1938-02-25

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo) be substituted for that of Miss Macphail on the select standing committee on industrial and international relations.
That the name of Mr. MaeNeil be substituted for that of Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo) on the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
That the name of Mr. Heaps be substituted for that of Mr. Douglas on the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
That the name of Mr. Damude be substituted for that of Mr. Mayhew on the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege in connection with certain remarks made last evening by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). Speaking in connection with the landing fields at Chilliwack and Langley Prairie, the hon. member made personal references to myself which I desire to correct.
The hon. member is reported on page 804 as follows:
I know there was considerable pressure brought to bear on him from the minister for British Columbia and from the hon. member for New Westminister, and I believe he has been misinformed by the officers of his department.
The hon. member was here referring to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). Never at any time, Mr. Speaker, have I used pressure of any kind upon any minister or anyone else in regard to either Chilliwack or Langley Prairie airport sites.
FEBRUARY 25, 1938	S09
Feeding of Western Cattle
The only representations I made were in 1936 just after this government came into office. At that time I found that the late Conservative government had taken options on property owned	by two	of	the most
notorious Conservatives in Langley Prairie.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. BENNETT:: This is	not an	explanation. The hon. member had the right to be in his place	to listen	to	what	was
said and correct it	at once.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member should not make a speech.


Thomas Reid: I have every right to defend my honour and I am going to do so. The statement is utterly false. I was not in my place because I was attending to business in my room in connection with my freight rates bill. This statement is not true; it is false.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: As far as the "minister for British Columbia" is concerned, it is false.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "False" is not the
correct word to use.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is neither accurate nor correct.



BONE CREEK, SASIC, FARMERS LACK OP FEED FOR LIVE STOCK AND NEED OF RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before	the orders of the
day are called I should like to direct the attention of the government to a certain matter. I would have informed the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) of my intention to bring it up, but I was advised of it just before I came into the chamber. It is alleged that some seventy farmers of Bone Creek municipality have received only from fifty to sixty-five per cent of their winter hay. It is claimed that the last delivery was made on February 2, and that their live stock is starving. They have interviewed the council without result and have wired Mr. Taggart and Mr. Kember at Regina. They have asked me to bring this matter to the attention of the house. I do not expect that the minister will be able to deal with it at the moment, but I give him this information in order that he may have the opportunity of taking such action as the necessities of the case demand.



FEEDING OF WESTERN CATTLE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: Before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to several complaints I had received from farmers in my riding who purchased cattle in the dry areas last fall, brought them to Ontario and fed them through the winter. These cattle are now ready for market but they find they are unable to sell them. Their complaint is that 100.000 of these cattle were brought into Ontario last year and the local market has not been able to absorb them. They find also that there is a shortage of space in ocean going vessels for export purposes. I have a letter here from a farmers' club signed by the president and secretary, in which they say:
If we sold our cattle at present prices we stand to lose from $15 to $20 a head. But this is not the worst of it. We have large numbers of cattle now, for which we can find no buyers at all.
They have asked me in this letter to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the situation because the department induced the farmers to buy these cattle and bring them to Ontario, and they feel that they ought to be given some assistance in marketing them.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, the position respecting the shipping space for cattle which are now being fed in the province of Ontario is pretty much this. The demand for ocean space for cattle exports to the United Kingdom markets is developing beyond the capacity of the boats now plying between Canadian and British ports, with all boats fitted for the trade and in service now preparing to carry capacity loads. In view of this situation, which has developed during recent weeks, the possibilities of securing additional space for the cattle industry have been thoroughly explored by the dominion government, and it is fully expected that further accommodation for export cattle will be made available.
The chief difficulty is a shortage of hold and package freights, without which boats with accommodation suitable for cattle transportation would incur heavy financial losses on every eastbound crossing. That is to say, there is very little wheat for shipment this year due to the small crop of last year, and for that reason there is very little freight to go into
Feeding oj Western Cattle

the holds of boats, which would make possible a carriage of cattle at the usual rates. Under these circumstances, even guarantees given steamship companies for capacity cattle loads are not in themselves sufficient inducement to bring additional boats into the service. It is quite clear that additional space for cattle is contingent upon the securing of a minimum volume of hold and package freights. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce have this matter clearly in mind and are actively engaged in attempting to find a solution.
The steamship companies are anxious to cooperate and have indicated their desire to assist in every way possible. In other words, the steamship companies are quite willing to carry additional cattle, but realize that the carrying of cattle is directly dependent upon securing other cargoes. The opening of navigation on the St. Lawrence will improve all freight movements. An indication of the steamship companies' desire to cooperate is shown in the fact that they have already effected changes whereby additional space has been made available in the boats now in the service.
At present no cattle boats are unloading at the port of London and the possibilities of the receiving of cattle at that port are being thoroughly canvassed. The position is somewhat complicated by the fact that boats unloading at that port are carrying for the most part bacon that is being shipped from Canada to Great Britain, and the placing of cattle upon those boats would necessitate holding the boats over for from twelve to twenty-four hours in the port of London before unloading. It is not considered advisable, therefore, to put cattle on these boats, and thus hold up the unloading of the bacon.
During 1937 exports of cattle to the United Kingdom totalled 9,610 head. The capacity of the boats now in service to United Kingdom ports will accommodate 46,000 head during 1938. That space has all been booked up for the year. Only 46,000 head can be shipped with the space now available.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that members of the house will realize something of the difficulties when I say that in the previous year, that is two years ago, there were some 6,000 head shipped; in the following year somewhere between 36,000 and 40,000 head, and last year 9,610 head were shipped. This year there is a demand immediately for the shipment of probably some 20,000 head of cattle in addition to what there is space for. The fact that there are such variations in the demands made on shipping space between Canada and Great Britain has considerable to do with the present situation.

As to the figures quoted with regard to the number of cattle brought down from the west, I think it will be found on close examination that only about 20,000 head of these being fed in the section of the country immediately concerned were actually shipped under the assisted passage scheme. Others were brought down partly because of encouragement given to shippers to go west. I am told, and we have had investigation made in the countries concerned, that the great majority of the cattle that are creating difficulties because of the prices paid are not cattle that came out of the immediate drought area but are cattle that came off the large ranges, and for which farmers paid a considerable price. Their agents who went west purchased the cattle and brought them down. Most of the cattle that passed through the Carberry pasturage were purchased at prices that make it still possible for the farmer probably to break even, even if he cannot do any better at the moment, and of course any future advance in prices would be to his advantage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the matter with the American market?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to give details with regard to that, but I know that there was a considerable number of cattle moved out of western Canada and out of the western states into the feeding areas of the United States where corn was plentiful, and those cattle would be coming on to the American market about this time.



SHOP CARDS REGISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), in relation to Bill No. 22 respecting the registration of shop cards by labour unions, which was introduced by the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) and is, I understand, a government measure, whether it would not be possible to have the opinion of the Department of Justice before the bill is further proceeded with, as to whether, if passed, it is intra vires of this parliament. I had considerable experience with a similar proposal at the time the Unfair Competition Act, 1932, was passed. It was then proposed that a similar provision should be inserted in that bill, and when the bill was before the banking and commerce committee all the lawyers who appeared before it were, I think, unanimous in their opinion that the provision was

Foreign Policy
ultra vires of the parliament of Canada. I think it would be expedient that we should have an opinion from the Department of Justice as to whether it is intra vires of this parliament, before we proceed with the bill or report it out of committee of the whole. If the Minister of Justice could deem it possible to accede to that suggestion, I think it would be very helpful to us.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to do what my hon. friend has just asked.



FOREIGN POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recent statements made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain expressing non-confidence in the League of Nations and foreshadowing a concordat with fascist Italy, has the government of Canada been consulted regarding changes in policy; and, if so, has approval been given by the government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend was kind enough to advise me of his intention to ask this question, and I am therefore in a position to give him an answer immediately, but before doing so I should like to bring his attention and that of other hon. members to the rule of this house with respect to how questions are to be put and answered. Standing order 44 reads:
Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and to other members, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the house, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same. And in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
I would direct attention also to the citation from May, which appears in paragraph 349 on page 113 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
The purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the house. A question may not contain statements of facts unless they be necessary to make the question intelligible and can be authenticated; nor should a question contain arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets or controversial or ironical expressions.
Now may I read my hon. friend's question:
In view of the recent statements made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain expressing non-confidence in the League of Nations and foreshadowing a concordat with fascist Italy, has the government of Canada been consulted regarding changes in policy, and if so, has approval been given by the government?
It was I think unnecessary for my hon. friend in asking his question to say that the statements recently made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain expressed " nonconfidence in the League of Nations and foreshadowed a concordat with fascist Italy." It was not necessary to have inserted those words, and according to the rule of the house I have quoted, those words should not have been included. Also:
Has the government of Canada been consulted regarding changes in policy?
Those words " changes in policy " also raise a controversial question and are not necessary for the information which the hon. member seeks.
Yesterday I was reluctantly obliged to draw attention to a question asked by another hon. member and to point out that it was not a proper question to ask. While the government is most anxious to give the house all the information possible on matters of public interest, it should I think, be recognized that we have to be particularly careful at this time not to ask in this house questions, with respect to what happens in the parliaments of other parts of the British empire or parliaments of any country anywhere, in a form which will be misunderstood and will occasion embarrassment or resentment there or elsewhere. The question should be put in a form which will permit of a direct answer being given thereto. If my hon. friends' question is, " in view of recent statements by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, has the government been consulted regarding policy with reference thereto, and if so has approval been given by the government?"-I believe that covers what he wishes to know-my answer would be, no, the government has not been consulted with regard to the policies referred to, nor has the government expressed any opinion with reference thereto.



DIVERSION OF WATER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: On February 17 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a question with reference to a letter-I shall now have to be careful in referring to another government-which had
Diversion oj Water

been read the day before in Washington to the United States congress, and which was written by the premier of Ontario, with reference to diversion of waters from the great lakes. I am sure that if the Prime Minister of Canada read the letter of the premier of Ontario he would be astonished at its contents. In replying to my question the Prime Minister said he would this week give the house a white paper containing full particulars of all the correspondence between this government and the Ontario government with regard to the matter which was brought up at Washington. It has not come down yet. May I ask when it will be tabled?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad that the hon. member has asked me that question, because at the time I answered the question to which he has referred I fully expected that the white paper would be ready to lay on the table this week. It is possible that it will be ready to lay on the table on Monday; I think I can promise my hon. friend that it will be ready at that time. It is a larger document than was anticipated, and it is being translated and printed in French as well as English; I should like if possible to table it in both languages at the same time.
While we are referring to this matter, may I inform the house that I have delayed going on with the second reading of the export of power bill until the house had before it these various communications, as I believe the house will wish to have that material available for reference in the course of debate. If the correspondence is tabled on Monday I shall hope to proceed with the second reading of the power export bill on Tuesday, unless there is some objection. If there should be desire for a longer delay I would take it up a little later on.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would it be possible to include in the white paper the remarkable letter that the premier of Ontario sent to Washington?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The white paper -I think it ought to be called the white book-is being presented in book form, and I fear that to do what the hon. member asks would involve the opening of the forms and repaging. But what I shall do, if it will meet the hon. member's wishes, is to table with the white book a copy of that particular correspondence.
fMr. MacNkwl.J


John Ritchie MacNicol: A copy of the letter of the premier of Ontario written to Congressman W. G. Andrews.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All I can do
is to reproduce, in photostat form if the hon. member so wishes, the communication that was placed on the Congressional Record at Washington.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understood the Prime Minister to say that he has not received a copy of the letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I have not.

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



DEPARTMENT OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
Direct payments to veterans and dependents- European war pensions, $40,900,000.
Mr. POWER:: I find that on February 18 last, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) I unwittingly made an incorrect reply with respect to the number of decisions given in favour of the applicant on first hearing. Perhaps I may be permitted to place more accurate figures on the pages of Hansard.
Dealing with the year 1936-37 and from April 1, 1937, up to January 31, 1938, I find: First hearings granted 1,374, not granted 3,049, total 4,423; second hearings: granted 14, not granted 211, total 225; quorums: granted 732, not granted 3,694, total 4,426; pension appeal court: granted 53, not granted 2,423. There were remitted for hearing, 46; without jurisdiction, 5; pending, 37; not heard, 1,174. The percentages are worked out for 1937-38 up to January 31, 1938. On the first hearing there were granted for 1937-3S, 1,375 and not granted 2,472, or a total of 3,847. That is to say, 35 per cent of the total cases brought up on first hearing were given entitlement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without appeal being
taken afterwards.


Charles Gavan Power: Without any appeal whatever. There is no right of appeal by the crown from the first hearing. On the second hearing there were granted, for 1937-38, 162, and not granted 1,737, a total of 1,899, or 9 per cent. As regards the quorums, for the same period, there were 233 granted and 1,256 not granted, a total of 1,489; in other words, 15 per cent

Supply-Pensions-European War
were granted by the quorums. With respect to the Pension Appeal Court there were granted 52-not granted, 2,021-or two and a half per cent of the total. To recapitulate, on the first hearing 35 per cent are awarded in favour of the applicant; on the second hearing 9 per cent in favour of the applicant; before the quorum 15 per cent, and before the Pension Appeal Court two and a half per cent.
Perhaps I had better go on to the discussion of this item. It is obvious why there is a reduction of some $600,000.


Mr. GREEN:: Is there an appeal by the crown from the pension commission to the quorum?


Charles Gavan Power: There is no appeal except from decisions of the quorum.


Howard Charles Green: Would it be possible to have the appeal by the crown from the decisions of the quorum done away with?


Charles Gavan Power: That is a matter for consideration; it is being considered. The whole difficulty would be whether or not some other system could be found to substitute for it.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the position of the war widows of Canada. No doubt hon. members have received a great many letters from these women, and I may say that I attended, at their request, a meeting held in Toronto by one of their associations. I thought it would be better for them to put in writing their individual cases so that they could be submitted to the department. We must not forget that in the early days when we were recruiting Canada promised that none of the dependents of her soldiers who went overseas would be left uncared for. Canada, I believe, has done her job to a great extent, but we have partly fallen down so far as war widows are concerned.
There are two or three reasons why, under the legislation as it stands, they are not properly looked after. There is the difficulty of building up the case for these widows so as to associate with war service the deaths of their husbands. When they cannot prove that death is attributable to a pensionable disease they are usually out of luck. I do not think that anyone can prove that the immediate cause of death is the real cause; very often death is probably attributable to the pensionable disability. In very many instances men have died of arterio sclerosis or cancer, or an ulcer, or something of that kind, some complaint which is not the pensionable disability, while there is no doubt that the pensionable disability has a direct bearing upon the immediate cause of death.
Another thing is this. Is there any particular reason why a war widow should have her pension cut off when the pensioner dies? I do not see any reason why she should. We must remember that a great many soldiers after the war wanted to get out of the service as quickly as possible, and consequently they were discharged perhaps rather prematurely. There is no doubt that many of them at that time were suffering from some disease attributable to the war, but owing to the circumstances under which they were discharged they find themselves to-day out of luck. And for the same reason war widows are out of luck at the present time. It would be better, in my opinion, if the pensionable disability were taken into consideration and given more weight in awarding pensions to war widows. Some change should be made in the legislation, for the plight of these war widows is terrible.
In the gathering which I attended in Toronto I do not believe that every one of those women thought they should have pensions. In any event they were mostly women whose husbands had received pensions, the pensions having been cut off at the death, and now the widows find themselves destitute. They gave great service to these soldiers who had been receiving pensions and they did not get very much out of it themselves. The least we can do is to have the legislation take care of the present situation so far as war widows are concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been organized in the city of Calgary a substantial body of women whose husbands, having served overseas, are now dead. These women are in a desperate condition. The contention-and I think it is one which it is difficult to overcome-is that their husbands died, and I am putting it mildly, as they request me to do, earlier in life than they would have but for the service they gave the country. That is putting it on a low basis. Their contention is that being deprived of the ability of their husbands to earn a living for either themselves or their children they are now in almost necessitous circumstances; and they seek from the government a recognition of their position, just as the government has recognized the condition of the soldier who receives assistance through the relief organization that has been set up by the department.
At first I thought that the case was much simpler than it is. Looking into the matter in detail I find many cases that are known to me personally. I have a list of them beside me and it is quite clear that the

Supply-Pensions-European War
husbands of these women served in some instances with great distinction, but in every instance at the risk of their lives, in France and elsewhere, mostly in a theatre of war. I do not say that all of them did, but for the most part they were in a theatre of war. The husbands of these women were not pensioned at the time of their death; some of them had received some slight recognition which was cut off, but the major number that I am speaking of now are cases in which the husband was not receiving a pension at the time of his death. The efforts that they have made to secure recognition by the department have failed because it was determined by the appropriate persons that the deaths could not be attributable to service. The same matter was discussed the other evening. In the case of many of these widows-I did not wish to go into it then, for obvious reasons, because you do not want to make it more difficult to deal with the simple problem by mixing it with others-this problem in one aspect is a simple one. We do care for necessitous cases of disabled soldiers who are unable to take care of themselves and whose condition is attributable to the war. If they have left behind them widows and children, I suggest to the minister, when he is framing his legislation, that if an annuity cannot be provided, the widow and children should at least be given the same treatment as that which would be given to the soldier if he were living and found himself in a similar condition of necessity.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before the minister answers I should like to say something about this matter. I was invited to a soldiers' widows meeting in the soldiers' club rooms on Isabella street in Toronto, at which about two hundred were present. Apparently they are organizing and propose to have the organization extend all over Canada, and I have no doubt that in due course unless some redress is given they will come down in a large delegation to present their case, as has been said. On that occasion I took a list of a number of cases and the particulars. I have in mind one or two which are perhaps representative. One was a returned soldier who was in the habit of having fainting spells; apparently his heart was weak. One morning he had a fainting spell. His widow says that on the same day while having lunch he had another spell, and apparently some food became lodged in his throat. The doctor who performed the post mortem reported to the department that the man had choked to death swallowing his food. No one would believe that he deliberately choked himself to death. I do

not want to pass any comment on what the doctor did, but the fact is that his widow did not receive any compensation, although before his death the man was receiving pension.
Recently a returned soldier trying to make ends meet had gone to northern Ontario and taken a position I believe at Collins, northwest of Port Arthur. Being unable to carry on, on account of weakness, he decided to walk to the station some twenty or more miles away, and it appears that he fell on the road and was frozen to death in sight of the station. The post mortem report was that he died from natural causes, having been frozen to death. I have nothing but the very kindest words to say of the department; I have found the officials at all times considerate and anxious to help, and they are no doubt doing the best they can, but apparently the law does not permit them to deal with a case such as I have just mentioned, in which the coroner finds that the returned soldier died from this or that cause unattributable to war service. I am convinced from the number of cases I have looked into that while the department has done splendidly, if the officials were given a chance to exercise their discretion as to the cause of death, a large number of these war widows would be receiving consideration. I want to give my support to what was said by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross), who also attended one of these meetings of the war widows of Toronto.


Mr. MASSEY:: Before the minister replies I should like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for St. Paul's, the leader of the opposition, and the hon. member for Davenport. I am sure that the sentiments expressed by them found echo in the heart of every hon. member of this committee. We all must realize that as the days lengthen into years the situation to which reference has been made this afternoon becomes more and more acute. Recently I met a deputation which desired to present this problem, a deputation of ladies, widows of war veterans from the eastern part of Toronto, where they are attempting to set up an organization in their mutual interest, and they asked me to present their case to the minister and his colleagues. Accordingly I should like to endorse most heartily what has been said on this matter by those who have preceded me.


Mr. LOCKHART:: May I present briefly a slightly different angle of this question? Without repetition of what has already been said I might put it in this way: that inadequate records were kept overseas, as has been re-

Supply-Pensions-European War
ferred to many times in this house. Men in their anxiety to get home did not take the necessary care to have disabilities noted which might have been recorded had they taken time. They came back and went through the necessary procedure to gain some consideration at the hands of the department, but as a result of inadequate records and for other reasons that might be mentioned, no pension was granted. The department in its wisdom proceeded to give war veterans' allowances, a very necessary thing and something which has kept many men and women off relief. In instances of which I could give details small homes had been acquired prior to enlistment, and upon his return from overseas the soldier, with his family, lived in these homes. The children probably grew up and moved away, and the soldier and his wife continued their residence, the soldier receiving a war veteran's allowance. I could give the minister instances in which, following the death of the soldier who received the allowance, those homes have been lost. Within my own knowledge only this week two war veterans' allowance widows are going on relief in my city, one of them in a pitiful condition of arthritis. She is told that nothing can be done to give her a war veteran's allowance, because her year had expired. If we have to keep these widows on relief surely some consideration could be given by the minister and his department to continuing in some form, even if only partially, the war veteran's allowance which she and her husband enjoyed, even though he could not establish a pensionable condition. I could give the minister more instances, but I suppose hundreds of them have come to his attention. Surely these people could be better cared for in a reasonable way, preserving their independence, rather than being compelled to go on relief in municipalities which are threatened with further costs in connection with relief.


