INSIDE CIVIL SERVICE.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILLIAM ALVES BOYS (South Simcoe) presented the fourth report of the Special Committee appointed to consider the possibility of reducing or rearranging the staffs of the Inside Civil Service with a view to securing the greatest efficiency with the minimum number of employees, as follows:
Friday, June 7, 1919.
Your Committee having had before them the report of the Civil Service Commission made to the Governor in Council, pursuant to Order in Council dated 17th April, 1918, and having considered that portion thereof relating to the retirement and superannuation of certain officials therein referred to, and having heard evidence upon the question from a number of witnesses called and examined under oath, are of the opinion that such officials, owing to their age or permanent impairment of health, should be retired with a reasonable superannuation allowance, and with that end in view, your Committee beg to recommend that immediate
action be taken to give effect to the said report so far as the same relates to the officials therein referred to; and further that the necessary steps be taken to add to the list of such officials, for a like purpose, the names of any other employee in the Inside Civil Service, who for similar reasons might, with advantage to the service, be retired therefrom upon a like superannuation allowance.
All which is respectfully submitted. PROHIBITION.

Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I beg to move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House doth disagree to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 107, entitled, "An Act to confirm the Order in Council of the 24th day of February, 1919, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order in Council of the 12th day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof," for the reasons mentioned in the resolution adopted on Thursday the 26th day of June.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: I beg to lay on the table of the House copy of an opinion of the Minister of Justice, given on the 6th day of March, 1918, and also copy of an opinion of Mr. W. Stuart Edwards, Acting Deputy Minister of Justice, dated the 20th day of June, 1919, both relative to the powers of Parliament in respect of legislation affecting transportation of liquor between the provinces.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Will the Prime Minister have any objection to putting these opinions on Hansard ? They are important and should be known all over the country.


Robert Laird Borden: Not the slightest objection. Perhaps the House will dispense with my reading them.


Mr. BUREAU:: Yes. If the Prime Minister will hand them over to Hansard we can dispense with his reading them.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the wish of the House that the hon. gentleman have leave to incorporate these opinions in Hansard ?
Consent of the House given.
March 6, 1918.
Hon. N. W. Rowell. K.C..
President of the Privy Council,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Rowell,
Referring to your letter of the 26th ultimo, with regard to the prohibition of inter-provincial trade in intoxicating liquor, and submitting the
41,34

question as to whether in view of section 121 of the British North America Act 1867 the Dominion has the power to prohibit this trade between provinces, I observe that section 121 applies only to articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces, and as to such intoxicating liquor, as is of this description, I am of the opinion that this section does not limit the power of prohibition possessed by the Dominion, because the object of it is to declare immunity from taxation rather than, to affect the power which the Dominion otherwise has to prohibit exportation from one province to another of articles which parliament may consider ought not, for the peace, order and good government of Canada, to be admitted in the latter province. Section 121 occurs, as you will perceive, in a fascicle of clauses entitled revenues ; debts; assets; taxation; and is not directed as I eonoeive, against the prohibition of commodities, or trading inter-provineially or otherwise in commodities which in the general interest it may be deemed desirable to forbid.
While for these reasons I do not consider that there is any ground for substantial doubt of the power of the Dominion.to prohibit interprovincial trading such as above referred to I would suggest that the possibility of questioning the validity of the proposed legislation as to transportation of intoxicating liquors would be very much reduced, or in fact entirely disappear if in the proposed legislation the terms of the announcement of the 22nd December, 1917, were adhered to. That announcement did not refer to inter-provincial transportation of liquor in particular but simply declared that transportation of liquor into any part of Canada wherein the sale of intoxicating liquor is illegal will be prohibited on and after April 1st, 1918.
Dealing, with the matter in this way has the advantage of making clear that the purpose of the legislation is not to interfere in any way with inter-provincial trade as such, but to ensure the due observance of the legally enacted laws in all parts of the Dominion. The Canada Temperance Act contains an analogous prohibition as to the transportation of liquor into districts where that Act is in force and legislation in the terms I now suggest would be in effect merely extending that prohibition so as to cover the transportation into any area wherein the sale of liquor is by or under any law. Dominion or provincial, prohibited.
Dealing with the matter in this way would I think, make it clear that the legislation was by reason of its unmistakable purpose, clearly enacted in the exercise of the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada and preclude any suggestion that it was intended to hamper in any way interprovincial trade as such.
In view of these consideration, I would advise the matter be dealt with in this manner.
Yours sincerely,
C. J. Doherty.
Ottawa, 20th June, 1919.
Dear Sir,
Your letter of the 17th instant to Mr. New-combe re inter-provincial traffic in intoxicating liquor was received after his departure for England.
I have perused Mr. Doherty's opinion and the Bill now before Parliament, and I am of opinion thait there is nothing in the amendments pro-
vided therein to conflict with the advice given by Mr. Doherty.
Yours truly,
W. Stuart Edwards,
Acting Deputy Minister of Justice. Hon. N. W. Howell,
President of the Privy Council,
Ottawa.



PRIVATE BULLS.

[Stage Direction]
On motions being called:
Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Greyl moved that Bill No. 156 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Elmer Roome, be placed on the Order Paper amongst Bills for second reading to-day.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion can only be entertained by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 160, to amend the Criminal Code.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain.


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: The principal .portion of the measure has to do with amendments to the Code regarding sedition as recommended by the special committee of Parliament and concurred in by the House unanimously. The Bill goes on to amend the Code with respect to the carrying of concealed weapons except by permit; with respect to trespasses on militia property; with respect to neglect to support wife and family; with respect to protection of booms, chains, lines and shackles; with respect to preventing the election of accused for speedy trial except up to within a certain limited period-40 days-of the sitting of assize; and with respect to the challenging of jurors who stand by.
It appears that the effect of the clause as passed has been found by the courts not as intended but to be an absolute prohibition of the right to challenge on the part of the Crown after jurists "stand by," merely by the word "and" being inserted instead of the word "or."- I think that covers the extent of the measure.


Mr. MURPHY:: May I make a slight correction in the statement of my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen)? I refer to his observation that the report which deals with the question of -seditious conspiracy was unanimously concurred in. My hon. friend was in the House and he will recollect that I pointed out at the time that a number of members

of the committee took exception to the report.


Arthur Meighen: That is correct.


Jacques Bureau: I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to state the difference which will be made by the new amendment in the case of electing for the trial by any accused person.


Arthur Meighen: It limits the right ot election up to within forty days of the sitting of the assizes unless the accused is committed after the forty days in which case it is up to ten days before. It is requested by the attorney-generals of the provinces, chiefly the attorney-general of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



JUDGES' ACT AMENDMENT-SENATE-BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the first reading of Bill No. 115 (Letter C of the Senate), to amend the Judges' Act-
Mr. LEMIEUX:: As this Bill does not
seem to have any father, stepfather, godmother or godfather, why do you not drop it? I move that the Bill be dropped.


Arthur Meighen: If the Bill were to come up I would have to take exception to some of the provisions but apparently no one is bothering with it in this House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I take very strong exception to it also, and I know the general feeling against the Bill. It is very unusual that a Bill should be brought here without any one to father it. It is an illegitimate son.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Might I suggest that the matter stand over until to-morrow so that the regular procedure may be followed. This being a Bill from the Senate, our action in thus summarily dealing with it might be regarded as discourteous.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year, and two years ago, the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) said that he was opposed to the Bill.
Bill allowed to stand.



W. T. R. PRESTON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. SHEARD:: I desire to draw the attention of tihe Government to certain serious statements which appear in this morning's paper, said to be the utterances of one W. T. R. Preston, and I would ask
if any action can be taken in regard thereto. I will read therefrom the few words to which I refer. The statement is this:
There are soldiers lying to-day In Flanders fields for no other reason than they voted for the Liberal party. I am prepared to prove that before any Royal Commission. Fifteen men of a forestry battalion were threatened if they did not vote for the Government they would be sent to the front line trenches. Fifteen were marched off for that.
I need scarcely refer to the seriousness of this statement and I would ask that the Government consider it.


Robert Laird Borden: My attention had not before been directed to the news item which has been read by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sheard), but I may say that such a statement on its face is absolutely absurd and there is no truth in it.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL PASSED UNDER WAR MEASURES ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. NEWTON W. ROWELL: On Wednesday the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) asked me when he could expect the return to the Order of the House asking for the number of Orders in Council passed under the WTar Measures Act since the war broke out. I promised my hon. friend that I would make inquiry into the matter and let him know. I have the information for the years 1914-15-16-4 7. Some 30,000 Orders in Council have been examined already. The information for 1918-19 is not available but I will give my hon. friend the figures for the four years. The statement is as follows:
No. of Orders Under War
Tear.	in Council	Measures Act19X4	5,815	281915	
.6,245	321916	7,282	1161917	6,991	401
A very substantial percentage of the number passed in 1917 was to make appointments to the Civil Service of substitutes for civil servants who had enlisted and gone overseas. An Order in Council was necessary to appoint a substitute for a man who had gone overseas.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: May I direct the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) to a cable despatch in this morning's Citizen as follows:

Get Oil Interests in Peace River District.
(Canadian Associated Press Cable). London, June 26-The Marquis of Queensberry has returned to London, having acquired large oil and other interests in the Peace River district.
Might I ask the right hon. gentleman if oil interests such as are here referred to have been acquired by arrangement with the Government, and if so, who are associated with the Marquis of Queensberry and his friends?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not
heard anything of the matter. The Minister of the Interior will give an answer to the question.


Arthur Meighen: No one has obtained
any oil interests in the Peace River district from the Department of the Interior except in accordance with the regulations which have been of long standing. I never heard of the Marquis of Queensberry-


Jacques Bureau: -nor the Queensberry
rules?


Arthur Meighen: -at least, I have never heard of him in connection with oil matters.



TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 131, for the promotion of technical education in Canada-Hon. J. A. Calder-Mr. J. H. Sinclair in the Chair.
Mr. CALDER:: Mr. Chairman, there are two sections of this Bill standing-section 4 and section 8. Subsection 2 of section 4 provides for the scheme of distribution of these grants to the provinces. I beg to move:
That subsection 2 be struck out and that the following be inserted in its place:
(2) Such sums, subject to the conditions of this Act shall be allotted and shall be paid quarterly as grants to the Governments of the several provinces as follows:-
(a)	The sum of $10,000 shall be paid in each
year to the Government of each province.
(b)	The remainder of the appropriation for
each year shall be allotted and paid to the Governments of the respective provinces in proportion to the population of the said provinces respectively as determined toy the last federal decennial census.
It will be remembered that when the Bill was last before Committee it was suggested that there should first be made a grant to all of the provinces. That principle is embodied in our Agricultural Instruction Act, and also in the highways resolution now before the House. Upon consideration the Government came to the conclusion

that in connection with the work of technical education the grant should not exceed 110,000. , Hence this amendment.


Mr. COPP:: I regret very much that my hon. friend has not gone a little further in regard to the allotment to each province along the same lines as the Agricultural Instruction Act and made it $20,000 instead of $10,000. However, I appreciate that half a loaf is better than no bread, and I hope that possibly the minister may be a little more generous to the provinces on a future occasion. I am sure the Maritime Provinces will appreciate his action.
Mr. McIlSAAC: Mr. Chairman, when this Bill was last before Committee, on behalf of the province of Prince Edward Island, which has a small population, I advocated the distribution of the grant on the plan "the Awn. minister has now adopted. My only regret, of course, is that the amount apportioned, in the first place, is not larger, because, by reason of our small population, even with this grant we shall not have very much. However, I am thankful that he has adopted the principle and has, to some extent at least, met the wishes of those who represent the provinces with small populations. This assistance will enable them to make a beginning at least.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Conference, surveys and investigations:
James Alexander Calder: This clause, it will be remembered, gives power to the minister to encourage and foster the development of technical education, and so on, and to hold conferences throughout Canada. I would move, Mr. Chairman, that this clause be stricken from the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.
Section dropped.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways):: It will be remembered that forty-two or forty-three amendments were made to this Bill by the House as it came from the Senate, and when returned to the Senate four of those amendments were refused. A motion was made by the Prime Minister, that this House do agree to the consequen-

tial amendment made by the Senate to clause 262. There remain three clauses, and I would like to dispose of them to-day. Therefore I beg leave to move, Mr. Speaker:
That this House do insist upon the amendment made to section 32:5 of Bill No. 19, the amendment having been agreed to at the free conference between the two Houses.


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster):: I would like to oppose this motion.. Those who were present the other night when this matter came up will remember that I then made certain statements in regard to it. I explained that this clause was a very important, drastic, and far reaching one, and that the effect of it has not yet been fully considered by this House. It renders inoperative all statutes and agreements fixing rates, although the railway companies are allowed to retain charters, and other rights and privileges, obtained in consideration of those agreements. Now this affects a great many of the municipalities in Canada; it affects those in British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, and I think in otheT provinces. It also affects agreements which are entered into, for instance, by the province of Manitoba. It affects likewise the Crowsnest Pass agreemant. It has the effect of cancelling all the privileges which were obtained when the railway companies secured charters for their lands. Furthermore it has the effect of wiping out pending litigation, for instance, the Burnaby appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which I discussed when this Bill was last before the House. It seems to me that is a most unusual and unprecedented proceeding. So far as I am aware it is usual in enactments of this kind to protect pending litigation, and I submit that some provision should have been made in this subsection to take care of at least pending litigation. I submit that interested parties have been allowed no opportunity to be heard. There has been no discussion in the press about this particular amendment, although it is of such great importance, and I think if this subsection is passed in its present form, when the public become acquainted with the effect and purport of it there will be a hue and cry raised all over Canada. Notwithstanding the fact British Columbia is very seriously affected by this amendment, the union of British Columbia municipalities knew nothing whatever about it until I wired them a few days ago. Although a great many municipalities in other parts of Canada were affected, the union of Canadian municipalities were not aware of this amendment. Both of these very important
organizations are now very strongly opposed to it. I have in my hand a letter which is written by the secretary of the union of Canadian municipalities written to the right hon. the Prime Minister, dated June 13, 1919, which is as follows:
The following is a copy of a telegram from the President of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities:
New Westminster, June 9, 1919. W. D. Lighthall, K.C.,
Hon. Secy. Union of Canadian Municipalities.
" Union of B. C. Municipalities asks cooperation of Union of Canadian Municipalities in opposing proposed amendment to Sec. 325 Railway Act toy which power will be given to Railway Commission to increase fares or rates notwithstanding provisions of any subsisting agreements between Railways and Municipalities, which is a direct violation of all the principles of contracts and agreements. Immediate action is necessary."
Fraser,
President.
To which we at once replied:
Wire received. We agree with you and will gladly co-operate.
W. I>. Lighthall,
Hon. Sec., U.C.M.
There was practically no discussion in the Special Committee in reference to this amendment. I have here a copy of the report of the proceedings of that committee dealing with this particular subsection, and possibly I might be permitted to read it:
April 10, 1919.
On section 325-disallowance.


The Chairman:: The Senate has not made
any change in this.
Hon. Mr. Reid: I have a clause here, drafted by Sir Henry Drayton at my suggestion. The clause will be subsection 5, as follows:
Then this particular clause is set out.


An hon. MEMBER:: Will the hon. member read the clause?


William Garland McQuarrie: I will do so willingly. It is as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 the powers given to the board under this Act to fix, determine and enforce just and reasonable rates, and to change and alter rates as changing conditions or cost of transportation may from time to time require, shall not toe limited or in any manner affected by the provisions of any Act of the Parliament of Canada, whether general in application or special, and relating only to any specific railway or railways, and the board shall not excuse any charge of unjust discrimination, whether practised against shippers, consignees or localities, or of undue Or unreasonable preference, on the ground that such discrimination or preference is justified or required toy any agreement made or entered into by the company.
That is a very important clause and I will allow it to stand. That is on account of the increased rates that we had to make under

the McAdoo award. We had to increase the rates and wages very, very materially. In fact it is a very serious matter, and we had to increase the rates to meet that situation. The whole trouble now is that we will not be able to keep the rates as they are, on account of that Manitoba Government agreement and the Crowsnest matter.
Mr. Reid (Mackenzie) : Will we discuss section 225 now?


Georges Henri Boivin: No.
H j!' Mr. Reid : I only mention these matters now. It is for the committee to decide what we are going to do about the railway situation, so far as rates are concerned, and I think we will probably have to take a day specially for that.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Clerk will give to each
member of the committee a copy of the proposed section which you have read.
Hon, Mr. Reid:	It would have been section
335 instead of 325. We hold over 333 on account of the Toronto Board of Trade, and we will let 335 stand.
I do not understand that last part of the discussion. Then on Friday, April Ilth, this discussion took place:
On section 325.
Hon. Mr. Reid:	It is proposed to amend
section 325 by adding the following clause:
That is the clause which I have already read. The report continues:
Mr. Mowat:	Is that the suggestion of the
Chairman of the Railway Board?
Hon. Mr. Reid:	I would think so.
Mr. Mowat: Then he must have found cases where he needed it.
One of the cases where apparently it was needed was the particular case which is to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, the appeal which the Burnaby municipality has taken to the Supreme Court from the decision of the Board of Railway 'Commissioners.
The original application first came before the Board of Railway Commissioners at Ottawa in August of last year in the shape of an application by the British Columbia Electric Railway Company for approval oi an increased tariff of rates on a line belonging to that company, running between New Westminster and Vancouver. The reeve and other representatives of the municipality considered the matter so important that they came all the way from British Columbia to Ottawa to oppose that application. The hearing took all day, and aftei full discussion the decision of the board was reserved, as it was stated, for the purpose of awaiting the result of pending litigation. It seems that at the same time another appeal was threatened to the Supreme Court of Canada, but that appeal not having been proceeded with, in November of last year decision was given approving the rates and the holding that the board had jurisdiction to approve increased rates, notwith-
standing the existence of an agreement between Burnaby municipality and the British Columbia Electric Railway Company, fixing the maximum rates to be charged. The municipality immediately applied to the board for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of law involved, namely, whether the board had jurisdiction to grant that application or not. The board intimated that leave would be given on a definite question or on definite questions of law which would have to be settled by the board. Subsequently, in December of last year, the matter again came before the board at Ottawa, for the purpose of settling this question of law, and decision was reserved for a subsequent hearing at Vancouver, which hearing took place in February of this year. In February, the matter was again discussed at length and as to the particular question of definite law to be submitted, and it was promised that a decision should be handed down very shortly. A decision has never been given, and the question of law has never been settled, although many applications have been made to the chairman of the board to have the matter disposed of.
This amendment was apparently drawn by the chairman of the board, either at his suggestion or at the suggestion of the minister; but at whose suggestion I am, of course, not able to determine from the reports of the committee, because at one place it is stated that it was at the chairman's suggestion and at another place that it was drawn by the chairman at the suggestion of the minister. The point that strikes me as peculiar is this: Why is it necessary for the Minister of Railways to go to the Board of Railway Commissioners to draw up an amendment of this kind? Surely there are in the department proper and capable officers who can draw up the necessary legislation. The situation as I see it is this. If the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners considers it necessary to increase rates throughout Canada, what chance have the public on an application coming before the board dealing with a matter of this kind? The principle is wrong, and a tribunal of this character appointed for the purpose of dealing with applications of this nature should not, beforehand, be brought into the matter at all. Personally I have the very highest respect for the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners and for the other members of the board, and I do not think they would do anything but give the fairest of hearing on any application which came before them. At the same

time, I think, in a case like 'this, the board might very well 'be left out of it. Anothei point that appears to me to be wrong in principle is this. The fact that the Government is forced, against its will, into the transportation business, is no reason why it should endeavour to make the public using other railroads pay increased rates, because that is what the matter comes to. If the Government is compelled to increase the rates to such an extent as will make the railway pay, what chance have the public? This clause 325 should not be passed at this time. If the minister has a good case-and perhaps he has-he should not be afraid to discuss it in this House and let the public know about it. Let there be a full discussion about the matter in this House, and, if after a full discussion, this House decides the amendment should be passed in its present form, then I think the public will be satisfied. (Interested parties should have the privilege of stating their objections to this amendment, a privilege -which they have not yet had. I would suggest to the minister that he drop this clause at the present time, and if he cares to do so, that he should bring forward another Bill dealing with this particular matter, and when that Bill comes before the House it can be fully discussed and we shall know what we are doing.
Mr. ROBERT LORNE RICHARDSON
(Springfield): I would like to say just a word on this point, but first I should like to as!k a question of the minister. Was the Manitoba Government consulted before this clause was suggested by the Chairman of the Railway Board?


John Dowsley Reid: The Manitoba Government was aware that this motion was up. I did not consult with that Government myself.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: The reason I asked the question is this. If this clause passes, it seems to me that it interferes in a very improper manner with an arrangement the Manitoba Government made years ago. When Mackenzie and Mann were building their system in the West, the Manitoba Government aided their road. I am not quite sure as to what portion of the road received aid, but I think it was that portion between Winnipeg and Port Arthur that was granted very substantial aid, and as a condition of that aid the Manitoba Government secured a certain rate on wheat. That was to be a gratuity. If this clause passes, that rate is vitiated, is disposed of altogether, and the rates on that
road may be increased away beyond the point which the Manitoba Government arranged for, and the people of Manitoba have a very substantial claim on the Federal Government for depriving them of an advantage which they secured and which they paid for in a very substantial manner. If provision were made that Manitoba was to be reimbursed for the amount of the subsidy she granted to the Canadian Northern people in days gone by, no complaints might be raised, but a substantial injustice will be done to the province of Manitoba if this clause is adopted. I would say, as a representative of a Manitoba constituency, that the Manitoba Government ought to be cited to appear here because the interests of that province are going to be highly prejudiced should this clause pass. It may be, as the minister pointed out, that increased rates are necessary because of the increased wages that are to be paid. [DOT] I have nothing to say as to that, but Manitoba, I repeat, secured certain rate advantages by the payment of a substantial subsidy, and I think this House ought to pause before depriving Manitoba in this perfunctory manner, and without the knowledge of the Provincial Government, of those advantages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	'
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, I desired to say a word on this Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Dowsley Reid: I beg to move:
That this House do not insist upon the amendment to clause 374, hut that the following, amendment be substituted therefor:
That clause 374 be struck out of the said Bill and that a consequential amendment be made to clause 462 by adding after the words " the whole " in the first item in the table of repeals therein the following words:-"except section two hundred and forty-seven in so far as that section applies to any person or company having legislative authority from the Parliament of Canada to acquire, construct, operate or maintain works, machinery, plant, lines, poles, tunnels, conduits or other means for receiving, generating, storing, transmitting, distributing or supplying electrical or other power or energy, but not including a railway company or a telegraph company or telephone company; and
If this amendment is passed the effect will be this: Clause 374 is what is known as the power clause, which has given rise to so much discussion during the last three sessions. If we do not concur in the Senate amendment the result will be that the Bill will not become law. I therefore suggest

that we drop this clause altogether, leaving the law in that respect as it is at present. I have another amendment to repeal the whole of the Railway Act as now on the Statute Book, with the exception of that part of clause 247 which refers to the power question, and that part would remain in force. My intention then is to introduce a separate Bill immediately which will contain the same wording as is to be found in clause 374. I intend to move an amendment slightly different from that which was moved by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) and. which was rejected by the members of the Senate at the conference a few days ago. As it would therefore be useless for me to insert the same amendment in the Bill I shall introduce, I shall propose an amendment in the words that	I	suggested the
other evening when the hon. member for Parkdale proposed his amendment. When the Bill is before the committee we can consider any suggestions for changing my proposed amendment, but in the meantime I should like the amendment I have just moved to pass in order that we may get the Railway Act on the statutes this session and have the benefit of its provisions, the power question being ieft as it is' at the present time.


Charles Murphy: 1
should like to ask the minister whether the separate Bill which he has given notice of his intention to introduce will be a general Act or one covering merely the issue between the parties?


John Dowsley Reid: It will be an amendment to the Railway Act covering that particular clause.


Mr. C. W. PECK (Skeena):: I rise to a question of privilege. I think there was a little misunderstanding when the motion regarding section 325 was declared carried. Some hon. members wanted to speak on that motion, or at least to vote on it, and I would ask that we revert to it.


William Findlay Maclean: 1
rose to continue the discussion on that motion, but was ruled out of order, perhaps quite properly. I should also like to say a few words if we can revert to the previous motion.
Mr. 'SPEAKER: I submitted the question to the House when no hon. member had risen to continue the discussion, and as no vote was .called for, I declared the motion carried. I am in the judgment of the House, however, if it is the desire to re-open the

discussion on that motion, but I gave ample opportunity for any hon. gentleman to rise, and the hon. member for South York did not rise until after the motion was declared carried.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: While I do not criticise you, Mr. Speaker-no man in this House does, because your judgments are always fair arid impartial-at the same itime I think there was a misunderstanding, and I should like to move that we reconsider that clause.


Robert Laird Borden: I am anxious to give every opportunity for discussion, but I am not quite clear as to the power of the House to revert, except by unanimous consent, a motion which has already been passed by the House. If there was a unanimous consent by the House I should not object personally.


Mr. T. J. STEWART (West Hamilton):: I for one take strong exception to re-opening the discussion. The matter has been well threshed out on several occasions, and I am sure every hon. member has had ample opportunity to express his opinion. We are nearing the end of the session, and it would be a very unfortunate thing for us in Hamilton were this Act not to be passed this session.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was far from my desire hurriedly to declare the motion carried. I had no idea any other hon. member desired to speak on it. When the hon. member for South York rose after the motion was declared carried, he said that he desired to say something upon the Bill, and I had no idea that he had reference to the motion which I had just declared carried, because that had reference solely to clause 325. As other amendments were to follow he would have his opportunity to discuss them.
As it is now, the motion to reconsider it could not ibe carried except by unanimous consent, and t/he hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) having objected, it is not competent for the House to Teturn and cover the ground again.


