.

Earlier in the session I asked the minister to grant the request of Canadians who served with the imperials in the inland water transport section of the royal engineers. They are asking that they be given assistance by the Canadian soldiers' advocates or that an advocate be appointed to help imperial veterans. They are also asking for class 2 treatment in Canadian hospitals, and I think they are entitled to that help. At present if any of these veterans who are pensioners become ill they can only get hospitalization for a pensionable disability and even then have to obtain the consent of the representative of the British Ministry of Pensions at Ottawa before they can be admitted to hospital. The result is that there is much delay and dissatisfaction, and in many cases they do not get hospitalization at all. The commission have dealt with the point at page 14, where they say,-
That if there be any benefits that those who served in the C.E.F. receive, that are not granted to men who served in the imperial forces and who were domiciled in Canada prior to or at the outbreak be so amended as to permit those with imperial service and who were domiciled in Canada prior to or at the outbreak of the great war, to receive similar privileges.


Charles Gavan Power: Would the hon. member permit me to interrupt? Perhaps in my earlier observations I omitted to state or failed to make clear that it has been decided to extend the benefits of class 2 treatment-that is, active remedial treatment for acute disease or a disabling condition in relation to service in the late war, but sustained in civilian life-to former members of the imperial forces who were resident or domiciled in Canada on August 4, 1914, and who are in receipt of pension for disability related to service during the late war, subject to the ordinary conditions set forth. I intended to lay down the policy this morning, and in case I forgot to do so may I now say that under the authority we have in the department anyone who was resident in Canada prior to the war, whether he became a member of the imperial forces or served in the Canadian forces, will have the same treatment provided he is a pensioner. This includes those who served in the inland water transport and in the royal flying corps.
Perhaps I might extend my remarks a little bit in order to make reference to the South African war veterans. This question is more difficult of solution because section 5 of part I of the legislation under which the department operates reads:
The minister shall have the management and control of all such matters as are assigned to him from time to time by the governor in council, relating in any way to the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life, of all persons who since the first day of August, one

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
thousand nine hundred and fourteen, served in the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty or any of His Majesty's allies, and to the care of the dependents of such persons.
Obviously that section debars those who served in the South African war. I appeal to the intelligence of the committee generally, and particularly to hon. members who are of the legal profession, when I say that we have looked after the South African war veteran in the way of treatment. Whether the ministers who have preceded me and myself are responsible to the treasury of Canada for the amounts expended in that way beyond the powers given to us by parliament, is a question which I think will never be raised in this house. I propose at the next session of parliament to introduce such legislation as will ratify and confirm whatever has been done in the past by way of hospitalization and treatment of South African veterans, and to place them on the same basis as those who served in the last war.


Howard Charles Green: Dealing with the question of imperial veterans who were not domiciled in Canada before the war, I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the minister.	He	said	that	talk ofgiving assistance to these imperial veterans seemed to him	to	be	"the	acme ofimperialistic jingoism," or words to that effect. The attitude of the government is not right in that these veterans seem to be looked upon as intruders. They fought beside us in France, they did their job	and	they	did it	well andwith mighty little	publicity.	After	the war
many of them came to Canada, quite often with the encouragement of the Canadian government, and in many instances they commuted their pensions to raise the necessary funds. The Canadian government knew that many of these men were suffering from war disabilities. Now these imperial veterans are in difficulties. The following statement is to be found on page 2 of the report.
The situation of the imperial veteran in Canada is one that gives grave concern to those who have a close knowledge of the condition.
And on page 3:
It is reasonable to assume that the "imperials" who came to Canada prior to the year 1930, are to some extent victims of the immigration policies of the Canadian and British governments, and that a joint responsibility exists in this connection.
I sincerely hope that these imperial veterans at least will be given a chance at the jobs which are to be found or created by the local committees acting under the veterans' assistance commission. They seem to get very little consideration from the imperial government. Many complaints are
made, and I believe with good reason; for example, about the fact that they must get authority from the British representative in Ottawa before they can obtain any hospitalization, and that no British official attempts to make personal contact with them in Canada to investigate their problems. I suggest that this government should bring the utmost pressure to bear on the British government to have steps taken to improve the position of these veterans.
Some of our most distinguished ministers are going to attend the imperial conference shortly, and I suggest that they discuss this matter with the British ministers. Let them find out just what the British government will do to remedy the known grievances, and ask them to send a commission to investigate the difficulties under which these imperial veterans in Canada are suffering. These veterans left the United Kingdom to become Canadians and have thrown in their lot with us. They came here to help build Canada and they are now Canadians. In my opinion they have made splendid Canadian citizens. When the minister says that these imperials should look to their own government, I would point out to him that their government is the Canadian government. They are Canadians and they should be given every possible help by the government of Canada.
In conclusion may I repeat that the time has come for this government to tackle the problem of the unemployed war veteran. I am afraid the tendency is to run away from it and I urge the government to give further consideration to the problem. Let us have some action and not just discussion, even at this late stage in the session. Let the government show a little of the Canadian corps spirit. Courage and initiative are two of the great qualities possessed by the Canadian people and this government should display these qualities in dealing with this problem.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Chairman, I feel certain that the statement made this morning by the minister will be received with general dismay and profound disappointment by many thousands of ex-service men across Canada. His statement means that he has chosen to set aside the more important recommendations of the veterans' assistance commission. However carefully he may endeavour to sugar-coat the pill, it will nevertheless, be a bitter dose for many thousands of ex-service men who at this time have been looking expectantly for definite action during this session to relieve their distress. I do not think we should be unmindful of the position in which this places the organizations of ex-service men. They
2682	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Ve terans' Assistance
have been giving the minister the utmost cooperation; they have not sought at any time to embarrass him, and, furthermore, they have endeavoured assiduously, sometimes under terrific handicaps, to maintain the morale of the ex-service man and to solve particularly urgent problems. The statement of the minister places them in a serious predicament. In recent years they have been asked to assume a heavy burden, and this statement will be a bitter disappointment to them.
I do not know where the press report originated that appeared recently in many of our daily papers, anticipating the decision of the government in this regard. Along with other hon. members I have received several telegrams as a result and I should like to place one on record to show the general attitude toward the decision of the government as announced this morning by the minister. This telegram is from Calgary, dated April 6, and reads:-
Report in Calgary paper by Bishop states neither minister nor government have any intention of implementing recommendations veterans' assistance commission. Alberta provincial command Canadian legion British empire service league very disappointed. Meeting held last night. Indignation strongly expressed. Will you do all possible to have recommendations carried out. Report hardly touches fringe but would be of some assistance.
W. Bullard Provincial President.
The minister has a peculiar responsibility in this regard. It may be said, particularly by the ex-service members of this house, that he enjoys the general confidence of ex-service men to a greater extent perhaps than anyone else who has held the portfolio of Pensions previously. The ex-service men have always felt that he is their friend and have looked to him to champion their interests in making the necessary submissions to the government. That is as it should be. That relationship is in the public interest and it is one that I have always been glad to support. I suggest to the minister that nothing will more dangerously undermine that confidence as it should be maintained than the suggestion of dilatory methods in dealing with the problems facing ex-service men generally at this time. I hope that before this discussion is over he will make it clearer than he did in his opening statement that he intends to follow this problem closely and achieve a solution. He has chosen to reject the principal recommendations of the commission, and as I attempt to estimate the effects of his decision as given in his opening statement, the tragic feature is that he has not advanced an alternative plan which might effectively solve a problem the existence of which he fully admits.

I regret that in his closing remarks the minister suggested that organized ex-service men sought a privileged position in our society, and that in advancing the representations which have been before the government for some time they are perhaps fostering a militaristic spirit. I feel that in this respect the minister has not done justice to himself or to his own comrades. Anyone who has had experience of organization work among exservice men must admit that above all other organizations they have expressed a truly altruistic spirit. They have not only been loyal to national ideals while on service but have endeavoured to maintain that loyalty in civilian life. I agree with him when he says that they were civilians when they entered the army and civilians they should remain to-day. I think that sentiment will find general acceptance among ex-service men. They have not sought to have themselves placed on a pedestal or to gain a privileged position. As suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) they have striven, with truly altruistic spirit, to champion the interests of the less fortunate among their ranks, the disabled and the dependents, and to obtain, as far as national resources permit, a fulfilment of the contract entered into with those who donned the king's uniform, if disabled, or for the dependents bereft of their breadwinners; also to deal as far as the national resources permit with those handicapped by reason of war service, in such a way as to permit those men to become harnessed to the national activities. Never at any time have they suggested a raid on the public treasury. Never at any time have I known of a national organization of ex-service men advancing demands which might be considered unreasonable. I hope before the discussion closes the minister will take the opportunity to pay a little more clearly a tribute on his own personal account to the splendid and loyal endeavour carried on by organizations of ex-service men. They have used organization to foster and strengthen the comradeship that was forged on the field of battle. That comradeship has found expression in service activities which deserve commendation, activities representing comradeship definitely in action. Their work is not exclusive or privileged; it seeks no privileged segregation that might not be a characteristic of any other Canadian service organization.
I ask the minister to consider with some patience the position in which these organizations are now placed. For three years at least they have endeavoured to make clear to parliament the real issue. They have admitted the generosity of parliament, in a degree at

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
least, to those who now receive pension. They have pointed out definitely and clearly that the real issue is the unemployment problem of ex-service men who are physically handicapped by reason of war service. They have brought their case clearly and forcibly to the attention of the Hyndman commission; last session they presented it before the special parliamentary committee on pension and returned soldiers' problems; they took the opportunity to present it before the veterans' assistance commission. Having presented their case they have laid the responsibility on the government and now they are left no recourse but to continue representations urgently demanding that this problem be solved in some manner. As they continue these representations their purpose should not be misjudged. They simply desire the solution of a problem which is weighing heavily upon them and which has been clearly brought to the attention of the government.
In the terms of reference to the veterans' assistance commission and other bodies the government raised hopes which should not be disappointed. In the reference to the Hyndman committee it was stated that the committee was empowered to carry out an investigation dealing among other things with the care and maintenance of ex-service men while unemployed. Again, the authority under which the veterans' assistance commission was established refers specifically to an investigation into existing facilities for the care and maintenance of veterans while unemployed. "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick," and the effect of the statement made by the minister to-day is that many thousands of these men are condemned to an existence of continued poverty and distress.
I submit that there is no justification for delay in implementing the principal recommendations of the veterans' assistance commission. The special parliamentary committee last session clearly recognized the existence and extent of the problem. It was referred to the veterans' assistance commission because at that time it was not possible clearly to define the dimensions of the problem, and it was thought advisable that an extensive survey of it should be made. That survey has now been practically completed. The survey made by the veterans' assistance commission has, I think, much more clearly outlined the problem. Although it is true that the exact dimensions are not well defined in all respects, nevertheless we know exactly where we stand; the nature of the problem and the chief contributing factors are now made plain, and I think we have sufficient data from the commission upon which to devise some effective remedial action.
I point out that the judgment rendered by the veterans' assistance commission confirms in very large degree the conclusions of the Hyndman committee, particularly with reference to the needs of unemployed ex-service men, and with special relation to those who are non-pensioners.
I recognize that all the recommendations of the commission may not be acceptable to the minister. I do not propose on that ground to quarrel with him, but he must admit the existence of the problem. The hon. member for Vancouver South has already referred to the minister's statement on a previous occasion this session, when he warned the house that something eventually would have to be done or we should face the necessity of establishing soldiers' homes in Canada. We now know in broad outline the nature of the problem; it is clearly apparent, and the onus rests definitely at this time on the government to declare to what extent they will accept responsibility. They may not concur in the method proposed, but I feel they cannot evade the assumption of a larger measure of responsibility suggested by the minister in his remarks to-day. They must accept it either now or later, and I suggest that if we have learned anything from past experience in dealing with problems of exservice men, it is that inaction is much more costly than definite action. I suggest to the minister that delay in effectively grappling with this question will be extremely dangerous. There are many important reasons which I might bring to the attention of the government as to why the recommendations of this commission should now be implemented. Parliament has undoubtedly given assurance that some solution will be attempted. To what end were the investigations outlined in the veterans' assistance bill last year, the reference to the Hyndman committee, but to give some assurance to ex-service men that a solution would be attempted? I point out also, as the hon. member for Vancouver South has done, that the mechanism for dealing with their unemployment needs more effectively has now been established. I refer to the provision of the local advisory committees to the veterans' assistance commission-a mechanism that was not previously established in Canada. Never before has it been found possible to mobilize representative business men for the definite purpose of attempting a solution of this problem and seeking, as far as possible, the absorption of unemployed ex-service men in the industrial enterprises of the country. Unless the government gives some definite assurance that this work will be financially supported in every particular,
26S4	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
we fear the collapse of these committees, and never again will it be possible to organize committees on the basis now established.
We now know the approximate number of ex-service men who are unemployed; we know at any rate those unemployed who are on relief. We know also approximately the number of those who are unemployable. The commission in its report has given a very fair cross section of the unemployed community of ex-service men, and I suggest that we should abandon the piecemeal attempts to solve the problem. The time has come for some nationally coordinated and comprehensive plan that will offer hope of a satisfactory solution.
I need not suggest to the minister that the distress is so acute that further delay is almost inexcusable. The Hyndman committee reported that there had appeared during that investigation men who were obviously underfed and undernourished, and in such a condition that they might not be able to avail themselves of employment opportunities if they were offered. The committee stressed definitely the grievous conditions that make it impossible for ex-service men and their families to maintain the decencies of life. That report is confirmed by the veterans' assistance commission in their report, in which the following statement is made:
Conditions are no better, in fact we believe they are worse for some of these men, since the Hyndman committee report was submitted in May 1935. In that report, it was said "that in one particular town it was obvious the veterans on relief were undernourished to the point where many would be unable to undertake manual labour even were this available."


Charles Gavan Power: The reference was to the town of Verdun, where, according to the Hyndman committee's report, many veterans were so undernourished that even if they had positions they could not keep them. In the report we are now considering not one cent would be given to the unemployed veterans of Verdun.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister is correct when he states that the reference in the Hyndman report was to conditions in Verdun, but he can find in the report other references from which the inference might be drawn that equally serious conditions exist elsewhere in Canada. I am quite sure that I am properly interpreting this paragraph of the veterans' assistance commission's report when I say that they believe that these conditions are widespread throughout Canada and even more serious than is suggested in the Hyndman report. The report continues:
That particular committee also said in its report, that it was of the opinion that Canada as a whole would shrink from any policy
[Mr. MacNeil.l
which would permit these unemployed nonpensioners to remain in want and dire distress, as some of them undoubtedly do, and would approve of reasonable assistance being extended to them during temporary, unavoidable idleness, until such time as occupations suitable to their ability can be found. Knowing that there has been little general improvement, if any, in the plight of the non-pensioned veteran on municipal, city or provincial relief, and realizing that it will take time for the commission to complete its plans and investigations. we have no hesitation in endorsing the remarks covering the non-pensioned veteran, as quoted.
The report then goes on to submit the recommendation which was quoted by the minister -the general recommendation unanimously approved by the members of the war veterans' assistance commission.
Every month's delay makes the situation worse, and the minister is as well aware as I am that the rate of casualties among ex-service men in this category is appalling and is accelerated largely by the want and poverty to which at present they are exposed. No class of unemployed is as closely affected as are the ex-service men at the present time, and no class have as much difficulty in seeking to take advantage of any movement towards recovery that may be evident across the country to-day. That was admirably stated by the representatives of the Canadian legion before the Hyndman committee, and I think I am justified in emphasizing the point, using the language employed on that occasion-because this fact is not clearly recognized. The peculiar and onerous handicaps inflicted upon certain classes of ex-service men tend to show that a greater measure of responsibility should be assumed with regard to their plight than the minister indicated in his remarks this morning. On that occasion the following reasons were advanced:
(1)	During these years of depression there has grown up a great army of youth, rightfully clamouring for admission to trade and industry, and capable of rendering efficient service.
(2)	The unemployed ex-service man has to meet this competition, subject to certain handicaps:
(a)	The average age of the group is believed to be approximately 47 years.
(b)	By enlisting for service, he gave the best formative years of his life to the service of his country, and w'hile he may have returned physically unimpaired, yet he sacrificed opportunity.
(c)	There is a large proportion of unskilled labour. Thousands of boys between the years of 16 and 18 rushed from school to the forces. For years, their every move was ordered and they returned grown men, totally unacquainted with the struggle for economic existence, and yet, class conscious in their pride as fighting men, unprepared for the new discipline of economic training.
(d)	Many of them suffer from war disabilities.

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
(e)	The parliament of Canada, in accepting the War Veterans' Allowance Act, accepted the principle that there were intangible disabilities resulting from nervous or other form of strain, and 3,069 ex-service men under the age of 60 were classified as permanently unemployable.
(f)	In the keen competition for trade, the employer of labour, if he is to hold his own, must employ efficient and economical labour. Ageing men with little training and physical disabilities are not that class of labour.
The commission now reports the average age of the group surveyed as forty-nine. There you have clearly stated the reason why ex-service men suffer peculiar handicaps at this time and deserve special consideration by the federal government. The minister has set aside the principal recommendation of the commission, which is that further assistance should be given to those who are nonpensioners and are now on relief, and he has defended his position by saying that it savours of the establishment of a general service pension in Canada. I wish to make it clear that the organized ex-service men have never advocated a general service pension, nor do they advocate any form of relief which might be considered a form of pension. I think the minister has entirely misjudged their position in this matter. The commission itself, in making the report, clearly states that this recommendation is intended as an emergent or temporary form of assistance until such time as satisfactory employment measures may be devised. The reasons for delay in formulating final plans were explained. The report that in hearing evidence across the country the opinion was expressed that this commission was simply another stall on the part of the government, and point to the necessity of demonstrating that the government intend to keep faith with the veterans. I think they make it very clear in the report that it is necessary that this gesture should be made at this time in order to assure veterans that the government intends to keep faith and to fulfil the promises which may be inferred from the terms of the bill and the findings of the special parliamentary committee last session. It is also clearly necessary that this should be done in order that veterans may maintain their physical stamina. Under the relief scales obtaining in the various municipalities it is becoming more and more apparent that the unemployed ex-service men are suffering serious deterioration. The longer they have to endure this extremely low standard of living the less able will they be to make a " come-back " if given an opportunity in Canadian industry.
The minister suggests that to accept the principal recommendation of the commission on this point would be a radical departure
from the policy which has been declared by successive governments. I am at a loss to understand his position in that respect. It is not a radical departure. It proposes the assumption of additional responsibility for non-pensioners who served in an actual theatre of war. The means test would have to be applied before any ex-service man could qualify if this recommendation were implemented. This morning the minister pointed to the fact that the policy has been to draw a sharp distinction between the pensioner and the non-pensioner. The terms he used were the disabled and the non-disabled man. May I suggest to him that that distinction has not always been sharply drawn, nor is it possible to do so. It was found when parliament enacted the War Veterans' Allowance Act that some responsibility had to be assumed for so-called intangible disabilities. It is not possible to draw that line between a disabled and a non-disabled man, for " disability," as he used the term, apparently is determined by the pension act. And surely any of us who have had experience in advancing claims for pension and have seen the rejection or disallowance of such claims must realize how difficult it is to draw that line sharply. Under the existing procedure the burden of proof rests definitely upon the applicant, notwithstanding the terms of the act, to show that his disabled condition is attributable to service or was incurred during service, and not always is it possible for him to furnish that proof. Unless it is forthcoming his claim is disallowed and he is thereby categorized as a non-disabled ex-service man. I could cite case after case to demonstrate that. Only the other day I was in contact with an ex-service man who was wounded as a result of a premature explosion of a trench mortar bomb. He was in and out of hospital almost continuously from the time of discharge until I think 1933. Something like twenty foreign bodies were removed from one of his legs. During one period of hospitalization it was discovered that a malignant growth had developed on his leg, and he suffered amputation. For that he cannot establish a claim for pension, yet there are few who would dare to say that there was no connection between the disturbance of the circulatory and nervous systems in that leg and the subsequent development of the malignant growth. Nevertheless he must endeavour to maintain himself on a very small pension, and is classified, in the term used by the minister this morning, as a non-disabled man for whom the federal government cannot accept any responsibility.


Charles Gavan Power: No, according to my hon.
friend he is getting pension.
2686	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance


Charles Grant MacNeil: He gets a small pension,
but not for the amputation. I am using that case to illustrate that the line is drawn very sharply by the pension board, but for the purpose of unemployment it is unjust to draw that line in that way.


Charles Gavan Power: But he receives his pension, and his relief is brought up to the amount being asked by my hon. friend.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister is correct,
but I am using that as an illustration which comes readily to my mind to show the type of case for which no responsibility is assumed.


Charles Gavan Power: But responsibility is assumed by the government; he receives pension and relief to the extent of the departmental scale, which is all that is asked for by this report.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I do not want to go into
details of an individual case-


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know the individual case.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Under the regulations and decisions rendered by medical authority he has no claim for pension in respect of this amputation. But as a result of the amputation the man is incapacitated, his difficulty in securing employment is increased, but no responsibility for that is assumed by the government. I am pointing to certain disabilities which relate to service, looking at the matter from a common sense point of view, and which are not considered pensionable. This illustrates how many ex-service men are physically handicapped in a serious way and yet as classified by the minister the government accepts no responsibility for their employment, or maintenance while awaiting employment.


Charles Gavan Power: Will my hon. friend say the type of case he mentions would be helped by the adoption of this report?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am saying there are
some men classified as non-disabled for whom the federal government should assume some responsibility.