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: I want to add my support to the speakers who have called attention to the fact that war widows should be allowed a pension. I am not a returned man but I should like to say a word in regard to returned men who are physically fit, who receive no pension and are to-day earning their own livelihood. I have talked with a number of these men. One of them said to me: "The country should do something for us; we paid the price." They think they should have a refund of taxes. I know that for some considerable time the Manitoba government did that. I am not sure whether or not they are doing it to-day. The fact is
that these men did pay the price. It took men and money to win the war. We continue to pay the interest on the war loans, and we may have to continue to do it for all time. Are the men who risked their lives less worthy of help, when to-day many of them find themselves in need of it? I cannot see where the money took any risk, but certainly the men did. We know that many of them throughout Canada to-day are suffering because of war disability. In fact, I do not know a single man who went to war who is physically fit to-day. There may be some, but I do not know of them.
I cannot understand why the government should give such large pensions to officers, when the men in the ranks, who may be more in need than many of the officers, and who could earn more money than some of the officers ever knew how to earn, cannot get anything at all. I never thought that was fair; I never could understand it, and it is my opinion something ought to be done about it.
I believe pensioned men who have good government jobs are not entitled to the same pension, although I would not like to cut them off without the assurance that if they lost their jobs they would get their pensions back. Surely it is up to the government to do the fair thing for the men who fought our battles.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: I should like to join with the other hon. members who have requested the minister to do something for widows of ex-service men. We know that many of them have found great difficulty in establishing the fact that the deaths of their husbands could be attributed to pensionable diseases. A number of these widows are indeed suffering great hardship. Since the government has stated from time to time that it intended to issue money and credit to meet the needs of the people, surely the problem of providing sufficient money to take care of the needs of the widows of ex-service men should not present a difficult task. I feel sure that the minister will have the support of the majority of hon. members if he takes action immediately to alleviate the suffering of those widows.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps I had better begin by stating the provisions of the Pension Act dealing with widows. Under the provisions of the Pension Act the disability pension automatically ceases at death. If'the assessment at death is fifty per cent or more, an immediate grant of one month's pension is paid the widow and children, provided the additional pension was payable on their account.



S16 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Pensions-European War
If the deceased pensioner's estate is insufficient to pay last illness and burial expenses the commission may make a grant not exceeding $150, provided the payment in respect of burial shall not exceed $100. If the soldier dies of a pensionable disability, or where his death is ruled attributable to war service, the widow and children are eligible provided (1) that the marriage was contracted before January 1, 1930, or before the soldier was granted a pension; (2) that the children were born prior to May 1, 1933, and are within the age limit and (3) that they were supported or entitled to be supported by the soldier.
In cases where disability pension was payable at the rate of eighty per cent or more at the time of death, irrespective of the cause of death the widows and children are eligible, provided (1) that the marriage was contracted before January 1, 1930; (2) that the children were bom prior to May 1, 1933, and are within the age limit and (3) that they were supported or entitled to be supported by the soldier.
If the soldier dies under conditions which do not entitle his dependents to pension, any surviving eligible children are paid a bonus of one year's additional pension at the rate being paid on their account at the time of death.
With respect to the agitation which has spread throughout the country, and which has been organized by an association which, I believe, is known as the Non-Pensioned War Widows' Association, new legislation would have to be enacted by the house to cover nearly all the cases which have been submitted this afternoon. We would have to adopt an entirely new principle. It must not be forgotten that for many years in the house there was a great deal of agitation to enable any widows who married soldiers after the appearance of disabilities to get pensions. The fear then was that if we opened the door too wide to pensions for widows we would get this country into the position in which the United States finds itself with respect to war widows' pensions.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Be careful.


Charles Gavan Power: Then we would have these so called deathbed marriages, and so on. The agitation was to extend the provisions of the Pension Act to cover cases wherein there had been, let us say, a promise of marriage by the soldier prior to his leaving for overseas. It was urged on governments in those days that it was far nobler and far more proper for the person who did not marry the soldier, but who was now claiming something by way of recognition, than for the person who went through a hasty war wedding.

Very sympathetic cases were presented to the consideration of the house, and after more than ten yearn of struggle it was finally decided that persons married prior to January 1, 1930, or prior to the time when the soldier was awarded a pension, would be eligible, provided always that the soldier had died of his pensionable disability. But, as I said at the outset, the present agitation introduces an entirely new principle. Up to the present time I have no means of knowing just what the objective of the association may be. But I take it for granted that these so called war widows would like to get at least a maintenance pension, or an allowance which would amount to perhaps $40 per month. A great many of those soldiers-some mentioned by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition-were not drawing pension at all. Under these circumstances we would find a widow getting far more than the amount to which the soldier was entitled on account of his war services. Many more are drawing pensions-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He would be getting something under the provisions of the last statute- the allowance?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, the war veterans'
allowance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are the cases to which I referred.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, but perhaps that would not be so. I do not know just what persons are eligible for membership to this association, but as I understand it any person who is the widow of a soldier would be eligible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A non-pensioner.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, a widow who has no pension. But that would take in the widow of any person who happened to have been a soldier or to have served in the war. We have been fighting against service pensions for the soldiers themselves, and now we are asked to give pension to the widows of soldiers who were never entitled to pensions in their lifetime.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the means test.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, I am coming to that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But what about the
widows of soldiers who did receive a pension before they died?


Charles Gavan Power: I am taking the general question as it is presented, in so far as I know it.


John Charles Landeryou: Just the widows of soldiers who have served in a theatre of war.

Supply-Pensions-European War


Charles Gavan Power: Well, once we start in on that, I do not know where we will go.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The means test was put to me.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not before me any complete or definite proposal, and I do not know that anybody else has. The agitation that is going on does not appear to me to have any definite objective either in money or in any clear indication of just what persons are to be eligible.


John Charles Landeryou: How many widows of pensioners are there in Canada? How many widows of ex-service men are there?


Charles Gavan Power: I have not the faintest idea. Unless a man is a pensioner we have no trace of him. There were 600,000 soldiers who enlisted and I should say that probably three or four hundred thousand of them were married. Most of these men will leave widows when they die.
To continue my argument: If this means that the widows of men who were not pensioned during their lifetime are to be looked after, then it is asking parliament to take a long step in the setting up of a new class of state pensioner. If it means that it shall apply only to the widows of those who received pensions, then perhaps there is more logic in the position. I believe Australia grants to the widow the same pension as that enjoyed by her husband during his lifetime.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In some cases it is half.


Charles Gavan Power: In some cases it is half. Does any hon. member believe that if we granted to the widow of a man who had been in receipt of a pension of $3.50 or $7.50 or $10 just the amount her husband received, she would not ask us to bring her allowance up to a reasonable maintenance rate? I do not think any hon. member will suggest that we should continue a pension if it is lower than a decent living rate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did the minister not say, and is it not a fact, that the widows of soldiers who received less than an eighty per cent pension- receive nothing?


Charles Gavan Power: Not at all. I do not think my hon. friend has understood the principles of the Pension Act. I believe the house will agree that it is not reasonable to award to the widow of a pensioner more than the man received himself during his lifetime. After all, he is the one who suffered, he is the one who went overseas and he is the one who put up with life in the trenches.


Mr. BROOKS:: Does he not receive a pension for the protection of his family? Is that not the idea?


Charles Gavan Power: No, and I shall come to that in a moment. A pension is granted on the basis of disability incurred on service and not on the basis of need. We would be changing the whole principle if we awarded pensions on the basis of need. My right hon. friend recognizes that fact when he states quite positively that this is a pension on the basis of means test. Am I right in making that statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the view I was putting forward. It has been submitted to me that some of these unfortunates find themselves in absolute want. Because of their want they ask that they should 'be treated in the same way as soldiers are treated in connection with the veterans' allowance. Have I made myself clear?


Charles Gavan Power: I will not go as far as my right hon. friend and say that the veterans' allowance is awarded entirely on the basis of need; it is awarded on the assumption that a man's service hastened his unemployability.
I do not know of any proposal that has come before this department or parliament in the last few years that appeals more to the ordinary man on the street or to anyone connected with the whole soldier problem. However, I think we should understand just where we are going with a proposal such as this. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition is the only one who has referred to the means test. If this proposal is accepted it will mean that no matter what is the cause of death, whether due to a pensionable disability or otherwise, irrespective of the financial circumstances of the widow, irrespective of the date of marriage, irrespective of the financial condition of the person who died, we will be granting a pension and making a ward of the state of the widow of every man who served overseas.
It has never been suggested in any special committee of the house that has sat in the last few years that we should carry out such a principle, but it has been suggested that the widows of men who were in receipt of pensions of fifty per cent and over should receive a pension. It was contended that it was sometimes difficult to prove that a man had died as a result of his war disability *and that the presumption should be that if he died, it was as a result of his disability. Our legislation provides that the widow of a man in receipt of eighty per cent pension shall receive a pension, no matter from what cause the man died. The principle there is



S18 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Pensions-European War
that the man was so badly disabled that there was a possibility that his physical condition must have been a very important factor in his decease, even though he might have died as a result of an accident. It was not considered right to place the widow in the position of having to prove that death was due to his disability. I cannot recall any representations having been made until this year that the widow of every pensioner should be pensioned.
I have no doubt that there are many widows, in the soldier group as well as in the civilian group, who are left without adequate means of support. However, when it is considered seriously, I doubt if anyone will lay down the proposition that the widow of a war veteran should be pensioned simply because he served in the army. This is going far beyond any suggestion of a service pension for those who served overseas. There are many pathetic cases, and I think I could recite just as many, if not more than any hon. member of the house. A widow will write to me and say that her husband has died recently, that he was a soldier with good service overseas. She says she is sixty years of age, too young for an old age pension and too old to take a job. She wants to know what we are going to do. There is no answer I can give her except that her case should be looked after in the same way as that of any ordinary civilian Much as I sympathize with her, that is the only answer I can make.
I shall be glad to get an expression of opinion from hon. members after they have been fully seized of all the implications of this proposal. If parliament decides that these widows should be placed on the pension roll of the state, then I think we will have great difficulty in refusing any demand whatsoever made by soldiers who served overseas. I do not see how we could refuse the man who served overseas anything at all in the way of a living wage, maintenance allowance, revenue, pension or bonus, whatever you want to call it. We have been asked to allow the rate laid down in the Labour Gazette, while other suggestions have been that we should pay a bonus of $2,000 or S4.000. We could not refuse anything to the man who served overseas once we carry out the recommendations of this association of widows.
John Charles Landeryou: Does the minister
suggest that we should refuse to meet the legitimate needs of people who are suffering?


Charles Gavan Power: I am not talking about
legitimate needs. I am saying you cannot refuse him anything he asks for, because he will always be able to show some need for it,

if you begin to give it to those who have less claim than he has. I have every sympathy for the widows, but I consider it my first duty to look after the soldiers who went overseas, and their dependents. After that is done I have no objection to looking into any further questions. I repeat, the department and the pension commission can do nothing to meet this claim, but if parliament in its wisdom decides that there must be legislation, parliament should say so, and then we shall know just what it means.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think parliament has,
time after time, declared against the awarding of a mere service pension, and I have not suggested that a service pension should be awarded to the widow and dependents of any soldier merely because he did see service. That was not the point as I understood it. But these widows and children, the one class desiring sustenance and the other education, have submitted that rather than take relief from communities, many of which cannot provide it for them, there is a duty resting upon the state to provide for them at least sustenance and support for themselves and their children because it was the war that deprived them not only of the company and consort of a husband but also of the earning power of the head of the house. That is the position as I understand it, as it was put to me.


Charles Gavan Power: Of course my right hon.
friend understands that if that were so, if it were the war that deprived them of the sustenance provided by the person upon whom they depended, they would be entitled to pension.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I must add this rider: They are unable to establish that death was the direct result of service in the war. Otherwise the husband would have been pensionable in his lifetime and they would be entitled in any event to receive a pension. But it is because they are satisfied, as the community is, in common with all others, that what the soldier went through brought about premature death, which premature death imposed upon them a responsibility with respect to the support of themselves and the sustenance and education of their children which they cannot discharge, that they now make this claim. If they had any means with which to discharge their responsibilities I certainly would not make the claim that I suggest, but inasmuch as we have taken steps to provide, through the war veterans' allowance, sustenance for the soldier who is burnt out and unable to care for himself, the contention is that as the soldier is no longer here and is unable to provide for his wife and family, a

Supply-Pensions-European War
similar principle should be applied with respect to them rather than that they should be compelled to go upon relief, which they think is not consonant with the ideas put forward at the time their husbands enlisted. That is the story, as I understand it.


Charles Gavan Power: I think my right hon. friend has stated the case absolutely fairly. That is the story, but as I said a moment ago I am not sure just how far it goes or just what the demands are because I have not as yet received officially any demand. I hope that will not be considered an invitation to send me any. I have not, at all events, received any definite request.
Perhaps these figures may be of some value to the committee. As of September 30, 1937, there are disability pensioners to the number of 79.882; disability pensioners' wives, who receive some assistance, 57,316, and these, of course, would all be eligible under any legislation which might be passed to look after war widows because they would be such if the husband died a pensioner.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Does that figure of 79,000 represent eighty per cent?


Charles Gavan Power: No, all of them. Then there are disability pensioners' children to the number of 83,061, and these also would be entitled to something, I presume, under the suggestions which have been made this afternoon. There are disability pensioners' other relatives to the number of 1,382; and widowers' allowances, 513. Those make up a total of 222,154 people who are being looked after in one form or another at the present time. There are also dependent pensioners' widows, parents and orphan children to the number of 18,076; dependent pensioners' children, 3,275; and other relatives in addition to the main dependents, 1,461; making a total of 22,812, or a grand total of 244,966 people being looked after at the present time; and with supplementary British and allied pensions the number would be 245,309. I would say that that number would be almost doubled if the suggestions that have been made were carried out in a way to meet the wishes of those who are at present urging them upon the government.


Mr. MacNEIL:: I think it would be a great pity if the impression got abroad from the remarks of the minister that the sentiments expressed this afternoon were entirely due to agitation by any particular organization. It is true that representations have been made by different organizations, but I think every hon. gentleman has been faced with the distressing experience in his own community of attempting to explain to the widow of an ex-
51352- 52*
service man why she cannot secure any form of further assistance from the federal government. The pathetic need in this regard has been apparent on every hand, and in my opinion it is a problem for which we cannot disclaim responsibility.
I am sorry that the minister brought up the old bogey of deathbed marriages because, as far as I am aware, no hon. member has proposed any change in the deadline from January 1, 1930.


Charles Gavan Power: Would not this proposal
do it?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I have not heard of any
proposal that would suggest-


Charles Gavan Power: That is the worst of it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I have not heard of any concrete proposals that would suggest anything opening the way to deathbed marriages. I think in countless instances the widow of the ex-service man has very good grounds upon which to claim some further assistance from the state. The principle of responsibility in this problem has been accepted to some extent in section 3S of the Pension Act, to which the minister referred, providing for the payment of one month's pension not at the rate effective at the time of death but at the widow's rate and pending consideration of the claim. That recognized responsibility in the case of need, partially at all events. That of course is qualified by the fact that the pension is paid only in cases where the claim is pending consideration.


Charles Gavan Power: In every case, I believe.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Also under section 22(a), a bonus may be paid in respect of the child at the discretion of the commission, but only at the effective rate at the time of death, which might possibly be only fifty cents a month. There is also a precedent for it in the continuation of the war veterans' allowance to the widow after the death of the recipient of war veterans' allowance. Not merely on the basis of disability but very largely on the basis of need all these provisions have been made in the past, I contend, because there was a recognition of the needs confronting the widow under these circumstances.
May I point out to the minister that never at any time has it been the intention of parliament to deprive the ex-service man of the opportunity to marry and provide himself with the comforts of home. But in doing so the man has not been the only sufferer. In countless instances the wife has ministered to the need of the disabled ex-service man;

Supply-Pensions-European War
she has nursed him and comforted him during his distress; in many cases she has suffered with him the consequences of reduced earning capacity, and they have jointly been unable to establish a reserve to tide her over the difficult period of adjustment following the husband's death. An actual proposal has been made to the minister-I hope he will take it into consideration-


Charles Gavan Power: What is it?


Charles Grant MacNeil: The proposal made by the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion is the one to which I am referring.


Charles Gavan Power: As my hon. friend knows, there are quite a number.


Charles Grant MacNeil: That this convention re-affirms that the Pension Act be amended permitting pensions paid at the time of death to be continued to the widow for at least one year, and where the amount is less than that allowed under war veterans' allowance, that it be increased to that amount.


Charles Gavan Power: Was that passed?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I have reason to believe that that is the resolution of the dominion convention.


Charles Gavan Power: I will check.


Charles Grant MacNeil: They are urging that discretionary power be exercised under such circumstances to continue the allowance one year to tide the widow over a difficult period of adjustment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would that recommendation apply retroactively?


Charles Grant MacNeil: There is no reference to that, nor do I believe it is their intention to deal with retroactive complication. I would point out also that in the commonwealth of Australia a similar provision is made; the pension is continued, I believe, in such instances. It boils down to this, that the minister might safely introduce, I think, an amendment to the act, and it would receive the general support of the house, to provide that where a pensioner dies and the widow is not held to be eligible for pension, death not being due to disability attributable to service, or where the pensioner is not receiving a pension of over eighty per cent, and the widow is in necessitous circumstances, she should get an allowance; the pension should be continued, and if it is less than the amount paid under the terms of the war veterans' allowance, it should be made up to that rate. In other words, this provision should be made consonant with the provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act.


Charles Gavan Power: Would that apply to the widow of any soldier even though he was a small pensioner?


Charles Grant MacNeil: Even though he was a small pensioner.


Mr. DUPUIS:: What about the children?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am referring only to the widow. If the rate were made up to the extent of the war veterans' allowance, there would not be the same need to consider the children.


Charles Gavan Power: Would not the hon. member see some objection to giving the widow of a pensioner who was receiving ten dollars a month more than is given to her neighbour whose husband himself was a pensioner receiving ten dollars and had two or three children to support? Would there not be some difficulty there, some anomaly?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I see the point made by the minister. But if a pensioner was receiving pension at the rate of only ten per cent, for example, he would be able no doubt to supplement his earnings or would receive unemployment assistance from the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Mr.   POAVER@: Does the hon. member think the answer would be, " AVhy, bring them all up to forty per cent?" I rather expected my hon. friend to make that answer.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In the majority of cases the existence of this disability is a contributing factor to death. By reason of these disabilities and other handicaps imposed by service, veterans are dying off now at an alarming rate, and the widow's who are thus bereaved find it most difficult to adjust themselves or to secure the benefits of any other social legislation in the province in which they reside.


Charles Gavan Power: Why is it more difficult for them to secure the benefit of social legislation than for anyone else?


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I point out to the minister, after some experience of these problems, that if it becomes known in the community that a woman is the widow of an ex-service man the general tendency of the local authorities is to say, " This must be dealt with by the federal authority "; and considerable delay results. There is difficulty in getting across the understanding of the widow's position under existing federal legislation, and that delay has serious consequences for her. I suggest it is extremely important that we should recognize

Supply-Pensions-European War
what I believe to be a very definite claim on this parliament, and assist the widow to tide herself over that very harrowing period.


Mr. BETTS:: May I bring to the attention of the minister and the committee the case of a widow's claim, slightly different from the ones we have been discussing. This case is not one in which the soldier was getting nothing and the widow wants something; it is a case in which the soldier was getting something, and the widow now gets nothing. This soldier was pensioned to the extent of twenty-five per cent of his disability, and drew S19 a month. He died. His pension had been awarded for aggravation of heart disability and bronchitis incurred on service, and the cause of death was myocardial failure, auricular fibrillation, and chronic valvular disease-symptoms which, members of the committee will realize, bear a very close relationship to those in respect of which the soldier was pensioned.
In giving the details of this case, I realize that this committee is not a court of appeal from the pensions court of appeal, and I am mentioning them because my submission is that they illustrate a principle.
In the course of the hearing one of the principal witnesses was a doctor. In his evidence-I purposely omit proper names from my story-he attributed death to a stroke. Subsequently he realized that by reason of the fact that he had a large number of cases to deal with he had mistaken the identity of the man whose case was under hearing, and he made this statutory declaration:
With reference to my evidence when I appeared before the quorum of the Canadian Pension Commission, I have read the transcript of evidence taken and it is quite apparent that in my answer to question 7 I was in error in that I stated "a man was taken home from work with a stroke and died two or three days afterwards."
From my personal knowledge that the late William Blank died in Westminster hospital, London, on August 1st, 1935, after being confined in that institution for a period of about 17 weeks, I am able to state that the man referred to in my answer to question 7 was not Mr. Blank. I apparently had him confused with a man who, while employed by the Blank company in London, took a stroke at work and was taken home and died a few days afterwards. The latter man was seen by Doctor Blank and myself.
As a result of that very apparent mistake, the widow applied on three occasions to the court of appeal for a rehearing of her case. I may say that her case is a very grievous one. She is a woman with two children. She had her life arranged so that she could carry on upon the small pension her husband received when he was alive; now he is gone
and the pension is gone too. The point I am trying to make is that any court of law which has as wide powers of rehearing cases as those vested in the pensions court of appeal, and receives evidence similar to that statutory declaration from a reputable doctor, would rehear the case. Yet there has been not one refusal from the pensions court of appeal, but three, to deal with this case. My contention therefore is that, in view of this disposition of the court of appeal to deal with cases that come before them not only with an entire lack of humanity, but with an entire lack of the ordinary principles of equity, unless a different outlook can be injected into the mentality of these judges of appeal by the minister or by this house, or by somebody, in the interests of proper dealing with this pensions question, so that the returned man and his dependents can get justice, then the court should be abolished.