Mr. EULER:: Has this any reference to clause 374?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: None -whatever.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: May I suggest that as long as the whole matter is a railway question, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr Peck) or the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), or any other hon. gentleman who wishes to express views on clause 325 may be permitted to say what they have

to say on the motion now in your Honour's hand?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think, in view of the peouliar, and perhaps I may add unfortunate, circumstances, the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition is a very excellent one, and so far as the -Chair is concerned,
I shall be only too glad to give any hon. gentleman full latitude to discuss the merits of that clause.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I wish to say very little on the clause, but I wanted to see a vote taken because it is well to have the municipalities know which iway the members vote on a question of this kind. If this clause passes, the Board of Railway Commissioners will have the right to abrogate any bargain in regard to rates which the municipality may have made. I think there is a tendency in this House to override the municipalities and infringe upon their rights, and some hon. gentlemen will have the fact.brought to their attention in the next election. If this clause carries I cannot see how any municipality can ever again enter into a bargain with the railroad with regard to rates. The railways hare come from time immemorial to the provincial government and even to the Dominion Government asking for concessions, and the only way in which they can be bargained with, from a municipal point of view, if the franchise is granted, is to get a guarantee in regard to rates. But if this passes, the guarantee will be no good, because the railroads will put up a howl that they are losing money, and the bargain in regard to rates will be overridden, so far as the municipalities are concerned.


William Findlay Maclean: This is a very serious proposition now before Parliament, namely, the over-riding of all previous legislation in the matter in question, whereby the municipalities and provinces were given special privileges in regard to railway rates by certain companies. I know of instances where municipalities secured special privileges or rights .which were crystallized in Acts of the Legislature and of Parliament and were of great value to them. Now they are to be wiped out without the municipalities being heard. Not only the municipalities but the provinces and the general public have been guaranteed certain rights in regard to rates, which will be abolished or at any rate will be subject to modification by' the Railway Board. While I am in favour of the Railway Board having wide powers, at the same time, when great changes of this kind are
proposed I think those interested should have full opportunity of discussing them in this House, and I would suggest that this special clause go over until next session when those interested, namely, the farmers of the West, could be heard. These farmers of the West have .important Tights guaranteed them by agreements confirmed by legislation; so have the people of Ontario; and the people of all Canada have similar rights in connection with the Crows-nest Pass, in which the Pacific railway is interested. I see no reason why this special clause should not stand over until next session when every one can be heard. I know that the Board of Railway Commissioners are confronted with the question of increasing rates -and these special clauses as they now exist have the effect of injuring in a degree the general public. Inasmuch as they have these rights which have been crystallized in Acts of Parliament, an opportunity should be given for these several parties to be heard. Another matter calls for public protest. In the Act passed last session Parliament placed all the Government railways of the country under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Heretofore Parliament and the Department of Railways were free to do anything they saw fit an connection with rates or anything else connected with the Government railways, which we now call the National railways. Parliament has divested itself of any rights it had in regard to rates on Government railways, the Intercolonial included, and has put the power in the hands of the Railway Commission. Now it is proposed also to place in the hands of the commissioners the revision of the rates that were conceded to some western provinces and the rates conceded the municipalities. I happen to know of a little municipality that had certain rates guaranteed it by Act of the Legislature of Ontario. Then the jurisdiction of that railway passed from the Legislature of Ontario to the Dominion Parliament anid the municipality appealed to the Dominion Government for relief which it did not quite get. I do not think that any single municipality should be deprived of its rights in an agreement ratified by the legislature and by this House, and inasmuch as these are far-reaching considerations and the people and farmers of the West have certain rights guaranteed them in regard to their products, especially in connection with the movement of wheat, under that agreement made with the province of Ontario, I think the Government



*would not only be wise, but extremely fair, if they decided that an Act of such great importance should be left over for another session, especially in view of the fact that probably we are to have another session this year. While I do not deny the necessity that appears to he imposed upon the Railway Commissioners to help the railways to meet their obligations by a revision of the rates, I think that the question of revision should not be made operative until these various parties-the general public, the people of the provinces, and of the municipalities who have these guaranteed rates-have an ample opportunity of presenting their case to Parliament.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: It is only fair that I should give my reason for taking the stand I have taken on this question. We have a radial railway running from Hamilton to Burlington and Oakville owned by the Cataract Power Company, who entered into an agreement with the town of Burlington to carry passengers at a certain fare. A by-law was passed by the town of Burlington and ratified by the Ontario Government and is in existence up to the present time. This Act now before us is calculated to give the power to the Railway Board to fix the rate for passengers which has been already fixed under the by-law. the railway company, in operating on that road, were charging 20 cents from Sherman avenue to Burlington and 25 cents from the radial station to Burlington, some 23 miles, or a little over a cent a mile. The town of Burlington refused to allow the Railway Board to fix the rate.
The outcome was that the railway company took off their cars, quit running the road for six weeks and left the people of that section without railway facilities. There was no way in or out between Hamilton and Burlington. Burlington Beach is a summer resort, between 800 and 1,000 people live there, a great many people go in and out every day and at the time the railway company took off their cars the Railway Board had no power to interfere because of this by-law. It went along for some time until the town of Burlington had a meeting and passed a resolution asking the Dominion Government to enact such legislation as would place the railway company under the control of the Railway Board. The mayor of Burlington came down, appeared before the special committee, read the resolution, and showed that it was the wish of the town of Burlington that the by-law be set aside and power vested in the Railway Board. This was agreed to and the Bill

went through. Then, the Bill went to the Senate and you know what happened there.
What I have said to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. iMcQuarrie) is that I have no intention whatever, in trying to get this amendment through, of interfering with any other municipality. I have no objection to the Act being so amended as to provide that a municipality which grants a bonus to, or enters into an agreement with, any railway company in regard to fares and other matters shall not be interfered with The provision which I ask for is not intended to apply to a municipality which has granted a bonus or entered into an arrangement of that kind. In our case the municipality has given no bonus. The people of Burlington are desirous that this amendment shall go through and that the right shall be given to the Railway Board to say what the fares shall be hereafter. I do not know of any reason why their wish in that regard should not be granted. This is not going to take any rights away from any municipality. We have no objection to the Bill being amended in any way so long as it concedes the desire of a municipality which has not granted a bonus to a railway company to have the matter placed under the Railway Board. I do not see any good reason why that should not be allowed. That is what I wanted in the first place when I tried to get this clause framed in a different way. I was told by Sir Henry Drayton and others that it would not be possible to do this. The Act would have to be a general Act that would apply to every section of the country. I did not get my way in that regard; hence, the clause went through in the way it is. It would be most unfair to the people of Hamilton and Burlington if this amendment were thrown out this session and the railway company were allowed to repeat what they have already done. That is what I want to prevent. I want it placed in such a position that the railway company cannot stop running their cars without reference to the Board of Railway Commissioners. There is no reason why the Act should not give the Board of Railway Commissioners the right to protect the people of these municipalities.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rather regret a practice that now seems to be gaining strength and recognition in this country of trying to settle lawsuits by Ac't of Parliament. I think it is a practice that is likely to get the House and the Government into a good deal of trouble. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) has just stated a case

which appears to be a specific difficulty between the city of Hamilton and some railway company concerning a contract that they entered into. That difficulty should be settled in the Supreme* Court of Ontario if there is a misunderstanding about their contract. If there was tno power even in the Supreme Court to enforce that contract it might ultimately be necessary to come to this Parliament. But I submit it is a bad habit to be passing general Acts of Parliament with a view to meeting, or dealing with, one specific case. That is what I have to say about legislation of this character. I think it is unusual, and I would be almost disposed to say improper, for a judge of the Supreme Court of any of our provinces, who had delivered a decision on a certain matter and while that decision was open to appeal, and possibly an appeal pending, to come to this Parliament and ask, suggest, or draft, an Act of Parliament to be put through which would have a material effect upon his own decision. I would regard that on the part of a judge of the Supreme Court as something highly improper. I think the Chairman of the Railway Board is just as important as any single judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, if not more so. I would regard it as irregular for the chairman of the board, while his own decision and that of the board was pending, or standing for appeal, to come to this Parliament and suggest, much less to allow himself to draft, a section to be passed through this House which materially affected his own decision or the decision of the board. That ds the way I understand the explanation of hon. gentlemen supporting the Government.
I have no personal knowledge of the matter that in this case comes before this Parliament, but I would say that a decision ' given by any tribunal must stand or fall upon the facts and the law at the time that decision is given and it should not be affected by legislation that was passed afterwards. The decision must stand or fall upon that and if Parliament finds it necessary to step in afterwards and pass remedial legislation to remedy an evil, that is another matter. That ds very often done. The decision must take its count and must stand or fall upon the law and the facts as they existed at the time of the hearing.
Coming down to the particular matter that was dealt with by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) and the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) with regard to these contracts with
the provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba and other contracts that are outstanding, I submit to the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) that nothing should happen in this House, nothing should be countenanced in this House by way of legislation, that would affect these contracts until the fullest possible or necessary hear-* ing has>
been given to all parties concerned. The province of Manitoba and the province of British Columbia entered into these contracts-


William Findlay Maclean: And the whole people of Canada in connection with the Crowsnest.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was dealing with these contracts entered into in good faith, for the advantage of those provinces no doubt, giving subsidies to these companies with the view that fair and reasonable rates would always be maintained in those provinces by virtue of this arrangement. I submit to the Government and to this House that it is far from fair and equitable dealing to change these conditions by an Act of this Parliament without giving these people an opportunity of being heard. I am sure the Prime Minister, if he understood this question, would be very loath to agree to contracts that had been solemnly entered into between companies and Governments in this country being overridden and rendered useless without giving the parties, who have given consideration to them and who have paid out their money and the money of their governments, an opportunity to be heard in support of these agreements. All that is to be set aside and rendered as if it had never existed by this Parliament which has really had nothing to do with the initiating of these contracts.
I submit that these things should not happen. The same thing applies to the contract entered into some years ago between this Government and the Canadian Pacific.
I understand, although I was not in the House at that time, that it was in 1902 or 1903 that the arrangement was made-


Robert Lorne Richardson: 1896-7.


William Findlay Maclean: That was the year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am pretty sure, Mr. Speaker, that it was before dny becoming a member of Parliament in 1904, for I do not remember this agreement being discussed, although I have often heard it referred to. But, at all events, it does not

make any difference. That agreement broke up what was regarded as a monopoly, and while it has been of advantage to the Canadian Pacific railway, it has also been

of advantage to the Canadian people. Now, that that agreement should not be any longer regarded by the Canadian Pacific rail-, way or by this Government without its being fully discussed in this House and an opportunity given to all parties concerned to be heard, is, I think, a line of practice that should not be encouraged. That agreement is of far-reaching importance to the people of Canada, and, Sir, it should not be set aside in this- summary fashion. Full notice should have been given that the effect of this amendment to the general Railway Act was to strike at agreements of this character. Speaking for myself, I had not the slightest idea from what I heard discussed in connection with section 325 that it had anything to do with the agreement between the Government of Manitoba and some railway company, or with the agreement between the Government of British Columbia and municipalities in that province and some railway company, or that it affected the Crowsnest Pass agreement. With all due respect to my good friend the Minister of Railways, who is responsible for this amendment, I think its purport should have been fully explained to the House. If anything can be done now to give the parties interested an opportunity of being heard,
I am sure the Government ought to take the necessary steps to that end. If the province of Manitoba or of British Columbia gave a subsidy to a road, with the understanding that only rates approved by the province were to be charged, and we step in as a Government and take over that road and break the agreement, there is nothing clearer to my mind than that we should pay back any subsidy so paid. We cannot hold the money and at the same time take away the benefits which the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia were to obtain from the bargains they made.
I am sorry, -Sir, that we are passing general Acts when we should be dealing with specific cases. If it is necessary to legislate in order to settle the difficulty between the city of Hamilton and the railway company referred -to, and if this is the only place where that can be settled, let us deal with it by a specific Act entirely upon its merits, -and not by a general Act which may suit one case and affect a thousand other cases where the parties have no opportunity to be heard.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the House to one or two considerations that perhaps have not been taken entirely into account. In view of the enor-

mous increase in the cost of operation due to the increased cost of material and labour, we found it absolutely necessary to pass the Order in Council which has been laid upon the table of*the House, enabling rates to be raised, notwithstanding the existence of agreements such as have been mentioned here this morning. We had our choice between the bankruptcy and cessation of operation of the railways and taking that step. There was absolutely no alternative. It was a difficult alternative, and we were obliged to act according to our idea of what was best in the public interest. This clause, which is being discussed under the direction of the hon. the Speaker, is to continue that right after the Order in Council shall have ceased to operate.
I have had the advantage of reading a very carefully prepared memorandum from the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, in which he makes it abundantly plain-to me, at least-that for .the future the board must have the right which is to be established by that clause, otherwise it would be absolutely impossible for it to fix rates commensurate with the necessity of having the railways operated. If a score or' fifty or one hundred agreements are made all over Canada between municipalities or provinces and railway companies, by which the fixing of uniform rates for all railway companies-an absolute necessity where many lines are competing-is entirely prevented, well, the Board of Railway Commissioners, so far as the fixing of rates is concerned, -might as well be abolished. It cannot function properly, because it cannot establish a uniform- system of rates throughout Canada if it is to be restricted here as to one company and there as to another company and somewhere else as to another company in respect to rates. Therefore, I say that so far as the future is concerned it seems to me that this clause is an absolute necessity.
So far as the past is concerned, there are other considerations which certainly do arise, and I have felt the force of them during the discussion which has been going on for the last hour. I should ire quite content, if we had not passed the clause, to have it so amended that it should continue in force for -a period of, say, three years only, during which time we would have an opportunity of considering the whole situation from any standpoint-from the standpoint of limitations, if any, upon the effect of this clause in the future; from the standpoint of compensation, possibly, by a railway company which had agreed to

carry traffic at a fixed rate and had received a certain 'advantage by (reason of that, and which was now at liberty to apply to the Railway Commission, under a clause such as this, for the purpose of having that agreement entirely set aside. I think there is some force in that proposal, and it seems to me we should consider it. I should not be at all disappointed if the (Senate in considering the amendment should reach the conclusion that the effect of this clause might very well be limited to a period of, say, three years, or two years, or something like that, during which period the considerations which have been pressed upon the attention of the Government this morning would be taken into account and a just result in the public interest would he arrived at. I hope that hon. members will accept my assurance that the Government is disposed to look after the question in that way. On the other hand, there is absolute necessity, if the Board of Railway Commissioners is to effectively discharge its functions, that it shall in future have the right , to deal with rates, irrespective of agreements of this character made in different parts of the country.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE (Simcoe):: There is a great deal of force in the remarks of the Prime Minister that there should be some latitude in the application of rates during the war period, and I would have no objection to the passing of this clause, none whatever, were I fully satisfied that the Railway Commission would act fairly and equitably towards all parties concerned. But I must say that certain things that came under my notice recently with reference to decisions of the Railway Commission, which have led me to believe that that body, in the matter of freight rates, are acting entirely in the interests of the railway companies, and that they are putting into force decisions of a most reactionary character and which bear very heavily upon the poor people of this country and operate unjustly towards them. I refer principally to the western part of Ontario and to the freight rates on coal. The farmers need to have coal, and poor people require that commodity also, and you would have thought, Sir, that in their decisions in the matter oi freight rates on coal the Railway Commission would take great care and act judicially and equitably towards all parties concerned. A recent decision of the Railway Commission, however, operates in this way: Most of the coal that comes into Western Ontario from the United States has to pass through the yards in Buffalo, and an inter-switching
charge is enforced there of $8 a car. The question of absorbing that charge came up and the Railway Commission made a decision thereon. They decided that where there is competition between railways-for instance in the cities of Toronto and Hamilton-the railways shall absorb that charge* but where there is no competition-for example in the town of Port Credit where there is only one railway-the man who buys that coal must pay the inter-switching charge of $8 a car, which amounts to about twenty-five cents a ton in the case of every purchaser of coal at that place. On the other hand, in the city of Toronto, only a few miles farther on, where there is competition in railway rates, the railways have to absorb the charge of $8 per car and the people of that city are freed from any liability in connection with it. I would be quite willing to give the fixing of the rates all over this country at any time to a commission that would act fairly and equitable in the interests of the public generally. That is the intention of this country and of this Parliament. Our desire is to get away from the idea of railway competition so that people throughout the whole country -regardless of where they are living-will receive a fair deal no matterAvhether there is railway competition or not. In view of this fact I think the Government should seriously consider the handing over of this important matter when it involves the possibility of the perpetration of many acts of injustice towards the provinces and the municipalities without their being heard, solely in the interest of a particular company, or a particular corporation, in the city of Hamilton. I do not think this Parliament is supposed to legislate solely in the interests of the town of Burlington, the city of Hamilton, ot Sir John Gibson, much as I respect that gentleman. There are other questions to be considered, and if the Railway Commission are going to do their duty, as they should do, they will deal equitably towards all parties affected.
During the last year or two, since tire decision to increase railway rates all over the country was arrived at, it is impossible for anybody to inform themselves as to the Tailway rates in force and ascertain whether the mass of people, and communities in general, are being equitably dealt with by the railway companies. There is no schedule of the railway rates charged published in, the Canada Gazette from time to time, so that a person who has to ipay railway rates could find out what his neighbours or competitors are paying, or what

rates are in effect all over the country. The Government should seriously consider the effect of this clause at the present time. If I had not known of the circumstances in connection with the unjust coal rate to which I have referred, I would have been totally unaware that the poor man in every town and village-and this applies especially to communities in Western Ontario where the Grand Trunk is the sole railway-where there is no railway competition is called upon to pay this unjust charge of 25 cents a ton on coal, which the railways themselves should assume. Why should the people in those places be discriminated against in favour of the people living in cities simply because in the one case there is no railroad competition, and in the other case there is? That is no kind of treatment for a tribunal such as the Railway Commission to mete out to people, and therefore for the reasons which I have mentioned I very much dread the Railway Commission being given any such power as is now proposed to be conferred upon them.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. T. J. Stewart) withdraws his objection to a reconsideration of the previous resolution. In that case, I presume we might have the unanimous consent of the House to a reconsideration of clause 325 so that some amendment of it, such as has been suggested, might be made.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would point out that
there is a motion before the House that has not been disposed of, and which should be dealt with before passing to a reconsideration of a resolution previously entertained and adopted. The motion is in respect to clause 374. I am directing the attention of hon. gentlemen particularly to the circumstances because, under the Rules, hon. gentlemen are confined to one speech. If it is their desire to discuss clause 325 they should also hear in mind that the motion now before the House deals with section 374.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I deem it somewhat unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill should conflict in so many respects with the apparent rights of municipalities. If this were the only case we might not possibly attach so much importance to it, but such is not the case. The considerations which the right hon. the Prime Minister has just given us as to the special circumstances under which our railways are at present operating, of course, have naturally great weight. I am fully aware of the fact that

the railways cannot operate under the old rates and make ends meet at all. I think everybody must be thoroughly convinced that owing to the high price of all kinds of raw materials that enter into the construction of railways, and owing to the conditions of the labour market, and other facts, it is absolutely impossible for railways to operate, and do that successfully, under the rates that were in force a few years ago. But even after giving all due weight to those considerations it does appear to me that the hon. gentleman (Mr. McQuarrie) has somewhat of a grievance in regard to clause 325 that has not been quite fairly met. I do not wish to reflect in any way upon your judgment, Mr. Speaker, in the matter, which I think was absolutely fair, but it was the intention, I think, of the hon. gentleman to submit an amendment to that particular clause and by its sudden adoption he was more or less debarred from moving the amendment which he probably otherwise would have done.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must submit to the hon. gentleman that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) spoke and resumed his seat, without moving any motion.	.


William Foster Cockshutt: That is quite correct, Mr. Speaker, but I think it was his intention either to move an amendment himseli, or have some other hon. member do it for him. I dc nol desire to reflect in any way, Mr. Speaker, on the judgment you have delivered. I think it is perfectly fair, but it is unfortunate, so far as the Minister of Railways is concerned, that he did not reply in a convincing manner to the objections that were raised by the hon. gentleman. I think myself they were of sufficient importance t-o have called for a few words of explanation, and without desiring to at all cast any reflections upon the minister in respect to any wish to hurry legislation, I think the hon. gentleman's remarks should have been replied to in a way that would have been satisfactory to him. There are a great many municipalities in Canada concerned in this question, there is no doubt about that. Very many agreements have been entered into between municipalities and railways dating back for a long period, dealing with rates and with the running and stopping of trains, and many other matters, in which the whole agreement may be involved, and at this stage it does not appear to me that we quite know what agreements are going to be upset by a general standardization such as this particular kind of legislation in-

volves. I am just as anxious as the Minister of Railways to see this legislation go through, but when it )is passed I want, if possible, to 'have justice done to the municipalities all over Canada.
I do not think any good end will be gained by tearing up .agreements which have been in. existence for, many years and which have been lived up to by both parties for a long time. I should deplore it if, in the rushing of this clause or any other clause .through, the interests of municipalities-because I deem them supreme in certain limited and specified areas over which they exercise jurisdiction, or eminent domain, as, I think, the hon. member for Pafkdale (Mr. Mowat) would say-are in any way sacrificed. I trust, if we proceed to allow these clauses to go through, we shall see that in some way or another the interests of municipalities are not ruthlessly sacrificed and long standing agreements torn up by an Act of Parliament which, perhaps, the Chairman of the Railway Corflmission, I think the leader of the Opposition. (Mr. McKenzie) said, has a good deal to do with placing on the statute-books. While I do not object to that, I do not think it is a very wise precedent to establish. I say these few words only wHh a view to having it understood that, if we support the measure, we are still very strongly of .the opinion that municipal or provincial government contracts, which have also been drawn to our attention, should be carefully safeguarded so that no injustice may be done to those interested.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the indulgence of the House for the purpose of endeavouring to arrive at a conclusion which .will be satisfactory? After we have disposed of section 374, with which, technically at least, we are dealing at present, I purpose asking for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the motion of the Minister of Railways with regard to section 325 in order to modify that motion, entirely with his consent, in the following manner:
That this House doth insist upon the amendment made to section 326 of Bill No. 19, hut with the following limiting provision thereto at the end thereof, that is to say,
" Provided that this subsection shall remain in force only during a period of three years from and after the date of the passing of this Act."
That will give us time in the interval to look into the question and to consider all these matters, and to determine whether or not some compensation Should not be
offered by railway companies or by those who represent them for concessions which have been made in consideration, of rates.


William Garland McQuarrie: Might I ask the Prime Minister if he will add to that?
Pending litigation not to be affected.


Robert Laird Borden: I think, as regards that, I should rather like my hon. friend to accept the determination of the Railway Commission in the meantime. The Railway Commission is not bound to disregard; it is only authorized to disregard; but I think in the meantime, during the period of three years, as during the past eighteen months, we might leave those matters to 'be determined by the best judgment of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


William Findlay Maclean: I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister that he either shorten that time or say that this Act shall not be operative for at least twelve or twenty-four months. That would give every one an opportunity to be heard in connection with the rights that are being taken away by the legislation as it was introduced into the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps we could proceed to discuss clause 374 now, and afterwards I shall ask for the unanimous consent of the House for the purpose of moving this motion, and I hope I may receive that consent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the House ready for the question?


William Findlay Maclean: What is the question?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has already discussed it.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has already spoken.