Charles Gavan Power: For whom we do accept full responsibility.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am endeavouring to show that some men are physically disabled-


Charles Gavan Power: -who are not getting enough pension, I agree. But that is not the point at issue now. If my hon. friend wishes to say the scale of pensions is too low, or that there are men not getting pension who deserve it, I will probably agree. But that is not the point. The point at issue is nonpensioners.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Perhaps I have not made my point clear. This morning the minister said the recommendation of the veterans' assistance commission brought two principles into view. One was that the unemployed nondisabled men, previously a municipal responsibility, might now become a federal responsibility. He pointed to the fact that the policy of successive governments has been to draw a sharp line between the disabled man and the non-disabled man, and he did not agree that non-disabled veterans, merely because they had been soldiers, should now be accepted as a federal responsibility. My argument is that the line cannot be drawn so sharply, because many men are physically disabled, suffer from disabling conditions which we know relate to service, but in respect of which proof of attributability to service under the terms of the pension act is impossible. For such men in my opinion the federal government should accept some responsibility. I refer also to intangible disabilities: the man who suffers from neurological conditions, who has lost opportunity. For him the federal government should assume some responsibility, at least to the extent of endeavouring, as far as our resources permit, to help him to overtake the handicap imposed upon him by reason of absence from his chosen vocation. The minister suggested, and I commend him for that decision, that with regard to the younger men steps will be taken to give vocational training. That should afford opportunity to a certain number of men. But the men he categorized this morning as nondisabled all suffer handicap in some degree, and in respect to them some responsibility should be assumed.
I suggest to the minister that the payment of the additional assistance as proposed by the commission would help maintain the morale of these men until such time as employment measures can be devised. After all, the majority of the commission deal definitely with the criticism of the chairman on this point and in the report tabled by the minister they show very clearly that this will not become a general service pension. It will remove the obvious discrimination that is shown, under which on the one hand you have a man who served only in Canada drawing a five per cent pension and thereby becoming entitled to unemployment assistance. Next door to him may reside a man who put in long service in an actual theatre of war but who has been unable to establish his claim for pension and who is thereby denied unemployment assistance, and who is compelled to take his place with these additional handicaps in the relief

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
line of his municipality. When the minister speaks of refusing this assistance, as suggested by the commission, to non-pensioners who are physically handicapped, may I point out that eventually these men will have the right to claim the benefits of the War Veterans' Allowance Act, which are now extended to those who are shown to be permanently unemployable or who, having attained the age of sixty, are without adequate income. Eventually the country will have to face this problem, so why permit its aggravation by reason of delay? I think this assistance is intended to bridge that gap, and that in all justice that action should be taken.
I regret that the minister has attempted to alarm the committee with regard to the financial commitment involved. This point arises in connection with the attitude of the minister towards the representations of organized ex-service men. Why should not this house attempt to deal with the problem on the basis of justice? Is it just that this provision should be made? When the minister suggested that this might prove to be the entering wedge that might bring tremendous financial commitments upon this country he displayed very little confidence in his fellow ex-service men. I think from our experience in the past it may be said that they never have been unreasonable. It has been shown by the commission that this problem is restricted in a degree; they point to something like only twenty-seven thousand men who might be affected by this recommendation. It is not a matter of anticipating unreasonable demands in the future or of financial commitments; I believe the case should be dealt with on its merits. Let us decide now whether or not there is justice in the plea advanced on behalf of these men, in accepting the recommendations of the war veterans' assistance commission in dealing with the problem that faces us. Nothing could be more unfair to ex-service men generally than to suggest that they would take improper advantage of any generous act on the part of the government.
I am anxious to support the position taken by my hon. friend for Vancouver South, urging an amendment to the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I feel that last year the committee devised a satisfactory formula, which is now applied to those between the ages of fifty-five and sixty. They are entitled to the benefits of the act if it can be shown that they are incapable of maintaining themselves by reason of physical disability, preaging and general unfitness. Surely the experience of the past year has shown this
formula to be workable. Now that the position of the unemployables has been clearly shown I see no reason why that age limit should not be removed with respect to men in that category. Last year it was argued before the committee that this might bring upon the war veterans' allowance board such a flood of applications that they might not be able to deal with them quickly enough, and that this might tend to undermine the confidence that ex-service men have shown in the administration of this board. I do not consider this argument to be valid under the present circumstances. Nothing would more dangerously undermine confidence in the administration of the War Veterans' Allowance Act than to delay the clearly necessary amendments to that act, and it was my earnest hope, in view of this report, that the minister would see fit to introduce amendments during this session which would in a degree solve the problems of a very considerable number of ex-service men at this time. Eventually these men will come under the act, and no good purpose is to be served, in the interests either of the ex-service men or of the public, by delaying a decision in this regard.
Unfortunately the minister has ignored other recommendations of the commission. I am aware that an order in council has been passed authorizing financial assistance to Workshops Limited in Montreal. It is not yet clear whether similar schemes may be advantageously established in other industrial centres of Canada. That rests in the judgment of the local advisory committees which have been established for this purpose. Provision has been made also to a limited degree for a corps of commissionaires, and the minister suggests that he will ask the house to make financial provision to enable probational training to be conducted. All these things are excellent in their way but, as was suggested in the telegram already placed on the record, they touch only the fringes of the problem. I regret that the minister has not dealt also with other important recommendations advanced by the commission. I would suggest that while workshops, or community centres, such as have been established in Montreal, may be all right in some places, they may not be satisfactory in other cities, particularly in the smaller industrial centres, and that other schemes better adapted to local conditions may have to be devised under the auspices of the local advisory committees. I would urge that the minister increase the amount set aside for this purpose. I feel that after revoting the remaining $400,000 from last year's vote and deducting from that amount the administration expenses required,
2688	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
there will not be a sufficient sum left to enable these local advisory committees to function properly. I am not suggesting any large expenditure in this way but I am suggesting that the local committee should have a free hand to give individual ex-service men that little lift that is sometimes all that is necessary to enable a man to keep his head above water and regain a foothold in some productive enterprise.
If I had time I could bring to the attention of the committee a number of cases already surveyed by the local advisory committee, in which it shows that temporary financial assistance would give these men a degree of economic security they have not hitherto enjoyed. The minister has not referred to the recommendation of the commission dealing with workmen's compensation. The last report of the department shows that the expenditure in that connection amounted to only $27,000 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1936. It would require very little more to broaden this provision to include those receiving pensions below twenty-five per cent in order to encourage employers to take on an increased quota of ex-service men. It has been my experience, particularly in company towns within the constituency that I represent, that ex-service men are discriminated against in obtaining employment if they are known to have any disability. I feel confident that if the minister could accept this recommendation and make the necessary provision in this regard, employing interests would find it possible to take on an increasing number of ex-service men.
Again, the minister says that the Canadian government has no responsibility with regard to imperial ex-service men. I think that was his exact language,-"no responsibility."


Charles Gavan Power: Not quite that. Imperial ex-service men who were in Canada and who were citizens of Canada prior to the war will be treated as I have indicated. Those who came here after the war so far as I am concerned are not the responsibility of the Canadian government, except that we issue relief to those who came prior to December, 1924.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The commission recommends that some responsibility should be assumed for those who were here prior to 1930. I am inclined to agree with the commission when I consider the circumstances under which those men were brought to Canada. I feel that we have some responsibility for the plight of imperial ex-service men in Canada. Their plight is not only a tragedy

but a crying disgrace. The British government has refused to accept full responsibility; likewise the Canadian government refuses to accept responsibility, and they are no one's charge. Their plight is pitiful. I think the minister-


Charles Gavan Power: They are the same charge on a municipality as is any ordinary Canadian citizen.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I say their plight as exservice men is pitiful, because of particular handicaps which as ex-service men they must endure. Every encouragement was extended to these men to come to Canada. They were encouraged even to commute their pensions in order to pay for their passage to this country. Every facility was extended at that time, and they were welcomed to the country. Let it be remembered that under the conditions as they obtain in Canada, as exservice men they are denied assistance which they would otherwise obtain if they had remained in the United Kingdom, assistance from the United Service fund, assistance from their local organizations, assistance in connection with sickness and medical attention. All these things they would have enjoyed had they remained in the United Kingdom. I am not suggesting that the Canadian government should assume full responsibility for all their needs, but I object to the words used by the minister when he says we have no responsibility. We have some responsibility for their welfare as ex-service men, because a special appeal was made to them in the first instance to settle in Canada. Many of them were brought here under special schemes promoted jointly by the Canadian and British governments. The minister must be aware that the administration in Canada of the imperial pensions scheme is harsh in the extreme, and that in seeking _ consideration of their pension needs and their needs for hospitalization they are at a serious disadvantage.


Charles Gavan Power: But that is the country they fought for; they didn't fight for this country. If they have a complaint, let them make it to the imperial government.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I understood they were fighting for the British Empire, as has been suggested and we may have to fight for it again. Why should we therefore summarily reject their plea at this time?


Mr. MUTCH:: Why should we not include in that category all at present residing in Canada who were connected with any of the allies? That would be the logical thing to do if we are going to carry it to that

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
point. If the hon. member wishes to develop the point, why should he not include them? How can we avoid doing it for men of any allied country who have come here since the war?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am suggesting that with our knowledge of circumstances it is unfair to say that we have no responsibility. I am not saying that we should assume full responsibility, but we have no doubt a measure of responsibility towards these men. Our responsibility is that, knowing their pitiful condition, the conditions they are facing to-day, and the special disadvantage to which they are subjected, we should negotiate on their behalf with the British authorities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is being done.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. member say that the men who came here after 1924, ten years after the outbreak of the war, should have preferred treatment over Canadian citizens who have been here all their lives? Will the hon. member go that far?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am not saying that, and I do not intend to say that they should have preferred treatment. I am not suggesting that.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, they are getting exactly the same treatment as the people to whom I have referred, no more and no less.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am suggesting that the imperial ex-service man in Canada, who is suffering disability, is at a very special disadvantage at this time. That is particularly so because the channel of negotiations with respect to his needs is in effect blocked. The administration of British pensions in Canada is in a highly unsatisfactory state.


Charles Gavan Power: Is that the fault of this parliament?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am not suggesting that it is, but I am suggesting that I believe it _ is quite proper for an organization of ex-service men to bring this matter to the attention of the Canadian parliament and, having knowledge of all the circumstances, we might properly through the regular channels advance their plea to the British authorities.


Charles Gavan Power: I have done that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has been done.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I suggest that further conferences will be necessary. I do not know to what extent the minister has had the opportunity to confer with the British ministry in this regard.


Charles Gavan Power: I personally saw the British ministry, and they told me that they were no longer responsible for these men.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister has conferred with the ministry; I am asking him to continue those negotiations. An imperial conference will be held-


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be very glad to do so, but I do not think I will get anywhere.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister's departmental officers on previous occasions have negotiated fairly satisfactorily agreements with the British ministry, particularly with regard to Canadians who served in the imperial forces. There have been such negotiations with the British government in the past. I suggest it has been done before and it can be done again. In view of the necessity of maintaining the spirit of empire unity which everyone desires to foster at this time I suggest that the minister reopen those negotiations-not one conference, but conference after conference until responsibility is fixed. Certainly it is not to the credit of the United Kingdom or of the Canadian people that imperial ex-service men should be called upon to endure what they are enduring today. At least they should be put on a more satisfactory basis with regard to negotiations with the British ministry in respect of their problems.
When we speak of imperial ex-service men it is necessary to divide them into several categories. The hon. member for Vancouver South has already referred to those who had pre-war domicile in Canada, but who served in imperial units. We may refer to those who served in the inland water transport units and in the royal air force. I appreciate the statement made by the minister with regard to the hospitalization of these men, but here again I say they have just cause for complaint. They do not gain the advantages and benefits extended to Canadian ex-service men until they establish entitlement with the British ministry of pensions, and at the present time they are confronted with extraordinary difficulty in establishing that basis of entitlement. I say their plea is quite just when they urge that although they are Canadian citizens and although they enlisted under conditions which they thought entitled them to the treatment accorded Canadian citizens, they are now discriminated against because the full responsibility for their pension needs is not accepted by the Canadian government, as it would have been accepted had they served in a Canadian unit. As the result of conditions in recent years their need is becoming more clearly apparent. With regard to

2690	COMMONS
Supply-Pe nsions-Veterans' Assistance
imperial ex-service men who came to Canada since the war, whether pensioners or nonpensioners, I feel that their need should be recognized, as is suggested by the veterans' assistance commission.
The commission make reference to civil service employment. I hope before the discussion closes the minister will make clear his position in that regard. I gather that he suggests a modification of the preference now extended to ex-service men, because of pressure. In my opinion that pressure has resulted solely from patronage considerations.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not suggest any such thing.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am glad to hear the minister say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The very opposite.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, I suggested the opposite, as far as that is concerned. As a matter of fact, in 1919, when the Civil Service Act was introduced, I was opposed to the preference for ex-service men, and in those days it was pretty hard to be opposed to it. Since that time I have seen to it that it has been observed, to the extent that in my department ninety-seven per cent of the male staff are ex-service men.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister stated this morning that he would not condone handouts to ex-service men. No one has suggested that that should be done. I think it has been made abundantly clear that the ex-service men specifically referred to in this report are in dire need and that a contributing factor to the position in which they find themselves is their war service. It is on that basis that a plea is advanced on their behalf. I think I should1 take the time to make it clear from the official record that the organized ex-service men have not asked for hand-outs. I should like to quote from the evidence given before the special committee last year by Brigadier General Alex. Ross, the Dominion president of the Canadian legion, who has given unselfishly of his time and energy in serving the interests of his comrades who are less fortunate. He said:
Now, of course, I know that is a very big matter; but I do think no avenue should be left unexplored to see if it can't be done; otherwise, you will simply perpetuate this horrible tragedy. When we speak of relief we think generally in terms of monetary expenditure; and we have reason to think so because relief appropriations have certainly made a tremendous drain upon the resources of this country, and if continued this drain is likely to be even greater. There is, however, another aspect to it, the moral aspect. That is why I
[Mr. MacNeil.J
would like you to hear from administrative officers to find out how this relief has an essential moral aspect which affects not only the people concerned but their children as well.
He goes on to say:
Most men want to work. We know that some of them have been on relief so long that they won't work; but there are a great many decent fellows who only require a helping hand to get them work, and there is no active agency for that purpose. That is one matter that can be done by this new agency. I can see no possible chance of a government agency being applied which would make it possible to serve that purpose. I think people have got to cooperate in order to do this, by working through veterans' organizations, by working through civilian organizations and otherwise and helping the government in that way to do something that will be worth while. Let me make it quite clear that no matter what we do we have got to make some gesture first to show that the present condition so far as it is humanly possible to do so is going to be relieved. In other words, by maintaining on as adequate a basis as we can a service that will indicate to them that we are trying to play fair. If you proceed to develop the agencies I have suggested without giving some temporary measure of relief you are simply going to have the statement made, this is another "stall"; they are going to say, w-e asked for bread and you gave us a stone. That is why I stress the fact that it is necessary in order to restore confidence that something should be done to indicate that we have some appreciation of their difficulties; and that being done let us devote ourselves to seeing how we can pull them out of the morass of unemployment.
Again he says:
We desire in the first place that the present system of relief should be carefully overhauled; that inequalities should be eliminated, and that it should be put on an equitable basis. We desire in the second place that some consideration should be given to the cases of men who have no pension, and who have just as good a service record as their neighbour across the road who having lost a finger receives a five per cent pension and consequently is on government relief. I realize that to ask the government to assume the whole burden is probably proposing an impossible task. But I do say that some consideration should be given as to what can be done to equalize these conditions. Therefore, as I said at the outset, any fool can spend money but after all money should be spent wisely. The spending of money simply to keep body and soul together does not seem to me to be a sound policy.
And again:
Now, what we are hoping for is that we may be able through this committee to devise some means whereby we can utilize the resources of this country to give them some reason for existence without at the same time ruining the country; that -when we spend money we should spend it wisely and scientifically, and to better advantage; and for that reason we desire to harness all the resources of the country for that common purpose.

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
He then goes on to develop his argument. I am taking this opportunity to cite specific cases with regard to the employment of exservice men in the civil service and to stress my argument that the preference should be maintained. I want to illustrate the necessity of accepting the recommendation of the commission that no veteran should be discharged from the civil service except for a misdemeanour, the inability to perform his duties in a satisfactory manner, or upon reaching the age limit for retirement. It was brought to my attention some time ago that ex-service men were being dismissed from the employ of the Department of Agriculture in Prince Edward Island. I asked for a return in the house of all the documents and I intend to quote from the official sessional paper. In referring to these cases I do not wish to express any criticism of the action taken by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant). I regret to learn that the hon. gentleman is unable to be in his place in the chamber because of illness. I bring up these cases to illustrate the necessity of implementing the recommendations of the commission on this score and to challenge what I consider to be a vicious procedure. Ex-service men with excellent records have been dismissed without their being given a chance to furnish any defence. In my opinion such a procedure is vicious and archaic.
I refer to the dismissal of Charles McLeod, who was employed in the Department of Agriculture on a temporary basis on October 28, 1931, and dismissed on September 1, 1936, because of a statement made by the hon. member for Kings. The hon. member furnished the department with a letter stating that it was within his personal knowledge that this man had been guilty of partisan political activity. I think some of this correspondence should be placed on the record, because I intend to ask the government for some statement as to the policy involved.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant) is on his sick bed.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am quoting from the official return brought down by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). This man's dismissal was protested, not only by the Canadian Legion of Montague, branch No. 8, but by representative shippers in the area. The matter was brought to the attention of the government but the dismissal was confirmed. I should like to quote from an affidavit made by Mr. McLeod. He said:-
I,	Charles McLeod, of Alliston, township number sixty-three in King's county, in Prince Edward Island, fruit and vegetable inspector, do solemnly declare and state as follow's:
31111-170J
That I have been employed as fruit and vegetable inspector under the Fruit, Vegetable and Honey Act since 1931.
I received a letter dated 27th day of August, A.D. 1936, from C. E. Shaw, senior fruit and vegetable inspector, informing me that my services would not be required after August 31st, A.D. 1936.
I inquired at the office of Mr. Shaw- as to the reason for my dismissal and w*as informed that Dr. T. V. Grant, M.P. of Montague had laid a charge against me that I had been guilty of political partisanship.
Since I was appointed inspector as aforesaid,
I have not taken any part at all in political matters and I can say that I positively have not been guilty of political partisanship.
I have no knowledge whatever as to the particulars of the charge laid against me by Doctor Grant, but since I have not taken any part at all in polities I can only say that the charge is unfounded.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
This was protested by the Dominion office of the Canadian Legion. On September 21, 1936, a letter was addressed to the Minister of Agriculture:
I now' enclose statutory declarations from Charles McLeod and Edward P. Donnelly proclaiming their innocence in respect to political partisanship, and would ask you to be kind enough to give the situation your very careful consideration. It is sincerely hoped that your communication of September 9th does not indicate that nothing further can be done in behalf of these men except on the floor of the house.
As was pointed out previously, our understanding is that government policy does not1 permit returned soldiers to be treated in this-manner. We would be very glad of an opportunity to discuss these cases with you at your convenience.
(Signed), J. C. G. Herwig,
Service Bureau, Canadian Legion,
Regarding the Donnelly referred to in this1 correspondence, I find that the return indicates that he was employed on February 24, 1932, and was dismissed on September E 1936, for exactly the same reason, and I ha VC on the file the letters directed to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to this case. The following letter, dated July 30, 1936, is addressed to Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa:
Dear Sir:
To my personal knowdedge Mr. E. P. Donnelly, fruit and vegetable inspector, Peake's, Kings County, P.E.I., was guilty of political partisanship at the last federal election, and I recommend that he be dismissed from the service.
Yours respectfully,
Thomas V. Grant,
M.P. for Kings,
Prince Edward Island.
2692	COMMONS
Supply*-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
The file shows the correspondence exchanged within the department. I will quote the letter of the commissioner dated August 22, 1936, addressed to Mr. Shaw:
Dear Mr. Shaw:
Doctor Thos. V. Grant, M.P., Montague, P.E.I., has accused the following men in your district of political partisanship:
A. H. Stewart, Georgetown.
E. P. Donnelly, Peake's.
Charles MacLeod. Alliston.
E. F. Rossiter, Morell.
J. A. MacDonald, St. Peter's.
A. P. Llewellyn, Lower Montague.
D. M. MacLean, DeGros Marsh.
Wilfred H. Coffin, Mt. Stewart.
It will be necessary, therefore, for you to advise these men of their dismissal as from September 1st, 1936, and at the same time to collect their inspection stamps and any other supplies they may have on hand belonging to the department.


John Ewen Sinclair: May I ask the hon. member a question? Why did he not bring these things up when Doctor Grant was here?


Mr. HEAPS:: Why is he not here?


John Ewen Sinclair: Because he is on his sick bed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We are sorry to hear it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I endeavoured to make it clear, as I assured my hon. friend, that I am not offering any criticism of Doctor Grant. 3 am saying that this illustrates a procedure -which should now be abandoned. I am bringing these matters to the attention of the government and asking that ex-service men should be given the protection which is denied them under this procedure because the report of the veterans' assistance commission asks .that they be given this protection.


Charles Gavan Power: Does my hon. friend say that because a man is an ex-service man, if he takes part in politics-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no, no.


Charles Gavan Power: Assuming he does take part in politics-I am not discussing the facts of this case, of which I know nothing-assuming an ex-service man who through his preference obtains a position in the civil service afterwards takes part in politics, should he not be dismissed the same as any other civil servant? Is that the argument my hon. friend is making?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am well aware that under the Civil Service Act a man who takes part in politics, who is guilty of partisan activity, is subject to dismissal, and I am not suggesting that a man guilty of partisan activity should be protected. I am suggesting that these men were innocent. They were not granted a

trial; they were dismissed under a procedure which is unfair and vicious in its application because it denies to men a fair opportunity of establishing their innocence.


Charles Gavan Power: He was not dismissed because he was an ex-service man.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Oh, no. But may I remind the minister that the report of the commission specifically requests that ex-service men be not dismissed-*


Charles Gavan Power: With that section of the report I disagree. I want to be quite frank with the committee. First of all, any ex-service man receives a preference in respect of getting into the civil service. I contend, and I want to make it quite plain, for I stated my views even during the election to a gathering of exservice men, that the man then takes his chances if he indulges in political activities, and is subject to the same penalty as any other civil servant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the hon. member says.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the only point I wish to make. As to the case in Prince Edward Island, I know nothing at all about it, and I would much prefer to have my hon. friend bring it up when the Minister of Agriculture is on his own estimates, and not on a matter of this kind.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I refer again to the recommendation of the veterans' assistance commission:
That in order to set an example to private business firms, the government agree not to dismiss any ex-service man, except for misdemeanour, inability to perform duties in a satisfactory manner, or upon reaching the age limit for retirement.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. member add, political partisanship?


