1938-02-18

BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
First report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Plaxton (for Mr. Moore).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the orders of the day are called: I am advised that the city of Halifax has passed a strong resolution with respect to the agreement proposed between the dominion and the province of Nova Scotia, pointing out that the city has been very careful in its distribution of relief and has received a relatively small sum of money for that purpose as compared with other cities of Canada. The question is whether or not the government is prepared to reconsider the terms of the agreement between the province of Nova Scotia and the dominion in the light of the effect it would have upon the city of Halifax. If the hon. gentleman does not desire to answer the question now, it can stand as notice and he can answer it on Monday.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): This matter has been brought to my attention by the hon. members for the city of Halifax; also I have received a telegram direct from the city clerk of Halifax, and am communicating with him by telegram to-day.



RAVENSCRAG, SASIC, FARMERS LACK OF FEED FOR LIVE STOCK-STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Yesterday the right hon.
leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked

a question with respect to the alleged lack of feed for live stock and the need of relief experienced by farmers at Ravenscrag, Saskatchewan. The answer to my right hon. friend's question is that, following the receipt of complaint by the dominion Department of Agriculture from Ravenscrag, Saskatchewan, it has been ascertained that six hundred and twenty tons of fodder have been delivered to the local improvement district in which Ravenscrag is located, and the one adjacent to the north to which deliveries have been made from Ravenscrag. Three carloads have been delivered to date to Ravenscrag in the month of February and one hundred and forty tons are on order for delivery to that point.
Complaint received on February 17 from Ravenscrag by the government of Saskatchewan, by whom the fodder is distributed, was signed by farmers who did not reduce their live stock to the basis on which feed is being supplied, when given an opportunity to do so with assistance from the dominion government.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 17, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this is a bill passed
annually by parliament for the appointment of auditors for parliament of the Canadian National Railways. The bill is in the usual form. The Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act states that auditors shall be appointed by resolution of parliament, but the passage of this bill has been found to be a practical method and has now been followed for several years.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Appointment of auditors.
Richard Bedford Bennett: How is the remuneration for the auditors fixed?


Mr. HOWE:: The remuneration is fixed
annually by order in council. For several years, I think since the passage of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, the remuneration has been S50.000 per annum.


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

Farmers' Creditors Act


[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 amend The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, to make provision for the establishment of more than one board of review in any province, to provide that no new proposals shall be filed in a province after a date to be fixed by proclamation, more adequately to define the meaning of the word "creditor" as used in the act, and to extend the benefit of the act in the case of deceased farmers.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I had better outline briefly the amendments which are contemplated by the bill which will be based upon this resolution. In doing so, I do not want to anticipate the detailed discussion on the bill itself but to give, so far as I can, general information. A number of members advised me last night that they would be unable to be here to-day but would like to be present when there is any general discussion of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and in that regard I would point out that there will be opportunity for general discussion both on the second reading of the bill itself and in committee of the whole on the bill. At this time I shall content myself with a brief outline of the nature of the proposed amendments and the reasons therefor.
The bill will seek to amend the act in five important respects. The first amendment will attempt to define more adequately the word " creditor," so as to include as a creditor of a farmer a person holding a mortgage, hypothec or other charge upon the property of the farmer even though no privity of contract exists between the farmer and such person. The practice of the boards of review in the various provinces in dealing with cases in which there is no privity of contract has varied quite considerably. Recently, however, certain decisions, particularly one by the appeal court of the province of Ontario, have made it necessary to have a clarifying amendment, which will now make it clear that the word "creditor" does include the creditor of a farmer, although no privity of contract exists between that creditor and the farmer, because of the fact that he is a mortgagee of a previous owner of the property.
The second amendment is designed to permit the legal representative of a deceased farmer to
apply to the court for an order to continue proceedings under a proposal filed by the farmer before his death or for leave to make a proposal on behalf of the estate of a deceased farmer, and the court would be empowered to grant the necessary application upon being satisfied that a member of the family of the deceased farmer resides, and will continue to reside, upon the farm, and intends and is able to operate the farm.
The third amendment is intended to change the present provision which provides that a stay of proceedings is effective only for ninety days, subject to extension by order of the court. Where a delay in hearing the case occurs the official receiver has to apply to the court within ninety days for an extension of the order, and in some cases many extensions have had to be obtained. The new provision will make the stay of proceedings effective until the proposal is finally disposed of. Any creditor, however, may in the interim apply to the court for an order to proceed should circumstances develop justifying such action.
The fourth amendment proposed will enable the governor in council to appoint more than one board of review in a province. In some provinces the number of cases referred to the board has been so great that the boards have not been able to keep up to date with the work. It is not anticipated that action will be taken in all provinces under this amendment or that action will be taken except under circumstances which indicate that such is absolutely necessary in order to catch up with the work and clear it up.
The fifth amendment will enable the governor in council by proclamation to provide that no proposal shall be filed in any province after a date fixed in such proclamation. This amendment is in order to enable the government to meet the very varied conditions which exist in Canada with respect to the operation of this act.
Strong representations have been made from some of the provinces that the operation of the act is no longer beneficial but rather harmful to farmers in that the conditions which gave rise to its enactment and its operation in the province, have now sufficiently improved that there is no need for it; and representations are also made that the fact that it does continue to operate under such circumstances has an impairing effect upon the credit of farmers. The government desires to be in a position to treat each province according to the circumstances of the farmers in that province. By providing that the act should cease to operate, that no new applications will be accepted after a certain date, the same method is followed as was adopted in bringing the act into force. It is hoped
Farmers' Creditors Act

that the amendment will relieve the government of a great volume of requests from some provinces for the complete repeal of the whole statute, because the government have no doubt that the statute is still a necessary instrument in certain provinces. The intention is to keep it in operation in every province so long as real need for it is demonstrated. But the government is definitely of opinion also that the continuance in operation of this piece of machinery within a province after the need for it has vanished tends to lower the credit of the agricultural industry in that province, which is to say the least an undesirable result.
That, Mr. Chairman, is a brief explanation of the purpose of the amendments which will be covered by the bill to which this resolution is a preliminary. On the second reading of the bill and in committee I shall have available all possible information with respect to the operation of the act. As I stated at the outset, a number of hon. members on both sides who are not here to-day have asked to be given an opportunity to get such information from me, and I can undertake to be in a position, if not to answer all questions, at least to supply such information as I have on every aspect of the matter when we come to the further stage.


Mr. STEWART:: Mr. Chairman, the amendments proposed by the minister are twofold. Taking the latter one first, I heartily approve of it on the grounds he has put forward. During the past two years I have had many interviews with farmers who felt that the act was detrimental to them in that they did not come under the act but desired to borrow money and found the act a serious obstacle to their doing so. For that reason they advocated repeal. I had proposed and in fact had drafted a bill to present to this house which differs from what the minister has outlined in only one respect: I was going to suggest July 1, 1938, as a suitable date for the repeal of the act in Ontario. I admit at once that the minister may be in a better position to judge when the repeal in any province should become effective, but I think the date I mentioned is a reasonable one for Ontario. It is to be borne in mind that this act has no application to a debt incurred after the enactment of the legislation in 1934, over three years ago. The act of course is based upon the assumption that the farmer is insolvent; that is the fundamental requirement.


Charles Avery Dunning: That his business as a farmer is insolvent. That has an important bearing on some suggestions.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not quite get the distinction, but there may be one in the mind of the minister. If a man's business is bankrupt it seems that he is bankrupt himself. However, the act is based upon that assumption; unless that situation exists the act has no application. Bearing in mind that the act came into effect in 1934, surely the farmer to whom it was intended to apply must have found out by this time whether or not he is insolvent in respect of his liabilities prior to
1934.	So it seems to me that a reasonable time has elapsed, having in mind the object of the legislation, which was of a temporary nature, designed to keep farmers on the farm rather than have them sold out and everything cleaned up, even the creditors getting very little out of it. Keeping these facts in mind I believe it is the general feeling that we may well terminate this legislation in Ontario. I have had many communications with farmers about it. True, I have had some representations to the contrary, but they are not nearly as numerous or as convincing as those in favour of terminating the operation of the act.
As to the other amendment, the act of course is based on the assumption that there is a relation of debtor and creditor. A farmer who acquires a farm subject to a mortgage to which he is not a party does not occupy the position of a debtor to the party who holds the mortgage. On that ground I think the minister will agree that the relation is not that of debtor and creditor, and the act has been interpreted as having no application to cases of the kind. I can see some difficulty if this amendment is made. Take the case of a farmer who purchased a farm at a high price shortly after the war when prices were high. He paid a substantial amount of his purchase price, perhaps paid it down cash, giving a mortgage for the balance. The relation of debtor and creditor undoubtedly existed between the purchaser and vendor in that case. But another man comes along and acquires this farm on quite a different basis. It may be fair that as between the original parties to the transaction the debt should be cut down, and it may not be at all fair that as between the last purchaser and the original mortgagee it should be cut down. There is a difference there.
As to proceedings instituted by a farmer now deceased, I have had several cases of that kind, and I am glad the minister proposes to limit the amendment to cases in which say a son or heir of the deceased is staying on the farm. That conforms to the spirit of the act. I think the minister will agree it would be quite proper to say the original intention of the act does not apply where an

Farmers' Creditors Act
estate is being wound up and none of the heirs or parties interested are going to stay on the farm.
Reserving the right to make any further comments when the bill comes down and we know its exact language, I think it is along the right lines. But I again press the minister to consider the first day of July, the national birthday, as the time for termination in Ontario.


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope I made it clear that the intention is to set a date within a province after which no new applications can be received, but the act will continue to operate in that province pending the disposition of cases concerning which application was received prior to the date set in the proclamation. It is felt that examination should be made before definitely determining the date, but my hon. friend's suggestion is not far from my own view as to what it should be in Ontario.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I quite agree with that. It was my intention to make it clear that the wording of the bill I intended to introduce was exactly along that line, that no new applications should be received after the first of July. Of course all those pending, of which there are a large number, should be cleaned up, which will take possibly a year.


Mr. DUFFUS:: Will it be permissible to insert further amendments when the matter is being discussed later in this session in committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is an amending bill, of course, and when the bill is in committee of the whole house the whole act is before the committee. At that stage it is quite permissible for anyone to suggest an amendment, provided that it does not involve a charge upon the revenues of the crown or create a tax; this cannot be done unless it is preceded by a resolution such as the one now under consideration. But ordinary amendments of course can be proposed during the committee stage of the bill.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Mr. Chairman, I think the government is to be commended for bringing down amendments to the act at this time. The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act has operated now fairly successfully for almost four years, but the circumstances that prevailed at the time the act was passed do not still exist. While in some provinces the need for the act may be growing less, in others there is need for an expansion of the scope of the act.
I do not propose to go into the conditions in other provinces, in this regard, because I am not familiar with them, but with reference to the province of Saskatchewan'-and I think other members from that province would agree with me-the administration of the act has been received very favourably, and there is a widespread desire on all sides that the scope of the act should be expanded. At the annual meeting of the Canadian Chamber of Agriculture in this city on the 27th day of January, in the course of his speech Mr. J. H. Wesson, the president, outlined four suggested amendments that he thought would be in the interests of agriculture, particularly in Saskatchewan. I do not think it is necessary for me to take the time to read those amendments; no doubt the minister is familiar with them, and, if I may judge from his remarks, they are being included in the bill that is to be brought down. I point that out to show that all sections of opinion in Saskatchewan, including the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, the wheat pool, agricultural societies and so on, recognize the service that this act has been to the farmer and are asking for an extension of its scope. I have before me a resolution which was passed unanimously by the legislature of Saskatchewan last year. So rarely does a resolution pass unanimously in the legislature of that province that in itself that fact makes it worthy of note. All parties agreed on the following resolution:
That the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan, while deeply sensible of the great assistance rendered to our people by the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in the solution of their financial difficulties occasioned by the present depression, aggravated by unprecedented drought in our most productive areas, are of the opinion that experience of the working of the said act in our province renders desirable amendments thereto whereby it may be provided:
Then it lists them:
(1)	That personal representatives of the estates of deceased persons may he permitted to take advantage of the provisions of the said act as fully as such deceased person could do if alive.
(2)	That the board of review be given power to rehear and amend proposals formulated prior to the 1st of December, 1936.
(3) That the scope of the said act be widened to permit of real property owners in cities, towns, villages and hamlets making proposals under the act to obtain adjustment of mortgages, agreements for sale, liens and other encumbrances on their real property.
(4)	That, where default has been made in performance of the terms of a proposal previously formulated through circumstances not within the control of the debtor, the board of review may prohibit bankruptcy proceedings being taken against him and may make such further or other order as the circumstances of the case warrant.
Farmers' Creditors Act

(5)	That the provisions of the act be extended to make it applicable to retail merchants and traders so as to enable them to claim the benefit of the act.
(6) That the province of Saskatchewan be divided for the purposes of administration of the act into a sufficient number of areas with boards of review to expeditiously carry out the work of debt adjustment under the supervision of the present chairman.
(7)	That, where lands are subject to a registered mortgage or mortgages and the registered owner of the said lands is a farmer who is not a party to each of the said mortgages, such farmer shall be considered a debtor in respect to all the said mortgages and entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and the board of review may make such order as it deems just and proper, both with respect to the said registered owner and his liability in respect to the said mortgages, and with respect to any mortgagor or mortgagors in the said mortgages and the mortgagor's liability in respect to the said mortgages.
(8)	That the provisions of the act be extended to make it apply to cases where an owner of a farm has sold or leased his farm and given possession to the purchaser or tenant, as the case may be.
And, further, that this legislature urges that amendments to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, embodying the proposed changes, be promulgated at the present session of the federal parliament.
This resolution was adopted unanimously on March 2, 1937. The lawyer members of that house who drew it up must have had their tongues in their cheeks, since even to me-and I am not a lawyer-some of the suggestions it contains would appear to be outside the scope of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and would come rather within the Bankruptcy Act. Nevertheless it indicates that there is a widespread desire in that province, at least, for the retention of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and the extension of its activities.
I want to say just a word with reference to the five amendments that have been outlined by the minister. At the present moment I have on the order paper a bill in this connection, and I am very glad that everything contained in that bill, with two or three exceptions, will be found in the government's legislation. The amendment permitting the estate of deceased farmers to come under the protection of this act in my opinion is a move in the right direction. The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was found to be intra vires because of the fact that it dealt with insolvency, which under section 92 of the British North America Act is within the jurisdiction of the federal government. It would therefore seem that the insolvency of the estate of the deceased farmer ought to have the same right to come, and should come, under this act.

Then I think the amendment to subsection 1 of section 11, to extend the stay of proceedings until the proposals shall have been settled, is also a move in the right direction. In Saskatchewan, because of the volume of applications, the boards of review have been running about a year behind, and when application for a stay of proceedings had to be made every ninety days it occasioned considerable unnecessary work. I think the minister is doing the right thing in making this amendment.
The question of privity of contract has become a problem only recently, and has not yet affected us in Saskatchewan, though undoubtedly it will, in view of the decision of the Ontario supreme court in the now famous Gofton v. Shantz case, in which the following decision was given:
A purchaser of mortgaged property who has not covenanted to pay the mortgage debt is not a debtor of the mortgagee and therefore not entitled to an adjustment of the debt under the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act; there being no relationship of debtor and creditor, secured or otherwise, between such purchaser and the mortgagee, a proposal under the statute made by the purchaser is not binding on the mortgagee and will have no effect upon the final foreclosure order made in the action to foreclose the mortgage.
From what I can gather from the study of statistics given by the minister's department, in returns from questions asked last year, that would affect a great many hundreds of cases which have been settled in the belief that there was a privity of contract and-
Mr. DUNNING; Thousands of them, probably.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, I believe it would run into thousands. I was being conservative by confining it to hundreds. I think an amendment along this line will save a great deal of chaos in regard to that situation.
The suggestion that we have more than one board has been asked for repeatedly by different bodies from Saskatchewan. I notice in an answer to a question I received the other day from the minister that in Saskatchewan 1,116 cases are awaiting the attention of the board of review, and that is the situation at a time when conditions are so bad that people are not bothering about seeking any debt-protecting legislation. Should we have a crop this summer and creditors begin to press their claims, in my opinion the volume of people asking for protection under the act will be doubled or trebled. Certainly there is a need for at least two boards, one to work out of Regina and the other out of Saskatoon.
I come now to the fifth suggestion by the minister-and I am not so directly concerned

Farmers' Creditors Act
with it, because it is inserted in the interest of provinces where the act is not working as suitably. Perhaps I should be more correct if I said that need for the act is not as pressing as it is in the province from which I come. There is only one thing about which I should like to be clear, and undoubtedly the minister will clarify the point when the bill comes up.
I should like to know how it will be decided in each province whether or not the people in that province want a cessation of the activities of the board of review. I should like to know whether a vote of the legislature will cause an announcement to be made that no further applications will be received, or whether some other method will be taken. I hope some safeguard will be taken to see to it that in a province, like Saskatchewan for instance, the good work that has been done and that can be done will not be stopped by any premature cessation of the activities of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act administration.
Before I take my seat I should like to suggest one or two things the minister has not outlined, and which he may be willing to consider between now and the time the bill is presented to the committee. I have in mind the interests of the retired farmer. The minister and every other hon. member from the west knows that in every small town and village there are numbers of people who have left their farms and have been living in the small towns. They have expected to live for the rest of their days upon the proceeds from the farms they have leased. They now find that under the definition of the term "farmer" as it appears in paragraph (f) in section 2 of the bill, they are not farmers, because they are not persons engaged "in the tillage of the soil." For that reason they are not in a position to ask for a reduction of their debts, or that a proposal be formulated between them and their creditors. The result is that in many cases they are continuing to pay heavy interest, and to meet debts which are now out of all proportion to the value of their property. I know that in very many cases they are in the serious position of being in danger of losing their properties.
In some cases these people are in a position which is almost worse than that of the actual farmer on the farm. The farmers have the ordinary means of subsistence, but these people have not. Their only source of revenue has gone. During the last few years their farms have produced nothing, and they are now in the position where they are expected to pay taxes and interest on their
debts, despite the fact that they have no income and have no way of obtaining a settlement with their creditors, through the act.
I wondered if the minister might consider, between now and second reading of the bill the possibility of accepting an amendment which would extend the definition of the term "farmer" to a person who was the owner of a farm, but who had rented or leased it, and whose main source of revenue was to be derived therefrom. I have in mind the positions of those who appeared before the first board of review that was set up.


Charles Avery Dunning: Has the hon. member
given any consideration to that other retired farmer, the one who has not his farm leased under the circumstances outlined by the hon. member but has sold the farm subject to mortgage and is in a position of a creditor under the act? Some of the most heartrending letters I get with respect to the administration of the act are not from debtors. Debtors are being protected by the operation of the act. I am just as sympathetic with the retired farmer who is a creditor and is trying to live honestly on the proceeds of what is owing to him as I am with the debtor retired farmer described by the hon. member. The difficulty with respect to the act is that we tend to look at it from one standpoint only.
I could not refrain from interjecting these observations, because they bear so completely upon what the hon. member was saying. The next door neighbour might be in exactly the opposite position, but there would be no mercy for him; he gets nothing. That is one of the great difficulties of this legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am glad the minister has brought that up, because I am aware of the problem of the retired farmer who is a creditor. Bu.t the reason I am emphasizing the case of the debtor retired farmer is that the creditor retired farmer is not primarily a problem which faces us in Saskatchewan. I believe that is one more common to the east.
Mr. DUNNING; But it is a problem under the act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, yes; it is a problem under the act. But I am presenting suggested amendments, in view of the problems, particularly of the people on the prairies. The Saskatchewan brief presented before the Rowell commission showed, for instance, that 83-5 per cent of our farm debt was owing outside the province. In the main it is not owing
5S6
Farmers' Creditors Act


Miss MACPHAIL:: For once I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was presented to the house some years ago as offering the best method available at the moment of dealing with the accumulated debts of our farmers. I voted for that act because I believed it was the best we could do at the time. I believe the act has operated for the good of all concerned as applied to farmers who bought land at high prices in 1928 and 1929, or perhaps before that during the war, and had not been able to get started before a depression came. Some of these men have gone through two depressions. The people who owned this land really got more than it was worth, based on its producing capacity.