Mr. HERBERT MACDONALD MOWAT (Parkdale):: I do not find myself in agreement with the proposed motion of the minister, and I will briefly give my reasons. Since the discussion of this Bill in committee, which discussion took a long time, the public attention of the country has been fastened on the Bill with the result that an enormous volume of opinion opposed to the present position in which we find ourselves by reason of the refusal of the Senate to accept our amendment, has been heard. It seems to me that before we come to a decision now in pursuance of the motion of the minister, we should discuss the mat-

ter again with some new light that has been thrown upon it. The effect of the motion of the minister is to cut the Bill into two parts. I was not in the House when he was explaining his motion, but I understand his idea is to get rid of this clause in order that the general Railway Bill may go through. While it is highly desirable that the Railway Bill, minus this clause, should go through, it seems to me that the Government, in taking this course, is not dealing w'ith the matter in as proper a manner as it should. It is true you get rid of a troublesome clause, but by you doing so, the municipalities who are interested are thrown entirely on their own resources. It is just as if a parent were to deal with a troublesome or ailing child', not with comfort or kindness, but by ducking its head under water for the purpose of getting rid of it in order that the family life should go on. If this motion carries, the troublesome clause will be out; the general Railway Bill will sail through; the Government, who seem to be chiefly interested in- the Bill and not in the interest of the power clause and that of the municipalities will be perfectly satisfied, and this little Bill which the minister purposes bringing in for the regulation of electric power companies will be left by itself. We all know what is going to happen to that little Bill. The little Bill, if passed here in the way we decided upon the other day, namely, that the rights ol municipalities will be protected, will have just as much chance as a kitten would in a kennel of terriers.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The remark of
the hon. gentleman was not in conformity with the rules.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Of course, I will withdraw the expression; I got into a colloquial frame of mind and used a colloquialism.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member was reflecting upon the proceedings of another Chamber.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Quite so. I was too colloquial. What I should like to see the Government do is this: To recognize more than it does the great feeling among the people of this country living in municipalities that they should receive more protection. Before the clause goes any further I should like to draw attention to one very important piece of law, namely, that owing to the stern brave fight put up by the municipalities beginning twenty years ago the law was so crystallized that a power company before it could put its trunk lines through a municipality had to obtain the munici-

pality's consent; if the consent of the municipality was withheld or refused, the company could go to the Railway Committee for the purpose of getting an order. But very different is the law with regard to selling or distributing electricity in municipalties. This Parliament has declared, and the law has been in force for years now, that the municipality is the sole judge as to whether a power company shall come in and sell electricity. The law in that respect is in this very section 247, which is referred to in the notice of motion of the minister. That being so, and although the municipalities have an absolute right to decline, if they so wish, to allow a selling company to come in or to erect poles or make condulets, yet the Senate has added this subclause 5 to the Bill which allows one particular company- because that is the way it works out-to go into any municipality in Canada.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The present Railway Act, section 247, subsection 8 reads:
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to authorize the company to exercise the powers therein mentioned for the purpose of selling or distributing light, heat, power or electricity in cities, towns or villages, without the company having first obtained consent therefor by a by-law of the municipality.
The effect of the rejection of our amendment by the Senate is that a particular company, though not mentioned, can come in without consent, therefore taking it out of the ordinary law. I cannot and I will not here take up any further time in repeating the arguments, legal or otherwise, which were advanced on the former occasion. If the new Bill suggested eventually comes before the House that contest will have to take place again. I have an amendment which I will read in a moment. This is a contest between a powerful aggregation of companies, interlocked in one way or another for their own purposes in financing, and the municipalities in Canada. It has been suggested, and I find that the advocates of the company never miss an opportunity to assert, that this is a Toronto Bill, in order that the people may take no interest in it believing it to be entirely local. But I was first interested in this movement by my sympathy with the association of municipalities and I cannot do better, to show the attitude of those municipalities, than by giving a short quotation from- the Canadian Municipal Journal published in Montreal for June. In discussing the debate and the proceed-

ings of this House earlier in this month it makes use of this language:
As a matter of fact if it had not been for the clauses in the present Railway Act protecting the municipalities from the action of corporate interests, and which were inserted after many a hard and bitter fight, municipal Canada would to-day be at the mercy of the goodwill of every franchise grabber who knew the art of lobbying at Ottawa. "What is more, we do not know of a single public utility owned by private interests, but what has at some time during its existence tried, even with the above protective clauses inserted in its charter, to beat the local authorities in some way or other.
That is the trouble and the disadvantage with which these, municipalities have to contend, and I may say that I have always been in sympathy with them in their struggles and was glad when they succeeded in inducing this Parliament to pass legislation which gave protection to municipalities. Therefore, I would not like to see that protection taken away except for the very strongest reasons. I am well aware that it is said a very strong reason exists because the company, by reason of a fortunate decision which they obtained from the Privy Council, acquired some rights. It is not necessary at this moment to deal with that question, except to say that I do not believe that any right has been invaded. We cannot question the decision of the Privy Council so far as it goes, but for those who were not in the House on the occasion of the last debate, I have simply to repeat that without doubt that decision in no way goes to the merits of the case. The law lords distinctly disclaimed any decision upon the policy as between the two interests, but simply gave a grammatical or technical interpretation of the Act. The Railway Act was consolidated in 1903, one year after the charter was granted; but the draftsman probably did not know that the Railway Act was incorporated in the charter and did not so draw the Acts that the protection was continued. Consequently, this company has slipped through the meshes of the law. But it is our law; 'we made the law. That was the understanding at the time, and Parliament has the right to go back now and declare the law to be what it intended it to be at that time. This is a fight not by the particular company in the charter and which is inferentially mentioned in the Senate amendment. It is a fight on the part of the Toronto Railway Company, because I hold in my hand a trust mortgage dated in 1911, by which the Toronto Power Company made an issue of bonds. Clause 65 in that mortgage reads: The Railway Company-
That is, the Toronto Railway Company-
-hereby absolutely and unconditionally guarantees the due payment by the company of principal and interest on stock and bonds for the time being, and also sinking fund payments for the redemption of bonds hereinbefore agreed to be made.
That is dated July 27, 1911. While it is difficult for us to follow the interlockings and different agreements between all these companies, yet the fact stands out clearly that we in 1902, in giving this charter to the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, authorized them to make a bond issue of $1,500,000. They did make that issue and it all went to one company-one of the interlocking companies, the Electrical Development Company. So that that issue of bonds was not- bought by the public, who were in no wise interested in it. It was transferred to one of the interlocking companies. Now, Parliament had an object and a reason in limiting the bonds to $1,500,000, and when this company, chartered by us, enters into relations with other companies and says: "We have a bond issue of $30,000,000 now upon the whole," that is transgressing the power given by us in 1902 which limited the issue to the sum I have mentioned. Therefore, I say that vested rights are not affected and should not be held to be affected. No one in Canada wishes to interfere with vested rights, but there is something else besides finance, and that is, the right of municipalities to be sovereign in their own jurisdiction. We had petitions in the committee from 107 sources, and I believe there are a considerable number of others. The association of municipalities is represented from Alberta to Nova Scotia. This company has the right to go all over Canada, and its extremely valuable charter which we inadvertently gave is enhanced by this technical decision of the Privy Council. If we allow it to go through and do not reassert the position we took the other day we will give them the same power to interfere with the rights of any municipalities, which will be keenly resented and fought to the end. I therefore desire that we should re-assert the position we took two weeks ago and if it is proper that we should deal with the two clauses in the one motion, I may say that my hon. friend the member for West York (Mr. Wallace) who moved an amendment regarding clause 376, joins with me in this motion, which is as follows:
That all the words after the word " that " in the sixth line of the resolution be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:
This House doth insist upon the amendment of clause 374 regarding: electrical power distri-

button in municipalities and clause 376 regarding increased compensation to be paid by rural telephone companies.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This amendment is more or less technical and is before me for the first time, and there is some question as to whether it can be properly considered as an amendment to the motion before the House. However, I will put the amendment and reserve the right to give a decision on the point in a moment.


Mr. MOW  AT@: The resolution is that a certain message be sent to the Senate, and the effect of my amendment, if carried, would be to send a message other than that proposed.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like, now that I am in order, to refer to the question of the invasion of municipal rights in Ontario. The previous speaker referred to municipal rights as vested rights. If there are any vested rights that ought to be considered sacred in this country, I agree with him that the right of the municipalities to administer and control their own affairs ought to be so considered. Apparently that was the object of Sir James Whitney when he was Premier of Ontario. He introduced legislation to ensure that municipal rights would be protected. They had been raided before this from Ottawa by a party which had declared itself to be the champion of provincial and municipal rights. These municipal rights were invaded by transferring to the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament many companies that had been authorized by the legislature of Ontario to do business under provincial charter. They sought Dominion legislation through this House 'notwithstanding that some of us who were the friends of municipal rights and who were following in a way the lead of Sir James Whitney, protested. We did not succeed but we went on record. I think I can recall that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), who was then leading the Opposition, on more than one occasion joined with us in protesting against this invasion of provincial and municipal rights. Those of us who were then in the House pledged ourselves that when a new government came into power that new government would affirm that these rights should be protected. A new government came into power in 1911 and we expected that from that time on, in some way, the wrongs that had been inflicted by this Parliament upon municipal and provincial rights would be corrected. I am a firm believer in the principle that for every legislative wrong there 
is a legislative remedy. I have been waiting for a good many years to see that legislative remedy applied but it has not yet come. Rights, municipal and provincial, not only of Ontario, but of other provinces have been invaded by this Parliament and they are being invaded by this Act which has come to us from the Senate.
When I look into the composition of the Senate I find that the majority has been appointed by the present Prime Minister who happened to be in Parliament when these raids were made and who was associated with us in the battles of the municipalities of Ontario. That brings up this important reflection and it is a vital question before the people of Canada to-day, that the people are subject to the legislation of an irresponsible body, especially at a time immediately following our declaration in the great war that this W'as an age of democracy. Why not have democratic institutions in this country to maintain the democratic rights of the people as set up by the legislation of the provinces? I am not making any reflections upon the Senate because the Senate is a portion of the Parliament of Canada but under the conditions which exist to-day this irresponsible Senate is invading the rights of the municipalities not only of Ontario and .British Columbia but of all the other provinces. I am here to protest against the rights of the provinces and of the municipalities being subject to the acts of an irresponsible body like the Senate. In England to-day there is great agitation and legislation is now being drafted to make the House of Lords-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order; the hon. gentleman is wandering away from the subject under discussion.
Mr. W. F. (MACLEAN:	Bowing to the
decision of the Speaker, may I ask: Where am I to have an opportunity of discussing (this matter except on an occasion of this kind? I still maintain that the rights of the provinces and of the legislatures have been invaded and that it is the duty of this House to at leaslt affirm what those rights are and to see that they are vindicated. I will vote for this measure but when I do vote for it I vote for the restoration of the vested rights of the provinces and the municipalities.
We have heard a lot about the vested rights of capital. I am here to uphold the vested rights of the people and of the municipalities. I do not like to be told in this House, as we have been told, that a section of the Parliament of Canada is here for the

express purpose of protecting vested rights, meaning thereby the rights of corporations and of interests. There is no clause in the British North America Act that I am aware of which allows any part of the legislative machinery of this country to be 'considered as the guardian of vested rights. Yet, that is what we are told in this House time after time. We are told that we must accept the views of others with regard to a question of this kind. In a democratic age, at this time when the rights of the public are being assailed, this House ought to see that those rights are protected and, once for all, an answer ought to be given to this challenge, which has been issued to the people of Canada, under the auspices of the present Administration that vested rights must be protected as against the municipal and provincial rights of the people.
The people will not stand for that in this democratic age. We have got to have democratic institutions right through the whole system of Government and whoever undertakes to tell the people what the law ought to be, whoever assumes that attitude, ought to be responsible to somebody, and ought to have what we call to-day a mandate to do that. Have those who are invading municipal rights a mandate to invade the public rights as they are being invaded? I would like to see that mandate. The only mandate I can see is by going through the list of those who are invading municipal rights, to find out if I can, how the right to protect vested interests originated and where it came from.
I am sorry to say that I find that the great bulk of those who are invading these provincial and municipal rights have only one mandate, and that they happened to get from the leader of the Government. And I want to call his attention to this fact, that he will have to satisfy the people that any one in this: Dominion has the right to invade provincial and municipal rights. Our whole political activity depends on the right of holding public meetings, and wherever there can be self-determination of questions by the people they ought to be settled in the special locality to be affected. But instead of having, as in the old days, the right of municipalities to regulate their own affairs, or to have them regulated for them by the provincial government, for some reason or other that right has been transferred to Ottawa and made a matter of Dominion legislation, and our statute-book has been overloaded with legislation dealing with provincial rights. And something worse than that has happened. We have had these
rights of the provinces transferred for final decision to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I protest against that in behalf of the people of my own municipality, and I think I can protest also in behalf of the people of the whole Dominion. The jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ought to be limited to constitutional questions, and should not extend to the interpretation of the intention of a municipality or of a legislature at any particular time. These ancient rights of the common people to administer the affairs of their own municipalities have been most unjustly invaded by this Dominion under the leader of the party that professed to champion provincial rights. Those rights are now being invaded by men who say they are the champions of vested rights. And they are being still further invaded by a court of appeal sitting across the Atlantic, which cannot be conversant with the questions involved in the same way as our own courts must be. The net result will be that hereafter when the provinces pass any legislation dealing with municipal rights they will insist on putting in a clause, and I think they will be justified in doing so, that the only courts to which a reference can be made as to what constitutes municipal rights shall be the courts of the province concerned, or possibly the Supreme Court of Canada. But it should not be the case, and again I repeat it, in this democratic age and after this war, as President Wilson justly said, " to make the world safe for democracy," that our provincial and municipal rights should be at the mercy of corporate influence. The world is not to-day safe for democracy, because the common rights of the people have been invaded by men who say they are the champions of vested interests, and whose only mandate, as far as I can learn, happens to be the fact that they are the appointees of the Prime Minister for the time being. And again I want to tell the leader of the Government that while he and others stood up in this Chamber years ago to defend the rights of Ontario when they were being invaded, that those rights are being further invaded now by men who sit in another place merely as appointees of the Government.
I conclude by simply saying, that while I will vote for this measure, because in a way it will get us the rest of the Act, which contains many good clauses that are absolutely necessary for the enforcement of public rights in connection with the railways, I do regret that this method has been adopted and that this House should be

called on to ask an irresponsible body to join with us in protecting public rights. I would also urge that the final court for the interpretation of the every-day democratic rights of the people o>f (Canada-their municipal and provincial rights, (should not be a court sitting four thousand miles away- a court that is not conversant with our local conditions nor with the problems that we have to solve-. We, the people of this country, should settle these questions, and settle them right, and all we aSk is that opportunity be given our municipalities and our provincial Governments to settle them. We repudiate any interference on the part of this House-although we grant that the House is now trying, in a way, to get back these provincial rights-and we protest against the way these rights have been invaded, and are being invaded, by an irresponsible body, and by the interpretation of a tribunal which, to my mind, has no right to be the final court of appeal in regard to what these rights are.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend in the address which he has just delivered has wandered over a considerable field, and I know he will pardon me if I do not follow -him for the moment with respect to any suggestions concerning the abolition of the House of Lords, or of the Senate, or the limitation of appeals to the Privy Council; I would like to come a little more directly to the point. Let me say, however, that I cannot quite accept my hon. friend's view that because I have been responsible for recommending some, gentlemen to seats in the Senate during the past eight years, I am therefore also responsible for all the opinions they have subsequently expressed. I did the best I could to secure the election of my hon. friend to this House in 1911 and in 1917, but he would not expect me to hold myself responsible for every opinion that he has since advanced.


William Findlay Maclean: And I do not want the right hon. gentleman to be responsible for my opinions.


Robert Laird Borden: The two cases are very much on the same lines. The position of the matter is simply this: We have been endeavouring for some few years to pass a consolidation of the Railway Act, which contains important new provisions that are eminently in the public interest-
I go further than that, and say that they are essential in the public interest at the present time. That Bill has been defeated on two previous occasions by a difference

of opinion between this House -and the Senate with regard to' the very matter that has been discussed by my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat). I do not pretend for .a moment to criticise, or to take exception to, the views which have been put forward by him or by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) with respect to the preservation of municipal rights. I entirely .agree with the view that municipal rights ought to be preserved and protected from corporate influence wherever that might be exercised to the public detriment.
But the proposal of the Minister of Railways which is now submitted for the consideration of the House is designed to save this Bill from defeat at a time when it is urgently needed, and also to preserve the existing law, with respect to the matters discussed by my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) exactly as it would have been if no amendment had been made. But more than that, the proposal is to introduce immediately a Bill-and the measure is already prepared and ready for introduction- to carry out the wishes of the House in respect of the powers conferred upon this company, and the Minister of Railways has pledged the best efforts of himself, and of the Government of which he is a member, to have that Bill passed both through the House of Commons and through the Senate, so as to give effect to the desire of the House with respect to this question. Therefore the question is simply this: Are you ready to separate this question-which concerns powers already conferred many years ago upon a particular company, and as to the elimination or limitation of which there has been a marked divergence between the House of Commons and the Senate for three years-are you willing to separate that question and deal with it in a separate Bill in order that a measure such as this, eminently necessary in .the public interest at the present time, may be passed and may not fail of enactment for a third time?
I cannot see that the situation will be detrimentally affected, from the standpoint of the municipalities, if this proposal is accepted. On the contrary, there are many important provisions in this Bill, which are eminently in the interests of the municipalities. And is it not wise that the House should give effect to this important provision, and then do its best in a separate measure to bring about the realization of the opinion and desire of the House upon ' the motion proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mowat)? I hope that hon. members will realize what the situation would be if

this Bill were defeated. I doubt very much whether the railways of this country can carry on for another twelve months if this Bill fails to pass, unless we introduce a separate measure into the House for the purpose of enabling the Board of Railway Commissioners, and in the last analysis the Government, to preserve the railway rates at a figure which will permit the operation of railways in this country. I hope that will be borne in mind by hon. gentlemen when they come to consider the proposal of the Minister of Railways. Let me summarize the situation again for them. Here is a measure which has twice failed of enactment by reason of a marked difference between the Senate and House of Commons which concerns the powders conferred many years ago upon a particular company. I start out -with that premise. One might say that the matter in dispute might have been dealt with in the first instance, altogether apart from a general Railway Bill. It was not so dealt with and it has been included in this Bill. We find after every effort made to bring about an arrangement between the Senate and the House of Commons that no such arrangement can be made upon the basis proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Mowat). Well then, is it an unreasonable thing that this House should be asked to give effect to an enactment which will be of enormous advantage-to the municipalities of the country, and which otherwise would be in the public interest, if at the same time we pledge ourselves as we do pledge ourselves, that the particular question of the power conferred many years ago by this Parliament upon this particular company shall be taken up immediately by the Government, that a Bill for the purpose indicated shall be introduced into this House, and that we shall do our best to give effect to that Bill? That is the proposal, nothing more and nothing less, and I hope that hon. gentlemen in considering the course which they will pursue will realize the very great responsibilities that will be involved in the defeat of this measure for the third time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Prime Minister any assurance from the leader of the Government in the Senate that this new Bill will pass during the present session?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I have not been able to obtain any assurance. I have done my best, apart altogether from the conferences between the managers of this House and the managers of the Senate, to bring about some arrangement which would reasonably satisfy the views of one side and
of the other, and I regret very much that up to the present time my efforts have been in vain.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale was submitted a few moments ago, it had the appearance of being a negative, but upon examination it appears to be negative only in part. I would direct the attention of the House and ask it to pay careful attention to the wording of the motion as it would stand if the amendment of the hon. gentleman prevails:
That this House do not insist upon the amendment to clause 374 but that the following amendment be substituted therefor:
That clause 374 be struck out of the said Bill, and that this House insists upon the amendment to clause 374 regarding electrical power distribution in municipalities, and clause 376 regarding increased compensation to be paid by rural telephone companies.
In my judgment, the most which could be said for the motion as amended would be that it was an expression of opinion by this House. It must be borne in mind, however, that we are dealing with a specific clause of the Bill which will be incorporated into legislation and become law, if it prevails. Therefore, it seems to me that the amendment, while the verbiage might be permitted to pass on technical grounds, is not one which ought to be incorporated in the Bill. I am in the judgment of the House in this matter, but I submit that for the reasons I have indicated the amendment is not such as the House ought to entertain.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (Oxford South):: I am sure in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister we appreciate the seriousness of the situation which confronts this country to-day as a result of the attitude of the Upper House with regard to legislation which has been passed by this House on two different occasions. The question is as to the advisability of omitting from the Bill two very important clauses which concern the province of Ontario possibly to a greater extent than any other province, and as I happen to come from a constituency in which is located one of the telephone companies which is the most directly affected by clause 376, I do not feel that I can in justice to the people whom I represent, permit this matter to pass without giving expression to my views. When the question came up in Committee in this House some time ago, I explained the situation with regard to the telephone companies affected by this clause which permitted the

exaction of a penalty from any company entering into competition with the Bell Telephone Company.
I endeavoured to make that clear at that time. I consider it is not fair that the interests of these small companies should he sacrificed in this way in order to enable part of this Bill to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. The Prime Minister has pointed out that the Ministerof Railways (Hon. J. D. Reid) has pledged himself to use his influence to have a separate Bill passed by both Houses. But what prospects are there for carrying a separate Bill, provided that it is left out of the whole Bill, when the Upper House will go so far as to defeat a measure which the Prime Minister states emphatically is essentially in the public interest, as he doubts whether the railways of this country can carry on for twelve months unless this Bill is passed or certain portions of it are passed. I consider the gravity and seriousness of the situation to be such that we should not omit from this Bill certain clauses in order to enable the Upper House to defy this House which is responsible to the people of this country, and also to penalize the weaker companies that have been and are struggling under a great handicap in competition with a great company which has received franchises, not only from this Parliament, but from every province in the Dominion of Canada. The situation is such that even for the sake of doing something to relieve the railway situation in this country, we should hesitate before omitting these two clauses, and we should have an understanding whether we are going to have a responsible Government or an oligarchy rule this country in the future. We have witnessed great reforms and changes in Canada during the past few years. We have submitted to being defied on numerous occasions by the Upper Chamber-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman is not in order in calling in question the action of another House in respect to legislation, nor is he in order in discussing the question of Senate reform on the motion before the House.


Donald Sutherland: Do I understand 1 am out of order in discussing the telephone question?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is out of order in calling in question the action of the other Chamber in respect to legislation. He is also out of order in discussing Senate reform or anything akin to that on the motion that is before the House.
IMr. Sutherland.]


Donald Sutherland: I do not intend to discuss the question of Senate reform, and if I have left that impression on the.minds of the members of the House, I am very sorry indeed. What I was endeavouring to make clear was this, that we should not subvert our opinions and what we consider to be in the interest of this country in deference to any other body, but that we should endeavour to legislate to the best of our judgment, and that we should not depart from our views on questions of this kind in deference to any other Body.
I want to point out just what is happening in the county of Oxford, part of which I have the honour to represent. Many years ago the Bell Telephone Company obtained a franchise and was exercising it in a limited service to the people in the way where the greatest profit could be obtained. As a result of their attitude, local telephone companies were organized throughout the province; and in that particular vicinity the Ingersoll Telephone Company extended their branch line out into the surrounding district and established a central office in the town, the consequence being that the citizens of the town, realizing the facilities for getting into communication with the surrounding districts, also adopted the Ingersoll telephone system in that town. The result was that there was direct competition between the two companies in the town. Finally legislation was passed by Parliament compelling the long distance companies to give long distance connection with local companies. That was made imperative, and as a result of that legislation, the local companies were enabled to get long distance connection with the Bell Telephone Company, but not only were the users compelled to pay long distance rates, but there was a surcharge oi ten cents per message collected from them in addition to the usual long distance rates. Therefore, it will be seen that the long distance telephone company suffered no injustice as a result of the legislation passed compelling them to co-operate with the local companies. What happened ? We find that, instead of dividing up the surcharge of ten cents per message with the local companies, the Bell Telephone Company retained seven-tenths or seven cents, the local companies getting three-tenths or three cents. The company I have reference to, the Ingersoll Telephone Company, maintains two long distance operators; they have their own exchange office, so that this entails no expense whatever on the Bell Telephone Company. In fact, it is a matter of convenience to that company, because they connect

with the people in the country and bring business to themselves. But these words including compensations if any have been inserted in the Bill, and they compel that company and other companies, similarly situated to pay, in addition to the surcharge, a tax or penalty of $300 for being a competing company in certain districts. We talk about monopolies in this country. If this is not the grossest and most glaring monopoly I have ever heard of, I do not understand the English language. Here is a company that has had the advantage of a wide franchise which has refused to render to the public the service which the people are entitled to receive on account of this franchise having been granted to the company, and after these local companies are by necessity forced into existence and have had to spend their money in this way, legislation is passed to compel the central company to give long distance connection, and then, in addition to the surcharge of ten cents per message, you want to penalize these companies by making them pay $300 a year additional, which means that, on the first 10,000 messages originating in the local company, the latter obtains not one cent of revenue, and after that the big company retains seven-tenths of the whole. The matter is so unfair and unjust that it should have received some consideration in the Upper House. I understand no debate whatever took place on it there, but these words were simply inserted in the Bill again. I want to point out further that, as a result of the business that is done over the Ingersoll Telephone Company's line, the Bell Telephone Company reap a great benefit by reason of their long distance connection. The figures for the two years 1917 and 1918, as regards the regular tolls collected on all calls are $10,361, plus a total surcharge of ten cents per call or $3,552, making a total of $13,913, of which the Ingersoll Company receives $465 and the Bell Company $13,448. I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the House at this stage of the session, in view of the fact that the matter has been very fully discussed on a previous occasion, and hon. members are fully acquainted with it. But I consider this is not fair, it is doing small companies a very grave injustice, because it appears impossible to have any Bill containing these two clauses passed by both Houses of Parliament under present conditions.
Sir SAiM HUGHES: What privileges are conferred on the local companies on account of this $300?


Donald Sutherland: Nothing at all
This is simply a penalty imposed upon them for daring to compete with the other company. They receive no rights, no advantages, and, as a matter of fact, many local companies, outside of those centres where there is competition, are linked up with the Bell Telephone Company under an arrangement by which the latter provides the operators instead of the local companies doing so, 'but are not charged one dollar by the Bell Telephone Company because they are not in competition with that company. Which goes to prove that the $300 is simply a penalty imposed in cases where local companies are competing with the Bell Telephone Company. If we are going to encourage monopolies in this country; if we are going to give big corporations an opportunity to squeeze out business enterprise and initiative in this country, and to create monopolies we are taking the proper course in permitting this Bill to go through in this way.
I am not going to say anything regarding the features of the other clause which, to my mind, is so unfair and unjust to the municipalities of this country, because it means that, because of a certain Bill that was put through Parliament on a previous occasion, municipalities are forever deprived of their right to exercise control over their own streets, and that a big corporation is enabled to exercise those rights. If an injustice of this kind has been done to municipalities of this country in the past, that is no reason why such an injustice should continue for all time. We hear a great deal about violation of contracts and 'breach of faith and that sort oi thing. I do not think that applies in this particular case at all. We remember how, for instance, the Grand Trunk railway, years ago, received a charter from this country but by reason of the fact that rates were controlled by Parliament through the Railway Board, it is just a question whether Parliament should be equally morally responsible for the old Grand Trunk finding itself in the position in which it is to-day, outside of their association with the Grand Trunk Pacific. I mention this just to show the inconsistency of the arguments that have been advanced on numerous occasions. I do not like the idea of these two clauses being omitted from this Bill, because I know there is no more possibility of getting the two Houses of Parliament to pass them in a separate Bill than there is for a good many other unlikely things to happen. We should assert our rights as representatives of the people in this

Parliament, and we should not submit to anything of that kind by an impossible body.