Vincent Dupuis: I wish to say a word on the point that has been raised. Very often a pensioner dies and his widow and children are deprived altogether of any assistance. If the widow cannot prove that the cause of death is due to her husband's participation in the war she does not succeed. According to equity, as I understand that term, I cannot see the reason for this. In the first place the department decides in the lifetime of the returned soldier that he is entitled to a pension because of his participation in the war and the consequence thereof in sickness or in diminution of health, and he is given a pension, whatever the amount may be. At any rate, the principle is there. Now, if he has a right to a pension for himself and his family while he is living, why should the country discontinue the pension at a time when it is needed more than ever, when the head of the family has gone?
I have quite a number of cases in mind. I know one returned soldier who died leaving a widow and seven children, and a few months after his death the pension was cut off so that his dependents were left to starve. If there is any equity, if there is any sense of justice in the legislature of the country in granting a pension to a man because of his participation in the war, I think there is more reason why a pension should be granted to his widow and children; there is all the more reason for a pension when the head of the family has disappeared. I do not think that we should put upon the shoulders of the widow the burden of proving that the cause of death is the result of her husband's participation in the war. I submit to the committee that if a change can be made in the law to make provision for widows and children, it

Supply

Pensions-European War
should be made as soon as possible, because the present state of things is extremely unjust to both the war widow and the children that are left.


Howard Charles Green: It seems quite clear that the time has come when we should review the general principles upon which pensions are paid to a soldier's widow, and I suggest that it be done at this session. If however the minister does not see fit to do this, he could at least do something at this session-which would not be contrary to the general principles of soldier legislation now in force-by giving to the pension commission some discretion in order that they might help the pensioner's widow who is not entitled to a widow's pension. This help might be given for a period of say one year, as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver North.
I believe that the pension commission has the confidence of the soldier body right across Canada and might be relied upon to exercise in a fair way any discretion given it. I would point out that in the War Veterans' Allowance Act such discretion is given now to the War Veterans' Allowance Board in section 9, which reads:
After the death of any recipient an amount not exceeding the sum of twelve monthly instalments of the allowance which the recipient was receiving at the time of his death may at the discretion of the committee be paid to his widow or for the benefit of any child.
In section 22, subsection 8 of the Pension Act there is a similar provision, which has existed since 1919:
When a member of the forces in receipt of an additional pension on account of his child or children dies under conditions which do not entitle his dependents to a pension, a bonus equivalent to such additional pension for one year at the rate being paid at the time of death shall be paid by the commission for the benefit of the child or children to such person as the commissioners may direct.
I suggest earnestly that the government bring in some amendment to the Pension Act which will give the pension commission discretion in the matter. That discretion need not be exercised in every case; if the widow did not need assistance she would not get it. But the commission should be given some discretion in order that help might be given to a needy widow and her family for a period of at least twelve months after the death of her husband.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I sympathise with
the minister in his problems and I greatly appreciate the earnestness with which he attacks them. I would bring to the attention of the committee two considerations that greatly influence us. In the first place it must be borne in mind that the dependents

in question are trying to carry on under conditions where jobs are not to be found. That is something so widely different from anything with which we were familiar as boys or with which our parents, who passed on to us our attitudes, were familiar that it is likely to be difficult for us to think quite dispassionately and without bias about their problem.
The great question is:	If the widow with,
say, three children is left without the small pension that she has been receiving, and neither she nor any of her children can find employment, what is going to become of them? One needs only to think seriously for a moment or two to see how desperate such a situation is immediately after the death of the bread-winner.
There is another serious matter which I think we are prone to forget. Let me say that we do not wish to advance our ideas to the point where they become obnoxious to the house, but I do submit that we should all bear in mind that the things which these widows need, which they want, are all here in Canada in abundance. Only tea and perhaps citrous fruits and a few other things need to be brought in from outside. The coal is here, the milk, cream, butter, eggs, cheese, meat, wool; everything they need is here. Are we to confess then that as intelligent members of parliament in this remarkably intelligent age we cannot devise means whereby, of the abundance with which providence has amply blessed us, we cannot give sufficient to support those who are suffering in consequence of the self-sacrifice of heroic men who went to the defence of this country?


Mr. QUELCH :: In view of the interest in
this question of pensions for widows of exsoldiers, would it not be possible for the minister to put the matter before a committee of returned men at this session so that they may bring in an amendment to the Pension Act making pensions available to widows of pensioners who have died? It has always seemed to me a strange thing that we make allowance for the wife of a pensioner while the pensioner is alive, and that as soon as he dies, when the widow is in far greater need, wTe cut that pension off. It is not very much to the credit of Canada that we have exsoldiers' widows all over the country being forced on relief because the country has not recognized their claim.


Miss MacPHAIL:: This morning I received a letter from the Durham District Veterans' Club setting out in detail the case of the widow of a returned soldier who died in the late summer. He had been getting a pension

Supply-Pensions-European War
for himself and family of 887.75 and at his death this terminated. That widow and her two children-a boy and a girl aged nine and eight-are left without any income. The exsoldiers in the town and district of Durham wrote me on behalf of this woman, and advanced the arguments which have already been presented to the committee.
There is one other thing which as a woman I feel like saying for these women who cannot be here to speak for themselves; that is that they have had in many eases a particularly difficult life, caring for men who were ill. In this case the man had a leg amputated; he was in hospital twenty-five months afterwards and was never able to work. These women have a trying life taking care of perhaps ill and in many cases irritable patients. They have not the same chance of providing for their children, because so often the income is small. It is hard on a mother to see her children not getting all the advantages that she feels that under other circumstances they might have had. I have talked to so many women-or putting it the other way, so many have talked to me-about this particular problem of the strain on the nervous system of always living with a person whose nerves were shattered by an inhuman experience, the experience of war. The wives of these soldiers have themselves served their country in a way that is not easy, not in the field it is true but by being the person who provides the tenderness and understanding and home life for men who did serve in the theatre of war and have come back wrecks from that experience. And many who look well are still nervous wrecks. When the husband goes, these women face the new problem of not having anything with which to provide for their families. At least I think the department should have discretionary power, and where a mother is left with children and no way to provide for them she ought not to be asked to go on relief. We are not fair in asking that. Eventually I believe something will have to be done; so if eventually, why not begin now?


Frederick Cronyn Betts: The remarks of the hon.
member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) lead me to make a suggestion. Obviously it is a very cruel thing that when an ex-soldier who has been receiving pension dies, his widow, if his pension has been less than fifty per cent, is obliged to go to the pension authorities and ask that the pension be continued. My submission is that it would be far better if that procedure were reversed and the onus placed upon the crown; in other words, that where a soldier in receipt of pension dies,
the pension be continued, and if the crown feels that death was not attributable to war service it should rest with the crown, not with the widow, to approach the court.


Mr. YOUNG:: The other night I brought before this committee a particular case. It was not my desire on that occasion to bring in extraneous matter. I wanted to confine myself to the discussion of the case itself. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) said he had been approached by many persons in western Canada who had not been able to get the pension they desired. I may say that if any hon. member of this house thinks that this is the only case on which I have been approached, I would say that I have had many others-very many. That case', however, seemed so very definite, and there was such feeling about it, that I thought it right to bring that particular case before the committee. I was a little disappointed that the leader of the opposition brought his great ability as a lawyer to bear to show the committee that the appeal court was quite right in its decision in that case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the decisions, it was.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I am prompted by the remarks a moment ago of the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) to say that I think his experience would be borne out by that of a great many others, certainly by those who have to deal with the pension appeal court. During the discussion of that case the leader of the opposition said there was no evidence on which any other finding could be based.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is not what I said; I said there was no evidence establishing the cause of death.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Well, if there is any doubt I had better read what was said. The report will be found at page 619 of Hansard:
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.
Then he went on to say at page 621.
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.

Supply-Pensions-European War
I had not time that evening to read into the record the evidence-it would have taken me an hour or more-therefore it was not presented to this committee except in a fragmentary way. Let me say that the only positive proof which existed that the man's artificial leg failed to work properly at that particular moment went out of existence when he was killed on that street. There was no other positive evidence on that point. But there is abundant evidence to show that he walked with great difficulty, that he walked with a sort of circular motion of that leg, that when he walked backward he found it very difficult to walk at all. There is some suggestion that the leg was a little longer than it should have been. And there is a great deal of evidence that he had great difficulty with the leg. His wife stated positively at the inquiry that on more than one occasion this leg had failed to function. But I did not have time, and up to the present have not had time, to present all the evidence which was given at the coroner's inquiry, and also before the quorum. I am bound to say that this case was heard by one or two quorums and refused. It was heard by another quorum, one member of which decided that there was not sufficient evidence and another member of which decided there was sufficient evidence. They had the evidence before them. Knowing that there was that difference of opinion, what took place? A third member was called in. Who was that third member? As I said the other night, it was Mr. Justice Taylor of the court of king's bench of Manitoba. Am I to understand that the leader of the opposition would suggest to this committee, or to anyone, that Mr. Justice Taylor gave a verdict without there being in his opinion anything in the evidence to justify it? I am quite sure that neither the leader of the opposition nor any other hon. member would take such a view. Certainly that was not the case. But I was very much interested in the fact that the defence which was offered that night was a defence of the president of the court of appeal, Mr. Justice Hyndman, who, the right hon. gentleman said, had been his friend of long standing.
I was just wondering why there was not the same defence of Mr. Justice Taylor's decision. I should have been extremely glad if I could have had the support of an hon. member skilled in the law, to the extent to which the right hon. leader of the opposition is skilled, in favour of trying to get justice for persons who came before that court of appeal. Yes, I would have been very glad of that. But I regret to say that the only thing I heard from the leader of the opposition

was a defence of this particular gentleman, Mr. Justice Hyndman, who is the president of the court of appeal. The right hon. gentleman says that the appeal court was set up to determine questions of law. I shall quote from the discussion which took place on the evening of February 18, as it is recorded at page 620 of Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course this is all out of order.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It is the same debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Perhaps my right hon. friend does not like it, but it is the same debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Anything the hon. member said would not be of the least concern to me, or anybody else I have ever heard of.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Perhaps I did not get the remark quite correctly, but I might say this, that if my right hon. friend thinks his remarks are taken seriously by the people of Canada, all he has to do is to look around this house, and many other houses in Canada, and he will see they do not pay very much attention to them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They seem to be by one person.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The right hon. gentleman said:
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-
And then upon being interrupted he said:
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.
Then I asked:
Would the right hon. gentleman not say the same thing about Mr. Justice Taylor?
Later on in my remarks I said that perhaps the right hon. gentleman meant to say that Mr. Justice Taylor's heart had got a little in advance of his head. Then the right hon. gentleman said:
I did not express any opinion about Mr. Justice Taylor.
Again at page 620 the right hon. gentleman said:
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 wish to point out that in this particular case we had two judges. I believe both were well qualified. They passed on the case.

Supply-Pensions-European War
Surely if the benefit of the doubt clause means anything there is abundant evidence even now before this committee to show that that clause was not followed by the pension appeal court. We had a quorum, on which an eminent judge sat as one member, which granted the pension. As I said the other night, and wish now to repeat, any time a quorum grants a pension, that pension should be allowed and be given to the applicant, whether to a soldier or the dependent of a soldier. We should not have persons referring these cases to the court of appeal.
Whaf happened? Of all the pensions which had been granted by the quorum but which went to appeal, which the reviewing officer had asked that they be sent to appeal, more than one-third were taken away by the pension appeal court. Surely there is something hard and cold about all that. I stated the other day that in 1936 and 1937 out of the 4,781 cases which went before the court of appeal, only 43 were granted on appeal. As I have just stated, in respect of those appeals by the crown from decisions of the quorum m favour of the applicants, more than one-third were taken away.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for London gave his experience when he said that he believed the court was not functioning in a manner which was in the interests of the soldiers. He said that the court was hard-hearted, or used words to that effect. I suggest that the figures I gave to-day and the other evening would indicate that this pension court of appeal is of no use at all so far as the soldiers are concerned. I suggest to the minister that if -we are satisfied the court of appeal is not functioning in the interests of the country, the soldiers or their dependents-and I want to include all three- then it is our duty to abolish it.
During my experience in the house, which began in 1925 or 1926, I have never known, in connection with any of the legislation, of a case in which politics was mixed up. But when the pension appeal court was set up when the leader of the opposition was in office I noticed that every member happened to be of one political stripe. I know, too, that when the present minister appointed the chairman of the pension commission he was not looking at political stripes. In fact, he chose a man as chairman who does not happen to be of the same political stripe as himself, and in doing that I take it he was trying to get the best man available.
When men are retired from the bench I do not believe in putting them to work in other positions. I say that, whether it applies to the pension appeal court, the tariff board
or anything else. I am obliged to say that I do not believe in giving any man in that position two salaries. Mr. Justice Hyndman receives $8,000 a year as president of the pension appeal court. He receives 81,000 more than the other members of the pension appeal court, and in addition he receives a retiring allowance of S6,000 a year because of his having been a judge of the Alberta court. That makes a total of $14,000 a year. I say here and now that when a man is retired- I do not care wTho he is-and is receiving a pension of $6,000 a year, he is not entitled to be re-hired in some other capacity or to another position carrying a salary of $8,000 a year.
I do not bring up this matter with the idea of casting reflection upon anyone; I am simply presenting the facts as I see them. I am convinced beyond any doubt, certainly beyond any reasonable doubt, that the present pension appeal court is not viewing the soldiers' problems in a light which can be considered to be even reasonable. The benefit of the doubt clause states that the pension appeal court shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and the medical information, all reasonable inferences in favour of the applicant. I ask myself, Was that done in the particular case which I laid before this committee? The act does not say positive evidence; it says all the circumstances of the case. I have not the time or the desire to outline all the circumstances of that case. I ask, Were reasonable inferences drawn in favour of the applicant? I do not think any hon. member of the committee who was present on that night or who is present this afternoon, would say that that was done.
Since that time I have received communications from many people, including eminent legal gentlemen, who have stated that from the fragmentary evidence which I gave they feel sure that if the benefit of the doubt clause had been properly interpreted there was no doubt as to what should have been done in that case. Hon. members who were in the chamber that night have spoken to me about it and with one exception they have all said that in their opinion the benefit of the doubt clause was not invoked' in favour of the applicant. They told me that had that been done they felt sure the pension would have been granted.
I am going to appeal to the minister to give all these matters his serious consideration. In my opinion this court is not functioning in the .manner in which this parliament expected and intended it should function. Consequently it is our duty to see that this state

Supply-Pensions-European War
of affairs shall not continue any longer. Sometimes I ask myself just why we are here. We have a responsibility to those whom we represent. We all represent a great many of these unfortunate persons who were wounded during the war and I submit that we must rise in our places and make our position definite and clear no matter whom we may offend. Again I ask the minister to consider all the facts of this case. He is a sensible man, one of the best friends the soldiers of this country have ever had, and I am sure he will realize that this court of appeal is not functioning as it should.


Howard Charles Green: I asked the minister the other night if he had any figures to show whether the number of first applications was diminishing or increasing.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not the definite figures before me, but just before coming into the chamber I inquired of the pension commission and was told that for a while during the summer the number had increased, but it was becoming almost normal. There will be a slight decrease for the year.


Howard Charles Green: Two years ago this parliament put a dead-line on first applications. The dead-line for those who served in England or Canada only was July 1, 1936, but for those who served in France it was extended to January 1, 1940. I suggest that that deadline should be extended for another two years. The new amendments are working satisfactorily, and there are still many men who received gunshot wounds but have not applied for pension. I suggest the minister give serious consideration to granting this extension.


Charles Gavan Power: It is receiving consideration.


Mr. HAYHURST:: From what has been said this afternoon it would seem that members on all sides are in favour of granting some kind of pension to those who served in some capacity in the war or to their dependents. It has also been brought up by other hon. members that those who remained behind should receive some recompense. We have with us this afternoon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and it seems to me that these ministers should work together to solve this problem.
This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture said that he could not find a market for the cattle referred to by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). The minister stated that there was a shortage of space in vessels going to Great Britain. We all know that

the tremendous surplus of wheat accumulated by the board of which Mr. McFarland was the head was sold at a loss to this country of over $2,000,000. Is that correct? We sell our wheat abroad at a loss; we find it impossible to find a market for our cattle, and yet we have all these people starving.
While I do not think the platitude about poverty in the midst of plenty should be referred to too often by members on this side of the chamber, at the same time there seems to be something anomalous in a situation which does not provide sufficient purchasing power to those who served with honour in the great war and their dependents. We feel that the different departments of the government should be able to solve this situation so that all people, including the returned soldiers-I have been a soldier but I did not serve in the great war-should have sufficient purchasing power. Why should we just worry about the widows and the orphans? We should consider all the people in Canada.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health says that these pensions cannot be granted because the Minister of Finance will not let him have the necessary money. He admits that the problem is practically unsolved. It seems to me that we should get together to consider the situation. We have this food and these cattle in abundance-I have a large number of cattle myself that I cannot get rid of at a profit if they are sold under the orthodox system of finance-and yet many people cannot purchase the necessities of life.
I trust that my remarks will not be considered as irrelevant. I simply state the situation as I see it. We hope that the government will do their best to solve this problem.


Mr.   POWTER@: I thank my hon. friend for his suggestion. If only I could come to believe, or better still, if only I could get my colleague the Minister of Finance to believe, in the social credit theories, then all my difficulties would be washed away. All I would have to do would be to call upon the benighted treasury board and tell them to pay this or pay that and they would do it. Unfortunately I have to make arrangements to pay in real money. My hon. friends in the far comer may not have to do that, but I do. I must pay in the kind of money that everyone expects. I have not proceeded far enough in my financial studies to know whether or not it is good money; but I do know that the people to whom the Department of Pensions and National Health have to make payments want the kind of money the treasury board will issue, and not the kind of money my hon. friends would give us. If they can

Supply-Pensions-European War
settle that for me, I am quite willing to issue all the cheques necessary, or ask the treasury board to give me all the cheques that are requested.


John Horne Blackmore: I am very glad that the minister has made that remark, because our suggestion was that he pay in goods, and I am wagering that these widows would just as thankfully accept coal, flour, butter, eggs, cheese or a great many other things.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Where would you get the goods?


John Horne Blackmore: From the abundance in Canada.


Malcolm McLean: Who has it? I would suggest that if my hon. friends possess such an abundance of goods as they so often speak of, they might give some of it to the people in their own province or anywhere else they happen to be who are in need.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: This discussion is entirely out of order.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) that the deadline for applications for those who served in a theatre of war be extended to 1942. Formerly there was incorporated in the act a provision that if there was on record in the documents an injury, wound or disease due to service, it should be considered as an application; but that section has been deleted from the act. There is a large number of men who have not yet made application for various reasons, possibly because of an independence of spirit or because they are residing at some remote point. I know the minister will take every step necessary to protect their interests.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear to the minister the other evening in requesting information in regard to what extent the medical men under the jurisdiction of the Canadian pension commission have sanction to authorize treatment. May I ask this simple question: What authority, if any, has the pension commission to authorize treatment for pensions?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know just what
my hon. friend means. The pension authorities have their own medical men who are primarily pension medical officers, and they examine for pension. There are no longer any water-tight compartments. The two branches of the department were at one time, as my hon. friend knows, absolutely distinct and separate, and there was perhaps some confusion, but at the present time they are not separate. Perhaps the best instance I know of to give as an illustration is that in
Regina where, owing to the retirement of the district administrator there, Doctor Wick-wire, on account of age, the position of administrator was opened, and the pension doctor, a man formerly under the control of the pension commission, took his place, and so the two positions are now one. The man is at one and the same time a pension medical examiner and district administrator and chief medical officer. I think similiar conditions obtain pretty generally throughout the service.
I made some inquiries following my hon. friend's question the other evening, and I think I can state on the authority of both branches that there is no case of strife or dissension between the commission medical men proper and those engaged in treatment. There are occasionally matters of administrative detail which have to be worked out, but there is no conflict. I doubt very much whether we could ever go back to the system which existed prior to 1927 before the Scott report was made, when indiscriminately pension medical men and treatment doctors had the right to order men in or out of hospital, whereby almost endless confusion resulted, because it was impossible to make a proper check under those circumstances. Now that their work has been coordinated to the extent to which I believe it is I do not think there is any necessity of following any other procedure than that followed at the present time.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am not suggesting that
there is any conflict. What I am suggesting is that perhaps the treatment branch has no definite responsibility with regard to the treatment required for pensioners, and perhaps I can best illustrate that by giving a type case:	Regimental No. 103431, private X;
Canadian pension commission, No. 54107. This man enlisted on March 1, 1916, and served in France.


