NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 195 to amend the Naturalization Act, 1914.
He said:	Certain changes are contemplated, the first of which is to alter the system under which applications are made for naturalization. Under the act as it stands applications are made to the Secretary of State, through the courts in the different provinces. It is proposed to change the method of application, which, under section 2 of the bill, shall be made directly to the Secretary of State. Section 7 of the Naturalization Act of 1920 is also to be repealed. That section provides for the cancellation of certificates issued to alien "enemies during the war, and also prohibits the issue of certificates to persons of enemy origin for ten years from the termination of the war. It is proposed to repeal both these provisions so that former alien enemies may have the same right to naturalization as persons of other nationalities. Sections 2, 3 and 4 provide for an amendment which has already been the subject of correspondence between the British Government and the Canadian Government. The acquiescence of Canada in the draft bill to amend the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Acts, 1914 and 1918, is contained in Order in Council, P.C. 768, dated April 12, 1922. The original Naturalization Act was discussed at numerous

Imperial Conferences and is, as a matter of fact, a pact between the British Government and the Dominions, the legislation being uniform except perhaps in matters of administration. This bill is proposed for the purpose of bringing the Canadian legislation into accord with that of the United Kingdom.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: There is no reason why the introduction of this bill, if it is of any importance, should have been delayed until this hour of the session. I am informed that the bill has been prepared for weeks. From the explanation given by the hon. minister I would judge very considerable importance attaches to at least three of the suggested amendments, which apparently are contentious. The first amendment-of course, this is not the time for discussion-but the first amendment would appear to be ill-advised. If it is intended to get through the session early, I would suggest seriously and respectfully to the Government that they at once give consideration to the abandonment of this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 189 (from the Senate), for the relief of Nykola Pirozyk.

Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 190 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Mary Ivor Horning.- Mr. Bristol.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a certain proposed resolution relating to the improvement and management of the harbour of Trenton, Ontario.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. RICHARD B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) : I desire to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that a vacancy has existed on the Supreme Court Bench of the province of Nova Scotia for upwards of four months. I am informed on what I consider good authority that the business of the court has been impeded

Soldiers' Insurance
by reason of the delay in filling the vacancy. When does the Government intend to make the appointment?
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) :: The matter is under consideration, and I have reason to believe that immediately the setesion ends the vacancy will be filled.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the minister would give a list of the applicants?


Lomer Gouin: I do not think I have any applicants for 'the vacancy.


Mr. FIELDING:: As to the condition of public business, the late lamented judge had leave of absence, which has not yet expired.



GRAND TRUNK EMPLOYEES PENSION RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe) :: I should like to inquire of the Prime Minister whether or not any progress has been made in the negotiations between the representatives of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government with regard to the pension rights and status of the men referred to in the resolution standing in my name.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Progress is being made.


William Alves Boys: May we expect an announcement before the House prorogues?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That depends or. how soon the House prorogues.


William Alves Boys: Will it he long?



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I wish to ask the Government whether they have received, and, if so, when, the report and recommendation cf the International Labour Conference held last November?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot answer my right hon. friend at the moment, but I will try to get the information for him to-morrow.


Arthur Meighen: If they have been received they should, of course, be laid on the table, and I would ask the Prime Minister to see that they are brought down to-morrow.



CHINESE IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: Is the Prime Minister aware that some 360 Chinese were dumped into Vancouver the other day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not aware of it, but seeing that the hon. member has mentioned the subject I will have inquiry made into the circumstances at cnce.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT (PILOTAGE)

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 79 to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Pilotage) was read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 191, to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-
Mr. BELAND:: When the House was in committee last night on the resolution on which this bill is based, some suggestions were made as to what the regulations for the guidance of the minister should be. I undertook to have a schedule prepared and annexed to the bill embodying those regulations. In order to carry out the wishes of the committee, and in accordance with the agreement reached, I move that the following clause be added to the bill as clause 1A:
In the exercise of the powers conferred upon the minister by sections 13 and 15 of the said act, the minister shall he governed by the provisions of the schedule of this act;
It was suggested, in view of the fact that it had been provided last year that the provisions of the act should remain in force until the first day of September, 1922, that a clause be inserted to make it clear that no change in the regulations is contemplated so far as applications made up to that date are concerned. The remainder of the proposed section 1A, covers that point and is as follows:
Provided that applicants with or without pensionable disability who are so seriously ill that they have no expectancy of iife and who have dependents who are entitled to become beneficiaries under the contract as provided under the act, shall be insurable trader The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act up to, and inclusive, firsit September, 1922.
Soldiers' Insurance