Abraham Albert Heaps: " Misdemeanour " includes
that.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I agree that any act of partisan activity is a misdemeanour, and a dismissal might be justified. But no misdemeanour was proved in these cases, and I am citing these four cases to illustrate the necessity of implementing this recommendation.


John Ewen Sinclair: How was it that during the term of the last government returned soldiers were dismissed in Prince Edward Island? Does the hon. member know that?


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Two wrongs do not make a right.

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance


John Ewen Sinclair: Returned soldiers were dismissed down there on the charge of a member, just the same as in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only that in the one case they were justified and in the other they were not.


John Ewen Sinclair: They were not justified in the other case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These men denied it under oath.


John Ewen Sinclair: The right lion, gentleman's government did not give the other men a chance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They had a chance and did not deny the charge. They had the same chance as these men.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I may inform my hon. friend that I have no knowledge of what took place previously. I am confining my remarks to these four cases as illustrating a procedure which I consider unfair, and especially unfair to the four men whose cases are before me, who gave excellent service overseas, who have given faithful service to this country, and have been denied a hearing. The injustice of that I bring to the attention of the government.
In this particular case a telegram was placed on file from Charlottetown, addressed to Major R. L. Wheeler, Ottawa:
We the undersigned shippers look upon the wholesale dismissal of inspectors under fruit vegetable act as the most disastrous action ever perpetrated by political interests against the potato turnip industry this province stop We have enjoyed compulsory inspector for several years but if majority trained men now in service are to be dismissed we will petition for right to do our own inspecting and will employ men now trained unless your department will guarantee reimburse us for losses suffered because of inefficient inspection stop Please convey to minister agriculture and to our representative Hon. Dunning the ridiculousness of this unwarranted action.
Signed,
P.E.I. Potato Growers' Association.
Associated Shippers' Inc.
Canada Packers Limited.
Poole and Thompson.
J. A. Macdonald and Company.
Matthew and McLean Company.
Carvell Brothers.
Jos. Read and Company.
DeBlois Brothers.
A letter has been placed on file confirming that telegram.
Again, I find on file a letter from the Dominion command of the Canadian Legion drawing to the attention of the Minister of
Agriculture the obvious injustice of this procedure. The most important of these documents is the affidavit made by Mr. Donnelly:
1.	Edward P. Donnelly, of Peakes Station in Kings County, Prince Edward Island, fruit and vegetable inspector, do solemnly declare and state as follows:
1 That I have been employed as fruit and vegetable inspector under the Fruit, Vegetable and Honey Act since 1931.
2.	I received a letter dated the 27th day of August, A.D. 1936, from C. E. Shaw, senior fruit and vegetable inspector, informing me that my services would not be required after August 31st, A.D. 1936.
3.	1 inquired of Mr. Shaw as to the reason for my dismissal and he informed me that Dr. T. V. Grant, M.P. of Montague, had laid a charge against me that I had been guilty of political partisanship.
4.	Since I was appointed inspector as aforesaid I have not taken any part at all in political matters and have not even attended a political meeting of any kind since my appointment, and I can say that I positively have not been guilty of political partisanship. I have no knowledge whatever as to the particulars of the charge laid against me by Dr. Grant but since I have not taken any part at all in politics I can only say that the charge is unfounded.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
The same procedure was employed with regard to Edward E. Jay, who worked each season from 1924 until his permanent appointment, and then continuously to dismissal. The date of the appointment was October 31, 1924, and he was dismissed September 1, 1936. In this case a similar letter was forwarded to the Minister of Agriculture, as follows:
July 30, 1936.
Honourable J. G. Gardiner, B.A., LL.,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
To my personal knowledge Mr. Edward E. Jay, seed potato inspector, Peake's Station, R.R. 1. Kings County. P.E.I., was guilty of political partisanship at the last federal election, and I recommend that he be dismissed from the service.
Yours respectfully,
Thos. V. Grant.
M.P. for Kings, P.E.I.
There was a letter from the deputy minister addressed to Doctor Archibald, director of experimental farms, dated August 21:
August 21, 1936.
Dear Dr. Archibald:
Dr. Thos. V. Grant, M.P., Montague, P.E.I., has accused the following employees of your branch of political partisanship: Mr. Charles
2694	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
S.	Hellish, plant disease investigator, temporary, Summerville, P.E.I.; Mr. Edward Earl Jay, district plant disease investigator, permanent, Peake's Station, P.B.I.
I would ask you to kindly advise these men of their dismissal from September 1st, 1936.
As Mr. Jay is a permanent employee, an order in council authorizing his dismissal will
be necessary.
Yours very truly,
H.	Barton,
Deputy Minister.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does the hon. gentleman know what he is talking about? Does he know these men?
. An hon. MEMBER: Do you know what you are talking about?


John Ewen Sinclair: Yes, I know all these men. When the hon. gentleman talks about Doctor Grant making a charge against these men, let me tell him that Doctor Grant knew what he was doing.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am quoting from a sessional paper, a return brought down by the Minister of Agriculture. I made inquiries as a result of correspondence brought to my attention, and if I had time I could read pathetic letters written by some of these men.


The CHAIRMAN:: I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has gone considerably over his time.


Mr. McKENZIE (Lambton-Ivent):: Under the Department of Pensions and National Health for the fiscal year just closed there is a cash disbursement of $54,000,000 which, with administration, amounts to about $57,000,000. What proportion of that $54,000,000 is attributable to the last war? .


Charles Gavan Power: Every cent, I should say, would be attributable to the war.


Robert McKenzie: I am
referring to the permanent force.


Charles Gavan Power: Speaking offhand I believe there is $1,200,000 for what are called militia pensions, and that is not administered by the Department of Pensions and National Health except that the officials of the department who are really officials of the treasury sign the cheques that go out to former members of the Canadian militia.


Robert McKenzie: But
practically all this amount is attributable to the last war?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It is not my purpose to speak at any great length on the report and on the remarks of the minister with reference to it. It is rather difficult for one who

is a supporter of the administration and at the same time a returned soldier to take a popular attitude towards legislation with respect to returned soldiers. Perhaps I may be following the example of none other than the present minister if, although a supporter of the government of which he is a member, I disagree with some of the things he has said. It may be that he himself has Set the precedent. At any rate, with one or two remarks he made this morning I am bound to disagree.
I think I should begin by saying that our chief responsibility, as recognized by successive governments in Canada, has been the responsibility towards the disabled veteran, and I believe I shall be doing no more than justice to the successive governments in Canada in the period since the war if I say that we have now reached the stage where there is generally almost complete satisfaction with the legislation dealing with the problems of disabled veterans. I am fully aware that in a great many individual instances that degree of satisfaction does not obtain; but generally speaking I believe it does, and I am very much concerned lest the introduction of something which I conceive to be a great responsibility of the people of Canada, wherever it may be placed, namely, the care of unemployed returned soldiers, should be dealt with in this house, or elsewhere, in such a manner as to prejudice the position of the disabled veterans who are as fortunate as I believe them to be at the present time.
The minister in the course of his remarks said that he would not recognize the plight of the unemployable non-disabled veteran as a responsibility of the federal government. Personally I hope he will not recognize their plight as the responsibility of the Department of Pensions and National Health-why National Health should be tacked on to it I could never make out; I do not see why it should not be the Department of Pensions.
On the other hand, I do disagree with the minister in this respect. I believe that so long as one of those lives who served, there is a responsibility devolving upon government in Canada. I do not believe that all that can be learned has been discovered; I do not believe that at this moment we are in a position to say definitely what we can do for that percentage of the unemployed, the non-disabled soldiers who will never be employed. In every constituency in Canada there are men-I do not know exactly what the percentage is but I suspect it is not as large as we have been sometimes told-who have done practically nothing since the war and who will never do anything as long as

Supply-Pensions-
-Veterans' Assistance
they live, but who remain, in spite of that, a peculiar charge on the people of Canada.
I do not believe that the percentage of these misfits-I mean, of course, misfits in the industrial life of the country-among the nondisabled returned soldiers on relief is any higher than it is among others on relief who are not soldiers. I do not believe it is any higher, if as high; but in my opinion there is a responsibility on government in Canada; and whether it be a federal responsibility or a municipal or provincial responsibility is a matter of opinion.
I am not in accord, personally, with the view held by this government and by preceding governments that unemployment is primarily a responsibility of the municipality and the province. That view does obtain and has obtained in the past, and so long as such a policy is followed I do not think that the Department of Pensions and National Health, who are charged with a definite duty to look after disabled returned men. should be interfered with in their work. The support they have received from all parties and all classes and groups of people in Canada should not be imperilled by dragging in this other question of a bonus or some financial consideration for every man who wore a uniform. I am afraid of that. I am afraid of the cost of it- not that it cannot be paid, but I am afraid there would be a reaction in the minds of the people of Canada, who have treated their disabled veterans more generously perhaps than any other nation engaged in the great war. I want to see that spirit maintained. For that reason I think that in the course of time-and I am not sparring for time; I do not need to; I have no other interest in this than a sincere desire to see done what is fundamentally necessary-something will be done. I am not anxious to see it done now so much as I am anxious to see it done properly when it is done.
We have departed from the idea that the disabled veteran is the only responsibility of the federal government, by the institution of the Veterans' Allowance Act. That it has worked very well is a credit to those who conceived it, and particularly to those who carry out the functions of the board. But that it was in a measure the thin end of the wedge introducing the idea of some sort of financial recompense to all who wore the uniform was abundantly proven by the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). Both the hon. member for Vancouver North and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) used the success of that board as an argument for expanding the thing a little
further. Frankly I am concerned lest the idea of direct federal assistance to the unemployed veteran should come into conflict with the policy of leaving the responsibility for unemployment relief to the provinces and the municipalities. I am anxious lest a conflict should develop there which would hurt the whole cause of disabled veterans. I conceive such a conflict to be not only possible but probable. It is in fact absolutely necessary that something be devised in the future, some way of recognizing the complete unemployability of a percentage of returned men. I am satisfied, despite all remarks to the contrary, that this government or a succeeding government will have to meet that condition, and I have some ideas as to how it should be met. But I am concerned that it shall not be met at the expense of disabled veterans in Canada. For that reason I should like to suggest to the minister and the government and all who have sincerely at heart the interests not only of disabled veterans but unemployed veterans, that we should seek first to establish clearly who are the unemployables-I do not use those very wordy terms employed last year to establish unemployability. I am concerned that we find out who are the nine, ten, fifteen, nineteen, or twenty-three thousand men who served in the war and who will not work again. When we know them, when we know their circumstances, this or some other government will have to do something about it.
If we are to be consistent, if we say that unemployment relief is a provincial and municipal matter, we had better see about doing something in the nature of a special enlargement of the old age pension plan whereby the dominion government might accept some additional responsibility-after all we now pay 75 per cent-keeping the responsibility for administration in the provinces or the municipalities, where the government evidently believes it should be kept, but at the same time assuming more responsibility for it. We cannot leave this matter in its present situation. We have to remember that we in Canada have a particular and peculiar and never-ending responsibility for every man who wore the uniform. I do not know that we have a monetary responsibility, but we have a responsibility w'hich is more than moral. We cannot leave it to those who advocate throwing the thing open for a bonus. We cannot pay it with money. If we paid bonuses every year until the last soldier of the great war is dead, when the last man came, if he were still dependent on someone else, he would be a responsibility of ours. We cannot get away from that, and the
2696	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
comparative indifference of governments generally, and even of some hon. members of this house, to that problem and all that it involves, does not change the fact; it is there. But the returned soldiers of Canada will defeat themselves and defeat any possible recognition of their problem if we continue to bear down more and more to the point where the generation growing up now, to whom the great war is simply history and a dull subject-I say that if we keep on hammering on that line we shall defeat the very purpose we have in view.
So, in conclusion, I beseech the government and the minister that in their future consideration of the problem, they be advised by these veterans' assistance committees as to who the unemployable veterans are in each district, and that they devise some policy to be administered outside of the Department of Pensions, and fix it in such a way that we shall not be everlastingly coming back and trying to chisel something out of this legislation or inserting something into that other, to the end that we may eventually take care of everyone who is demonstrably in need.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to say a word in support of clause (b) of the report, to which the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) referred this afternoon. There are a large number of imperial veterans in the constituencies of Parkdale, Greenwood, Danforth and Broadview; in fact, I have the headquarters of the imperial veterans in my riding to which men come from all over the city.
As a civilian I wish to congratulate the chairman and the soldier members of the committee on the splendid work it has done, and they must not get discouraged in serving a good cause. I know many of these imperial veterans, non-participants in this unemployment assistance, who came to Canada before 1930. They were mostly industrial workers, and when the depression came they lost their jobs. They do not want charity; they want work. Many of them were skilled workmen in different branches of the building industry, carpenters and mechanics. They were attracted here by the steamboat companies, which between 1920 and 1930 had large posters all over the old country advising returned men to come to Canada. It was fortunate that we had that class of immigration, because they have been an element in suppressing communism. I plead for those men that they may be helped, within Canada and externally. We should clean our own house.

I know the minister will not think I am reflecting on the department, but after all is said and done municipalities give the pi-efer-ence to returned men who have lived in the city for a year. That has been extended not only to members of the Canadian expeditionary force but also to the imperials as long as they have lived there a year. But owing to economic conditions the municipalities have been starved in regard to public building and construction work.
dhe right hon. leader of the opposition made a most constructive suggestion the other day when he proposed that relief expenditures on construction should be linked up and coordinated with the work of the pension department, because the municipalities can do more than any other agency to help out this federal department as most of these men are skilled mechanics and industrial workers. I think a certain amount of work should be earmarked for them, because these men cannot go out on the road; they could not go up to Chapleau or White River and work, but they are equipped to work on municipal undertakings that may be built for the future, such as urban and suburban schools, hospitals, breakwaters and so on. I think if the work of the different governmental departments could be coordinated and the proper agreements made with the provinces to provide municipal relief works of all kinds, we might give the minister of pensions a pretty free hand so that something might be done.
I have seen the suffering of these poor exsoldiers; I have a great many of them in my riding. During the Christmas season last year the press made reference to the lot of these poor men. Many of them tried to get extra work with the post office, but were unable to do so. I know when Poppy Day was advertised, at the same time there appeared in the newspapers requests for used clothing, baby carriages and other things for the use of these people.
I am in favour of the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green); I believe something should be done to coordinate the work of the imperial government and this government, because these poor people are suffering. I have spoken to the principals of the three largest collegiates in the city of Toronto about these men. Many of them are on relief. Some of them get an imperial pension of S20 per month, and along comes an inspector who says:	You must get off relief because you
have a pension. I admit that they have been given some further assistance, but I think there is still room for improvement. I do not see why their children should have to

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
suffer because their fathers were imperials. That is hardly the imperialistic spirit we should have, and I think some arrangement should be made to take care of the children. I see no reason why they should be penalized because their fathers happened to come here before 1930. It is almost nineteen years since the war ended. I see these imperials every day; a great many of them live in the riding of Parkdale, and they are suffering terribly. I have been in some of their homes; I have spoken to the teachers in the schools and I receive letters almost daily. I think we should do something for these people, though I want to thank both ministers for the way they have cooperated with me.


Charles Gavan Power: 
Charles Grant MacNeil: Continuing to place before the government the evidence in regard to these dismissals I wish to read a letter addressed to Mr. Jay, signed by the dominion botanist, and dated August 24:
Dear Sir:
We have been notified that Doctor Thomas V. Grant, M.P., Montague, P.E.I., has accused you of political partisanship, and we have been instructed by the department to advise you of your dismissal from the service, effective September 1st, 1936.
Yours very truly,
P. L. Drayton,
Acting Dominion Botanist.
Then there is order in council P.C. 2156, dated August 26, 1936, which reads: Agriculture:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 22nd August, 1936, from the Minister of Agriculture stating that a communication has been received from Dr. Thos. V. Grant, member of parliament for the electoral district of Kings, P.E.I., in which he represents that, to his personal knowledge, Mr. Edward Earl Jay, Peake's Station, P.E.I., employed as a district plant disease investigator, has been guilty of active political partisanship.
The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, advise that the services of Mr. Edward Earl Jay be dispensed with, effective September 1, 1936.
E. J. Lemaire,
Olerk of the Privy Council.
In subsequent correspondence Mr. Jay requests information as to his rights with regard to benefits under the Superannuation Act and in regard to statutory leave. This matter was dealt with by the department, and I find that on September 9 the director of the central experimental farm writes to the acting dominion botanist as follows:
Dear Dr. Drayton:
I have your letter of September 8, in regard to the dismissal of Messrs. E. E. Jay and C. S. Mellish.
I note Mr. Jay is demanding an investigation inasmuch as he claims never to have taken part in politics, and that Senator Macdonald is very much interested in his case. If Senator Macdonald feels this way about the matter (and I am pleased he does), I think he should wire the Prime Minister or get in touch with the local member, Dr. T. V. Grant, and endeavour to straighten out the matter with him. The law is absolutely rigid in matters of this kind,
2698	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
namely, if a member of parliament accuses an employee of political partisanship, that employee must be dismissed immediately.
Naturally, Mr. Jay will not be entitled to any further statutory leave. Moreover, his dismissal automatically debars him from obtaining a refund of his contributions to the superannuation fund or any gratuity under this act.
Yours very truly,
E. S. Archibald,
Director.
That is an important letter, indicating that under the procedure adopted, these men were denied privileges ordinarily extended to employees retiring from the civil service. Subsequently the matter was protested by the dominion office of the Canadian Legion. The protest was directed to the Minister of Agriculture, and his letter in reply is very interesting. It is as follows:
Ottawa, September 9, 1936. J. C. G. Herwig, Esq.,
Dominion Headquarters Service Bureau,
The Canadian Legion,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Herwig:
I have yours of September 2nd. protesting the dismissal of Mr. Edward Earl Jay, who you state is a returned soldier and was employed by this department for the last twelve years in the division of botany at the experimental farm at Charlottetown. This will also acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 4th September.
I can only say that the action was taken under the practice which has prevailed for a number of years in connection with such matters. The practice followed is that where a member, on his own responsibility, states in writing that a man has been politically active, his word is taken on the ground that he is in a position to be called upon to answer for his action on the floor of the house. Where anyone else makes complaint, a full investigation is held.
Yours sincerely,
James G. Gardiner.
Then follows the affidavit:
fin the matter of the dismissal of Canada JEdward E. Jay from the position of P.E.I. 1 District Seed Potato Inspector for [Prince Edward Island.
I,	Edward E. Jay, of Charlottetown, in Queen's County, in Prince Edward Island, district seed potato inspector for the province of Prince Edward Island, do solemnly declare and state as follows:
1.	That I have been employed with the Department of Agriculture, Division of Botany, as Seed Potato Inspector for this province since 1924 and have been continuously employed as a permanent inspector since February 1928. I was promoted to the position of District Inspector in the early summer of 1930.
2.	That on August 29th, A.D. 1936, I received notification of my dismissal as such District Seed Potato Inspector, such dismissal to be effective on September 1st, 1936. The reason
[Mr MacNeil.]
given for the dismissal being that Doctor T. V. Grant, M.P., had accused me of political partisanship.
3.	I positively have no knowledge whatever as to the nature of the charges made against me as I have never taken any active part in politics and never attended a political meeting in my life. These statements apply both prior to and since my appointment.
And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true and of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of The Canada Evidence Act.
Declared before me at Char- "I lottetown, in Prince Edward I (Sgd).
Island, this 5th day of Sep- [Edward E. Jay ternber, A.D. 1936.	J
(sgd.) R. H. Rogers,
Notary Public for the Province
of Prince Edward Island.
A man with something like thirteen years service in the department is dismissed without a fair trial, denied his rights under the Superannuation Act, and other benefits he had a right to expect after a period of service.
I refer now only briefly to the case of Edward Cairns, whose date of appointment was September 24, 1928, and who was dismissed on September 15, 1936. There is a similar letter signed by Doctor Grant, the member for Kings county. I bring this case to the attention of the committee because apparently there was a dismissal by wire, under authority of a letter written by the director of the central experimental farm. That letter under date of September 14, 1936, is as follows:
The Dominion Botanist,

Dear Mr. Gussow:
I quote a memorandum from the Deputy Minister under date of September 10:
"Dr. Thos. V. Grant, M.P., Montague, P.E.I., states that, to his personal knowledge, Mr. Edward Cairns, Plant Disease Investigator, Peake's Station, P.E.I., was guilty of political partisanship at the last federal election. Kindly advise Mr. Cairns of his dismissal from the service, effective September 15."
Will you kindly notify Mr. Cairns of his dismissal by wire, as it is effective from September 15.
Yours very truly,
E. S. Archibald,
Director.
Apparently he received one day's notice of his dismissal, and, as in other cases, was denied a hearing. His affidavit is as follows:
In re matter of the dismissal of Edward Cairns of Baldwin's Road, in King's County, in Prince Edward Island, Re- turned Soldier, from the position of Seed Potato Inspector under the Dominion Department of Agriculture.
Canada
Prince Edward island

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
I, Edward Cairns, of Baldwin's Road in King's County, in Prince Edward Island, Seed Potato Inspector, do solemnly declare and say as follows:
1.	That I have been employed as Seed Potato Inspector since October, 1928, in the province of Prince Edward Island.
2.	That I received a letter dated September 15th. 1936, from S. G. Peppin, of Charlottetown, in Prince Edward Island, Senior Inspector, to the effect that Doctor Grant had laid charges of political partisanship against me and that the Department of Agriculture had ordered my dismissal from the service effective from September 15th, 1936.
3.	I have not taken any part whatever in polities since my appointment as such Seed Potato Inspector, and I have no idea whatever as to the nature of Doctor Grant's charges, nor what they amount to, but I say positively that I am not nor have not been guilty of any political partisanship since my appointment as aforesaid.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
(sgd.) Edw-ard Cairns.
Declared before me at Charlottetown in Queen's County, in Prince Edward Island, this 17th day of September, A.D. 1936.
(sgd.) R. H. Rogers,
A Notary Public in and for the Province of Prince Edward Island.
The whole matter is summed up admirably in a letter addressed to the Prime Minister by the General. Secretary of the Canadian Legion. It is as follows:
Dominion Headquarters, Ottawa, Canada, December 7th, 1936. The Rt. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,