Mr POWER:: Is it the Regina case?


Charles Grant MacNeil: No; he is resident in
Seattle. He was discharged on January 14, 1918, as medically unfit. On enlistment he had operative scars resulting from varicose veins, both legs, which were not considered to be causing any disability at the time of enlistment. During service he was treated for dental caries, I.C.T. right foot, and neurasthenia. The medical board on February 1, 1917, reports the condition of shell shock, also hallux valgus. Pension is in effect for disability resulting from (1) neurasthenia, (2) varicose veins and (3) hallux valgus. The condition of neurasthenia is considered to have been incurred during service. The conditions of varicose veins and hallux valgus
82S

Supply-Pensions-European War
are considered to be pre-enlistment conditions, obvious on enlistment, and aggravated one-fifth of the entire condition by service in France. Entire disability, forty per cent. Pensionable disability, sixteen per cent. That describes the condition of this pensioner.
On November 26, 1937, the United States Veterans' Administration in Seattle, Washington, reports that the pensioner has very marked varicose veins, left lower extremities, with a moderate amount of hallux valgus, and that surgical treatment is very necessary, and it is recommended.
On December 17, 1937, Doctor F. W. Blake-man, Department of Pensions and National Health, who, I understand, deals with all cases outside Canada, advised the United States Veterans' Administration as follows:
We have received the medical report of November 26, recommending operation for varicose veins. As this condition ante-dated enlistment, and as it was only aggravated to a very slight degree as a result of service, it is not considered that the extent of this aggravation is sufficient to warrant this department in undertaking any major treatment expenses. If, however, the condition can be treated by injection method at the out-patient clinic, we are prepared to authorize this form of treatment as a special consideration.
On January 5, 1938, the United States Veterans' Administration advises the Department of Pensions and National Health:
We have no facilities in this office for this type of treatment for such a severe degree of disability.
The point in this case is incorporated in this statement, and I wish to refer to one aspect of it, again in discussing the care of patients:
Following the refusal by the department to provide surgical treatment for the pensionable condition of the above named, the Canadian pension commission increased his pension on the grounds that his disability had increased.
I submit that that is a clear-cut case where it would be in the public interest as well as in the interest of the pensioner himself to grant treatment. As I understand the situation, the pension medical authorities have no power to do anything more than refer this case to the treatment branch, and they cannot recommend or authorize treatment.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend is not complaining that the man's pension was increased, is he?
Mr. MacNElL: No.


Charles Gavan Power: That is what his complaint amounts to.
Mr. MacNElL: May I point out that the man required treatment, and that the men

are more interested in having their disability treated than in getting an increased award of pension.


Charles Gavan Power: He gets an increased pension, which would probably permit him to get another doctor to treat him.
Mr. MacNElL: I bring up this type of case to show the necessity for some regulation to cover the point. I have another case here.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be glad to have the particulars.
Mr. MacNElL: It is a case requiring dental treatment. I am referring, not to cases requiring dental treatment because of injuries to the jaw, but to cases where the condition of the mouth is a menace to health with a bearing on the pensionable disability, and where it would be in the interests of the pension commission as well as of the pensioner himself to have treatment extended.
This is the case of regimental No. 40686; private X; resident in Elgin, Ontario. He is in receipt of a pension at the rate of fifty per cent for pulmonary tuberculosis. The departmental medical representative at Elgin recommended dental treatment, tvhich he considered to be vitally necessary in this case to prevent a relapse. I mentioned this case in passing the other evening. The medical representative considered dental treatment vitally necessary to prevent a relapse, and pointed out that examination of the man's chest revealed very suspicious signs of a possibly active tuberculosis. Under the revised regulations effective in June last, dental treatment was refused by the department, presumably on the grounds that this pensioner was not under treatment by the department in hospital.


Charles Gavan Power: The regulations in regard to dental treatment, to which my hon. friend refers, are more generous than the former ones.
Mr. MacNElL: I said the dental regulations effective in June last. The department will not extend dental treatment to a class 2 patient unless he actually goes into an institution to receive such treatment. I think the minister well knows that a case of tuberculosis requires the very best in the way of nourishing food, and therefore the condition of the mouth is extremely important. If there is anything that interferes with proper mastication of food, the man does not get proper nourishment and is unable to keep his tuberculous condition in an arrested state.
Under the previous regulations this man would have received the necessary dental treatment on the authority of the department; but under the new regulations it is refused

Supply-Pensions-European TFar
although recommended by the department's medical representative, and this may result in a definite physical break-down. As the minister knows, we spend vast sums of money treating tuberculous pensioners in sanatoria, to arrest the progress of the disease. The present policy of the treatment branch, if persisted in, may ultimately lead to a breakdown of a large number of these tuberculous cases, necessitating further sanatorium treatment, increasing the cost to the state, as well as increasing the man's disabling pensionable condition. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction. The criticism is not directed against the minister; the dissatisfaction is with the treatment branch, because of what may be termed petty, chiselling tactics. I ask the minister to give an assurance that the pension commission'shall have the absolute right to authorize treatment when it is indicated in the interests of the pensioner as well as in the interests of-


Charles Gavan Power: I will not do that. I will give the hon. member the assurance that I will not, because it would be very bad administration; that is the principal reason. But in so far as telling every officer in the department, wherever he is, from the highest to the lowest, that there is to be "no chiselling on the soldiers," that was done the first time I came in. There is not going to be too much petting of them, nor will there be any chiselling anywhere.
The hon. member will recollect, if his memory takes him over the years as mine does, that all the way through it has been the habit to blame some one person or some one branch. At one time no member of parliament dare mention the pension commission in this chamber; if he did, immediately there was a storm. The pension commissioners, and particularly the chairman of the commission, were persons to be avoided. The chairman's name was not even respectable, and the very idea of that commission, or anyone having anything to do with pensions, looking after the treatment of the poor soldiers, would have raised a revolution in this house. That was only because for some reason or another the soldiers had taken an aversion to the personality of the man who was then in charge of pensions. At another time it was some other official. But in spite of the particular antipathy, rightly or wrongly, of certain hon. members or of certain soldier associations, the administration of the department must go on, and I cannot give the assurance to any hon. member that because he does not happen to like the colour of the hair of some of the doctors in my department I am going to change the whole system. That would be neither fair nor reasonable.
As I have said, in years gone by we got ourselves into endless difficulties by having two authorities having equal jurisdiction over the persons who were to be treated in our hospitals. It was found after the fullest investigation by an outside body, a firm of accountants and experts, that this system could not work, and the result was that we arrived at what we are doing now. I did not create what now exists; but I certainly would not like to bring about a kind of earthquake in the whole administration of the department, particularly when by good will and coordination we can get far better results, and I think that is what we are now getting.
As to the cases cited by the hon. member, let me say something which perhaps will not please some people. There has been a tendency, which I am trying to make disappear as far as the department is concerned, on the part of both the soldiers and the department to argue a case purely from the technical standpoint. They are chasing one another around by the tail. The house passes some piece of legislation with the laudable intention of bringing under the benefits of pension law or of treatment a particular class of people. Immediately others who are no more entitled to it than the man in the moon come in under it. The result is that in the minds of some of the officers there may be a hardening against people who take technical advantage of the act to obtain certain things.
One of the worst cases with reference to treatment, one that has given me the most trouble, is that of a man who, after having been discharged from the United States army because of tuberculosis, was three days in the Canadian army before he went to hospital, where he remained. We have spent $35,000 on him, and never a day passed but there were complaints from that man that he was not getting enough pay and allowances. He received pay and allowances from 1917 on. Very recently, unfortunately, he died. But that man continually bothered us and had half the returned soldier organizations in this country bothering us, trying to take advantage of some technical point that his disability was aggravated during the three days' service he had in the Canadian forces prior to being hospitalized.
Sometimes the soldiers go too far. If there has been any tendency in the department to resort to technicalities-a tendency which I hope and believe I have been able to check by constantly repeating that such is not the policy of the department-it has been to some extent the fault of those who endeavoured to take advantage of the legislation lo obtain for themselves benefits to which they were not entitled. If there are complaints from all

Supply-Pensions-European War
over the country-and I receive them, as no doubt every hon. member does-that certain people are drawing one hundred per cent pension to which they are not entitled, it is because of this very tendency; they have taken advantage, perhaps properly, of the act because possibly we have not given sufficient consideration to all the implications of the legislation we introduced.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I wish to make it clear that I am not animated by personal antagonism to any particular official of the department, nor am I directing this criticism to the minister. I see no reason why the minister should have entered into such an elaborate defence of his department. But in the last two years, from constant contact with a number of cases, I am convinced there have been definite indications of some tightening up in the application of regulations-


Charles Gavan Power: I deny that.


Charles Grant MacNeil: -by certain officials in the treatment branch. That is evident as you meet the men, not "lead swingers," who have been deprived of various attentions that they formerly received. I think I am competent to judge of a "lead swinger." I am here citing the cases of two men who gave evidence of making an effort to reestablish themselves; they desired treatment in order that they might carry on in their occupations rather than be wholly dependent on a pension.


Charles Gavan Power: I absolutely deny there has been any tightening up of the treatment regulations since I came into office. On the contrary, the hon. member will find that the system is as wide open as it can be; that instructions have been given everywhere, "The regulations are not there to keep people from getting treatment; they are there to enable them to get it." That is the theory on which the officers of my department are instructed to act.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I accept the minister's
assurance and I believe every hon. member knows that his attitude towards the problem has been as he has stated.


Charles Gavan Power: I resent the implication that since I came in we have tightened up. It is not true.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I withdraw any remark
of mine which leaves the inference that the minister has been in any way responsible. The minister must be aware, however, that at certain times officials in endeavouring to draw up regulations may lop off here and there, perhaps unjustly, men who should receive pension or treatment. When I men-

tioned that period I was not referring specifically to the time during which the department has been under the present minister. I am not developing an attack against the department.


Charles Gavan Power: I wish you were; there would be something to answer.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am merely suggesting
that there should be a regulation whereby, when the pensions medical authority passes in favour of the pensioner, that judgment shall be acted upon without hesitation by the treatment branch. If the minister can give some assurance that this can be done-and I believe that he has the power to do so-the trouble in this regard will disappear immediately.


Mr. CLARK (York-Sunbury):: Is there any possibility of a pension being increased in a case of this kind? A man was given a pension of S17.25 a month, being then able to work. Subsequently he was unable to work and was advised that if it could be shown that he had a defective heart condition, further consideration would be given him. He was examined and was advised by the pension commission that there was no change in his pensionable condition since his previous examination, and under these circumstances no consideration could be given him. This man was unable to work; he is still not able to do anything. Is there any possibility of an increase in a case of that kind?


Charles Gavan Power: I assume it was decision of the pension commission, which alone has authority to assess and award or to refuse pensions.


Howard Charles Green: We have had complaints about quorums of the commission taking the opinion of medical men who live in a different city from the applicant. For example, a man may appear before a quorum in Calgary and have medical evidence given there, but then his file is sent to a doctor in Toronto or Montreal for an opinion.


Charles Gavan Power: I never thought that medical science was confined to one locality. If a man is a good doctor he is as capable of diagnosing diseases in Calgary as in Toronto. Perhaps, however, I misunderstand the hon. gentleman's statement.


Howard Charles Green: The point is this, that the man is actually seen in person by the doctor in Calgary and not by the doctor in Montreal or Toronto as the case may be. I understand the departmental hospitals are all in large centres. Would it not be possible to have experts in the different cities pass upon these cases only after actually seeing the

Supply-Pensions-European War
applicants, instead of the quorums simply referring a man's file to a doctor in another city who has never seen the applicant? There is a good deal of complaint in that regard, and I am wondering whether it is not possible to alter the present method.


Charles Gavan Power: It is a little difficult to bring every applicant who claims that he has a disability, from Calgary to Montreal or Toronto for examination by specialists there. It would be costly.


Howard Charles Green: Could he not be examined by an expert in Calgary?


Mr. LENNARD:: I wish to draw to the attention of the committee a certain case, not as an indvidual complaint but as representing the position of a considerable body of imperial war veterans in Canada. For the purpose I might read part of a letter I wrote to the chairman of the pension commission on October 30, 1937. I shall not mention the name. The letter refers to No. 510250 and reads:
I have had drawn to my attention the case of the above mentioned man, who is confined to the Mountain Sanatorium, Hamilton, Ontario, suffering from T.B.
He was an acting sergeant in the Army Service Corps, 3rd Divisional train for several years when through a shortage of officers in the artillery of the Imperial army, he joined that force and served in same for several years until gassed at the front. He served in the Imperial Army in the 168th Siege Battery 68th Brigade.
As you know, during the war, there was a certain amount of encouragement offered capable men in the Canadian ranks to join and take out a commission in the Imperials. This encouragement being of course on solely patriotic grounds. I feel, however, that there is some weight to my argument that while this man was gassed while in the Imperial forces, he left Canada in the Canadian ranks and is, in my opinion, a responsibility of the Canadian government.
Two days later I received from General McDonald a letter in reply in which he said that under the Pension Act nothing could be done. He suggested, however, that this man might apply under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. Unfortunately the man died four days after, though that is not the point. What I w'ant to emphasize is this. If a man leaves Canada in the Canadian forces and is allowed to transfer to another unit, our responsibility to him as Canadians does not cease.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to the neurological cases. The situation that existed and tvas discussed in 1936 has not improved; in fact it is getting worse. I would ask that these men receive the protection originally intended by parliament under section 11, subsection 1 (b) of the Pension Act, which reads:
No deduction shall be made from the degree of actual disability of any member of the forces who has served in a theatre of actual war on account of any disability or disabling condition which existed in him at the time at which he became a member of the forces; but no pension shall be paid for a disability or disabling condition which at such time was wilfully concealed, was obvious, was not of a nature to cause rejection from service, or was a congenital defect.
The amendment, for which I hope to get the approval of the minister, is that after the words "congenital defect," there be added the words "of a nature other than mental, psychopathic or neuropathic." The interpretation placed upon the words "congenital defect" results in great injustice to those who suffer from certain types of mental or nervous disease. The problem has appreciable proportions; there are 4,500 suffering from nervous diseases, and possibly a large percentage of these would come under this particular section.
I shall not attempt to argue with the doc-' tors. I know that many eminent members of the medical profession have expressed opinions on this matter, but it is far more important to look at it from a common sense point of view and particularly in the light of the original intention of parliament. When you consider the history of the Pension Act, it was clearly the intention of parliament to pension for the entire disability apparent in a man at the time of his discharge, provided that any pre-enlistment condition was not obvious or wilfully concealed. The words " or was a congenital defect" were added subsequently to 1918 or 1919, but clearly for the purpose of dealing with such defects as a bodily deformity which perhaps was not apparent at first. It was never the intention of parliament to deprive those suffering from nervous or mental disease of the protection which this section affords. I might refer to some important statements made in days gone by with respect to the intention of this section. The Hon. Mr. Rowell, chairman of the parliamentary committee in 1919. made a statement in the house. The statement is reported in Hansard of 1919 at page 4174 and is as follows:
If a man reached France, then he gets a pension, regardless of any pre-existing disability. That is the law as it stands in the pension regulations.
Again, discussing the report of the committee he said, as reported at page 4176 of Hansard of the same year:
But the committee thought, if the army medical service passed a man through and he

Supply-Pensions-European War
actually got to the front, we should ignore any question of pre-existing disability and grant him a pension.
Mr. Archibald, then legal adviser of the board, made this statement:
Those who got to France are pensionable for any disability which exists in them at the time of discharge unless the disability was obvious or concealed on enlistment.
And he goes on at length to present the argument, concluding with these words:
The parliamentary committee of 1918 came to tlie conclusion that if any man reached a theatre of actual war it must be definitely presumed that he was absolutely fit upon enlistment unless it could be proved that there was a pre-enlistment disability which was concealed or was obvious, or was of so minor a nature as not to cause rejection from service.
In 1922 the pension board gave effect to a memorandum which became famous at that time. Paragraph B stated:
That in any case previously fully pensionably under section 25 (3) -
Now referred to as section 11 (b).
-and in which it is decided that aggravation on service lias ceased, further pension cannot be awarded after the aggravation is deemed to have disappeared.
That was dealt with by the Ralston commission, which reported as follows:
(b) The commission is further of the opinion that, in view of the circumstances hereinbefore set out as to the application of section B of the minute of September 29, 1921, all cases within the provisions of section 25 (3) in which pension has been discontinued on the ground that aggravation or increase of disability on service has ceased or disappeared, should be reviewed and adjusted on the basis of the ruling contained in the general instruction of June 26, 1922.
Appropriate action was taken subsequently by parliament and we have the present section 11 of the Pension Act.
Now the chief neuropsychiatrist of the department prior to the parliamentary committee of 1936 reviewed a number of these cases. I shall not go into the evidence taken on that occasion except to say that any change of diagnosis in anj' of these cases affected the decision of the pension commission. Apparently he made an attempt to review and analyse the files a little more closely, for the purpose, he said, of constructive treatment. Here, again, I am not questioning the professional status of this medical gentleman; but he does say with reference to men incapacitated to-day as a result of mental or nervous disorders, designated neurological or psychoneurotic cases or whatever the term may be, that in the majority of these cases the disabilities were of constitutional origin. He claimed that a man had a psychopathic per-

sonality of constitutional origin; that a neurosis, probably anxiety neurosis, was superimposed on that mental defect during service, and that subsequent to service this had subsided, or if still in existence was due to economic conditions or worry. Therefore entitlement would be admitted only in respect of the neurosis or what might remain in consequence of neurosis, but no consideration could be given under the Pension Act to the pre-existing psychopathic condition or mental defect which he contended was of constitutional origin. That results in depriving all these men of the protection designed for them by parliament as far back as 1918 and 1919.
To all intents and purposes this man was fit on enlistment, if any mental defect existed in him at that time, even though of constitutional origin, it did not deprive him of ability to carry on in his occupation or to serve effectively in France, nor was it apparent to anyone. As far as evidence goes in the majority of these cases, the man carried on in normal fashion, discharged the ordinary duties of life and the duties required of him in the army effectively until the break-down. The neurosis, or mental or nervous breakdown, or whatever term may be used, was the last straw, was the disturbing factor which resulted in a break-down. The very fact that they admit the presence of that neurosis is in my opinion admission of a very definite aggravation. As a layman I cannot see how it is possible to draw the line between the pre-existing psychopathic condition, if it did exist prior to enlistment, and the neurosis. Certainly, in combining the two, the result is almost disastrous to such a man. We have them in large numbers of cases to-day wholly incapacitated as a result of that experience in service. I consider that attempting to delve into the pre-enlistment history is grossly unfair and unjust. In the cases I have had opportunity to examine there is no evidence of pre-enlistment condition. The opinion ventured by the chief neuropsychiatrist of the department is based on medical theory; and, as they admit themselves, the science is not exact by any means. These decisions are hair-splitting and based on fine-spun medical theory alone.
As I see it, there is only one way now of extending to these men the protection originally intended by parliament, that is by a definite amendment to the act such as I have suggested. I think the minister is right in suggesting that no good purpose could be served by attacking the medical officer in question, though I disagree with him on his findings. I am well aware that a board of consultants brought down an opinion more or less upholding his views; but I point out

_________ Supply-Pensions-European War
that the doctor himself went on the stand and said he was approaching the problem from the point of view of constructive treatment, and I have not yet discovered that it has taken fully into consideration the consequences of that change of diagnosis when that opinion is passed on to the pension commission.
It may be said to the credit of the chairman of the pension commission that he has carried on attempting to administer justice in the majority of these cases with very little change of policy; nevertheless the situation of many of these men at the present time is precarious. 1 am well aware that the chief neuropsychiatrist is an official of the treatment branch and that the pension commission is under no obligation to accept his opinion; nevertheless when a man of his professional status does place on file a finding or diagnosis as I have described, and uses the term "of constitutional origin," that must of necessity influence the opinion of the medical men on the pension commission. It is held as being synonymous with the term "congenital defect". That interpretation of this section, in the light of the medical evidence and medical opinion expressed, is as I say depriving several thousand ex-service men of the protection originally intended under the section which I have quoted. I hope the minister will take the earliest opportunity to open this subject up by way of amendment to the act and make very clear that pre-enlistment conditions of this nature are not considered in regard to pensions in connection with those who served in a theatre of actual war.


Victor Quelch: I understood the minister to say a little while ago that he would like to give the committee a decision on the question of widows' pensions.


Charles Gavan Power: No, I did not. I am giving an opinion.


Victor Quelch: Well, would it not be possible to place that opinion before this committee at this session?


Charles Gavan Power: I hardly think so.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would it be possible for further negotiation to take place between the governments regarding the problems of exservice imperials at present in Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection to taking part in any negotiations. I would not mind a trip to Europe if the government is willing to send me to negotiate, but I do not know what I could say to them more than I have already said.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the decrease in this vote this year?