Mr. GORDON CROOKS WILSON (Wentworth) :: I wish to add just a few words
to the statement made by the hon. member for Oxford South (Mr. Sutherland) regarding the Bell Telephone Company and their rates. We have been and we are asked in this country to-day, and we are having a committee endeavouring to see whether we can cut down the cost of living. :Yet at the same time we are asked in this House to pass legislation to place a further burden upon the necks of the people.
The Bell Telephone Company was granted power by the Board of Railway Commissioners to increase their rates 10 per cent, and as I understood that increase it was to be in connection with their long distance rates. But what has happened? As soon as they received this power they cut a melon; they issued so much more stock to their stockholders, and at the same time we were told that the Bell Telephone Company could not exist unless they were allowed to increase their rates. In the town of Dun-das, in which I live, we formerly had a business connection with the city of Hamilton for $45. We thought that the increase of 10 per cent would bring that service up to $49.50, but perhaps the House will be surprised to know that we were asked to sign up a contract with this poor corporation that cannot exist under present conditions, but must have a 10 per cent rate increase, not for $49.50, but for $170.50. We also had a service known 'as the house service, which cost up $30, but now we are asked to pay for this same service $148.50. You may say that we can go to the Railway Board, but I say that we should not permit such legislation to be passed. Why should we say that it is absolutely necessary to have in the Bill the words " compensation, if any?" My experience with these corporations-and I have had a good many fights with them in connection with the electric ring, and I am prepared to fight them to the last ditch-has taught me that they are well able and quite prepared to look after their own interests without Parliament intervening and putting them in a position where they can take away the rights of a municipality. I think we should consider well before taking any such action.
I doubt very much if the Government realize what we are doing when we are putting in the hands of corporations the vast powers they have to-day. I agree with the Prime Minister-I said so at the time

when the Railway Act was under discussion -that as far as the Electric Development Company of the city of Toronto is concerned, there should be a separate Bill so that we would have an opportunity of fighting the case out on its merits. I still maintain that that is the proper course to pursue, but I want to impress on the Government and this Parliament that the people of Ontario in particular are sick and tired of this cry of vested rights; we are absolutely sick of it. We have heard a lot about this " electric ring " and the Bell Telephone Company, but I am satisfied that if a private telephone company were established to-day in the town from which I come the Bell Telephone Company would not seek to put these rates in force. They would do just exactly the same as the Cataract Power Company did. They would meet the competition and the people of Ontario would reap the benefit. I strongly urge Parliament and the Government to think carefully before they enact legislation such as this, which will put another yoke upon the necks of the people.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and
Queen's): It seems to me there is a danger of the House being under .a misapprehension as to what is the issue upon which we are invited to vote. Hon. gentlemen opposite-J do not include the Prime Minister, with whose remarks I largely agree- have discussed questions which in themselves are very interesting, indeed, but they do not happen to be the questions upon which we are about to give a vote. I might agree with my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) as to the abolition of the appeal to the Privy Council; I might agree, I say, but this is not the time to discuss that. I agree also that there may be some need of Senate reform, but we are not called upon to deal with that here. I do not agree with the conclusion which the Senate has reached, but I do maintain that in taking such a step they were acting entirely within their constitutional rights, for if we are to have a Senate that is to be a mere echo of the House of Commons, without liberty to think and act and vote for themselves, the quicker we get rid of it the better.
My hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) discussed the old question of the conflict between the Toronto Power Company and the city of Toronto, or putting it a little more broadly, if you wish, the municipalities of the Dominion. That is not the question before us now. We have had that question before us on ^several

occasions, and we are going to have it before us again under the procedure proposed by the Minister of Railways.
Here is the position. We have before us a ponderous Bill of the highest importance, ninety-five per cent-indeed, I think I may say ninety-nine per cent-of which is in harmony with the wish of Parliament, the Senate and the House of Commons, and yet for three years we have been blocked in the carrying of that Bill because there is a difference of opinion as to the other one per cent. Now the Minister of Railways takes the very sensible view: "We do not ask you to pass judgment upon this power question; we will separate the ninety-nine per cent upon which we are all agreed from the other one per cent, and get that ninety-nine per cent through; then we will bring up the other question in a separate Bill and we will be absolutely free to discuss it on its merits." There is a homely proverb that half a loaf is better than no bread, and surely ninety-nine per cent of this Bill is better than no Bill at all. I am afraid that what is going to happen now is that by refusing to follow the course advised by the Minister of Railways we will simply be repeating the difficulties of the past; the Railway Bill will be blocked and the public affairs of the country will be seriously embarrassed.
I think these questions should be separated. I do not understand that the Minister of Railways is asking us now to decide on the merits of any one of these questions. He simply says: "We will get the 99 per cent on which we are all agreed through, and we will bring in a separate Bill dealing with the other one per cent, and the House will then be able to deal with that question on its merits."


Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe):: I was going to discuss that very same point. I agree entirely with the proposition of the Prime Minister so far as the power clause is concerned, and if I could come to the conclusion that that proposition would enable us to deal with the telephone clause in the same way I would have no objection whatever. I am inclined to think that a great number of members of this House are as much interested in the telephone clause as in the power clause, but as the matter now stands before the House clause 374, which is the power clause, is being reserved, but there is no reservation of clause 376, which is the telephone clause. If that be so, and we vote for that proposition, we would be voting in favour of clause 376, or in other words in favour of 264
the action of the Senate regarding compensation in respect of telephone companies, which is the very thing a great many of us cannot see our way clear to do.
I do not want to take up the time of the House in discussing the compensation feature; I would like to have an opportunity of doing so at the right time, but I do not want to be put in the position of assenting to this proposition which reserves the power clause only, and then later on, if I desire to make a reference to the telephone clause, to be met with the objection that by assenting to the proposition of the Minister of Railways I have already agreed to clause 376, the telephone clause. I would like to have that made plain.
It has been suggested to me that under the Bill to be introduced by the minister regarding the power clause we can discuss the telephone clause, but it seems to me it would be rather late to discuss that after the House had concurred in the action of the Senate as evidenced by the joint report presented to this House. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways if there will be any opportunity not only of discussing the matter but of taking some effective action regarding the telephone clause.


Robert Laird Borden: The motion proposed by the Minister of Railways did not touch section 376 at all. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Parkdale did touch both 374 and 376. If the motion of the hon. Minister of Railways should pass it would then become necessary Jo propose another motion with regard to 3*6.


William Alves Boys: I understood that the ruling was that the motion of the hon. member for Parkdale was not in order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I submitted that it would technically be determined to be in order, but that it was not such a motion as ought properly to be entertained by the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is some clerical error with regard to the place at which the amendment should be inserted.


Mr. MO  WAT@: I have been discussing the matter with my friend the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle).


Mr. NICKLE:: Perhaps I might be permitted to explain how the difficulty has arisen in which we find ourselves this afternoon. On Wednesday evening the Minister of Railways gave notice that to-day he would move that the Clerk do carry back this Bill to the Senate and acquaint their honours that this House insists upon the



amendment made to clause 325 of the Bill, the amendment having been agreed to at the free conference between the two Houses; that this House does not insist upon the amendment to clause 374, but has substituted therefor the following amendment:
That clause 374 be struck out of the said Bill, and that a consequential amendment be made to clause 462' by adding after the words " the whole " in the first item in the table of repeals therein the following words:-' except section 247 in so far as that section applies to any person or company having legislative authority from the Parliament of Canada to acquire, construct, operate or maintain works, machinery, plant, lines, poles, tunnels, conduits or other means of receiving, generating, storing, transmitting, distributing or supplying electrical or other power or energy but not including a railway company or a telegraph company or a telephone company '; and that this House does not insist on its amendment to clause 376.
Now the House vfill observe, or at least those who have been present during the entire day, that in his procedure to-day the Minister of Railways has departed somewhat from his intention as declared on the evening of June 25. He has divided his amendment into three parts and instead of moving his proposed resolution he proposes three resolutions each being an enacting clause of the Railway Act. ^It is not necessary that I should now discuss this morning's resolution in reference to 325. In regard to section 374, the motion moved by the Minister of Railways this morning is that this House do not insist upon the amendment to clause 374 and that another amendment be substituted. In the event of the House adopting the suggestion, the new clause 374 will become a clause in the Railway Act, and would not be a clause in the notice to be carried by the Clerk of the House to the Senate. It was as a result of this change, to which I believe the attention of the hon. member for Park-dale was not directed, that that hon. gentleman's amendment appeared so inconsistent. In moving his amendment, the hon. member for Parkdale assumed, and proceeded on the assumption, that the Minister of Railways was moving in its entirety the resolution of which he gave notice, as an intimation to the Senate of the desire and intention of this House. Therefore in moving, as the member for North Parkdale did, that all the words after the word " that " in' the fifth line of the resolution should be struck out, he had reference to the typewritten resolution handed to us on the evening of June 25. Taken in conjunction with the resolution moved this morning, that is, the second resolution in respect of clause 374, the hon. member for North Parkdale's 
amendment becomes quite inexplicable, because the suggested amendment should not take place after the word " that " in the fifth line, but should be made after the first " that," which was the " that " in the fifth line as proposed in June by the Minister of Railways. Of course, the Minister of Railways not having given notice to the member for North Parkdale of his intention to substitute these resolutions, possibly the same in effect but different in phraseology the hon. member for North Park-dale assumed no doubt that the minister would proceed with the resolution of which he gave notice the other evening. The Minister of Railways, in the resolution he now has before the House, has departed from the amendment of which he gave notice on June 25, by not dealing at all in the present motion with the telephone clause. I read to the House a moment ago the amendment as proposed by the Minister of Railways the other evening, the last few lines of which read:
not Including a Tailway company or a telegraph company or a telephone company; and that this House does not insist on its amendment to clause 376.
But the motion of the Minister of Railways as it is now before the House stops at the .word " company," and makes no reference whatever to the telephone issue, which I suppose he intends later on to move as a separate resolution. Am I correct?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Folger Nickle: I think I have made the situation clear to the House. Clause 325 of the Railway Act was dealt with by the motion moved by the Minister of Railways this morning, and in reference to which the Prime Minister has given notice to the House that he desires its unanimous consent for the purpose of adding a further amendment or variation. The clause now before the House for consideration is 374, commonly known as the power clause. But the amendment of the hon. member for North Parkdale deals not only with the power clause but with the telephone clause, in reference to which the Minister of Railways tells us he intends to propose a subsequent resolution. To clear the air, 1 think it might be wise if the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale would at least go so far as to strike out from his amendment all reference to the telephone clause and take it up when the Minister of Railways moves his subsequent resolution. Even then, as I read the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale, in view of the present resolution of the Minister of Rail-

ways, it would practically mean that his amendment would be a blank negative of that of the Minister of Railways and would therefore appear to be out of order. Coming however, to the meat of the issue, I quite appreciate everything that the Prime Minister has said and he has stated the facts correctly.
If the Senate and the House do not agree on section 374 then the Railway Act will in its entirety fall to the ground. I am not disposed to differ from those who would say that it would have been better probably, in its inception, if the whole controversy in connection with the Toronto and Niagara Power Company charter had been introduced by special Act but in 1917-I think I am correct in the year- the then special railway committee presided over by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), when the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Cochrane) was Minister of Railways and Canals, brought into this House a Railway Bill in which the rights of the municipalities were protected to the same extent as those of us who are arguing to-day for protection desire. That Bill did not become law owing to the fact that the Senate, in 1917, refused to accept it as it came from the Commons. This year a special committee, presided over again by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), brought in a recommendation in reference to the power clause practically diametrically opposed to the recommendation brought in by the special committee in 1917. The committee of 1917 laid down the doctrine that no matter what the rights under any special charter were, no power transmission or distribution company hereafter should have the right to erect transmission lines without the consent of the municipality, or in the event of that consent not being obtainable, as to transmission lines without the concurrence of the Railway Board, they should not have the right to erect any distribution plant in any municipality without the consent of that municipality. This year's committee brought in a recommendation that the same law should practically apply in reference to transmission lines hut they took from the municipalities the right of controlling absolutely their streets and the distribution of electricity within their municipal boundaries.
There is a good deal to be said, I admit, for what the right hon. the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) urges- that is that these matters should be considered separately from the General Railway Act, but I do not think that any member of this House should be blinded as to what that means. It means that those of us who have been arguing for municipal control within municipal boundaries are going to fail, and signally fail, in our effort to secure what is desired. You ask me:	Why are we going to fail? We are
going to fail for this reason: If the House adopts the suggestion made by the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) the General Railway Act will pass and there will be a clause-clause 247 of the Act of 1906 -incorporated, in so far as it is applicable to light, heat and power companies. The incorporation of that clause will prevent any company that has not got a special charter from entering upon the streets of any municipality without the consent of the municipality being obtained, although a transmission, or a distribution and transmission company, may have its rights to construct a transmission line determined by the Railway Board. Power over any distribution system for which legislative authority has been obtained will be retained by the municipalities. All companies having special charters, such as the Toronto and Niagara Power Company have, will go absolutely scot free under the amendment suggested by the Minister of Railways. The Minister of Railways admits the correctness of my argument by stating that he is prepared to introduce into this House a special Act dealing with companies that have the power to which I have just directed the attention of the House. The very object of the introduction of such a measure is to curtail and' restrain such companies as they would not be curtailed and restrained by the legislation that he has now before the House.
But what is going to happen? For the sake of my argument-I am now leaving out altogether everything in reference to the telephone business-let us assume that the Senate will accept the resolution in reference to the power clause proposed this afternoon by the Minister of Railways because it is a compliance with the law as it is to-day and in no way affects the controversy that has been before this House for some years past. But if the special Act that the minister proposes should be introduced, and which the Prime Minister refers to, is introduced into this House, and if it gets the concurrence of the majority of the members here, then goes to the Senate, the Senate will kill it because there is no reason why the Senate should give its concurrence to a clause restricting the powers of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company

when that restriction is embodied in a private Act, when they would not give their concurrence to the general Act. '
Where will the House of Commons be and where will the champions of municipal rights be? Worse than that, where will the municipalities be? I am advised by those who say they know that there is no other such charter in Canada as that which is possessed by the Toronto and Niagara Power Gompany, that there is no company with as wide powers and that this company's exponents will allege that they have the right from the Atlantic to the Pacific for all time to enter any municipality for the purpose of distributing power without the consent of that municipality having been obtained.
I see the difficulties that confront the Minister of Eailways. I see the difficulties that the railways may be confronted with in the next year, in the event of the Railway Act not passing, but I see also the difficulties that are going to confront the municipalities concerned by the charter of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company in the event of this House not securing the concurrence of the Senate in the special Bill to be introduced by the Minister of Railways. If that Bill does not secure the concurrence of the Senate, then municipal rights, in so far as the Toronto and Niagara Power Company is concerned, are absolutely negligible. The question we have to ask ourselves this afternoon is this: Are we, confronted with the (difficulties that face the railways, to take the responsibility of saying to the Senate: Unless you pass this Act as we have sent it to you, the responsibility is taken by you if the railways find themselves in difficulties? Or, are we so overwhelmed by the difficulties that will confront the railways as to say that we are prepared to assume the responsibility of perpetuating the alleged rights and privileges of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company? The question is: Are the rights of the municipalities to be sacrificed that the rights of t'he railways may be aggrandized?
For years I have stood as the champion of municipal rights. For years I have believed, as I believe to-day, that no company has the right to go into the streets of any municipality, without the consent of that municipality, for the purpose of distributing light, heat or power. I quite agree that in reference to a transmission line, it would be radically unfair that any one municipality should have the right to prevent a great undertaking being carried to 
a successful conclusion, merely by saying that the company shall not have the right to run their line of poles for transmission through that municipality. I therefore quite agree with the power that is vested in the Railway Commission of saying that such a right may be given for the purpose of transmission alone; but I am not prepared to go the length of saying that a similar right should be granted in regard to distribution.
There is only one question, as I see the issue, this afternoon: Shall this IHouse, by accepting the minister's recommendation, with the possibility, yea, the probability, if not the actuality of the Senate inevitably killing the Bill that he will introduce, confirm the Toronto and Niagara Power Company in the parliamentary powers that it has for the distribution of light, heat and energy? It is too great a responsibility for me to assume, and, as a member of this House, I am prepared to take what responsibility there is of saying, that we do not go back on the position taken here on the night when the vote was taken,-that this House should require the Senate to state whether or not they think their judgment so much better than the judgment of this House, responsible to the people, that they are prepared to hold up this measure for another year. I quite agree with what the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) has said, that it would be useless to have a Senate that never differed, even on principle, with the House of Commons; but I think it is equally useless that we should have a House of Commons that submits tamely, and without asserting itself, when it believes that the rights of the people are being trampled upon by a Chamber that is not responsible to the people.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a few observations, largely to reinforce the remarks of the Prime Minister and of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens. As has already been explained by the Prime Minister and tersely put by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens, the issue before the House this afternoon is not the question of our attitude towards municipal rights on the one hand, or corporate rights'" on the other, but it is: How can we preserve the railway legislation, which is so important, and make sure that it gets through this year, and at the same time give proper consideration to the power question bv a separate Bill?
Let me remind the House of the situation. The Government in 1917 introduced

the Railway Bill into this House. This House passed that Bill containing the clause which the Senate has rejected; the Senate rejected it, and the Bill failed. It has 'been said before, but I come back to it again because it lies at the very basis of this proposition, that after months of labour spent by the two Houses the Bill failed. Last year the Union Government took the responsibility of again introducing the Bill with the clause the House desires protecting the rights of the municipalities. The Senate again struck it out, and the Bill again failed. This year for the third time the Bill went up to the Senate with this provision; the Senate struck it out again. I was one of the members appointed by this House to confer on this question with the managers of the Senate. I am quite sure there will be no difference of opinion among hon. members present that the reports presented to this House correctly represented the attitude of the Senate. The hon. senators affirmed their position and disagreed with the position of hon. members of this House. There is not any question whatever, I believe, in the mind of any member of this House who formed part of the conference that if the House reaffirms its position, and the Bill goes back with this clause in, it means that the Bill fails this year, because the Senate will not accept this amendment. That is the issue we face. My hon. friend (Mr. Nickle) speaks of municipal rights. I am just as strong a believer in municipal rights as he is, and I am just as strong a believer in public ownership as he is or any other member of this House. But what is the fact? If the Bill fails these company rights continue unlimited-if the Bill fails this company wins.
Mr. NI'CKLE: Temporarily.


Mr. ROWELL:: It wins as long as the Bill continues to fail. And all the company desires is that the Bill should fail. In the meantime the public interest suffers because we have not the necessary railway legislation. While I am on this matter I want to draw attention to the fact that the report of the conference which appeared in the Toronto Globe of yesterday, and which indicated the attitude of members of the conference, is not in accordance with what took place. The conference was confidential, and therefore I cannot discuss the details. But the Globe report of it is not correct, nor is its statement of my attitude on this question when I voted some time
ago on the amendment of the hon. member for Park dale.
When this question came up in this House Some days ago we were called upon to vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale. The Minister of Railways intimated to the House at that time-as the Government know from past experience and the best information that we could secure-that the amendment then proposed would not be accepted by the Senate. The Government could not get it through the Senate. The passage of the amendment meant that the Bill would be held up. Then what was the right and reasonable thing to do as common sense men? To try and propose an amendment which would protect the municipalities as far as possible and which at the same time might receive favourable consideration from the Senate as a reasonable compromise; or in other words to try to reach an understanding, if possible, with the Senate in connection with the matter. I voted against the amendment of the hon. member for Park-dale because it meant that the Bill would fail again. I favoured the amendment suggested by the member for Shelburne and Queens or that of the Minister of Railways because I hoped the Senate might accept such an amendment and thus save the Bill and at the same time limit and control the rights of the power company and the interests of the municipalities. My hon. friend said: Leave the responsibility on the Senate. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is a duty on the Government to try to secure the necessary legislation under which the transportation interests of this country can be protected and our railways carried on. Suppose transportation should be dislocated during the coming year by reason of the failure of this Bill, who would be 'blamed? The Government of the country would be blamed.


William Folger Nickle: The Senate.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Government is blamed for all troubles now. The Govern-men would be blamed-


William Folger Nickle: No, the Senate.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -in that, it did not pass a Bill which both the Senate and the House are agreed upon as vital for the protection of the transportation interests of this country. We would be told that we should not have permitted this Bill to fail because we could not agree on these other matters. The proposal of the Minister of Railways is simply to divide the Bill in two. As my hon. friend for Shelburne and

Queens said, let us get through the matters on which we are agreed, and then disicuss this other question of the power clauses. Personally, I am absolutely opposed to any corporation having the right to go upon the streets of any city at its own sweet will.


William Folger Nickle: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite sure that the House of Commons did not intend to give that power; but whether it intended to give it or not, I do not believe at this time and under present conditions any corporation should have that power. But I believe I am acting in the interests of the municipalities, as well as in the interests of the country, when I seex to help get this Bill through in the interests of controlling transportation in Canada, and then to fight out the issue fairly and squarely on the power clauses. It seems to jpe that that is the right thing to do.


William Folger Nickle: What reason has the minister for assuming that the Senate will agree to the principle in a private Bill that they have repeatedly negatived in a public Bill?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In the first place, it is not a private Bill, and it is not simply a public Bill, it is a Government measure introduced and backed with all the force of a Government anxious to put it through. I have no reason to assume that the Senate's attitude will be different in the one case from what it has been in the other. It may be that we will fail. If we fail what is the difference in the two cases? If we fail we are no worse off, so far as power companies are concerned; and we have put this Bill through and secured our necessary railway legislation.


Donald Sutherland: What is the attitude of the leader of the Government in the Senate on this question?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not read the report of the Debates in the Senate. I know what the attitude of members of the Government in the conference was and I know what the attitude of the members of the Government in this House is in reference to this matter. We are trying to save the railway legislation and at the same time protect as far as this House can do so the interests of the municipalities.
The question of an amendment to the Senate's constitution has been discussed, and I am not going to refer to it now, except to say this: I was one of the Liberals who believed that the platform of 1893 should have been carried out and the Sen-
EMr. Rowell.]
ate reformed, and I am impenitent enough to still believe in that policy. I believe that in the interests of good government in this country and in order to safeguard the transportation interests of Canada, the Government is doing a wise and proper thing in seeking to save this railway legislation from being wrecked once more by a conflict between the two Houses. That is the object of the amendment introduced by the Minister of Railways.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the leader of the Government in the Senate, who is a member of the Cabinet, takes a position against this proposal, what is the Government going to do?


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think the hon. gentleman is in order discussing the attitude taken by any member of the Senate.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have finished my question if the minister will only be good enough to answer it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think the question is in order.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER:: Clause 374 oi the Consolidated Revenue Bill, as amended in the interest of the municipalities, passed this House a few weeks ago, by a substantial majority, after a debate which occupied an entire afternoon and evening and was protracted until two or three o'clock the following morning. The Bill then went to the Senate and the Upper Chamber, notwithstanding the action of the direct representatives of the people, chose in their wisdom to amend the clause in question. Now the issue is once more back in the popular Chamber and surely the House which reached a decision, after such a prolonged debate, is not going to change its position to-day and allow the Senate amendment to prevail? I am oon-vinced that this House by a large majority will reject the clause in the form desired by the Senate. Surely the voice of the ^ people, as expressed through their direct representatives, should be given some consideration by those who are not directly responsible to the public, and an effort made by them to give effect to the popular will, although in the case of several measures recently the Upper House have not chosen to meet the wishes of the people, but have preferred to exercise their own views irrespective of what the people desire. Rather than give effect to the popular will, the Senate has decided to protect this exploiting company. This is not a Bill which affects the city of Toronto alone;

all the municipalities throughout the Dominion are interested in it; but Toronto will be more seriously affected than the smaller municipalities will be. Still the principle involved applies to the small municipality as well as to the large city, and in my opinion the interests of the whole of them should be protected. Surely it is not asking too much to require this company to get the permission of the municipality before entering, digging up the streets, planting poles, and otherwise destroying the appearance of a great city which has expended many thousands of dollars in beautifying its thoroughfares and creating a desirable place to live in. We know that the Mackenzie and Mann Power Company are one of the greatest money leeches that ever existed, and they have exploited every government that ever held office in this country for a period of forty years. Parliament is not asked to take away the rights of this company but only to grant power to restrict certain of those rights in the public interest.
The municipalities propose that except as to through transmission lines, where the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners is necessary, the company shall not have the right to construct or operate distribution systems on the streets of any municipality without their consent. Under the Dominion statute of 1902, chapter 107, the Toronto and Niagara Power Company claim power was given to them to construct and maintain lines of wire, tunnels, and conduits at any place through, over, along or across any public highways in the Dominion of Canada, independent of municipal control or regulation, thereby depriving the municipality of their rights to regulate or control such highways. Surely it is a serious proposition to say, or to think, that a company of this character can plant poles, construct conduits, make tunnels, and in other ways, as they choose, destroy the property of a municipality without first getting permission or without being restricted as to how the systems shall be placed through the streets of a city. When the late Mr. E. F. Clarke and Mr. Osier proposed a clause to specifically protect the interests and rights of the municipalities, it was by common consent held to be unnecessary, as it was understood at that time that the company should be subject to municipal control. No such rights as the Privy Council has held to have been conveyed were dreamed of at that time. There is not a company on the continent of North America which will have the power that this company will possess if this Bill is enacted in
the form in which it has passed the Senate. And it must be remembered that this company, as everybody knows, has been the greatest exploiting concern in America. They have made millions of dollars by the exploiting of franchises. As regards the acquisition of this company's railway and electric light system, and their subsidiary companies, even if that were done, the fact that they derived millions of dollars by the purchase, it is a hundred to one if they still would not have something prejudicial to the municipality up their sleeve. That is the danger to be feared in any dealings with them. It was thought at one time in Toronto that we were getting rid of them, but it was discovered later that they still had some other proposition which barred the way. That is why I say it is dangerous to have anything to do with these exploiters. We are nervous and suspicious even in attempting to transact business with them, because they have not only exploited the people but they have exploited the Government, and they have so many things on the side that we do not know when we are safe or when we are likely to get rid of them. Therefore, notwithstanding the action of the Senate, I hope the majority of this House will adhere to the attitude which they took a few weeks ago, and remain solidly united on this question in the interest of the mass of the people of this country.
Mr. WILLIAM D. EULER: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak at any length at all, but I should like, from this side of the House, to emphasize the statements made in one particular, at least, by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). If the amendment of the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) carries, the friends of the municipalities may just as well make up their minds now once and for all that they are surrendering the rights of those municipalities, and that the House of Commons is surrendering to the Senate of Canada. That is the one bald fact that, in my opinion, stands out, and while I think that what the Prime (Minister has said about the desirability of the Railway Bill passing find what he has said about the ^necessity for passing that Bill, is all perfectly true, and while I appreciate the plausible arguments with which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) has supported the statements of the Prime Minister, I think that those who are the real friends of the municipalities should bear that one fact in mind. The one practical result, after you brush aside all other arguments, will be that a separate

Bill, providing for the curbing of the powers of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company has no chance whatever of passing in the Senate. With all due regard to what was said about the passing of the Railway Bill, I consider the rights of the municipalities to be just about as important as anything else that is embodied in that Bill. The President of the 'Council attempted to make a strong point out of this. He assumed that the Railway Bill, if it includes this clause 374, will be defeated in the Senate, and that thereby the clause itself and the purpose of the municipalities will be defeated. In my opinion the chances of the Railway Bill passing, with clause 374 protecting the rights of the municipalities inserted in it, are better than those of any separate Bill protecting the rights of municipalities passing the Senate. With regard to the rights of municipalities, I speak as a member coming from Western Ontario, and not from the city of Toronto. I think many of the members on this side of the House are rather prejudiced in the matter because they feel this is the case of the city of Toronto. But if this clause is struck out it means in effect that the Toronto and Niagara Power Company will have the right to go upon the streets of any other municipality; for instance, those of Kitchener, Guelph, Stratford, Brantford and others, with power to rip up our streets, or erect their poles without the consent of the city. Lay down this one principle-and there is absolutely no getting away from the justice of it- that every municipality should have supreme control over its own streets. That principle is destroyed by this Bill.
I want to add just one thing further, namely, that when the statement is made that vested rights would be interfered with, that certain bonds issued by this company would depreciate if this clause were inserted and the powers of this company curbed, il do not for one moment believe that those bonds were sold on the strength of any franchises which might be held in any towns or any cities outside of the city of Toronto. That being the case, I do not think these cities and towns should be subjected to the control of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company.
The one thing I rose to impress upon the House, if I might presume to do so, is simply that the practical effect of this motion if carried, no matter what explanation is given by the ministers, will be to play into the hands of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, or in other words, Mac-
kenzie and Mann, and the rights of the municipalities will be sacrificed.
This House will probably pass the separate Bill, but it will surely be killed in the Senate.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: The hon. member has pointed out what will happen if this amendment carries, but in case it is rejected, will that not put the municipalities at the mercy of the Hydro-Eleotric Power Commission?