Then the schedule is the one that was agreed upon last night.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: It is true that a schedule was passed last night on division, but I do not understand that we agreed upon any schedule. I suppose my hon. friend was referring to the list of provisions which some hon. members called regulations and others said were not regulations; but there was no agreement. I recognize that my hon. friend has gone a long way towards carrying out the sense of the amendment I offered last night. He is taking a proper step in the direction of extending relief. I wish,, however, to make a further suggestion. It has been pretty wdll advertised in the press that the provisions of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act would be extended for another year. I quite understand that by his amendment the minister is implementing what may be regarded as the underlying principle of the original act, which was to run until the first of September of this year. But in view of the fact it has been generally regarded as a matter of government policy that this act would be extended for another year, I am afraid that a good many of these unfortunates-and after all, they are the unfortunate soldiers; they are ill, and they are the ones we particularly desire to help -might not know anything about the restrictive period within which the original intent of the act should have effect. I suggest, therefore, that the limitation made by the amendment now introduced be effective until the first of January, 1923, and that all the different soldiers' organizations be immediately notified accordingly.


Mr. BE  LAND@: I agree to that.


The CHAIRMAN:: The last part of the proposed section 1A will now read:
Provided that applicants with or without pen-sianable disability who are so seriously ill that tihey have no expectancy of life, and who have dependents who are entitled to become beneficiaries under the contract as provided under the act, shall be insurable under The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act up to and inclusive, first January, 1923.
Section 1, and new section 1A agreed to.
On section 2-operation extended for one year.


Mr. GARDINER:: I suggest that this
section be amended by extending the time to 1925. Under the section as it stands this insurance will be available to the re-

turned man only for another twelve months. I think it would be greatly to the benefit of the returned men if the time were extended as I suggest.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I did not catch the reasons for the suggested amendment. Does my hon. friend move an amendment?


Robert Gardiner: No, I merely suggest the substituting of " twenty-five " for "twenty-three" in the last line of section 2. I would suggest to the minister that this insurance scheme should be extended for some further period.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would be ready to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend if I thought it would meet with the intention of the framers of the act. My hon. friend must remember that this act was passed in 1920, and in the following year its provisions were extended for a further year, to 1st September, 1922. This year the parliamentary committee recommended a further extension of one year, to 1st September, 1923. For the life of me I can see no good reason why we should extend it beyond that date. If any circumstances should arise in the course of next year which would warrant any further extension my hon. friend would be welcome to move accordingly at the next session of Parliament, but I think for the present it should remain as it is.


Robert Gardiner: I am satisfied that many returned men would like to take this insurance if they had the money, but as we all realize, many of the returned men are in more or less poor circumstances financially, and I think it would be to the credit of the House and to the benefit of the returned men if they were assured that this insurance would be available to them for the period I have mentioned.