Charles Gavan Power: Based on the figures covering the operations of the Canadian pension commission over a period of nine months, I anticipate that the total amounts paid out in respect of European war pensions which, for the fiscal year 1936-37 amounted to $41,424,432.74, will, during the current fiscal year, show a reduction in the vicinity of $600,000. In that year $40,330,000 comprised the regular monthly payments made to pensioners. This amount will show during the current year a net decrease of about $130,000.
There are many factors and activities which produce variations both up and down in these amounts, but by far the major influences leading to decreases are the deaths of pensioners and the discontinuation of additional allowances to children on their reaching the age limit for pension-sixteen in the case of boys and seventeen in the case of girls. On the other hand, the amounts are increased by new awards of pension; by the extension of additional allowances to children beyond the age limit, who are continuing at school and whose parents are in necessitous circumstances, and by the increase in the rate of pension to existing pensioners whose disabilities are causing them greater handicap as the years go by. Other factors of a minor nature enter into the financial picture, but are not of any considerable moment in the aggregate.
Deaths of pensioners are providing a reduction of approximately $750,000, and the discontinuance of children's allowances, less the amount allowed for extension beyond the age limit, will account for about $480,000. These are the major factors on the decrease side.
On the other hand, new awards of pension, both to ex-soldiers themselves, who receive' entitlement, and to widows and dependents of Jhose who die, will amount to about $535,000, and the increased pension due to higher percentages being paid will add another $540,000. Other major factors which will have the effect of reducing the amount are the sums involved in what are described as first payments and retroactive payments. These are non-recurring payments which cover back periods for which pensioners are entitled to payments under the provisions of the act. In 1936-37 these payments accounted for $938,000. Largely due to the limitations on such payments provided for in the amending legislation of the session of 1936, during the present year these sums will show a very considerable reduction, and will not amount to more than $450,000, making a reduction under these items alone of nearlv half a million dollars.



Supply-Pensions-European War
In regard to actual numbers, new awards to disability pensioners have been slightly greater than the numbers of deaths and discontinuations. As at December 31 last there was a total of 79,881 disability pensions and 18,122 dependent pensions, a total of 98,003, involving an annual liability of $40,589,757.


Howard Charles Green: Is it expected there will be a decrease each year?


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot say; I do not know. It is likely, but probably not so substantial.


Howard Charles Green: In view of the different points which have been raised throughout the discussion of the item, would it be possible to have amendments made to the Pension Act at this session?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think the hon. member would expect me to tell him about any legislation at this time. For the moment I am considering whether I shall bring in legislation dealing with the Pension Act. So far no decision has been reached. That is the best answer I can give.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I do not wish to weary the minister and members of the committee; but as the minister has said, this is our one opportunity of advancing suggestions with respect to amendments to the act. I would suggest that if the minister is considering amendments he might consider the deletion of section 77. This section reads:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other act, no pension, or additional pension, awardable or payable under the provisions of this act, shall be awarded or paid,
(a)	under schedule A or schedule B of this act, to or in respect of any child of a member of the forces or pensioner, if such child shall have been born on or after the first day of May, 1933;
(b)	under schedule A of this act, to or in respect of the wife of a member of the forces or pensioner, if she shall have been married to him on or after the date aforementioned-
And so on. I think all hon. members clearly understand that this section was introduced as a measure of economy and at a time when national revenues were at a low ebb. According to statements by the government, that condition no longer persists. They say we are well on the way to economic recovery, and I think we may well do as has been done in Australia, namely, restore benefits formerly taken away because of economic pressure.
Under subsection (a) of this section a very curious situation arises. Two of the children of a pensioner may be receiving a pension,

but two of them born subsequent to May, 1933, may not receive a pension. This is a difficult situation to explain. Furthermore, with regard to wives who marry subsequently -say in 1932-it is becoming extremely difficult to explain to them why, even if a husband dies from disability held to be attributable to war service, a pension is not awarded. Many rather unfair anomalies exist, and I would ask the minister to take the matter into consideration when he has in mind amendments to the Pension Act, or if he decides to bring the act under review this session.


John Frederick Johnston: Carried?


Charles Grant MacNeil: As the item is not carried, there are a number of other suggestions. The item is not carried, is it? I have other suggestions to make.


John Frederick Johnston: The debate on it is closed, if it is carried.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection to permitting it to stand. We shall have to have another two hour sitting at some other time, with respect to the same item. If the item were passed, I should be very grateful to the hon. member; but if he does not wish it to pass, there is nothing I can say.


The CHAIRMAN:: I asked if it carried, and no one said anything. I assumed that it had.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Two members were on their feet.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister permit discussion of one or two points on another vote? If he would do that, we could pass it this evening.


Charles Gavan Power: I should be very glad to do that. I endeavoured the first night to limit discussion to the single item. Since then the freest discussion has been carried on, but I confess I was not very successful in my attempts to control the committee. It can run as wild as it likes now.


Howard Charles Green: We would like to help the minister, if he would agree to the discussion of pensions on another item.


Charles Gavan Power: There will be an item under the administration of the whole department, and there will be nothing to prevent an hon. member from making any suggestion he wishes at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Niagara Falls Observation Bridge
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. B. DAMUDE (Welland) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, to incorporate Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will be necessary for me to make any extended remarks at this time in connection with this bill. This is a bill to incorporate the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company which is to erect a bridge between Niagara Falls, Ontario, and Niagara Falls, New York. It is felt that this bridge will be very much in the interests of the public at this particular time.
Mr. HEAPS:: I notice by the newspapers that it is the intention of the Ontario government also to erect a bridge. May I ask the hon. member if the Ontario government have expressed any wishes in regard to the present bill?


Mr. DAMUDE:: To the best of my knowledge this bill is in accordance with the wishes of the Ontario government and the Niagara Falls park commission.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I may not be in order in asking this question, but I notice from the papers that one of the promoters of this com-,pany is related to one of the commissioners of the Niagara Falls park commission and another is related to the Minister of Highways of Ontario. If this report in the papers is correct, it does not seem quite right to me that this bill should go through.


Arthur Byron Damude: I think the statement with respect to the first gentleman is correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Which one is that?


Arthur Byron Damude: The brother of a park commissioner, Mr. Kaumeyer, is named in the bill. There appears in the bill no blood relation^ of the Minister of Highways of Ontario, but his law partner is mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Lord's Day Act.
He said: This amendment to the Lord's Day Act is intended to bring about a better 51952-531
observance of one of the ten commandments, namely, the one that says, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." I do not think I need say very much about this bill to hon. members as I have often noticed the atmosphere of piety that falls over the house when you, Mr. Speaker, lead us in prayer at the opening of our daily sittings. I am sure that this bill will meet with the approval of the house.
It has often been said that corporations have no heart.. Two centuries ago Sir Edward Coke, who had much to do with the development of the law concerning joint stock companies, said that a corporation cannot commit treason, nor can it be excommunicated; for it has no soul. Hence the behaviour of corporations must be regulated by law. Certain works of necessity or of mercy are permitted to be done on Sunday, and it is not my intention to restrict the list of exceptions now given in the act.
Regretful as it may be, the fact is that certain corporations in the province of Quebec have been violating the provisions of the Lord's Day Act. Before saying anything further, let me comment on the fact that the directorates of these corporations are made up of all nationalities. There are French Canadians, English Canadians and American Canadians, probably in greater number, on these directorates. Our clergy have conducted a most strenuous campaign against these violations and complaints have been made by all classes in all communities without avail.
Our failure to put an end to these violations of the Lord's Day Act is evidently due in part to the fact that the penalties now provided are not severe enough and also to the fact that our working men or labourers are not sufficiently organized to resist the unlawful commands of their employers. Be it as it may, one must come to the conclusion that the penalties provided by the act have not been a sufficient deterrent. Section 14 of the act reads as follows:
Every corporation which authorizes, directs or permits its employees to carry on any part oi the business of such corporation in violation ot any of the provisions of this act, shall be liable, on summary conviction before two justices of the peace, for the first offence, to a penalty not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars and not less than fifty dollars, and, for each subsequent offence, to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and not less than one hundred dollars, m addition to any other penalty prescribed by law for the same offence.
The amended section will read as follows:
Any person, being a director, an officer, a superintendent or an employee of a corporation, to whose direction or orders any employee is by the terms or conditions of his employment
Lord's Day Act
[Stage Direction]
bound to conform, who authorizes, directs or permits any such last mentioned employee of that corporation to carry on any part of the business of the corporation in violation of any of the provisions of this act, shall be liable, on summary conviction before two justices ot the peace, to the same penalties as those to which a corporation is liable under subsection one of this section or, for a first oltence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months and not less than one month, with or without hard labour, and for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and not less than two months, with or without hard labour.
It will not be necessary to impose the gaol sentence as this will be discretionary. Many corporations have been prosecuted repeatedly, but when that happens, there is always delay in the proceedings. They have the money to go to appeal or even to pay a fine if necessary; but quite often, during and after the proceedings, the same violations are carried on. Much repair work is done on Sundays that could well be carried on during the week.
It is manifest that these corporations find it profitable to pay	a fine and	then	continue
to violate the law.
Who would object to this amendment? Corporations which are observing the law will not object. I take this opportunity to congratulate the directors of such corporations upon showing the same Christian spirit in the conduct of their	business as	they	show	intheir personal and private affairs. On the other hand, can it be said that the intended amendment is too drastic? In that case the objectors would	be either those	who	are
violating the law or those who intend to violate it. In neither case, I submit, are they entitled to sympathy or consideration.
Now, let us view this matter in the light of the 'sanctions imposed by our laws against those who violate the commandments of the decalogue, from	which our	law	for	the
observance of Sunday is derived. Most of the sections of our criminal code having their source in a moral obligation to do or not to do certain things provide for the imprisonment of those who violate the code. Here are a few examples.	.
"Thou shalt not kill." The violation of the section of our criminal code which is based on this commandment makes the offender liable to hanging, and, in the case of manslaughter, to imprisonment for life, and very few find fault with that penalty as being too extreme [DOT]
"Thou shalt not steal." The section of our criminal code which is based on this commandment makes the offender liable to imprisonment for a maximum of fourteen years, and I do not think the penalty is considered excessive, except perhaps by the offenders themselves.
{Mr. Brunelle.]
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife." It might be well for me not to make any comment on this commandment, particularly in the presence of bachelor members of the house, knowing not the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and who upon hearing some suggestion of matrimonial miseries might be forever scared away from the state of marriage ; so I will pass on.
Now the commandment upon which the Lord's Day Act is based reads thus: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Here is a message from the Holy Book in reference to the penalty to be imposed upon those who do not observe the Sabbath day:
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy (lay, a sabbath of rest to the Lord.
And, sir, note this:
Whosoever shall do work therein shall be put to death.
My amendment to the Lord's Day Act does not go as far as that. I want the directois of corporations to live, but should they not let others live up to their religious convictions?
1 have shown, Mr. Speaker, that the Lord s Day Act is ineffective in many eases inasmuch as certain corporations find it profitable and advantageous to pay the fine and keep on violating the law. I have also shown that, relying on the unquestionable authority and wisdom of the Holy Scriptures, this house, will be amply justified in making the penalty for violation of the Lord's Day Act more severe in order to give the offenders the precious advantage of repenting at leisure in gaol for a short time at least.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I make a confident appeal to the good will of every member of the house, and particularly to the high moral and Christian character of the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to accept this amendment, and by so doing the house will have taken a most salutary step towards the enforcement of a law which is based upon the well-known and accepted precept not only of Christianity but of all known religions of the world, that one day of the week must be a day of rest.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, listening to
my hon. friend (Mr. Brunelle) I could not help remembering the circumstances under which this act was placed on the statute book. At that time members from my own province were not very keen on the enactment of the Lord's Day Act, and quite an agitation was carried on against it. I remember Mr. Bourassa and my friend Mr. Lavergne holding meetings of protest in the province

Lord's Day Act

of Quebec against this encroachment on the liberty of the subject, and there were quite a number of members on our own side of the house who spoke against the measure, but finally it was enacted. It is interesting to observe that to-day it is a member from the province of Quebec who proposes that the law shall be made stricter at least in one particular.
When my hon. friend introduced a similar bill last year I gave consideration to it. and had the bill come up for second reading I would have supported it. I have no reason to-day to change my attitude. There is no doubt that in the province of Quebec-I do not know whether it is the same in the other provinces-this law' has not been observed by certain big corporations as well as it should have been, and labour unions have been protesting strongly against violations of the law and asking that some amendment should be made. When proceedings are taken in the courts against offenders-and it is the attorney general of the province who has to authorize the issuing of proceedings before the courts- a corporation, when it is fined, pays the fine, and that is all there is to it. My hon. friend seeks to make the managers, the men who are in charge of the concern, responsible as well and to subject them to fine and imprisonment, to which the corporation is not subject.
There is one change I would suggest in the wording of the amendment. My hon. friend uses the words "the same" penalties. I think that would be equivocal, because it might mean one penalty payable either by the corporation or by the directors or the managers, and when the bill is in committee I shall suggest that the word "similar" be substituted for the words "the same," so that there will be no doubt that it will hit both the corporation and the directors or managers.
I congratulate my hon. friend upon having taken the initiative in this matter. I may say that the government was to move some amendments in order to meet the wishes especially of the labour unions, and of all citizens who desire that the Lord's Day be observed as it should be.


[Stage Direction]
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-Penalty for directors and officers permitting violation of the act.
Ernest Lapointe: That the words "the same" in line 16 be struck out and the word "similar" inserted in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder whether the Minister of Justice has considered the question of the use of the word "permits" in the proposed amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: Where?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the twelfth line. It would seem obvious that it is quite unfair to endeavour to convict a person of permitting something when he may know nothing about it. It is "a director, an officer, a superintendent or an employee	who
authorizes, directs or permits any such last mentioned employee	" I think the
hon. gentleman who has charge of the bill will have his object met if he limits it to
authorizes or directs", because I can see great difficulties about using that word "permits." It might become a matter of serious moment if it were put forward for prosecution purposes by some person who had ill will or ill feeling, because the directors might be said to "permit" something.


Ernest Lapointe: Some under-foreman or similar employee might be responsible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Ernest Lapointe: If the hon. member has no objection to the amendment suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition-


Mr. BRLNELLE:: I have no objection.


Ernest Lapointe: -I move:
That the words "or permits" in the twelfth line be struck out and the word "or" inserted after the word "authorizes" in the eleventh line.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodsworth for the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the criminal code.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Since the house is in such an agreeable mood to-night, I hope that it will give favourable consideration to this bill, which seeks to guarantee labour the right to organize. When I was interrupted by the "nine o'clock" the other evening, I was pointing out that the trades unions have been urging legislation along this line. The follow-

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
mg resolution is rather typical of a number that have come to me. The chairman of the Toronto and district joint board of A.A. lodges, after certain of their officials had been dismissed because of their having joined a labour union, passed this resolution:
That the Toronto and district joint board of A.A. lodges, representing 2,500 steelworkers in the city of Toronto, most strongly urge upon the federal government the enactment of Bill 62-
That was the number by which the bill was known last year.
-thereby safeguarding our democratic rights as Canadian citizens and providing penalties for employers who would violate these rights.
This right to organize is being claimed not only by industrial workers but by members of professional organizations. I will read certain excerpts from a letter which I have received from the president of the Newspaper Guild of Montreal.
The Montreal Newspaper Guild was chartered in April, 1937, as a local of the American Newspaper Guild, an international union chartered by the American Federation of Labor. The American Newspaper Guild last June at its convention voted to affiliate with the Committee for Industrial Organization, and this decision of the convention was subsequently sustained by a referendum vote of the international membership. The other Canadian local of the guild was chartered in Toronto in the fall of 1936.
A little later:
On June 23, a number of members of the editorial staff of the Gazette were warned by the managing editor that they were jeopardizing their jobs by joining or retaining membership in the guild. Later that day I was discharged by the managing editor, who told me he had not been empowered to give me a reason for my dismissal. ... I had been employed by the Gazette for nine and a half years, and at the time of my discharge was assistant telegraph editor. I was then and still am president of the guild and represented the organization at the A.N.G.'s convention in June at St. Louis, Missouri.
It seems to me intolerable that men who attempt to join a labour organization or a professional organization should be intimidated and dismissed for no other reason than that they are members of those organizations. That is the reason for the introduction of the bill.
While it is true that matters of property and civil rights in the provinces-and I emphasize that phrase-come under provincial jurisdiction, I would point out that this is not a matter of a merely local or private nature. It is much wider than that, and hence it seems to me it might very well come under federal jurisdiction. I might point out, for example, that the solemnization of marriage

in the province is provincial but marriage and divorce are federal-British North America Act, section 91, item 26. The criminal law is federal, and there would seem to be no real reason why the refusal of an employer to grant what seems to us to be the legitimate rights of the workers should not be made a crime. Within the last few minutes we have undertaken to prevent employers from forcing men to work on the Lord's day. Why should not this much more important question be given favourable consideration?
The criminal code has a number of sections dealing with restraint of trade, the breaking of contracts, and so on. Trade unions were once considered illegal. Now they are especially exempted under section 498, subsection 2. Well, it would seem to me as a layman that if it is proper to put this sort of thing in the criminal code at one time, and later to make special exemptions, the whole subject'is one which naturally might come within federal jurisdiction under the criminal code. I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that it is quite proper that my amendment should find a place in the criminal code.
As one looks over the legislation of Canada and of most countries, one finds that there is one law for the employer and another law for the employee. The minister shakes his head.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely it is not a crime for an employee to refuse to work for a certain employer?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is a very
great difference, as I shall proceed to point out. In many respects the employers are protected. This is the parallel: The employers have the right to organize and they are protected by charters; we ask simply that the employees should be given the right to organize-the right already enjoyed by the employers.


Ernest Lapointe: They
have it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, no. As we go back over British history we find that the nobles once ruled, and the laws in those days reflected very largely the interests of the nobles. The commons gradually gained power, and we find changes taking place in the law. Gradually there was the extension of the franchise. In the old days the franchise was very much limited, limited to employers, to men of substance, men of a certain class. Later on the franchise was extended so th?.t the employees, the poor people and finally all people obtained it. It was only within

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
comparatively recent years that labour had distinct representation in the House of Commons in Great Britain. Then certain more liberal or progressive laws were brought into force. Even the criminal code began to be altered not only because of the pressure of labour members in the House of Commons but because of enfranchised labour people throughout the country.
We in Canada have inherited to a very considerable extent the laws of Great Britain, many of them drawn up years and years ago, and our Canadian laws in many respects are those of Great Britain in the days before they had been modified, as they have been in England, under pressure of the growing labour forces. In Canada labour has had comparatively little political power, or, for that matter, economic power; otherwise we might have had more political power.
I would suggest that the laws on our statute books to-day are largely laws based upon an outgrown type of industry. In the old days there was the individual employer on one side and on the other the individual employee. As I illustrated the other evening, we sometimes still see the old arrangement in a simple shoemaker's shop-the employer on one side of the bench and the employee on the other side. Practically the two men are of equal bargaining power. But in the typical workshop to-day, behind the employer or the manager, stands a strong corporation, possibly a great group of corporations. What chance has the individual workman in bargaining with a corporation financed by millions? The situation is an impossible one. This condition made necessary the formation of trade unions. Originally, these were regarded as illegal in that they interfered with freedom of trade. To-day, however, trade unions are recognized; they are no longer illegal. But legislation has not gone so far as to make it possible for men to join trade unions without being discriminated against or dismissed.
Let me point out that to-day property is well protected, as it has always been. It is illegal for a man to break a piece of machinery, but there is no law against an employer dismissing a man or taking other action that might lead to the breaking lip of a home. I hope the Minister of Justice can see the close parallel that prevails there. A man can be dismissed and his dismissal may mean that he is permanently out of a job. It may be that he has no other economic resources and that may easily involve the breaking up of his home. There is absolutely nothing to protect the workman in these cases. But let a man injure in the slightest way a piece of machinery and immediately he is
haled before the courts. He is guilty. There is no equal protection. There is one law distinctly for the employer in the protection of his property and an altogether different law or no law when it comes to the protection of the worker in his job, which often is the only thing he has.
I urge that whoever controls a man's job under modem conditions controls his very life. I wonder whether those of us who work in this comfortable house, in these comfortable surroundings, for some months on end quite realize what it is to be out of a job and without the chance of getting another. Under modem conditions, the man who controls my job controls my very life, yet it would appear, according to our laws, that a man has no rights whatever to his job. He may be dismissed in the most arbitrary manner.