C.M.G., P.C., M.P.,
[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:-
It is with reluctance that, on behalf of the Dominion Command of the Canadian Legion, I bring to your attention the plight of four returned soldiers in Prince Edward Island who have been summarily dismissed from the Department of Agriculture following charges of political partisanship. There now seems to be no other course open but to take this action in view of the very strong feelings aroused in respect to the manner in which these dismissals have been effected. We cannot escape the convictions that certain principles of justice are involved which, we submit should be all the more assiduously maintained and practised at a time W'hen democratic principles and institutions are being so seriously challenged throughout the world.
According to our advice, about two months ago, charges of partisanship were preferred by Doctor T. V. Grant, member of parliament for King's County, Prince Edward Island, against Edward Earl Jay, Edward Cairns, Edward P. Donnelly and Charles McLeod, who have been
civil servants for periods of thirteen years, eight years and five years each, respectively. It is understood that Doctor Grant has declared that it is of his own knowledge that these men are guilty, and, as a result, dismissal ensued without further inquiry. On the other hand, each of them has furnished a sworn statement disclaiming all knowledge of any specific charges and denying any partisan activity whatsoever. Copies of the statements are enclosed.
Representations made to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture with a view to delaying the drastic action of dismissal until an investigation could be made into the charges have so far met with no result. He has informed us, however, as follows:
"I can only say that the action was taken under the practice which has prevailed for a number of years in connection with such matters. The practice followed is that w'here a member, on his own responsibility, states in writing that a man has been politically active, his word is taken on the ground that he is in a position to be called upon to answer for his action on the floor of the house. Where anyone else makes complaint, a full investigation is held."
If this interpretation of the situation is correct, then it is not clear what procedure must be followed to bring their cases before the house. Very frankly, we fear that if the matter is brought in through opposition channels, such an eventuality might easily become simply a partisan discussion and would not be likely to afford the best method of determining the facts upon which a fair judgment might be rendered. Furthermore, it would not appear desirable to publicly air incidents of this nature whereby apparently guilt is determined and punishment afflicted without hearing, a procedure so alien to a democratic sense of justice.
In addition, it is learned that in this same constituency, six other employees of the Department were also released on similar charges. The legion submits very strongly and sincerely trusts you will agree that the dismissal of ten civil servants on the unsupported word of one individual should not be permitted without those affected at least learning the nature of the specific charges made, and being afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. It should be remembered that these men not only lose permanent employment, but also their provision for old age in the form of superannuation savings. Unspecified and unsupported charges made by any individual carrying with them such harsh and drastic penalties surely should at least be set forth and made subject to some form of impartial review. In behalf of these four returned soldiers, it is urged that they be given a hearing before some competent body to determine their innocence or otherwise.
John Ewen Sinclair: Would the hon. member
inform me who the other employees were who were dismissed?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I mentioned them earlier
in my observations, but I should be glad to give the hon. member the information. The letter continues:
May we make it quite plain that in pressing this matter the legion has no desire whatsoever to embarrass the government. We are aware
2700	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
that unhappy cases have occurred as a result of charges made by members of both the historic parties in various parts of the dominion in the past. It is felt, however, that the principles involved are now a matter of such serious concern, and the reactions to what has been done so unfavourable, that we have no alternative but to bring the matter to your attention; and this we most respectfully do in the very sincere hope that it may be considered to be in the best interests of all to dispense with this method of dealing with alleged partisan activities of civil servants and affording them a fairer way of defending themselves.
Trusting that these matters will receive your earnest consideration,
I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J.	R. Bowler,
General Secretary.
I think the particulars T have quoted from the sessional paper clearly state the case. I would urge the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) to bring this matter to the attention of the government, particularly in view of the recommendations made by the veterans' assistance commission. He will understand, as I do, that these men fought for British justice and they are entitled to receive British justice. They have been denied that justice in connection with their complaints. I do not know upon what statutory authority this procedure has been maintained, but as a member of this house I can see no reason why the unsupported word of a member of parliament should be accepted in cases of this nature and the man concerned be denied a fair hearing. It is true that when a man is guilty of political partisanship he is subject to dismissal under the terms of the act, but I would point out to the minister that under the Inquiries Act ample provision has been made for the holding of suitable inquiry within a department to determine whether or not such charges are well founded.
I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his seat as it might possibly be he could assist us in arriving at a solution of this problem, leading to the reinstatement of these men. I contend that in view of the evidence contained in this return we have the right to expect some statement from the government. I urge the government to abandon this procedure and provide some means of holding a fair and impartial inquiry into such charges, in order that those men who have given faithful service might be protected. I think the minister will be as anxious as I to protect men against injustice.
I apologize for taking up so much of the time of the committee but I did so because I have been bombarded with correspondence, not only from the constituency which I

represent and the province in which I live, but from units of ex-service men as well as individual war veterans throughout Canada. All of these men are in dire distress, and I felt I should make at least a feeble endeavour to place their views before this committee. The minister has stated that some 100,000 men are dependent on government aid. I think he should clarify that statement. Those who receive pensions do not receive assistance to a degree to provide an adequate return. The majority of the pensioners receive pensions of less than $35 per month. The number receiving pensions in the second lowest classification is something like 16,000.


Charles Gavan Power: If it is lower than the scale of municipal relief which I have just quoted, it is brought up to that figure.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Even with that assistance it is still inadequate. The recommendations made by the commission are really an interim report in connection with an emergent condition. The foundation is laid down there for a general and comprehensive plan* which would enable us to deal with this matter promptly and effectively. Unless it is dealt with effectively and without delay, it will become so aggravated as to require even more costly remedies in the years to come.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be quite brief in my remarks. I want to refer shortly to the statement made this morning by the minister with which we in this corner were somewhat disappointed. I have in my hand a telegram from the president of the Alberta branch of the British Empire service league, similar to the one read by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). We feel that in the past we have evaded and are at present evading a great responsibility by refusing to take care adequately of the unemployed veteran. I am referring particularly to those men who are unemployable from the point of view of industry. The minister referred to the recommendations of the assistance commission advocating service pensions, but I do not think that was a fair statement to make. A service pension means a pension to all men who served during the war, while the recommendation of the commission only asks that assistance be given to those men who are unemployed or on relief. That is an entirely different matter.
After all, this is only a temporary problem as it will be only a few years before these men will be entitled to receive assistance under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
urge strongly that action be taken in connection with the proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), namely, that the age limit under the War Veterans' Allowance Act be reduced from fifty-five to fifty years. This was recommended to the committee which sat last year. Provision is made in the War Veterans' Allowance Act for veterans who are permanently unemployable, but unfortunately a very strict interpretation is given to this provision. I know many men who are at present unemployable, and I have no doubt other hon. members know many men in the same condition. These men cannot get assistance under the War Veterans' Allowance Act as it does not cover the veterans who are unemployable from the point of view of industry. There is a difference between the man who is unemployed from the point of view of industry and the man who is unemployable from a medical standpoint; but they are both in the unfortunate position of not being able to maintain themselves.
It is only natural that a number of returned men should be losing faith in the government. Commissions are appointed to investigate their cases, recommendations are brought in, and then the government refuses to take any action. The minister has stressed how much has been spent on the returned man in the past in an effort to show that he has been well looked after. I claim that that is not the important point. The important point is how much is needed to adequately fulfil our obligations to the returned men, and how nearly have we come to fulfilling those obligations. To quote large figures means nothing, unless you make the comparison to which I have referred.
It seems to me that to talk of training men forty-five years of age and over for new jobs is sheer nonsense, especially when you consider that there are thousands of young men, many of them fully trained, who are looking for jobs.
In closing I again urge that an amendment be made to the War Veterans' Allowance Act reducing the age limit from fifty-five to fifty years. I also urge that we take immediate action to implement the recommendation of the war veterans' assistance commission. There is one recommendation in the report which I think is very unfair. It states:
It is presumed that veterans living on their own farms and registered as in rural farm areas would not benefit under any scheme of payment of extra relief to non-pensioners, because of benefits received by them from their farms.
I think it will be found that the greatest need for relief in western Canada is in the
drought area. Many returned men have not been able to maintain themselves, and are in a worse position than those who are receiving relief in the cities.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to state my views as succinctly as I can. The plight of the war veteran is a subject that has been before parliament at almost every session for the last twenty years. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the minister (Mr. Power), who as a private member of this house has rendered invaluable service in years gone by on the various committees appointed to look into this matter. The same thing might be said of other ex-service members of this house who have served on the various pension and soldier committees of this house.
It has been the practice over the years for those of us who are not ex-service men to leave this matter in the hands of the exservice members. I think that has been the general attitude. I know that over this long period of time I myself have rarely obtruded my views on this subject. It was not through any lack of interest or sympathy for the ex-service men, but rather because their interests were being so efficiently cared for by their comrades who were members of this house; and it seemed to me unwise for those of us who were not ex-service men to obtrude our views upon the house.
I think it is unfortunate that this subject has come up so late in the session for it is one of very grave importance. I listened this morning to the minister, and so far as his technical description of the system and of the various laws applicable to the subject is concerned, his speech was admirable in every respect and deserves, I think, to be commended. His statement of his attitude, wherein he differed from the report referred to, was very frank; he has always been courageous in expressing his views. But I interpret his attitude to be substantially an answer of "no" to the suggestions of the commission. This brings us to what I conceive to be the root of the whole problem, and that is the question of accepting responsibility for the care of ex-service men who are not in receipt of pensions. The minister will correct me if I misinterpret him-I do not think I do-when I say that his attitude is that where an exservice man is in receipt of a pension the department and the government take full responsibility for his care and relief; but where he has no pension, no responsibility is accepted. I hope that hon. members, and particularly the government, will give a little thought to that proposition.
2702	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance


Charles Gavan Power: The proposition is not new; that is the theory.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree that it is not new, excepting in this sense-


Charles Gavan Power: It has never been stated so frankly before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is new in this sense,
that after years of experience a commission set up by the government, and which carried, I think, the general approval of the house, made a finding. The house had found it difficult to come to a conclusion and the commission was appointed for the specific purpose of advising us; but when its finding is made, it is, to put it mildly, disregarded.
I ask hon. members to consider this proposition:	Why should we discriminate between ex-service men who are pensioners and ex-service men who are not pensioners? Let us look very briefly at the position of the ex-service men in receipt of a pension. A man may have had a wound which does not incapacitate him, but under the legal and technical description of qualification for pension he is entitled to and receives a pension. He may be physically less impaired by war service than many thousands of men who today are unable technically and scientifically to connect up their disability to war service. That is so clear that no one will dispute it. That takes me one step further.
I fully recognize the difficulty of drafting a statute which will do justice to all exservice men, and at the same time safeguard the treasury against impositions by those who may not be deserving of a pension. The law must be rigid and specific; it has been so drafted and has been adopted by parliament. But I do not suppose there is an hon. member who has not met many ex-service men who, he is convinced, are suffering to-day disabilities because of war service, but who are denied a pension because they have no past medical histories on the files of the department, or because medical science is unable to relate their present day disabilities to war service.
I suggest that every hon. member should during the coming recess visit a military hospital in his district, and personally go through it and see the patients there. I have been through many of these hospitals, and it is one of the saddest experiences possible. I remember that a year or two ago I was personally conducted to each patient by the medical superintendent of the Winnipeg hospital. I was told that a great many of the inmates-I have forgotten the number, but it was substantial-were not on pension, yet the condition and the sufferings of some of

them were tragic. It may be answered that they were being taken care of. True; but what impressed itself on my mind was that simply because medical science is unable definitely to tie up their disability to war service was not a reason for refusing them pensions.


Charles Gavan Power: Or their condition must be due to something that has nothing whatever to do with war service, just as the condition of any ordinary civilian would be. Twenty years have elapsed since the war.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is true, but I submit that simply because medical science cannot positively relate their sufferings to war service is not a sufficient answer. For instance, a case came to my notice not long ago of a man who had served four years at the front; twice he was disabled, but each time he returned to the front and gave willing service. He was of the very best type of war veteran. The appeal court stated in their report that he was a particularly high type of citizen and they did not question the truthfulness of his statements; but some of his testimony as to his experiences in the war lacked corroborative evidence. I believe he claimed to have had trench feet; the medical sheet did not disclose it, and therefore his word, though regarded by the tribunal as reliable, could not be accepted as evidence. That is a pretty narrow interpretation of the law.


Charles Gavan Power: It is not according to the
statute. It is contrary to the statute.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But it is according to practice; I know because I have had to do with a good many cases. One of my complaints against the administration of the pensions act is the meticulous insistence upon medically and scientifically connecting up the man's disability with war service. I believe that the law should be reviewed now that twenty years have passed since these men came back and now that disabilities are coming to the fore and becoming very prevalent.
If medical science cannot prove that disabilities are attributable to the wax, the shoe should be on the other foot; we should ask medical science to prove that they are not due to the war. That suggestion is worthy of consideration. When there is a problem case, when the man has a good record and has what I may call the ancillary evidence to support his claim, medical science should be asked to' prove that the man's condition is not attributable to the war. I know of case after Gase where, simply because it was not clearly and;

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
scientifically proven that the applicant's condition was due to war service, the application for pension was denied. I do not wish to open up individual cases in proof of this statement, but a consideration of them- does affect this principle of responsibility. That is one reason. The minister had answered over and over again, and quite correctly, that these men get their relief from the municipalities or the province or some other source, and therefore they have no cause for complaint. But, Mr. Chairman, in the first place it is the same taxpayer who is paying the money, whether the man gets his relief from the municipality or the province or the dominion. But the poor veteran is in this unfortunate position: he is told by the municipality or by the province, " It is true you have some claim for relief, but the federal government ought to look after you; we have got more than we can look after now." Therefore the poor veteran finds himself between the devil and the deep sea. The minister can choose whichever position he likes.


Charles Gavan Power: But he gets relief just the same.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He finds himself on the horns of a dilemma.


Charles Gavan Power: But he gets relief.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, he gets relief; but it is the taxpayers' money that has to supply it; and we know that the municipalities find it almost impossible to carry on. We are giving special concessions in regard to old age pensions and pensions for the blind, both of which I entirely endorse. Why, then, should not the Dominion of Canada recognize that inasmuch as this great relief problem is certainly beyond either the province or the municipality-that is admitted-the time has come for the dominion government to say frankly that it will take a step towards the solution of the problem by assuming responsibility for certain veterans of the great war, citizens of this country. There is no need for any new machinery because the machinery exists at the present time, and it would do away with bickering, and would cost the country not one cent more.


Charles Gavan Power: What about administration? Will there be officers of my department in every village and every hamlet of the country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I venture to say that the minister's department to-day reaches out into every district in the country, not to every village, but to every district, and it has to deal with two or three sick veterans wherever they are hospitalized. In the matter of pensions, the department has to deal with the pensioner
wherever he may be, no matter in what village or hamlet. I say therefore that the machinery is there, though it might call for an increase in the personnel to run it. It is a question whether this parliament is prepared to assume responsibility for the war veterans, and I submit that it would be sound policy and good practice for us to adopt that principle. Let us decide, as a step towards relieving the municipalities and provinces of a part of their burden, to take the veterans under our care. That is my first suggestion. *
I wish now to refer to the most extraordinary recital that was given a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). I am as well aware as any member of this house of the old practice with regard to dismissals. WThen I first came to parliament twenty-six years ago, a member of parliament had the right to say that of his own personal knowledge someone was guilty of partisanship, and that person would be dismissed; more than -that, when I first came to the house, any employee of the government would be dismissed at the mere request of a member. That was the system then in vogue, the old patronage system. We have gone a long way from that, fortunately. We have attempted to build up a sound, well-established, responsible civil service in Canada. The Civil Service Act, with all its faults, has been one of the most important progressive steps ever taken in Canada. There is much that can be done to improve the system, and here I would interject one observation, namely, that ^ we should carefully watch bureaucracy within the service; that must be watched. But it does not follow, because there is some bureaucracy, autocratic bureaucracy within the civil service, that -the present system should be wiped out. Not at all.
As regards these ten veterans, however, it appears that four of them were appointed under the regime of the present party prior to 1930, and they are dismissed at the request of a member, without a hearing, and without being apprised of the specific offences oi which they are accused. The statement is simply made that the member knew that they were partisan and that they should be dismissed. That is a retrograde step; it is something that has not been sanctioned in this house in recent years. True it is that Sir Wilfrid Laurier laid down a dictum that has been frequently quoted, to the effect that if a member seriously stated on his own responsibility as a member that he had personal knowledge that the person complained of had been guilty of partisanship, that person should be dismissed. That dictum has been accepted and acted upon by both the old parties for
2704	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
many years. But I can recall discussions that took place when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden and other leaders of past days were in the house, when it was invariably admitted that the person accused should have an opportunity to be heard; and if in his reply he denied the charge, an investigation was held. That has been the invariable procedure in the last ten or fifteen years. Usually a commissioner has been appointed, the person accused has been summoned to appear before that commissioner; his own statement has been taken, together with the evidence of his accusers; and on an adverse report of the commissioner the governor in council has passed an order of dismissal. That has been the practice. I am not saying that it is one that we should adhere to rigidly; my hope has been for many years that we might take still more progressive steps to ensure employees in the public service receiving some measure of protection in order to preserve continuity of service.
Who could fail to be impressed, as he heard them, with the names of the business firms attached to the protest in the matter now under consideration? I forget how many there were, but half a dozen occur to me as I speak. The names were read into Hansard. These firms are doing business all over the world, shipping chiefly potatoes, one of the great crops of Prince Edward Island, of which the people of that province are justly proud. One of the things Prince Edward Island prides itself on is its thoroughly up-to-date system of grading the potato crop, for it enables the people there to market that crop not only in the other provinces of Canada but in other parts of the world as well. Look at the island's trade with the United States in seed potatoes; it is of great importance. It is idle, therefore, to say that employees of this calibre, engaged in such work, could be dismissed and presumably as easily be replaced, without injury to the service. The matter is much more serious than appears on the surface.
The minister may justly reply that he did not do it, and therefore the matter should not be brought to his notice. I am putting it to him, first, as the custodian of the interests of the veterans of Canada, and secondly as one of the most distinguished members of the ex-service fraternity in the country-and I say that in absolute sincerity. I give him that credit with absolute sincerity. He knows the pride I have in him as one of its most distinguished members, and I lay on his shoulders the responsibility of seeing that his fellow-veterans get a square deal. They certainly are not getting a square deal in this

instance. No man, I care not how partisan he may be, can in his honest moments sanction an action of that kind. I was greatly shocked when I heard the recital-


Charles Gavan Power: Will my hon. friend pardon my asking whether he was equally shocked when the same thing happened while he was a member of a government, with respect to potato inspectors in the. constituency of Frank Smith; men discharged on the word of a member of parliament, and returned men too.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have been shocked for twenty-six years.	_


Charles Gavan Power: And I am shocked equally with my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When I first came to parliament a member was entitled to request the dismissal of any public servant, and it would be granted-


Charles Gavan Power: And still is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were 600 government employees in my riding, and there was one dismissed; the reason was a very serious one and is on the records. That is all as far as I am concerned. At my first election I took a stand for the establishment in Canada of a civil service on the same principles and with the object of building it up to the same standard as the British civil service. That was my stand then, and I have never deviated from it. I have seen many instances of dismissal for alleged partisanship by both parties in the last twenty-six years, and I have deplored them, but I say very earnestly that I have never seen an instance so serious as this one.