Mr. CARROLL:: 
William Stevens Fielding: I think it would be a mistake to encourage the soldiers with the idea that this is to be a continuing measure. I do not think it was ever intended to be so. I think that in the years that have already elapsed the House has more than met the original intention, and I hope my hon. friend will not encourage the notion that there is to be a further extension.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the motihn of Hon. H. S. Beland (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) Bill No. 192, to amend the Pension Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-"widowed mother" defined:
Henri Sévérin Béland: This section appears in a some what different form from the resolution as it came from the committee last night. The original intention was to amend the act so that "widowed mother" might in the discretion of the board include a mother deserted by her husband when the circumstances were such in the opinion of the board, as to entitle her in a court of law to have her husband declared legally dead. In the course of the discussion last night my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) suggested that a certain number of years should be fixed during which a mother should have been deserted before she could be considered as a widowed mother. In looking over the debate last night I find that he said:
I think the intention of the committee was to provide for the case where a woman had been deserted by her husband for a certain number of years.
On the other hand-I find that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) asked the hon member for Quebec South the question:
How many years does the hon. member suggest that the husband should be away before the woman would toe entitled to a pension?
That statement I have read and the question asked by the hon. member for West York would suggest that it ds the intention of the committee that a certain number of years should be specified before a deserted wife should be considered as a widowed mother. Consequently, I have consulted
the Department of Justice as to how long, in the various provinces, a wife must be deserted before her husband would be considered legally dead, and the department has advised me that irr the province of Ontario the limit is seven years. I do not know what the condition is in other provinces but in the province of Quebec a period of five years is fixed. So, I would be adverse to including all deserted wives with widowed mothers. It will occur to hon. gentlemen that there might be complicity between a man and his wife, and that as a sequence to that complicity the husband might disappear, say for five or six months, for the purpose of securing a pension for his wife. In order to avoid that, the clause should be amended somewhat. Last night it was made to read:
That "wid'oweid mother" may, in the discretion of the commission, include a mother who has been deserted by her husband.
I propose that we should add something to that. I have here an amendment for the consideration of the committee which would read as follows:
That "widowed mother" may, in the discretion of the commission, include a mother who has been deserted by her husband for a period of seven years, provided that during such separation she was not aware of her husband's whereabouts, and was not supported by him.
I think this provision would do away with any possibility of husband and wife acting as accomplices for the purpose of securing a pension.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has referred to Hansard. I will also refer to Hansard. The matter was finally left in this way; I will read what I said myself:
Just on clause 1, I should like to suggest to the minister that he put this upon something like a business basis. Instead of having these unfortunate deserted women having to go to all this trouble, I hope he puts in some reasonable period.
I was there referring to the suggestion made by the hon. member for South Quebec (Mr. Power) :
The whole thing is in the discretion of the commission,-
I then departed from his suggestion and went further. I said:
-and I do not think it would do much hanm if we struck out all the words :
When the circumstances of the case are, in the opinion of the commission, such as would entitle her in a court of law to have her husband declared legally dead.
Pension Act Amendment

I proposed to strike all these words out.
T said:
Why not strike this all out if the idea is to help these people?
Then the minister asked:
How would it read?
I said:
It would read:
That "widowed mother" may, in the discretion 'of the commission, include a ntother deserted by her huslband.
And I added:
That is all, and that is the sense of the committee as I understand it.
There is a misprint there. I was not referring to the sense of the committee but to the sense of the House when the resolution of the hon. member for South Quebec (Mr. Power) was adopted. To the suggestion made the minister said:
I have no objection.
Now, the proposed amendment is entirely out of consonance with what the minister accepted last night, and he might just as well leave the original provision in. Because it might very well take legal action to establish "absence for seven years" and there might he a complete lack of knowledge, as between the parties, of the whereabout of one another. Where is the widowed mother helped by this? I hope the minister will again change his mind. His change of mind yesterday was a change in the right direction. I simply point out to him that there is no fear of deception in the manner in which he indicates. There is ro absolute right given here. If the minister has confidence in his commission his commission surely will see that it is only in cases of genuine desertion that the term " widowed mother " can be applied to the unfortunate woman who was deserted by her husband. The power is discretionary; there is no absolute right conferred by the act. The commission must be satisfied in the matter. This is no'concession from the original proposal. The provision simply says the period must be seven years or over, instead of the five years which would otherwise be the case in Quebec. As far as the widowed mother in Quebec is concerned she is worse off than she was before. The question is very simple. Do we want to help these deserted mothers of returned soldiers? If we do, we can leave it to the commission to properly administer the section as accepted last night by the minister on my suggestion.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I agree that last night I said I had no objection to my hon. friend's suggestion. But my hon. friend is a very able lawyer and as such may be disposed to review his own opinion on legal matters.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very often.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think that is the case with all lawyers. However, I think my hon. friend will realize immediately that it is possible for a man and his wife to come to an agreement by which the man will, say, move to the United States and live there for a time for the purpose of affording to his wife the opportunity of making application for a pension as a deserted wife. My hon. friend does not deny that; I am sure he does not. Well, if he admits that, does he say, then, that this woman is entitled to a pension? My hon. friend says the board has discretion. That is true, but how can the hoard know that this woman is not deserted in consequence of a secret agreement arrived at between the man and his wife that he will disappear, " from circulation " as we say in Quebec, and will go away to the United States? There is no possibility in such a case of the board being able to establish that there was complicity between that man and his wife. In some cases it may be possible to establish it, but in many cases-especially if the complicity has been carefully planned-it will be almost impossible for the board to arrive at the truth.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What would happen under the amendment proposed by the minister in such a case as this. A man actually deserts his wife and goes away with another woman. What would the deserted mother of the soldier do in that case? Under the provisions proposed by the minister there would be no redress at all. Seven years would not help her because he could not be declared legally dead, being still in existence. In such a case the mother would be actually cut off from relief. And yet that is the class of cases we are most anxious to look after. I think my hon. friend from South Quebec (Mr. Power) will bear me out in that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This phase of the question has been examined in previous years; it has been examined by parliamentary committees and they have always come to the conclusion that in such a case a deserted wife would not be pensionable.