Ernest Lapointe: Would you make it criminal for your electors to take away your job?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; that is another matter. I would make it criminal for them to take it away by some of the means used to-day, that is, bribery and intimidation; and that is what I want to prevent in this case.
To get back to this bill, I would suggest that organized employers to-day, incorporated and so on, are many of them denying to employees the rights which they themselves claim. Employers come here for charters, receive incorporation which gives them great power which they often exercise arbitrarily and without regard to the welfare of the employees. They are well protected; all this bill is designed to accomplish is that the employees, the labour people, are also protected. It is a different type of protection they need, but it is protection just the same, and protection which ought to be given.
I would make my appeal for the passage of this measure really on two grounds: first, there is the inherent right of freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of organization.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of association.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Of association, if you will. We who come of British stock and have been nurtured in British traditions have always thought that Britishers ought to enjoy that freedom, but in practice we are very far from enjoying it. It is not sufficient to have what is called political freedom, the right to vote. It is not sufficient to have the right to travel up and down the king's highway. In order to enjoy complete freedom a man must have economic freedom. There is no use in saying. "I have the right to travel on the
Criminal Code

Trade Unions

railroad," unless I have something in the way of money in my pocket to enable me to travel. That is the important thing, and it is dependent on a measure of economic independence. To-day, if a man is to have freedom of association with his fellow workmen, he has to have some sort of economic security. That economic security can be swept away by the ukase of his employers.
This bill relates to the refusal of employers to recognize a trade union, or the intimidation of workers. I recall a rather celebrated case in the west in which one of the judges made a very strong statement with regard to the dangers of intimidation. This statement is taken from the charge to the jury of Judge Metcalfe in the King v. R. B. Russell. The judge said:
There is no right in this country under our laws so sacred as the right of personal liberty. No right of labour or capital, about which there has been so much declamation, is so sacred or so carefully guarded by the law of the land as is that of personal liberty. But personal liberty is not liberty of the body only. It is also liberty of the mind and will; and the liberty of a man's mind and will to say how he will bestow himself and his means, his talents and his industry. This is as much a subject of the law's protection as is that of his body. . . .
Take it from me, in strikes you can incite terror without hitting a man over the head. You can incite terror of starvation; you can incite terror of thirst. Is that not quite as effective as inciting by bodily violence? Your stomach will bring you quicker than a crack on the head sometimes. . . .
In this instance I quite agree with what Judge Metcalfe said. He made this charge to the jury with the idea of pointing out how dangerous it was for strikers to practise intimidation, but surely the principle is the same, precisely the same in the case of the employer. If employers intimidate, threaten to dismiss a man, that intimidation, according to Judge Metcalfe, is just as much an invasion of his liberty as if the man were hit over the head. I am inclined to think that we have minimized altogether too much this aspect of the matter, and have allowed men in authority, such as employers, to threaten. As I said a few minutes ago, if an employee breaks a piece of machinery he is under the penalty of the law. An employer who dismisses or threatens to dismiss a man for no other reason than that he belongs to a trade union is guilty of intimidation, which ought not to be permitted. If the intimidation were on the other foot, as it were, it would be prevented by the law.
I come back to the explanatory note appended to the bill. I would ask hon. members to give consideration to this, because it seems to me eminently fair:

The purpose of this bill is to prevent employers from refusing to employ, or from dismissing employees, or conspiring with others therefor, for the reason that they are members of a trade union.
As it is lawful for workmen or employees to form themselves into trade unions and to bargain collectively, it should, as a matter of public policy, be unlawful for employers to seek by overt acts or intimidation, threats or conspiracy to prevent them from belonging to such trade unions.
I hope that in considering this bill hon. members will recall that we are not living under conditions which prevailed one hundred years ago; we are living under modern industrial conditions. We are not living in an age v. hen labour was considered to have very few rights, as then labour had very little power either economically or politically. More than that, I would ask the members to consider that it is definitely in the public interest that we should not allow reactionaries in our midst to indulge in practices which almost inevitably lead to strife and bitterness and often to riots. Some blame the men who in desperation go on strike; blame rather the employers who refuse to recognize the unions which, for their protection and interests, the men are seeking to form.


Ernest Lapointe: With part of the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I am heartily in accord, and I am sure that all hon. members of the house are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: We are all in favour of unions, I am strongly in favour, we all are, of recognizing the right of labour people to organize into unions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I have said so on different occasions. I have said more than that; I have said that, at this stage of the history of the world, for employers to deny that right is-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Criminal.


Ernest Lapointe: -stupid. But my hon. friend wants to go further than that. He wants to make a crime of something which in pith and substance relates to contract and comes under property and civil rights, and under our constitution is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. My hon. friend shakes his head, but the provinces have almost all of them enacted legislation like that which he wants us to enact by means of the criminal code. More than that, my hon.

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
friend refers to the Trades and Labour Congress. I have in my hand a circular sent to all the provincial legislatures by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada just last year, asking those legislatures which have not yet enacted some legislation to do it. This is what they said, when they sent to the legislatures a draft, almost similar to the bill presented by the hon. member.
(2) It is submitted that the provisions of the proposed bill fall within the exclusive-
I am not talking; it is the Trades and Labour Congress that is talking.
-legislative competence of the provincial legislatures. In support of this submission, it will be convenient to indicate briefly

Then they give all the reasons for it. The provinces have acted in that field. There is the Alberta Freedom of Trade Union Association Act. I am pleased to refer to this statute of Alberta, assented to in 1937. It follows the lines of the draft bill proposed by the Trades and Labour Congress, and makes it unlawful for employers to dismiss employees because they are members of or want to remain members of a trade union. It makes the employers liable to a penalty fixed by the act.
The Nova Scotia Trade Union Act, 1937, declares it lawful for employees to form or to join a trade union, and makes it unlawful for employers to prevent them from doing so. In this instance a penalty is fixed by the statute. It is in their field of jurisdiction.
The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of British Columbia, 1937, recognizes the right of employers and employees to organize for any lawful [DOT] purposes. There again they make it unlawful to prevent employees from joining a trade union or association, and a penalty is fixed.
The Strikes and Lockouts Prevention Act, 1937, of Manitoba is again, I am sure, the result of the work of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, which has asked those legislatures to act in that way. Manitoba has acted.
Even the province of Quebec has acted, through the Fair Wage Act, 1937, of Quebec. There again we find a penalty for those who try to restrict the freedom of the working man.
In Saskatchewan there is a bill respecting the right of employees to organize. That bill received its first reading on January 28, 1938, and it is still before the legislature. Following the decisions of the court in relation to the power of the dominion to enact insurance legislation, it was sought to effect the same result by inserting a section in the criminal code, as the hon. member wants to do in this
instance, by which it was to be made an indictable offence for any person to solicit or accept any insurance risk, except on behalf of a company or association licensed under the Insurance Act of 1917. That was challenged before the courts by the reciprocal insurers. I shall read to the hon. member the words of Mr. Justice Duff, who sat as a member of the board in the hearing of that case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is somewhat cut down since that.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes
possibly, but I am reading it.
. . . their lordships think it is no longer open to dispute that the parliament of Canada cannot, by purporting to create penal sanctions under section 91, head 27, appropriate to itself exclusively a field of jurisdiction in which, apart from such a procedure, it could exert no legal authority, and tliat if. when examined as a whole, legislation in form criminal is found, in aspects and for purposes exclusively within the provincial sphere, to deal with matters committed to the provinces, it cannot be upheld as valid.
In the recent reference to the privy council with respect to section 498A of the criminal code, their lordships said:
The only limitation on the plenary power of the dominion to determine what shall or shall not be criminal is the condition that parliament shall not, in the guise of enacting criminal legislation in truth and in substance, encroach on any of the classes of subjects enumerated in section 92. It is no objection that it does in fact affect them. In a genuine attempt to amend the criminal law it may obviously affect previous existing civil rights.
And further:
In the present case there seems to be no reason for supposing that the dominion are using the criminal law as a pretence or pretext or that the legislation is in pith and substance in any way interfering with civil rights in the province.
They declare the section valid. A similar view in every respect has been expressed by the privy council in other cases. For instance, we have only to refer to the Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. The Attorney General of Canada, reported at 1931 appeal cases, page 324.
In the present bill I think it is obvious from the section, together with the explanatory note, that the proposed legislation is in the guise of criminal legislation for the purpose, in truth and substance, of encroaching upon property and civil rights. The hon. member says there is a law for the employees and another for the employers. That is not so. There is nothing which prevents employees from refusing to work for any man, company or corporation. It is their freedom.
Criminal Code-Trade Unions


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: There would be a different law if the other party would commit a crime by refusing to employ.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The alternative is
starvation.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes;
but that is why the provinces have intervened and have enacted legislation, which they have a right to enact, but which we cannot do, just by attempting to use the criminal code for that purpose.
I have every sympathy for labour people who join in trade unions. I think no employer should try to prevent them from doing so. But to make it a crime under the criminal code, on a question of contract-because it is a question of contract-is not proper. I cannot follow my hon. friend when he asks me to make it a crime to hire or engage labour to work. I do not think I have the right to do that.


Mr. DUNNING:: Nine o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Conspiracy in restraint of trade originally applied to trade unions. Then exemptions were made for trade unions. Does not this suggest that such matters were within the scope of criminal law.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member has said there were exceptions made for trade unions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not originally.


Ernest Lapointe: No; it
was conspiracy to do something which was a disturbance of peace and order. Surely, if the hon. member reads that section of the criminal code, he will find that it was to prevent a disturbance of order, and there was an exception made for trade unions which exercised the right of picketing in an orderly way.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not at first.


Ernest Lapointe: It was
done to protect labour against prosecution. Surely it was not in any way to do something against labour.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is nine o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it
is nine o'clock.


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



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, including amount required to pay allowances to typists, grade. 1, employed cutting stencils, in accordance with regulations approved by order in council, $553,020.
Mr. STIRLING:: In this vote there is a reduction of approximately $38,000, but offset against that or perhaps in explanation is a decrease of $80,000 in the cost of mail bags.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Acting Postmaster General):: There is a reduction of $80,000 in connection with mail bags, and the net decrease on the total vote is $37,928.


Grote Stirling: Did the mail bags not wear out last year?


William Daum Euler: There was a larger supply than usual on hand.


Mr. PELLETIER:: There is an item of $17,450 for travelling expenses. Is that the total amount for the department, or does that cover only the expenses of certain officers?


William Daum Euler: There are six other votes for travelling expenses.


René-Antoine Pelletier: What is this one for?


William Daum Euler: These are headquarters' expenses. One item is to cover the cost of representation at the Postal Union Congress in Buenos Aires in March, 1939. The additional allowance for this item is $6,700.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Who were the representatives at that conference?


William Daum Euler: It is to be held in March, 1939, before the end of the fiscal year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When we were discussing estimates the other evening we had the other acting Postmaster General (Mr. Power) with us. We were then dealing with the possibility of having a proper balance sheet submitted to the committee so that we would be able to get a better idea of the actual workings of the Post Office Department from a financial standpoint. Mention was made of the fact that when a similar item was before the committee two years ago, we were promised by the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott), who unfortunately is absent to-night, that something would be done in the way of submitting a more complete statement so that members would have a proper idea of the financial results of the year's operation of the depart-

Supply-Post Office
ment. That is hardly possible with the estimates as they are now submitted.
Two years have elapsed and not as much progress has been made in that direction as I anticipated would have been made. I think that in two years the departmental officials should have been able to submit a complete financial statement to the committee. The Post Office Department is a public utility and it should stand entirely on its own feet. I should like to be able to get hold of a statement of the Post Office Department just the same as I am able to get a statement of other financial institutions. I want to see a profit and loss account. It may be difficult at first to prepare a statement of this kind, but I had hopes that by this time it would have been available. Could the acting minister give us some idea of what progress has been made along these lines?


William Daum Euler: I do not know what commitments were made by the Postmaster General in connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. However, I would say to him that the estimates are prepared in the form in which the treasury board says they shall be presented. So long as no change is made, the estimates of the Post Office Department or of any other department will be presented in the way which is ordered. I am inclined to agree with what my hon. friend says about every department standing on its own feet. I think he is quite right when he says that there are certain charges which might be made against the department and which might affect the surplus. I believe he mentioned the matter of interest on buildings occupied as post offices and matters of that sort.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The question is more involved than that. I would point out that a charge is made by the Department of Public Works to the Post Office Department for the use of buildings. The question of interest on buildings would hardly be a factor in the estimates of the department.


William Daum Euler: I thought my hon. friend had suggested that a rental should be paid to the Department of Public Works for the buildings occupied by the Post Office Department, but apparently that was not in his mind. I should think that would be a perfectly fair charge from a strictly business standpoint. As hon. members know, the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce contain certain subsidies to cover the cost of the transportation of mails. I have suggested to my colleague that he should pay over to the Department of Trade and Commerce the cost of
this mail transportation, but that has never been done. On the other hand, the Post Office Department claim that they should be allowed something for the franking privilege exercised by the different departments and by the members of the House of Commons and the Senate. I think that is a reasonable reply to make. In order to give the committee some idea of what is represented by that franking privilege, I may say that it represents a possible credit of $1,122,676. There is also another possible credit for the operation of the savings bank amounting to $80,000. If those two amounts were credited, and a number of the charges such as those to which my hon. friend has referred to were made, the surplus would come down to $40,298.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This matter was not discussed at any great length, but it was claimed that if those charges were made there might be a deficit in the annual operations of the Post Office Department. There might be other charges made against that department which really should not be made. For example, the stamps used on cheques must amount to an enormous sum each year, and there are other charges which, at the moment, I cannot recall. I would say that all these should appear in proper form, and I do not see why this cannot be done. For the minister merely to say that the treasury board wish the statement to appear the way it does is not a proper answer to the question which has been submitted. Is there any reason why, when accounts are submitted showing the revenue for the year, they should not show on the opposite side the expenditures for the same year? That would give us something approximating a financial statement.
I know I can get some of the expenditures for myself by going through the auditor general's report, but I do not think we should have to look through that voluminous report before we can get anything approaching a correct statement of the department's affairs. I would prefer-and I still press the point- that the Post Office Department should, so far as it possibly can, give us next year a proper statement showing its income and its expenditures. If it is providing, as the minister says, free services to other departments or to members of the house, those services should be charged up somewhere, or at all events credit should be given to the department for the service it renders. The amount of $1,000,000 odd seems to me fairly high, although it may be approximately correct. I would still like to know if there is any reason why we cannot have submitted to the house and the country a correct state-
Supply-Post Office

ment showing exactly what the position of the Post Office Department is at the end of the year's operations.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I am quite disposed to agree to a certain extent with the last member who spoke (Mr. Heaps); but suppose he got all he wanted. I am still afraid we should not get a proper presentation of the department's affairs. The Post Office Department has so many invisible revenues, invisible in their relationship to the country generally, and so many invisible commitments, that from my point of view, from an auditing and accounting point of view, I cannot for the life of me see how the hon. member would be very much benefited by getting all he asks for. Rentals, for example, could never be reduced to something utilitarian in a business statement. A federal building in any city is not merely a post office; it is a federal building; it is a part of the national assets, and is built in a manner to represent Canada. Its use for post office purposes could never be percentaged off in such a manner as to show the financial standing of the Post Office Department. So it seems to me that more considerations and more details should 'be advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North before we can arrive at what he really requires.


William Daum Euler: While in theory the suggestion is quite all right, I do not think it would be possible to make an accurate estimate each year of what the Post Office Department should pay for the rental of a certain public building, for example, in my own city, or in Winnipeg or any other city. I question, further, whether it would be worth while to go to all that trouble because, after all, it is simply taking money from one pocket and putting it into another.
There is one item on which one could not approach accuracy at all, and that is postage stamps used for excise purposes. If we knew the amount involved in postage stamps used for excise purposes upon cheques, that amount ought to be credited to the Department of National Revenue and charged against the Post Office Department, but there is no means of telling. Yet it is a great convenience to people, especially in the outlying districts, to be able to use postage stamps instead of the regular excise stamps.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I still think it would be
quite easy to prepare a proper balance sheet for submission to the house. I do not expect that any public utility such as the post office, with all the demands that members make on the Postmaster General, should submit its accounts in exact detail. I know that at times

the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works are pestered by members of the house for postal buildings and other federal buildings, and indeed sometimes buildings are thrown at the post office which they do not want. I have known instances of that kind to happen. I know a place not very far from my own constituency where a building was put up. and I did not know what it was for, until I was finally told it was to be a post office. When it was finished the Post Office Department did not want the building. It did not pay them to open the building for a post office. That is something which should not happen in any well conducted utility. I think the Post Office Department should be responsible for all the post offices they require, and the buildings should not be erected by the Department of Public Works unless requested by the Post Office Department. I do not think any member should be permitted to tell the Department of Public Works that he wants a post office in his own particular riding, as a sort of perpetual monument to himself. But post offices are put up all over the country from which very little revenue is derived, where it does not pay to operate them, and in instances such as I have given, where the post office is bound to be operated at a loss. Does the minister himself, who I know is anxious to conduct his department in a businesslike way, not think that when a postal building is required, the only persons who should have a say in the matter are the Postmaster General and the officials of his department, and not any other department of the government?


William Daum Euler: I am not, as my hon. friend realizes, very familiar with the Post Office Department; but I think it is the practice that a post office building is not erected until after the Post Office Department asks for it, and it should not ask for it unless there is a real necessity for it. There also comes into the picture the fact that in the larger centres these public buildings are used not only for a post office but for other government purposes, customs, income tax and so on. But as the Acting Postmaster General I shall be very glad indeed to bring the representations made by the hon. gentleman to the attention of the Postmaster General himself.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister, who I know is opposed to patronage in the public service, tell me that patronage is pretty well eliminated from the postal service in this country?


William Daum Euler: Oh, I am quite sure of it.

Supply-Post Office


Mr. HANSON:: Does the minister not think it is necessary, in order to provide postal facilities, to establish a post office sometimes in a place where it is not remunerative?


Mr. SPENCE:: Louder.


Olof Hanson: Does the minister not think that the government is justified in providing postal services in places where it might not be immediately remunerative? In a pioneer country like Canada one cannot expect to get a profit on the operations of the post office for the first few years in an outlying district which is only sparsely settled, but in a few years that post office, instead of serving half a dozen or a dozen families may be accommodating quite a settlement. In a country like Canada we are entitled, I think, to get such facilities from the government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The question of postal facilities is one entirely apart from the erection of huge buildings where they are not required. There is no hon. member in this chamber who does or will object to the provision of adequate postal facilities in every part of Canada.


Olof Hanson: Speak up. The hon. member said that to me.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I heard the hon. member quite well; I never asked him to speak louder. Probably some of my neighbours did, but he must not accuse me of their sins; I have enough of my own to carry. I repeat that I have never objected to adequate postal facilities for any part of the country. What I have tried to do, and with no great amount of success in previous years, is to ensure that when buildings are to be erected for the use of the Post Office Department, that department is responsible for the requests which come in, and that there shall be, in the places where it is proposed to erect new buildings sufficient business, I shall not say to pay for their construction and upkeep, but to warrant their construction. In many places buildings are erected solely for postal purposes. In some cases, as is shown by the figures submitted to this chamber in past years, the revenue has been hardly more than sufficient to pay for the help. That is not running the postal business in a businesslike way. I venture to assert that of the two millions and several hundred thousand dollars which are charged against the Post Office Department for the use of buildings, an enormous amount could be saved if the officials of the department had the sole right to decide as to the erection of the buildings and could put
them up as any business concern should do. The amount charged against the department is. I think, 82.600,000.


William Daum Euler: Two and three-quarter million dollars.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Post Office Department should have the say as to what kind of buildings should be erected and where they should be located. But that has not been the situation in the past. I am not blaming solely the present government for what is happening; the same kind of thing has gone on right down through the years. One department erects the buildings and then asks another department to use them. I am aware that in some respects the Department of Public Works, with its special facilities, may be in a better position to call for contracts, but I do not agree that it is better able to decide where post office buildings should go. Personally I have never asked any of the ministers for the erection of any buildings, and I do not intend to do so; I am quite satisfied to leave these matters in the hands of the Post Office Department and its expert staff. When I find that they are not doing things in the right way, then will be the time for me to complain.
In my opinion hon. members themselves are as much to blame as anyone else for existing conditions. We hear them one day crying for economy, and the next day they are rushing around the various departments asking for huge expenditures. I want to see the Post Office Department conducted as any efficient business should be. I do not think the habit of some members of seeking concessions for their own particular constituencies is at all a desirable form of activity, nor do I approve one department erecting buildings without the consent or knowledge of the other department concerned; under such circumstances we cannot expect business to be efficiently conducted.
The running of post offices as a separate utility should be concentrated in the Post Office Department. That is not asking too much. I remember an instance in my own constituency where, when one government went out and another party came into power, they changed some postmasters in the small post offices in the district. I was very much opposed to this proceeding. They put in charge of one office a man with a criminal record, to handle his majesty's mails, and although I protested as vigorously as I could to the then Postmaster General I could obtain no satisfaction. People were afraid to go to that office with registered mail; but all that was done was that the office was transferred
Supply-Post Office

from the father to the daughter, so that they would be able to say, "It is not in the same hands now.'' Is that an efficient way of running a postal service which has so many ramifications so far as the public are concerned? The member for the constituency, who went to the Postmaster General several times to protest against the appointment, could do nothing, but the local patronage committee could successfully insist upon that particular individual retaining his position. It is of such matters that I complain; yet somehow or another we seem to go on in the same rut, unable to make any progress, and when it is suggested that we should run the Post Office Department as any competent business concern would do we are told, "Well, the treasury department have control, and they instruct the department how to make out the accounts." Yet to-day the accounts are not in much better position than they were two years ago.