Farmers' Creditors Act
But there is another side to the story. I have heard of some very pitiful cases in Ontario of farmers who had sold their land and gone to live in a village or town, having just barely enough to keep them going. The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was passed and these people found that their interest was reduced, or in some cases stopped altogether. These interest payments were all that they had to live on. The person buying the farm, even at too high a price, may be in debt, but at least he has the land to till and is able to grow some potatoes and get some meat and vegetables which the man who sold the farm cannot get.
Although I have not the full details before me at the moment of the many cases with which I am familiar, I do know of one man living in my own village of Flesherton who is blind and who has had the most slashing reductions made in his interest payments for the last two years. I cannot defend a thing like that; from the human point of view it is indefensible. The man on the land at least has a chance of getting some milk and cream and meat and vegetables, but the man who formerly owned the property has not this opportunity. This particular case may touch our hearts more because of the affliction of the creditor, but there are many others just as deserving. I know of women living in the villages throughout Ontario who are worrying themselves to death because the small incomes which they had have been halved or at least very much reduced.
There is another aspect of this problem in Ontario. Any one who has money to-day is afraid to lend it to a farmer. Therefore, our young skilled farmers, the very people we want to keep on the land and really the only people worth keeping on the land from a production point of view, cannot get loans to enable them to buy farms.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the most, serious consequence.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: They try to manage, or their fathers may try to help them, but anyone who knows anything of farming to-day knows that it is impossible for a man to make enough off the land to extend his holdings to any great extent. Some of these men have a great deal of ability and energy, but they are finally forced off the farms into the cities or towns. They may not be actually unemployed, they seldom are, but if they are working they are displacing someone else. I can name scores of such cases, as can every member of this house.
Somewhere in the line someone is displaced from a job and goes on relief. Then in a
city like Toronto or Winnipeg, or maybe in Ottawa, some person thinks up a scheme of putting that fellow, who knows nothing about farming and never will, back on the land. He never gets a chance as he is not taken and put on land in Ontario and Quebec in a neighbourhood where there are schools or churches or neighbours, but put up in a part of the country where a goat could not live; yet he is expected to make a living there. We pay any amount of money to take him off relief schemes in the cities; we put him up in the north, and then after a while we pay more money to bring him back to the city, when what we ought to be doing-and I feel that this does come under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act-is to provide loans at reasonable rates of interest, amortized over a long period, to young skilled farmers. Possibly the greatest injury that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act has done-and I as one individual acknowledge some responsibility for it-is to make it impossible for the farmer who has capabilities to get a loan to enable him to start farming.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Drying up credit.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is certainly drying up all kinds of credit: not only mortgage loans, but when many farmers to-day want to get a line of credit at the store, or wish to buy some farm implement, or maybe a cheap car, they have the greatest difficulty in obtaining it, because the merchants who are selling to them have sore memories of fifty per cent reductions in what they were owed by other farmers who had recourse to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. I believe that the best type of farmer-and again I am speaking only for Ontario-has made a great effort, although deeply in debt, to keep away from the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Many of them have not been able to do so, but the best have tried very hard; for they fear the thing we all fear, the scorn of the neighbours. After all, what we all want most is to be respected by those with whom we associate. So that some who deserve help most have never come under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, because they dread the stigma of it, while some who have come under it-I speak from personal experience-are hopeless from any point of view; you might save them now but you would have to do it again in five or ten years or at some time.
This does not apply to Saskatchewan-the two cases are so different. In one province the mortgages are held outside, there have been crop failures, but almost all loans in my part of Ontario are held locally and the hurt is felt locally. Had we thought when
Farmers' Creditors Act

we passed this measure of some way of lending money to the debtor so that he could pay part of what he owed, I think that would have helped.


Charles Avery Dunning: A great deal of that has been done, of course, under the farm loan act.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Well, not in Ontario.


Charles Avery Dunning: It could not be made automatic.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: In Ontario we are having great difficulty in getting loans for farmers. The Ontario government had an unhappy experience and is now-I suppose "liquidating" is the right word. The dominion government has a loan board, but they do not make loans.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Well, it must be to
very special people.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is very difficult to get a farm loan.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The ones who need them most cannot get them.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Anyway I cannot get loans made; there is something wrong with my politics, or something.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, there is no politics about it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: There may not be, but you cannot get loans. You might get one out of a hundred applications, but what are you going to do about the other ninety-nine?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give information at another time when it is in order to do so with regard to the farm loan board and loans in the province of Ontario.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No "information" will settle the cases I have in mind. We have made applications and have not got loans.
The other thing that the Farmers'Creditors Arrangement Act has done is to lower land values. Farm values have fallen through that and the liquidating of loans by the Ontario government, because undoubtedly they are glad to get rid of the land and are selling it at very low prices, and in cases where farmers have to retire through ill health or other compelling circumstances they must get rid of their farms. I find in my own immediate neighbourhood that a good many farmers have gotten old age pensions and turned their property over to the government as a last resort. They had to do something and that

was the thing they finally did; they signed their property over to the provincial government and took twenty dollars a month. In many cases-I can think of three at the moment-the man being the older got the old age pension, but he has since died, and I do not know what is going to result from a condition of that kind, w'here the woman on the farm cannot get a pension and does not own the farm. All of this is indirectly linked with the lowering of farm' values through our very peculiar handling of the matter. I urge in the wrong place, and will in the right one when I get another opportunity, that instead of a "back to the land" we evolve a "stay on the land" policy so that young men will be encouraged to remain on the farms when they want to stay, as many of them do, rather than shove them off and spend great sums of money to get unsuitable people on unsuitable farms.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I have just one short suggestion to make to the minister, in connection with amendments co this act. It is contended that section 142, subsection 2, along with section 143, subsection (j) must be interpreted in such a way that a farmer who once has had a proposal approved is not able to make an assignment under the Bankruptcy Act. The contention is made in that regard that, in all these cases where a farmer has not been able to live up to the proposal-and in many cases that is so, particularly in the drought area of the west-he is refused a discharge under the provision? of bankruptcy proceedings because he has committed an offence under the Bankruptcy Act. The courts have no jurisdiction to grant a discharge, whatever may be the cause, if the farmer has ever made a proposal for a composition which has been acted on. I merely wish to direct these particular sections to the minister's attention so that when the bill is before the house he may have had an opportunity to consider the contention that is made.


Mr. TUCKER:: I gathered from an
interjection which the Minister of Finance made when the hon. member for Weybum was speaking that he was under the impression that the board of review had adjusted debts in some cases-I understood him to say, in thousands of cases-where there was no privity of contract. The boards of review in Saskatchewan have never undertaken to adjust debts in those cases; for example, where somebody bought a piece of land subject to a mortgage to which he was not a party and later applied for the adjustment of that debt the boards of review in Saskatchewan-both the old board

Farmers' Creditors Act
and the new one-have refused to interfere because, they said, there was no privity of contract. I suggest that the minister give consideration to a provision making available the benefit of this amendment to the act to those who in the past have appeared before those boards and received no consideration. I know of several cases where, because of the fact that the only debt was the debt owing on the farm and the person who was on the farm had not made the original mortgage and was not a party to it, the board refused to formulate any proposal. Under the law as it stands a man cannot, as I understand, make a second application, so that those people who have in this regard been refused any help under the act will not get any unless there is provision for the making of a second application.
There are other cases where the board would have made a proposal dealing with the debts where there was privity of contract, but the main debt was of this nature and so they said they could not make an effective proposal at all. Now we are making this change, I submit everybody should be permitted to have the benefit of it. That is just as important, I think, as giving the right .to people whose cases were dealt with in the past by the first board of review to have their proposals reviewed, which I think should also be done. For example, when an order is made by the present board of review, there is a crop failure clause under which, upon the production of a certificate from the sheriff of the district that there has been a crop failure in the area where the farmer's land lies, all payments are postponed automatically for one year. That may not be the exact wording of the clause, but that is, I believe, its effect.
Again, there are cases where there has been a great change in the farmer's circumstances from the time the first order was made. I do not suggest that there should be provision for a second application as of right, but I do suggest that there should be some machinery whereby, if just cause can be shown, an order can be made by some competent judicial official that the applicant may apply for further consideration of his case, by the board of review, so that he may get the benefit of these amendments and also in proper cases a review of a proposal made by the first board of review.
Before I sit down I should like very much to congratulate the minister and the government upon bringing down these amendments, and particularly the one providing for discontinuance of the provisions of this act in certain provinces. Since the beginning of this parliament I had heard a great amount of dissatisfaction expressed from other provinces in regard to this act and I was afraid that so much pressure would be brought to bear that the government might consider repealing the whole act. I think everyone from Saskatchewan will agree with me that the act has been and still is fulfilling a need in that province that simply had to be and still has to be met, and so I think everybody is satisfied that the act should continue to be in force in Saskatchewan for some time to come. I believe even the creditors are satisfied with the administration of the act in Saskatchewan because the apparent large reduction of debt is a reduction more or less only in form. The board of review has cut the debts down only to the amount that they figured the farmer was able to pay, and they certainly have left it at that amount. Every fair-minded creditor, after he has come out from a hearing by the board of review, realizes that the board has left him all that he could hope to collect anyway. The fair-minded creditor realizes that there has been a fair writing down of the debts of the farmer to an amount that he can handle, and that there has been no real hardship to anybody. So I say that there has been a great deal of satisfaction, especially in connection with the administration of the act in Saskatchewan under the present board of review, and when the time comes to appoint further boards, as I suppose will be done in order to cope with the work, I hope the new board will be at any rate under the general supervision of the present chairman of the present board of review.


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: Mr. Chairman, possibly I am looking through the glasses of a retail distributor when I make some criticism of the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in the province of Manitoba. I have always thought the act was very unfair. I have regarded it as cheap legislation, although I have always felt that the good farmers of this country have every right to protection at a time when they find it very difficult, from causes for which they are not to blame, to pay their debts. I call it cheap legislation for this reason, that if the government wants to do something for the farmer, why not do it at the expense of the country as a whole? Why put the entire load on the unsecured creditor, and particularly on the retail merchants? The farmers of this country were entitled to protection; there is no doubt about that, and I agree with what the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) said in her discussion of the act. But this is no time to make valuations of a farmer's assets upon which to base the debt which it is calculated he will have to
Farmers' Creditors Act

pay in the future. Land has no value to-day compared with what it had in the days when the debt was incurred. In 1929, when the depression set in, nobody knew how long it was going to last. Many farmers found that they needed credit, and they could not get it from the banks or the loan companies. Right here I want to make this statement, that I believe the banks and the loan companies have forfeited every right they ever had to do business in this country at any time, now or in the future.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Close them all out.


George William McDonald: Certainly.
Why did they lose faith in this country? I venture to say that when times are good again and land values high, they will want to be doing business again. I have been in the loan business for a long time, and I have known these loan companies to refuse to accept payment of loans without a three months' bonus, but they would gladly do it to-day. They missed their chance, and because they missed their chance, has the government the right to say that they shall get their money, or that the unsecured creditors of this country are the men who will take the loss?
I know as many farmers who are suffering from the injustice of this act as I do retail merchants, and I should like to cite a case or two.
A man sold his farm-at a high price, I admit. The farmer had been farming for many years, but he sold the farm and moved into town. A number of years went by, from 1929 to 1933. but he got no revenue from his farm. He was lucky to have a bank account to support him. After some years he wanted the farm back, and in the meantime the man who had bought it had never paid a dollar of principal on the mortgage on the farm. All the farmer wanted to do was to get his farm back, but he could not do so.
Another man sold his farm for $10,000 cash, and immediately bought another from his neighbour at half the price, paying no cash but taking over a mortgage of $5,000. He then proceeded to gamble away every cent of the $10,000. Five years went by and the mortgagee never got a cent from that farm. Finally, it was to be sold for taxes. The original owner at a hearing of a board of review offered the man $2,000 to get off the farm, but the board would not agree to it.
What time is this to make valuations and say that a man's debts shall be adjusted

according to the value of his land and other assets? I say it is not the proper time.
I can cite another case where the board made an adjustment by which the debtor was not to pay one single cent during 1937 except the share of crop to the landlord, and for seed from the municipality. Unsecured creditors were not to get any money until 1938. This man sold three carloads of grain and bought practically a new car for which he paid about $600 in cash. The unsecured creditors got nothing, and their accounts were reduced ninety per cent in some cases.
Many an honest farmer has loaned a farmer across the road $500 or more and given him seed wheat, and now he finds that these debts have been cancelled. The banks and the loan companies, as soon as they saw a depression was on, took chattel mortgages and every other form of security it was possible to get from the farmer. No wonder the young farmers are finding it difficult to-day to get credit. In view of the way this act has been administered, I can see no reason why anybody should extend credit.
Again I say that the loan companies and the banks, in our province at least, have lost the right, if they ever had any, to do business, and I hope they will not get the opportunity again. I say this as representing a farming constituency. I have every sympathy with the man who wants to pay his debts. There should have been a debt adjustment; there is no doubt about that, but like the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, I say the best men, the honest ones, are not the ones who are taking advantage of the act. I think the act will have to be continued, but let us have some justice in its administration. Why should the retail merchants and the unsecured creditors be the ones to help keep the farmer on the land? Let the whole nation do it; because when prosperity returns to the farmer the whole nation will benefit. The unsecured creditors will have to take a loss, and it will just be a memory. I figure that the act was a vote-catcher right from the start, and was not properly administered. I am sorry some criticism is due the government, as this is the third session of this parliament and it is the first time the act has been amended. I hope it will be made more workable, particularly in Manitoba.


Mr. HYNDMAN:: As I represent an agricultural constituency, and also the home of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning)-


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, you are my member t


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I should like to say a few words on this act. I agree wholeheartedly



193S

[Stage Direction]
Farmers' Creditors Act
with the hon. member for Grey-Rruce (Miss Macphail). I agree wholeheartedly with the last speaker (Mr. McDonald, Souris). If ever there was an act passed by any government to destroy the credit of the farmer, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was that one. If I had been in the house when this act was passed I would have voted for it. I do not advocate its cancellation, but one thing I do advocate is a change in the administration of it, because very unfair judgments have been rendered in certain cases. I will quote one example. A farmer in Carleton county had a large mortgage on his farm. He had to borrow $500 from an old couple in the village who had retired. He borrowed another $300 on a note from another farmer who could ill afford to lend him the money but who did so to enable him to pay a hospital bill. Then this farmer applied for an adjustment of his debts. It came up before the judge, and what did the
judge do?-He reduced the mortgage by half,_
with which I agree-but he cancelled the $500 note and the $300 note. I claim that was an injustice; it should never have been done. It is the administration of the act which is at fault. When this act was passed it is true the farmers were in hard straits. I agreed with it at that time.
The hon. member who spoke last said this act was passed to get votes. If my memory is correct practically all the members in the house at that time supported the act. But when it is said that it was an act passed to secure votes, I am afraid that during this past year it was used to secure votes. A farmer, the president of the Liberal association in Carleton county, applied for an adjustment of his debts under this act, and he got a most favourable adjustment. Then what did we find this farmer doing? Going out to every farmer in the county of Carleton and saying: "If you vote for Mr. Hepburn I will see that you get the same adjustment as I got." Now, that is politics.
Agnes Campbell Macphail: I think that was boasting.


Mr. McCANN:: How did it work?


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: It did not work out in Carleton county.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit me, I am sure he does not want a wrong impression to go abroad by way of reflection on the board of review for Ontario. I may advise him that Mr. Justice Hope has been chairman of the board of review for Ontario; there has been no change at all, and I am quite sure my hon. friend would not desire to have the impression go abroad that he thinks the board of review for Ontario,
headed by Mr. Justice Hope, would be affected by political considerations in making any award. I say that in all seriousness because I do not believe my hon. friend intends that, but that is the impression his words would convey.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: It was the judgment of Hon. Mr. Justice Hope that I was referring to a moment ago in connection with the cancellation of those notes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, that is different from a political criticism.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I venture to say that if any farmer who desired a favourable adjustment of his debts approached any justice in Canada he would certainly not get anywhere with him; it would not have any influence on his decision.


Charles Avery Dunning: No charge of political interference has ever come to my attention with respect to the adjudication of any board of review. I am bound to say that in fairness to all of them.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I agree with that, but the last speaker said this act was passed to secure votes, and I am saying that the president of the Liberal association of Carleton county told farmers that if they voted for Mr. Hepburn he would help them to get a favourable adjustment of their debts. Therefore I think there is as much politics with the present government, if there is any at the present time, as when the act was passed. And I know there is none.
I would like to see a change in the administration of this act. I would not like to see the act cancelled, but I am afraid that if it continues in force and we get decisions of the kind that have been given in some cases in the past we are going to ruin the credit of the farmers. I say in all sincerity that any farmer in the county of Carleton who has had an adjustment of his debts has destroyed his credit in any store or bank or anywhere else in the country. I have had experience with it through adjustments under this act and I have never' said a word. I have had my own debts cancelled-


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh no, no.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I have had accounts owing to me by farmers cancelled up to the extent of thousands of dollars.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is better.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I have never complained of that.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: You have an indemnity.
Farmers' Creditors Act


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: Well, possibly that is the reason. I feel that if the government want to do something for the farmers of Canada-I have suggested this before, and the time is coming when they are going to have to do it-let them cancel all farm loan mortgages held by the government; cancel every one of them.


James Joseph McCann: Santa Claus.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: No Santa Claus about it. The amount of money that was spent in the last by-election in Quebec, down in St. Henry, would cancel all the farm loan mortgages in that province, and that was just to fill up a hole down there. That is the only criticism I have to offer about the administration of the act; I maintain that it is destroying the credit of the farmers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask the minister a question. In view of the statements made by the hon. member for Rosthern, where an application was rejected by the board of review because the person did not qualify under the act as it now stands, and where amendments may be made to the act under which that person would qualify, would he then become eligible or would he not?


Charles Avery Dunning: I would have answered the hon. member for Rosthern on that point if I could have done so. As, however, I indicated at the outset of my remarks to-day, I came prepared to give a certain amount of information on the act generally, but I rather expected, in deference to the wishes of a number of members who are not here, the kind of discussion that has occurred to-day to take place either on the second reading or in committee of the whole on the bill itself. Therefore I have not sufficient knowledge as to what the legal consequences of an amendment such as is now contemplated would be with respect to those who could not qualify prior to it. However, I shall give consideration to all the points which have been raised in this discussion and be ready, I hope, not to deal with everything which may be put forward but to give such information as is possible on the second reading or, more particularly, and perhaps more suitably, in committee of the whole on the bill itself.
I am more than gratified in connection with this thorny subject to find the very pleasant welcome which my efforts to deal at least partly with the situation have received at the hands of the committee. I expected quite a difficult time; I still expect it. I do not remember, in the course of a rather long administrative career, having had a more difficult piece of legislation to apply to the
(Miss Macphail.]
widely varied conditions of Canada than this Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Every member has spoken out of bis knowledge of the circumstances affecting the people with whom he is individually familiar in his own district or his own province, and I am quite sure that every member in so speaking has done so with all sincerity and in all good faith. But to attempt to create a machine which will deal with all those varied conditions, or to attempt, as some members would, to set up conditions so that a board of review would have to do this in such and such a case or would have to do that in the other case, would be a very great tasK. You run immediately into the fact that conditions elsewhere demand different standards, and therefore you must have discretion on the part of your judicial body. The moment you commence to build regulatory fences around your judicial body, that in these circumstances you must do this and under those circumstances you must do the other, you run up against the tremendous variety of conditions existing from one end of this country to the other, and you cannot set up regulation which would be nationwide in its efficiency and scope.
All that you can do, Mr. Chairman, beyond what is now contained in the act, is to see first that there is a judge of the high court, which is one of the best guarantees of impartially from every point of view. When I say that, it does not mean that judges are perfect, but it is the best we can do, and then we must see to it that we associate with them men of high character in the capacity of debtors' representatives on the one hand and creditors' representatives on the other. From my experience, the more you surround that body with regulations the more difficult you make it for them to work out a solution for the individual farmer under the widely differing circumstances of agriculture from the rocky coast of Nova Scotia to Vancouver Island in the west.
Broadly, I am very well pleased with the reception that has been given the honest proposals, and of course I shall have to consider, when the bill reaches the committee, such other concrete suggestions as may be made for further amendments. The discussion this afternoon probably will give me an opportunity to present more information when the committee stage is reached. Possibly hon. members might now allow the resolution to pass and the bill to be introduced, so that they might study the matter we are talking about, thus making it a little easier to discuss it at the next stage.