Pension Act Amendment


James Arthurs: Such cases are serious and there should be some means of dealing with them.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does my hon. friend realize that if a man knows that in the event of abandoning his wife and running away with another woman, she will be pensioned by the state, he may be induced to leave her sooner than he otherwise would?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not
going to deny that the minister would have a right to change his mind. I think that in so doing he would be governmentally running true to form. The only thing I object to is that the last change is not the right one.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does the hon. member think the term is too long? If so, we will make it shorter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is the woman to prove all these allegations? The minister speaks about the difficulty of proving the real situation in six months. What is going to happen, if these allegations are not proved? Surely, when you have a body of men who are accustomed to enquire into these things, and leave it entirely in their discretion, you will be safe. After all, it is a comparatively small thing. I should think, in so far as their discretion is concerned, that rwhat would chiefly move them would be the absolute requirements of the unfortunate woman. If they find the mother of a soldier deserted, without funds, and without support, I should have thought that was a case in connection "with which they would like to have a discretion, rather than to be placed upon the basis cf strict rules of law. This whole pension scheme has nothing to dlo with strict rules of law. It is an endeavour to do the right thing, and to do it to the fullest extent. I submit again to my hon. friends that, if there is any real intention to help the woman, if this is not entirely a sham, the only fair thing to do is to leave it, as it was agreed last night, to the discretion of the commission.
Mr. GERMAiN: I have sympathy with the suggestion made by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). It would be almost impossible to prove the death, in a case of this kind. In Ontario, legal death is only assumed where there has been an absence for seven years without the husband being heard of. That would work
a great hardship on the deserted mother, for the reason that you have to advertise for the man who has deserted his wife. You require to have a lot of publicity, and take a lot of expensive proceedings, in order to prove a legal death, according to the statutes of the province of Ontario. If a woman has been deserted by her husband, 1 submit, Mr. Chairman, that the commission can easily find out whether that is a bona fide desertion, an intentional desertion, or simply a sham. All the commission will have to do will be to make reasonable inquiry in the neighbourhood where these people live. The neighbours and the friends would know better whether or not it was an intentional desertion, or a sham on the part of the husband and wife. If it was a real desertion, the woman deserted should receive the pension, as the commission could easily ascertain that fact. I suibmit it should be left wholly to their discretion as to what the length of the desertion should be, and to what extent they would have to make inquiries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Mr. BAXTER:: I suggest to the hon.
minister a little further consideration. I think we must all agree with what has been said by the hon. member from Quebec South (Mr. Power) with reference to the unsuitability of the language as originally proposed. I do not want to say anything that would sound in the least severe, but I should like to caution the hon. minister in regard to relying too much upon the suggestions which will be made to him in regard to this and other subjects from departmental officials. I do not wish to be classed among the body of men who ruthlessly criticize departmental officials-not at all. But a spirit of endeavouring to get some kind of rigid rules which will save a body trouble grows, and in dealing with this particular problem, the dependents of deceased soldiers, we do not want rigid rules to save somebody trouble, but we want the very broadest humanity. While the minister may be thinking of the possible cases of fraud-and we must all think of those-yet I would ask him not to leave some deserving woman starving for seven years until the rigid rule has been complied with, before he would be able to give her any help. I know that is not his personal heart, it is not his personal feeling, and I am satisfied it is not the feeling of this House or the country. Even if it