Vincent Dupuis: Although I tried as best I could to follow the trend of thought of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I find myself unable to appreciate the logic of his remarks. The hon. member is very severe on the government. Of course he does not mean Liberal or Conservative, but he claims that the Canadian government as constituted is administering the country in the wrong way.


An hon. MEMBER:: The post office.


Vincent Dupuis: Especially the post office. But if we apply the same logic to other departments, what do we find with reference to the Department of the Secretary of State? If I am not mistaken, this parliament building is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State; and if the reasoning of my hon. friend is sound, he should be rendered an account for his seat in the house and pay rent for it and for his private office in this building, the account being rendered in the name of the riding of Winnipeg North. How can a government divide administration department by department? All the public buildings in Ottawa are in the same situation. Take, for instance, the confederation building, where space is occupied by several departments. I do not believe we shall get very far ahead with that sort of discussion; it is more academic than practical. What astonishes me most is to hear such remarks coming from a member who is committed to the doctrines of socialism. Socialism means, not the kind of centralization he seems to want, but a policy where everything is governed and controlled on behalf of the common cause, where everything is together.
I suppose that if his party took control of this country, everything would be governed 
by the same head. They would not act as my hon. friend tries to induce the minister to do. Everything would be combined for the common good, irrespective of the department which might administer the post office. I submit it is impossible for a government to handle administration in the way he suggests.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I notice under this vote
very substantial increases in the staff of the department. For instance, this year there are three chief clerks as compared with two last year; twenty clerks grade 2, last year nineteen; six clerks grade 1, last year two; eight stenographers grade 3, last year six; twenty stenographers grade 2, last year seventeen; two stenographers grade 1, last year none; seven typists grade 1, last year three; six packers and helpers, last year five. There is a total of 150 this year as compared with 132 last year. Will the minister tell the committee, either in the medium of pounds of mail or letters carried or by some standard that we can understand, what accounts for the increase in staff?


William Daum Euler: The reason for the increase
in staff is chiefly this, that whereas temporaries ordinarily are not counted in the list of civil service employees, when the restrictions on permanent appointments were removed by order in council a great many temporaries were made permanent, with the result that this list has been increased.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Nevertheless the vote for
temporary assistance is the same as last year's, 125,000.


William Daum Euler: The reason for the increase
in the number is that many temporaries were appointed as permanents, and the other temporaries, to whom the hon. gentlemen refers, are for purposes of emergency and so on during the coming year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there is a total
increase of eighteen.


William Daum Euler: I suppose one could justify
increases on the ground that the business of the post office is increasing. Times have been a bit better, and that is reflected in post office activities the same as in any other business.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I hope that is the case;
but would it not be reasonable for an acute business man like the acting Postmaster General to tell us to what extent the business has increased to justify eighteen additional helpers.


William Daum Euler: The business has increased
81,300,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not at head
office.

Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: It is not only head office
that constitutes the Post Office Department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is only the departmental administration item that we are dealing with.


William Daum Euler: Of course, if business has increased throughout the country, it will result in an increase in business at head office.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Can the minister tell us the
increase in terms of pounds of mail carried?


William Daum Euler: No, I have not that information.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Can it be dug up for the
information of the committee?


William Daum Euler: I am told that it can be
obtained for the air mail routes and the rural routes fairly quickly, and perhaps for the rest of it, but that would take some time.


Olof Hanson: When hon. gentlemen base their criticism of the Post Office Department. on the results shown by some other post office establishments, they must realize that Canada is a young country which is trying to develop its resources, and that it is still in the pioneering stage. To criticize the Post Office Department for not making money is wrong. Having lived in a pioneering country myself, I realize that the people are trying to establish themselves, and they need all the facilities which can be placed at their disposal in order that they may be able to get in touch with the outside world. The only agency through which they can do this is the Post Office Department. They are asking for post offices and for postal facilities to enable them to get in touch with the outside world, and I suggest that Canada is a bit too young to be classed with some of the European countries so far as the postal service is concerned. It is unreasonable to expect the department here to show a profit.
I congratulate the Post Office Department upon the efforts it is making to help this Canadian nation to develop its resources, and even if the department shows a loss at the present time it should still be encouraged in the work it is doing, because I believe that eventually there will be a revenue from it. I am not able to say exactly what should be done; but I am sure the department is doing everything in its power to assist pioneers in Canada, and I have no doubt that eventually the department will be in the same category as the post office departments in some of the older and more developed countries and will show a profit. It is to the credit of the Canadian government that it is doing what it can to help the pioneers in this way and I support it.


James Houston Spence: I regret very much that the Postmaster General is not here. I am sorry to hear that he is sick; I was not aware of the fact until to-day. There is not much satisfaction in criticizing the acting Postmaster General, because he has just taken the job in hand. A couple of years ago when the estimates came down they did not appear to be in good shape and there was more or less criticism, from myself and others, about the administration. I accused it then of being antiquated, and I did not blame the Postmaster General any more than I blame any other Postmaster General, because no matter who originated it, it is antiquated. Last year the method of presentation of the estimates had been improved considerably and the Postmaster General promised that this year he would try to make it perfect. I think it has slipped back into the same old rut. We have heard only about the total revenue taken in, and no wonder, because they have no accounting system. Now they come to the conclusion that they have $3,037,000 of a surplus. Goodness knows where they got it! They will never know how much the post office makes or how many millions it loses until there is a proper check-up on the services rendered by the Public Works department.
I have made a close study of what happens in Toronto. When we were in power I took particular notice. Hundreds of dollars worth of material and time are spent in the different post offices tearing down walls and building them at the instigation of the postmaster in that or other cities. For instance, the old post office on Adelaide street in Toronto was all changed about inside four or five times during our term of office. None of that was charged up to the Post Office Department. When they moved the administration to the present quarters the postmaster-he is not called postmaster now but has some highfalutin title

had the walls pulled down in the building at the corner of Yonge and Front streets and other walls put in, and so on; many thousands of dollars were-I would not say wasted, but used there in making the place to suit him. That was done under this government; but I am not criticizing any government in particular, the whole system is so absolutely-I would not like to say what I was going to say-antiquated.


William Daum Euler: That is a much longer word than the one the hon. member was going to use.


James Houston Spence: I made this suggestion to the Minister of Public Works in the former government, and I suggest again that a proper accounting system should be established in the Department of Public Works to keep track
Supply-Post Office

of the money they spend all over Canada in connection with the post office. At the present time they have a staff making racks for mail bags for sorting purposes. They are delivered to all parts of Canada, and the Public Works department pays those men, men who earn at the rate of eighty-five cents to one dollar an hour. The Public Works department have a staff working all the time for the post office. If the figures were gone into, it would be found that instead of a surplus of 83,000,000, you would have a loss.
In regard to the amount of money the Post Office Department gets for carrying newspapers and magazines, particularly from the United States, all over Canada, perhaps that should not be discussed under this item, but we are losing a large sum on that, because we carry them at less than they can be carried by express or by the railways. We are carrying them to-day from Halifax to Vancouver at one-third of the rate at which they are carried from New York to San Francisco. Why should we carry United States magazines in this country at such a low rate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have a zone system.


James Houston Spence: I say there should be a proper accounting system. A special committee should be appointed to examine the Post Office Department and straighten it out. I do not mean a select committee of the house, but there should be from the government service itself, someone who knows something about setting up an organization to curtail expenses, some actuary or accountant, at no large cost. Anyone who is accustomed to doing business in the usual way and can take off a statement at the end of each month could look after this without bringing an expensive set-up from the United States. I do not believe in that at all, we have men in this country just as capable of setting up the proper bookkeeping system for the Public Works department as anyone. I blame the Public Works department just as much as I do the post office. I am sorry the Postmaster General is not here to-night; I should like to say a few kind words to him; but I am not going to abuse him in his absence, and to abuse the acting Postmaster General would be unfair. Something, however, must be done or you will be in a terrible position in a few years; it is getting worse. Instead of a surplus this year, I am sure there is a deficit.


Olof Hanson: The outlying districts of Canada, where the development of the future is to take place, have not had the consideration they deserve. The post office is for the most part the only means of communication those districts have. Montreal, Toronto and

other large cities have every facility, but the outlying districts have been neglected. It is only in the last six or seven years that they have had any consideration. I am not saying that is true of this government alone; it is true of the former government as well. I would ask the Postmaster General to give more consideration to developing these pioneer districts which in time will be an asset to the Canadian nation if they are given some encouragement.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: What is the basis on which the railways are paid for carrying mail?


William Daum Euler: Perhaps my hon. friend would wait until we come to the item which relates to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is item No. 260.
What are those words that appear in the item, "allowances to typists, grade 1, cutting stencils." Why are they necessary?


William Daum Euler: I am informed that there are certain duties performed lby some of the girls employed which are particularly onerous, trying and fatiguing, so small bonuses are allowed to those employees. I could give the particulars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not that, but are they not taken care of in the item itself?


William Daum Euler: No, this is for extra pay, for bonuses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In addition to that mentioned in the details?


William Daum Euler: In addition to their salaries.
I am not sure that it is a very good system, but that is the reason for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that mean that an order in council is passed in respect to each,-or is it covered by a general order?


William Daum Euler: Covered by a general order. The amount involved I think is only some $370.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now will the minister be good enough to turn to page 165 of the estimates and give some explanation of the item of mail bags? Last year they bought $245,000 worth. Were tenders called for? Who was the successful tenderer, and for how many did the contract provide?


William Daum Euler: The department buys the
duck by tender in the open market, and the bags are made in the penitentiaries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wanted to be sure about that. Why is it that the amount is $80,000 less this year than last?

Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: I think I explained that there was an unusually large stock on hand, so it was not thought necessary to buy so many this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the stock on hand
now about the average or less than the average?


William Daum Euler: I am told that there is usually a margin or reserve supply kept on hand, and this year apparently they did not need so many. I would judge that there may have been more bought last year than were found to be necessary; at any rate they think they have a sufficient supply, so there is no need for spending this $80,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a lot of money. I was going to ask the minister whether the government has under consideration the question of returning to the penny rate of postage. That, of course, is a matter of policy, but this is a good place to discover what the polipy may be. It is not often we have a chance.


William Daum Euler: It occurs to me we have had all the arguments in the world to-night from the hon. member for Winnipeg North and other hon. members who are trying to show that there is a deficit in the department. I would hardly think that under those circumstances, if that be true-and perhaps it is- that would be the time for a reduction in postal rates and an increase in deficits. As my right hon. friend says, it is a matter of policy-and I am not able to make a pronouncement upon it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister will agree that it is a desperate thing that we should have such sudden changes in the acting Postmaster General; for he said a minute ago that the hon. member for Winnipeg North had been suggesting that there is a deficit and then added "perhaps he is right." If that is right, the Postmaster General was very wrong in what he was saying <to us the evening he happened to be handling the estimates. I do not like to see such a conflict between the acting Postmaster General and the Postmaster General with respect to so critical a matter. One talked about a surplus of about $3,000,000, and now the acting minister says that it may be that the hon. member for Winnipeg North is right in suggesting that there was a deficit.


Ernest Lapointe: But the other one was an acting minister, too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We had the real one at first.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I said there might be one, if there was a proper accounting of post
office accounts. I can well understand the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Skeena in connection with these estimates, because, upon looking through the accounts, I find an item of $170,000 for a public building at Prince Rupert. I can see that there is good reason why he should express delight.
May I state one reason for taking this stand in connection with the estimates. I have always contended that the post office is in a different category from other government departments. A post office building is in a category different from buildings such as these parliament buildings, for instance. The Post Office Department is a utility, receiving revenues for services rendered.


Vincent Dupuis: Does the hon. member mean that the House of Commons is not a utility?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Sometimes; but sometimes it is otherwise. I say that if we are not a utility, at least we are not a department which charges anything for services rendered, as is the case with respect to the Post Office Department. For instance, the hydro enterprise in Ontario provides a statement at the end of the year with respect to profits made or losses suffered. I do not wish to say anything further, except to add the hope that when another year comes around and the Post Office estimates are submitted to the house, they may be placed before us in such a manner that we may have some idea of the result of the year's operation of that utility.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Last year the vote for
travelling expenses was $10,750; this year it is $17,450. Would the minister tell us what those expenses include and why this fairly substantial increase of more than $6,000 is made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Air travel is six cents a mile.


William Daum Euler: I gave that information some time ago. However, I may state again that the additional amount of $6,700 is required for representation at the Postal Union Congress to be held at Buenos Aires in March, 1939.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A trip to Buenos Aires?
I hope it has better results than some trips I know of.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice an item for Magdalen islands news service, the same amount as last year. What constitutes that service?


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. member want the cost of it?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No; what is the service?



Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: A daily letter of approximately five hundred words of news of special interest to Canadians, prepared at Ottawa and transmitted by mail to North Sydney, and by wireless telegraph to Grindstone. The cost is one-half cent per word. The Grindstone operator gives a copy of the daily letter to the superintendent of government telephones, who telephones it to telephone centrals at a stated hour each day. Residents may telephone or call in person and receive the news. A weekly air mail service between Charlottetown and the Magdalen islands is maintained during the closed season of navigation. This is paid out of the vote for mail service by air.
In addition to the service by the Post Office Department, the news contained in the daily letter is broadcast over wireless telephone service between Grindstone and the lighthouse at Bird Rock. Residents with radios may pick up the messages. The service is given by the marine department without cost to the Post Office Department There is also daily radio news broadcast in French from the New Carlisle, Quebec, radio station, supplied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The winter season, or the period of closed navigation, begins at the latter part of December and ends about April, varying according to weather conditions. I can give the expenditures and votes for the last five years, if hon. members wish to have them.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: No.


William Daum Euler: Last year, 1937-38, the vote was $600, and the estimated expenditure was the same amount.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Could not this service be given by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? The corporation broadcasts news every day, and it seems to me the people of the Magdalen islands could avail themselves of that service, as well as a service of this kind.


William Daum Euler: I believe the broadcasting corporation does give a service there.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Then this would be a duplication.


William Daum Euler: This is in French.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the item covering
equipment and maintenance refer only to equipment and maintenance at head office? What about the cancellation of stamp machines, rural mail boxes and locks? Are they included in this or some other item?


William Daum Euler: I am informed that that does not come under this item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see an item for mail bags; that is why I asked the question.


Mr. ISNOR:: I do not know whether it would be possible to make up a statement such as is suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, but I believe that if at all possible we should have a clearer financial statement regarding the affairs of the Post Office Department. That statement should show the revenues and expenditures from year to year, the difference between the net revenue and the net expenditure giving the surplus or deficit, as the case may be. It is interesting to note that while there is an increase of only $438,474 in expenditures, the revenue is increased $1,766,664. From a business standpoint one would say that the Post Office Department is being run in a satisfactory manner.
But do these figures tell the real, true story? Are all the items charged up to expenditures that should be charged? I am fearful that if all the expenditures were charged that should be charged we would have a deficit instead of a large surplus.
I would suggest that it is feasible to charge rental of the various post offices to the department. That point has been questioned by certain hon. members. It is done in every commercial line. The various departments in large department stores are charged up with overhead, and made to stand on their own feet. I believe the same principle applies to the Post Office Department. It is a revenue producer, and there are certain expenditures chargeable directly against the operations of that department. For that reason I believe the Postmaster General would be well advised to consider the feasibility of bringing in a fairer financial statement, as he promised to do last year, showing the actual revenues and disbursements, so that we could arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not the Post Office Department is carrying itself. I do not think the people of Canada are greatly concerned about whether or not there is a surplus; what they want is service. For these reasons I think the Post Office Department should show the picture as it really is. On page 9 of the report of the Postmaster General a revenue of $41,181,566.35 is shown, but on page 10 the net revenue is shown at $34,274,552, a difference of about $7,000,000. In one case the expenditures or disbursements are shown and in the other, the revenue is shown and then deductions are made to bring it down from forty-one millions to thirty-four millions.


William Daum Euler: I do not quite understand
my hon. friend's question.

Sup-ply-Post Office


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: 
William Daum Euler: I am informed that the
revenue shown on page 10 is that from the outside offices, whereas that shown on page 9 is the total revenue of the department.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: What appears on page 10
is not correct in so far as the total revenue is concerned?


William Daum Euler: That applies only to the
outside service.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Then I agree with the hon.
member for Winnipeg North when he says that it does not reflect the true condition of the revenue of our Post Office Department. I think that should be set out more clearly.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I want to say "amen" to the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax as to the desirability of having a more accurate picture. A few moments ago the minister said it would be a matter of great difficulty to tell how much more mail had been carried this year than last year. I cannot understand that as it seems to me inevitable that the contracts with the railways would be made on a tonnage or poundage basis. Surely it would be a simple matter for the minister, with his two capable assistants, to tell the committee at once what has been the increase in the weights.


William Daum Euler: I can assure my hon. friend it is not so easy as he seems to think. I am informed by the officials that it is not possible to give that information so readily, and I shall have to ask him to accept my word for that. It is not possible to give it completely without a great deal of work. I do not think that is an unreasonable reply to make.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: If that is the case, then I think it adds a great deal of weight to what the hon. member for Halifax and other hon. members have said with regard to the accounting system of this department needing revamping.


William Daum Euler: If one wishes to make
comparisons, the really important thing is the amount of money involved, not the weight of the mail carried. I think that is a relatively small matter.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: If the minister were running this business as his own, I think he would want to know how much money was spent,
what he was paying for carrying this mail and how much mail was carried. He would not be satisfied with just a gross amount.


William Daum Euler: The information can be given, but not to-night. If my hon. friend insists on having that information, we shall try to dig it up for him and let him have it later on.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: It is not a matter of my wanting it; it is a question of its being information that the country should have. I am not asking for it to-night, but I still contend that if there was a proper system of accounting in the department it would be a matter of no difficulty to get this information.


Frank Exton Lennard: Does the Post Office Department make the actual sale of government annuities?


William Daum Euler: I am informed that the Post Office Department sells them for the Department of Labour.


Frank Exton Lennard: But does the Post Office Department make the actual sale?


William Daum Euler: In some post offices the deposits for annuities are received, while in other post offices the Department of Labour has its own agents.


Frank Exton Lennard: This matter has come in for considerable criticism because it is felt that the postmaster, who may be doing the advertising and spade work and in many cases the selling of the idea to the people who take out these annuities, should make the actual sale and receive any commission or benefit which accrues from the sale.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps that would be a matter for the consideration of the Department of Labour.


Frank Exton Lennard: I brought it up so that it would receive consideration.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: How many people are going to Buenos Aires to attend this conference, and who are they?


William Daum Euler: That has not been decided as yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post offices, including salaries and other expenses of headquarters and staff post offices and supplies and equipment for revenue post offices, $14,624,470.
Howard Charles Green: Does the department still deliver mail on Saturday afternoons and holidays? This service was inaugurated in December, 1936, and many complaints have been made about it.
Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: That service is still being given. Are the complaints about the fact that we have the service, or about the nature of the service?


Howard Charles Green: The complaints I have had are about the fact that the men are being forced to work on Saturday afternoons and holidays such as Dominion Day, Good Friday and Labour Day. The government is setting a poor example to other employers of labour. Why is it necessary to give a service of this type?


William Daum Euler: The government felt that it would be a great convenience to the citizens of this country to have that service on holidays and Saturday afternoons, and that is why it was done. That is the only answer I can give.


Howard Charles Green: Letters are delivered in the cities on Saturday afternoons, and left at offices after they are closed. Quite often it is very inconvenient. It is difficult to understand why it should be considered necessary to have mail deliveries on Saturday afternoons in the cities. Is there any special reason why that service should be given?


William Daum Euler: I can only suggest that if the mail is not delivered on Saturday afternoon, the people will not get it until Monday, as there are no deliveries on Sundays. Without this service, mail might arrive at the post office on Saturday morning and not be delivered until the following Monday. It has been thought that this is a service well worth giving to the people of this country.


Howard Charles Green: What compensation is given to the postal employees for working on holidays and Saturday afternoons? Do they get overtime?


William Daum Euler: These employees work a forty-four hour week, and any additional time that they are asked to give for this purpose is allowed to accumulate and they are given holidays accordingly.


Howard Charles Green: They get no overtime pay for that?


William Daum Euler: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The time is added to
their holidays, is it not?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What has been the increased cost during the last calendar year as a result of this change in the service?


William Daum Euler: I am sorry I have not that information before me.
(Mr. Green.)


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister could tell us what increase there has been in the staff as a result of the change.


William Daum Euler: There has been no increase.


Howard Charles Green: The minister surely does not mean that no new men have been taken on, because last session we were told that one of the reasons why this change was being inaugurated was to help solve the unemployment problem.


William Daum Euler: My answer was incorrect.
There have been some increases in the staff, but I have not the information under my hand at the moment. I shall be glad to give it later.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will give that
information to the committee later?