Farmers' Creditors Act


James J. Donnelly: There is just one suggestion I want to make to the minister before we pass this resolution. I fully appreciate the position of the hon. member for Souris when he says that in his district the unsecured creditor receives no consideration whatever and that the secured creditor is the only one who receives consideration before the board of review. We have had two boards of review in Saskatchewan. Under one of these boards our situation was much the same as that mentioned by the hon. member for Souris. The secured creditor received every consideration; the unsecured creditor received none. At the present time we have a board of review that gives consideration not only to the secured creditor but to the unsecured creditor, and we find that the board is working very, very much more satisfactorily than it did before.
I am afraid, when the minister says he is going to set up two boards of review, that we may have one board giving one kind of decision and the other board giving the othei kind of decision, and there will be no uniformity at all. I would ask the minister to consider the advisability, instead of setting up two boards of review, of making the present board very much larger, with six, seven or eight members, so that it may be divided up. with three men going to one place and three to another. The chief justice, or the man who is in charge, could look over all the decisions so that we would have some uniformity in the decisions given in each province, or at least in that of Saskatchewan.


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to the question raised by the hon. member I have before me, of course in great detail, the percentage reductions made by the boards of review in each province with respect to both secured and unsecured creditors. I know the hon. member for Wood Mountain will forgive me when I say that the figures do not quite bear out the full extent of his statements with regard to the relationship of the boards of review in Saskatchewan to the secured and unsecured creditors respectively. That is to say, there is an element of truth in what he says, but he has stated it rather more extremely than the figures would appear to justify.
With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member as to one board of review being divided into two, I must confess that I have given a great deal of consideration to that possibility. It would be quite beyond the physical capacity of one chairman to do what the hon. member suggests, virtually to act as chairman of two boards of review. I am assured by a number of chairmen of boards
that the work is very taxing indeed. I appreciate the problem of getting uniformity of method as between boards. In the last two years, however, we have made considerable progress towards getting uniformity of methods as between the board of one province and the board of the neighbouring province, and surely, having succeeded thus far, we shall be able to get a reasonable degree of uniformity as between two boards in the same province when we appoint them. However, we shall discuss that point again.
I should like to come back to the remarks of the hon. member for Grey-Brace. I have had time to ask a question as to just what the farm loan board did in Ontario in 1937, and I find that 515 individual farm loans were disbursed in that year to an amount of $1,033,000. That is not many, but it is 515.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: In my constituency alone 515 need loans.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How many applications were made, as a result of which 515 loans were advanced?


Charles Avery Dunning: I sent out hurriedly to get the information over the telephone.


Mr. McNIVEN (Regina):: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to prolong the discussion, but may I say that generally speaking the board, operating under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, has performed a distinct and definite service to the farmers in Saskatchewan. I would approve of extending the number so that there would be two boards of review; even the suggestion of the hon. member for Wood Mountain might be worthy of consideration. I believe that would facilitate the hearing of cases now awaiting consideration.
The chairman of the board of review has laid out plans, principles and policies to which he has adhered during the term of his appointment, and he hears about five cases per day. On that basis it will take several years for him to dispose of the cases already before him. We approve, too, the suggestion that the term " creditors " should be amplified and defined and, likewise, that the benefits of the act be extended to cases of deceased persons.
We would like to have it made definitely certain that those who have had hearings before the board in 1934 or 1935 and who, for one reason or another, have not been able to live up to the terms of the orders made, should still have an opportunity of again appearing before the board.
However, I had something else in mind when I rose to speak. Residents of towns, cities and villages in Saskatchewan are dependent upon the prosperity of rural Saskatchewan. In

Farmers' Creditors Act

fact, their livelihood depends upon the rural area. Where, as has been the experience of Saskatchewan, a great part of the province is adversely affected by drought, and where thousands of farmers find themselves unable to pay, residents in the cities, towns and villages have been the losers. This situation was recognized in Saskatchewan by a resolution passed by the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly in 1937. The matter was made the subject of a petition in Regina. Some 13,000 individuals attached their signatures to the petition, and many others in urban centres have expressed themselves as being in accord with the suggestion that the principles of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act be extended to residents of cities, towns and villages.
There are many workmen, olerks and professional men of one kind or another who prior to 1930 invested in homes, but who to-day find themselves in such a position that they may lose those homes. The act does not apply to those thousands of people. It may well be said that in their cases voluntary adjustments would be the remedy or, in the alternative, that there should be bankruptcy. It is true that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act are open to those individuals, but no trust company or trustee in bankruptcy will accept an estate which consists of a piece of property covered by a mortgage and subject to taxes.
In many urban centres taxing authorities have large claims against such properties, and many individuals know that they can hope for nothing in the future. They are about to lose their homes, either through the action of vendors under agreements for sale, or through the city taxing authorities, or through the mortgagee under the mortgage. This is a very real fear in the hearts and minds of many thousands of honest citizens who would pay if they possibly could, but who, under present circumstances and conditions, are losing heart. They find that the rate of interest continues at the rate which prevailed prior to 1928. I had an instance brought to my attention a few days ago with respect to a house purchased in 1928 for $7,500. Already $7,600 had been paid on it; the balance still owing on the property was $3,500, and the kind-hearted vendor under the agreement for sale offered to reduce the rate of interest from eight to six per cent. He was willing to do that only within the last few months. That experience could be multiplied in hundreds of instances.
I would ask the minister seriously to consider the absolute necessity, in so far as thousands of people are concerned-and I

shall speak only for Saskatchewan-of extending the principle of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to those men and women, in order that they may be assisted in saving their homes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
Pensions Branch-Canadian pension commission

administration expenses, $534,330.
Mr. MacNEIL:: Does the reduction in
the estimate indicate any reduction in services to pensioners?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: No.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What is the medical staff at the Shaughnessy hospital at Vancouver under the jurisdiction of the pension commission? Could we have their salaries and whether they are on full or part time? I should like to know also the names of consultants under the jurisdiction of the pension commission.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall give only those attached to the pension commission and not those attached to treatment or administration. They are:
Dr. J. W. Laing, medical officer, grade 4, $4,080.
Dr. B. F. Keillor, medical officer, grade 4, $4,120.
There was a Doctor G. A. Minorgan attached to that staff, but he has since been transferred so I shall not include him. The next is:
W. R. Congdon, pension clerk, $1,920.
J. Valentine, investigator, grade 2, $1,560.
T. J. McKenty, investigator, grade 1, $1,500.
M. Wallace, clerk, grade 3, $1,620.
W. Bloom, clerk, grade 2, $1,440.
Miss A. E. MacDonald, stenographer, grade 2, $1,380.
Miss G. M. Baxter, stenographer, grade 2, $1,380.
Miss E. G. Heney, stenographer, grade 2, $1,380.
Miss B. M. McCarthy, stenographer, grade 2, $1,320.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does the pension commission employ consultants at that point?

Supply-Pensions


Charles Gavan Power: Occasionally we employ the services of consultants.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Who is definitely in
charge of pensions administrations?


Charles Gavan Power: Doctor Keillor.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would it be possible as a matter of administration to ensure that the medical pension authorities shall have the unrestricted right to secure the authorization of medical treatment when a pensioner requires it? As I understand it, the procedure now is that with a man on pension and requiring treatment, either for the disability for which he is pensioned or for a disability which has a bearing on his general health, the pension medical authority has no right to authorize treatment, it being necessary to refer the matter to the treatment branch of the department, and the man may or may not get treatment. I submit it would be a distinct advantage and probably remove any possible conflict between the two authorities if the medical men of the commission could of their own right indicate that a pensioner must have treatment. This is applicable especially to the neurological cases. The situation is far from being a happy one as a great deal of dissatisfaction exists with regard to treatment of neurological cases. Subsection 2 of section 28 of the act reads:
When in the opinion of a medical neurological expert an applicant for pension or a pensioner has a disability which is purely functional or hysterical no pension shall be paid, but such member of the forces shall immediately be referred to a neurological centre for treatment.
I am advised that in a number of cases the treatment branch has refused to give the medical attention advocated by the pension medical authority. It may be a case where the pensioner comes under class 2 and would not receive pay and allowances, receiving simply comforts while an inmate of an institution. I should like the minister to do whatever is possible to clear up this point. The same thing might be said about dental treatment.


Charles Gavan Power: If a man is on class 2 treatment, as my hon. friend knows, he would continue to receive his pension and his family would receive relief if necessary. I understand the first part of my hon. friend's question was directed to whether or not the pension medical authorities had the right to order treatment. They have the right to order treatment for observation and they do so. In so far as I am aware, there has been no conflict between the two branches. My hon. friend quoted the section of the act which confers certain power on the pensions 51952-38J
authorities with respect to neurological patients. I believe the terms of that section are carried out. I understand my hon. friend's complaint is that they do not receive pensions, not that they do not receive treatment.


Charles Grant MacNeil: My information is that they do not always receive treatment; that that matter lies entirely in the discretion of the treatment branch. I am told that the medical officers of the department are not always in accord with the judgment of the pensions medical authorities and that sometimes treatment is not secured as indicated.


Charles Gavan Power: As far as I am aware, if treatment is required they get it. I do not know of any conflict such as my hon. friend mentions, although there may be some. He has stated that pensions were not allowed to certain neurological cases. He was a member of the committee of 1936 which requested that a board be set up to inquire into these cases and into the treatment of neurasthenic cases generally. That board was set up and, as my hon. friend knows, some kind of report was made. The report was tabled last year; I do not have it with me at the moment, but I can very easily get it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: My point is that if the pensions medical authorities in their judgment considered treatment to be necessary and so recommended, that authority should be final without any question by the treatment branch. The pensioner should be taken into an institution and given all necessary treatment, quite apart from observation. I feel that if the minister and the officers of the department investigate this matter they will find that there have been instances where treatment has not been extended to a pensioner even though the pensions medical authorities considered it advisable.
Then I referred to dental treatment. As an example, an arrested tuberculosis case might be returned to his home, possibly some distance from the institution. The pensions authorities might say that this man should have dental treatment for the maintenance of his health, so that he might secure proper nutrition to avoid relapse. When that recommendation reaches the treatment branch they may say that dental treatment can be extended only in a departmental institution. I have before me a copy of the regulations governing this matter. The man may live a long way from the institution and he is thus automatically barred from treatment. As he is a class 2 patient the department assumes no responsibility for the expenses of the journey to and from an institution. If a man resided at Powell River in British Colum-
Supply-Pensions

bia, it might be more expensive for him to undertake a trip to the institution than to have the dental treatment done at home. I submit that the pensions authority is responsible for his health; it is in the public interest to see that his health is cared for as well as possible, and if they say that this man, in the interest of his health, requires dental treatment, there should be no option; the treatment branch should take the man in and give him dental treatment and provide for transportation expenses.


Charles Gavan Power: As far as I know that i-done at the present time.


Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister give the committee the number of applications that have been made for pensions during the
calendar years 1936 and 1937?


Charles Gavan Power: That would be, of applications to the pension commission and not to the quorum?


Howard Charles Green: If the minister does not have it for the calendar years, perhaps he could give it to us for the fiscal years.
Nature of Application	Granted
(a)	Injury or disease	
1,914(b)	Claims, I.D.S	
22(c)	Section 12	
40(d)	Death	
414(e)	Retroactive pension	
1,528(f)	Assessment	
292(g)	Claims disability not	obvious.	15Total	
4,225


Charles Gavan Power: I would not have it for this fiscal year, but I have it for the fiscal year 1936-37; it is in the annual report of the department for the year ended March 31. The number of applications up to this moment during the fiscal year 1937-38 would not be in my book, but I can very easily get the figures up to, let us say, December 31, 1937. I shall have that information for my hon. friend later on.


Howard Charles Green: It would be possible to give the number of applications for the two calendar years?


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, yes, we could get that readily enough. Pensions applications, April 1, 1936, to March 31, 1937, appear on page 64 of the report of the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Howard Charles Green: For last year?


Charles Gavan Power: For last year. The applications are segregated into different groups, and if my hon. friend does not mind I shall give them as they appear in the report:
Not	Total Applica-	Dual	Investigranted	tions	decisions	gate4,397	6,311	437	50083	105	5110	150	11,603	2,017	51389	1,917	20285	577	1034	19	6,871	11,096	437	680
That was for the year April 1, 1936, to March 31, 1937. My hon. friend will understand that I have not the same information in anything like similar detail for the present year, but I can procure for him the number of applications filed with the pension commission from March 31, 1937 up to the last few days.


Howard Charles Green: The point I wanted to make is whether or not there is an increase in the applications for pensions.


Charles Gavan Power: I would think not. I am not able to say definitely whether the number of applications for pensions has increased or not. I could perhaps get at it in another way by telling the hon. member of the cases ready for hearing by the quorum, but I do not think that is what he wants.


Howard Charles Green: I want to find out whether there are more first applications coming in now than there were before.


Charles Gavan Power: I can readily get that information, although I do not have it here, but I believe that generally speaking they must be falling off in some small degree.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister give us a rough idea of the number of appeals from the Canadian pension commission to the quorum of the commission which is the second court so to speak?


Charles Gavan Power: That is, after first and
second hearings?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: I can say that the rate at
which they are coming in now is about 150 to 200 a month, whereas a year ago there were about 500. There is a substantial falling off in the rate at which they are going up to the quorum. As to the number that were heard in the year from March 31, 1937 to date, I would have to get that information; I can procure it at any time.

Supply-Pensions


Howard Charles Green: Well, the last fiscal year,
that is the year ended March 31, 1937?


Charles Gavan Power: We have not that at the
moment, but I shall get it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I now have the regulations issued in October, 1937, with regard to dental services. Those eligible to receive dental services at the expense of the department are:
Class 1. Ex-service men who require dental treatment for conditions accepted by the Canadian pension commission as the result of dental injuries or disease related to service.
Class 2. Ex-service men who are undergoing courses of medical or surgical treatment as in-patients in a hospital or sanatorium, certified by the specialists in charge of the case and notified to the C.M.O. "attention dental surgeon," to require dental attention as an essential part of the treatment occasioned by pensionable disabilities.
Class 3. Ex-service men receiving prolonged treatment in a departmental institution who are not eligible for dental treatment under the preceding provisions of this clause shall be given whatever dental attention the dental surgeon may certify to be absolutely necessary for their health and comfort.
Class 4. Ex-members of the Canadian expeditionary force who are hospitalized class 2, (P.C. 91).
As far as I can discover, the interpretation placed upon this is that it does not relate to those men requiring dental treatment in order to improve their general condition. They may not have had dental injuries on service, but in the opinion of the pensions medical authority dental attention would, for instance, assist in remedying other conditions for which they are receiving attention. My information is that in all cases they do not get that dental attention even if recommended by the medical authority. My point is that when the medical authority authorizes the treatment, there should be no question about treatment by the dental branch.


Charles Gavan Power: I can only repeat that I
should like to be informed of any particular instance of that kind, because I am under the impression that when dental treatment is required it is given, and I do not know of any instance, although the hon. member may have one in mind, where the pension medical adviser stated that dental treatment would be of some use to an applicant or to a pensioner, that it was refused. If the hon. member has such an instance I should be
glad to know of it. We have had considerable discussion with officers of the Canadian Legion with respect to dental treatment, and as far as I know this matter is all cleared up at the present time.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is the minister in a posision to give assurance that when such recommendations are made by the pensions medical authority they will be carried out?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know that I could give any general assurance except that the regulations under P.C. 91 are being carried out, and a little more, so far as the department is concerned. We are not sticking strictly to the letter of the regulations under P.C. 91; we are doing a good deal better than that. When the men go into hospitals for treatment, we see that they have mouth examination and that they get all the treatment necessary, even to the replacement of dentures.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does the minister's assurance apply to neurological cases?


Charles Gavan Power: I am not quite sure about them; but if my hon. friend is referring to the cases mentioned in the act, where the pension commission has the right to order treatment, the men get it. If, however, he is referring to instances where the patient himself thinks he is a neurological Case and should have treatment, I think my hon. friend will agree that some medical authority ought to decide whether treatment is needed or not. In most cases one cannot depend upon what a neurasthenic man thinks about himself, but must have some medical authority to decide.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In regard to disabilities in this category, I am not suggesting that action should be taken merely upon the request of the prospective pensioner, but as the minister is aware, there has been a distinct disagreement of opinion as to the policy of the chief neuro-psychiatrist.


Charles Gavan Power: But not as between him and any other medical man. As between the chief neuro-psychiatrist and my hon. friend, I admit there is a difference of opinion. I will say also that the board of experts gave an opinion which seemed to coincide largely with that of the chief neuro-psychiatrist of the department. I think my hon. friend will admit that, will he not?


Charles Grant MacNeil: The position is very largely this, that since that board has issued its findings on this question, there is still more dissatisfaction. I do not know who was responsible for the selection of that board.
Supply-Pensions


Charles Gavan Power: I think I am responsible for that, and if my hon. friend wants to discuss with me the members of the board and whether they are qualified or not, I think when I mentioned their names-and I could have them brought down in a moment-most hon. members would agree that these men are known as the very highest authorities in that particular field. I do not think my hon. friend will question that.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am referring to the pensions authorities at the moment. We have found that in dealing with these cases we have had very fair treatment from the chairman of the pension commission. He has dealt very fairly with some extremely difficult cases, and in a number of instances pensions have been restored or protected under the section of the act providing that where pension has been paid for five years continuously, and there has been no wilful misrepresentation, there Shall be protection. I am seeking the assurance from the minister, as far as he is able to give it, that if the pensions medical authority indicates that treatment would assist these men and perhaps save a general break-down, and that sort of thing, treatment will be given by the treatment branch. With that assurance I would be satisfied.


Charles Gavan Power: Again I do not know of any conflict as between the two branches. I am informed that there is none as between the pensions medical men and the treatment
medical men with respect to the particular class of cases to which my hon. friend refers.
In answer to my hon. friend who inquired as to the cases before the quorum, the situation as corrected to January 25, 1938, is that applications now ready for hearing before the quorum amount to 500. This is the smallest number of pensions claims awaiting local hearing in over fourteen years. Active claims in the hands of district pension advocates amount to 3.376, and this includes all cases in which a claim for entitlement to pension has been filed and action is under way. I have a note here which can be taken for what it is worth-it is only an estimate-that it is expected that fifty per cent of these cases will be settled by means of the 1936 procedure without recourse to local hearing. A great many now, when they have their case fully prepared and the precis is sent out to them, decide that it is not worth while prosecuting their claims any further.


Howard Charles Green: How many claims were
granted and hew many rejected by the quorum during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1937?


Charles Gavan Power: That will be found in the
annual report for the year ended March 31, 1937. At page 65 it gives a summary of quorum decisions of the Canadian pension commission from April 1, 1936, to March 31, 1937, as follows:
Summary of Quorum Decisions of the Canadian Pension Commission, April 1, 1936,
to March 31, 1937
D i sabil i ty Appli cat ions-Enti tl ement
Results of Decisions Listed for
re-hearing; Totally No
Nature of	Not	investi-	with- Juris-	Applications	Granted	granted	gate	drawn diction	Total(a) (b) (c) (d)	Injury or disease	... 673	3.089	973	20 2	4.757... 36	455	123	2 	6167	1	8Claims incurred during service	... 23	143	33	1 	200Total	... 732	3,694	1,130	23 2	5,581


Howard Charles Green: What was the approximate
percentage of claims granted by the pension commission, and the percentage granted by quorums of the pension commission?


Charles Gavan Power: The last time I inquired into that I was told, if I remember correctly- I can check up these figures-that the percentage granted on first and second hearings ran approximately between 16 and 20 per cent, but when it came to the quorum the percentage was very much lower. I did 
not get any definite figures on that. Of course, when they go still higher to the appeal court the percentage is infinitesimal.


Howard Charles Green: I suppose it is negligible.


Charles Gavan Power: Infinitesimal, I admit.


Howard Charles Green: 
Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection to discussing the whole appeal question, and if my hon. friend wants me to do so now I shall be very glad to. It is, I admit, a most interesting question.
As he knows, the appeal provisions were placed in the Pension Act largely for the protection and assistance of the soldiers. In my opinion-and I say this without any desire to offend anyone-those provisions were used by the crown to a greater extent perhaps than they should have been.