William Daum Euler: I would answer to that, as I did the other day when a similar ques

tion was asked, that I do not think any company whether it is the Hydro-Eleotric Power Commission of Ontario or any private concern, should absolutely control the streets of any municipality. Those rights should be inherent and should remain in the municipality itself. There is, however, this distinction to be drawn that the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario is owned by the people of Ontario; by the municipalities themselves; it is a public concern, whereas this is a private corporation.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are probably washing time. By the motion moved by the Minister of Railways, we are not prejudicing the position of those who are opposed t*o the Toronto and Niagara Power Company.
As I understand it, the only two questions in contention are the power clause and the telephone clause. The Minister of Railways by his resolution proposes to take the power clause out of the general Bill and put it in a separate Bill. He also proposes to put the telephone compensation question in a separate Bill. It has been argued that if we do that, we shall be killing the rights of municipalities. I take it just the other way. The Senate are holding over our heads that they will refuse to pass the general Railway Act if we do not consent to their amendment. I say that if we separate these two questions from the general Bill we shall be putting absolutely upon the Senate the onus of refusing to pass the Railway Act. If they refuse to pass it without these two clauses, the effect would be that for three successive sessions they have refused to pass an Act which is essential to the welfare of the people of this country and to the proper operation of the railways of this Dominion. But I have no doubt that the Senate will pass the Act if we separate from it these two contentious clauses, and then we shall have accom-

plished something. If we do not separate them, we shall not accomplish even that much. If we transfer these questions to a separate Bill I cannot for the life of me see why we cannot then argue exactly the same questions, have exactly the same issues before us, and accomplish exactly the same purpose, and we shall at the same time be able to pass the Consolidated Railway Act, which we have failed to do for three years. In that way we put the onus directly and squarely upon the Senate, and if the Senate, when we have a separate Bill and a separate issue, chooses to exercise its prerogative, there will be an expression of public opinion in this country such as I think they would not be able long to resist.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I take it that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) desires to withdraw his amendment.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I do, under these circumstances, and for these reasons. The Minister of Railways on Wednesday last spread on Hansard at page 4199 the following:
I would also like to say to the House that on Friday, when we resume consideration of this report, I wish to make the following motion- I am giving it now because I want to get it on Hansard so that hon. members will have it before them and fully understand what it means:
Then follows the motion, and in view of that, I drew up the amendment I have here. But now it seems that the motion as it appeared in Hansard at page 4199 is not the same as the motion the minister makes to-day. So the moral is, do not rely on Hansard, but go to the Table and look at the motion. Under these circumstances, as the issue is still left open, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment so that hon. members can vote on the original motion.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. PROULX:: I was paired with the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. FEDLOW:: I was paired with the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Casselman). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-

ter). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do not insist on its amendment to clause 376. The House will remember that in moving the previous amendment I moved to strike out the whole of clause 374, and I stated that I would bring in a separate Bill. I was in the position to strike out the whole of clause 374 for the reason that it referred entirely to the power question. This clause, 376, contains provisions with reference to telegraphs as well as telephones, and therefore I am not in the same position to move to strike out the whole of the clause and introduce a separate Bill. In moving this motion, I do not wish the House to understand that I am really approving of the action of the Senate, but I am anxious, indeed, I feel it is important, to get this legislation through at this session, and the only way in which I am likely to secure the passing of the portions of the Bill that would go through if these amendments were adopted, is by the motion I am now moving. I have no hesitation in saying that in introducing the Bill to amend this Railway Act, I will include in it an amendment striking out the objectionable words if the House desires, the same as in connection with this power question.
'Sir SAM HUGHES: That is, regarding telephones.


John Dowsley Reid: With regard to telephones. I understand that it is felt that there should be an opportunity for further discussion.


Samuel Hughes: What is the need of this amendment now?


John Dowsley Reid: If I did not move this, the Bill could not go through, because in this connection there is also a deadlock. I am just as strong an advocate as any other hon. member for the protection of municipal rights, and as I understand section 247 of the old Act, so far as the power question is concerned, the municipalities are protected in every way, the Toronto and Niagara Power Company being the only company that would not come under the Railway Act. I think that every hon. member will agree with me that the municipalities are protected in every way from any company in existence except the Toronto and Niagara Power Company. Personally,
I think that their rights should be limited. Their powers, I believe, are greater than they should be, but I could not take upon myself the responsibility of tying up the [Sir Thomas White.!
transportation of this country by any action that would prevent this Act from going through. It is all very well for the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Niekle) to say, "Let us keep this deadlock going." We can say to the Senate: "You are responsible for the railway companies going into liquidation and closing down, the railways being unable to operate as a result of the legislation not going through." But after all, I think it will be realized that the responsibility would rest on the members of this House and, of course, on the Government if we took the position of allowing this deadlock .to continue, for the railway companies of the country would shut down because they could not possibly operate it this legislation were not passed. We have been carrying on the operation of the railways under Order in Council passed by virtue of the War Measures Act, and if peace is signed within a few days, the Order in Council will cease to be effective, and we could not carry on operations without this legislation. When I introduce this Bill I am prepared to offer an amendment so far as the particular words are concerned and the House can discuss the matter. Hon. members who were on the committee will remember that we had representatives from all parts of this country asking us to amend this particular clause 376 with reference to telephones, and very important amendments were suggested in the interests of municipalities and in the interests ot provincial-owned telephones. There were amendments of great importance, and I think that by accepting this Bill as it is now we are getting very greatly improved legislation. I would therefore suggest that instead of continuing the deadlock in connection with that clause we should pass the clause and get the Bill through. While it is possible that the Senate might throw it out, we are in a position to fight that issue, and I believe we shall get better results than having a fight on this particular Bill. I am strongly of the opinion, from the fight that is being put up, that the struggle between the Toronto and Niagara Power Company and the municipality will come to an end probably within a few months as a result of arrangements that they are trying to make in order to arrive at an understanding and have the company taken over by the Hydro-Electric.


William Alves Boys: I am opposed to the action of the Senate, but in view of the statement of the minister that he will incorporate in the proposed Bill regarding the power trouble provisions dealing with the words that are objection in subsection 7 of section

376 "including compensation if any," I am prepared to support the motion, and these words can be discussed at the proper time.


William Findlay Maclean: I understood the Minister of Railways to announce to the House that some proposal is before somebody which will remove this opposition by 'the disappearance of this company. I do not know whether I am quite right in that or not but I hope it is the case and that in so far as this special company and municipal rights are concerned, we have heard the last of it. I also want to refer to some remarks which have been made in the course of the discussion on the previous clause and which are pertinent to this matter namely, the conflict between the two Houses. I have been told that this is not the time nor the place to discuss these things. I have been for a long time a member of this House and I have helped, in my own humble capacity, to get some progressive measures through Parliament. But you never get anywhere unless you discuss these questions when they come up. You cannot have an academic discussion as to the rights of the two Houses in connection with legislation; you have to do it as the issue cqmes up. We have been told about the responsibility for certain things that have oocurred in this country and I propose to raise again now, the question of the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the Government as to the creation of senators and other bodies in conflict with the rights of the public. That question must be solved. I have heard the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) say that they are in favour of Senate reform. Now is the time and now this is the place to discuss the Senate and I think I am justified in doing so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order; I must rule that the subject of Senate reform cannot be discussed on this motion.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: I understand
the minister's motion to be that we do not adhere to the position that we have taken in regard to the telephone clause. Will the effect of that be that the proposal of the Senate will become law and that we will be consenting that the clause providing for compensation, if any, shall be put in? I voted against 'compensation to the main telephone company. I did so because I felt that they should not get any compensation other than that which they derived from the increased business. The rural company builds its own line, it pays
the expenses of the connection with the Bell Telephone company and the customers pay ten cents extra for every message on account of getting the advantage of the use of the long distance line. To my mind, that is sufficient compensation and that is what I voted for before. I want to be certain now that I am not voting against that if I vote for the minister's proposal.


Robert Laird Borden: I am perhaps not as. familiar with this question as some hon. gentlemen in this House. In so far as I have followed the question, it resolves itself into this: In subsection 7 of section 376 of the Bill as passed by the Senate, this language is to be found:
The board may order the company to provide for such use, connection or communication, upon such terms, including compensation if any, as the board deems just and expedient, and may order and direct how, when, where, by whom ,and upon what terms and conditions such use, connection, or communication shall be had, constructed, installed, operated and maintained.
This House struck out by amendment the words " including compensation, if any, and the Senate persists in refusing to accept that amendment. I would call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that this language does not give an absolute right of compensation. It merely confers power upon the Board of Railway Commissioners to allow compensation if the board deems it equitable that there should be compensation. It is left absolutely and entirely in the discretion of the board as to whether there should be any compensation, and if so, what amount should be awarded. The Minister of Railways proposes that we should not persist in our amendment, but he adds that he proposes, in order that the question may be raised again, in view of the strong feeling in this House on the subject, t@ include in a Bill which he proposes to introduce, a clause striking out those words " including compensation, if any," in order that the question may be taken up again at this session between this House and the Senate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am in the same position as my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). I spoke for the amendment of the House of Commons striking out the words " including compensation, if any." I do not wish to recede from that position now, because I think it is right. The right hon. the Prime Minister was not here at the time we discussed the matter, but we took the ground then, and I am prepared to take the ground now, that the words are not necessary at all. The power to give such remuneration, reward or compensation to

the main company as may be advisable can be exercised by the board, in my judgment, without these words being there at all. My objection to leaving them in arises from the fact that by leaving these words in we are suggesting to the board that it is a legitimate subject for consideration and that they would have the right perhaps to think that it was open to them to grant compensation. It was largely for that reason that I voted 'against it, and also because in my judgment, it was mere surplusage, to mention it at all. I was in favour of striking it out. I understand this motion to be that the Senate's idea is to be restored and that the Bill is to be the same as it was when it came from the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: But we will raise the question in a new Bill which is to be introduced.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: An argument has been put forward by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) this afternoon which, I think, comes in here. He says that if the Senate refuse in this Bill to leave out the words " including compensation, if any," by what logical reasoning, if any, can we suppose that they will leave them out when the matter reaches them in a separate Bill ? If they think it is necessary to include those words in this general Act, have we the right to suppose that they will not follow the same course in regard to this-separate Bill ?
But I wish to be enlightened upon a question of procedure in connection with the effect of this conference. We passed a motion appointing our managers; the Senate did the same thing. Those managers met and agreed' upon a certain line of action. I may be all wrong, but if it were left t* my own common sense I would say that that is the end of it so far as this Bill is concerned, because we have delegated powers to this body to deal with the subject, and I would regard such a conference as being entirely useless if we pay no attention to the decision it arrives at. I have not given the matter very much thought, but I would like to know what the Minister of Railways or the Prime Minister has to say upon that phase of procedure, which is new to us in this House. Personally, I do not recollect another conference since I have been a member.
Mr. J. A. iS EXSMITH (Peterborough East): Mr. Speaker, I have taken very strong exception to this clause, and- I regret very much that the hon. minister has seen fit to practically accept the Senate amendment. I feel that, for the moment, the Bell 
Telephone Company has to a certain extent defeated the representatives of the people. The hon. minister, of course, has promised to reintroduce the question in another Bill. Well, I have little hope of the success of that Bill when it does come before the Senate.
The Bell Telephone 'Company secured a charter some years ago which enables them to erect telephone poles and wires on the highways of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They have a complete monopoly in the long distance business. Up until 1905 they had to a great extent refused to give people in the rural parts a telephone service-at least, they put their rates so high as to render the service practically prohibitive. As a result all over the province of Ontario and in parts of the province of Quebec private and municipal telephone companies sprang up, and in 1906 the Bell Company were forced to give connection to those companies. The Railway Commission at that time, I think, decided that the Bell Company should receive some compensation. I have here the rates that some of the rural telephone companies pay for compensation. Take, for instance, the Home Telephone Company, operating in Markham, Pickering, Whitby, Brooklin and Port Perry. This company has somewhere in the neighbourhood of a thousand subscribers and1 pays, first of all, $300 as compensation, which the Bell Telephone Company acknowledges covers all the switching and overhead charges and everything else. But despite that fact the Bell Company also ask the Home Company to pay another 10 cents on every long distance message from its subscribers. This Home Telephone Company, with its thousand subscribers, transits free to them all the long distance calls that come from the Bell Company, but when the Home Company's subscribers ask for a long distance call they are charged an extra ten cents, of which the Bell returns 3 cents to the Home Company. I think it is absolutely unfair for the Bell Company through their monopoly to be able to prevent all rural telephone companies competing with them, and I do hope that the Minister of Railways will have the promised Bill before the House at the earliest possible date.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I was paired with, the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Casseknan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Edmond Proulx: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Robert Laird Borden: I now beg to ask the unanimous consent of the House to reconsider the resolution which was passed earlier in the day and to consent to the following amendment:
That all the words after the word " that " in the resolution be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
That this House doth insist upon its amendment made to section 326 of the Bill No. 19 but with the following limiting provision thereto at the end thereof that is to say: Provided that
this subsection shall remain in force only during a period of three years from and after the date of the passing of this Act.
I explained this morning the reason on account of which I thought this resolution ought to be substituted for the one to which the House agreed this morning.


Jacques Bureau: At the conference between the managers of the two Houses the Senate agreed to the amendment of the House of Commons. This is an amendment to a clause that was stricken out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Senate yielded on the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: That is true, but in view of certain considerations which were pressed upon the attention of the Government this morning, we thought it desirable that clause should continue in operation only for three years, and that in the meantime the question of compensation to a province, or a city, or a municipality, ought to be taken into consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mt\ McQuarrie) suggested to the Prime Minister this morning that this same clause should contain a provision that it would not apply to pending litigation. As I understood the Prime Minister he said that the matter of litigation was in the hands of the Railway Board. That would be all right if it was the case, but this is an appeal from the Railway Board to the Supreme Court of Canada, or a proposed appeal, and we are not in a position to say what view the Supreme Court may take of the effect of this law which we shall have passed, if it goes in its present form, between the time notice of appeal is given and the hearing of it before the court. I am sure that we would not like to interfere in any way with proceedings of that kind, and it would be harmless to insert in the resolution a provision that the legislation we are passing should not in any way affect pending litigation or pending appeals.


Jacques Bureau: This is a provision that was not contained in the Bill when it went before the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: It is a new provision.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I can explain the matter to my hon. friend. The Bill came from the Senate to us and we added a subsection which I will read:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 the powers given to the Board under this Act to fix-


Jacques Bureau: I remember the subsection.


Robert Laird Borden: The Senate
eventually did yield on that and agreed that the proposal of the 'House should take effect, but in view of the considerations pressed upon the attention of the Government this morning, as to conditions which prevail in different parts of the country, we thought it desirable that the subsection in question should have force and effect only during the portion of three years.


Jacques Bureau: That is new language entirely.


Robert Laird Borden: Absolutely.


Jacques Bureau: And the Senate have not considered it?


Robert Laird Borden: They have not considered it, but inasmuch as the Senate objected to it in the first instance, and inasmuch as this limits the provision in the direction of the opinion which was entertained by the Senate, I should not imagine that it would receive any opposition there.


Jacques Bureau: If I put a question it is merely for my own information as to a question of procedure. Bills come from one House to the other and there is a disagree-. ment, as there has been in this case, and a conference takes place between representatives of the two Houses. We yield to the Senate amendments on the position they have taken as to sections 374 and 376, and they have yielded to the House of Commons in regard to section 325, and we are asking the House of Commons to reconsider practically a new question.


Robert Laird Borden: What took place at the oonference does not, of course, bind either House. Neither the Senate nor the House of Commons is bound by the report of it3 managers, as I understand it.


Jacques Bureau: I realize that.


Robert Laird Borden: We made an
amendment. The Senate declined to assent to it. We had a conference and they intimated then, so far as the managers were concerned, that they were disposed to yield. We are now sending it back to the Senate in a modified form; in a form modified rather in the direction of the Senate's opinion than of our own. We are doing that for the reasons I have indicated.
'


William Folger Nickle: As I understand it, section 325 gives the Railway Commission the power to determine rates regardless of contractual relationships between companies, municipalities, or governments.
I understood the Prime Minister to say this morning that, in some sections, financial conditions' in reference to railway operation were such tihat, if this clause were not passed, it would be impossible to continue operation of the roads?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


William Folger Nickle: And, therefore, although it interferes with what you might call contractual relationship, it is only temporary, because conditions are so acute.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, it is continuing for three years what has been in force for about two years.


William Folger Nickle: And, therefore, would not be considered a breach of any principles that have guided this House in what you might call contractual relationships?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours of the action taken by this House on the said Bill No. 19.


Mr. McCURDY:: Before this motion is disposed of, there is one question I should like to ask of the Minister of Railways. During the years that he has been at the head of the Railway Department, he has become aware that a large number of very important industries served by the Intercolonial railway-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The difficulty is that the motion under consideration at the moment is that a message be sent to the Senate. Such a motion is not ue-batable. If the hon. member desires to ask the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question, I am sure it would be granted. But if the hon. member is permitted to ask the question without such consent other hon. members may claim the same right.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The importance of the subject is my only excuse for asking the unanimous consent of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House, to submit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The question I should like to submit is this: Now that it is proposed to place the Government railways

under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, may I ask the Minister of Railways with regard to the tariffs of tolls for freight traffic-on what is known as the Intercolonial Railway system-if it can be assumed that there will not be such an interference with freight rates which have been in effect on that system for years as will prejudice and possibly force out of business established industries in the Maritime Provinces, which industries were developed and continued successfully to do business throughout Canada, due to a large extent to the enjoyment of these rates?


John Dowsley Reid: One of the effects of the new Bill is, as the hon. member states, to give the Board of Railway Commissioners control over freight rates on what is known as the Intercolonial Railway system. I think, however, the hon. member may be assured that in fixing these rates or any other rates that are fixed, the board will take all the circumstances into account, and disallow any rates they may consider unjust or unreasonable or unfair to the industries to which he refers. If it does not, there is always an appeal to the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: I move:
That Order No. 9 on the Orders of the Day be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Arthur Meighen: In order to gain a day in printing, I desire to move that we return to the Order "Introduction of Bills." I wish to introduce Bill to amend the Indian Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 163, to amend the Indian Act. He said: This is the Bill to which the Prime Minister lately referred, the design of which is to enable the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to administer the soldier settlement provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act in respect of Indian soldiers, instead of having same done through the Soldier Settlement Board.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 141 (from the Senate), respecting Chartered Trust and Executor Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill No. 145 (from the Senate), to change the name of The Alberta-Saskatchewan Life Insurance Company to The Commercial Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 129 (from the Senate), for the relief of Stanley Gordon Eversfield.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 124 (from the Senate), for the relief of Andrew Pepper.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill No. 139 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Erederiok Neild.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 140 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mabel Ann Ferguson.-(Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 147 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie Miville.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 146 (from the Senate), for the relief of Herbert John Lawrence.-Mr. Ross.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155 (from the Senate) respecting the Canadian Western Railway Company- Mr. Bonne'll.
Bill No. 157 (from the Senate) for the relief of Gertrude Slater-Mr. Pedlow.
Bill No. 156 (from the Senate) for the relief of William Elmer Roome-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Newton W. Rowell (President of the Council) Bill No. 158, to provide pensions to or in respect of members of the Canadian Naval, Military, and Air Forces, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Jacques Bureau: The subject dealt with
by this measure was referred to a special committee which has been sitting quite a long while, and has been at considerable pains to come to right conclusions. When a matter is referred to a special committee, members of the House generally do not know as much about it as those who form the committee. I think it would be well to have a general explanation of the committee's recommendations as embodied in the Bill.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Possibly my lion. friend was not in the House when the resolution upon which the Bill was founded was moved. I then gave an explanation of the general provisions of the Bill and the changes from the existing pension regulations. That all appears in Hansard.


Jacques Bureau: It is all right.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON:: If I am in
order, I would like to make a few remarks in regard to this Bill.
This is not particularly in the way of criticism for I think, as the minister said the other day, that the Bill, while not being all that every member of the committee desires, does represent in a fair degree what may be called the substantial conclusion of the committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. As I understand it, the hon. gentleman desires to debate the entire Bill. If that is his intention, I must ask for him the unanimous consent of the Committee, because otherwise his remarks would be out of order unless they were confined to the clause under discussion. Is the unanimous consent of the Committee given for the hon. gentleman to debate the Bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter Robert McGibbon: I was about to say that I think it is my duty, on behalf of the soldiers, to bring to the attention of the Committee one or two things which are not particularly embodied in this Bill, but which should go hand in hand with it. In the first place I think this House and this Government are justified in recognizing the medical examinations of their own medical officers. I believe that any soldier who joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force, who was fit for any risks and was passed as medically fit by the officers of this Government, should be so considered and that no pre-enlistment disability should be marked up against him from any cause whatever. Another point is this. It appears to me that there is a discrimination against the unmarried man. The principle of the Bill, of course, recognizes giving pensions to women and children. Probably I can best illustrate my point by giving an example. Take two boys who joined in 1914 or 1915. One of them took occasion to get married at that time, the other decided to postpone his marriage until he returned. The first would be entitled to $20 a month separation allowance as well as the patriotic money that his wife would draw during the whole time that he was away. The second one, returns to this country, probably with the same dis-

ability as the married one. The married man gets a pension and his children also, while the second one, according to the provisions of this Bill, does not participate in the benefits of the pension fund. I think that is a discrimination of an unfair character that this House should not allow.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Will my hon. friend mention that last point again, as I did not follow him?


Peter Robert McGibbon: Two boys start out in 1914 and join the Expeditionary Force. One gets married. His wife would be entitled to separation allowance and to patriotic money. When he comes back, if he is wounded, his wife gets a pension. The other one, who would be in the same position, decided to postpone his marriage until his return. He comes back with the same disability, and when he gets married his wife gets nothing. I think that is an unfair discrimination and one that should be corrected.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is not correct in his statement. If the second one marries on his return his wife will get the same pension as the other one who had been married before her husband went overseas.


Peter Robert McGibbon: I am glad of the correction; I read the Bill the other way.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I imagine what my hon. friend has in his mind is this: In the event of the second returned man dying his widow would not get a pension, whereas the woman in the first case would.


Peter Robert McGibbon: That at least covers half of my point. I think it is unfair. But the main thing that I want to bring to the attention of the Committee- it does not exactly pertain to this Bill, although it should accompany it-is the condition in regard to insurance. I have been informed by the Pensions Board that out of 60,000 of the boys who were drawing pensions from this Government, about 20,000 cannot get insurance. I have visited many of the hospitals and sanitariums throughout the country and I find that is a thing that is worrying them very much. They have wives and families, they have no means except the small pension which this country has given them-and I must say it is small in spite of the raise which we are giving them-and they are not able to get insurance that will provide for their families when the stage of dissolution comes. I think it is the duty of this country to re-

store these boys to the position in this respect that they were in previous to enlisting. That means that the Government should pay the difference between what it would now cost them to carry insurance and what they would have paid before joining the army. The department of insurance here informs me that the average cost of insurance per $1,000 for a man twenty-five years of age is $14 and odd cents. That is, of course, shorn of all unnecessary expenses. This insurance up to a limit of $5,000 per man would cost about $70 per year. Granting that to the 20,000 sub-standard lists which are at present among the casualties, assuming that their risks have been doubled, would only mean to this country $1,400,000 per year of expense. I do not want to ask the country to give them something for nothing. I think it is only right and fair that they should pay the same amount that they would have had to pay if they had not been injured, but that the difference between that and what they have to pay under their present disability should be borne by the country. I know that there is a great strain upon this country at the present time, and I realize that the Government are anxious to avoid all unnecessary expenses, but I think this is a duty that the country really should assume. In connection with that, I would like to point out that there is in this country about $40,000,000 worth of enemy property. I think it would be only just and fair that the Government should take that property, capitalize it, which would give an income of about $2,000,000, and use it to pay for the insurance on these soldiers. That would relieve this country of the financial burden, it would give the soldiers the insurance that they want and must have if their wives and children are going to be left in decent circumstances, and the country would be discharging its obligations. I hope the Government will give that serious consideration in the near future.
I would like also to draw the attention of the Government to conditions on the Pension Board. We have been informed that there are about ten thousand complaints a month. I think any organization that cannot regulate its business in a more satisfactory manner than that would indicate, cannot be reckoned as an efficient organization. And I think that all the high offices on that board should be occupied by men who have seen service. I find that some twelve or fifteen men drawing salaries of $5,000, $4,800, $3,000, and so on, were
never in uniform. I have nothing to say as to why they were not, but I do say that in any soldiers' organization in this country, such as the Soldiers' Re-establishment Board and the Pension Board, you will never have conditions satisfactory so long as you have the highest-paid officials men who have never served their country in uniform. I daresay these gentlemen are efficient officers-I have no complaint as to that-but I think they should give way to men who have seen service in France. Now, the insurance problem deserves very serious consideration. It is one that is worrying the soldiers who are so badly disabled that they cannot get insurance to protect their wives and children, and I submit that this House and the Government should give the subject careful attention in the very near future.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I just want to say-


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the unanimous consent of the Committee that the hon. gentleman have leave to continue the general debate?