William Daum Euler: Yes; I think I can get that information for the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Were these men who were taken on the staff taken on through the civil service commission or appointed through the local Liberal associations?


William Daum Euler: Through the civil service
commission-not the Liberal association.


Howard Charles Green: They were all engaged through the civil service commission?


William Daum Euler: That was my answer.


Howard Charles Green: 'That was not the case, I believe, in Vancouver.


William Daum Euler: Did my hon. friend say that was not the case there?


Howard Charles Green: I believe it was not the
case in Vancouver. Can the minister say whether it was?


William Daum Euler: I cannot alter my answer. I said the appointments were made by the civil service commission, and I assumed I was giving an answer for the whole of Canada. I did not think there would be any exception in Vancouver or any other city, except that at Christmas time the extra help taken on is not engaged through the commission.


Howard Charles Green: I understand that part of the Christmas help were kept on and given permanent positions, and if that was the case they certainly were not engaged by the civil service commission. Surely the department can give us information on that point.


William Daum Euler: Some of them were kept on a little longer in order to liquidate the extra time they put in because of deliveries on Saturday afternoons and holidays.

Supply-Post Office


Howard Charles Green: Were they taken on the permanent staff or were other men put on?


William Daum Euler: They would be taken on
the permanent staff only if they were on the eligible list and appointed by the civil service commission.
Mr. O'NEILL: There are a great many places in British Columbia where the post office used to be closed on Wednesday afternoon, now under this new arrangement the men are working on both Saturday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon. A lot of people would be quite agreeable to having the post office closed on Wednesday afternoon. As a matter of fact the stores are all closed; there is nobody around the town except in the post office, and only one or two people call during the entire afternoon to get their mail. The people as a whole are quite prepared to have the post office closed on Wednesday afternoon, and they have asked me to intercede with the Post Office Department to have that done.


William Daum Euler: The district inspectors have been given power to use their own judgment in cases such as those to which my hon. friend has referred, and if his people would make application to the district inspector, the post office may be closed.
Mr. O'NEILL: Thank you.


Howard Charles Green: Have the postmasters in the cities the power to say there shall be no mail delivery on Saturday afternoon or on any particular statutory holiday?


William Daum Euler: No.


Frank Exton Lennard: There has certainly been an increase in employment due to the delivery of mails on the holidays, but I understood the minister to say no.


William Daum Euler: I corrected my first answer.


Frank Exton Lennard: Then, as to the increase in cost, I know that in Hamilton the increased cost for the twelve months ended December 31, 1937, was some $2,700.


William Daum Euler: Was it worth it?


Frank Exton Lennard: No. I am speaking of Hamilton in particular because I know conditions there. Not one of the business places that have been polled-that have been canvassed is in favour of the holiday delivery of mail. In fact a great many business houses have instructed the postmaster in Hamilton not to have any mail delivered to their places of business on Saturday afternoon or holidays. The employees are also very much against it, because they have now to work on all statutory holidays throughout the year. They do not complain so much
about working at Christmastime, and perhaps it is not unreasonable that there should be one delivery on Christmas morning. But the men complain of having to work on the first of July, Labour Day, Civic Holiday and other statutory holidays throughout the year, when they used to be free to go out with their families and enjoy themselves. While the extra time they thus put in on holidays accumulates, it is given to them in January or Februa,ry of the following year, which they claim is a time of year when they cannot go anywhere or do anything with their families, and a few free days then are a poor substitute for the annual statutory holidays.
|Fhe holiday mail deliveiy is also very unfair to the one man post office, the country post office, which is obliged to keep open the greater part of Christmas Day. As regards the larger post offices, in Hamilton, for instance, where the post office is open on Christmas Day, they took in at the wicket on Christmas Day, 1936, forty-seven cents, and on Christmas Day, 1937, fifty-five cents. They give a half-day service there, with two men at the wickets, and all they took in on Christmas Day was forty-seven cents in 1936 and fifty-five cents in 1937. I think the change is a failure all around so far as my part of the country is concerned.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I perhaps should not worry the acting Postmaster General about the matter I am going to bring up. I wish the Postmaster General himself were in his seat so that I could speak a little more freely.


William Daum Euler: Go as far as you like.


Charles Avery Dunning: Do not muzzle yourself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: All right, because I know that if the acting Postmaster General can answer m a reasonable way, he will do so.
During the former term of the present government, under the direction, I assume of the then Minister of Public Works, a very fine post office was erected at the comer of Appleton and St. Clair avenue west.


Charles Avery Dunning: What city are these streets in?


John Ritchie MacNicol: In Toronto. Perhaps it is because this is in Toronto that what I am going to relate took place, last spring. The former administration selected the site of the post office at the corner of Appleton avenue and St. Clair avenue known as station "L," because of its fine location. Many mail men, the ordinary " posties " who deliver mail' work from that post office; they take care of the whole north end of ward six and a large portion of South York adjacent to Toronto. Its situation is also satisfactory from the point
Supply-Post Office

of view of the safety of children or young people sent by their parents to buy stamps or obtain mail or for any of the purposes for which they go to a post office, and for the last ten years it had been very largely used by all the residents thereabout. I might mention that it was where I got my mail; I used it a great deal, bought large quantities of stamps there and used it for any other postal business I had to transact. The building was specially constructed for post office purposes, I assume in accordance with plans prepared under the former Liberal government. It has three outside walls, one on St. Clair avenue, one on Appleton avenue, and another on a lane running parallel with St. Clair avenue. Presumably upon instructions of the former Liberal administration, it was furnished with very large windows on both avenues and the lane so as to admit all the light possible.
Last spring, towards the end of April, and just before I sailed for the coronation, a rumour came to me that the site was about to be changed, and immediately afterwards the owners of the building and the land came to see me about the matter; but as I was sailing in a day or two I could do nothing more than write, wire or telephone-perhaps I did all three-to the Minister of Public Works. I did not receive a reply to the letter I assume I wrote until after I came home. In any event I called up the Minister of Public Works and apparently wired him on or about April 29. At that time no contract had been entered into for the moving of the post office. Upon my return I found that it had been moved out of ward six into ward five, some five hundred feet or more or less east of the former location and on the opposite side of the street. I also learned that on May 7 a letter was sent to the Postmaster General, which was signed by, I believe, Mr. J. L. Shannon-that appears to be the name-and from which I wish to read some statements:
Hon. J. C. Elliott,
Postmaster General,
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
In connection with the proposed removal of postal station "L" from the corner of St. Clair and Appleton avenues to a point on the south side of St. Clair avenue approximately one hundred yards east of Oakwood avenue, I am enclosing herewith a petition signed by approximately three hundred residents, store owners and business men in the community who are strenuously objecting to the removal of the post office from its present location. The present building is situate on a corner and is accessible and convenient to the business section of the community. The proposed new site is located in a less advantageous position, will be cramped

for parking space, is inaccessible, and persons seeking to use the post office will have to cross a dangerous intersection, as four car lines-


Mr. KIRK:: Mr. Chairman, what item are we on now?


John Frederick Johnston: No. 258.


James Ralph Kirk: I wondered whether the hon. member's remarks are relevant to this item.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are relevant, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to proceed until I am through.
-as four car lines and one bus service pass this spot.
Note that in the former location of the post office erected for the Liberal government when it was in power before, they made an admirable selection for a public building of this kind, but the present building is located adjacent to several car lines and a bus route.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend say that the former building was erected by the government?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Erected on plans prepared, or at least suitable, I am told, for the former Liberal government. I have learned a good deal about what occurred at that time, but I am not going to refer to it; perhaps the less said about it the better.


William Daum Euler: I am trying to get information. I understood my hon. friend to say that the building was erected by the government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Erected for the government and, I am told, in accordance with plans suitable for the government. I assume that the government, when arranging to occupy a new building, would be interested in the plans. I will continue from where I left off:
It seems hard to understand why a bright, airy building, specially built for a post office, and ideally located to serve the needs of the district, should be abandoned, and a post office put in the proposed location, and in a building which, at best, must be a make-shift.
It is not I who am passing these comments about the present post office building; I am just reading this letter:
In your letter notifying Mr. Calderone of the proposed change, you^ state that the premises are too small. What I would like to know is why he was not given an opportunity of remedying this condition, if it existed, as he owns the store next door and the entire upstairs, and any additional space would have been immediately available. This whole matter was put through without giving Mr. Calderone an opportunity of making any necessary alterations to the building for increased space, and the people in the district are putting their own construction on the matter.

Supply-Post Office
I am not making these statements; they are made by the writer of this letter to the Postmaster General. But what I would like to find out is the origin of the removal of that post office. It had been there for ten years, had been placed there by a former Liberal government; when the lease expired during our term of office it was renewed because all the people in the community wanted it to remain there, and therefore I, as representative of that part of the city of Toronto, would under no circumstances have asked for its removal. I should like to be informed how this removal came about which has caused so much annoyance in that whole community. West on St. Clair avenue are a great number of stores; in fact the whole street on both sides west of Oakwood avenue, apart from school yards, consists of business premises, and all these people have to go some five hundred feet or more further to the east and across the intersecting car lines which are referred to in the letter from which I have read.
When I came back, I received this letter, which had been sent to me on May 27 by the Minister of Public Works:
I have yours of the 29th ultimo, relative to the surrender of premises leased from Mr. Calderone at the corner of Saint Clair and Appleton avenues, Toronto, and, in reply, may say that the request for larger accommodation for postal station "L" came from the Post Office Department as early as February of this year, when representations were made that, in view of the growth of that portion of the city of Toronto which this postal station serves, additional accommodation is necessary and that property known as 937, 937A and 939 St. Clair avenue west, just east of Oakwood, had been looked over by the district director of postal services, who reported that the proposal would mean a total increase over all of approximately 1,200 square feet and an increase on the main working floor of approximately 1,500 square feet.
W hen the former lease was renewed during our term of office, the owners of the building wrote to the Minister of Public Works at that time intimating that if more space were required they would be happy to let the Post Office Department have a store in the same building facing on St. Clair avenue, which apparently the department did not require when it was under the direction of the former Liberal administration.
In view of the splendid location of the former post office, its admirable lighting facilities, with three outside walls, the fact that it had been specially built to suit the Post Office Department and that there was more space available in the store, forty feet by eighteen, in the same building, immediately in front of the former post office, I cannot for the life of me understand why the change
was made, and I should like to have some information from the minister. Certainly there are few in that community who believe that the purpose was to obtain more space, because, while I have no comment to make upon the new building, I am bound to say that if it has any more space it has but little in excess of the old building, and it has only two outside walls, besides being east of Oakwood avenue. Moreover, it is more difficult to reach than was the former building, not being quite so accessible to a large number of people who use that post office.
As a representative of part of that whole district, I feel that I should have been consulted, although I am on the opposite side of politics. I would not for a moment believe that there was any politics in it, and if there were no politics I suggest that I should have been asked something about the matter when the change was made, as to whether it was satisfactory or not. Maybe that is not the custom of the Post Office Department, but it certainly should be. The representative of the riding should be asked something about such changes. It was during the former government's term of office that postal branches were up for renewal in my community, and I never inquired in those days whether a man was Liberal or Conservative, because the post office serves the whole community irrespective of politics and it should be beyond anything like that.
That is about all I have to say with respect to that point, and if the acting Postmaster General cannot give me information as to the real story behind the change that was made, when the Postmaster General comes in I may have something further to say to him which will be of interest. At the moment, however, I shall leave the matter where it stands.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend wish me to give a reply now or does he prefer to wait until the Postmaster General is here?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can the acting Postmaster General give the reply?


William Daum Euler: I have information which I hope will be satisfactory.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall be glad to have it.


William Daum Euler: I do not wish to read all the correspondence unless it is asked for. Apparently the first incident in connection with the matter is a letter written on February 23 by the chief superintendent of post office service addressed to the chief architect of the Department of Public Works, Ottawa. He makes reference to these quarters, but the thing that is most relevant is a statement
Supply-Post Office

that these quarters are crowded and that in view of the growth in that portion of the city of Toronto which this postal station serves, additional accommodation is necessary. He asks the chief architect to have his officers go into the matter so that increased postal accommodation will be available for the department-


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the same building?


William Daum Euler: -not later than the date of expiration of the "present lease." He makes reference to the site which has now been secured.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In that letter of the 23rd?


William Daum Euler: This was February 23, yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He refers to the new site?


William Daum Euler: Yes. The letter was written by the chief superintendent of post office service to the chief architect. The supervising architect, whom, possibly my hon. friend knows-he is located in that district-wrote a letter stating that he had visited the property referred to, and he encloses-


John Ritchie MacNicol: The former property or the new?


William Daum Euler: The new property, I take it, because he describes it as follows:
The property is situated approximately one block east of the present postal station "L" but on the south side of St. Clair avenue, instead of the north.
Then he gives the areas.


John Ritchie MacNicol: By whom is that written?


William Daum Euler: By Mr. Winter.
M,r. MacNICOL: It is more than two blocks east.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I had better read the whole letter:
As requested by yours of the 26th ultimo, I visited the property referred to in the Post Office Department's letter, copy of which accompanied your letter to me, and now enclose Form "B" in duplicate offering these premises for rental, together with plans.
The property is situated approximately one block east of the present postal station "L", but on the south side of St. Clair avenue, instead of the north. The areas of existing premises and proposed new premises are as
follows:
Existing premises:	Square feet
Ground floor	 3,775
Basement	 1,880
Total	 5,655

New premises:
Ground floor	 4,746
Basement	 3,925
Total	 8,671
The owner agrees to alter existing front of the building to suit post office requirements, install a new entrance, outside drops, etc., a new entrance and staircase at the rear, and an addition to the building as shown on plan, together with a freight elevator serving the ground floor and basement.
The rent being paid for the existing postal station "L" is $5,400 per annum. The rate being asked for proposed new postal station, is $6,840. With so much additional space, the rental asked is in my opinion a reasonable one.
At the rear of the property is a public lane twenty feet wide connecting to Oakwood avenue, immediately to the west of the building.
The present postal station "L" is very crowded, and with increasing business, additional accommodation is necessary.
The above is recommended for your consideration.
It is signed R. Winter, supervising architect, and addressed to the chief architect, Mr. C. D. Sutherland, Public Works Department, Ottawa.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The ground floor of the former building was 3,775 square feet?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In a part of that building at the front there is a store, forty feet by eighteen, which the owner offered to the Post Office Department, which would give an additional 720 feet.


William Daum Euler: I might complete the statement I have here. Summarizing it, it appears that the old premises had a total area of 5,655 square feet, and the new or present premises an area of 8,671 square feet. In the old premises the cost per square foot was ninety-five cents; in the new premises the cost per square foot is seventy-eight cents. So, according to this, which I assume is correct, the change was made because more space was required, and in the new premises the space was secured at less cost than we were paying for the old place.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I cannot see that, as
Mr. Winter's letter says the ground floor space of the former post office was 3,775 feet. Adding to that t'he store in the front of the building which was offered to the government, forty by eighteen feet, or 720 square feet, makes 4,495 square feet in the old building, and then half that amount in the basement, or about 6,735 square feet in all in the old building.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend question these figures, that in the old building the ground floor had 3,775 square feet?

Supply-Post Office


John Ritchie MacNicol: Frankly, I cannot see
where 'he gets those figures, because the figures given to me for the old building are 514 feet wide by 89 feet, which would make the ground floor area about 4,590 feet, I believe, less the 720 feet, or net 3,870 feet, without basement.


William Daum Euler: These figures are given by the supervising architect. I think it is fair to assume that they are correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If they are on the same basis they are incorrect. Should we add the store in front-


William Daum Euler: No, to that he adds the
basement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The old building did not take in all the front of the premises, or all the basement.


William Daum Euler: There is no store spoken of here.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No; the store is not in the former post office. I tried to make that clear, but the minister could not understand it.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid all I understand is the figures given here, and they do not seem to correspond with my hon. friend's remarks. They are given by the responsible officials of the department, and with all due regard to what my hon. friend says I am inclined to think they should be accurate. The actual result, if you sum it up, is that the department now has 8,671 square feet at seventy-eight cents a square foot, whereas for the previous premises they paid ninety-five cents a square foot for 5,655 square feet, or they saved seventeen cents a square foot. And they needed more space.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The resident architect's statement is that the ground floor area of the former building was 3,775 feet?


William Daum Euler: That is what he says.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Admitting that is correct, then add the store in the front of the building-


William Daum Euler: Why add that?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Because the owner offered it to the present government just as he did to the former government. The former government said they did not require it.


William Daum Euler: At the same price, ninety-five cents?


John Ritchie MacNicol: At the same price as his rent was.


William Daum Euler: But the cost of the new premises was only seventy-eight cents a foot.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can I make the minister understand this, that the frontage of the building on St. Clair avenue, as I remember it and according to the figures given to me, is 514 feet? But off that there is a store eighteen feet wide. The rear of the building, where the Post Office Department had the whole width, is 51J feet wide. The owner of the premises offered to the present government, as he did to the former government, that store in front eighteen feet wide. That is 720 square feet, and adding that to the 3,775 feet which Mr. Winter says was the area of the floor space of the former building would make 4,495 feet. The basement is approximately, say half the size, making another 2,245 feet.


William Daum Euler: If those figures are accurate, at the price of ninety-five cents the amount to be paid would be considerably more than they are paying for the present premises. It is just a matter of arithmetic; if you divide the total number of square feet into the rental, it figures out at ninety-five cents under the old lease. Under the present lease it is seventy-eight cents.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If Mr. Winter's figures are correct, that the floor space of the former building was 3,775 feet-I will accept those figures as correct although I doubt they are-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As a matter of fact I do not think the old building was that large. His figures may be just as correct as the statement that the new post office is one block east, whereas it is more than two blocks east and on the opposite side of the street.


William Daum Euler: We admit the opposite side of the street.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If his statement is correct, that the former floor space was 3,775 feet, then adding to that the store, 720 feet, would make the ground floor space that the government could have had at the same rental as they were formerly paying, I am told-


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend mean that they were going to make a present of the additional space?
Supply-Post Office


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is what I am told. The department has a letter from the owner, I am told, making an offer, that the rent was to remain the same. That would have made a floor space of 4,495 feet, larger apparently than the new building. But my opinion is that the old space would not be quite as large as the new space. That, however, is not what was behind it at all. I should like to get behind the letter written on February 23. How did the inspector happen to come up there? What went on before that? What were all the negotiations beforehand that induced the inspector to report that, " We had better move east five or six hundred feet, get a larger space," and so on. I know the present acting minister is not familiar with the particulars I have and consequently could not answer that question. But that is what I want to get, and if I do not get it at this time I shall get it on another occasion. I am going to bring that out if I can. With the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) trying to save every dollar he can and to cut down the tax rate as much as he can, why was the Post Office Department so prodigal that it would leave a building specially built for post office work and go away to the east at more money? Perhaps the minister can tell me [DOT]who paid all the expense. Did the owner of the present building pay for the expense, [DOT]or did the Post Office Department or the Department of Public Works spend the money on the renovated building? If that were added, it would come to quite a large sum over what the former building would have cost.


René-Antoine Pelletier: There is a matter I should like to bring to the attention of the .acting Postmaster General, concerning a public building owned by the Department of Public Works in the town of Falher. In that town there is at present an immigration building occupied by the government telegraph office.


William Daum Euler: What is the place?


René-Antoine Pelletier: Falher. This building was formerly used as an immigration building, but since there has been no immigration to the district for some time it has been empty, with the exception of its use as an office by the Canadian government telegraphs. At the same time, in that town the Post Office Department is renting a building for post office purposes. I believe that if the acting minister would look into the matter he would find no objection from the postmaster or others concerned to moving into the immigra-
tion building, thereby saving the department a considerable sum each year in rentals.
The building now leased by the Post Office Department is a private building owned by the postmaster. He has told me that he requires the building for his own use, and would be only too glad to use the government building for post office purposes. If the acting minister would bring the matter to the attention of the department, I believe he would find that he could effect quite a saving each year by using the government building instead of renting a private building. If what I suggest cannot be done, I should like to be advised as to the reason.
There might also be the objection that the building is somewhat removed from the present post office, but I can assure the acting Postmaster General that it would require only a move of about three or four hundred yards, and would in no way inconvenience anyone receiving mail at that point. It was my wish to bring the matter up under this vote, so that it might come to the attention of the department. I am sure they will find that they can effect a saving.


William Daum Euler: I am glad the hon. member has brought the matter to my attention. If it is possible to use the building, without interference with the lease, his suggestion certainly will be acted upon. I shall be glad to have the matter investigated.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the acting minister bring down all the correspondence in connection with the change of postal station L from ward six to ward five? Would he bring down figures showing the costs in connection with the change, and the correspondence, or will it be necessary for me to put the question on the order paper?


William Daum Euler: I assure the hon. member that if there is any other correspondence, I shall be glad to bring it down when the committee sits again. I have no knowledge that there is any, but I shall make inquiries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is eleven o'clock.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the item agreed to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


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

St. Lawrence Waterway
Monday, February 28, 1938