Howard Charles Green: And still are.


Charles Gavan Power: I think the appeals are now down to about thirty a year as compared with two or three thousand.


Mr. MUTCH:: Is that thirty out of 13,379?


Charles Gavan Power: Appeals by the crown this year number, I think, about eighty. During one year, 1931 I believe, they amounted to some two thousand-perhaps that would cover 1931, 1932, 1933. That, I think, was consequent upon an abuse by counsel for the crown of their right to appeal. That is merely my own opinion; it is the opinion I had then and I still maintain it. A great many of those appeals by the crown were affirmed. Later on, under legislation in 1933, a reviewing officer was appointed and the effect of that was undoubtedly to stop -this very large number of crown appeals. The reviewing officer handles all these appeals and recommends them. Neither the crown as such nor the department nor the minister nor anyone else has anything to do with the matter; the reviewing officer is entirely independent; he decides on his own judgment which decisions of the quorum should be appealed. At the present time appeals are very few.
In 1936, knowing that the appeal system had not worked to the satisfaction of ex-soldiers generally, I made a proposal in the house which would have had the effect of abolishing the appeal court and bringing about some such system as my hon. friend now suggests, that is, to have really a court of review in the pension commission.


Howard Charles Green: I am not necessarily suggesting it; I am asking about the present position.


Charles Gavan Power: I might as well tell the story chronologically. I do not think I have forgotten anything. That suggestion incorporated in proposed legislation was put before
the committee, and the committee almost unanimously, at the instance of the returned soldiers themselves-I speak subject to correction, bu-t I think almost every association was opposed to the combination of the appeal court with the pension commission- reported to the house that that particular section which I had introduced into the bill was not approved by the committee.
I understand that there is still an agitation for the abolition of the appeal court. I may say that within a very short time a great deal of the work of the appeal court will have disappeared. The claims now outstanding before the appeal court are only 380, and in 1936, when I suggested that the court be abolished, there were something like 2,300 or 2,500, well over 2,000 anyway. Now they are down to about 300. We are giving consideration, although the matter has not reached the stage of getting into legislative form, to the question of what is going to happen to this court when it no longer has any appeals before it. That is being considered on the ground alone of the expenditure of public money, without any relation to the number of applications which the appeal court saw fit to grant. It may be advisable to make some provision in the near future for the day when the appeal court will no longer serve any useful purpose. Of course it must be remembered that some of these appointments are for ten years, and provision would have to be made for appointees now holding positions in the court.


Mr. MacLENNAN:: I suppose it may be that claimants are realizing that it is useless to appeal.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps my hon. friend is right. The system at present is: There is a first hearing; then there is further preparation and a further hearing before the commission; after that a quorum sits and sees the applicant and decides upon his case. By the time he has gone through that and not succeeded in getting entitlement he has probably come to the conclusion that it is not much use proceeding further. That may account for the small number of appeals more than anything else; I would not say definitely.


Mr. BETTS:: Can the minister give the number of appeals by the crown and by the soldiers for the last fiscal year, and the result of them?


Charles Gavan Power: I find these figures in the summary of the work of the pension appeal court for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1937:
Supply-Pensions

Decisions Rendered on Appeals By applicants from pension tribunal decisions-
Allowed	 0
Disallowed	 122

 122
By applicants from decisions of the Canadian Pension Commission-
Allowed	 9
Disallowed	 105
Remitted	 2

 116
By applicants from decisions of quorums of the commission-
Allowed on jurisdiction	 5
Allowed	 8
Disallowed on jurisdiction.. ..	1
Disallowed	2,171
Remitted	 17

 2,202
By the crown from decisions of quorums of the commission-
Allowed	 23
Allowed on jurisdiction	 1
Disallowed	 26
Disallowed, sec. 67 (3)	 7
Disallowed on jurisdiction.. ..	1
Remitted	 27

	85
2,525
That is a total of eighty-five that the reviewing officer on behalf of the crown placed before the appeal court.


Howard Charles Green: That shows how very little chance there is for an applicant to succeed before the court of appeal. The crown seems to have a much higher batting average than the soldier applicant. I suggest that the time has come when we should abolish these appeals by the crown. After all, the soldier has won his case before the quorum, before the men who actually saw him; then he is faced with an appeal by the crown to a court sitting here in Ottawa, which does not see the man and has no chance to size him up; they can disallow that successful decision. I know of nothing that is more upsetting to the disabled returned men. I suggest that the time has now come when we should abolish these appeals by the crown. After all, they are very few, and very little money is involved. I think we might take that step at this time.


Charles Gavan Power: As the work is decreasing to such an extent that soon the appeal court may not be required, and one hon. member suggests that it be abolished, though such a course appears drastic, that might be the better suggestion.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the minister knows the position in the department and the facts; he is the one who must make the decision, but in any event I suggest that at this session we wipe out these crown appeals. They are most disturbing to the returned men.
	.


Mr. YOUNG:: Are we on item No. 215 or No. 217?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: We are on item No. 217.


Charles Gavan Power: There is an item relating to the appeal court, but I was so unsuccessful on the last occasion in my attempts to reform the House of Commons that I thought I had better not try.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What are the present
arrangements for quorum sittings in Vancouver?


Charles Gavan Power: There is a quorum there. Colonel Peck is, in fact, the only one. The system which we proposed to inaugurate in 1936 has perhaps not worked as well as we anticipated. There is only one quorum which has a base; that is the Vancouver quorum, and Colonel Peck has his chief office, if I may so call it, in that city.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Who sits with Colonel Peck?


Charles Gavan Power: It varies; it is not always the same man. I am told that last time it was Colonel Riley.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know whether this is the proper place to raise the question of returned soldiers' insurance, but I cannot find it under any item. I wonder if the minister could give us a statement of the position in that regard. Quite a number of the soldiers who had this insurance, had, I understand, to let it lapse. Some of them are now in a position to pay the premiums, and I should like to know whether it would not be possible to put through some scheme whereby these men could now renew their policies.


Charles Gavan Power: I wish my hon. friend would talk to the Minister of Finance with regard to that matter. He has the administration of the returned soldiers' insurance. Does my hon. friend not think I have enough on my conscience without having that also?


Howard Charles Green: The minister is quite a lot nearer the ear of the Minister of Finance than I am.


Charles Gavan Power: Not at all.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Would the minister explain why there is a substantial drop in transportation and travelling expenses, from $100,000 to $80,000?


Charles Gavan Power: Presumably that is due to the reduction in the number of commissioners. There was a reduction of four for a while, and there has been a reduction of three since the month of May. They have

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
not travelled so much because there were not so many cases ready for hearing, and since the beginning of 1936 they have made an effort to clear up all cases, so in former years they had to travel more than in the last year. This also includes expenses of witnesses and applicants as well, and so there is a large reduction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pension appeal court, $44,630.
Howard Charles Green: This is the much talked of court of appeal, and I see they are getting an increase of $3,000 in their vote this year. How does the minister explain that?


Charles Gavan Power: The net increase is $2,781. The restoration of the five per cent cut accounts for $2,071; there are salary increases for some of the staff, amounting to $360, and there is an increase of $350 in sundries, which I assume is due to printing, perhaps one or two trips, and things of that sort. I should like to point out to the committee that the estimates were made up in a rather peculiar way this year, and I am not responsible for that. The comparison is made not with the appropriation of last year but with the vote in the main estimates of last year, and that vote did not include the five per cent which was restored to the civil servants. So it will be found on looking at all these votes that the addition of the five per cent will account for the increase which appears in very many of them. Really almost all the increases are accounted for by the five per cent restoration or by statutory increases, which, as hon. members know, are given to civil servants under certain conditions.


Howard Charles Green: If the court of appeal were dispensed with you would save all this money.


Charles Gavan Power: I suppose then the difficulty would be what to do with the members of the court. Presumably some provision would have to be made for them by way of pension or retiring allowance, and some provision also would have to be made for the staff. I would not like to be responsible for simply throwing the whole staff out on the street at the moment.


Mr. MULOCK:: What is the unexpired term of the members of the court?


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Justice J. D. Hyndman was appointed 19-1-31 by P.C. 108, dated 19-1-31; terminates January 18, 1941. Colonel L. P. Sherwood, V.D., was appointed 27-9-30 by P.C. 2268, dated 27-9-30; terminates September 26, 1940. Mr. E. R. Richard, LL.B., was appointed 1-10-33 by P.C. 1882, dated 16-9-33; terminates September 30, 1943.
Doctor R. J. Kee was appointed 1-7-36 by P.C. 1659, dated 7-7-36; terminates July 6, 1946.


Howard Charles Green: I suppose there would be expansions in other branches of the department? For instance, in connection with the war veterans' allowance and unemployment assistance there might be a chance to take care of them?


Charles Gavan Power: That may be a very good suggestion.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Would the minister indicate what the effect of passing this particular item at this moment would be on the possibility of getting rid of this board within the next year?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think it would have much effect. I would think this was one of those statu tory-non-statutory provisions, because I think the statute calls for the payment of these salaries. I am not quite sure now, but I shall look up the Pension Act. I think it calls for the payment of certain salaries to the members of the court, and I do not know what we would do if the house refused to vote the salaries. The salaries would still be in the statute.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I should like to suggest to the minister that we could get many interesting suggestions from the soldiers themselves as to what to do with them.


Mr. LENNARD:: Would the minister explain the considerable increase for temporary assistance?


Charles Gavan Power: With respect to temporary assistance the explanation is the same as I have already given. Under certain rulings of the treasury board it is impossible to make permanent more than eighty per cent of the members of any unit of the government. The remainder must Stay temporary, though some of those who are temporary have been there for a number of years.


Frank Exton Lennard: What would be the nature of this assistance?


Charles Gavan Power: They are clerks, stenographers and so on, all appointed by the civil service commission.


Howard Charles Green: Would the figures on page 75 of the report of the department for the fiscal year 1936-37, which show that there were fifty-three entitlements conceded by the appeal court and 2,472 not conceded, give a summary of the work of that court in so far as applications by the soldiers are concerned?


Charles Gavan Power: That is a summary covering all the decisions, is it not?

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court


Howard Charles Green: That includes the cases the crown won also, does it?


Charles Gavan Power: I would say so.


Charles Grant MacNeil: As the minister quite correctly stated, this matter was given careful consideration by the parliamentary committee of 1936, and at that time it was hoped that some steps might be taken, as was said then, to take some of the judicial Starch out of the pension appeal court. A medical member was appointed to the court and certain amendments were made to the act, notably that requiring unanimous judgment with regard to appeals by the crown. Some improvement was noticeable, but in viewing the matter since then I would certainly advocate the abolition of the pension appeal court and, I would say to the minister, the sooner the better from every point of view, particularly that of the ex-service man. I believe if he took some such action it would receive the general support of ex-service men across Canada. The chief consideration is that the appeal court is functioning in such a way as to deprive ex-service men of that which they were assured of under the act, namely the benefit of the doubt.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member knows that the appeal court would not admit that.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Probably not, but the minister is well aware that this body has completely forfeited the confidence of ex-service men. Representatives of the men no longer feel free to take their appeals with confidence to this court. That is a lamentable situation.
The court is functioning with all the rigidity and severity of the procedure of an exchequer court, and I say that procedure is not proper or just when dealing with pension cases. My point is that the quorum is the last court before which the applicant is given a personal hearing. The case is reviewed subsequently by a court before which he does not personally appear. The quorum, dealing with the case from the evidence before it, always has in the background the possibility of their decisions being questioned by the reviewing officer, and possibly reversed by the appeal court. There is a tendency, as we say in the vernacular, to pass the buck to the pension appeal court.
I am of the opinion that approximately twenty per cent of the cases before the appeal court, and disallowed, should have received the benefit of the doubt. However, the general attitude of the quorum has been not to take any chances on their decisions being reversed. Certainly the statistics show that, so far as appellants are concerned, the appeal to the court is a joke. The severity of the procedure works to the disadvantage of the appellant. Less than one per cent of

the appeals are allowed, I am informed, although a higher percentage of appeals by the crown are allowed. I think if the minister wishes to make certain that the applicant gets the benefit of the doubt, particularly in the class of cases now under review, the earlier the appeal court is abolished the better for the appellants.
Suitable provision might be made for the retirement of members of the court and the staff, so that no hardship would result. I must point out, however, that the main consideration is that there must be more generous treatment in accordance, I believe, with the intention of parliament. I believe that more generous and sympathetic consideration must be given, certainly in connection with applications where the benefit of the doubt might be given.


Charles Gavan Power: I have before me now the summary of decisions to October 31, 1937, from the time the court started. Perhaps these figures will give a better picture of the situation than any explanation I could give the committee. The following table will give the figures in connection with appeals:
Appeals
By the crown	 245
By commission	counsel	 2,947
By applicants	 10,187
Total	 13,379
I take it that appeals by the crown are appeals by the reviewing officer under the legislation of May, 1933. It would appear that he has taken 245 appeals on behalf of the crown. Perhaps that should satisfy the hon. member who has spoken, and should be stated in justice to the reviewing officer. The appeals by commission counsel were made during 1931, 1932 and up to May 1933 and, as will be noted, number 2,947. I said before that they were in the vicinity of 2,500, and I am now in a position to give the exact figure.
The following figures are those for entitlement :
Dual
Entitlement	decisions
Conceded	
1,282	7Not conceded	
12,001	89Total	
13,283	96
The following table gives the pension result of conceded appeals:
Pension Results of Conceded Appeals
		Annual	Gratuity
No.	liability	amountIn payment	1.041	$363,774	$2,675Granted gratuities	39	No disability.. ..	156	Not eligible	21	Not yet assessed . .	16	Pre-dated	9	Total	1,282	$363,774	$2,675
Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
The next table gives the classification of pensions in payment:
Classification of Pensions in Payment
Disability	 950
Widows	 84
Mothers	 6
Children	 1
Total	 1,041
When these figures are set out in Hansard I believe they will give a complete picture of the activities of the pension appeal court, since its inception.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has not given
the number of successful and unsuccessful appeals by the reviewing officer.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe I left those figures upstairs, but I shall give them to the hon. member later. I have the figures.


Howard Charles Green: The reviewing officer's
percentage of wins has been far higher, all the way through.


Charles Gavan Power: No; from the figures I saw a few moments ago I would say that last year it was about fifty-fifty, if we include certain appeals by the crown which were disallowed on the ground of jurisdiction. I believe there were fourteen or fifteen of those. Then, there were cases remitted for further hearing. I believe there would be a little better than fifty-fifty in favour of the soldier, out of the total of 245.


Howard Charles Green: I mean the crown won about fifty per cent of their appeals.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Whereas the soldier applicants won between five and ten per cent.


Charles Gavan Power: No; about fifty per cent of the crown appeals were decided upon favourably by the court, and the other fifty per cent decided in favour of the soldiers. I do not wish to be misunderstood in this connection. I am not speaking of those appeals by commission counsel.


Howard Charles Green: But appeals by the soldiers had an entirely different result. They were successful in very few cases.


Charles Gavan Power: The total, including those of the reviewing officer, stands at 1,282, as against 10,187. Roughly, it is better than the figure which has been mentioned on a number of occasions. I believe that soldiers generally have been speaking about something less than one per cent, whereas it is nearly ten per cent.


Howard Charles Green: According to the figure for the last fiscal year it works out to about two per cent.


Mr. HEAPS:: I have had several occasions to take notice of appeals made by the government against the decisions of the pension commission. In most of those cases the persons concerned have wondered why the government should appeal from a body created by that government. It seems to me a most unusual proceeding to have a pension commission appointed by a government and, upon a decision being handed down by that commission, to have the government appeal from the decision of the body it has set up. Many people cannot understand why that should occur.


Charles Gavan Power: There were only eighty-five of those last year, and so they do not amount to much. However, I suppose the principle is that the commission is an independent body. The only reply to the hon. member is that as the government supplies advocates, doctors and every other convenience within its power to enable a man to prepare a case, government officials may think that at least they should have one officer who could say a word once in a while.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why should the government
appeal from a tribunal which it has appointed itself?


Charles Gavan Power: That happens quite frequently. The crown may appeal from a court set up by itself, such as an appeal from the exchequer court to the supreme court. In 1930, when this new machinery and set-up was established, it was considered by those of us who were working on the framing of a pension act and of creating this machinery, that unless the crown were given the same right of appeal from the decisions, there might be created in the minds of the judges or of the commissioners or of the members of the tribunal the idea that they were there to protect the crown. As a result they might not give the soldier the full benefit of the doubt to which he was entitled. Mistakes were made because the theory of the act was not clear. Prior to 1930 returned soldiers came before committees on many occasions and said that they did not want to deal with the Canadian pension commission because that commission was putting itself in the position of guardians of the treasury. Frankly, I think everybody agreed that many members of the commission probably took that attitude. In the new set-up it was decided that both sides would have a fair chance to talk. The soldier was given his lawyer at government expense and the crown had wha* was known as a commission counsel.

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
I	believe abuses occurred, but I pleaded only one case before a tribunal myself. At that time I challenged the commission counsel to say something against the contention which I had been upholding in order that he might not sneak behind my back and go to appeal. He allowed judgment to be given in favour of my client and three months afterwards we were before the appeal court. I told him if he had anything to say to say it then; I wanted to settle the case then and there, but he did not say a word. It may be he had received instructions he should not have received, or it may be an attempt was being made to destroy the 1930 act. Whatever it was, the fact remains that in my opinion there were far too many appeals by crown counsel.
Mr. O'NEILL: In my opinion, there is one great stumbling block in front of the returned men. When a man applies for a pension he may be confronted with the fact that when he took his discharge from the army he was medically fit, according to his statement. Possibly less than two weeks after he was discharged he found out that was not so, and may have even gone to hospital. There are also those cases of men who were in certain lines of work before they went to war but who found out on their return that they were not medically fit to carry on the same work. They were forced to take inferior positions at lower rates of pay. These men are considered as being medically fit simply because they are able to work. A man, when he went to war, may have been in a job that paid $200 a month, but on his return finds that all he can do is work at a job that pays only $125 a month. Is there any way in which cases like this could be taken care of?


Charles Gavan Power: As a distinguished supporter of labour and labour causes, my hon. friend will, I think, agree that the principle laid down when this Pension Act was conceived was that a man with a disability should have that disability assessed according to his value in the ordinary labour market. That is to say, a lawyer who was earning $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 a year before the war-there was the odd one

and was disabled, through the loss of his eyes, and prevented from carrying on his pre-war occupation, would have his pension assessed at 100 per cent on the basis of his value as a pick and shovel man in the ordinary labour market. His pension would not be computed on the basis of what he had been doing prior to the war. The people who framed this Pension Act felt that there had to be some basis upon which to work, and that is vrtiat they arrived at. Pensions
fMr. Power.]
are paid on the basis of a man's capacity to earn in the ordinary labour market. If he has lost an arm, then it is considered he is disabled to such a percentage as a pick and shovel man would be. No consideration has ever been given to a man's pre-war occupation.
Mr. O'NEILL: There is just one more observation I have to make. If that is what you pay a labouring man when he loses his value as a labourer, then a general should be paid on the same basis. When a general is awarded 100 per cent pension he should not be getting $400 a month as a pension, he ought to get $60 a month.


Charles Gavan Power: I did my best to please my hon. friend by taking away from the general who went to a hospital his general's pay; he no longer gets $700 a month plus $400 a month. In so far as the general scheme of pensions is concerned, this matter has been brought up time and again. Hon. members who have followed the discussion know that even if we took away the pensions to generals, colonels, majors and captains, took the pension away from all grades down to lieutenant, we would not increase by one per cent the pensions paid to the non-commissioned ranks. The annual report gives the number of the officer class receiving pensions.


Mr. FINN:: Are the generals who were not injured in the war entitled to pensions of $7,000 or $8,000 a year?


Charles Gavan Power: I have nothing to do with that.	^


Robert Emmett Finn: Who deals with that?