Pension Act Amendment

were necessary to deal with the class of women who were deserted before their sons went overseas, surely there can be no question of fraud in that case. People were not anticipating the war
4 p.m. and making preparations for desertions. Surely that class of persons ought to be taken care of by this legislation.
With reference to a woman who might otherwise be dependent upon a son, and who has been deserted by the husband since the death of the son, is it not enough for the commission to have absolute discretion? If they cannot find any evidence of a fraudulent agreement, surely the case is one in which, at least, the doubt ought to be resolved in favour of the suffering woman. Furthermore, it seems to me, if there is to be a test at all other than the discretion of the commission, we might fairly say that, where it is evident to the commission that the woman cannot obtain an effective redress through the employment of any legal means, the commission should have the discretion to act. The deserting husband may be in the same town with her; it may be utterly useless, because of the character of the man, to bring him before a court and have him punished for non-support of his wife; and yet that woman may be living on the charity of relatives or others, with the only one in the world who would have been true to her and would have supported her- her son-dead in the service of his country. Under these circumstances, I think we do not want to have too much technicality, nor would I ask that there should be a rule so rigid the other way that the commission would have to give a pension in either case. I only want to see adopted some form of words that will leave it open to the commission to give the help, and require them to give the help, unless it is apparent to them that a real fraud is practised or intended. (Surely we can find some expression that will have that effect. I know the chairman, who has done so much valuable work in connection with this subject this year, has been struggling with that proposition, and I think it would be well for the committee to hear the conclusions at which he has arrived, which, I am sure, are not the same as those expressed in the first section of the bill.


Mr. CHURCH:: The lawyers in the House know how difficult it is to confirm presumption of death in the case of desertion, and
FMr. Baxter.]
in my opinion it would be almost impossible for a widowed mother to establish her case under this section. She must prove that she has not only not seen, but not heard from or of, her husband for seven years. Suppose a woman lives, say, in Hamilton and has been deserted by her husband for a number of years. He turns up in some other part of the country, remote from the residence of his wife, and does not communicate with her, and has no intention of doing so. Technically, of course, the wife's case falls to the ground, although to all intents and purposes she is no better off than if she were widowed. iShe will receive no consideration under such circumstances, for technicalities like this are always fatal. Now, I do not think it is at all just that the burden of proof should rest on the widowed mother; it should be shifted to the state. The law is so finely drawn that as the section stands it would be practically impossible for any woman's claim to succeed. These women deserve all the help we can give them, because to-day they are a charge on the municipalities, and many of them have to go out and work every day of the week. It is not fair to put obstacles in the way of any relief they might be able to obtain.
Mr. MaeLAREN: If it is the intention of the amendment, as I presume it is, to afford relief to deserted mothers, then I am afraid that as at present drafted it will not achieve that purpose, for the very obvious reason that a period of seven years must elapse before that relief can be obtained. Seven years is too long. In many cases the seven years would quite possibly exceed the duration of life of the deserted mother. I would suggest a shorter and more reasonable period. I quite understand that the matter is open to objections and that there are difficulties in the way. But if the desire is to give these women some relief, I trust that the minister will revise the amendment to provide for a shorter time than seven years.


William F. Carroll: I agree with the member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) that, if there must be an amendment such as is proposed by the minister, the period here provided is too long. The provision will give relief to a great many mothers who were deserted by their husbands two, three or four years ago. In the case of a woman whose husband has been away for two years she would have to wait five years before she could get any relief. I take it that the

Pension Act Amendment
intention is to give relief to those mothers also who may be deserted in the future. I think that a period of two years would be reasonable, with the provision, of course, always, that it shall be in the discretion of the Board of Pension Commissioners as to whether or not a mother is in the position of a widow.