Charles Gavan Power: There was an equally serious one in 1931.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not that before me. I do not for one moment condone it. Even if I had in years gone by condoned it, which I have not, it does not alter the fact a particle. What I am saying now, and inviting hon. members to consider is that we should not say: Oh, you did it in 1930, or in 1920 or 1912. I have listened to that for twenty-five years. That is not the point. Surely we have progressed beyond that. One of the things that is challenging the prestige and dignity and influence of parliament is crass patronage and partisanship. That is the challenge that is being flung at parliament, and parliament is losing its prestige because it stubbornly refuses to do away with such things. People to-day are not interested in partisanship or patronage. I implore^ hon. members on all sides to abandon this old

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
shibboleth of:	You did it, and we will do
it-this old attitude of the ins and outs. Surely parties in this house, I care not what they are, are going to stand on some principle-not merely the mere difference of in and out. This, as I said the other day, and I repeat, is undermining the influence and standing of legislative assemblies in this country. If we are to accept the reply the minister interjected a moment ago, it simply means that we sit back and say: All right, wait until we get our turn and then we will show you! Isn't that childish? Can any man of a mature mind sit in parliament here and cherish that sentiment? Yet unfortunately that attitude exists.
This incident ought to be brought to the attention of the government as a whole. I have some confidence in the government's sense of justice, decency and fair play, and believe that they will rectify this thing. If they do not, the matter should not rest here; all of us should take steps to purge ourselves not only from this practice but of the sentiment that is behind it.
I do not wish, Mr. Chairman, to delay the committee. In my belief the time has come when parliament-I am not talking about this side or any other-should take a stand on the question of responsibility for ex-service men in this country. No man contributed more in the years when he was in opposition	to keeping this question out of
partisan politics than the minister himself. I pay tribute to him for that, and I plead with him now not to put this thing on a party basis, but to deal with it, as we have always tried to do in this house for twenty years, as a non-party question. The least we can do for the veteran is to recognize his services to Canada, and see that as a Canadian citizen who has done outstanding service he shall be treated, not as a partisan, but as a citizen. Not only would I say that regarding returned men; but had they been civilians a similar statement is warranted, namely, that as ordinary citizens of the country they are entitled to know what they are charged with, to have the particulars of the charge, and to have a chance to state their case. I learn with deep regret from an observation made this afternoon that the hon. member who made the charge against them is ill. I am sure every hon. member regrets that. And I have no word of criticism of him. But we cannot allow the fate of ten veterans to rest upon that unfortunate circumstance, and I again plead with the minister and the government that they give this matter consideration, because I know, and
the older members of this house who have been through this for so many years know that the forbearance, the patience, and the loyalty of the veterans all through these years when their problems have been discussed is not merely commendable but I look upon it with deep veneration; I am sometimes almost amazed that their patience has been so great. They have had provocation, many times, to link themselves together in a resisting element, but they have never done so. Oh, there have been individuals crop up, but the minister himself said to-day that the responsible veterans' associations had refrained from this, that and the other, and he paid tribute to them for it. There were one or two exceptions-


Charles Gavan Power: Once in 1919 my hon. friend will remember.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I remember very well that an individual named Flynn, who later went to a penitentiary in Pennsylvania, went through the country lashing the veterans into a state of fury. But how long did it last? Just one trip across the dominion, a few months, and it was out. The veterans of their own common sense abandoned that sort of thing, and for nearly twenty years in their organizations and as individuals have been loyal, law-abiding, self-respecting citizens. And I fear very much that this rather unequivocal answer of "No" will not only be discouraging, but perhaps worse than that, to these veterans. Even before this session closes is not too late to offer some word of encouragement and hope to these men, that they will get in the future, as we have tried to give them in the past, a square deal; not something which will meet all their needs, but at least a deal that will win their respect for the government of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Chairman, the applause we have just heard was evidence, I am sure, of how the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Stevens) impressed members of the committee. He spoke with his usual dramatic ability and appealed to the best and highest that is in us. His remarks would appeal more particularly to those hon. members who have been in the house only since the last election; to those of us who have been familiar with the record of the hon. member for the last twenty-six years the appeal is not quite so strong. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. There comes to mind a proverb which says that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

2706	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
The people in my constituency have suffered in the past because of just such actions as have been narrated this afternoon, actions which were fully approved by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). This is neither the time nor the place to bring up individual instances, but I should be quite prepared to do so if the occasion offered.
1 am quite satisfied that the minister is -the man to see that these people get justice. His whole record in the house assures us of that. We who have sat with him-for the last fifteen years as far as I am concerned-have seen the zealous and successful service he has given year after year and session after session as chairman of the various soldier committees, and I appeal to hon. members who have come to the house only recently to take our word that if there ever was a minister who would do justice to -the returned men. it is the minister now holding this portfolio.
I give the minister credit for some of the statements he made this afternoon. It must have been difficult for him to make them, but he realized that he was doing his duty, and I thoroughly agree with much of what he said. For instance, I understood the minister to say that we cannot give a pension to everyone simply because they wore uniforms; and that, boiled down, is an important feature of the recommendations of the commission. The minister says frankly that we cannot accept that recommendation, and I agree with him. It is painful for him to do that, just as it is painful for me to have to agree. It would be much easier to say: Give everybody a pension.


Charles Gavan Power: It would be far better
politics to say yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Quite so. Then the second
thing I took from his remarks was that he said we could not give a military pension to a man, even though he was a returned Canadian soldier, if he was not suffering from a disease or disability connected with his war service. I got into horrible trouble because I could not get a pension for a widow whose husband died of cancer some eighteen years after his war service terminated. She thought she was not getting British fair play. Often that is a very much overworked sentiment. I once heard a man of long experience in public life say, "If ever I hear a man get up in public and ask for British fair play I am generally sure he is asking for more than he should get," and too often that is the case. Many an unjust claim is put forward under that popular cry.

Then the minister told us, and I agree, although it may be politically painful to both of us, that he sees no reason why a person who came to Canada from the British Isles six years after the war ended should have a preference over a Canadian citizen. I believe the average returned man will have the same feeling. The suggestion -has been made that these men were induced to come to Canada. We never promised them pensions when they got here; we never promised them preferences over our own -men, and I do not believe the bulk of the men would wish that. We are aware that Canada has it all over Great Britain in regard to the treatment of returned men. We treat our men more liberally and generously in every way than the returned men are treated by the government in the old country. Just go down to the imperial pensions office here and try to get some concession, however small, or some recognition, however minute, in regard to some British soldier, and see what happens. I took up the case of an imperial man whose teeth had been taken out while in the army, and they refused to put them in again; that is to say, they refused to give him a set of false teeth. The reason given was that they had been taken out by mistake. I took an appeal from that decision; I asked the official to whom I could appeal, and he told me what to do. I got in touch with the proper official in Great Britain, and six months later a reply came back couched in the very words that had been used by the officer here, stating that the teeth had been taken out by mistake and that therefore there was no obligation to replace them.
We know these things. I want to ask for just one little petty thing that I know the minister could well afford to concede. Surely the fact that it is very small and that the cost will be very little should be a justification for granting my request; yet the matter is of very great importance to the few people concerned. I do not suppose it would apply to more than two or possibly three people in the district I represent. I brought the matter to the attention of the minister a year ago and he promised to give it consideration, but as yet nothing has been done. This is the situation:	If a man is drawing a pension and his
wife is dead and he has a housekeeper doing the work of his wife, a sister-in-law or a sister, or such like, this housekeeper can draw the pension that would have been received by the wife, or the helplessness allowance that is granted, if the man is bed-ridden. In the case of a man drawing a veteran's allowance, however, that is not the case. If his wife is dead no one can draw the compensation that she would have received, and even in a really bad

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
case of helplessness apparently nothing can be done. I have in mind a man who is absolutely bed-ridden. He cannot move six inches without assistance, and he has been lying there for some six years. He has no wife but he has a married daughter whose time is occupied with a large, young family. He receives an allowance of $20 per month, most of which he has to spend for drugs to subdue the constant pain. He receives no allowance for his daughter, who performs the duties and gives him the care which ordinarily would be given by his wife; neither can he draw a helplessness allowance, for some reason. We know that in order to draw a veteran's allowance this man must have seen service in a theatre of war, and though he is not entitled to a pension he is given an allowance of $20 a month.
I do urge the minister to look into that question more fully and see whether, in a case such as that, it would not be possible to give either a wife's pension or a helplessness allowance. The minister told us that he stretched the act in connection with the South African war veterans, and surely if he was able to do that he could stretch it to cover such cases. I wish he would look into the situation.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Chairman, I have listened very attentively today to the discussion thus far and have been greatly impressed with the first-class speeches delivered by all participating. I feel a little out of place in talking on this subject, but I believe it is my duty to say at least a few words in defence of some of the men I represent.
In the discussion so far, details have been given as to dismissals of returned men from the public service. I want to bring to the attention of the committee five or six other cases where dismissals from the government service have been made and, I believe, without the dismissed persons being given a chance to defend themselves. I have reference to men who were engaged at the Wain-wright buffalo park and who, without notice and facing conditions very little better than those of the breadline, in the month of October last were summarily dismissed. I have reference to certain men, and as I go along I shall give the dates of their engagements and dismissals. Robert McLean was engaged on July 20, 1933, and dismissed on October
31111-171*
31, 1936; James Henderson, engaged on August 20, 1933 and dismissed October 31, 1936; Clifford Abernethy, engaged August 1, 1934, and dismissed October 31, 1936; Joseph Beckett, engaged April 1, 1924, and dismissed October 31, 1936, and John Hardy, engaged in May, 1936, and dismissed in October of the same year. Another man who for a number of years has been employed as a seasonal helper has also been left out in the cold, and someone else hired to take his place.
At the time these five men were dismissed, we find that altogether seven were let out, five of whom were returned men and two civilians. In their place two returned men and five civilians were hired.
A few days after the dismissals I happened to be in Wainwright and heard some of the pitiful stories the dismissed men had to tell. I do not believe it is necessary for me to say very much, but I should add that I tried without success to get some information in connection with the dismissals. After coming to Ottawa, however, through the medium of the order paper I tried to get the information, and that which I received I shall now place before the committee. The first letter to which I direct the attention of hon. members is addressed to Mr. A. G. Smith, Superintendent of the National Buffalo Park, and is in these words:
Dear Sir:
With reference to our conversation of Friday last, I wish to recommend the following parties for employment at the park farm during the coming winter:
George Milne Frank Morcom Charles Stewart Pete MeAvoy James Grant Bob Wilson Andy McLean Frank Love Dean Stinson J. Laughy
With regard to the recommendations for positions as riders, already submitted by me, please do not make any appointments pending the submission of revised list, which I will let you have in a short time.
I also wish to recommend Mr. Ordway, Senior for work at the plant during the killing season. Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) Martin L. Forster.
In order to introduce this gentleman, Mr. Forster, to the house may I say that he was the defeated Liberal candidate in the constituency of Battle River. This afternoon there was reference to certain people being fired on recommendation made by the member. In this instance I must say that does not apply. Being born "Fair," spelled with a capital F, I do not intend to recommend that
2708	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
anyone be fired, unless he be inefficient. In that event I think a person should be replaced. But if a man is doing his work properly I say that for political reasons or simply to satisfy petty political desires he should not be replaced.
The following letter was written by Mr. A. G. Smith, Superintendent of the park at Wainwright:
Wainwright, Alta.,
Oct. 8th, 1936.
Ee: Employment of men
Dear Sirs,
Harvesting operations have now been completed and the extra men employed in connection with these operations have been laid off.
The gang at present employed at the farm is made up of stable boss, utility man (blacksmith, truck driver, etc.) and eight farm hands who will carry on throughout the winter at hauling hay off the Ribstone meadow, hauling feed to buffalo, etc., in winter quarters. This gang is referred to as the winter crew and it has been our policy for many years past to give consideration in the selection of the men retained for the regular or winter gang to those who have given satisfactory service in the past and who are the oldest in our employ, from the standpoint of service.
I beg to enclose herewith copy of a letter received from Mr. Martin L. Forster, Wainwright, Alberta, furnishing a list of men who he recommends for employment in the winter gang at the park farm during the coming winter.
I wish to state for your information that Mr. Forster's letter was written following a conversation we had in which I informed him of our usual policy in connection with the men retained for our winter gang.
The first three men mentioned in the list furnished by Mr. Forster are already employed at the park farm and two of the others are working at other points in the park.
If I am to make room in the farm crew for all the men mentioned by Mr. Forster it will mean the following old employees will have to be dismissed:
J. Beckett, stable boss,
R. McLean, farm hand,
J. Novak, farm hand,
D. Walker, utility man (labourer).
If you will kindly refer to classification cards C.S.C. No. 140A covering each of the above men, on file in your office, you will have a complete record of their employment.
These men have given satisfactory service and I have no reason to offer why they should be dismissed.
In fairness to the men mentioned by Mr. Forster I wish to say that I have no objection to any of them. With the exception of two all are either employed in the park at present or have been during the past season.
Before taking further action in connection with Mr. Forster's request I wish to place the situation before you, and for my information and guidance I would thank you to advise me

at your convenience as to the policy of the department with respect to the dismissing of men who have given a long period of faithful service when I have no reason to offer for doing so.
Yours faithfully,
A. G. Smith,
Superintendent.
The Commissioner,
National Parks of Canada,
Ottaw'a, Ont.
That letter was addressed to the Commissioner, National Parks of Canada, at Ottawa. A few days after this letter was written, I was in Wainwright and bitter complaints were made to me by some of these returned men who were let out, as well as by other citizens of Wainwright and district. After I got home I wrote a letter to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) as follows:
Paradise Valley, Alta.
Nov. 4th, 1936.
I have just returned from Wainwright and am very much surprised and disappointed to find that seven men were discharged from the buffalo park service at the end of last month on instructions of Mr. M. L. Forster, the defeated Liberal candidate in last year's general election.
The names of these men are as follows: Robert McLean, James Henderson, Joe Beckett, John Hardy, Cliff Abernathy, Dave Walker and John Novack. The first five listed are returned men, who are supposed to have preference in Canada and all, I understand, are satisfactory as far as the park superintendent is concerned. They have been replaced by seven other men, only two of whom are returned men.
Surely there is something wrong here, and I believe steps should be taken immediately to have an investigation into the cause of all dismissals at the Wainwright buffalo park since your party took over the reins of office, and all men who have been wrongfully dismissed should be reinstated.
Trusting you will give this matter your immediate personal attention and advise me of your findings.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Fair.
The next letter, under date of November 18, 1936, was addressed to me by Mr. C. W. Jackson, private secretary to the minister. It reads:
Ottawa, Nov. 18, 1936.
As Mr. Crerar is very busy at the present time, he has asked me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant. He is making inquiries into the matters referred to in your letter.
Your sincerely,
C. W. Jackson,
Private Secretary.

Supply-
Pension s-V eterans'
Assistance
The next letter is from the superintendent of the buffalo national park to the commissioner at Ottawa, under date of November 6, 1936.
Waimvright, Alta. Nov. 6th, 1936.
I beg to inform you that Mr. Joseph Beckett in position Tnt. D.P.X.-67, stable boss, buffalo national park, along with a number of other employees was requested to cease duty on October 31st, last.
This action was necessary to make room for others who had been recommended for employment at the park farm during the coming winter.
One of the new employees is carrying on the duties of stable boss, but I prefer not to ask for his appointment at present.
Yours faithfully,
A. G. Smith.
On January 21, again on January 29, and continually since that time I have been trying to get the information I required. The next letter I intend to read is dated Wain-wright, Alberta, February 4, 1937. It is from Mr. Martin L. Forster to Mr. Jackson, the secretary of the minister, and reads:
I am enclosing a letter I received from Dr. J. G. Middlemass, mayor of the town of Wainwright, which I appreciate very much. This should set at rest any criticism of what changes were made at the buffalo park, and should give you an idea of how the citizens feel towards me in my endeavour to find employment for those who are most worthy of it. This letter was handed to me unsolicited, and to say I am highly elated to receive it is putting it mildly. I wish you would kindly show this letter to the minister, so that if any further questions are asked, this should show, beyond a doubt, that whatever changes were made, were made in the best interests of the people as a whole.
I sincerely hope that some further work will again be undertaken in the national park this season.
I still believe that grading the north and south road in the east end of the park would be an undertaking that would not entail a great deal of cost, would create employment, and would be a great benefit both to the north and south settlers. The two municipalities would then extend this highway connecting the one to the south of the park to the one north, viz., Wainwright.
Thanking you and with best wishes,
I remain
Yours very truly,
Martin L. Forster.
This supposed to be unsolicited letter is addressed to Mr. M. L. Forster from the office of the secretary treasurer of the town of Wainwright. It is dated February 4, 1937, and reads:
On behalf of myself and the council of the town of Wainwright, I desire to express to you our sincere thanks for and appreciation of the manner in which you made selections of
individuals for the work in connection with the reconstruction of the abattoir in the buffalo national park and the other work, for which services were required, in connection with this park. I feel that, in making these selections, you were actuated by your duty to the dominion on the one hand and by a desire to assist the town of Wainwright on the other and that these motives only were in your mind. I have always felt that this is the proper course to be pursued in making selections for workmen in the park and I am indeed pleased that you have carried this into effect.
Under the improvement in financial conditions throughout Canada, I have no doubt that certain other work will be undertaken in connection with this park during the present year. I trust that you will have authority in the selection of the workmen, should any such work be undertaken, as I feel that you will be guided by the same spirit of benefit to the dominion and to the Wainwright district.
In closing, let me add that your manner of making selection of workmen has immensely assisted the matter of unemployment in the whole district and the usual burden of the town of Wainwright has been greatly diminished.
Yours truly,
J. G. Middlemass, M.D., Mayor of the town of Wainwright.
I believe that these letters are the direct result of the questions which I have placed on the order paper since the beginning of this session. The fact that the letters are dated February 4, and the statement as made by Mr, Forster that the last letter would set at rest any questions that might be asked, I think is ample proof that the questions asked here are the cause of these letters being written.
Some of the men who have been hired in the park were brought in from other points-in the Battle River constituency. To disprove the statement that this proceeding is in the interests of the people of the town of Wainwright and district, I may say that a committee of seven men went to Edmonton to interview the Hon. T. A. Crerar, while he was out west, in connection with the dismissals of certain men whose cases I intend to discuss under another item. The committee that went to Edmonton, I am informed, consisted of Doctor Wallace, W. E. Washburn, J. W. Daugherty, John Telford, S. R. Bowerman, John Dalton, and Pete Milne. All these men are not from Wainwright; the last-named lives about twenty-two miles distant and is the defeated Liberal candidate in the provincial election.
They were not successful in seeing the minister. I understand that after they came back quite a number who were Liberals before they took the trip are no longer so, and that they were by no means satisfied. They asked me to take up this matter, some of them remarking at the same time that they
2710	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
did not suppose I could do anything anyway, but I feel it my duty at this time in connection with this veterans' assistance commission to make a plea, on behalf of these men who were dismissed, that an investigation be held, not alone in the case of these men but in regard also to others who have been wrongfully dismissed; and if things are found not right they should be made right. We have heard a lot about British justice, about the good treatment Canada was going to give her returned soldiers, and all the rest of it; but when it comes down to providing something for the returned soldiers we find that in this case five of them were kicked out on October 31, just when the storms of winter began to blow. No provision whatever was made for these men: if they could get jobs, all right; if they could not, they could try to get on relief. To my mind it is our duty here in parliament to do something about such matters if there is no other means of redress. Having heard the minister's speech this morning, I feel quite satisfied that he will give this matter his attention. I note that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), under whose jurisdiction it comes, is now in the chamber. I would commend the facts to his attention for very favourable consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wholly agree with what was said this afternoon that the problem is really one of the unemployable ex-service man. We have taken care of all eases of disability in, I think, an eminently satisfactory manner. There are, however, a number of absolutely unemployable ex-service men, and how to provide relief for them is a problem which the municipalities are not able at the present time to meet. It is an obligation which in some provinces we are discharging, because the dominion government pays part of the costs, and also lends the provinces money with which to pay their part; so in reality we are carrying the whole charge. I suggest to the minister that as his supplementary estimates are not down, and as he has indicated that he proposes to deal in part with the problem, he should, without committing the government to any policy, take whatever sum he may think is required, to be expended by the commission which now cares for these matters in dealing with unemployable ex-service men during the current year. In the meantime he might study the problem and see whether or not there is any solution short of the one that has been adopted in the United States, namely, the establishing of homes. Personally I have thought that will be necessary sooner or later

for some of the aged men who were permitted to go to war when they should not have been so permitted because they were over age.


Charles Gavan Power: As a matter of fact, we now have a pensioner at the age of 91.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I think the minister mentioned the other day one very aged man, though he did not give his exact age.


Charles Gavan Power: That means he enlisted at the age of 71.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I knew of a case not far from my own locality, in which something of the same sort happened. I suggest that if the minister could manage to deal with the situation without committing himself meanwhile to any policy, then under the administration of the commission which now administers necessary relief in the cases to which reference was made at the last sitting of the committee, he might be able to tide over the situation until such time as a definite plan can be determined upon. I have thought that near some of our large cities we might have a piece of land, say five or six hundred acres, and give an opportunity to some of these older men to raise poultry.


Charles Gavan Power: We are trying that outside of Toronto.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was told to-day that some effort in that direction is being made. I think it is a highly desirable experiment to make.


Charles Gavan Power: It is only an experiment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I realize that it is only an experiment. If my suggestion were adopted, the department would have a fund that would at least prevent any great suffering or hardship by unemployable ex-service men. Perhaps the minister will find it worth while to expand the item to which he referred this morning, and thus to have a fund, even though it involves the exercise of the powers of the governor in council to deal with this condition. I judge from what the minister said to-day that some of the regular organizations were not in favour of the implementation of the report. I had a telegram from the provincial president of the Alberta command of the legion, in which he urges me to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that:
Alberta provincial command of the Canadian Legion British Empire Service League are very disappointed.

Supply-Pensions-Veterans' Assistance
And at:-
Meeting held last night indignation was strongly expressed.
He asks that I bring it to the attention of the committee and says:-
Report hardly touches the fringe but would be of some assistance.
If that is anything like a true indication of the extent of the conditions that prevail, I should not like this country to find the Department of Pensions without any fund with which to deal with the problem, as it touches, not the whole body of veterans, but the unemployable, who are such by reason of years or physical condition or otherwise, and are not available for pension but whose condition may be said to be the result to no small extent of the war; not the proximate result of the war, because the proximate causes are dealt with under the legislation of last year. But where they are not proximate, but may be said to arise out of the general economic condition which prevents men of that age and condition being employed, the minister would have some fund that might be utilized for that purpose, to allay general unrest and to do something to ensure a measure of happiness and contentment amongst those who find it impossible to secure from the communities in which they live the assistance they so much need.
I am not going to take up the time of the committee further except to mention this point to the minister in view of the fact that he contemplates bringing in an item, under his supplementary estimates, which he might expand to enable him to provide for such cases without prejudice to the general position. His review of the situation covered the matter very fairly, but I do press upon him consideration for the unemployable who would not have been in the army if Canada had had a selective draft. I believe that by making this provision he would be doing a very good service to the country, having regard to the general conditions existing at the present time.


Charles Gavan Power: There are many things
about which my right hon. friend and myself have agreed to disagree, but I think we can say that as to matters respecting returned soldiers, during the term of years in which we have sat in this chamber, we have been in general agreement; and what he has said this evening was along the lines of what I had myself proposed to say. Having said what I could not do as a minister of the crown, I now propose to say this, not that I shall ask for any money to be placed at the
disposal of the minister, because that would be somewhat repugnant to one whose record on the other side of the house,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has never bothered the present government.


Charles Gavan Power: At any rate the right hon.
gentleman will admit, I think, that I may have some remnants of political conscience left. I should very much dislike to have placed at my disposal a fund to be administered by the minister himself or by-


Richard Bedford Bennett: By that commission,
I said.


Charles Gavan Power: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: If the powers are broad
enough, I trust Power is.


Charles Gavan Power: The only trouble is that
Power does not trust himself to handle that much money.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Power doesn't trust the
powers.


Charles Gavan Power: The difficulty is and always has been that when money has been placed in the hands of any minister of the crown, however-


Mr. STEWART:: Powerful he may be.


Charles Gavan Power: -narrow he may be in his views of money-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Generous.