Charles Gavan Power: The Minister of National Defence.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Neill for the second reading of Bill No. 11, respecting Japanese immigration.
Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: I had not intended to participate in this debate, chiefly because my district of Parry Sound has no local and no immediate interest in Japanese immigration; but after listening to

Japanese Immigration
the impressive presentation of the bill by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), it was forced upon my judgment that this matter is not merely one of importance to British Columbia, but is indeed of national concern. Therefore let me say at once that I desire to discuss the subject from a national standpoint.
The district which I have the honour to represent has its own very special problems and difficulties which on this occasion it would not be proper for me to discuss. But I would not truly represent the innate loyalty and the sympathetic citizenship of my people if I did not voice to the hon. member who introduced this bill our understanding of the gravity of the situation which confronts, in this matter, his people in British Columbia. It can truly be said of provinces as of individuals that, when difficulties occur, friendship divides our sorrows and doubles our joys, and I would say to the hon. member who introduced the bill that the friendship of the district of Parry Sound towards the great province of British Columbia is, I believe, typical of the friendship of the entire province of Ontario in its sympathetic attitude towards this problem, although not many Ontario members have yet discussed the bill.
This debate has furnished, to my mind, an outstanding contribution to the tolerance, and forbearance of the different provinces of Canada and their representatives in this house, and their loyalty to the spirit of confederation at a time when, perhaps, as between provinces we may find it desirable to reinforce our loyalties. We have heard these grave issues put forward by nearly every hon. member from British Columbia, in such impressive language as to command our sympathy, but with a tolerance of expression which is a great and lasting evidence of the loyalty of the great mountain province to Canada and to the British Empire.
I	am fully in accord with the principle of this bill. I am equally impressed with our obligation to refrain from choosing this time in our history to enact an exclusion bill against Japan. The figures given yesterday to the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) covering Japanese immigration under the existing agreement impressed me, as they must have impressed every hon. member, with the fact that Japan has kept, yes, better than kept, the agreement which she made with us, not only in the letter but in the spirit of her agreement. Eighty-one Japanese immigrants a year entered Canada during the past five years, when pursuant to the agreement they could have sent us 150 each year. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I ask, Is this
the time to pass an exclusion act against Japan, without having made any friendly approach to her to alter or revise our gentleman's agreement, without having said to her, "We find our agreement too onerous; we desire honourably to withdraw after a reasonable lapse of time?" Can you imagine the mother of parliaments, in the present plight of world affairs, taking such a course? What would be thought of us in London to-morrow were we to pass this bill to-night?
I am not one who believes that in fiscal matters, tariff matters or any other issues, we should slavishly follow the desires of the mother country unless we are assured that the interests of Canada prompt us so to do. We are growing up. We have attained a stature of power and privilege which a few years ago we did not enjoy. But therewith we have assumed an added responsibility. Remembering this, and weighing all the facts, is there any hon. member who would choose this time to pass an exclusion act against the Japanese? It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction by the Prime Minister, and beyond all doubt, that were we to pass this bill to-night, British Columbia to-morrow would be in no better position than it is under the agreement of to-day.
On the other side of the picture, what might the possible consequences be? Can we forget that if very serious consequences, consequences we hesitate to contemplate as even possible, resulted from our conduct in passing this bill, who would bear the brunt of trouble? Our courageous, loyal, much-beloved friends who live on the Pacific coast in British Columbia would undoubtedly bear the brunt if trouble ensued.


Mr. NEILL:: We are bearing it now.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Of course my hon. friend is right. They are bearing a burden now or the members of this house would not have felt such a sympathetic desire to help that province. But will the hon. member indicate to me any of the nine provinces which since confederation have not borne to some extent a special burden in the interests of the unity of Canada and the spirit of confederation?
I have mentioned the mother of parliaments. Can we be unmindful of the history of the past two years? Can we forget that crisis after crisis have arisen in Europe, in the Mediterranean, in India, in Egypt, and lastly in the orient, as to which those British statesmen who have been at the helm during that trying period have had to show great judgment and great forbearance, forbearance which at times, with our conception of the British flag and British traditions of the past,
Japanese Immigration

we have sometimes marvelled they were able to maintain? But with all the differences that might rightfully exist as to this incident or that and the course that has been followed in the motherland with reference to it, who is prepared to say, bearing in mind the conditions of armament and preparedness or the lack of it through the years, that in the main the sacrifices and forbearance which the British statesmen have shown have not been in the interests of the British Empire, including the interests of Canada? Then, Mr. Speaker, if that be so, if that be a reflection towards which we are entitled to direct our minds in a discussion of this problem let us, as my hon. friend across the floor did the other day, give testimony to our judgment and our own forbearance in this matter, which has in one sense an international or world aspect. Most great world conflicts, Mr. Speaker, if you go back in history, have been touched off by some incident in itself entirely insignificant as compared with the results that have followed.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) made, in my view, an extremely helpful contribution to this debate. He has declared that in its present form he will not vote for this bill. He suggested, in a desire, I believe, to be helpful, a possible solution, to the effect that we should pass this bill with the appropriate amendments which would prevent it from coming into operation until so proclaimed by the governor in council after a period of one year or some longer period He suggested that that might meet the thought or feeling in the house that it would be dangerous to pass this bill in its present form. May I with the greatest respect for the right hon. gentleman, so far as his discussion of this problem is concerned, suggest to the house that that solution entirely overlooks the oriental attitude of mind. I do not think, if that course were followed, we could hope to mollify Japan by saying that for the next twelve months she might, under existing conditions, send 150 more of her nationals to Canada. That would not in any sense remove the sting contained in the passing of this bill.
We heard quoted by the Prime Minister yesterday an extract from a very much respected Japanese representative in 1924 with reference to the legislation which the United States was then putting into effect. What he said, in short, was: "It is not with Japan a question of expediency." Had he been discussing our bill he might have said: "It is not with Japan a question of twelve months more freedom to send 150 more of our nationals to enter Canada. No, it is a question of principle with Japan," this Japanese
[Mr. Slaght.j
representative said. "It is a question of respect for our nation; it is the injury to our national pride which would follow." As Professor McKenzie puts it-I am not quoting him exactly, but this is in effect his conclusion that was quoted yesterday-the danger in exclusion lies in the mental attitude it provokes. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we know enough of Japanese pride and of the magnificent traits of a kind which that nation has evolved, her courage and her national pride, to realize that to permit 150 more of her nationals to enter this country within the next twelve months would be a sprat indeed if we attempted, as our conduct would imply, to use it as a solace for the injury to her national pride. If that be true, I believe that this discussion has literally been a good thing for the house and for Canada. I believe that from it we emerge with a fresh sense of our responsibility in present-day times, a fresh sense of our responsibility as a nation which arises from the greater power as a nation which we have of late years acquired.
Let me conclude with this thought, directed in the main to the hon. gentleman who so ably proposed this bill, and directed also to the members representing British Columbia whose special burden, he said, this is to bear, that the sunshine is stronger than the tempest and the storm, and there is always a far horizon for onward-looking men.


Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, it might be asked why a member from an eastern constituency should wish to take part in this debate, but as has been so ably stated by my hon. friend the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slagbt), this is a question which affects not only British Columbia but the whole Dominion of Canada. While at first sight it might appear that the citizens of the constituency of Stormont, which I have the honour to represent in this house, are not directly affected by the issues raised in this bill, they are from a national point of view affected, and it is from this angle that I desire to speak upon it.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, may I associate myself with the very wise remark made in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) when he said that we should be most careful in our words upon this subject, that no word should be spoken which might be construed as an affront against any other nation. With that thought I am entirely in agreement, and I believe hon. members who have spoken have followed that advice.
I had the good fortune during the course of last year to make a trip to that beautiful

Japanese Immigration
province of British Columbia. Among the many things which I saw there, among the beauties of the province, without referring to them in any more specific manner, may I simply say that the city of Victoria with its beauty, the city of Vancouver with its tremendous possibilities, are sights which have remained in my mind.
But there is another thing which has remained in my mind, and that is the oriental question. I can quite sympathize with hon. members from British Columbia, because as travellers in that province, no matter where we went, whether in the hotel, in the theatre, in the restaurant, or as we went through the farms or along the coast where we saw what was going on in the fishing industry, we were struck with the magnificence of that province. I know I express the sentiments of hon. members when I say that our sympathy goes out to the people of British Columbia in respect to these burdens which they have to endure.
Unfortunately, while to them it may appear to be a question of a local nature, it is chiefly a question of an international nature, and one linked with the policy of Canada in international affairs. The international policy of Canada has been declared to be one of strict neutrality. With that policy I am heartily in accord. Some hon. members do not agree with that policy. There are also people and groups outside the house who disagree with it and who two years ago would have liked to see us impose sanctions against Italy. There are others who would like to see us take a stand with reference to the government in Spain. There are others who would like to see us impose a boycott on Japanese merchandise coming into this country. I saw the other day in a Montreal newspaper a picture of a street scene in Montreal depicting a parade organized and engineered in favour of a boycott of Japanese merchandise. Fortunately the authorities stopped the parade, and I believe that was a good thing from an international standpoint. I believe also that the same policy of neutrality which we put into effect as far as these other countries are concerned should be considered with reference to this bill. What would be the position of this country if we adopted this bill? It has been referred to as an exclusion act so far as Japanese are concerned. If we were to adopt the bill we should be going against our policy of strict neutrality. The act would be one which might be construed as hostile to Japan, and which in present conditions which are fraught with
great danger might very well cause a great deal of trouble.
I believe that the proper solution is that suggested last evening by the Prime Minister when he spoke of conciliation and of agreements which had been entered into between this country and Japan. He referred to an agreement entered into in 1928, by which Japan undertook not to send more than 150 immigrants a year into this country. From 1929 to 1935 the average number of Japanese coming into this country was 100, and during the last five years the average was eighty-one. True, this does not take into account the number who entered from Japan surreptitiously, but it would be impossible even by the bill which is before us to-day to do away with that angle entirely. We have the assurance of the Prime Minister that various departments of the government are doing what they can to solve this difficulty.
I therefore say that I am in agreement with this bill in principle, but would suggest that this is a most inopportune time to pass it. I believe this is an inopportune time because of the seriousness of the international situation. I believe we can well look to Great Britain and the United States for an example so far as this is concerned. Neither of these countries has seen fit in the tense international situation through which we are passing to do anything which might be construed as hostile by the countries which are at war. I believe also that it would be inadvisable to have a division upon this bill at the present time. It is therefore my hope that the hon. member who presented this bill so well may now deem it wise to withdraw it.


Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: It was not my intention at first to speak on this bill. However as representing the other extreme of Canada geographically I think it fitting that I should make at least a few remarks on what, it seems to me, should be the broad Canadian view. The constituency which I have the honour to represent is situated at the extreme southeast corner of Canada, farthest away from the province to which this bill is of chief concern. The subject matter and the effect of the bill briefly are the exclusion of Japanese from Canada. I find on looking through Hansard for years gone by that this is an old topic; it has come up a number of times. I think it would be advisable to look back and see the reasons why a similar law was not passed on former occasions when the matter came up for consideration.
Japanese Immigration

The last time that the Japanese question was discussed in full detail was in 1923. On that occasion the question before the house now was argued, very ably, by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). At page 1449 of Hansard for that year the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in a short sentence gave the reason why the Japanese should not be excluded at that date. In other words, in 1923 the house saw fit to refuse to pass this law. Therefore, unless conditions have changed ; unless times are different; unless there is some reason for changing that view, I submit that we should follow the policy which was agreed upon and adopted at that time. I should like to quote from Hansard for 1923, at page 1449. where the then Prime Minister said:
The Japanese government offered itself to restrict the number of persons coming into the country in accordance with arrangements which might be made between the government of Canada and the government of Japan.
This is the part I wish to emphasize:
It was a matter, I think, mostly of national pride with the Japanese. They desired to preserve, in the face of the world at all events, the right of their citizens to go anywere-
That, Mr. Speaker, seems to have been the reason why at that time we did not see fit to exclude the Japanese from coming into Canada. As the Prime Minister stated, the Japanese were willing to fix the number of their nationals who could enter Canada. An agreement was later made, under which that number was limited to 150. If that is the only price we have to pay in order to avoid hurting the pride of Japan, particularly with world conditions as they are to-day, it appears to me that we should take the broad Canadian view and realize that by sacrificing that agreement and excluding the Japanese we would be offering an affront to that nation. It appears to me that this would be an inopportune time to take the drastic step contained in this bill and change the policy which has been followed up to the present time and which it was not thought wise to change in 1923, when conditions were entirely different. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni admits that the agreement in regard to the 150 Japanese was carried out. As I remember it, the Prime Minister, in referring to this matter last night, said that the Japanese who had come in under that agreement numbered one hundred or less annually.
If we pass this bill, in effect we are going to hurt the pride of Japan by saying, "We do not want you," or "We think we are better; we think we are superior." There is nothing that a man or a nation will resent as much as something which touches his or its national pride in that way. The hon. member for Comox-

Alberni admitted in 1922 that we should not do anything which would interfere with the trade between Canada and Japan. That reference appears at page 1543 of Hansard for 1922. Perhaps the most eloquent words ever heard in the house were those used by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in closing the debate in 1922, when he was suggesting what should be the broad Canadian view. Those words appear at page 1547 of Hansard for that year, as follows:
If this house accepts the resolution and the government enacts not only the necessary legislation indicated in the resolution but also the registration scheme I have already indicated, I believe we will to-night do a great thing for British Columbia, a great thing for Canada and a still greater thing for posterity. For I have a vision, sir, of a greater Canada, of a Canada far greater than that which our narrow vision and our limited ambitions to-day can realize.
I think if we passed this bill we would be doing just the opposite. I believe the broad Canadian view should be that we do nothing which, under existing conditions, would in any way hurt the national pride of Japan, as the Prime Minister of the day said in 1923.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate on this bill it was admitted that while it directly and primarily affected British Columbia, yet there were in it implications which would affect the international policy of Canada. Therefore I thought the voice of Manitoba should be heard as well as that of British Columbia, I have taken the position that because of the implications contained in the bill any member, be he from Nova Scotia or from British Columbia, may take part in this debate without being accused of intrusion.
In his speech yesterday the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) made it abundantly clear, in explicit terms, which appear on page 567 of Hansard for yesterday, that this bill deals with a matter no longer concerning British Columbia only, but touching the life, hope, ambition and ideals of the whole Canadian people. He realized, he stated, and was fully alive to the probabilities involved in the passing of this bill and the danger that such action would be open possibly to a wrong construction and might place us in an invidious position in the eyes of the peoples of the world in our alleged endeavour to maintain neutrality. The right hon. gentleman made his position clear, as one would expect him to, and in doing so he followed the traditional British policy that where there is an issue before the house involving the safety of the realm, it must be considered without any partisan thought. The

Japanese Immigration
right hon. gentleman, speaking not only as the leader of a party but also as a citizen concerned with the welfare and safety of Canada, took that position. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) followed the same course. He has pointed out in this and many other debates, and throughout the country, that the first consideration and paramount concern in the mind of the government must be that it shall do nothing which might be a contributing factor to bringing Canada into a war.
Do hon. members realize what would be the enormity of our offence in passing this bill, which on the face of it is so innocuous and seemingly free from harm, if that action resulted in international misunderstandings and wrong interpretations? Everybody knows that parties in an international, national or personal conflict always seek the motives underlying any act which might have a bearing upon the conflict. What, I ask you, would be the reaction of Japan if we passed this bill? The hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) has made a presentation of the bill in that splendid manner we always expect from him, an expectation in which we are never disappointed. I say to him that despite all his arguments, convincing and earnest as he may be in his presentation, that which will be remembered and enlarged upon will not be his argument, but rather some words which may be taken from the context of his speech and which may have no bearing upon his argument at all. As all public men know, sometimes a single sentence is taken from the context, although that sentence may not convey the meaning of the arguments which have been adduced.
I say to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi that I am satisfied that if this bill were to pass and Japan were to deal with it, the words used by him on page 556 of Hansard of yesterday would be the words to which they would direct their attention, and upon which they would form their judgment. These are the words of the hon. member:
We will go to China and she will say: You want to trade with us, but why do you treat us so differently from the way you treat the Japanese? And what answer can we give? We shall then be in this position: Either we shall have to reinstate Chinese immigration, which is very undesirable, or under the pressure of China's population of four hundred millions and her soldiers, we shall have to put the Japanese back where I now seek to put them.
If we are going to do it under pressure from China then, why not let us do it now with all the goodwill that comes from a free will act of justice? Let us do it now rather than under pressure later.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni says " Hear, hear." I think he must have missed the point I was trying to make, namely that these words will be taken from the context of his speech, and on that, if they got to a point of considering it, the decision would probably be made by Japan. His arguments would be of no avail.
Has anyone thought for a moment about how the passage of this bill will be considered by nations engaged in war, as they are at the present time? Would it not be considered as an unfriendly act towards Japan, and a breach of that neutrality which until now we have resolutely maintained? The answer of many would be that the Japanese would be wrong in so interpreting the bill. Possibly so; but I recall in this connection what is stated in the Monthly Summary of the Deliberations of the League of Nations. The Summary deals with the conflict between China and Japan in Volume XVII, No. 9, issued in September, 1927, and directs attention particularly to the underlying causes of the dispute. At page 197, following a report of a special committee, the assembly stated:
The report analyses the official declarations in which the Chinese and Japanese governments have stated their attitude and policy since the beginning of operations, and concludes by asserting that the two countries take very different views as to the underlying grounds of the dispute, and as to the incident which led to the first outbreak of hostilities, but that the military operations carried on by Japan against China are out of all proportion to the incident that occasioned the conflict; that such action cannot possibly facilitate or promote the friendly cooperation between the two nations that Japanese statesmen have affirmed to be the aim of their policy; that it can be justified neither on the basis of existing legal instruments nor by the right of selfdefence, and that it is in contravention of Japan's obligations under the Treaty of Washington of 1922 and under the Pact of Paris.
Despite the considered opinion of the assembly and despite the fact that the whole world believes that the Pekin incident was far too trivial to cause war, the battle and conflict still continue.
Following what I have just read we find this:
In its second report, the subcommittee stated that the present situation in China was a matter of concern not only to the two states in conflict but, in a greater or less degree, to all states. Many powers were already directly affected in the lives of their nationals and in their material interests. But even more important was the interest which all states must feel in the restoration and maintenance of peace. It was the league's duty as well as its right to attempt to bring about a speedy restoration of peace in the far east, in accordance with existing obligations under the covenant



DEVI3ZD EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Japanese Immigration
[Stage Direction]
and the treaties. It could not be admitted that the conflict could of right be settled only by direct methods between the Chinese and Japanese governments. On the contrary, any appropriate means by which peace might be reestablished, in conformity with the principles of the covenant and the provisions of existing treaties, must be examined. Even at this stage of the conflict, before considering other possibilities, further efforts must be made to secure the restoration of peace by agreement. The league could not lose sight of the tact that one party was not a member of the league and had, in relation to the work of the advisory committee, expressly declined to cooperate in political matters with the league.
The assembly realized, as all of us do, that the war might ultimately affect not only the two countries concerned but, in a greater or lesser degree, all states. I say that for that reason Canada must not supply the match to light the flame.
Every hon. member in the house, I am sure, has been assailed by individuals and organizations throughout Canada pressing them to take action or to enter protest against Japan. Among those who have approached me there have been men and women whom I would call pacifists. At all events they are men and women regarding whose peaceful inclinations there could not possibly be any doubt. They do not know exactly what they want or what should be done. All they say is that something should be done immediately. I have asked and now ask all of them this question: Do you realize what you are asking me to do? Do you realize that in the mind of every hon. member there lies the fear that some day, as a representative in parliament, he might be called upon to vote on an issue which might mean war? I have said to those people that I prayed to God that the day would never come when I would have to make such a decision.
Some say: Why not apply sanctions? I recall that in recent years sanctions were very much in vogue. I was reading not long ago an article written by Mr. Beverley Baxter, a member of parliament in London, whose contributions appear regularly in Maclean's magazine. I have not a copy of the publication before me, but I can recall vividly what he said in response to a person in Alberta who had written to him. This man referred to the fact that Great Britain had received many rebuffs in the Mediterranean during the Ethiopian controversy and that, generally speaking, she was in a decadent position. Mr. Baxter replied to the correspondent by pointing out two prominent facts in connection with the application of sanctions. First, when Britain asked France if she could have the use of French ports as naval bases in the event of war between Britain and Italy, France

replied that at that time she was not satisfied that it was necessary to have a war with Italy. The other fact was that at the assembly of the league fifty-five nations had agreed to the application of sanctions; but when the sanctions were applied it was discovered that France and Britain, to their eternal credit, had lost out in trade operations with Italy, while many of the nations in the fifty-five which had agreed unanimously to apply sanctions had increased their trade, some doubling and others tripling their previous trade with Italy. The point I am trying to make is that when you shake the mailed fist as an answer to another nation's aspirations and hopes, then you invite retaliation.
We in Canada cannot afford to take any action that would affront Japan and that might be the subject of diplomatic negotiations. We should not take any action that would cause repercussions in trade in future years. It has been said that we have gone almost to the end of our patience with regard to this matter. I would point out again the patience shown by the old country statesmen in their handling of international complications. I stand sometimes in amazement at the forbearance which has been exercised by the British government, and particularly that exercised by Mr. Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary. Surely there was sufficient provocation in the methods adopted by Italy for any nation with red blood to fly to arms. Nevertheless Great Britain has stood for all this, and instead of there being conflict today in Europe, we have at least a state of neutrality.
I ask hon. members to look at the map of the world and consider the position of Australia. If it is true that Japan is seeking an outlet for her tremendous population, there is one country in the commonwealth which is more likely than any other to be subject to attack from the orient. That country is Australia. Australia is a vast continent, sparsely settled, with a climate suitable to orientals, and it is located just south of Japan and very easy of access. If Canada were to pass this bill and its implications were resented by Japan, the result might be the bringing of the British Commonwealth of Nations into the arena of possible war. We would be doing a disservice to Australia by contributing to a possible invasion of her shores.
When the people of Canada realize what war with all its horrors means, I do not think they will want their public men to take such action as may cause a breach of our relations with any other country. I do not say for one moment that British Columbia is not having trouble with the Japanese, but I do say that