James Arthurs: I believe that insurance for returned soldiers is one of the most vital questions that you will have to deal with. A few years ago insurance was looked upon as being more or less a luxury, and a man was considered prodigal if he put much insurance on his life; to-day life insurance is an absolute necessity with men who have no other means of support for their families. Yet we find, as the member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) has said, that invariably where a man is suffering from any disability which would make him a pensioner under this Act, he is refused insurance by the insurance companies, or, if he is allowed insurance he has to pay a very high rate. I do not think the amount required to make up the difference between the insurance rate demanded of these men and that demanded of ordinary healthy men would amount to anything like the amount spoken of by the member for Muskoka. But no matter what the amount may be, insurance is vitally important to the disabled man, and I think it is one of the things that this Parliament should take up in the very near future, if it cannot be dealt with now and under this Bill. We find that a man who ordinarily can get life insurance for $30 or $40 a year will in many cases be asked to pay $40 or $50. We had the same experience with men who had insured their lives before the war; when they went overseas they were asked by some of the companies as high as $100 ad-



ditional on a very small policy on account of war risks. And the same is true today. I think the Government might work out a scheme for insuring these men. I have no desire to force on the Government a scheme whereby all soldiers should be insured; my proposition is that where men are desirous of taking out life insurance to protect their wives and children they should be at no financial loss on account of their condition after coming back from the war. This matter, of course, only affects those men who come under the Tensions Act, and I think the member for Muskoka has done a great deal for those men in bringing this matter forward, and it should be carefully considered by this House. I think it would be a good thing if provision for those cases could be made under this Bill.
During .the past four or five years we have heard a great deal in this House, particularly during the time of the Military Service Act, regarding medical examinations conducted in this country and overseas. In many cases we have complaints from returned soldiers saying that they were not allowed their pension, because the authorities claimed that they were suffering from some particular disability, or partial disability, before they went overseas. But in almost every case those men before going overseas were subject, not to one examination, but to many examinations, and not by the same doctor, but by different medical boards. It is quite clear to me that any man who got over to France was, in the opinion of those medical boards, perfectly physically fit. If disability did not show at that time I cannot see any reason why any part of a man's pension should be deducted for a supposed disability that he had before entering the army. This is a great cause of dissatisfaction. Then we have other cases; I have heard complaints from time to time that a man is getting too much of a pension. I believe in some cases that is right.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Peter Robert McGibbon: But not unless he gets to France.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is right.


Peter Robert McGibbon: That was my point.
[Mr. Arthurs. I


James Arthurs: That is my argument I know personally where a number of men were subjected to the most rigorous examination-perfectly physically fit men so far as I could see-and were rejected, but were taken afterwards in other battalions. So I can see no more reason why a man should be debarred from a pension on account of injuries received in England, even although he did not get to France on account of the medical examination. But my purpose in rising was to support in the strongest possible way the hon. member for Muskoka regarding insurance, which I think we should deal with at the earliest possible moment.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Soldiers are supposed to
speak with brevity, and I shall endeavour to be brief in supporting the arguments of the last two hon. gentlemen. I want to speak particularly of one question-widows' pensions. The board have recommended that a widow's pension be raised to $48 a month. I suggest that $48 a month is not sufficient to keep the widow of any of our brave fellows. Why, Sir, when I hear of the prices which ladies have to pay for their clothes, as reported to me in domestic matters, $48 a month would not pay for a hat-and we want to see our war widows in a position to live decently. It is not so much what is due to those of us who are here and are able and willing to make a living, but it is what we owe to the dependents of those men who lie to-day in unrecorded graves upon the ghastly battlefields of Flanders. I have seen many a man in an unrecorded grave in a rotten old shell hole.
Those men were on duty, too, and that is what I want to emphasize as I say these few brief words in favour of the widow's pension. I think the widow's pension should be raised to $60 a month at least, and a corresponding amount given in the case of the children. In the case also of those men who have been disabled I think the amount should be doubly raised. This great and chivalrous country does not care, and will never object, though the expenditure involved for these purposes reaches ten, twenty, or even two hundred million dollars. Even so, we must take care of the dependents of those gallant fellows who fought and died for us on the red battlefields of Flanders.	*


Mr. GRIESBAOH:: I should like to follow the example of other hon. gentlemen who have indulged in a general discussion of the terms of the Bill. In the first place the measure that we now have under considers-

tion, growing out of the war, is one of the utmost importance. All other claims that may be put forward on behalf of soldiers are entirely secondary to the Pension Bill. No matter what schemes the Government may have for civil re-establishment, or for gratuities, or for assistance in the matter of education, all these proposals are quite secondary to the proposals for adequate payment of pensions to those who have suffered in the war. Therefore, I agree with the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me that generally we look for an increase in the amounts of these pensions, particularly the pensions to widows and orphans and t-o those who are: seriously injured. We believe it is the desire of the country that those people who have suffered shall he placed in such a position as to be relieved from want and from the fear of want for the future, and we believe the Canadian people will support the Government in making liberal provision for such cases. We are grateful for what has been done up to the present time, but we believe there is still room for improvement. I think I may say on behalf of the soldier members of the House that we shall continue to press for recognition ,of these very just claims. It seems to me we require to- have a realization of what lies before us in the matteT of pensions. As time passes we will be confronted with problems growing out of the fact that there will be cases coming to our notice of men who suffer from other causes in the future. I give you, for instance, the case of a man who, ten years from now, meets with some terrible accident and becomes a charge upon the community. I venture to say that in that day sentiment engendered by the fact that he was a soldier and fought for his country, will be such that the public will not agree such a man should be a public charge and demand will then be made, and I think public opinion will support it, that because he was a soldier, the country shall protect and take care of him. And so it would go on, and twenty-five, thirty, or forty years from now, these men growing old and perhaps meeting with misfortune would be liable to become charges upon the community but it will be sound practice, and public opinion of that day, I think, will support the contention, that they should be cared for.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Peter McGib-bon) has raised the question of insurance. In the case of men who, by reason of their disabilities, cannot get insurance, if the Government now undertook or originated
265J
proposals for dealing with insurance of that sort, it would largely guard against the obligation which in the course of time would arise and would bear upon the public.
The question has also been raised as to the personnel of the Pensions Board. Now the transaction of public business calls for probity and efficiency, and the best men that are obtainable should be secured. But such a business as the payment of pensions, besides the highest standard of efficiency, what is absolutely necessary is that there shall be a sympathy existing between the board and the pensioners; and *we have an idea that we would get that Sympathy on behalf of the board towards the pensioners if a spirit of comradeship existed and the members of that board *were men who, to some extent at all events, had endured the same trials and tribulations and had faced the same dangers-in fact if both had been comrades together. We shall press very strongly in the future, giving the Government time to turn around and make the necessary arrangements, for the recognition of the principle that the administration of pensions should be in the hands of those who have that sympathy which we think alone can be felt by men who have been comrades and have served together.
With regard to the previous medical examination the principle contended is a perfectly sound legal principle, and I do not see how the Governmeent can get away from it. Medical officers are employed by the Government and they decide whether a man is fit or not fit. If they pronounce him fit then they ought to be stopped from subsequently saying that he is not fit. We shall press very vigorously for 9 p.m. the recognition of that sound, legal, and I think, moral principle.


Mr. COOPER:: In the first place I want to endorse, without discussing the proposal of the hon. gentleman (Mr. P. McGibbon) as to insurance. In my opinion it is absolutely necessary and should be very gravely considered by the Government. In connection with the pensions to widows, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) has rightly said that $40 a month, with $8 bonus for the present, is entirely inadequate. I do not know how anybody can reooncile the money that the wife of a soldier received during the war with the pension that the widow is now offered. At all times during the war the wife of a private received $30 separation allowance, $15 from her husband, and $10, or possibly slightly higher

from the Patriotic Fund. Compare that amount with the payment of $48 to a widow at the present time. I suggest to the Government that the provision for the widow for the future is manifestly unfair. There is another point that has not been given any consideration by the Government, and that is the unfair treatment of two men of equal class, one of whom does his work in Ottawa, in Victoria, B.C., in Halifax, or elsewhere in Canada whilst the other man does exactly the same work, hut goes to England or Siberia. Under this pension scheme the man who went to Siberia, which is a pretty safe theatre of actual war, and the man who went to England and enjoyed life there, are entitled to the full disability pension, if they fall and break their leg in the street, or if they receive some other disabilty not directly due to the war.
But if the man that did exactly the same work in Canada receives disability he is not entitled to any disability pension whatsoever. I think the treatment under this section is, therefore, unfair, and I commend such men to the notice of the minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Perhaps some explanation should be given, otherwise there would be a misapprehension in the minds of hon. members with reference to some of the points that have been mentioned. I want to present, just in a few words, the views of the committee, as I understand them, in reference to these matters. Let me take, first, the pre-existing disability. Under the law as it stood until the House met a year ago, a pre-existing disability was taken into consideration by the Board of Pension Commissioners in estimating the amount of pension. That is, if a man had some disability at the time of enlistment and the result of his service was simply to aggravate that disability, the pension commissioners would only allow a pension in respect of the aggravation. It was urged before the committee, as it has been urged here, that if the soldier passed the medical examinations in Canada and England and actually got to the front and faced fire, a pre-existing disability should not be taken into consideration.


Mr. FRIPP:: Why should there be any distinction between the man who got only as far as England and the more fortunate one who was sent to France?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There was this distinction before the committee: A man is not entitled to a pension with respect to a pre-existing disability. In other words, the state compensates him for the 
disability sustained or aggravated during service. The state is not under obligation to compensate him for a disability which existed prior to enlistment. But the committee thought, if the Army Medical Service passed a man and he actually got to the front, we should ignore any question of preexisting disability and grant him a .pension, but if he did not get to the front they thought the law should not be changed. The committee of last year gave this matter careful consideration and that was their, conclusion.


Richard Clive Cooper: Is Siberia a theatre of war? And is Bermuda a theatre of war?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Siberia is a theatre of war; Bermuda is not.


Mr. HAROLD:: Is St. Lucia a theatre of war?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I presume St. Lucia would not be, but I do not recall at the moment. Last year the Committee, as I said, considered the matter and reached the conclusion I mentioned. The matter was considered this year again, and the Committee reached the same conclusion.
Let me take next the point mentioned by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Peter McGibbon), that is, the unfairness that he suggests in treatment between two men, one who married before he went overseas and the other who marries after he returned. As the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) points out, in both cases the man would get the allowance for the wife, and there would be the allowance for the children as well, but in the second case, if he marries after the disability is incurred, his widow and children would not receive a pension. May I tell the Committee why? In the investigation which was made in 1917 by the Board of Pension Commissioners and the hon. member for Kingston into the operation of the pension laws in the United States, they found that the United States are still paying pensions to widows of veterans of the war of 1812. Let me illustrate. A man twenty years old returns from overseas; he lives fifty years and then marries a girl of twenty and she lives fifty years. You have her drawing a pension 100 years after the war, and in case there are children, they will be drawing pensions too.


Jacques Bureau: How does the minister make that out? In our country the wife's and the husband's years run concurrently. If I live fifty years and my wife lives fifty years, that does not make 100 years, it just makes fifty years of marriage.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I suggested if the pensioner .married when he was seventy.


Jacques Bureau: He marries at twenty.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He returns when he is twenty and then he lives until he is seventy. He may have had a wife or two in the meantime.


Jacques Bureau: When he is seventy he marries a girl of sixteen.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: That is immoral.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There have been a number of such cases in the United States.


Jacques Bureau: We cannot take that case -that is not an actual case.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is the actual experience in the United States.


Peter Robert McGibbon: That could be remedied by imposing a time limit.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let me give another case which is the actual experience in the United States. The Pension Bill o-f the Civil War to-day is larger than it was immediately after the war.


Richard Clive Cooper: It started to decrease in 1913.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend says it started to decrease in 1913. Let me take the case of men permanently disabled and very near to death. In the United States they have had the experience of such men marrying young women-or young women marry-them,-and the women becoming pensioners of the State for life. This question received the most earnest consideration at the hands of the committee, and the committee decided that it was not wise to depart from the sound principle already embodied in the legislation, that where marriage took place after disability, while the husband, during his life would get the benefit of the additional allowance for the wife and the children, it was not expedient to provide a pension for the widow or children after his death.
Let me now consider the question of insurance which has been mentioned and which is undoubtedly a very important matter. The view of the committee-and I think the House will see that they were correct in this view-was that it was not a matter that came within the scope of the investigation of the committee. The committee was appointed to consider pensions, and while insurance was an important question, it was not within the scope of reference made by the House to the committee.
Let me now take up the question of the employees. It is true there are some employees who are not returned soldiers. These are the figures. At the head office, there are 231 returned soldiers, and the men over eighteen years of age who haye not served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force number 39. That is, out of 270 males over eighteen years of age, 231 are soldiers. In the district offices, there are 193 soldiers as against nine males over eighteen years of age who have not served overseas. It will, therefore, be seen that the overwhelming majority of the males over eighteen years of age employed in the head office of the Pension Board here and in the district offices are soldiers and, with few exceptions, men who have served overseas.


Peter Robert McGibbon: My point was with reference to the high officials drawing big salaries.


Newton Wesley Rowell: An answer was made in the House to the question of my hon. friend, and from this answer it appears that a certain number of men, some of them medical men, who were in the permanent force and who were assigned to this particular work from the start, are still working with the Pension Board. The Pension Board is a body created with power to act independently of the Government and they have selected their own employees subject to the Civil Service Commission. There men have acquired great experience in dealing with important problems arising in the icourse of pension administration, particularly questions of disability. The Pension Board-there are just two members at present, both of whom are returned soldiers-(believe it is in the interest of the efficient administration of the board to keep these men in their present posts. I have no personal knowledge of the situation, but the number who are drawing large salaries and who have not been overseas is limited. Members who are interested will find full information on the matter on page 3176 of Hansard.
Another question raised was that of widows' pensions. The committee had great sympathy with the position of the widow, and did make a substantial increase. The pension of the widow has been raised from $40 to $48, a bonus of twenty per cent, and for the eldest child from $12 to $15. The widow gets $48, for the first child $15, for the second $10, and for the third $8. Therefore a widow with three children would draw $81 a month, or practically $1,000 a year. That is a larger sum than a wife

with a family of three would receive if she were drawing assigned pay, separation allowance, and Patriotic Fund allowance. With assigned pay, separation allowance at its highest figure, namely, $30 a month, and Patriotic Fund, she would receive $75. So a widow with a family of three children draws more under the pension law as we have revised it, than a wife in the ' same position would have drawn while the war was on. Of course, what other countries pay is not necessarily a criterion for us, but I think what is paid in the United States should be a matter of interest to us here. Under our new scale a widow will receive $576 a year, in the United States $300; a widow and one child will receive in Canada, $756, in the United States $420; a widow with two children in Canada $876, in the United States $570; a widow with . three children in Canada $972, in the United States $6.30; a widow with four children in Canada $1,068, in the United States $690. You will see that our scale of pensions is very much higher than the American scale, so far as the widow and children are concerned.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Does the minister think we should take the United States as a model ? We did not follow thei* example in getting into the war, and I do not see why we should follow them in the matter of pensions.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I quite agree that we should not follow them. If we had, we would have reduced rather than increased our pensions. I only mentioned that as indicating that the committee had all these considerations before them, and they were pressed very ably, as they have been tonight. We had before us the rates paid in every other country, and while our pensions are perhaps not as generous as we would like to see, they are larger than are paid by any other country that took part in the war. The widow's pension in New Zealand, for instance, is $379.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But is that a fair comparison? What is the value of the dollar in New Zealand?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The reason why the
United States is a fairer comparison is because the dollar is more nearly of the same value in the two countries.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Less 3 per cent.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have given the figures for the other countries simply to show what they pay. The value of the dollar in years to come will probably be more nearly the
[Mr. Rowell. I
same in all these countries than it is to-day. The difference in value is owing to conditions arising out of the war.


Mr. FIELDING:: I am aware of a difficulty which has arisen in the interpretation of the expression "dependent condition." I am hopeful that the language of the Bill as now presented to the House will make the meaning clear. Let me state the case. It is that of a commissioned officer who was killed at an early stage of the war. His widowed mother is living. Inquiries having been made, it was found she was residing with some relatives. They were not rich people, nor were they needy people, like the average of our country people, and inasmuch as she was living with relatives who were not deemed to be needy the case was not held to come within the pension conditions. The matter was not pressed very much. As a matter of fact, the lady herself did not make application for the pension, but such inquiry as was made by others interested in her case led to the information being given that inasmuch as she was living with relatives who were not in needy circumstances the claim was not one that could be recognized. I am not putting this forward as a complaint, because the matter has not been pressed, but it would strike me that under the terms of this Bill this lady, if not possessing independent means, would be entitled to a pension under the terms of section 34.


Mr. CHARLES MARGIL:: I might mention a case almost identical with that mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding). A young lawyer in my constituency, being unable to secure a commission, volunteered as a private and went to the front. He won his commission there, but was killed in the battle of the Somme, while holding the rank of acting major. He left a mother and an invalid sister. The Pension Board granted the mother a pension, but about a year afterwards they discovered 'that she was deriving a small revenue from some real estate which she possessed, hut which revenue, she explains, is largely eaten up in taxes. The pension has been taken away from her. The hon. memb'er for Quebec West undertook in the committee to have an amendment made to introduce the word " income " in clause 34. but I believe was not successful. I have brought the case to the attention of the Pension Board on several occasions, and they have promised to give it consideration. Evidently, if this woman is not given a pension, a great injustice will be done, especially seeing that the pension was

granted for some time. In vie\v of the circumstances of the young man s death, I trust the minister will give consideration to this case.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I would suggest that my hon. friend bring this matter up under section 34.


Mr. MORPHY:: I should like a little further light on a question asked by my hon. friend from Muskoka, as reported at page 3176 of unrevised Hansard. The point was whether the large-salaried men employed by the Pension Board were returned soldiers, or men who had not worn the khaki and been overseas. I notice that the following salaries are being paid: Mr. K. Archibald, $4,800 per annum; Mr. F. C. Baker, $2,200; Mr. R. R. Belanger $1,700; Dr. D. M. Bell, $3,500; Col.
C. W. Belton, $5,000; Col. J. S. Dunbar, $4,700; Capt. W. L. Germaine, $2,600; Dr. W. O. Gliddon, $3,500; Capt. E. King, $2,900; Mr. J. Kittle, $1,700; Mr. J. C. Letellier, $1,500; Mr. N. Mcllveen, $1,800; Mr. F. T. Orgill, $1,800; Mr. J. A. W. Paton, $2,900; Mr. G. 'Sleeman, $1,600; Mr. P. Williams, $1,100. I have been informed that none of these gentlemen are returned soldiers, and I would like to get a straight answer from some one who knows what the facts are as to these officials, and whether there are any returned soldiers among the high-salaried men. Let us have the facts about the department's organization.


William Folger Nickle: I am informed that none of these men mentioned are returned soldiers.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Why?


William Folger Nickle: Mr. K. Archibald was medically unfit for service overseas. Mr. F. C. Baker was a member of the permanent force. With reference to Mr. R. Belanger, I have no information. Colonel C. W. Belton was on the old Military Pensions and Claims Board, as was Colonel Dunbar. Captain Germaine was a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force but did not go overseas. With reference to Doctor W. Gliddon and Mr. J. Inglis, I have no m-formation. Captain King and Mr. . Kittle were members of the permanent force. With reference to the others I have no information.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Not one of these men went overseas', and hundreds of returned soldiers in the country could no doubt be found with capacity and experience and quite the equal of, if not superior, man for man, to the men mentioned in this list.
Canada is professing to be very generous and kind to the men who fought for their country, hut if this sort of thing is to be continued it will be a direct refutation of the statement that the country is caring for the returned men. I would ask the minister to make a careful inquiry into this matter and take Ehe necessary steps to purge this department in ervery case where men can be found who went overseas and who have sufficient capacity to perform the services required of them, especially if they are equal ot nearly equal to the men who now hold places.
On section 2, subsection (g)-" Disability ":


Newton Wesley Rowell: A portion of the definition here given of disability more properly comes in in connection with section 11. I therefore move to strike out all the words in subsection (g) except those in the first line, so that that clause will read:
Disability means a wound, injury, or disease. Motion agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-Pensions to be awarded according to prescribed rates:


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to amend section 11 by adding at the end of the first subsection the following:
Provided further that when a member of the forces has suffered disability or death after the declaration of Peace, no pension shall be paid unless such disability was incurred or aggravated or such death occurred as the direct result of military service.
I am transferring to this section an important part of the clause we struck out of (g) in section 2.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the explanation?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Under the law as it now stands, our pension system is really an insurance; that is, if a man dies from any cause during service his dependents are entitled to the pension. The view of the Committee was that after peace is proclaimed if men are kept in the service for the purpose of clearing up fag ends, etc., during peace, the insurance element should be eliminated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On the other side too?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Either overseas or here. After peace is proclaimed the insurance element will be eliminated. The man will become entitled to pension if his disability was the direct result of service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Suppose a soldier is kept in France with a regiment to collect the debris of the war and in connection with that work he receives a serious wound. In that case, I suppose he will be considered as having been wounded in the performance of war service.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. He would get a pension.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What the minister
means is that if while engaged in the discharge of his duties he dies a natural death, from illness contracted outside of military-functions, the provision he mentions applies?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Surely there will not be many of these cases. Why introduce that element?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Our law as it stands is broader than the pension law in any other country, so far as we know. The insurance feature which I have mentioned is not in any other law, so far as I am aware. In that respect, we give the soldier the 'benefit of insurance during the whole period of the war.
Mr. GRIESBAOHi: That is the principle that underlies all pensions.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. The principle underlying all pensions is disability due to service. Under our pension law, if a soldier contracts disease under a purely normal condition having no relation at all to service, he becomes entitled to pension. It is really an insurance system.


William Antrobus Griesbach: In what way will disease or ailment he attributed to service?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If a man contracted a disease when an epidemic broke out in camp, that disease would be contracted in service, and as it now stands he becomes entitled to pension. If he went home on leave and were taken ill at home, unless there us a special provision to change the law, he would still become entitled to a pension. The view the Committee took was that once war is over and peace is officially proclaimed, there is no longer any war risk, and we might then afford to put ourselves in the same position, as every other nation now is even during war period, namely, that the pension should be granted only in case of death or disability due to service, and in the latter of the two cases I have mentioned he would not be entitled to a pension.

On section 12-cases of intemperance or improper conduct:


Cyrus Wesley Peck: We are not here to criticise, but I am sure that all hon. gentlemen who are soldiers are anxious to give the Committee the benefit of their advice. This clause says that:
A pension shall not he awarded when the death or disability of the member of the forces was due to intemperance or improper conduct.
1 think that is a puritanical distinction and that it might very well be struck out. According to that clause, a soldier who had perhaps not misbehaved himself for a long time-and I am not trying to condone intemperance-might fall and break his neck, or something of that kind might happen to him, and his wife would be deprived of her pension.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that the clause says:
*-provided that the commission may, when the applicant is in a dependent condition, award such pension as it deems fit in the circumstances.
This has been in the pension regulations from the start and was recommended by the Committee of the House three years ago.


William Stevens Fielding: The language of the section would seem to me to be contradictory. It begins by saying that a pension, under certain given conditions shall not be granted, and it concludes by saying that under certain other conditions it may be granted. I suppose the meaning would be that under the conditions mentioned it shall not be granted but that under other conditions mentioned the commission may take the facts into consideration and grant a reduced pension. I think that is what it must be read to mean, but the drafting is a little peculiar and contradictory.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I would of course deprecate anything that a soldier would deprecate, but the most remarkable thing in the service is that very often the worst cases are the best fighting men. Men, full-blooded fellows who would get into scrapes by giving rein to their inclinations, who would go and buy champagne, have a "little time" and perhaps suffer field punishment for it, would be the very best men we had when it came to going over the top or when any serious fighting was to be done. Any distinction in regard to men of that kind I think is liable to work a hardship on some of our very best soldiers.


William Antrobus Griesbach: The interpretation clause defines improper conduct as "wilful

disobedience of orders, self-inflicted wounding and vicious or criminal conduct." I think the clause would be satisfactory if the word "intemperance" were struck out.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not the least objection to striking that out. It was put in by the Committee of the House some two years ago and has been in the regulations since. I would move:
That the clause he amended hy striking out the words " intemperance or " in the 19th and 20 th lines.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Boulton Morphy: Before that section is passed I think it would be a fair thing to put in, after the words "improper conduct," the words " as defined by this Act." Then the soldier looking after his rights will be led to see what is the definition of "improper conduct." Without these words being in, I do not think the section is a fair one for the general public.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is no objection to that. That is what it means now, as I understand it. I would therefore move:
To further amend clause 12' hy adding after the word " conduct " in the 20th line of page 5 of the Bill the following words " as herein defined."


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Will this clause be retroactive? There may have been pensions refused to applicants on the ground of intemperance.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This law has been in force for some time. It is not a new law. If an applicant has been refused on that ground his case may be reviewed by the law as it stands. Section 48 provides:
All cases affected hy this Act shall he reviewed and future payments shall he made at the rates and in accordance with the provisions set forth herein.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: The clause gives to the Board an unlimited power. I think the intention is that they shall not give the full pension but that they may give a reduced pension if they see fit. I would take that to be its meaning. But it says that the Commission may "award such pension as it deems fit." I think it is merely a question of drafting; I have no difficulty in understanding what it means.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will quite concede that the clause might have been better drafted. The intention is that if a man is guilty of improper conduct his family shall not be entitled to a pension, but the Board of Pension Commissioners may, if his family is in a dependent position, award such pension as it deems fit in the circumstance*. I think the intention is that the board may award such pension as comes within the limits defined by this Act. We might perhaps leave that over for a few minutes and see if we can find a form of words to more clearly express the intention.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not objecting to the clause. I think I can gather the meaning, although I do not think it is well drafted.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13-time within which application must be made:


Mr. DENIS:: Is there any good reason why this clause should remain in the Bill? According to the provisions of the Bill, a pension is due by the mere fact of disability or death on the one hand and of the financial condition of the dependents on the other. Why should a person be deprived of the right which is acknowledged by this Bill by the mere fact that the making of a claim has been neglected for a period of three years?
I would have no objection to the clause if it said that if a person does not make a claim within three years, then it shall have no retroactive effect, that is to say, the pension will be granted only from the time when it is made. But as I read the clause, it means that a person who is in a hurry to make a claim will at once have the claim considered; while if another person for some reason or other thinks that she does not want it-she may have forgotten about it, she may not know the law, she may have been absent from the country, she may have been ill, her attorney may have forgotten to file a claim-if for these or for any other reasons the claim is not made within three years, then she loses her claim. This seems to me to be altogether unjust, and I would suggest that the clause be stricken out, or, that it be amended in the manner I have suggested.


William Stevens Fielding: I support the contention of the 'hon. gentleman (Mr. Denis). We ought to have some regard for the period of the war. Suppose a man was killed in the early days of the war, that is more than three years ago, and owing to any of the causes to which my hon. friend has referred a claim was not made, the party not understanding the law, it would be a pity that the claim should be shut out. I would suggest to the minister that the three years might well be extended to cover the period of the war.