Charles Gavan Power: -or Presbyterian, as the Minister of National Defence suggests, it is expecting too much to have him dispense out of the goodness and generosity of his own heart the funds which parliament has voted. Personally I have been opposed to that method, and I think my right hon. friend will agree with me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree.


Charles Gavan Power: We can meet on common ground, because the situation presented to me by my right hon. friend has been before me for the last eighteen months. I believe there is a possibility of settling it. Out of twenty-five hundred men in our hospitals, I should say that between four and five hundred are on what one might call old age pension; that is to say, they are receiving veterans' care. They sleep there at night; they go out and spend the afternoon and evening somewhere, come home and go to bed, and get clothing, a cash allowance for comforts, and institutional care. The hospitals are well equipped, particularly the one in Winnipeg. My right hon. friend was Prime Minister when Deer Lodge was built, one of the finest hospitals in Canada. Deer Lodge is particularly well equipped to take care of persons of that type. Whether, if they are married, we shall put them on war veteran's allowance or not before they reach the age that parliament has fixed, will be a question for the next session, and I promise to do my utmost to solve the problem. In the meantime I think that with the money which has been generously granted by parliament and by the Canadian people, the distress that has been put before us will not be so great as some members have indicated. There are pensioners who require some kind of treatment, and under the act I have sufficient authority to look after them. I believe that generally speaking, on all sides of the CMr. Power.]
house, I have the trust and confidence of hon. members to the extent that they believe I will do my utmost.
One more point I should like to make with respect to something I stressed this morning. There is an organization known as the Amputations Association, consisting of men who served in the great war and lost a limb. In their representations before the committee last year, when the question of lowering the age for war veteran's allowance was considered, they made this statement:
We have, however, felt it to be our duty to point out to you the inevitable difficulties. As veterans and responsible citizens of Canada we could not wish to see the War Veterans' Allowance Act varied to the point where for a largely augmented group of veterans it would simply become a medium for the provision of a service dole subject principally to the Means test.
That is the opinion of those who lost a limb in the war. If we were to accept some of the recommendations of this committee, a man who lost a right arm and now draws a pension of say $50 a month would probably get less than the man who is not wounded at all. In this respect I would much prefer to take the opinion of the Amputations Association than that of organizations outside the regular associations of ex-service men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. LENNARD:: If some hon. members sitting with the government are not careful, they will keep this thing going all night. I did not rise to prolong the debate. Several previous speakers have adequately covered the situation, particularly the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Mac-Neil); but I rise to object strenuously to the minister's reference to the requests of the Imperial War Veterans as imperialistic jingoism. I think that was a very unhappy remark, and absolutely uncalled for.


Howard Charles Green: I understand that under the terms of the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act the life of the commission expires in July of this year, but the governor in council have power to renew it for a further six months. That means that the commission will be extinct before we meet again unless some provision is made to the contrary. I would ask what the minister's intentions are in that regard; and if the commission is allowed to go out of existence, how will the honorary local committees be dealt with?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If in the item in the estimates the words are inserted " notwithstanding anything contained in the act," it would not expire until March 31, 1938.

Supply-Pensions-Velerans' Assistance


Charles Gavan Power: My intention is to support the recommendations of the local committees rather than those made to me by the commission, although I appointed the commission and not the local committees. And now that we are, I hope, on the verge of passing this item may I make one further remark, that I have been told by friends sitting behind me that the lists of names of the local committees read more like the roster of the next Conservative convention than anything else they ever heard of.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister referred to several schemes that had been already approved under the veterans' assistance commission, notably Workshops Limited in Montreal. May I ask if any other schemes have been approved, and if so, what?


Charles Gavan Power: The community centre organized in Toronto, for the purpose of placing twenty men somewhere in the neighbourhood of Toronto, is somewhat along the lines suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and for it we are voting $48,000, of which $18,000 will be disbursed within the next two or three months. In view of the unfortunate experience of Canada in soldier land settlement, although I am quite willing to do my utmost to see that the thing is carried to a conclusion, I fear that possibly it will not be as successful as it should be.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I should like to mention one other thing, not -that I expect a reply now; I merely bring it to the minister's attention so that he may deal with it at a later date; that is the position of men now in the United States, who require medical treatment. A case was brought to my attention of a man in the United States who sustained a disability and at his own expense had treatment which necessitated amputation. I ask the minister to consult his department and urge reimbursement for such treatment where entitlement was subsequently admitted, so that undue distress will not result.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be glad to look into it.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I want to ask the minister one thing. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) made reference to there being many new members who have the impression, and many of them have told me the same thing, that the men who come before the pension board and probably later before the pension appeal court, or who have appeared before quorums, largely depend for
a successful application for pension upon establishing connection between their present disability and their war service. There seems to be great difficulty in many cases in establishing that connection. We know men in many walks of life, clerks, for instance, who enlisted and went into the entirely new environment of war service, suffered all the privations and hardships of the trenches, and who came back different men from what they were when they went overseas. Many departmental officials with whom I have discussed this matter say that inadequate records are in part responsible for the difficulty in relating disability to war service. It is now proposed to spend considerable money to train and rehabilitate men in middle life and fit them to earn a living. Could there not at the same time be even more latitude given than at present in regard to establishing that connection between a man's disability and his war service? In their anxiety to get home the returned men did everything in their power to get out of the army as quickly as possible, and it is admitted by those who kept the records that they were inadequate. I feel now that this money is being spent there might be some extension of the benefit of the doubt given in regard to establishing the connection between the man's disability of to-day and his overseas service, even though it might add somewhat to the number of pensioners.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charges of Management
Printing, advertising, inspection, express, etc., $45,549.50.
Commission for payment of interest on public debt, purchase of sinking funds, auditing, bill stamps and postage, etc., $163,481.
To provide for temporary clerical work in connection with the transfer and registration of bonds, etc., and the flotation of loans, and authority to employ a temporary staff, fix their rates of remuneration and otherwise wholly regulate their services without reference to and notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $14,000.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: This is the usual item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The usual item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Finance
[Stage Direction]
Salaries, $367,197.75.
Contingencies, $38,560.
Ernest Edward Perley: What about the increase in this item?

Supply-Transport-M arine


Charles Avery Dunning: It is made up almost entirely of statutory increases, though I have not the details before me at the moment. The only increases in staff that I can remember at the moment are connected with the dominion housing act, under which two or three clerks were appointed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Archives-[DOT]
Salaries, and to provide for the continuance in office of J. B. Noble, senior bookbinder, from April 1, 1937, $88,722.25.
Contingencies, $11,900.
Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to ask whether anything has been done with regard to appointing any person to take the place of the late Sir Arthur Doughty.


Charles Avery Dunning: No decision has been reached as yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of Transport-Marine services- nautical services-maintenance and repairs to dominion steamers and icebreakers, $1,338,280.
Ernest Edward Perley: Has this department been under discussion previously?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, all departments are in. If there is any objection to our going ahead with any particular item I should be glad to meet the wishes of the committee, but if the Minister of Transport can get on to-night I should like him to do so, since he has quite a number of votes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of pilotage, $98,904.
Mr. BARBER:: Would the minister explain this reduction of pilotage fees?


Mr. HOWE:: Pilotage fees on the St. Lawrence and in maritime ports were reduced. My recollection is that this reduction did not apply to British Columbia. The reduction has been cut down to four per cent, and under agreement with the pilots that four per cent deduction will continue for this year except for the harbour of Saint John. There the pilotage work is rather light and the fees have been restored in full.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister's explanation seems to have to do with an increase. This item shows a decrease.


Charles Avery Dunning: The minister was speaking of the fees, while this vote covers expenditure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a revenue item to offset this. The difficulty is that pilots furnish their own boats and equipment, and it is customary to advance certain moneys for repairs to boats and the purchase of equipment, which moneys are later repaid. There is a revenue item to offset this expenditure, and the extra vote is for loans to Halifax pilots in connection with their boats.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend is still explaining an increase, while this vote shows a decrease.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Did I understand the minister to say there was an agreement with the British Columbia pilots?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the Quebec pilots.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the minister had better give us some explanation of this decrease.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This vote fluctuates according to the requirements of the pilot in the various districts, in connection with advances for equipment and that sort of thing. There is a certain basic vote for the administration of pilotage and a certain additional vote for advances or loans to pilots for the purchase of equipment. The needs this year are evidently estimated at less than those for last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide subsidies for wrecking plants- Quebec and British Columbia, $45,000.
Harry James Barber: Would the minister explain the division in the vote, I notice that part goes to Quebec and part to British Columbia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a subsidy of S30,000 for salvage on the St. Lawrence and S15,000 for salvage on the Pacific coast.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $1,782,241.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Earlier in the session I inquired of the minister whether it was the government's intention to replace the lighthouse and beacon at Port Credit harbour during the coming year. Has the minister had an opportunity to give the matter any consideration, and if so, can he say what the government intends to do?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Matters respecting lights and replacements are in the hands of a body known as the lighthouse board. However, if

Supply-Transport-Maritime Freight Rates
the item were allowed to stand a few minutes, until an officer qualified to instruct me arrives, I would be able to answer the hon. member.
Item stands.
Agencies, rents and contingencies, $231,300.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister explain what the item involves and why there is an increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The proposed appropriation is for the operation and maintenance of marine agencies, including salaries and travelling expenses of administration staffs, agents, accountants, district engineers and supporting personnel. Agencies are maintained at St. John, Halifax, Charlottetown, Quebec, Montreal, Parry Sound, Victoria, British Columbia, and Prince Rupert, and there are special agencies at Fort William and Kenora. The increase of $16,355 over last year is required to provide for earned salary increment which will accrue, and for salaries in connection with positions in the organization which were abolished at various periods during the last few years, and which will be restored by the order in council establishing the agency's personnel in the Department of Transport. The amount shown for 1936-37 has been increased by the amount of salaries of administrative staff at Ottawa which, in previous years, were provided for in civil government salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River St. Lawrence ship channel dredging: To provide for the maintenance and operation of the government ship channel fleet and the government shipyard while engaged in the ordinary maintenance of the existing ship channel, including all necessary repairs and reconditioning, $438,400.
Ernest Edward Perley: Can the minister explain how the amount happens to be the same each year? The expenditures must fluctuate from year to year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amount provided last year appeared to be adequate, and the same sum has been provided this year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps the minister could tell us how much was spent last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry I have not the proper officer before me, and have not the statement of expenditures.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maritime Freight Rates Act:
To hereby authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1937-38 to the Canadian National Railway Company of the difference (estimated by the auditors of the said company and certified by the said auditors to the Minister of Transport as and -when required by the said minister) occuring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (upon the same basis as set out in section 9 of the said act with respect to companies therein referred to) on all traffic moved during the year 1937, under the tariff approved, on the eastern lines (as referred to in section 1 of the said act) of the Canadian National Railways, $1,800,000.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This amount was approved by the special committee on railways and shipping.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to provide for payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1937-38 of the difference, estimated by the Board of Railway Commissioners and certified by the said board to the Minister of Transport as and when required by him, occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (referred to in section 9 of the said act) on all traffic moved during 1937 under the tariffs approved by the following companies:
Canada & Gulf Terminal Railway.
Canadian Pacific Railway, including:
Fredericton & Grand Lake Coal & Railway Company.
New Brunswick Coal & Railway Company.
Cumberland Railway & Coal Company.
Dominion Atlantic Railway.
Maritime Coal, Railway & Power Company,
Sydney & Louisburg Railway.
Temiscouata Railway Company, $700,000.
Mr. PURDY:: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a very unfair situation which exists in my constituency. It has to do with the operation of the Dominion Atlantic Railway. I do not wish to be understood as criticizing this line, for they give us a very efficient and satisfactory service. The only quarrel I have with them is that in one particular district their rates are too high. I do not believe, however, that this is their fault, but rather that of previous governments.
May I explain that this railway operates two lines in my constituency, one from Truro to Windsor and from there on down through the Annapolis valley; and the other from Windsor Junction to Windsor. It is the line from Windsor Junction to Windsor to which I wish to draw particular attention. This line was constructed prior to confederation and turned over to the dominion government by the province of Nova Scotia in 1867. at the time of confederation. In 1893 the then government of the day leased the line to the
2716	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Maritime Freight Rates
now Dominion Atlantic Railway for a term of twenty-one years. In 1914 when the lease expired, the then Minister of Railways entered into a further agreement with the Dominion Atlantic Railway purporting to lease this line for a further ninety-nine years. It is with this lease that I am not in agreement.
Apparently the government of that day failed to take into consideration the rights of the people of Windsor and made no provision in such agreement that Windsor should receive the same rates as if the line were operated by the Canadian government railways. Consequently we are being charged non-competitive rates, and the result has been disastrous to the town of Windsor. To justify this statement may I point out that by comparison with two towns in the vicinity, which towns have not the advantage of Windsor's excellent harbour, the growth of population between 1891 and 1931 was as follows:
No. 1 town	 70 per cent
No. 2 town	 55 per cent
Windsor	 7 per cent
I would mention that both these towns are served by two lines of railway, the same as Windsor, but as one line is operated by the Dominion Atlantic Railway and one by the Canadian National Railways, they receive competitive rates.
I quite appreciate that the Minister of Transport cannot give back to Windsor the industries she has lost through this discrimination, nor can he locate there the industries which have turned away when they learned about the available railway rates, but I believe he has it within his power so to adjust matters that from now on we may receive equal treatment so far as railway rates are concerned. I do not propose to quote the Railway Act, but there is a provision in it that no toll shall be charged which unjustly discriminates against different ports. I contend that there is discrimination in the rates charged by this railway.
As the matter now stands, the people of Windsor are paying their share of the Canadian National Railways deficit and are also contributing toward the dividends of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which owns the Dominion Atlantic Railway. I would ask the minister to bear in mind that in this year of the "good cheer budget" the people of this town should have some good cheer brought to them by way of righting a wrong that was done to them by the government of Canada in 1893, and again in 1914. It was a Conservative government in 1893 that made the first agreement, and again in 1914
(Mr. Purdy.]
it was a Conservative government that neglected the rights of the people of this town and sold them down the river for another period of ninety-nine years. It will be in keeping with Liberal policies to right the injustice that has been done. Only a few days ago the leader of the opposition told us that it was a Liberal government that had made an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan having to do with the railways. I ask him if it was not a Conservative government that sold the people of this part of my constituency down stream in 1914?
A few moments ago I mentioned the port of Windsor. Perhaps it is news to some that there is an excellent port at that place. At the time of confederation, when many of our present harbours were little more than sand bars, the sailing ships from Windsor carried the commerce of the province to the seven seas. It is such an excellent port that on March 22 of this year navigation was opened by the arrival of the first gypsum boat from New York, this boat berthing without any assistance except that of nature. On that day, and for some time previous, several heavy ice breakers had been working on the St. Lawrence river trying to combat the laws of nature, endeavouring to take traffic away from our maritime ports to which we are entitled by our location and by our place in confederation. I am not asking the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) to establish a harbour commission at Windsor, but I would point out that in addition to a reduction in freight rates we require adequate storage facilities on the pier so that the harbour may be properly developed. Having regard to the great handicaps we are under, as referred to previously, I think we are entitled to this. I ask the Minister of Transport to say a word on our behalf to the genial Minister of Public Works, and also to the genial, but oh, so stony-hearted, Minister of Finance.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Might I be permitted to revert to item 92? I understand the light-housekeeper at Fishguard light near the entrance to Esquimalt harbour died last year. I should like to know what provision has been made for his widow.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If he was a contributor to the superannuation fund she would receive half of the superannuation to which he was entitled at the time of his death. I cannot say at the moment whether he was or was not a contributor.


Ernest Edward Perley: Will the minister be good enough to look it up and let the hon. gentleman know?

Supply-Transport-Miscellaneous


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be very glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay Railway-Amount to provide for the difference between expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1938, not exceeding $336,500.
Ernest Edward Perley: Could the minister give the committee the gross expenditures and revenue from this railway? Would this item cover employees, temporary and permanent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Ernest Edward Perley: That does not include harbour maintenance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is purely for the railroad.


Ernest Edward Perley: Under what item would that come?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is an item in the main estimates. I cannot give the number at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian travel bureau service. To assist in promoting tourist business in Canada, $250,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: I think there should be a short statement made with regard to what success has been achieved in carrying out the policy which was started two or three years ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Last year our advertising was confined to the United States. The efforts at Ottawa were directed to handling replies received from advertising in that country and directing tourists to the sort of place the nature of their requests indicated they wanted to see. We had a tremendously successful tourist business last year, but just how much this bureau contributed to it is of course very difficult to estimate. It is only one of a number of agencies in Canada working toward attracting tourists to this country. My feeling is that the efficiency of our service has improved each year with the experience of the previous years, and at the present time this branch is doing excellent work. I keep in
close touch with it and check the nature of the services they are rendering to tourists. I think its efforts are being directed in the proper channels.


Ernest Edward Perley: How much of the vote was spent last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not over expended but a situation may arise when we must undertake our advertising for the next season before the current year is completed.


Ernest Edward Perley: There are governor general's warrants.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were not used in this case. I think commitments were made in excess of the amount voted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aids to navigation-Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to light-keepers, $1,782,241.
Clarence Decatur Howe: In answer to an earlier question by my hon. friend (Mr. Graydon) I find that the matter of a lighthouse at Port Credit is now under study by the lighthouse board and a report is expected shortly. The matter has not been finally disposed of.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to the minister that he use all the influence in his power to see that this provision is made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no influence whatever over the lighthouse board. It is necessary to allow technical officers to determine where lights are needed.


Harry James Barber: How is the increase of $8,725 accounted for in the vote?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The increase is entirely due to statutory increases and the transfer of certain officers from the civil government vote to the vote for the department under which they work directly. We tried to adjust our civil government list in connection with the reorganization.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air Service-civil aviation-construction of airways, airports and radio stations, $761,355.
Howard Charles Green: What is the reason for the decrease in this vote?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Although the vote here is decreased it is increased under other items. We are actually spending somewhat more this year than was spent last year. We have estimated the amount required to complete the airway from coast to coast, and between this and the supplementary estimates we have an amount included which we believe will complete that construction work.
2718	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Miscellaneous


Howard Charles Green: You are providing enough money to complete the airway from Vancouver to Halifax?


Harry James Barber: May I draw the minister's attention to a matter which I have already taken up with him, and which, I believe, the board of trade of my city has taken up with the department, namely the airport at Chilliwack? This airport is very important because it is just outside the fog area. The last two years a sum has been voted to acquire this land, but thus far the land has not been acquired, although a particular site has been selected by officers of the department. The land is owned by a farmer, and the owners of local planes have spent considerable money maintaining and improving the site. I had hoped that something would be decided definitely with regard to the purchase of that particular site. There was some conflict with regard to it, and the minister in a letter to me explained that an officer of his department would look over the matter and report; at the same time a letter, signed by Mr. McLean, went from the department that owing to there being no money in the estimates this year nothing would be done until a later date. I know that the people are very anxious with regard to this port; in fact, you cannot hook up a service to the coast without having some place where you can land in case of fog around Vancouver. As far as the air mail service is concerned, I know the opinion is that this would be a very important landing, because in case of fog, when a plane could not reach Vancouver, within forty minutes of its arrival at Chilliwack they could land the mails at Vancouver. I should like to impress upon the minister the importance of acquiring this site at a very early date, because I understand that the farmer who owns it feels that he cannot let it stand any longer and that he will be compelled to break it up with the balance of his farm.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our Mr. McLean, who is in charge of the administration of airports, is at this time either at Chilliwack or very close to it, and he has special instructions to give us a final report on this field. My hon. friend will recall that there was some hitch in the past about dyking charges. He has to dispose finally of that problem, and we hope to act upon his report on his return.


Mr. BROOKS:: Are the emergency landing fields which were started under relief votes and were left in an incomplete condi-

tion to be completed under this item, or do they come under an item of the Department of National Defence? There are two such landing fields in my constituency.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those fields will be completed under item 74, which we shall reach very shortly. I will admit that the fields in the maritime provinces are not as far advanced as those further west, but it is our hope to place them in condition for operation before the end of the present operating season.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Has this item anything to
do with the developing of the airport at Shediac, New Brunswick? I notice that it may be the emergency port for the transAtlantic flights. Is that being developed under another item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This vote covers that. At
the moment we are erecting a powerful beam radio station there for the guidance of transAtlantic flyers, and such little work as is necessary to make a harbour for airplanes will be done there under this vote.


Mr. FINN:: The minister speaks of the
maritime provinces. As far as Nova Scotia is concerned we have been without any air services beyond Moncton, except on special occasions. There is at Halifax a field, and I would like to know whether it is proposed to utilize to some extent the National Defence airport for landing purposes, or do they intend to have their own?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am informed that it is the
plan of our department to use the field my hon. friend has referred to for the civil aviation activities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine Service
River St. Lawrence ship channel dredging-
(a)	To provide for contract dredging in St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, $2,000,000.
(b)	To provide for the maintenance and operation of the government ship channel fleet and the government shipyard while engaged in the deepening and improvement of the ship channel, including all necessary repairs and reconditioning, $700,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister has undoubtedly heard of those two eminent engineers, Robert E. Horton and C. E. Grun-sky, and perhaps has read their work, the Hydrology of the Great Lakes, in which they state that the deepening of the ship channel out of lake Huron has resulted in an increase of 20,000 cubic second feet in the flow of water out of lake Huron and has reduced the water levels of lakes Huron and Michigan one foot.

Supply-Transport-Radio
I wondered if the department has any information on the effect on the water level of Montreal harbour through the deepening of the ship channel through the river St. Lawrence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are quite aware that the
deepening and widening of the channel of the St. Lawrence has had the effect of lowering water levels there. That matter has been under study for the past three years and we have a report which is now being printed, and a copy of which I hope to place very shortly in the hands of my hon. friend. It gives a detailed analysis of the effects.
The 82,000,000 vote here is to complete the work of dredging Montreal harbour to the 1934 datum; that is, to the depth of thirty-five feet. This work, of course, will not increase the ease of access for the waters of the St. Lawrence; it will have no effect in itself on lowering. Before further work is undertaken we shall have a complete study made of the results of the three years' investigations, and further work on the St. Lawrence will be proceeded with in the light of that report.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay Railway: construction and betterments, 871,500.
Ernest Edward Perley: Is this the item the minister referred to a few minutes ago as relating to temporary employees at Churchill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the last capital item that will appear, because construction work on the railway was completed last year and further estimates should be continued under the item for maintenance. This is entirely for improvements.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is this the item under which the temporary men were employed last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is purely for improvements.