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
the latter part of the speech of the Prime Minister, where he referred to the efforts being made by his government in connection with surreptitious immigration, should be broadcast throughout the country and particularly throughout British Columbia. I know the situation in British Columbia fairly well as I am there nearly every year. I know the feelings of exasperation with which the people there view this problem, but this matter should be considered in the light of what has been said by the Prime Minister. He is reported on page 575 of Hansard of yesterday as follows:
During the past few years and particularly of late the government has been investigating very carefully and fully the matter of surreptitious immigration into the country. As I have said, whether you have an exclusion act 0r J'ou hinit by agreement, there are bound to be efforts at entry on the part of those who wish to get into the country and who are not if,ee	do so under existing arrangements.
-1 hose efforts may succeed in part; for although acountry does its best in its administration ot its laws, it is not possible entirely to frustrate such efforts. But the different departments of this government have been exercising a careful scrutiny of the whole situation, and in the light of recent developments, doing so to an extent that has not been attempted in the past.
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention to the fact that "Blucher has arrived." It is nine o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
Pensions branch - pension appeal court, $44,630.
Charles Gavan Power: During the course of the discussion this afternoon a question was asked as to the number of appeals lodged by the reviewing officer. From the date of the appointment of the reviewing officer, which was some time in May, 1933, to January 1, 1938, the cases reviewed numbered 2,262 and those appealed, 294. That figure does not seem to coincide with that of 245 which I gave to-day; I am not quite sure about it. But that represents 294 out of 2,292. The crown appeals have been disposed of by the pension appeal court as follows: Withdrawn because no right to appeal, 17; crown appeals allowed, 72; remitted to commission, 87; crown appeals disallowed by decision, 77; crown appeals disallowed by section 67, 3; 1936 amendments, 23; awaiting decision, 18; total 294. Therefore, I was perhaps not quite within the mark. It would appear
that only seventy-two of the 294 were allowed; that is to say, the crown won the decision in seventy-two cases. The remainder of the cases were otherwise disposed of.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: When the committee rose I was about to ask the minister whether, having regard to the fact that a very much higher percentage of the appeals of the crown succeed than of the appeals of the men, his opinion is that perhaps the court of appeal proceeds on a wrong basis in considering those appeals.


Charles Gavan Power: I could not say. I have not any idea. I do not know on what basis the court of appeal proceeds.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Well, would the minister assume, having regard to the fact that one of the two parties succeeds in a great many more cases than the other, there may be something wrong in the principle?


Charles Gavan Power: At the present time, if the information which I have just read is exact, it would appear that my hon. friend's premises are not right, but that in the cases reviewed or placed before the appeal court by the reviewing officer a larger number were decided in favour of the soldier than were decided in favour of the crown-of these cases at any rate.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Of these cases, yes. But if the minister will take the cases over a representative period, say-


Charles Gavan Power: Well, this is over the whole period.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: The whole period?


Charles Gavan Power: The whole period that the reviewing officer was functioning. I am speaking only of appeals made by the crown; I am not speaking of appeals made by the applicant. I do not want to lead my hon. friend into error.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Perhaps I did not make my point clear. It is that, of all the appeals which come before the appeal court, whether by the crown or by the soldier, the crown succeeds in an overwhelmingly large proportion of the cases. The minister will grant that.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know that I would go quite that far, because there are no longer any crown appeals except those taken by the reviewing officer. The appeals taken by the crown are no longer a factor-only 294 since May, 1933. I think my hon. friend will admit

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
that that is not a very large number, and of that number only seventy-two, I think I said a moment ago, have been decided in favour of the crown.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Seventy-four.


Charles Gavan Power: No, seventy-two. So I do
not think that is a factor in the discussion of the subject. Probably what my hon. friend is most anxious about are the appeals taken by the applicant against a decision rendered by the quorum. I am free to say that in those appeals the applicant has not had a very large number of favourable decisions. The latest figures which I have are those of a progress report made on January 31, 1938. It seems to cover the ground which we went over this afternoon, so it would not be of much use to repeat it. This is a report of an earlier date, covering December, 1937, which perhaps gives a better indication of the work done: Notices of intention to appeal filed on behalf of applicants from decision of pension tribunal, 2; from decision of quorum, 58; from decisions of Canadian pension commission, 6; appeals taken by the crown, 3. That is a total of sixty-nine new cases were placed, apparently, before the appeal court during the month of December. Decisions rendered on appeals by applicants from decision of quorum: Allowed, 2; disallowed, 102; remitted, 1. Appeals by applicants from decisions of Canadian pension commission: Allowed, 1; disallowed, 9; remitted, 1. Appeals by applicants from decisions of pension tribunal:	Disallowed, 5. Appeals taken by
the crown from decisions of quorum:	Allowed, 1; disallowed, 1; disallowed under section 67 (3), 1; remitted, 2; a total of 5. Appeals finally disposed of during the month, 126. Leave by commission to entertain fresh application : Granted, 3; refused, 8. Leave to renew under section 21 of the Pension Act: Granted, none; refused, 3. Applications for compassionate pension or allowance under section 21:	Granted, none; refused, none. That
would be all the work; it would give a complete picture of the proceedings of the appeal court during the month of December, 1937.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I think I can clarify my
question if I put it in this way. The minister will grant that, if we consider all the occasions on which the soldier has come before the appeal court in the capacity of either appellant or respondent, there is no doubt that he has succeeded in an almost negligible number of cases; I think two per cent would be an outside estimate. Having regard to that, does the minister not feel that there

is something radically wrong in the manner in which the appeal court deals with these cases?


Charles Gavan Power: I think it is a matter of
appreciation and any hon. member of the committee can form an opinion from the figures which have been laid before him. Perhaps consideration should be given to a factor which I mentioned this afternoon, that by the time the cases reach the appeal court they have been pretty well combed over, and if the appellants have not been successful up to that time-and my hon. friend knows that the very largest number of cases heard by the appeal court have been through every other court-it may be rather difficult to establish entitlement by the time they get there.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I desire to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee a case in which I, along with the returned men and other citizens of Saskatoon, have been interested. It is the case of Mr. M. P. Morpurgo, deceased. This man was born in British Guiana. He came to Canada in 1912 and shortly thereafter to the city of Saskatoon. He was a man of very small stature, about five feet one or five feet two, and weighed about one hundred and twenty pounds; he was darker in complexion than, perhaps, any man in the house, but that, I trust, will not he held against him. He was in his own country a dentist, and in Saskatoon a dental mechanic. Although of very small stature he believed it was his duty to enlist, and did enlist in the year 1916. He performed no very glamorous or heroic act. He was never outside Canada; but he joined the forces, and I think everyone will admit that after he joined, his actions were directed not by himself but by his superior officers. If he did not get outside Canada, I trust again that no one will hold that against this soldier, but rather he is entitled to every consideration to which any other man who joined the army would be.
I cannot state that what caused his accident was anything very heroic. As everyone knows, as a soldier he was obliged to march, and in marching to wear the kind of boots and the kind of socks which our army supplies. He developed nothing very serious, merely a com on his foot; that is all; but owing to some treatment given by himself or someone else the corn became infected. To make a long story short, his leg also became very badly infected, and finally, after some years of rigorous treatment by skilful medical and surgical men, the man had to lose his leg and wear thereafter an artificial limb.

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
His case for pension came before the pension commission, and he was granted a pension. One Sunday night, coming from church, about eight-thirty o'clock-it was a rainy night and the streets were dark compared with the ordinary night-as this man was crossing the street he was knocked down, had his skull fractured, and died a few hours afterwards.
His widow applied for pension. The case was heard before the pension commission in November and December, 1934. and pension was not granted. The case was heard again on April 4. 1935, and there was a disagreement on that occasion. Of the two commissioners who heard the case, one believed that the widow was not entitled to pension, and the other commissioner believed that she was. There is a provision in the act that in case of disagreement another member of the commission shall be asked to sit in on the case. In this particular case the acting chairman of the commission was asked to come in. The acting chairman at that time was Mr Justice Taylor, of the Manitoba court of king's bench. Knowing that there had been a good deal of confusion and disagreement in the case, he reviewed it very, very carefully, and after reviewing it very, very carefully he was of the opinion that the widow was entitled to pension. So now the decision had become two to one in favour of the pension being granted to the widow.
But we have a reviewing officer, apparently, for the Department of Pensions and National Health, whose duty it is to review all these cases. Having reviewed this particular case he came to the conclusion that the evidence was not convincing enough. I take it that if we have a reviewing officer he must keep on reviewing, or there would be no use for a reviewing officer. This case was heard in March, 1936, by the president of the pension appeal court and one other member. On that occasion I was present and I must say that I was greatly impressed with the extreme formality which I saw in that room that day. This court-I hate the name of court in connection with this-did not sit on the same level as the lawyers engaged in the case; it had to have its bench somewhat elevated. The greatest formality was exercised in addressing this pension appeal court. There was one man hired by the crown, a lawyer, prosecuting the case, and another man hired by the government, defending. It seemed more like being in a court of law than anything else I know. So far as formality is concerned in our ordinary courts, that is the proper thing. I believe it is one of the things which make for that high regard which we all have for our courts, and it has contributed to the excellent record they have established. But in cases of this
kind I must say that personally I disagree with the form and set-up which I saw, and with the extreme formality in conducting the case. The case was heard in the month of May, 1936. After it was heard, there was no judgment given for some time. I sent communications on different occasions asking that a decision be rendered by this court, and I was finally told that owing to certain legislation which had been passed by this house, they thought there might be some advantage in rehearing the case by a third member of the court. This third member was added; the case apparently was reheard, and after the rehearing in the month of September, no decision was rendered until about the middle or later of the month of December. I am going to read part of the judgment which was given in that case by Mr. Richard:
This is an appeal by the crown from a majority _ decision of a quorum of the commission ruling death due to fracture of the skull attributable to service.
The evidence discloses that the late Mr. Morpurgo was pensioned for the loss of a leg which had been amputated in 1929 or 1930, above the thigh, and that he had been furnished, by the department, with an artificial limb: that on account of his artificial limb, his freedom of movement was somewhat curtailed; in fact, that sometimes his limb would stiffen or lock, in which ease he would have to stop and make adjustments in order to get the limb working properly again; that about 8.30 p.m. in the latter part of September. 1934, the deceased, while crossing a street in Saskatoon, was hit by a motor car and died the next day as a result of a fracture of the skull sustained in the collision. The driver of the car swore that he never saw the deceased prior to the car striking him. One witness testified before the coroner's inquest that the deceased looked in the direction from which the car was coming just before or as he left the curb to start across the street. Another witness said that just as he was hit, he turned and sawr the car. There is evidence that the car was travelling slowly at the time of, and just prior to, the collision. There is no evidence that it was travelling at an unreasonable rate of speed.
To hold that death, due to fracture of the skull, was attributable to service, one must necessarily find an absence of negligence on the part of the deceased and of the driver of the car, and, more important still, one must find that but for the deceased's artificial limb, the collision would not have taken place. The fact that the driver of the car did not see the deceased prior to the collision is, in itself, some evidence 9f negligence on the part of the driver, or, if not some evidence of negligence, is ground for inferring negligence on his part, as no explanation appears in the evidence to account for his failure to see the deceased prior to the car striking him.
There is no positive evidence of negligence on the part of the deceased. There is, likewise, no evidence that on the evening in question, his limb was not -working properly, or that he had at any time to stop and make any adjustment to it. In fact, there is no evidence

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
to establish or provide a basis upon which it may be reasonably inferred that the artificial limb contributed in any way to the collision. To hold that it did is to base the conclusion on pure conjecture. It is a matter of common knowledge that people with sound limbs are being run down every day on our streets.
In my opinion, the evidence does not establish that death due to fracture of the skull was attributable to service. I would allow this appeal.
The president of the court said:
I agree with the conclusion arrived at by my colleague, Mr. Richard, who would allow this appeal, and merely wish to add that in order to succeed in a claim for pension in respect of the death of an ex-soldier it must be established that the death was attributable to service. Section II (I) of the Pension Act reads as follows:
"In respect of military service rendered during the war,
(a) pension shall be awarded to or in respect of members of the forces who have suffered disability in accordance with the rates set out in schedule A of this act, and in respect of members of the forces who have died, in accordance with the rates set out in schedule B of this act, when the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made was attributable to or was incurred during such military service."
In conjunction with section 11 there must also be read section 73, which is as follows: "Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the applicant." Shortly after this court came into operation the following interpretation was put upon this latter section:
At this point I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members this interpretation, which personally I had never heard of until I found it in this document:
Proof or evidence of the fact must be of the same general nature as is required in a court of law, as, for instance, in a damage action for injuries or death. The method of proof might justifiably be more elastic but the proof must be positive and not left to mere conjecture, suspicion or surmise. It may happen that on a consideration of the whole case the evidence may preponderate as against the applicant, but while he would in that case probably fail in a court of law, it was intended by parliament (section 73) that notwithstanding the weight of evidence against him the applicant should succeed, but always provided a prima facie case at least is established or made in the first place, and if on the balance of the two a real and substantial, but not a fantastic, doubt in his favour is left in the minds of the tribunal or court.
Then he goes on to say:
Since this interpretation was given by the oou rt there have been several amendments to 
The Pension Act, as well as two parliamentary committees, and parliament, which must be presumed to have known of this interpretation, did not see fit to in any way amend either section 11 or section 73. We have stated time and time again that in order to raise a reasonable doubt, as contemplated by section 73 of The Pension Act, there must be some facts established from which such reasonable doubt can be inferred.
In the case before us we have nothing whatsoever in the way of facts from which we could infer that it was the deceased's inability to move his leg which caused the unfortunate accident, but on the contrary we could reasonably say that it was due to some negligence on the part of the motor car driver. That, however, does not assist the claim.
To my mind the whole case is one of pure surmise, guess, or conjecture, which, as above stated, cannot be regarded as proof. With regret, therefore, I would allow the appeal.
Now, what is the evidence in this case? The evidence is that this man was crossing Second avenue, our busiest thoroughfare, from the east side to the west. It was a night on which it had been raining, and was rather dark. Anyone driving in that city as I have done for the last number of years will know that on such a night as that it is very difficult even to know whether your own lights are on, and the light round about is not very bright. The driver of this motor car was going north on Second avenue; he was passed by a street car. At the south part of the intersection there is a safety island. The street car stopped, and again he passed that street car and slowed down, as he says in the evidence, which is corroborated, almost to a standstill. He started up from that point and his own evidence is that he was going at the rate of eight miles an hour. Two girls who were crossing the street at the same time and who said they are accustomed to driving cars say he was going at a speed not greater than from ten to fifteen miles an hour. He was asked whether or not he was attending to his business and looking straight ahead, and he said, "I had both hands on the wheel, I was looking straight ahead and I did not see this man." [DOT]
The evidence further is that the man left the curb on the east side of the street walking towards the west, the girls walking the other way. They met him eight feet from the curb and they say that at that point he was looking south, and that they, following his example, also looked south and saw the car some distance down the street. The man kept on and the evidence further is that when found he was lying with his head north; one man says the head was on the east rail of the east street car track. The evidence also says that this man was hit by the left fender of the car. I might say further that the evidence of many people is that he had

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
to walk with a swinging motion of his left leg which impeded his movements at all times. We have the further evidence of his wife that during his last month or two this leg was known to lock on different occasions.
Then, how far did he get? He was going across the street until he came to the street car track and at that point he was hit by the left side of the car. Had he been just one foot further across the street he would not have been hit by this car. The judgment which I have before me says that there is no evidence to show that he might not have been hit except for some negligence on his own part. It also presumes that the driver of the car is the man guilty of the accident. Well, the evidence is that this man in that car was driving at a very careful rate of speed, according to his own evidence eight miles an hour, and the greatest speed suggested by any witness is from ten to fifteen miles an hour; further, that he was looking in the direction in which he was travelling and had both hands on the wheel.
I call the attention of the committee to the fact that if this benefit of the doubt clause means anything at all, surely this is a case in which it should have been construed in favour of the applicant and not against him. There is not an hon. member of the house but will recognize that a man with that kind of artificial leg cannot walk as quickly as a man not so handicapped, and consequently when some danger is in front of him he simply cannot get out of the way as he could if he had two good legs. Is there any hon. member who believes that this man could not have made that extra foot if he had not been impeded by the artificial leg? I ask that in all seriousness.
Personally I did not know this man, but I have taken a great deal of trouble to inquire from our own officials in this department in our own city. They felt very keenly about it; they have made representations. I have talked to the doctors who looked after him; I have talked to many returned soldiers who knew him intimately and knew the difficulty he had in walking, and their unanimous opinion is that he would have been perfectly clear and safe but for the fact of his having an artificial leg.
A minister of the crown came to me one day and said, " What have you been saying about the president of the pension appeal court?" I said, " I don't know that I said anything very much." " Well," he said, " he came to me to say, ' Have I to stand all this abuse when I am protecting the treasury?'" That was the Minister of Finance who came to me in a very kindly spirit. He has known
me for a number of years, and he was not really trying to protect the treasury, but he thought I might have been saying something about the president of the appeal court and asked me about the circumstances. Apparently great exception was taken by the president to a letter which I had written, and which contained the alleged abuse. I propose to read this letter in order that it may be on the record. It is addressed to the president of the pension appeal court, and is as follows: Saskatoon,
December 21, 1936.
Mr. Justice Hyndman,
Pension Appeal Court,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir:
Re: #205 M. P. Morpurgo, deceased
I thank you for your letter of the 17th instant re the above case. I am very sorry indeed to learn of this decision. It is needless to say I disagree entirely with the decision. The judgment seems to be based on very fine legal technicalities. I cannot help observing that this was passed by the quorum, by a majority of two to one, one member of which was also a judge of the court of king's bench.
Persons here who are acquainted with the whole situation are unanimous that the pension should be granted. By this I mean that all those who spoke to me, and to whom I spoke, consisting of a fairly respectable number, are of this opinion.
The meaning of the legislation giving the benefit of the doubt would not appear to have very much significance. What we really require is more in the way of real justice and less in the wray of legal technicalities.
One statement you made during the discussion of the case, when I was present, deserves more than passing notice. It was that if this case were granted it would cost the country $20,000 and that was a lot of money. I respectfully suggest that that was a highly improper remark to make. Whether it would cost $20,000 or more, or less, should not have been a thought coming into the mind of one giving judicial decision on the merit of the application.
I wish to thank you for your personal courtesies for keeping me advised from time to time regarding this case.
Wishing you the compliments of the season-
That is signed by myself. I do not know whether it would be considered the gross abuse that he was referring to if he had in mind my mentioning the remark which he made in my presence when that case was being heard. To me it seemed a very improper remark to make, to say, " If I grant this pension it will cost $20,000, and that is a lot of money." I do not believe it is any part of the duty of any court to take into consideration whether a judgment will cost $20,000 or more or less, or to have anything whatever to do with the amount of money involved. That is up to the parliament of Canada; that has been settled by an act which has been placed in our statute books,