Mr. CLARK:: I do not think it was the intention of the parliamentary committee to lay down any definite term of years. Their object, I believe, was to make provision for mothers who were deserted; and I would cite the case suggested by the minister of a man going to the United States for six months. As I understand the matter, the Board of [Pension Commissioners have in their department the necessary machinery to enable their representatives to investigate all these cases, and if there is any attempt on the part of a mother to frame up a case with 'her husband to defraud the board, the board can detect the fraud. The amendment refers to the discretion of the commission, and I think that the parliamentary committee had in mind leaving the matter open to the discretion of the board to deal as they saw fit with what they considered to be deserving cases. Possibly the word "desertion" may have been used in the report, and apparently it is being interpreted in its legal sense. No doubt that is how the misunderstanding has arisen. I suggest that the matter be left to the discretion of the Board of Pension Commissioners.


James Arthurs: I suggest that all the words after the word "her" in the eleventh line be struck out and that the words "to a pension" be substituted therefor. The section would then read:
(p) "widowed mother'' may, in the discretion of the commission, include a mother deserted hy her husband when the circumstances of the case are, in the opinion of the commission, such as would entitle her to a pension.
That would fully cover the ground. It would take care of widowed mothers deserted in the past, as well as those who are now, or may in future be deserted. That, I think, would carry out the evident intention of the parliamentary committee.


Mr. POWER:: Just before the House met the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment (Mr. Beland) mentioned this matter to me and asked if I would be prepared to accept a period of five years. I was willing to accept that, not that I thought that after five years a man is
220J
legally dead in the province of Quebec, because, with all due respect to the Minister of Justice, I think he will find on consulting the Civil Code that a man is never legally dead in that province, whatever may be the law in other provinces. A man is considered absent after five years and his property may be looked after; and after thirty years' absence on his part ihis property may be divided. If he returns, however, he comes into his property again. So, he cannot be dead. Under our laws relating to marriage the wife of a man who is absent cannot legally marry again. She may set up against an action for bigamy the fact that she has not heard from her husband for seven years; but she cannot legally marry. It was because I thought it desirable that some definite term should be fixed that I accepted the minister's proposal. I quite realize that the minister might encounter cases in which fraud had been attempted, but I am not so mudh afraid of fraud as he is. I know that when the Board of Pension Commissioners exercise their discretion they do not do so very often in favour or on behalf of pensioners. It is quite likely that the claims of pensioners will be very closely scrutinized, and there is therefore very little fear of the government being defrauded.
There is another point, however, which has occurred to me since I . entered the House. The House on May 1st unanimously passed the following resolution:
That, in the opinion ot this House, it is expedient that the Board of Pension Commissioners he given discretionary power to award pensions to mothers of deceased soldiers in cases where such mothers have been deserted hy or become separated from their husbands, such pensions to be paid at the same rate as those awarded to widowed mothers.
It will be noticed that in this resolution there is no time limitation. In connection with that, let me remind the House of the new theory of constitutional law which was enunciated last night by my hon. friends the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), that once the House passes a resolution it is the duty of the Government to promptly bring down a bill in pursuance thereof, whether the ministry agrees with it or not. Under this new theory-in which, by the way, I have not much confidence-the Government should promptly accept the amendment of my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Dray-1 ton).
Pension Act Amendment


Henri Sévérin Béland: Several suggestions have been made to the committee regarding the proper amendment of this clause. Most hon. gentlemen are of the opinion that a term of seven years would be too long, and my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) suggests that we make it two years. On the other hand, my hon. friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) makes a suggestion which, on the whole, appeals to me more than any other that has been made so far. It would be incorporated in the clause as follows:
"Widowed another" may in the discretion of the commission inclulde a mother deserted by her husband when the circumstances of the case are in the opinion of the commission such as would entitle her to a pension.
That, of course, leaves it entirely to the discretion of the Board of Pensioners to decide whether suoh deserted wife would be pensionable or not. True, there is no limit of time set, but if there is any collusion between the husband and wife, she would naturally not be entitled to a pension and it would be so determined by the board. If that is agreeable to the committee I am willing to accept it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We certainly
accept it, Mr. Chairman. It is exactly what we said last night we would do.