Ernest Edward Perley: Under what item in the estimates would the employment of those men be dealt with?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The item for the operation of the port is included under the national harbours board estimates. We have transferred that port to the board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological Division-
Meteorological service, including magnetic observatory, grants of $500 each to Kingston and Montreal observatories, and allowance of $380 to L. F. Gorman, observer at Ottawa, $417,800.
Frank Exton Lennard: Are these special grants of S500 to Kingston and Montreal, or are they paid annually?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are annual grants in payment for weather observation services.


Frank Exton Lennard: Does the same apply to the grant of $380 to L. F. Gorman, observer at Ottawa?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is a civil servant and is paid this amount extra for taking the official weather observations in Ottawa. He is an expert.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio Division-
To provide for the maintenance and construction of radio direction finding stations, radio beacons and radiotelegraph stations and general administration of the provisions of the Radio Act and regulations throughout the dominion, $608,784.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is it the intention to improve the radio service in British Columbia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That comes under the next item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the suppression of local electrical interferences and for the issue of radio receiving licences, $282,215.
Gordon Graydon: A number of complaints have reached me in connection with the collection of licence fees for receiving sets. Some people have been prosecuted and fined for failure to renew their licences. I suggest that the minister consider a better system of notifying owners prior to the date on which the fee is due. In my. own constituency a number of people have neglected to note the time, and I think that the minister might have a notice sent to all owners so as to avoid this mistake and make it unnecessary for the department to take action, much to the annoyance of many owners.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We send a notice to each licence holder. We have a complete record of all licences issued and at the end of March we notify the licence holders. We mail a second notice on the first of Septmber to those who have failed to renew their licences. In addition to that, notices are broadcast about that time for several days that licence fees are due and that those who fail to renew their licences will be prosecuted. In practically all urban centres before prosecuting we have a personal call made by a vendor on all licence holders and the fee is demanded. If the holder refuses to pay he is then prosecuted. In the current year we have issued slightly over one million licences, the total net revenue
Supply-Transport-R adio


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The radio service in Victoria, B.C. is very inadequate. It is an absolute disgrace. Victoria is the capital city of British Columbia, with a population of 60,000, and we have a service that would not do justice to any small town. I would ask the minister to look into the matter with a view to improving that service.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Recommendations for improved broadcasting service must come from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. But in the last few months, as my hon. friend knows, a high powered station has been completed just outside Vancouver, which gives coverage to Victoria and Vancouver island, and should materially improve the facilities there.


Mr. TUSTIN:: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: The visit referred to by my hon. friend is the last resort. Before that the delinquent has had two notices by letter, he has had numerous warnings by radio, and he probably has had a personal call by a vendor without any policeman; but before we can prosecute we must have corroborative evidence that there is a radio set in the house and that the fee has not been paid, and that calls for two persons.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: This item is " to provide for the suppression of local electrical interferences." What steps are taken to suppress this interference? In some places it is a serious matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Without this service radio broadcasting in this country would be almost a failure. We have twenty-three cars fitted with equipment to trace down the sources of interference. These cars are constantly on the move, and as complaints come in they are sent to the district and they trace the sources of interference, and in 98 per cent of the cases are able to remedy it. Frequently it is a leak in a power line. These cars locate and report it to the power company for correction. Sometimes it is an electrical machine, such as a dynamo or motor, or a vibrator in a doctor's office. The cars locate the trouble and recommend corrective appliances to remove it. Of all the services we have I think this adds more than any other to the pleasure and comfort of radio listeners in the country.


Joseph Needham: Do they go to particular districts, or only where complaints are received?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are constantly on the move, but if complaints are received the cars go immediately to the source of the complaint and trace it down. They are exceedingly active.


Thomas Langton Church: Is there a uniform procedure in regard to those who do not pay for their radio licence? I notice in the Toronto police court that a large number of people were prosecuted, many of whom were on relief, and in some other cities I notice very few. Is it only in Toronto that they prosecute?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is entirely incorrect in saying that people on relief are brought into the police court. The one restriction wre place on the prosecutions is that the one who is prosecuted is able to pay if he were willing.


Harry James Barber: In regard to interference, has the department power to compel people to put on mufflers or some contrivance that will stop it? I have in mind a lot of small gasoline electric plants operating in my district, and there has been considerable interference. The department's car has gone there and discovered it, but I doubt very much whether there is power to compel those owners to do something to stop that interference.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the broadcasting act passed last year we have power even to shut down the Ottawa Street Railway if it interferes with radio.

Supply-Trade-Mail Subsidies


Mr. POULIOT:: When the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition are on the air I regret to say that reception is always very bad in Riviere du Loup. Is there any possibility of improvement in that regard?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air Service
Civil Aviation Division-to provide for the maintenance and operation of airways, government and public airports, the general administration of the provisions of the Aeronautics Act and Regulations throughout the dominion, and for grant to aeroplane clubs, $1,222,917.75.
Ernest Edward Perley: I thought the minister was going to make an explanation about the increase.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a capital vote for completing a series of landing fields across Canada which were started some years ago as relief projects. The item here, in conjunction with the previous item and a further one in the supplementaries, is for the completion of these air fields.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: All of it.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Is it for landing fields?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is to complete landing fields now under construction.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Where are these fields? Will some of the money be used for the completion of the Trenton project, on which a good deal has been spent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is under the Department of National Defence.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: This is only for the completion of other airports that have been under construction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is only one of three votes devoted to the same purpose, to complete the air fields from Vancouver to Halifax and from Scotia Junction to Toronto.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Is it for the completion of the Scotia Junction airport?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the Scotia Junction airport will be completed.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: This whole amount is for the completion of Scotia Junction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be completed under this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals administration, operation and maintenance, $2,108,960.
Ernest Edward Perley: How much revenue do we get out of the canals? Do we get any?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We get, I think, about $200,000 a year from the sale of water power. We get no revenue from boats passing through the canals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions
Atlantic Ocean
Canada and the United Kingdom, on the Atlantic, service between, $250,000.
Canada and South Africa, service between, $112,500.
Pacific Ocean
British Columbia and China, and/or Australia, service between, $118,800.
British Columbia and South Africa, service between, $84,000.
Canada, China and Japan, service between, $600,000.
Canada and New Zealand, on the Pacific, service between, $300,000.
Prince Rupert, B.C., and Queen Charlotte islands, service between, $12,000.
Vancouver and the British West Indies, service between, $30,000.
Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia, service between, $18,000.
Victoria, Vancouver, way ports and Skag-way, service between, $12,000.
Victoria and West Coast Vancouver island, service between, $10,000.
Local Services
Baddeck and Iona, service between, $8,000.
Charlottetown and Pietou, service between, $30,000.
Chester and Tancook island, winter service between, $1,600.
Grand Manan and the mainland, service between, $33,000.
Halifax and Bay St. Lawrence, service between, $2,000.
Halifax, Canso and Guysboro, service between, $6,750.
Halifax and Sherbrooke, service between, $900.
Halifax, LaHave and LaHave river ports, service between, $2,000.
Halifax, South Cape Breton and Bras d'Or lake ports, service between, $3,500.
Halifax, Spry Bay and Cape Breton ports, service between, $4,000.
Halifax and West coast of Cape Breton, service between, $4,000.
Ile-aux-Coudres and Les Eboulements, service between, $1,100.
Mulgrave, Arichat and Canso, service between,
[Stage Direction]
Mulgrave and Guysboro, calling at intermediate ports, service between, $9,500.
Murray Bay and north shore, winter service between, $40,000.
Pelee island and the mainland, service between, $7,000.
Pietou. Mulgrave and Cheticamp, service between, $11,000.
[Stage Direction]


Supply-Trade-Mail Subsidies
Pictou, Souris and the Magdalen islands, service between, $37,500.
Quebec, Natashquan and Harrington, service between, $85,000.
Quebec, or Montreal and Gaspe, calling at way ports, service between, $60,000.
Rimouski and Matane and points on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, service between, $50,000.	,	..
Riviere-du-Loup and Tadoussac, and other north shore ports, service between, $10,000.
St. Catherine's Bay and Tadoussac, service between, $3,500.
St John Bear River, Annapolis and Granville and other way ports, service between, $1,500.	,	.	, .
St. John and Bridgetown, service between,
^ St. John and Margaretville and other ports on the Bay of Fundy, service between, $2,500.
St. John and Minas Basin ports, service between, $5,000.
St. John and St. Andrews, calling at way ports, service between, $3,000.
St. John, Westport and Yarmouth, and other way ports, service between, $13,000.
St. John and Weymouth, service between,
$i,odo.	.	,
Summerville, Burlington and Windsor, JN.fe., service between, $750.
Sydney and Bay St. Lawrence, calling at way ports, service between, $25,000.
Sydney and Bras d'Or lake ports and west coast of Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island, service between, $22,500.	.
Sydney and Whycocomagh, service between, $16,000. , . .
Inspection of subsidized steamship services, $5,020.
Mr. REID:: Has the minister received a report in connection with the investigation regarding employment of Canadian seamen on the Canadian Pacific subsidized ships, and if so, is it the intention of the minister or his department to pursue this matter so that the preference will be given to Canadians?


William Daum Euler: An inspector was sent to Vancouver by the department, and he made a report. I could go into that report in detail, but perhaps it would be sufficient for the purpose of the committee and for the information of my hon. friend to say that the matter is now being discussed with the Canadian Pacific officials.


Thomas Reid: Without pursuing the matter at any length may I just point out that the minister should not overlook the fact that deckhands are just labourers on board a ship. My information is that when the inquiry took place in Vancouver they were looking for experienced seamen, whereas it is well known that deckhands are really labourers and that a man does not require experience for this work. I would ask the minister to take note of that.


William Daum Euler: All applicants were examined.
(Mr. Howe.]


Robert Emmett Finn: I should like to ask the minister if he intends to extend that investigation to include Canadian Pacific boats sailing from Atlantic and St. Lawrence river ports.


William Daum Euler: There are no orientals employed on those vessels.


Robert Emmett Finn: Quite so, but the crews all come from the old country. This company receives a large subsidy but no Canadians are employed.


William Daum Euler: I will take note of what my hon. friend says.


Harry James Barber: There is a decrease in this vote of S3,000. Would the minister explain that?


William Daum Euler: The money was not required. Last year we appropriated 833,000, but we were able to make a contract for $30,000.


Ernest Edward Perley: That brings up a point about which I should like to have the minister say a few words. This list of steamship subsidies continues year after year. It seems in most cases that once a company gets on the list it remains there, usually at the same rate. I have often thought the amounts paid for these subsidies might very well be reduced a bit, and I should like to ask the minister whether, when new contracts are made, an effort is put forth to have the amount of the subsidy reduced. When these companies first come asking for subsidies they usually bring statements showing their receipts and expenditures, and in that way show cause why the government should help them maintain necessary services. I should like to ask the minister whether he makes an effort, as I think ought to be made, every time one of these contracts is renewed, annually or whenever it may be, to get the amount reduced if the receipts from the service warrant that reduction.


William Daum Euler: In reply to my right hon. friend I may say that last year one subsidy was reduced from half a million dollars to a quarter of a million, while another was reduced by some 8160,000. There are, however, a number of subsidies which are given by contracts running for a period of years. As far as I am concerned I have tried, with some success, to restrict all new contracts to a period of one year. Further, for the information of the committee I should say that it is my desire to diminish these subsidies as much as possible. As a matter of fact I do not believe in the principle of subsidies at all, and in my opinion only in exceptional cases, where the interests of the country are concerned, should subsidies be given. It had been

Supply-Trade-Mail Subsidies
my hope to be able to make a complete survey of the whole situation last fall. I need not go into the reasons why it was impossible for me to do so, but I hope to be able to carry out that intention some time in the future.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think it is a
very good idea to have contracts made from year to year, but even in connection with contracts covering a term of years, when the contracts expire and the companies ask for new contracts and further subsidies, a good opportunity is afforded to review the whole situation.


William Daum Euler: Quite so, but my right hon.
friend also must know that if the service is considered necessary and a subsidy is deemed essential we are obliged to call for tenders, and the lowest tenderer is given the contract, providing the ships and service he offers are satisfactory.


Ernest Edward Perley: Not if the minister thinks the subsidy is larger than is required.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I understand my right hon. friend. If the service is necessary, tenders are called. If the rates quoted should be regarded as absolutely excessive or there was no competition shown, probably the subsidy would be refused altogether, but we have to use our best judgment after the tenders are in and do whatever seems best.


Ernest Edward Perley: I only want to
be satisfied that the minister is giving this matter his careful consideration, because it has often occurred to me that this is a sort of perpetual list, much longer than is really necessary.


William Daum Euler: It is a matter of great concern to me.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask why the mail subsidies are under the Department of Trade and Commerce instead of being under the Post Office Department?


William Daum Euler: It is a combination; the
mail subsidy usually forms only a portion of the whole subsidy that is given, and for the subsidy given the company or the vessel is obliged to carry the mails as well. If there were no subsidy given at all for the purpose of promoting commerce by the transportation of goods and so on, then the Post Office Department would make its own appropriation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And does the Department of Trade and Commerce charge it up to the Post Office Department?


William Daum Euler: No, I am sorry to say we
do not. I think we should.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the
minister whether he has considered extending this policy of mail and steamship subventions to the great lakes and inland waterways of this country. For example, at one time on lake Ontario there was steamship service between Belleville, Cobourg, Port Hope, Oshawa, Whitby and Toronto, and on the Hamilton division between Oakville, Hamilton, St. Catharines and other places. Is it the principle of this vote to include only the Atlantic, the Pacific and the maritimes? Why should not this principle be applied to cities and towns on the great lakes in order to provide connections with United States ports across the lakes? In that country they have a service like this on lake Erie between Erie, Buffalo, Toledo, Detroit and many other places. We are expending some $2,000,000 under this item. Why should not this principle be applied to the great lakes? During the months when there was formerly a service between the places I mentioned, the freight rates dropped fifty per cent, which helped the fruit, vegetable and dairy producers. Has the minister made any survey in that connection as the boats to these Ontario ports ceased running long ago?


William Daum Euler: I am rather sorry my hon. friend has raised this question if there is any chance that it may encourage those operating boats on the great lakes to come to the department asking for subsidies. I take it for granted that they are making enough money because they have not made any such request, and I would not like them to be encouraged to do so. On the great lakes there are various transportation services, which is not the case in various portions of the maritime provinces, where very often there are isolated communities which would be cut off from the outside world if it were not for some boat, which, however, cannot make a profit out of the service. There is only one subsidized service on the great lakes; it is on lake Erie, I believe. We have had no applications for others, and I hope we do not receive any.


Thomas Langton Church: In the province of Ontario the steamship companies were put out of business by the good roads. With all due respect to the minister, in my opinion the old central provinces should receive some consideration. At one time they had a local steamship service which made the railways cut freight _ rates by from fifty to sixty per cent. The minister comes from the province of Ontario, and I think there should be some ex-

Supply-Trade-Gas Inspection
tension of this policy to the inland lakes of the country and restore boats to these old places.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, $517,000.
Harry James Barber: Would the minister give us the reasons for the decrease?


William Daum Euler: There was a census in the prairie provinces last year, and that is not necessary this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, administration of, $750.
Electricity and gas inspection service, $230,000.
Thomas Langton Church: Inspections and tests under item 281 are costing the six hundred municipalities of the province of Ontario a very large -sum of money. I have brought this matter [DOT]to 'the attention of the minister on many [DOT]occasions. The government should pay part of the cost, because you can buy these appliances by the tens of thousands. Tests for the few are the same as for the many. The minister was one of the pioneers in this matter. I brought this to the attention of his predecessor, Mr. Robb, and he saw a great deal of merit in the argument that in connection with the public utility which is being operated at cost, and of which the consumer gets the benefit, there should be preferred treatment in connection with the administration of electrical inspection. This is costing large cities like Hamilton and London many thousands of dollars. The cost of inspecting these meters on the unit system is out of all proportion and should be discontinued. In my opinion the government should pay the cost of this inspection, especially when it is for a public utility operating at cost.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the number of licences for the export of fluid and electricity increased? Has the quantity authorized under the licences involved in vote 280 substantially increased in the last year?


William Daum Euler: There has been only one new one, concerning which I shall get the information in a minute. A new licence to export energy was issued .to the Manitoba Power Commission on August 28, 1936, to export
1,000	kilowatts.


Mr. STIRLING:: What was the warrant for the increase?


William Daum Euler: In connection with their application for licence to export, the Manitoba Power Commission stated that the amount for which the licence was requested would very nearly equal the amount of power which

they import from the Interstate Power Company of North Dakota, to meet the requirements of Emerson, Manitoba. The amount to be exported was so small that it would not interfere with the requirements of the province of Manitoba.


Ernest Edward Perley: I understand it is the policy of the government not to issue any further licences for export. I am not referring to this instance particularly, because the reason given by the minister is a good one. There was an exchange of power, because Manitoba got the same quantity, from the United States. I understand it is the policy of the government not to issue further licences for the export of power; is that correct?


William Daum Euler: We do not grant licences to export power, except with the consent of the province concerned. We have given only this one.


Ernest Edward Perley: I understand that. This one seems quite all right, because it involves only an exchange of power; we get back what we export. But if at the present time an application is made to the government for a licence to export a large quantity of power, what would the procedure be? What is the government's policy in that respect?


William Daum Euler: I do not know that I am in a position to say, except that I suppose each case would be judged on its merits. As a general principle, and speaking for myself rather than for the government-in fact, that is the only way I can speak-I would say it is not the policy of the government to export to another country power which might be needed in this country. However, no applications have been received, and I believe there are none before the department. About all I can say to my right hon. friend would be that we will cross that bridge when we come to it.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister's answer does not quite satisfy me. As a matter of fact, we learned from sad experience that when we gave authority to export power we could not stop its exportation when we wanted to. It so happens that I was one who had a great deal to do with the granting of almost the first application for the export of power to the United States. That happened many years ago. We went over the papers very carefully and it was therein stated, as definitely as words could make it, that the export of the power could be stopped on proper notice whenever the government of Canada wished to do so, or whenever the power was required in this country. But when it came to the

Supply-Trade-Gas Inspection
time when we wanted the power, during the war, the United States took the ground that industries in that country had been built up through the use of the power and that it would be an unfriendly act on our part to discontinue the export of it. I take it that from that time forward everybody was pretty well agreed that it was not in the interests of Canada to grant licences for the export of power, even if it was not required by us at that particular time. In view of what our future requirements might be it was considered our best policy not to grant further licences for the export of power. The minister does not seem to have taken that view of it, or to think that that is the position, but certainly that is 'the way I understood it.


William Daum Euler: I am familiar with the incident to which my right hon. friend refers, and I know that at that time there was a feeling abroad-it is not practical at this time- that we might have difficulty in regulating or stopping the export of power on future occasions. That may be a matter of opinion. I cannot definitely say at this time, if the right hon. gentleman wishes me to make a direct statement, that this government is taking the absolute position that in no case whatsoever will it issue a licence to export power. I cannot say that. But I will say, as I said before, that I do not anticipate any substantial exportation of power, and certainly none which in the opinion of the government would in any way prejudice Canada's position in the future with regard to power requirements. I can give my right hon. friend no further assurance than that. I do not know of any absolute assertion by any government that as a matter of definite and conclusive fact they will not at any time export any power.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the minister is right in that.


William Daum Euler: I think we should consider each case on its merits.


Ernest Edward Perley: There might be special exceptions, but as a general policy I think we w*ere all pretty well agreed-


William Daum Euler: I think we are now.


Ernest Edward Perley: -that in practice we cannot stop the export of power, once we give the licence.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With further reference to the point brought up by the hon. member for Argenteuil, I remember that some years ago in my enthusiasm I introduced a bill to prohibit the export of electricity. It passed this house, but it was rejected in the other
chamber. In connection with the bill I studied the matter somewhat carefully, and found on the files of one of the departments a memorandum from one of the power authorities in the state of New York stating, in answer to representations made by this government, and in connection with the occurrence to which the hon. member for Argenteuil has referred, that the licences were very specific, that they were only yearly, and that every licence had to be renewed at the end of each year. This authority came back and pointed out that notwithstanding that they took the position that if, even under a temporary licence and with the specific stipulation that it was only for a year, the export of power was allowed to continue, industries would be established; and as the hon. member has said, it would then be considered an unfriendly act to terminate the licence. I agree there are exceptions to these cases but I understand the policy of governments through all these years has been to limit and restrict the export of power, keeping in mind the possibility the hon. member for Argenteuil has referred to.
I do not want to take the time to-night to place this memorandum on Hansard as it is rather long, but it takes the very strong and definite position that notwithstanding the fact that a licence is only annual and is not considered as having to be renewed, the power licence could not and should not be cancelled and they would not stand for any action of that kind. I am sure the minister is aware of the position in a general way. Has he the total quantity of power authorized for export under these licences? I understand it is comparatively small. In view of the industrial expansion that is likely to take place and the fact that hydro electric power is of incalculable value to Canada, I hope this policy of restricting export as far as possible will be continued.