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
and the only thing the court should be interested in is whether or not the applicant is entitled to a pension. I have a letter also from the president of the appeal court, dated December 17:
I must apologize for not replying to your letter of December 8th before this, but for various reasons I did not get around to it.
With regard to this ease, I may say that at the time it was argued, we were all unanimously of the view that no claim for pension had been established, that is, that there was no proof, in the sense of the Pension Act, that the death of the ex-soldier was attributable to service. To say that his death occurred as a result of his inability to escape from the oncoming motor car, because of his leg condition, is a pure guess and conjecture only, and not proof in any sense of that term.
In fact, it would appear that the responsibility, prima facie at least, must rest on the driver of the car. This is the law of Saskatchewan and the motor vehicles act raises a presumption in law that the motor ear driver is liable for injuries to pedestrians, in the absence of proof that he was not negligent. Apart altogether, however, from this statutory presumption, it would appear that the motor car operator in this case was to blame, and he admitted that he never saw the deceased and did not know what he struck. It would seem most peculiar that a motorist at the locality of the accident, which was well lighted, and if he had his lights properly on, did not see the deceased. If the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the motor car operator, then it was not due to any fault or disability in the deceased himself.
I may add, for your own information, that the delay in giving judgment was with the object of endeavouring to make sure that we were not wrong in our view, and to make doubly sure if possible, we discussed the case with several judges of the highest courts in different parts of Canada, whom we happened to have the privilege of meeting in Ottawa- one of them being a very able chief justice, and there was complete unanimity that the claim could not be established.
I realize how much in need the widow is and it would have been a matter of great pleasure to be able to come to the opposite conclusion, but we are hound by the Pension Act and, as you know, unless soldiers can bring themselves within the terms of that act, it is impossible to giant a favourable award.
Again regretting very much indeed our inability to assist this widow, and wishing you the compliments of the season, believe me-
That is signed by the president. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to make two or three observations. In the first place, this application was heard by a pension tribunal, and was refused. New evidence was adduced; the application was heard again by two commissioners, and there was disagreement. The chairman of the court, a justice of the court of king's bench in Manitoba, was called in, under the terms of the act. I believe he was an able man. He was once the leader of the Conservative party in Manitoba, and I take

it that able men are selected to lead that party; I assume that statement would be agreed to by hon. gentlemen opposite at all events. In any case I am prepared to say that a careful selection was made in the appointment of this gentleman to the bench. He gave careful consideration to this case and he was of the opinion that the pension should be granted.
Now I come to this last letter, in which I find what is to me at least an extraordinary thing. Apparently before the members of the appeal court made up their minds they went out and consulted judges of other courts, who never saw the witnesses, probably never read the evidence and only heard a review of the case as given by the president of the appeal court. I am wondering whether or not it was the judges who had no right to any say in this matter who influenced the judgment of the appeal court.
It has been said that a great deal of conjecture entered into the matter. Is it mere conjecture when a man, wearing an artificial limb, crosses a street on a night such as that, and has only a few inches left to go? If he had two good legs he could have made that last little distance, which certainly was not more than a foot. Am I to believe that the benefit of the doubt means anything whatever in this case? I want to put on record a few figures which I obtained the other day from the department, which may settle some of the questions raised by some of my hon. friends to-night:
Herewith is certain statistical information relating to the operations of the pension appeal court which was asked for this morning by Dr. A. MaeG. Young, M.P.
Appeals by applicants from unfavourable decisions of the pension tribunal, Canadian Pension Commission or a quorum of the commission:
1.	Applicants' appeals allowed during the
calendar year 1936	 27
2.	Applicants' appeals disallowed during
the calendar year 1936	 2,291
3.	Applicants' appeals allowed during the
calendar year 1937	 16
4.	Applicants' appeals disallowed during
the calendar year 1937	 2,490
Appeals by the Crown from decisions of a quorum of the commission in favour of the
applicant:
1.	Crown appeals allowed during the
calendar year 1936		16
2.	Crown appeals disallowed during the
calendar year 1936	 32
3.	Crown appeals allowed during the
calendar year 1937		23
4.	Crown appeals disallowed during the
calendar year 1937	 43
The foregoing figures have reference only to appeals which were finally disposed of during

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
the calendar years 1936 and 1937. They do not include cases which were remitted for further consideration, applications for leave to reopen, and other miscellaneous references to the court. The gist of the statement is that during the two year period mentioned a total of 4.938 appeals were disposed of by the pension appeal court. Of these 118 were resolved in favour of the applicants, and 4,820 against the applicants. The number of applications resolved in favour of the applicants by courts of the Canadian Pension Commission during the two year period covered by this report was 1,266. It will be observed that the crown lodged appeals in only 114 of these cases and that of these 114 cases, 75 were resolved by the crown in favour of the applicant.
We have heard a great deal to-night about whether or not this pension appeal board was rendering service. I would say to the committee that if the decisions were given, as I believe they were in this case, on strict legal technicalities, where the soldier's widow did not receive the benefit of the doubt, this will explain why it was almost useless for an applicant to bring his case before the appeal court. I am satisfied myself, from what I have seen in the court itself, and from the records which I have seen, that the pension appeal court is not serving a useful purpose for the returned soldiers of this country.
I want to say, further, that once a pension is granted by a quorum of a commission, so far as I am concerned I believe that pensioner is entitled to get the pension, without the crown employing counsel to find some way whereby the pension may be set aside. I am definitely opposed-I have said this outside and I want to say it in this chamber where I can be heard by all-I am definitely opposed to the crown taking appeals from the decisions of the pension commission where the applicant has received a favourable decision. A soldier takes a great deal of trouble to present his evidence, and may get a favourable decision from the quorum. We then employ men to take from the soldiers that which our own appointed quorum gave to them. There is something wrong with that system. I am just as satisfied that in this particular case justice was not done as that I am standing in my place in the house.
I would rather take the opinions of those good returned men, and others in that city who knew the man well, who knew the conditions in the city on that night, and who knew the circumstances of the whole case intimately. They are unanimously of the opinion that the widow was entitled to that pension. I would rather take their verdict than a judgment of the pension appeal court. I do not believe in all the formalities which we have. Perhaps there may be some use for an appeal court, but the figures I have given
to-night would lead me to conclude that there is not very much reason why we should have an appeal court or why we should continue having one.
I do not wish to say anything unfriendly with regard to the personnel of the court. I believe that their point of view is not right. Perhaps I should not say this, but I do say it most kindly, that Mr. Justice Taylor was himself a returned soldier and a judge of the court. The president of the appeal court, a former judge of Alberta, is not a returned soldier. The same is true of Mr. Richard; he is not a returned soldier. I do not know whether those men look at the problem in quite the same light. I would not like to be unfair and to say that they do not, but I merely mention the point.
I do know this, that the judgment of those who intimately know the case in Saskatoon, and the judgment of those men in Saskatoon who have been trying to be fair, would be at least to me of more value and carry more weight than the judgment of the pension appeal court. I have often heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and other hon. members say that where there is a wrong there must be a remedy. I believe that in this case there is a wrong. I appeal to the minister and to the committee to find some way whereby this widow, who is in great need, will be given the pension which I believe she deserves.
Why was there all this delay from May until December? Why go to other judges to find out their opinions, if it was a clear case, where there was no doubt? I ask that in all sincerity. More than that, a skilled judge in the quorum wras of the opinion that there was a good case. There was some doubt at least in the minds of some. I say that under the act passed by parliament, which act I claim was misinterpreted by the pension appeal court, the widow did not get the benefit of the doubt.
Once more, before I sit down, I am going to ask the minister to give consideration to this case and, if there is any way possible, to see to it that justice is done and that she gets her pension.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, the facts as related by the hon. member are, I believe, substantially as disclosed by the file. The application received a great deal of consideration from the different bodies set up to deal with pension applications. I believe the hon. member gave all the facts, in so far as they are available, to the committee.
On November 13,	1934, the Canadian
pension commission decided that death was not related to service. On December 18, 1934,
618	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
the Canadian pension commission decided that additional evidence does not alter the former decision. On April 4, 1935, the application was heard by a quorum of the Canadian pension commission, commissioners Jones and Grajr. A disagreement resulted, Commissioner Jones finding that the accident was consequential upon the pensionable disability, and Doctor Gray finding that death was due to an accident which was in no way associated with the service disability.
On February 8, 1936, pursuant to the statutory provision with regard to a disagreement between two members of a quorum of the commission, the case was referred to a third member and was considered personally by the acting chairman of the commission, Hon. Mr. Justice Taylor, who concurred with Commissioner Jones and found that the soldier's death was attributable to his service.
On March 6, 1936, the reviewing officer did not concur in the finding of the quorum of the commission and directed that an appeal be lodged on behalf of the crown. Among other reasons the reviewing officer gave these for appealing the decision:
It is considered that the reasons given by the members of the quorum, who are of the opinion that death was attributable to service, are not convincing, are to a considerable extent based on conjecture and are not corroborated by the evidence given at the coroner's inquest.
It is further considered that, as entitlement decision in this case depends almost entirely upon a correct appreciation and interpretation of the evidence before the inquest as to the details of the accident, it is advisable that this claim should be completely considered by the pension appeal court, particularly in this respect, and before any final decision as to entitlement in respect of death is given.
On December 22, 1936, there was a judgment of the pension appeal court in which Mr. Justice Hyndman set forth his reasons and Mr. Richard also gave his reasons. I do not think the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) or any other hon. member will ask me to express an opinion as to the value of a judgment rendered by the appeal court. I cannot do that. I am not in a position to do it. I have not the facts before me, and I do not think hon. members, other than the hon. member who has just spoken, have sufficient knowledge of the facts to render any judgment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And this is not a court of appeal.


Charles Gavan Power: I was about to say that parliament has set up the machinery to decide on the merits of these cases. Parliament has divested itself of that duty, and has prohibited the minister from taking sides in matters of this kind. I regret to say that I

can make no suggestion to the hon. member as to what further procedure could be followed, any more than I can make a suggestion to him were he to ask me with respect to a non-appealable case in any of the courts of his province or in the Supreme Court of Canada.
It would appear that the appeal court carefully considered the case. There was some delay, but I should like to point out to my hon. friend that if anything that delay was of some value to the applicant. The appeal in this case was lodged in March, 1936, and came up for hearing in May of that year. It will be remembered by hon. members that at the session of 1936 legislation was enacted to the effect that when t'he crown had lodged an appeal, in order to succeed it was necessary that the judges be unanimous. This could have been of material 'assistance to the applicant because, if the appeal had been heard and decided in the month of May, when it first came before the court, that Statutory provision for the protection of applicants would not have been effective. When the case was heard the second time in September, 1936, that provision which gave a claimant a better chance than had existed previously was in existence. It would appear that the three members of the court who heard the case were unanimous in their decision against the applicant.
With respect to Mr. Justice Hyndman, I may say that he has had a long and distinguished career as a member of the supreme court of Alberta. Prior to that he was a distinguished member of the bar of that province. I have less knowledge of the legal ability of the other two members of the court, but I am convinced that all the members are conscientious men. I am sure that when they give their decision they do so to the best of their knowledge and ability and in all conscience according to the judgment which they think is the proper one in the circumstances. That is all I can say on the subject.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I was careful to say that the delay was due to certain legislation, but I also pointed out that the case was reheard in September and no judgment given until December. If there had been no doubt in their minds the decision could have been given at once. Instead of that, they sought opinions from other judges. If there bad been no doubt in their minds, they would not have done that. I must say that I was very unfavourably impressed by two things. The first was that in my presence it was stated by the president of the court of appeal that if that case was granted it would cost the country 820,000,

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
and that was a lot of money. I was present and I heard that. Then he went to the Minister of Finance and he said, "Am I to stand for abuse when I am protecting the treasury of this country?" I do not believe that is a proper attitude to take with regard to a matter of this kind. It so impressed me as to make me consider more carefully the number of cases which went to appeal and the number of appeals granted. I was perhaps cpn-sidering this matter more carefully than other hon. members who never have been in that court of appeal.
I want to say to the minister that if that is the attitude that prevails, the sooner we do away with the appeal court the better. This afternoon some hon. gentleman on the other side said that where there was a dispute and a returned man appealed, he might have his case reheard by other members of the same board. I am quite certain that there is far less formality and technicality before the quorum, where the witnesses appear, than there is before this appeal court. In conclusion I want to say that we must either humanize this appeal court or do away with it entirely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because this matter is one of such great importance I venture to make a few observations. I do not think a week goes by when I am in western Canada that I do not receive complaints regarding the adjudication of claims for pensions. I recall a case in which a widow came to see me not very long since with her papers and complained bitterly that she had been denied the right to a pension by the appeal court because the court had held that death was not attributable to service. I might have arrived at another conclusion-I think I did-but I am not going to say that the tribunal was wrong for that reason.
Anyone who is familiar with our jurisprudence knows that the books are filled with cases where one judge entertained one opinion and another, another. The courts of appeal finally settled what the law should be. I recall what is known as the Wakelin case in which an action was brought against a railway company in England for negligence because a man had been found dead on the right of way where he had been thrown by a train that had passed and struck him. Varying views were entertained between the trial court and the House of Lords, but finally they laid down the law which has been the law ever since and which has been applied by our courts, including the court of last resort, the Supreme Court of Canada. The law is this: Unless there is some evidence to indicate that the injury or death complained of is
attributable to some act of negligence, the plaintiff fails in his claim. That has been the universal declaration of law, and if it i$ open to pure conjecture as to how death occurred, the plaintiff cannot succeed. The reason is obvious.
Anyone who is an educated and professional man like the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) knows that the rule is that he who asserts must prove. When this poor unfortunate man was killed as a result of an automobile collision, it was the duty of those who claimed a pension to prove that that death resulted because of some defect in the appliance provided or for some reason connected with the appliance which he was using and which prevented him from escaping something about which no one knew anything. That is, the hazard that he faced was not known. It was only known that he was killed by being struck by an automobile and the assertion of the poor, unfortunate widow that the death of her husband was attributable to this appliance made necessary because of his service obviously could not be sustained. She could not prove, either by inference or otherwise, that the death complained of was attributable to anything connected with his service. That, I think, disposed of that side of the matter. I do not think that the local law in the province of Saskatchewan dealing with the question of the presumption of law when the injured person is struck by an automobile advances the matter any further.
But we must proceed one more step. The hon. member for Saskatoon has pointed out, very properly, that the statute contains a provision whereby the benefit of the doubt must be given to the applicant. But the kind of doubt to which the statute refers is not the doubt that I have indicated; it has no reference to that. The difficulty lies in the fact that if you substitute for the construction of a statute the sympathy of human nature and human kind, you always run into difficulties. That has been pointed out so frequently that I am not going to restate it. I wonder if there is anyone in this chamber to-night who would not desire to see that woman get a pension. That is human nature, and to its credit be it said, it is human sympathy.
But when you begin to apply principles that are laid down in a statute, those principles must be interpreted not in the light of the sympathy of the individuals who apply them or the sympathy of those who sit in the court and listen, but on principles that are settled by courts as to how a statute shall be interpreted. Interpretation is the duty of the court, and if it were otherwise what a mess
620	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
we would be in. If our sympathies were to govern our judgment, where would we be? I recall conclusions that in a very youthful day I arrived at, with respect to what I conceived to be a great miscarriage of justice, because my sympathy entirely controlled and governed my judgment. As one gets a bit older one begins to realize that the rules which govern the interpretation of a statute, the function of the judge or a court, are rules which have been created not for the purpose of destroying the operation of human sympathies but that justice may be done to all without fear, favour or affection. And what a stupendous task it is to administer justice at all. Justice is an attribute of the Godhead. Milton said, "Not just, not God." To endeavour to administer justice is one of the most difficult of all the obligations that can be placed upon mankind. I am satisfied, knowing Mr. Justice Hyndman as I have for thirty years and knowing that very few of my acquaintance are more sympathetic than he-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a question of guessing at it; I know he is sympathetic. But one of the reasons that an appeal court was constituted as it was, was for the purpose of preventing what may be called the play on sympathy in determining ultimate responsibility.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Would the right hon. gentleman not say the same thing about Mr. Justice Taylor?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but Mr. Justice Taylor approaches the problem with a warmer sympathy than would be possible when you have to determine a pure question of law. I point out, what the hon. member for Saskatoon seems to overlook, that in the ultimate analysis this case became nothing more or less than a pure cold question of law. It is easy for us in this chamber to say that that never should be so. But unfortunately or fortunately, in determining the question of liability on the part of the crown to pay pensions, we have passed a statute of this parliament, and may I add that it is, so far as I know, the most generous statute in the world. Perhaps we in this country made one mistake, and that is the reason those four thousand cases are there. I heard the Minister of Pensions in England once say that although they had made mistakes they never endeavoured to cure them because they left the precedent for future cases to govern them, believing that to endeavour by legislation or otherwise to cure them would only invite in the end chaotic conditions. He went further;

he said, "We have never departed from the rule that beyond a given date we would not receive applications for pensions." Why?


Charles Gavan Power: They did to some extent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am just coming to
that. W hy? Because the laying down of an absolute period of cut-off was thought to be the only method by which one could ensure against what one might call unfair claims being preferred to the pension boards. There were exceptions, but the exceptions were so few in number as not to operate against the application of that universal rule. Now we have seen fit to extend the time and extend the time until, in the year 1936, we are hearing claims that arose in 1915 and 1916. The minister hinted at it but he did not follow it up. For obvious reasons, in his position he could not very well do so. But the fact is this, that of those four thousand claims which were dismissed on appeals made by the applicants, I venture to say in eighty per cent no one appeared; it was an impossible claim from the start; it was a claim that in eighty per cent of the cases had been presented not once or twice but sometimes ten or fifteen times before they finally reached the decision which has been indicated. Now why was this done? Because, this being a new country and we never having had to face a situation like this, we realized that there were many weaknesses. These independent men who came back feeling all right said, "We are not going to bother about making application for pension," and so they did not do so. Many of them who are in good shape, though they have a right to make a claim for a pension, have not done so yet.


Charles Gavan Power: We are receiving more claims on account of gunshot wounds now in comparison with the others than we ever did before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just think what a support of that position the observations of the minister are. He is now, twenty years after the peace, receiving claims for pensions for gunshot wounds. So far as I know ours is the only country in the world that is doing this.


Charles Gavan Power: That is because the men did not desire to claim earlier.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the very reason, of course, that the men, not feeling it necessary and desirable to make claims, did not do so. Now they are beginning to feel the effects and so now they are beginning to make these claims. Legislation on this matter has never been party legislation in this house.

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
There was a little attempt at it once, but we shall pass that by; broadly speaking, there has never been party legislation. Under these circumstances this legislation is legislation that has been arrived at by compromise and adjustment and giving a little here and taking a little there by men who are all returned men. In every case they fashioned and shaped existing legislation. I think it is correct-


Charles Gavan Power: Substantially.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -to say that the shaping of the legislation has been done by returned men on both sides of politics.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: But the final adjudication was by men of whom two out of three are not returned men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The final adjudication.
But it has been a question of the determination of liability by the application of principles of law. I think that is a fair
statement.


Charles Gavan Power: At one time, I believe, the
appeal court did decide in many cases question of fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in the very
early days.


Charles Gavan Power: The intention I had at the
time the law was passed was that the appeal board should decide only on questions of law, and not fact; but they went beyond that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true, because it
will be remembered one member of the quorum decided that if a man had been in France he was entitled to a pension, and this made it a little difficult for the appellate tribunal when it had to deal with the matter.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think that was
quite the decision. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman has not stated the fact quite correctly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I recollect that case
where he said, "Were you in France? Well, you will get a pension."