Mr. MacLAREN:: If a deserted mother
has sufficient private means of her own would this section apply to her?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is discretionary.


Henri Sévérin Béland: A deserted wife is on
the same footing as a widowed mother when it comes to deciding whether she has sufficient means or not.


Mr. MARCIL:: We igrant a large number of divorces every year, and the number is steadily increasing. At the last meeting of the Private Bills Committee, of which I am a member, a record was established, twenty-three divorce bills having been dealt with in twenty-five minutes. I have been wondering what becomes of the divorced mother and her children under this new legislation. Is she deserted, in the eyes of the minister?


Henri Sévérin Béland: She is not considered as a deserted wife.


Charles Marcil: If she obtains a legal
divorce from her husband and is given the custody of the children, she is certainly a deserted mother.


Charles Gavan Power: I would direct the attention of my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) to Article 4 of Section 33 of the act of 1919, which reads:
A woman who has been divorced or legally separated from a member of the force who has died shall not be entitled to a pension unless she was awarded alimony or an alimentary allowance, in which case she shall be entitled if she is in a dependent condition to the equivalent of the widow's pension or to the equivalent of the alimony or alimentary allowance which was awarded her, whichever is the smajl'ler in amount.
So, she is looked after.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Mr. LADNER:: I observe the bill does not contain any amendment in compliance with the report of the committee and the resolution discussed last night which contains a provision that:
-any disability from which a member of the forces who serveld in an actual theatre in the Great War was suffering at the time of his discharge, shall for pension purposes be deemed to be attributable to or to have been incurred or aggravated during his military service, unless and until it be established by the commission that the disability was not attributable to or incurred or aggravated during such service.
The idea was to make an amendment to Section 11, but I observe it has not been incorporated in that section. It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to move that the amendment be added to Section 25, subsection 3, of the main act.


Mr. MARLER:: This does apply directly to section 25, subsection 3. It is placed in this part of the act by the advice of the Department of Justice.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But it is not in the bill. It should be there.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly, my hon. friend is quite correct, the amendment should be in the bill.


Leon Johnson Ladner: When we deal with section 25 perhaps that amendment can be inserted.


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I desire also to make an amendment to section 11 of the main act. It is not in the amendments here, but I understood that a resolution was passed last night that Section 11 would be under consideration to-day. Naturally, it would be if there had not been this omission. I propose the following amendment:

Pension Act Amendment


George Newcombe Gordon: Is that a new paragraph?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: Then the hon. member's amendment will be in order after all the other paragraphs of the bill have been dealt with.


Leon Johnson Ladner: 
George Newcombe Gordon: If it involves the proposed insertion of a ne'w section it should be offered after all the other sections of the bill as it stands have been adopted.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I will propose (these two amendments later.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-application for pension within three years after peace declared.
Mr. McQUARRIE:: Will the minister explain this clause? Does it cover the case I discussed with him-that of Mrs. Burton? That was a case in which an application was not put in within three years after the death of her husband.


John Arthur Clark: I moved this amendment in the committee for the very purpose of covering the cases of dependents who, through unfamiliarity with the law, or for some other good cause, overlooked the fact that they were entitled to pension. For instance, it might apply to a sister who had been supported by a deceased soldier but who only recently ascertained that the act entitled her to a pension. If it covers cases like that, I should think it would cover the case mentioned1 by my hon. friend I Mr. McQuarrie).


William Garland McQuarrie: That is what I wanted to know. This amendment provides that application be made within three years of the date of the declaration of peace. What was that date?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think the amendment is sufficient to cover the case my hon. friend refers to. Mrs. Burton, the widow of a soldier, did not make application until after three years after the death of her husband. Section 13 of the act reads as follows :
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 iwould be the case of Mrs. Burton, but let us go further:
(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,
(id) after the declaration of peace.
It would seem that the Board of Pension Commissioners would here have to exercise their discretion. It was on the 31st of August, 1921, that peace was declared. But apparently the board kept close to subsection (a), which provides that the application must be received within three years after the death in respect of which the pension is claimed. In order to meet such Cases it was recommended in the report of the committee that his amendment be made.