William Daum Euler: The total export amounts to 397,686 horse power.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand some of that is being exported under contracts made some years ago in connection with Niagara power?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Grote Stirling: The leader of this government has always taken a strong stand on the duties and powers of parliament. Can the minister assure the committee that no licence for the export of power will be granted without parliament being consulted? I think it was eleven years ago that this matter was debated in the house, and my recollection is that at that time there was an expression of opin-

Supply-Trade-Gas Inspection
ion by the great majority of members that parliament should be consulted before any further power was exported.
Mr. EULER,: My hon. friend has been a minister and has had sufficient experience to know that a minister on the floor of a house does not by himself evolve policies. I am afraid I cannot give him the assurance he asks for. However, as I stated before, no licence is granted except with the consent of the province from which the power is to be exported. I am afraid I cannot go any further than that at the moment. No applications have been received and no new licences are being given.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, we are voting S230.000 for electricity and gas inspection service. This whole amount should be handed over to the publicly and privately owned utilities. The hon. member for Leeds referred to connections from primary lines to secondary lines to houses. As an illustration of the defects in this inspection service I would direct the attention of the committee to a blowout that occurred the other night at the corner of King and Bay street, Toronto, in front of the Globe and Mail office. I am not blaming this on the Globe and Mail, but it happened nevertheless. At this particular corner the gas company has prior rights; then comes the Bell Telephone Company, and then other public utilities. When the accident occurred, one public utility was called and it was found the inspection was faulty. This inspection service should have been left to one or the other of the public utilities, or to all of them. I think the minister would save a. lot of money if he insisted that the different public utilities should be responsible for any inspection. When a private individual takes such matters into court, the gas company, the Bell Telephone Company, or the light and power company reply that the service is inspected by the federal authorities. In that way the private citizen whose property has been damaged by an accident is made the goat, if I may use an unparliamentary term.
One fact overlooked by many hon. members is that there is a large revenue accruing to the federal government from these meter inspections. The different utility companies are loaded up with heavy inspection costs for an inspection service that is faulty at times. When this accident occurred in Toronto, the police were telephoned. Then the police called the three public utilities. The engineers met, and without the government being consulted decided on what was wrong. I think the time has come when the Depart-

ment of Trade and Commerce should get out of this inspection business.
The other day while the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was speaking the lights went out. There may have been an accident on the primary or the secondary lines, but the system of inspection must have been at fault. The so-called inspection does not amount to a snap of the fingers. I fail to see where the principle of all this legislation lies. I have seen meters inspected, and I can assure you that very often it is not what it ought to be. The time is coming when there ought to be a conference between the department and public utilities with a view to eliminating duplication. I was a director of a gas company in Toronto for seven years and I was also mayor of the city, and I know that there was duplication all along the line, for there was municipal, federal and provincial inspection, all the inspectors doing the same work. The same thing applies to the telephone service. There is duplication in every direction. I believe that many people could take the dominion government into court, if only it could be done under our system. We have a vast system of inspection all the way from Halifax to Vancouver but we are not getting value for the money that we are spending. I did not wish to make any more speeches at the end of the session, but when I see the department doing nothing I think it my duty to speak as I have done.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Ernest Edward Perley: I wonder if the minister would be good enough to revert to item 277?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Make
your comments on the next item.


William Daum Euler: I shall have to accede to the hon. gentleman's request because he asked me this morning whether this item would come up to-day, and I told him I did not think it would. I think he should have an opportunity to make his remarks.
The Canada Grain Act, including management, operation, and maintenance, also equipment of elevators, administration of, $1,899,200.


Ernest Edward Perley: The report of the board of grain commissioners tabled yesterday is an important document which we have not yet had time to study carefully. Would the minister care to make a statement with regard to the milling test of the trial shipment of garnet wheat, indicating how this report will affect the grading of that wheat? Does he expect it will result in any change in the grading? I understand that the shipment did not turn out well.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Daum Euler: I regret that I cannot make an extended statement at the moment. I understand that the commissioners are now investigating the whole matter, but I will submit his remarks to them and perhaps give a reply later. I am not very familiar with the report myself, not having had an opportunity to peruse it completely. If it is satisfactory to my hon. friend I will answer his question later.


Ernest Edward Perley: I thought that if the report were well known to the western producers it might affect their seeding considerably this spring. However, as the minister says that he will give me the information later, that is all right. Has the board suggested any amendments to the Canada Grain Act?


William Daum Euler: Yes; in fact it was intended last year that there should be amendments to the act at this session, but for a number of reasons it has not been proceeded with. It will probably come in next session.


Ernest Edward Perley: Did the suggestions for the amendments come from the trade?


William Daum Euler: Some of them did. The whole matter is under investigation and we are awaiting the report of the commission. I can assure my hon. friend that in all probability a bill will be introduced next year to amend the act.


Ernest Edward Perley: Has there
been any suggestion from the operators of the western terminals of a change in the rates at the terminals?


William Daum Euler: I am informed that there
have been no applications.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	[DOT]
Exhibitions and fairs, $215,000.
Harry James Barber: Will the minister give a
list of the exhibitions and fairs, and the amounts?


William Daum Euler: Trade fairs and exhibitions
in the United Kingdom are:
British Industries Fair, London and Birmingham, $25,000.
Housing and Health Exhibition, Glasgow, $7,500.
Imperial Fruit Show, London, $2,500.
Ideal Homes Exhibition, Belfast, $7,500.
Aldershott Show, $1,000.
Dairy show, London, $2,000.
International Exposition, Paris, $25,000.
Royal Netherlands Industries Spring Fair,

Canada Shops in Great Britain, $15,000.
Exhibitions under cooperative policy, $20,000.


Harry James Barber: These are only for certain
periods of the year. The fruit show would be only for a short time?


William Daum Euler: Yes, for short periods.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are these Canadian exhibits over there being maintained at a high level so as to be a credit to the country?


William Daum Euler: Certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Motion picture bureau, $41,880.
George James Tustin: Is this for advertising
purposes?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Research Council, $621,500.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I am well aware that the National Research Council does splendid work. I have seen its work in industry in various fields, but I should like to know whether it has been making any investigation into the roasting or sintering of low-grade iron ores. Lately, within a few years the research department of the university of Minnesota has made great progress and the system developed in that state is giving splendid results in the roasting of the low-grade iron ores of the Mesaba range. As the Ontario government has acceded to the requests to give two cents per unit for the roasting of iron ore in Ontario, and I believe this summer the new Helen iron mine will be reopened, I have been wondering whether the National Research Council has perfected anything along the line of roasting low grade iron ores.


William Daum Euler: I was going to say to my hon. friend that I have no information before me, but I am now assured that the answer is in the negative.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice an increase of $111,500 in this item as compared with last year. Would the minister give an outline of the extension of the services, or the reason for this increase?


William Daum Euler: Salaries, S26,908. Does my hon. friend want the details?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh, in a general way.


William Daum Euler: It has to do with salary increases, operating laboratory divisions, scholarships $10,000, grants of something over $7,000, travelling expenses $2,500, administration, $2,000. Then there is the reconditioning of the hydro electric plant, provision of service to the main building, and other repairs; that runs to about $41,000.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is there any increase in the staff?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Daum Euler: Yes, there is some increase in staff. I may mention that the government is under constant pressure to increase the appropriations for the National Research Council. For my part I should like to do so; in fact, I think that so far as expenditures for this particular purpose are concerned we are far behind some other countries which I might name, including Russia. But I need not assure my hon. friends opposite that in these days it is very difficult to get appropriations increased, and I was gratified to get the increase that we are now asking for.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was anxious to know if the council is embarking on any new fields, or if this represents just a general increase along the lines of their present activities. As the minister says, they might well branch out into some new activities, but apparently that is not contemplated even with this increased expenditure.


William Daum Euler: I do not think it is possible to branch out to any considerable extent with the amount of increase that is provided here; but it is the best we can do this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, $65,000.
Harry James Barber: The minister might give us some particulars on this item.


William Daum Euler: The amount estimated to be needed is 865,000. This is to provide for advertising in Canada and abroad exclusive of Great Britain and Europe. It is. divided as follows: Canadian newspapers; trade, industrial and financial papers and magazines, and other advertising; a weekly news service in Spanish for Latin American newspapers, replacing Reuter's service; for broadcasting daily news service through the marine department by the Canadian Press to Pacific liners, and a similar service is proposed in connection with Atlantic ships; newspapers and periodicals to be used by this branch for clipping and reference purposes; printing and stationery, travelling expenses and other contingencies; and for the Canadian trade index and the partial services of a stenographer.


Mr. LAWSON:: Why the increase?


William Daum Euler: In view of certain special publicity which is contemplated in connection with Canada's participation in the international exposition at Paris, May to November of this year; the follow-up of the "Canada Calling" campaign which has been instituted in the United Kingdom this year, conducted by the high commissioner in London, and

further advertising in empire countries. It is considered that this increase will be required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Grant to 1'Association Cana-dienne-Franeaise des Aveugles to assist in work with the blind, $4,050.
Mr. COLDWELL:: I notice three items of grants to organizations to assist the blind. Are the other organizations also receiving grants? I refer to the Canadian Federation of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.


Grote Stirling: One of those you mentioned is provided for in item 253.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amounts required to provide for grants to be made to the provinces of-
Nova Scotia, $1,300,000.
New Brunswick, $900,000.
Prince Edw'ard Island, $275,000.
British Columbia, $750,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What are those?


Harry James Barber: Are those outside the statutory grants?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are those outside the subsidies, or what are they?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think I am speaking within the facts when I say that the grants to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are special grants arising out of the reports of commissions that inquired into their position, the Duncan report, and I think the White commission later. The special grant to British Columbia of 8750,000 was the interim subsidy arranged for, I think in 1932-


Grote Stirling: 1934.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -pending settlement of matters later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Federal District Commission-To provide for maintenance and improvement of properties under the control of the Federal District Commission, $144,400.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the explanation of the increase?	.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the details before me. There is a small increase in the amount of work to be done consequent upon the enlargement last year of the area of the driveway. There was an extension of the driveway system going through the experimental farm and connecting with the further portion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-State-Miscellaneous
To provide for a contribution to the government officers guarantee fund, $20,000.
Major James William Coldwell: What does that comprise?


Charles Avery Dunning: After a study made a year ago with respect to the bonding of government officials-my hon. friend will remember the discussion?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is the annual contribution.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. O'NEILL: With permission I should like to revert to item 234:
To provide for salaries and expenses of the Tariff Board, including additional provision by reason of the increased jurisdiction under the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act -payments may be made notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or regulations, $180,000.
Is anything being provided for a public prosecutor under the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, to deal with unfair trade practices?
Charles Avery Dunning: 
Ernest Lapointe: Except that the Minister of Justice may appoint counsel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief Electoral Officer-salaries and contingencies of office, $16,384.
Dominion Franchise Commissioner-salaries and contingencies of office, etc., $14,340.
Mr. WALSH:: Does this amount include a salary for an assistant to the officer?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. The commissioner's salary is statutory. This item includes the salary of the assistant and stenographer and a small staff.


William Allen Walsh: Is there sufficient work to keep the assistant reasonably engaged during the course of the working day?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps my hon. friend will be satisfied with an explanation of items 240 and 241. The whole matter is now before a committee of the house, which has just reported, and until we take action to concur in that report I think it is advisable to carry on with the present staff. There will be changes in both offices when the house takes action on the report of the committee.


Harry James Barber: What is the salary under 240?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The chief electoral officer gets $6,000 by statute. The salary of the assistant is $3,078; secretary, $1,767; clerk-stenographer, $1,539; and $10,000 for contingencies.


William Allen Walsh: I presume it is the same assistant who put in an appearance on the salary scale after the last election? The same assistant is there who was appointed about a year ago?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend will find that there is no change, only a slight statutory increase of $114.


William Allen Walsh: I was wondering whether the government had taken any official cognizance of the criticism directed last year at the appointment of an assistant. After the election had taken place in 1935 an assistant was appointed, when the position could have been left vacant for a period of four years at least and that amount of money saved. I was wondering whether the Minister of Finance in his desire to save a little money for the over-burdened taxpayer had remembered the criticism of last year and suggested that the Secretary of State should remove that person from office and reduce his budget accordingly.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That salary was voted year after year. I admit the appointment was not made for some time, but last year it was deemed advisable not to leave that office in the hands of a single officer, Mr. Castonguay; it was thought proper to give him an assistant. The dominion franchise commissioner also has an assistant. I do not think my hon. friend wants to discuss that at length to-night, but I repeat that it will be in the hands of the House of Commons next year, when they
Supply-State-Miscellaneous

take action on the report of the committee on elections to dispose of the whole matter. In the meantime I think it is advisable to carry on as we are.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is covered by the contingencies?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The contingencies are to provide for by-elections.


Frank Exton Lennard: In what way?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We cannot have a fixed amount because we do not know what byelections will take place but the same amount is voted to both officers, to take care of byelections.


Frank Exton Lennard: How much was spent last year?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Under the dominion electoral officer we spent in Wright, which was not contested, 8366.44; in Gloucester, which was not contested, S364.42; in Ottawa East, which was contested, 84,667.60. Under the other vote, of course, wTe had to prepare the lists in the three cases, and the total amount spent was $13,199.88.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not going to discuss whether the chief electoral officer should use round or square pens; that is a matter of very little importance, but there is a difference of 84,000 in the salaries paid the franchise commissioner and the chief electoral officer. It seems to me that either the salary of the franchise commissioner should be reduced by that amount, or that the salary of the chief electoral officer should be increased by that amount. It would be only fair, because the chief electoral officer has tremendous responsibilities which should be taken into consideration. He does his work very well, and his salary should be increased in order to put him on the same level as the franchise commissioner.
Item agreed1 to.
Dominion franchise commissioner - salaries and contingencies of office, etc., $14,340.


Harry James Barber: I should like to ask what the dominion franchise commissioner is doing now, and what he has been doing for the last two years.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The franchise commissioner prepares the electoral lists. My hon. friend will recall that in 1934 we passed an act under which we not only established new lists for the whole dominion but provided that these lists would be revised every year. In 1936 the government proposed a bill, which was adopted by the house, doing away with

the annual revision, which was replaced by a special provision covering by-elections and providing for the preparation of lists. So now the office of the dominion franchise commissioner, instead of supervising a general revision of the lists every year, is merely entrusted with the preparation of those lists whenever there is a by-election.


Harry James Barber: And therefore between byelections he has nothing to do?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Well, I must admit that
the whole situation needs overhauling, and I quite agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Temiscouata. There is no doubt that when we deal with the report of the elections committee next year we shall have to go into all these matters very carefully.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to John Thomas (Jack) Miner to assist him in his wild life conservation work, $4,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to compliment the government on maintaining this item at the amount that was voted last year, and I am in favour of increasing the amount. Jack Miner certainly has done a very wonderful work; he has been able to bring back the Canada goose to this country to a remarkable extent. Two years ago I believe he had about two thousand Canada geese winter at the reservation, and I believe this number has increased now to about seven thousand. I believe he contributes a good deal more than the amount voted by the government, and I hope the government contribution will increase rather than decrease.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I should like to add my
endorsation of this grant to Mr. Miner. He is doing a very excellent work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for report on cultural conditions in Canada (literature, art, drama, education, etc.), $2,500.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister explain this vote?


Charles Avery Dunning: This has been in the
estimates now for several years. It is a payment, in fact, to Sir Charles Roberts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment and Social Insurance Act, $40,000.	[DOT]
Jean-François Pouliot: I do not see the reason for this vote, because according to a return tabled in the house recently this commission has been abolished. It is in the same position as

Supply-F inance-Miscellaneous
the economic council. Two members of the commission who were appointed by the late government each received $13,800 for doing nothing, and in addition Mr. Moore and Mr. Baudet spent $450 and $890 respectively in travelling expenses.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say,
Mr. Chairman, that the estimates were prepared before the decisions of the privy council were made known, and in the meantime the government had to make some provision. Now that the decisions have been given I do not see any necessity for the money being voted, but the item might stand until I see if there is anything further outstanding.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps the Prime Minister
would be good enough to inform the committee as to the policy of the government with respect to the legislation which has been declared ultra vires, as to whether it is the intention of the government at another session to see if they can proceed with some type of unemployment insurance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government is most anxious to proceed rapidly with further legislation, and the matter will be given very full consideration between now and the time parliament reassembles next year.


Jean-François Pouliot: And. in the meantime I hope Mr. Baudet, the former commissioner, whom I had expelled from my office by a constable, will get nothing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is not getting anything now.
Item stands.
To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for salaries, reclassifications and increases, and to authorize payment of the salary of any employee, who is made permanent, from the appropriation under which his salary as a temporary employee has been provided, $100,000.


Ernest Edward Perley: Why should the amount be so much larger this year?


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount fluctuates, of course, from year to year. A year or two ago it was over $200,000. It depends upon what can be foreseen by way of expanding services in various directions which have not been provided for in the main estimates. In fact I can tell my right hon. friend that from a survey just completed, to-day I think I will have to ask for a supplementary vote in this connection, in order to have a sufficient sum in what is called the general salaries account to take care of what is already contemplated
in the way of additional services for which provision has not been made in the main estimates, which of course were prepared a number of months ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Statue of the late Sir Arthur G. Doughty, to be erected in front of the dominion archives building, $15,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: I suggest that this item should stand; someone may wish to speak on it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before it stands I have a word, to say. The late Sir Arthur Doughty was undoubtedly the first civil servant of this country. He did marvellous work at the archives; in fact, he was the initiator of the Canadian archives. He was also our foremost historian, in that he provided everyone with authentic information in regard to the history of this country. He was a Canadian at heart, and one can only appreciate-


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but this item stands, and I do not think there should be any discussion on it.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was suggested by the right hon. member for Argenteuil that the item should stand. Before the observations from the chair I had made a few observations, but as the item now stands I shall take a further opportunity to continue what I have to say.
Item stands.
To provide for expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office, $1,751,053.25.


Charles Avery Dunning: This item was allowed to stand in my absence. If there is any question, I am prepared to answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Harbours Board-
Advances to National Harbours Board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act to meet expenditures during the calendar year, 1937 on any or all of the following accounts:
(a)	Retirement of maturing debentures and bank loans
Halifax, $964,338.37.
Saint John, $305,000.
(b)	Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Halifax, $10,100.
Saint John, $309,225.
Quebec, $120,000.
Chicoutimi, $2,750.
Three Rivers, $14,000.
Montreal-Jacques Cartier bridge, $2,000
Churchill, $10,000.
Generally unforeseen, $100,000
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Finance-Miscellaneous
William Allen Walsh: I should like to have this item stand. The hour is late; it is of some importance.


Ernest Edward Perley: May I suggest that the hon. member could speak on item 294.


William Allen Walsh: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for Soldier Land Settlement advances and for advances under the British family schemes recoverable from the British government, $292,810.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Does this item have reference to the settlement of returned soldiers in the Northwest Territories?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, this refers to the British family scheme.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to cover the payment of retiring leave to officials other than those on civil government, $2,800.
Ernest Edward Perley: Under what item do parks come? The right hon. leader of the opposition wishes to make some observations concerning the parks.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is correct. His observations could come on the special supplementary estimates.


Charles Avery Dunning: There will be an opportunity.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The matter the leader of the opposition wishes to discuss could come under any of the items from 156 to 168, or under the special supplementary estimates which have not yet been before the committee.


Ernest Edward Perley: If item 152 is permitted to stand, he could make his observations on that item.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. Strictly speaking, what he might have to say would come under other items, but he could speak on item 152.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are several items on which he could speak, in any event.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is understood that he can say what he wishes to say on any of these items?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: He will find a way, anyway.


Ernest Edward Perley: There was no necessity for that remark.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Investigation and national inventory of water and power resources of Canada; investigation and study of international waterway problems; the dominion hydrometric survey and the administration of the Dominion Water Power and Irrigation Acts, etc., $164,088.
John Ritchie MacNicol: We have read that the Ontario government have contracted to permit an American lumber company to take lumber off the Long lake watershed in northern Ontario, consisting of approximately an area of about 1,700 square miles. If I am informed correctly, under the contract the company will be permitted to divert water from that watershed by damming the Kenogami river, which flows out of Long lake and Little Long lake, with a flow I understand of about a thousand feet per second, and has been given the right to divert the water through the height of land into lake Superior.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the Ontario government has the right to permit the diversion of water out of any Ontario watershed connected with Hudson bay southward into an international body of water, in this case, lake Superior?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a legal question, and I should like to consult with the Minister of Justice before giving the hon. member an answer. Perhaps he would permit the question to stand and we may give an answer later on.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The item may carry, so far as I am concerned; the Minister of Justice will answer later.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses incurred under the agreement between the dominion, Ontario and Manitoba, confirmed by the Lac Seul Conservation Act, 1928, for the construction of a dam at the outlet of Lae Seul and its operation by the Lake of the Woods control board; moneys expended to be reimbursed to the dominion by the province of Manitoba under the terms of paragraph 8 of the Manitoba Transfer Agreement, $20,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I understand that from the west end of lake St. Joseph, one of the sources of the Albany river, there is now a small canal connecting the Root river and the English river. This is up in northern. Ontario. I was wondering if any established rights will be obtained by the people operating that canal. If they have established rights, perhaps later on the government will have to buy them back, in the event of further developments in that part of Ontario.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is a matter within the jurisdiction of -the province of Ontario. I understand there have been some minor im-

Farm Implements Committee
provements made in connection with transportation into the Central Patricia mining area. I am not aware of a canal having been built, such as that to which the hon. member refers. I do know there have been some improvements in communications. In any case the matter is one wholly within the control of the province of Ontario. I do not think it is a question that touches dominion administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses connected with the maintenance in a state of effective demarcation of the international boundary, $29,200.
Harry James Barber: What progress has been made in the resurveying of the international boundary in British Columbia?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am informed that this work is being carried on in southern British Columbia. Part of this vote is for the purpose of maintaining the markers on the international boundary and any other necessary upkeep that might be required.


Harry James Barber: I understand that two parties hare been carrying on this work for the last two years. I would not say it is an annual affair as some progress has been made, but I should like to know how much work has to be done.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understand that the work is practically completed, but it is necessary from time to time to do some work in connection with maintaining the markers.


Harry James Barber: Will there be another party out this year? I understood from the officers in charge that they had not completed the work.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am informed that it is not expected to put a party out this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Albert Henry Pergley.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Suzanne Rosenthal Winnikoff.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Mary Briggs Robinson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Mildred Gordon Kahn.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Ernest Arthur Allen.-Mr. Tomlinson.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Florence Rose Wright Clark-Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton).
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Constance Hope Davidson.-Mr. Heaps.

Charles Avery Dunning: I desire to table a report made by the Bank of Canada on the financial position of the province of Alberta.


[Stage Direction]
It being sixteen minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 8, 1937