William Folger Nickle: As t'he members of this committee will see, the claims divide themselves into two classes: First, dependency; second, disability. The Pensions Committee felt, dealing with the classes in that order, that if a person had three years after he or she became dependent in which to make the claim, it was reasonable to suppose that if no claim were made there was not dependency. I would direct the attention of hon. members to the clause in reference to each case.
A pension shall not be awarded unless an application therefor has been made within three years (ib) after the date upon which the applicant has fallen into a dependent condition;
That is, if the dependency happened five years after the war, there would be three years more before the prescribed right would prevent the applicant collecting the pension. Now, in respect to (a):
A pension shall not be awarded unless an application therefor has been made within three years (a) after the date of the death in respect of which pension is claimed.
That is, if a person is killed in the war the dependent making the claim has three years from the date of the death. It seems unreasonable to think that if any one wanted a pension he or she would wait longer than three years before making application. Then take the third case :
A pension shall not be awarded unless an application therefor has been made within three years (c) after the date upon which the applicant was retired or discharged from the force.
The object of that subsection is this: Experience has taught other nations in other wars that after a protracted period of time a great many fraudulent and fictitious claims are made, and if there is not a time limit prescribed it is impossible for those in charge of the pension administration to protect the Government, because all evidence is gone. We were strongly advised when we were in Washington in 1917 that it would be essential to specify some period of time within which claims had to be made in respect to disability, otherwise it would be impossible to protect the Government. I may say that we did increase the term from two years to three years.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: In respect to subsection (a), here is a possible case of which I know there are some existing: Until this measure comes into force the Imperial widow is not recognized by our pension law. If an Imperial soldier was killed in the spring of 1915 his wife, having hitherto not been among the privileged classes, her application for a pension, the three years

having expired, could not now be entertained.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a very strong case. But supposing a Canadian soldier was killed in the early days of the war, and through any misunderstanding the claim of his dependents was not put forward, no matter what the cause might be, should such a claim be shut out? I grant you there, must be a time* limit, but there ought to be a time limit which will recognize the circumstances of the war. We sometimes talk of a debt being out of date. This kind of debt should never be out of date.


Herbert Brown Ames: There are a number of Imperial widows whose husbands were killed in 1914, and they have never made application because they have never been recognized by the Canadian Pension Act. They will make application as soon as this Bill goes through. In some cases the three years have already expired. Although the intention is to give them pensions, technically speaking, under subsection (a) they are debarred.


William Folger Nickle: I think that should be dealt with.


Samuel Hughes: It had better be dealt with now.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the Committee thinks there should be some provision such as suggested by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), say thr'ee years after the close of. the war, I would not offer any objection as the minister in charge of the Bill. The Pensions Committee felt very strongly, however, that some limit must be imposed to protect the country from claims which might be /made in the future when all evidence to check them up was lost. If the Committee desires to insert "Three years after the proclamation of peace,"


Charles Marcil: Is not the ordinary civil debt proscribed in five years?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It depends on the laws of the different provinces. Five years after is a long time to hunt up any medical evidence as to the condition existing at the time.


William Stevens Fielding: I think in nearly all cases the application will be made in good time; people are not likely to neglect these things intentionally. But if any bona fide case can be shown where, through misunderstanding or absence of some one, the application was made more than three years after the soldier's death, it would be a hardship

if that case could not be considered. I do not wish to move any amendment; I am quite content to call the attention of the minister to it.


Herbert Brown Ames: This very class ot cases have caused the Patriotic Fund any amount of trouble in its attempt to give post-war relief. We were trying to draft a clause which would protect the Patriotic Fund from claims made a certain length of time after death or disability, and we came to the conclusion that the only wa^ to do it would be to limit the making of the claim for a certain number of years after the declaration of peace, so that practically all the claimants should be on the same basis in so far as the calendar was concerned. My own impression is that it would be far better to amend that clause in such a way as to make it .three years after the declaration of peace. Then you have a definite period after which no claim can be made, and if that period is found to be too short, then Parliament could extend it.
. Mr. FIELDING:	That will cover it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Then I will move that
the following be inserted as paragraph (d) of clause 13:
Three years after the declaration of peace.
The word " or " should be stricken out of paragraph (b) and put at the end of paragraph (c). Then the new paragraph follows.


Charles Marcil: What does the minister understand by the " declaration of peace?" Does he mean the signing or the ratification?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The official declaration
of peace, which brings the war to an end.
Mr. -CHARLES MARCIL:	Some people
say Germany will never ratify the Peace .Treaty, although she is going to sign it.
. Mr. ROWELL:	An official proclamation
will have to be issued at some time, bringing the war to a conclusion. The declaration of peace is referred to in other sections .of the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have a case in mind, and I would be glad if my hon. friend could give me an answer to it. A soldier .is killed and the widow remarries, and again becomes a widow. Would she be entitled to a pension?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We will come to a case
of that kind when we consider a later section.


Samuel Hughes: What is the definition of " dependent condition " in paragraph (b)?
Mr. NI-CKLE:	" Dependent condition "
is defined in section 2 paragraph (e) as meaning the condition of being without earnings or income sufficient to provide for maintenance and that the resident in Canada shall be considered to be in a dependent condition wh^fi such applicant is not in receipt of earnings or income equivalent to the amount of pension provided for such an applicant.	*


Samuel Hughes: Suppose one of our soldiers were in a dependent condition in the United States, for you will find them scattered all over the world in a few years, could he get his pension just the same?
Mr. NI-CKLE: I would think so, yes.


Samuel Hughes: In my opinion the definition would not allow him to get it.
Mr. -NICKLE: Paragraph (e) reads as follows:
" dependent condition " means the oondition of -being without earnings or income sufficient to provide for maintenance.
That is. the bald statement of the principle, and then the following words apply to Canada:
An applicant resident in Canada shall be considered to be in a dependent condition when such applicant is not in receipt of earnings or income equivalent to the amount of pension provided for such an applicant.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose the applicant is a resident elsewhere-a resident in the United States, in England, or in France?
Mr. N.ICKLE: I think that in the case of an applicant in the United States probably the same rule or standard would apply, the conditions and cost of living being about the same there as in Canada.


Herbert Brown Ames: I am not satisfied with the amendment made to clause 13, because I do not think it is what we want to say. Three years after the declaration of peace applies to the whole clause, and I would suggest that the clause read this way:
A pension shall not be awarded unless an application therefor has been made within three years after the declaration of peace, unless, and within three years

Then come paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman's proposal seems to be more involved.


Herbert Brown Ames: Application must be made anyway within three years after

the declaration of peace, and it must also be made under one of these three alternatives.


William Folger Nickle: The whole section as amended by the Committee reads as follows:
A pension shall not be awarded unless an application therefor has been made within three years:
Now come the alternatives:
(a)	after the date of the death in respect of which pension is claimed;
(b)	after the date upon which the applicant has fallen into a dependent condition;
(c)	after the date upon which the applicant was retired or discharged from the forces; or
(d)	three years after the declaration of peace.
The application can be made under one of these four alternative schemes within the term of three years.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it intended that a person falling into dependent circumstances after more than three years shall then be considered?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


William Folger Nickle: He or she would come
under paragraph (b).
10p.m. Mr. FIELDING: There would be no limit in that case?


William Folger Nickle: That applies to cases of
prospective dependence.


John Howard Sinclair: How are you going to prove exactly when a person falls into a dependent condition?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that the whole question of such dependency is more or less a difficult one. Where the pension is granted to parents or brothers or sisters with respect to the death of a son or a brother, there is no legal right to a pension. The pension is only granted in case they are in a dependent condition, and there is reasonable ground to anticipate that a contribution would be received from the son or brother towards the support of parents, brothers, or sisters, as the case may be. Now at the time of the close of the war, or five years after the close of the war, no pension may be payable, the parents not being in a dependent condition; but in case this aged father or mother, who perhaps had some little property or income, should at the end of five years, or even at the end of ten years, fall into a dependent condition-and "dependent" is defined in this legislation'-then it is still open to them to make application to the Pension Board for a pension. It
[SBr Herbert Ames.]
is really intended to protect aged parents who fall into a dependent condition.


John Howard Sinclair: They do not fall into a dependent condition all at once, the process is very gradual. Bow are you going to fix the date at which they arrived at that condition?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that "dependent condition" is defined, as the member for Kingston has pointed out, in paragraph (e) of clause 2, and it means the condition of being without earnings or income sufficient to provide for maintenance. In Canada that means when such applicant is not in receipt of earnings or income equivalent to the amount of the pension provided for the applicant. So that, whenever the persons who claim under the clause applicable to prospective dependency make an application, they would have to show that they were not in receipt of earnings or income within the -amount fixed by this clause defining "dependent condition." Then if they can show that their earnings are less, they are entitled to a pension.


William Stevens Fielding: That application can be made at the end of ten years?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so.


William Stevens Fielding: But within three years from the time dependency exists.
Mr. ROW'ELL: That is it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Somewhere else in the Bill it is provided that on the death of a man who was disabled between 80 and 100 per cent his widow comes into a full pension. If a man lived for four years and consequently fell outside of the three-year period after the declaration of peace, and then died, this limitation of three years after the declaration of peace would not, as I understand it, affect the pension, there would still be three years after his death in which claim could be made for a pension.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: What is meant by "a dependent condition "? I know of a case where a father and mother living in the north country, had only one child, a son. The son. was killed early in the war. In a sense they have no visible support; they have a little home and a little sandy land, but the father at present is able to do only a little work, and of course, this case is not considered by the Pensions Board as one in which the parents can receive any assistance at all.


William Folger Nickle: Will the hon. member let that stand until we come to clause 34?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-pension suspended on imprisonment or .paid to defendant.
Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is a point in this with which I am not quite satisfied. The clause reads:
The commission shall have discretion to pay the pension to any person who was being supported by the pensioner at the time of his arrest.
After the word "being " the words " or was entitled to be " should be inserted.


Herbert Brown Ames: " Or was legally entitled to be."-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have cases in mind, but it is no use discussing them.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is no objection to that.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I suppose it is the intention to have the commission pay the pension to any person who was being or entitled to be supported by the person whose pension is so suspended. I would suggest that the words " have discretion to " be struck out of the eighteenth and nineteenth lines. The clause would then read:
That the 'commission shall pay the pension to any .person who was being or was legally entitled to be supported ,by the pensioner at the time of his arrest.
That would leave no discretion to the commission, but would simply say that it would be the duty of the commission to pay the pension to whoever was entitled to be supported by the person who was imprisoned.	-


William Folger Nickle: The pension is only suspended during that time, and it might be that the pension commissioners would desire to accumulate it and pay the entire *amount to the man on his discharge. It would not be right that any person who was being supported by the pensioner could have the right to come in and demand the money. I would suggest to the Cpmmittee that the word "legally" as suggested by some hon. member, in the amendment, be left out, because in some provinces a parent is legally entitled to support, and in other provinces, not. The commissioners might desire to pay the pension to a person who might not be legally entitled to it. It would be better if the clause read in this way:
That the commission shall have discretion to pay the pension to any person who was being
or who was entitled to be supported by the pensioner at the time of his arrest.


Jean-Joseph Denis: How is this discretion going to be made use of ? In principle I am against any discretion being given to a commission or a judge or anybody else when this can be avoided, and I have never known laws to be so unjust and iniquitous as those in which discretion is left either to a commission or a judge or any other judicial body. It is the duty of the legislature to take the responsibility of framing the law, and if the legislature is not able to determine to what cases the discretion should be attributed or in what sense it should be made use of, how is a judge or a commission going to make use of that discretion? Do we know or do we not know what we intend to do about this matter of discretion?
If we know, we should have it put into the law and if we do not know, how is the commission going to know? Or, if the word " discretion " is going to be left in, let us determine the discretion and say that in a particular case the discretion is to be made use of, and in a different case, the discretion will be made use of in a different way. If we leave the matter open for the commission to decide at their own discretion, they will not know what we intend to do, and I am sure two different commissioners determining on the same point would render a different judgment, just as, every day, different judges, when they have nothing but their discretion to guide them, judge and determine differently on points which are absolutely simple. Everywhere in our law, when the question of costs has been left to the judge, we have found all kinds of diverse opinions. If this discretion, is to remain in the law, it should be determined at-once by ourselves.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is no department of the public service that will have to be administered more simply than the work of the Pension Commission. You cannot reach the object we really have in view without giving the Pension Commission a certain amount of discretionary power, because they would have to use it if they are really to meet the object the Government has in view. In this case, you can very easily see where discretionary power is needed and might be exercised to great advantage by the commissioners. A man is arrested who is entitled to a certain sum of money which, if he were a law-abiding citizen going about his ordinary business, would be paid directly by the Government to him and would probably through him reach his family.

If he breaks the law, the Government says: "We do not want his family to suffer; therefore, we ask that power be given the commissioners to pay money for the support of that family while the man is in jail." You sometimes have cases where the woman is just as bad as the man; there may he four or five children in the family, and if you say that the money must be given to the woman because she was receiving it while the man was with her, or because she is entitled to receive it, she might drink every cent of it and let the five children starve. The Pension Board would consider whether the woman was fit to receive it. If they decide she is, she will get it but they may decide that the children at least must be cared for while the man is in jail. Therefore, if you are going to treat that family sympathetically, some discretionary power must be given to the board.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Then the board would have to render judgment in each case of this kind, and if they are going to do justice, they would have to make a thorough investigation in order to get the facts, whereas if their discretionary powers were determined now, all the commissioners would have to do would be to follow the law.
iSir SAM HUGHES:	Would this apply
in the case of one of our pensioners who goes to the United States and gets into jail?


William Folger Nickle: I would think so.


Samuel Hughes: How would the commission act in the United States? How would they ascertain the merits and demerits of each case?


William Folger Nickle: The Board of Pension Commissioners have quite a corps of investigators and examiners going about the country continually. They act through the British Consul in the United States, The moment the attention of the board was directed to the fact that a pension cheque was not cashed, or they received information that a pensioner was in jail, one of their investigators would at once trace up his family, make an investigation, and report back to the board for decision and action.


Samuel Hughes: I think there is a good deal in the contention of my hon. friend (Mr. Denis).


Rodolphe Lemieux: From the observations made by my hon. friend (Mr. Denis) and my hon. friend (Sir Herbert Ames) I can

quite understand that with an army of five hundred thousand soldiers there would be a very large army of dependents, and the commissioners themselves will be able to do only such work as would fall under -the heading of general work.	The
actual work of investigating	these
cases will have to be done by a large staff of assistants. That is where the experience of my hon. friend (Sir Herbert Ames) is very valuable to the committee and the board. As the secretary of the Patriotic Fund-as the, manager, I (might say, because he had the whole works throughout Canada in his 'hands-he had assisting him, first, the volunteers who wanted to help the cause of the Patriotic Fund, and then committees of citizens and many other associations, all acting free gratis, as the Irishman says. Will the men who investigate these cases for the Board of Pension Commissioners act in a voluntary capacity? We could not afford to pay for such a large army of investigators as would be required to investigate cases of the kind that have been mentioned in all of the large centres, and in remote sections of Canada where they may have to make inquiries regarding the bona fides of the pensioner or his dependents. How are you going to organize this vast army of investigators? Will you rely on voluntary help and charitable organizations? Will it be done in connection with the Patriotic Fund? Let me put a concrete case. Suppose a pensioner in Gaspe goes to jail. The board has discretionary power to say whether or not his family shall receive his pension during his detention. Who would investigate this case? Would you apply to the minister of the church, to the mayor of the village, or to some patriotic citizen in the neighbourhood, to make a report? The administration of this Act is a very delicate matter. It also involves the expenditure of large sums of money, and we must take all precautions.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Does not my hon. friend think that a system will grow up?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No doubt, but I should like to know how the machinery will be put in motion.	[DOT]


Newton Wesley Rowell: At the present time the Board of Pension Commissioners has its district officers in all parts of Canada. Gaspe, which my hon. friend has mentioned, is in the Quebec district. In addition to these district officers, there are also district visitors who try and keep in touch with the families of the pensioners and visit throughout the district. In the ordinary

course, a visit would be paid at certain intervals to the pensioners at Gaspe. The board also, takes advantage of the assistance of the Patriotic Fund and in various centres has asked the committees, and will ask them in future no doubt-because I understand some of these committees are going to continue-for a report in such a case as my hon. friend has mentioned. In the absence of either one or the other,
I have no doubt they would apply to just such representative citizens in the community as my hon. friend has mentioned. In other words, they must use the best machinery available to get information so that they can exercise their discretion as intelligently and sympathetically as possible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They will rely on public-spirited citizens?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not in sympathy with this section. A pension is not given as a reward for virtuous conduct in the future. It is something that the soldier has earned by his services to his country. He is entitled to it; it is for the support of himself and his family. Therefore, why should we keep strings on it and tell him he must go to Sunday school and church regularly and do a lot of virtuous things, that he must not get drunk and get a sentence, or he will lose his pension? I am not in sympathy with that at all. Once we say that the man is entitled to his pension why should we follow him?


William Folger Nickle: I quite agree with everything the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) has said: If a man gets his pension it is his property, and we should not follow him and insist on his going to Sunday school, or take it from him if he gets intoxicated. But assume that he is in prison for six months and has a wife and five or six children starving outside, and refuses to allow the Pension Commissioners to pay that money to his suffering family. Does it not seem obvious that there must be some machinery by which tfhe State will see to it that the money thus belonging to the man shall be used to maintain those whom legally he was bound to keep? I would draw the attention of the leader of the Opposition to the fact that the man's pension is only suspended if he is imprisoned for six months. His property in the pension is recognized and the man is entitled to it at the expiration of his term of imprisonment, provided that in the meantime it has not been paid to some one who was entitled to be supported by him. The
object is primarily to protect the man, and secondarily to insure that those whom he has a duty to support will not suffer during his incarceration. It is a recognition of the very principles to which my hon. friend has called attention.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The word "suspension" has many meanings. If an officer of any department of the Government is suspended he receives no salary during that suspension. I construe this to mean that the pensioner while in prison will receive nothing, his rights being suspended. It does not say that payment is suspended. If you say that payment of pension will be suspended, that is another matter; but as it stands now, the man's right to his money is gone while he is in jail.


Richard Clive Cooper: If the intention of this section is merely to suspend payment while the man is in jail and pay it to him when he comes out, I am in accord with it. If, however, the intention is to keep the pension back altogether, then I am absolutely opposed to it. The man has earned his pension by reason of disability, and the country has no right to take it from him if he incurs the wrath of the law and is sent to prison. If that is the intention it is most unfair and I should strongly oppose the carrying of that section.
'Mr. McKENZIE:	My experience of men
who will possibly come within this class is that although a man may get drunk and be put into jail, his wife or some member of his family can reach him with a cheque that requires his signature and thus get the money. I have known of cases where men were in jail on pay-day and their wives would take the cheques to them and obtain their signatures. I do not think there should be any interference at all in this matter. If later on it happens that trouble arises in this connection, remedial measures can be taken, as Parliament meets every year. But at present I do not think we should anticipate difficulties of this kind and impose ungenerous conditions on the ' soldier.


Herbert Brown Ames: I suggest that this be made to read:
His pension shall be withheld and not paid to him during his confinement.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The suggestion of my hon. friend from St. Antoine would cover the point and make perhaps clearer what I understood to be the meaning of the clause. However, my attention has been drawn to this consideration, which I mention in order

to get the view of the committee on it: If a man is sent up for manslaughter for ten years, should the pension continue to accumulate during that period in case he has no dependents, or should it be forfeited in view of the fact that he is maintained in a public institution at the expense of the State?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Personally, I do not think we should interfere with pensions at all. If the soldier encounters misfortunes afterwards they will he bad enough in themselves without taking away what little he earned in the better part of his days.


William Antrobus Griesbach: In any well-conducted jail he would not be allowed .to receive his money, so that he could not get it until after he got out.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Probably it would be better to amend the section. I move that in line 16 there be inserted, after the words"or more," the words "the payment of." So that it would read:
The payment of his pension shall be suspended and shall not be paid during his imprisonment; provided, however, that the commission shall have discretion,-
-and so on. That would make it clear that the right to the pension was not forfeited, but that payment was suspended and his dependents might be cared for.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think you should make it: "paid to him."


Newton Wesley Rowell: Very well. I would move that the section be amended so as to read:
When a pensioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months or more, the payment of his pension shall be suspended, and his pension shall not be paid to him during his imprisonment; provided, however, that the commission shall have discretion to pay the pension to any person who was being supported by the pensioner at the time of his arrest.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Why do you mention six months specifically?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the period were shorter it would not be a case for the Commission to inquire into. If the Commission _ were called upon to look into cases which were only a matter of a few weeks, they might be kept busy investigating cases.
I presume that was the view in deciding on six months.


Arthur Bliss Copp: A man's dependents might be in needy circumstances during a period of five months just as much as during six months.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the latter part of the section is somewhat loose. Suppose

the pensioner was giving his money to some person who under the Act had no right to i',t at all. Would it not be better to say who the dependents would be. As dependents are defined by the Act somebody who had no business to get it might be obtaining the pensioner's money during the time he was in jail.


William Folger Nickle: The commission have a discretion and I assume that in the administration of their work they would make inquiry as to the payment of the money.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no discretion left here. It says:
That the commission shall have discretion to pay the pension to any person who was being supported by the pensioner at the time of his arrest.
Any person can come in and say that he, or she, is entitled to pension.


William Folger Nickle: I would not construe the section in that way. I would construe it to mean that the commissioners would have *a discretion as to whether or not the payment should be made and as to the people to whom it should be made, and that they would only pay the pension to some person who was entitled to be supported by the pensioner.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the previous clause settles it; that is that it shall be paid to those who have a right to be supported.


William Folger Nickle: I should think so.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18-appeals and rehearing:


John Howard Sinclair: This clause is peculiar. It says that:
Two or more commissioners shall sit for the purpose of hearing the appeals of dissatisfied applicants or pensioners.
That would mean that they would hear appeals^from their own decisions. In addition the clause seems to imply that the three commissioners shall give a joint decision. It is not the decision of one commissioner but the decision of the whole board when an applicant is refused a pension. It is peculiar in this, that when an applicant is refused a pension by the board, he gives notice in writing that he proposes to appeal against the decision of the board, and then he is allowed to come before the board and make his appeal to the same men who gave the decision originally.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon, friend will turn to subsection 8 of section 3, he will see that it provides that:
The approval of the commission to the award of any pension, or the refusal of any pension, shall he evidenced by the personal signature of at least one of the commissioners.
The evidence before the Committee showed that in the actual work of the board, unless there was a case involving some serious dispute, it would be disposed of by one commissioner. In a case in court where there are three judges, one will dispose of an ordinary case. So, in this case if there was any real dispute an applicant who rwas not satisfied would be entitled to have a rehearing before the full board.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do you not think that a complicated, or complex case will, from the very beginning, be adjudged by all of the commissioners? They Will form their opinions and the soldier, or the dependent, or whoever is receiving the pension, will have to appeal before the same commissioners. It is as if we were to appeal before the same court that had rendered its decision. The court will simply confirm its judgment. Perhaps it might be possible, outside of the commission, to have a permanent appeal board.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It would be more like the case of an ex parte application to a judge; the evidence and necessary medical certificates are furnished by the Department of Militia and Defence to the Pension Board and they make such further investigation as they think necessary and then award the pension. If the applicant is not satisfied, he comes before the commission for a rehearing or review, in which case the applicant may be permitted to bring all the facts before the board either personally or by counsel and is entitled to a hearing before two or more commissioners. The commissioners have no object other than to do justice in the administration of the Act and the purpose of the section is to entitle any applicant to have his case reviewed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I take it for granted
that the cases to be reviewed are complex and that in such cases the whole board will have to pass upon them. If I were a member of the board and a difficult case came up, especially in the matter of a pension affecting the welfare or happiness of a whole family, I would like to consult my colleagues.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think that my hon.
friend will see that this provision is of real value to the applicant. After his case 266
has been passed upon in the way indicated upon the papers prepared in the office, he may appear in person or through counsel and have all the facts reviewed by the board of pensions commissioners whose sole object will be to administer the Act impartially.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no doubt that they will have that one object in view.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. If any new facts were brought out, the fact that they had decided the case already, would not prevent them from reviewing their decision.


Herbert Brown Ames: An appeal here at Ottawa is of no value to a man living in Vancouver. He cannot pay the expense of coming to Ottawa or of hiring counsel to represent him, and he is not very much better off than he was before because he is not able to appear personally. I would like to ask if there is any expectation that the commissioners will travel across Canada and be available to those who wish personally to appeal.


William Folger Nickle: One of the commissioners is frequently making trips across Canada, and sometimes two, to meet those who are dissatisfied and who ask for a rehearing.


William Stevens Fielding: Subsection 8 of section 3 does not distinctly give one commissioner the power to decide anything. It says that the signature of one commissioner shall be evidence of what the board have done.
I can see the logic of one commissioner deciding ordinary cases, but where an appeal is taken to the full board, the provision of subsection 8 of section 3 is not that one of the commissioners may decide it. but that after the board, persumably a majority, have decided it, the signature of one commis-board would be responsible for his decis-of that commissioner but of the board.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is quite correct. It is not that the decision of one of the commissioners is the' decision of the board, but that the decision shall be evidenced by the signature of at least one commissioner. As a matter of administration in routine matters one Commissioner would dispose of the application, but the whole Board would be responsible for his decision.