Charles Gavan Power: That was not given, though, as one of the reasons for his decision in awarding the pension.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is about the only
reason he ever did give, I am bound to say, which is unfortunate.
I want to get back to one thing. The hon. member for Saskatoon has said that two out of three men who decided this case were not
returned men; they were both lawyers, one a judge of fifteen or sixteen years in the appellate division of the supreme court of Alberta, and partly in the trial division, the other a practising member of the bar of New Brunswick for many years, and the third was a returned soldier and a member of the legal profession residing in this city.
One reason why that appeal court was constituted at it was, was just as the minister has said. It was originally intended they should deal with questions of law; they did have at times to deal with questions of fact as well. But in this case it is purely a question of law, and the question of doubt which has been mentioned does not arise at all, for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Hyndman in his judgment. If, for instance, there had been evidence that there was negligence on the part of the unfortunate deceased, and on the part also of the driver of the car, then the benefit of the doubt would have to go to the man; but when there is no evidence one way or the other, nothing except the bare fact that the man lies dead with a cracked skull, that does not create any presumption one way or the other. There is not even a prima facie case; there is no bent of testimony to prove anything connected with the man's death. He is dead. He was struck by a motor car. Whether that was an act arising from his own negligence or from the negligence of the driver of the car, or purely from some circumstance as to which there is no evidence at all, you have no question there upon which the application of that principle of the benefit of the doubt is to apply. It is like the case of a man who is found lying dead on the side of the right of way, and a train was known to have passed by. You could not say there was any relation between the death of that man and the passing of that train. That is what the House of Lords has decided, and the judges in the appellate division were bound by that principle of law in the absence of any proof-just keep in mind that fact- as to how the death occurred. There is no presumption one way or the other, and there being no presumption and no evidence, then of course it followed that you could not predicate liability without presumption or some form of evidence. But had there been the slightest evidence upon which a conflict arose, then it was the duty of the court, as pointed out in the interpretation placed by Mr. Justice Hyndman upon that provision, to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant.
The minister will recall how vigorously that was threshed out in this house. The late

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
Doctor McGibbon was here for hours dealing with that. That was why the committee made its report. It was a difficult clause to draw, to fit into legislation; but it was done, and it merely means that if you have some conflict, however small it may be, however slight it may be, then you have liability predicated, because the benefit of the doubt must go to the applicant.
Just one step more and I have concluded, and I would not take up the time of this committee were it not for the fact that I receive many cases of this kind. I have had to tell unfortunate applicants just what I am saying now, although much more briefly, and I dare say this committee wishes it were an applicant at the moment instead of having to listen as it is doing now.
The president of the court was frank enough to say to the member for Saskatoon that they had consulted leading jurists of the country, judges. Well, I can tell him that that is a very ordinary course for judges to take who are dealing with problems not of this kind at all, but with such questions as the legal effect of a man being found dead with a fractured skull. When they are dealing with the question of legal liability predicated upon the fact that a man had been killed, they might well consult leading jurists and others, the same as doctors sometimes consult together. In fact, I remember a most eminent physician who told me that he had met one of his fellow-craftsmen, who was a surgeon from another country, and that he had discussed with him very carefully a particular case. Even doctors do that without in any sense interfering with the soundness of their own judgment or the honesty of their convictions. And the fact that judges do it is well known everywhere. When they meet together one judge will say to another: "Is there any question that the mere finding of the body of a man who has been killed in an accident by coming into collision with a motor car does not, in the absence of some proof, constitute any cause of action?" In the same way a learned physician meeting another physician might ask him whether or not he could say with certainty that the use of the most important pharmaceutical discovery of 1937 would not have injurious effects upon a man's mind, to say nothing of his life. When you have new things, and even old things, physicians have been known to talk about them to one another. So the hon. member for Saskatoon cannot predicate any great argument upon that.
I am surprised to find that we have what we may call hearsay evidence introduced into this chamber. It is alleged that the president

of the court spoke to the Minister of Finance, who told the minister, who told the house-


Charles Avery Dunning: Do I come into this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes, the Minister of
Finance is in this. He is supposed to have been approached by the president of the court, who asked him whether or not he was to listen to these attacks against him, because it was being alleged that he was trying to protect the treasury. But, knowing Mr. Justice Hynd-man as I do, I do not think that is exactly the way in which he would put it. I do not think it is quite consonant with our ideas of propriety that any member of the house should predicate a grievance upon a statement that somebody told him that somebody had told him that the president of the court had said so and so. That is perhaps not quite what would be expected in this chamber; I will merely leave it at that.
I am interested, as I feel every hon. member must be interested, because I frequently receive cases of this kind. I had to tell a poor lady not long ago: Unfortunately here is the unanimous determination of the court, and I know of nothing I can do for you unless you have new evidence. Once you have new evidence, you can present your case to the court once more for the purpose of having the court say whether such new evidence is of such a kind as warrants a rehearing of the case. Inasmuch as we are all interested, and inasmuch as I still believe the appeal court has served a useful purpose, not only for the state as such but for the returned men themselves, I can readily understand how human sympathy has been aroused in cases like this.
I would think less of the citizenship of Saskatoon if I were told that it did not sympathize with the widow. It is human nature that this should be so, and it is very much to the credit of human nature that such sympathies do prevail. But that has not been the method which has been used in any country I know of for the purpose of determining how these matters should be dealt with, except one. After the great civil war it was left open to any member of congress to propose that a pension should be paid to John Smith, and if he could by sufficient appeal to the sympathies as well as to the vote-getting effects of his efforts-


Charles Gavan Power: And log-rolling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, that is the word I was going to use, but I hesitated in these days of international peace to use such a word as that lest it might give offence to someone who was propounding doctrines of everlasting good will in Asia. So I merely content myself with saying that what I had in mind

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
was that with the exception of one country where a majority vote in congress carried a pension to an individual I know of no country in which it could be said that the right to secure a pension to a widow or anybody else on the basis of any claim that could be put forward should depend upon the judgment of the community in which the applicant lived. Human nature is sympathetic still, to its credit be it said, and I hope will long continue to be so. But if those charged with the unfortunate responsibility of administering a law are to be laid open to an attack upon their sympathetic natures, all we would have to do would be to induce the minister to believe that this would have a most potent effect upon the voting power of Quebec East, West, South or North at the next election, and sympathy would be so aroused that pensions would be granted to everyone.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I wish to thank the right hon. leader of the opposition for taking part in this discussion. He is a very able representative of the legal profession, a distinguished member of the bar. However, I should like to point out to him that in the court in which he has always practised he must prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; in a civil case by preponderance of testimony; in a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That is the case in the court in which the right hon. gentleman has practised. That is also the case in the court in which the president of the pension appeal court practised before he came over here. But our statute says that that benefit of the doubt clause shall not be interpreted in that way; that the benefit of the doubt must be given in favour of the applicant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of what doubt?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Let us come to the doubt. First, let me say a word about the two judges. I think very properly the right hon. gentleman referred to the pension appeal court judge as a man of experience and, as he says, a man of long standing at the bar. Then I asked the second simple question, I hope not an embarassing question, What did the right hon. gentleman think of Mr. Justice Taylor? If I caught the answer aright it was this, that he was also a very able legal gentleman but he was afraid that perhaps the heart got a little in advance of the head.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not express any opinion about Mr. Justice Taylor.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You said he was a little warmer hearted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That he was a soldier.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Well, that is the inference I took. I take it that both of these men are skilled in the law. Now what does this benefit of the doubt clause say? I am going to read it once more:
. . . the body adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the applicant.
All reasonable inferences in favour of the applicant. I should like to ask this committee; I should like to ask any judge, Would it not be a reasonable inference that a man who was a cripple, who had an artificial leg, who, according to the evidence was careful, looked twice to the south, and who handicapped as he was had made the crossing with the exception of the last ten or twelve inches when the left mudguard of the car hit him, could, if he had had two good legs have made that other foot and been out of danger? Surely that is the way to interpret the benefit of the doubt clause in favour of the returned soldier.
I recognize very well that perhaps the minister has no jurisdiction. But when there is a wrong there must be a remedy. I am going to ask him once more to look into this case to see if there is not some way whereby what I think almost everyone will concede was an injustice, is righted.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Although I had never heard of the case mentioned by the hon. member for Saskatoon until to-night, I am particularly grateful that he has brought up this case, and grateful also for the comments of the right hon. leader of the opposition, because it gives me opportunity to say in this committee something which I have been aching to say long before I came to this house. Although I am not a lawyer I could not help feeling convinced as I listened to this discussion to-night that in this instance the court of appeal had brought to bear on this particular case every conceivable argument except the one which to me is most essential. And with no particular disrespect to the legal profession I would say that the appeal court have not shown themselves to possess the least commonly practised of all qualifications, the qualification of common sense. Neither am I a doctor. I have no desire to disparage the contributions that doctors and lawyers have made either to the country during the war or on behalf of returned men since the war. But in spite of those contributions I think they have been one of the returned men's most serious liabilities since the war. In spite of the fact that I am not a professional man I

Sup-ply-Pensions-Appeal Court
can think of these decisions, as well as any other hon. member perhaps, in terms of the men who are most interested in and most affected by them, the returned soldiers.
This is not a party question; it is not a question of this parliament or the last parliament. We have made much ado about the benefit of the doubt in all questions affecting the returned soldier, and the general consensus of opinion among the returned men is that it does not mean anything. The returned man puts it rather more profanely than I think the chairman would permit me to put it here. The reason it does not mean anything is that it can be explained away in terms of the law from every conceivable case where it might mean anything to the returned men.
By and large clause 73 does not mean anything. This type of example, which can be multiplied over and over again not only in the experience of the leader of the opposition but in the experience of the humblest member of this chamber, has caused this clause to become a joke. Having no knowledge of the merits of this case, but having listened to the hon. member for Saskatoon and to the learned, but from the standpoint of the returned soldier completely ineffective defence of the situation by the leader of the opposition, I am glad to have an opportunity to say that returned men in general figure that the benefit of the doubt clause does not mean anything. If we do nothing else in this session we ought either to define this clause to make it mean something or remove it.


Robert Emmett Finn: I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon, the right hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for one of the Winnipegs. The hon. member for Winnipeg South said a few moments ago that he was neither a lawyer nor a doctor. The other evening I happened to be talking to him, out at his excellency's, and he told me that he was a curler, and that he had just returned from some part of Ontario where he had spent three, four or five enjoyable days. I was very glad that he had that pleasure, but when it comes to the returned soldiers and the legislation which is upon our statute books may I say, as I stated last year, that I had an opportunity of appearing before the appeal court, not for the purpose of presenting any argument but to accompany a gentleman from Halifax who, I believed, was entitled to consideration. After the argument had been heard Mr. Justice Hyndman, the chairman of the court, said to me, "'Mr. Finn, do you desire to make any statement?" I replied, "No, Mr. Chair-

man, I do not. I accompanied the gentleman from Halifax only in order that he might feel at home when bis case was being argued." Mr. Justice Hyndman replied, "I only wish that every hon. gentleman who sits in the House of Commons would come down with his constituents and at least give that moral support which is so necessary, even if they do not succeed."
I remember very well when I was studying law at Dalhousie university, of which the right hon. leader of the opposition is a graduate and to which he has been so financially kind. I remember that a fellow student in, I think it was, our second or final year, found himself faced with the question, What is the rule in Shelley's case? The gentleman who was not very studious was rather looking at the answers being written on foolscap by a fellow classmate who was studious, but with that the president of the university, the Reverend Doctor Forrest, came along, together with Professor McMechan, and this wonderful professor, the late Dean Weldon, was in the offing and therefore the student had no further opportunity of cribbing. He thought possibly it was a catch question, and after considering it for a while finally he made up his mind to answer it. The rule in Shelley's case, of course, which was settled by the House of Lords, was that a person could not devise or control his property "beyond a life or lives in being and twenty-one years." That is a settled principle; it applies to every person who has any wealth-and I do not think there is as much wealth on this side of the house as there is on the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are mistaken there.
Mr. FINN; I will say to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, the exPrime Minister, that I had not him in mind. Rather I had in mind statements which appeared in the Citizen last evening in reference to the wealth which belonged to a gentleman who has passed on to "that bourne from which no traveller returns," who was highly respected in this house and in this country, and who has left a name that can be conjured with not only by this generation but by the generation which will read history in the light of his living and his passing.
In any case my friend the non-studious student thought he would make an attempt to answer the question, and he did so. He wrote down the question: What is the rule in Shelley's case? And then he said the answer was: "The rule in Shelley's case is the same as in any other man's case. Any d- fool ought to know that." The result was that he failed in more than two subjects and there-

Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
fore lost his year. Professor George Ritchie, who was professor "of wills"-we used to call him "Svengali"-did not put him in to return for a supplementary in September but put him in to return at the opening of college to take a new year. It took him six years to get through, and he is not now practising his profession. So I think perhaps my hon. friend-


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member should have said he was a judge.


Robert Emmett Finn: No; I was speaking of Mr. Justice Hyndman as a judge but of the other gentleman as a fellow student and in my class at Dalhousie university, of which my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition is a graduate and of which he is very proud; and so am I. I think he has more reason to be proud than I have, because I was rather a bad boy in college and I have not lost all those qualities yet.


Charles Gavan Power: Was he not a bad boy in college?


Robert Emmett Finn: Before my time. But, Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that I agree with the legal principle laid down by the right hon. leader of the opposition. It is not of a sympathetic character, not because he is not sympathetic but because the law must be interpreted as it has been placed upon the statute books. Therefore he is against the gentleman who had the wooden leg, and I do not say that unkindly or frivolously. The hon. member for Saskatoon can go home with the assurance that he has made the best of a bad case; and a wooden leg is the cause of the downfall.
Let me go further, and say that at the last session of parliament, when the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) was bringing down his estimates-and he has taken such an interest in his department, and is always available and sympathetic to the returned soldier; I know of no hon. gentleman in this house, whether he sits in opposition, or did, or sat on this side when they were here or sat over there when we were here- though I was never over there and I never expect to be-who ever made a greater success of his department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you think it will be after the next election?


Robert Emmett Finn: All I can say to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition is that he should have his horoscope read. I had mine read the other day. There were no politics in it, but it said I was too generous, too kind, too sympathetic, and worried too much. I think that also applies to the right 51D52-40
hon. gentleman, and that may be the reason he will come over here.
To resume, Mr. Chairman, last year I referred to a nurse at Camp Hill hospital. She had been overseas; she had served well, but she had arrived at the age of sixty-five. She was not entitled to pension on the ground of disability through being wounded or having a wooden leg; at least I do not think so. But, sir, she was a nurse, but had not the required time. She might have been on the Llandovery Castle, and if she had been she never would have returned to this country, any more than did Miss Fraser, who was also a nurse, the daughter of a late lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia, Hon. D. C. Fraser, who sat in this house and finally climaxed his honoured career by becoming lieutenant governor of his native province. I said last year, and I say again to-night, that in cases of this kind, where the pension granted is insufficient, the law should be elastic enough to permit action being taken. Some person should have authority where a strong equity is established, to deal with such cases.
In this instance the Minister of Pensions, through the officers of his department, saw his way clear to recommend the payment of a gratuity to help the nurse in the few years yet to be hers. I do suggest to the minister and to the government which, at the present time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is leading-and he will lead that day when he brings down the finest budget that has ever been brought down; I am giving away no government secrets, because I am not a member of the government; if I were I would not tell you-if legislation is to be brought down by the Minister of Pensions, provision should be made whereby all cases which have been adjudicated upon in the courts might be considered by the minister, or by some other persons indicated by parliament. But where there is a strong case in equity, as there was in this instance, certainly help should be given. Here we had a nurse who had served long and well, and yet at the age of sixty-five she found herself out in the cold and looking up at the citadel, thinking that while once the guns of that citadel belched forth, nothing was now belching forth from Camp Hill, not even a fifty cent piece.
It is fortunate that that case was dealt with, and I want to thank the minister for the way in which he acted. The nurse in question will have some comforts in the few years still left to her, and believe that she owes a debt of gratitude to the minister, to the government and to the house for that gratuity in dollars and cents which meant so much to her happiness of heart and mind.



Supply-Pensions-Appeal Court
Because, after all, when we begin to get "in the sere and yellow leaf" the finest qualities in the individual come out. I do not think anyone displays them more than the right hon. the leader of the opposition-and of course I do not suggest he is "in the sere and yellow leaf"; I think he is in the pink.
My other point was this: Last year I had in mind the case of an individual whose name I could not mention. He was a diffident chap living in the north end of the city of Halifax. He and his three brothers went overseas. His father, who is now dead, had served in the South African war. Each of his brothers was wounded three times, and he was wounded four times, the last wound being in the head. As a result of gas he developed a lung condition and to-day he is in the advanced stage of tuberculosis. That man receives $7.50 per month under the Pension Act, and was receiving from the city of Halifax an amount which brought him in a total of $18 per month. That money paid his board in a little dark room in the north end of the city.
I say to all hon. members, irrespective of party affiliation, that cases of this kind may be considered along with those mentioned by the leader of the opposition. He who deals with the law is a god, and therefore I would say that the Minister of Pensions should take these matters in a reflective mood, as together with his deputies he sits by the fireside trying to see if it is possible to work out a solution for such cases. It will not be very long before it will be de mortuis est with the soldiers to whom I refer, and then there will be no more opportunity. He will meet his God who, as was stated by the leader of the opposition, is a most just God, a most kind God and most charitable. I add the word "charitable," because charity covers a multitude of sins, and therefore I shall have to do a great deal of charity.
I shall be privileged to give a memorandum to the Minister of Pensions in order that he may be able to deal with this matter. Perhaps it may be the foundation stone by which a section of the amendment to the Pension Act will permit cases of that kind to be considered in a humane fashion.
I lost a nephew in the war, Lieutenant Clifford Finn, and I often think that the man who was best off is not the man, old or young, who was wounded, but the man who is over there beneath the poppies. He is better off than the man who lives to-day to whom little gratitude has been extended. He thinks that we in parliament are callous and cold when we are asked to consider the needs and

requirements of the homes and families of the returned men.
When the leader of the opposition spoke he was not sitting as a judge in the house, or one interpreting the statute. He was big and strong enough to state the facts, irrespective of a possible suggestion by someone in the west that he might not be sympathetic towards the soldiers. I do not believe that is his attitude, because I have some knowledge of the attitude of the right hon. gentleman. I know about his vast charities, and therefore I say a man of that type would not single out a returned soldier and say, No. to him, unless the courts were dead against him. He would be given a hearing, if he could prove his case "beyond a reasonable doubt."


Mr. HAMILTON:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the observations of the leader of the opposition. As he has said, I think there are few in the house who do not know of cases similar to that set out by the hon. member for Saskatoon. I know of more than one. In my opinion the question with respect to the application of the clause dealing with the benefit of the doubt is a very important one.
For some years the manner in which this provision has been applied, and the results secured, have been difficult to understand. The inference permitted to be drawn seems to be an inference of fact, something which is left for the trial tribunal to decide. If first the pension commission and then the quorum, or perhaps several commission hearings and one or two quorum hearings, exercising that privilege they have of drawing inferences of fact, are unanimous in finding that there is a doubt and that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt, then I do not see how the appellate tribunal can find that there is not sufficient doubt and overrule the decision in favour of the applicant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it interfere with my hon. friend if I put it in this way: In this case there was no evidence upon which an inference could be drawn. That is what the appellate court said.
. Mr. HAMILTON: I had thought of that but according to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) there was apparently certain evidence given at the inquest as to where the body lay, how far it was away and where the tracks of the car were from which an inference might have been permitted to be drawn. If there is an exercise of the power to draw inferences from facts; if the appeal is dealt with as a matter of law and not as a matter of fact, where there has been so many decisions, either majority or

Questions
unanimous, of trial tribunals in favour of giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, then it is difficult for me to see how the appellate tribunal can overrule them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
knows that there are many cases in which juries find certain verdicts and the courts set them aside because there was no evidence upon which the findings could be made. That is the real point of this case.


Henry Sidney Hamilton: I appreciate that. They cannot make a finding on the facts on the ground that the finding would be perverse or something.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No evidence.


Henry Sidney Hamilton: No evidence of a type upon which a finding could be made. In overruling the decisions of whatever tribunals there may be I am not sure that the court of appeal is not exercising the functions that should be properly exercised by the quorums. They are overruling the doubt which has been found in favour of the appellant. The appeal tribunal is saying that despite the fact that it has been found that there is a doubt, in their estimation that doubt does not exist. That overruling is confined to the applying of principles of law, such as the right hon. leader of the opposition has suggested. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) that there is a feeling throughout the country that the benefit of the doubt clause does not operate fairly in favour of applicants making application for pensions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, February 21, 1938