William Stevens Fielding: That is implied but it does not distinctly say so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose this commission, which will deal with large sums of money, will be under the control of the Auditor General ?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes; everything is under the control of the Auditor General.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister thinks this is to be a review it should be so stated. If it means appeal, that is covered. But there is nothing better settled, as the minister knows, than as to what is an appeal and what is a review. One has nothing to do with the other. If it is to be a review, there is a discretion to admit new evidence and the same court can hear the case again. If it is an appeal, it is naturally an appeal from one or two commissioners to some other new commissioners. It has been stated already that there should be no appeal to the person who has already decided the case; if there is to be a second decision it should be by some fresh tribunal which is free from any prejudice by reason of the former decision. In our Nova Scotia courts we have seven Supreme Court judges. They constitute the full bench, but there can never be seven judges sitting, because one of them has tried the case which is being heard on appeal, and he does not sit. We have commissioners here, and there is an appeal to them. In such an event the commissioner who has already decided the case should not be sitting on the appeal.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is quite correct if we were following strictly legal practice. But just let- pie recall the procedure which is now being followed in awarding these pensions. The claim comes in, with the evidence of the physical condition of the applicant upon the investigation made by the Army Medical Service before the man was discharged. Then there is the information gathered from the man himself before discharge. The information comes down to the Board of Pension Commissioners.' If it is complete, and there is no apparent departure from the practice, and it appears to be a reasonably clear case, then, after being passed upon by the medical branch of the Pensions Board, the degree of disability is estimated, and the report is made to the Pension Board, as such. Then one of the commissioners, as a matter of ordinary routine, passes upon that application, and if satisfied that everything is regular he would approve it and the pension would be granted. The number of cases of contest would be very few indeed. The pension is granted as a matter of routine upon certain evidence gathered under the regulations passed by the Pensions Board and as the law requires. If the pension is so awarded, and the applicant is dissatisfied, then he may appeal. I used the word "appeal" not in the strictly legal sense
[Mr. I .ernieux.}
in which my hon. friend used it, but in the sense that the case might come before the full board to reverse or change the former decision upon the same evidence or with evidence if the applicant so desired. We could use the word "review" there, and I think it would mean the substantially same thing. The establishing of an independent pension court of appeal was discussed before the Pensions Committee. Under certain conditions something might be said in favour of it; but it was thought that that would be creating too complicated machinery, and that perhaps the expense would not be justified. On the whole it was thought wiser to still leave the final authority in the board just as it has been for the past two or three years. If we find difficulty in working the matter out, it can be considered in the future. I appreciate the importance of the preint raised by my hon. friend, and as I say, it was considered by the Pensions Committee, and they reached the conclusion that I have mentioned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. minister
rather hinted that the parties may appear by counsel before this body, and it will be readily understood by lawyers that, if so, the language of the statute would at once be strictly construed and insisted upon.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-Assignment of right of action for damages as a condition for pension.
Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not think the section is very clear. Take the case of a soldier who is accidentally hurt, and apply that section. It reads:
If a disability or death for which a pension is payable under this Act is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability upon some person to pay damages therefor, the commission, as a condition to payment of the pension, shall require the pension to assign to His Majesty any right of action he may have to enforce such liability of such Person or any right which he may have to share in any money or other property received in satisfaction of such liability of such person.
Assuming a soldier has an accident insurance policy and is disabled. He had been keeping that policy up for years for the benefit, probably, of a creditor or of a dependent not within the class of dependents constituted by this Act. Would it be the policy of the Government to say that this man should be required, merely because he was a pensioner, to assign that to -the Government in preference to all oither persons who might have a claim upon it?


William Folger Nickle: No, that is not the intention. My hon. friend will notice that it is only where there is legal liability created upon some person to pay damages, and the payment of life insurance would not be the payment of damages; it would be the liquidation of a contractual obligation.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is that the definition in the Act?


William Folger Nickle: I think the common law definition would apply.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: It seems to me that this clause will take away from a soldier who may be disabled the returns of his occupation, and will compel him to elect whether he will take a pension or will take his right of action against his employer. He gets his pension for his services overseas. If he is injured subsequently while at his work he is entitled to recover from his employer, and why should the Crown ask to take an assignment of his right of action? He ought to get both, it seems to me.


Jacques Bureau: Certainly.
Mr. N'ICKLE: My hon. friend is, quite right, the man would get both. The section says, "If a disability or death for which a pension is payable under this Act is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability," and so on. If the man had been discharged from the forces and had entered civil life, he would not be entitled to any pension in respect of any disability incurred therein; but if, prior to his discharge, he had suffered disability in the war or incidental service, he would be paid his pension in respect of that disability, and compensation in respect to his second disability in civil life would also be paid to him.	This clause has more to
do with this class of case: A man, while in service, walking down the street is run over by a street ear and severely injured.
He is entitled under this Act to a pension in respect of disabilities suffered. The object of the section was that the right of action could be assigned to the Crown and the person who had caused the injury could be sued in court. Then the pensioner, or the soldier, would have to elect as to whether or not he would take the pension, or take the damages that may have been recovered by the Crown as against the negligent person.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: If a soldier while in the
service is injured in the manner suggested, surely he is not entitled to a pension?
266i


William Folger Nickle: The pension regulations
have always been in Canada that the soldier from the time he enlisted until he was discharged, was insured as to anything that might happen to him except in relation to improper conduct as defined by this Bill.
* Section agreed to.
On section 21-payments, unclaimed instalments, pensions not to be assigned or charged, disposal of unpaid balances:


Jean-Joseph Denis: I would like to have an
explanation about unclaimed instalments and especially in regard to the words in the third line of paragraph 2:	"pension
which has remained unclaimed." Does this mean a pension which has already been granted by the board but which the pensioner has neglected to collect, or does it mean a pension for which a claim could have been, but was not made?
Mr. NdiOKLE:	It means a claim in
respect of a pension which has been granted and unclaimed for two years.


Jean-Joseph Denis: What about a pension for
which a claim could have been, but was not, made? Would such pension also be lost?	;	1


William Folger Nickle: A case of that kind would be covered by section 13.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not see why a person to whom a pension has been granted should lose that pension by the mere fact that such person has neglected, ,for a period of two years, to collect it. I understand that a pension once granted belongs to the pensioner just as rightly and equitably as a deposit in the bank belongs to the depositor? It is money actually earned and owed by the State to a person who is named as the pensioner in this Bill. Now I am coming back to the same argument as before in respect to prescription. If for some reason a pensioner has neglected or forgotten to draw the pension-if he has been absent, or sick, or has assigned the duty to some one else to collect the duty for him and it was not done-why should that person be deprived of moneys which really belonged to him or her? I do not see any reason for this deprivation and I would like to be told what that reason is.


William Folger Nickle: The Pension Commissioners advised the committee that already cheques were piling up, unclaimed by pensioners whose whereabouts were unknown, and the committee reached the conclusion that if a pensioner was able for two years

to get on without his money, it was not unreasonable that it should come back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the country. The pension was paid
11 p.m. with the object of assisting the man in his maintenance, owing to disability incurred during the war, and the purpose of the provision was to clear the administration office of these cheques which had continued to collect. There is a good deal in what my hon. friend says in regard to the money belonging to the man. That is right, but in the event of his not coming after it within two years, it did not seem unreasonable that unclaimed balances should be transferred to Consolidated Revenue account and' remain there.
Mr. DENI'S: The clause should be drafted so as to be applicable to all moneys remaining unpaid over two years. Take the man who has for twenty-three months refrained from making a claim. That man has the right to a pension for that period but if, unfortunately, he. refrains from making a claim and collecting his pension for one month more, then he loses his [DOT] pension for the whole two years.


William Folger Nickle: I think my hon. friend has misread the section. If he will refer to paragraph 2 he will find that it reads as follows:
It shall be a matter within the discretion of the commission whether a pensioner shall be paid any instalment' of his pension which has remained unclaimed by or for him for more than two years from the date such instalment became due.
He would be entitled to all instalments that had not been prescribed for at least two years.
Section, agreed to.
On section 23-pensions to children, age limit, marriage, etc.:


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I consider this clause a very important one, especially subsection 3, which provides:
The pension for a child shall be paid to its mother, or father, or to its guardian, or to a person appointed by the commission.
I submit that is opening the door very wide to allow the Commission, in its discretion, to deprive the parents of the right-of a pension. Let me briefly give the Commission a ease which came under my notice. A family residing outside of the city of Ottawa, the father of whom was practically an imbecile, sent three of their sons voluntarily to the front, all they had over age, there being two younger boys. Two of these

sons were killed and one boy was left still overseas. The Militia Department refused to give the mother-who was engaged in farming in a small way, her husband being unable to work-any allowance because the father was supposed not to be incapable of earning some livelihood1. They did decide, however, to give a pension for the upkeep ol the two younger children by reason of the death of the two sons. They refused to allow the mother to handle that money, which is only $16 a month, and they appointed a corner grocer to receive the money to be expended upon these two children. The Committee will readily understand the humiliation of a mother being deprived of handling the small sum of pension money for the benefit of her own children. I brought the case to the attention of the Committee, and they informed me that some fastidious person-some woman or other person whom they sent to examine into the circumstances of this family-was not quite satisfied with the mother, and therefore upon that recommendation the mother was deprived of the handling of that money.
I took it upon myself to ask two very respectable gentlemen who lived nearby to make a report in writing, one of them being the Liberal candidate in that county in the last election and a very respectable gentleman, Mr. Caldwell, and the other being a clergyman. They made a report in which they stated, under their own signature, that this mother was certainly entitled to receive the money for the children instead of the corner grocer. Notwithstanding that, the commission decidted that the money must still be paid to this outside party. The principle involved in a case of this kind is a very important one. It is only in a most exceptional case that the parent should be deprived of handling pension money, and the evidence ought to be absolutely irrefutable. Just, upon this point, I want to say that, in my judgment and having some knowledge of the work of this commission since its inception, it has not performed its work in as satisfactory a manner as I should like to have seen it do. The chairman of the commission, a very respectable gentleman, was too busy to give his time to the matter, and I know, to my personal knowledge, that during the past year one commissioner alone was sitting and dealing with these cases. It has only been within the last few months, since Major Coristine was promoted from the office of secretary to a commissioner, that the work has been carried on in any reasonably businesslike manner. Numerous complaints have come to me from

soldiers and their families about the delays and dilly-dallying and unsatisfactory manner in which their complaints are heard, and about their reference from one person to another until they have travelled several miles in order to find out just where they must lodge their complaints to have them attended to. I trust the Government, who have now the chairmanship to fill, will see to it that a man who is accustomed to dealing with business matters and who also has some heartr-because this Act ought to be interpreted liberally in favour of those whom we wish to benefit-is appointed to that position. In my judgment-and I say it with a good deal of regret-that the commission has not been managed in a businesslike way and in the interest of those to-whom the Parliament of 'Canada intended that the benefit should go under the provisions of the Act. The case I have mentioned is a case in point. But the commission did more than that. I applied to the Militia Department in this case, and they refused to give this man the handling of this money; they gave the woman an allowance because her son overseas was her sole support, the father being an imbecile. The Board of Pension Commissioners in this case said: We will deprive you of the $16 for the children; you must take either the one allowance or the other. When the Militia Department granted $20 a month to this poor worn air who had lost two sons and had two younger children at home to support, the Pension Board absolutely refused to pay the $16 any longer, even through this third party. These are circumstances which have come to my notice. I submit that subclause (3) ought to be amended and that in no case ought the pension to be paid to an outside person as long as there is a mother or a father or a legal guardian to receive it. We have no right to sit in judgment upon the moral conduct of the mother or father who has given two sons to carry on this war, and the sons, as a result of their services, have died. Judging by the experience that I have had in the case I have mentioned, it is not satisfactory to leave this in the hands of the Board of Pension Commissioners who, as the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) has very well said,- and I adopt his remarks-must and do rely upon the report of their inspector who casually goes about and looks into the home of a soldier's wife and says: I do not think she is clean, or tidy, or something of that kind, and reports against her case. That is not right and I should like to see the words- " or to a person appointed by the commission "-struck out of this subclause and
limited to cases where there is no mother nor father nor legal guardian.


William Folger Nickle: While on general principles there may be a great deal to be said for what the hon. member (Mr. Fripp) has just told the House, I think, if he will consider the matter oarefully, he will reach the conclusion that there are many cases where there is a mother living, yet where it would be improper that the pension money in respect of the children should be paid to her. The prime object the commission must always consider is this:	Is the
money being wisely spent by the person to whom it is being paid in order to advance the interest of the child or children, as the case may be? I would readily concur in what my hon. friend says that "To err is human," but although the commission may have made a mistake in some isolated case-I cannot say whether or not they have made a mistake in the case in which he has directed our attention,-yet the Committee will see how unwise it would be to make the Act declare that, if there is a mother, no matter what her conduct or character may be, or no matter whether she is spending the money for the benefit of the children or no't, the money must be paid to her. The first object of the commission must surely be to see that the interests of the children are being protected, and I think that is the object of this section as drafted. My hon. friend is quite correct in stating that the commission has limped a bit this year, owing to the fact that one member died, another member then resigned and a third, a short time later, handed in his resignation. I understand 'it is hoped soon to complete the commission, and I am sure the Government hope that no further mistakes such as those to which our attention has been directed will occur.


Jacques Bureau: Why not have a guardian appointed by the court as in ordinary cases?


William Folger Nickle: If the mother is not a fit subject to receive the money to be expended on behalf of the children, it is very easy to appoint a guardian.


Jacques Bureau: If the case my hon. friend has cited is true, I do not think this is an error, it is a crime. Such cases ought not to happen. Instead of having the appointment made by the commission why not have it made by the court?
Mr. LEMtIEUX: The court will consider the friends of the familv
>


Jacques Bureau: There is a procedure established and very properly so, and I think that would be the better protection for the children, if the mother were not a fit subject to handle money.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Why not place this under the care of the Children's Aid Society which is an efficient organization and is to be found in every community of any size or account in this country? It would handle cases of this kind very efficiently. -


William Folger Nickle: The practice has been, where there is a Children's Aid Society, to take advantage of its services. I understand that there are no such societies in Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have many other
societies.


William Folger Nickle: Advantage is taken of any machinery that is available, and, I understand, advantage is taken of every charitable or other organization that will assist. The appointment of a guardian means expense, sometimes substantial expense. A woman might be laid up in hospital for a month or two, and it might not be wise to go to the expense of appointing a guardian just while the mother was ill.


Jacques Bureau: That would be an isolated case; it would be an accident. We are not legislating for isolated cases, but for the mass of people concerned. If the mother is sick in the hospital, we do not want to see the children on the street. Why not let the actual guardian in whose care the children are handle the money for the month or two months the mother is in the hospital?


William Folger Nickle: The section is drawn for exactly that purpose. My hon. friend has taken the language out of my mouth, except that he has expressed himself better than I could. "The pension for a johild shall be paid to its mother or father, or to its guardian, or to a person appointed by the commission." If the mother had named some suitable person to discharge her duty during her absence at the hospital the commission would pay the money to her. The object is simply to see that the children are protected-and as cheaply as possible.


Jacques Bureau: From the case cited by my hon. friend (Mr. Fripp) it would seem the board acted in a very arbitrary manner when they chose to pay the money to a corner grocer instead of to the woman, although Air. Caldwell, who is well known 
to members of this House, and a clergyman had reported in her favour. There is something wrong with the commission when it acts in that way, if the facts are as reported, and I am sure they are, because my hon. friend (Air. Fripp) says so.


William Folger Nickle: If the facts are as represented by the hon. member (Mr. Fripp), and I am satisfied that as far as he knows them they are, it would appear that the money should have been paid over to the mother. The committee will understand that it is impossible for the minister and myself to know the facts in an isolated case of which we had no notice prior to the .hon. member (Mr. Fripp) rising a few moments ago.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: It shows the necessity of guarding against the board acting upon the report of some visitor into the home.
I submit that the person who should make the inquiry is the county judge, and that would give the mother or the father a chance to be heard before they were deprived of the pension money. In this particular case the parent was deprived of the pension upon the report of an officer of the commission, without giving the other side of the case a chance to be heard at all. Neither the mother nor the father was called before the commission to answer the report of the visitor; they were deprived of the pension in their absence. I submit that the committee should guard against anything like that happening in the future by providing that the county judge or some other official shall hear both sides before depriving the parent of what I submit is his clear right to receive a pension in respect of a member of his family who has been killed.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I submit that the suggestion I have made would work admirably in the province of Ontario at all events. I have a case in mind in the town of Renfrew where the funds are being disbursed from month 'to month by the president of the Children's Aid Society. That has been going on for some time, and there lias been no friction. Why should the county judge be named to deal with a case of that kind? I question whether he would give as efficient service as the president of the Children's Aid Society in isolated cases of that kind. I submit that the Children's Aid Society can handle these cases more efficiently and more economically.


William Folger Nickle: 
Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think it would meet the view of the hon. member (Mr. Bureau) and the hon. member (Mr. Fripp) if the subsection read this way:
The pension for a child shall he paid to its father, mother or guardian or to a person appointed by a Court of Record.
That would cover both Ontario and the other provinces. It would only confuse matters to introduce the Children's Aid Society, because in some provinces that society does not exist, and where it does exist, in many cases it is not well operated.


Jacques Bureau: We could say "or to the person before whom the applications for guardian are made."


William Antrobus Griesbach: I think the subsection is better as it is. It will only lead to more trouble if you allow applications to the courts. If the commission is properly constituted it will get along all right. If not, there will be trouble from here to Halifax.


Mr. NESBITT:: I certainly endorse the
clause as it stands. I think it is the cheapest way to administer the Act. The board afe not prejudiced against any person. Why should we not leave it to their judgment to say whether a person is fit to have the money paid over to him? It has to be left to the judgment of somebody, and the board and their inspectors have just as good judgment as ony one else who might be specified.
The board have no interest in not doing what is absolutely right; their only object is to see that the money of the country is properly expended, and that is the object of this clause. This matter was discussed at great length in the Pensions Committee, and eventually we made up our minds that this was the better way to do it, and I believe so still.


Jacques Bureau: I have every respect for the conclusions of the Pensions Committee, but the case cited by my hon. friend (Mr. Fripp) appeals to me. In that case the commission acted upon the report of an inspector, and you would require a perfect inspector to decide these cases, and such a one cannot be found in spite of all the aspirations and work done by certain gentlemen for higher morals. It all depends
upon the mood the inspector is in, upon how he feels when he gets up in the morning, which depends upon what he did the night before. That man is human. I say that we should, use the judicial organizations already existing. The prothonotary in Quebec, who appoints the guardians, knows exactly how to go about it, and the expense would be nothing. We have such a thing as pleading in forma pauperis. I am satisfied that as far as the province of Quebec is concerned the judicial expenses that would be incurred would be remitted. I will support the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) if he puts it as an amendment. I think that the subsection ought to be amended to protect the children dependent upon the soldier. It is extraordinary that the commission should, as in the case mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Fripp), act upon the report of one of their inspectors, without giving the interested parties a chance to present their case, and we should provide against anything of that kind happening in the future.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not know anything about the case my hon. friend (Mr. Fripp) has cited. He did not state that he had looked into the case personally.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Yes, I did.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I know that the Committee looked into dozens of cases that were cited to us, and invariably we found that they were not correctly reported to us in the first place, and that the Pension Commissioners were right.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The Board of Pension Commissioners, from my personal knowledge, did not investigate any of these oases, and the gentleman who is present and who works in the office knows that they are done in a perfunctory way by clerks, and that the pension commissioners are absent, and have been during the past year. For months there has not been one on duty attending to his work in Ottawa. There is no use talking about the pension commissioners giving personal attention to these matters; they do not do anything of the kind. These reports are passed upon at once and accepted, and the public, those who are entitled to receive pensions, receive poor treatment. It is our duty to protect these children and others entitled to pensions, and there should be no superficial administration such as I have mentioned, and which I know goes on in this and other departments.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Goes on now?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Yes.


Newton Wesley Rowell: , As the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) said, we had before us a great many complaints with reference to the work of the Pensions Board. A number of statements were made before the committee similar to the statements made by the hon. member for Ottawa. We bad all those cases looked into and I must say in justice to the Pensions Board and its administration that the complaints, as the hon. member for Kingston mentioned, were not found to be justified. In the great majority of cases, with very few exceptions, we found that they were administering the law as it stood, and the real ground of complaint was that they were not in a position . to grant pension or allowance in the particular case complained of because the regulations did not permit of its being granted.


Jacques Bureau: That is a different case.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I know. I am only speaking of general complaints. Of course, I know nothing about the case mentioned by the hon. member for Ottawa. But take these clauses dealing with children, and matters of a kindred character. The committee had before them officers of the Pensions Board. We examined them at length and got all the information we could, and finally reached the conclusion that these clauses were wise. It was deemed wise to give certain discretion to 'the commission, particularly in dealing with children who are entitled to receive pension where there is no one to properly care for them and see that they are maintained out of the pension. With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) with reference to the appointment of a guardian by a court of record, there is expense incidental to this matter. If you cannot pay the pension over without a guardian being appointed and without the incidental delay, it will mean the cost of appointing the guardian, and other expense in connection with the guardianship. We must give some discretion to the board and trust it somewhat, and that was the view of the ccommittee. With reference to the general work of the board, I do not think it is fair to compare the present situation with the regrettable condition that developed last summer and to which my hon. friend has already alluded. One of the members of the board who was always here and always in attendance, resigned. Later, the two other members of the board resigned, largely because of the resolution of the com-
mittee of a year ago which demanded that they should give their whole time to the work and that every pension awarded should be evidenced by the signature of at least one commissioner. There are now two pension commissioners here on the work all the time, both returned soldiers who have no interests to serve other than those of the Pension Board. The new Bill requires that the commissioners shall not be engaged in any other occupation inconsistent with their work, to which they must devote their whole time, and we have every reason to anticipate that the Board of Pensions Commissioners from now on will be composed of three men devoting their whole time to the duties in connection with the office. I feel sure that the committee of this House, a large and representative committee, reached a wise conclusion when they settled this very difficult section in the form in which it was decided on, and I am only voicing what was the judgment of the committee in supporting their recommendation made after careful consideration.


Jacques Bureau: The argument of my hon. friend does not exactly answer the statement of the hon. member for Ottawa.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I know nothing of the facts. There may have been an executive blunder, but it does not appear to me that we should frame the law to meet a particular case because a mistake may Have been made and one that is incidental to administration and may have grown out of the condition of one commissioner having resigned, and there having been a transition period in the management of the board.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does not the minister think that it is a fair time to wind' up now?
I was hoping that we would pass the section and then be half through the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: The statement is made that complaints were made to the board and in most cases they proved futile.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In most cases they proved not to be cases of maladministration or of lack of consideration, but of failure to decide in accordance with what the applicant thought was right, this being due to the regulations-the law which this House had recommended and which was in force.
' Sir HERBERT AMES: I can corroborate that from cases which occur daily. The Patriotic Fund are constantly being asked to investigate pension cases for people who feel that they do not get what they deserve, and almost invariably we find that, it is not

the fault of the Pension Commissioners, but of the regulations under which they are operating. They are asked to do something which the applicant thinks they should do and which could not be done under the regulations as they formerly stood. Three-quarters of the claims we found, on thorough investigation, to be not ^ell founded.


Jacques Bureau: This is different entirely. When a man claims that he is entitled to a pension it is one thing; but when he is entitled to it and it is not properly paid, that is a different thing. If I understand the President of the Privy Council rightly, he said that these cases were investigated. He said: "We had the commissioners before us." Well, surely the commissioners would not be men if they did not make the best of their case.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We had the complainants too.


Jacques Bureau: I would take 'the word of my hon. friend, the member for Ottawa, as against the judgment of the commissioner every time.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall clause 3 carry?


Jacques Bureau: There ,is a motion by the hon. member for North Perth.


Georges Henri Boivin: AH motions should be presented in writing.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I withdraw the motion.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think that in trying to avoid what the hon. member for Ottawa points out, we are going to pass legislation that will make possible a great many hardships which he has no thought of putting into the Act. This money is for the benefit of the child, and we want to make it possible for it to reach the child and no one else. We want to take the most sympathetic method, and I do not think that there is any one who understands the situation better than the Pension Commissioners. If you are going to hedge that all around by legal processes and make it necessary to have a court procedure every time money is to be paid to some one else than the parent you will occasion delay.
You will have difficulties and disputes in the meantime and, farther than that, you will have cases perhaps for one or two months when the money should be paid to some one else and then should go back to the father and mother again. You will have to appoint guardians and unappoint them a week afterwards, and there will be a great deal of trouble and legal technicality


Jacques Bureau: None whatever.


Herbert Brown Ames: The simplest
method possible would be the best for the child. We have had a good deal to do with the pension commissioners and I must confess that we have found them, while not invariably right-nine times out of ten right. They reach the result in a simple, sympathetic and prompt manner which you will not do if you put this into a court of law.


Jacques Bureau: I fail to see the sympathy in the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Ottawa.


John Allister Currie: I would like to say a
word in support of the contention of the hon. gentleman (Sir Herbert Ames) and to cite a case where the arrangement that he speaks of has worked out to advantage. A member of the Canadian army who joined in Calgary was married to a young woman from a village in my constituency. When he went to the front, she left Calgary and came home to that village. She brought her mother and two small children with her. The man was killed in the war and a pension was obtained for the wife. Shortly after, the wife died also leaving these children to her mother, and the pension was transferred to the mother. In August of last summer the grandmother died and the children reverted to an aunt. The circumstances of these people were not very good. An effort was made to have the pension transferred to the children, but through some hitch for about four months the children did not get the pension. Christmas was coming on, with cold weather, and they were not supplied with their winter clothing. Fortunately, the aunt met me on the train and she brought this matter to my attention. I took it up with the board in Ottawa, got an immediate reference to Toronto, and inside of two days the cheque was there for the children to provide them with clothing and things for Christmas. There must be a direct, quick method of dealing with these cases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Every one is not fortunate enough every day to meet an hon. gentleman with the influence of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie).


John Allister Currie: Members of this House
will always be willing to act in cases of this kind, and they should be allowed to do so.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is moved in amendment that paragraph 3 of section 23 be amended by striking out the words " the

commission " in the 14th and 15th lines, page 8, and substituting therefor the words " a court of record."
Amendment negatived.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 24-orphan child:


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like to get a definition of "unmarried wife."


William Folger Nickle: Before adopting this
phraseology with respect to this domestic relationship the following definition of unmarried wife was arrived at:
A woman who, although not married to the member of the forces, was living with him in Canada at the time he became a member of the forces and for a reasonable time previously thereto, and who, at such time, was publicly represented by him as his wife, shall for the purposes of this Act, be considered to have been his unmarried wife.
I think that gives a clear definition of what is meant by the term.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What are you reading from?


William Folger Nickle: Subsection 3 of section 33.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: Surely there is no such thing as an "unmarried wife"?


William Folger Nickle: This is the definition
given.


John Allister Currie: There are very many countries where at common law a woman living with a man and acknowledged by him as his wife, becomes his wife. That is Scotch law. In Scotland, in New York state and in California, this primary law is well recognized. I would suggest that tl;e better term to use would be "his common law wife."
Section agreed to7 on division.
Progress reported.
On motion of hon. Mr. Rowell the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
Saturday, June 28, 1919.