Charles Gavan Power: The marginal note of section 2 reads:
Application for pension within three years after peace declared.
In the original act the marginal note is: " Time within which application must be made." It seems to me that if this marginal note as appearing in the hill were struck out, there would he no d'ffi-culty. The time is not limited only to three years after the death in respect of which pension is claimed. A man may die ten years from now of disability contracted on service, and his widow will he entitled to pension.


Mr. MARTELL:: I have in mind the
case of a soldier who was the only support of his mother and who was killed a couple of years before the war ended. She made application for pension, but her application was turned down under that provision of the act which says that the application must he made within three years after the death of the soldier. It so happened that she had saved some money and for some time after her son's death her son-in-law helped to support her. Unfortunately, her daughter died; her son-inlaw no longer thought it necessary to support his mother-in-law, and she was left without any means of subsistence. I believe, however, that this condition is now remedied, by the amendment to the act.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What is the effect
of adding this new provision to paragraph (d) of section 13?
Pension Act Amendment


William Garland McQuarrie: Could we have the other matter cleared up first?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Under the proposed
amendment to section 13, the case of Mrs. Burton and other cases of a like nature, would be covered, at least until the first day of September, 1924.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And if at any later date the husband, being a returned soldier, died from the effects of service, the widow could claim pension at any time within three years of his death.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, that provision
always applies.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I did not get a reply to my question as to the effect of this addition to paragraph (d).


Herbert Meredith Marler: The provision that the person applying for pension should be resident in Canada applied only to those coming under the original paragraph (d). That is to say, the person must have been resident in Canada before applying for a pension. The clause reads:
Provided that the provision of subsection (d) shall not applly to an applicant claiming dependent's pension who was not resident in Canada at the date of the soldier's deatih and has not continuously resided therein.
The intention of the committee was to restrict the pension to those who had resided here continuously during that period.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not remember the discussion in the committee. But take the case of the soldier on leave in England from France who marries a wife in England, goes back to France, and is killed. That wife would not be in Canada at the time of the husband's death, and would not be entitled to apply for pension under clause (d).


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not after that period, it is quite true. We have extended the period to August 31, 1924.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Or if the wife was in Canada at the time of her husband's death, and she moved to the United States, she could not apply for pension?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Quite true.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not think we should exclude those cases, especially the wife who married the soldier in England who was afterwards killed in France. One hon. member tells me of an application for

a pension that was not made until three years after the husband's death. We should not shut out anybody who should have a pension, and I can see where hardship might result if we passed this section the way it is. It would shut out the woman who was in England at the time of her husband's death, and who possibly did not come to Canada for some little time afterwards, and who would not know the provisions of our act as well as the woman who resided in Canada right along, but I think she would be just as much entitled to a pension.


Herbert Meredith Marler: We can come back to the section afterwards.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-allowance for total and helpless disability:
Charles Gavan Power: Section 27 of the Pensions Act of 1919 provides that:
A member of the forces who is totally disabled and helpless shaJll be entitled to an addition to his pension.
The effect of the amendment now proposed, which is to insert the words "helpless in respect of his pensionable disability," would be that a pension would be refused to a man who has a pensionable disability, if in addition he has some other disability which he has perhaps not acquired directly through service. It is the intention of the board in these cases to take away the "helpless" allowance. I submit that when a man is fairly badly wounded, other disabilities are bound to develop which may or may not make him totally disabled and helpless, and I submit that in cases of this kind, where the beginning of the disability was caused by action overseas, the man is entitled to the "helpless" allowance if he afterwards becomes helpless, but the amendment would prevent that. It means that we would have every doctor on the Board of Pension Commissioners looking to see whether, for instance, in the case of a man who had lost both legs, he lost only one leg and a quarter overseas and the remaining three-quarters after he came back, and similarly with other cases. The act as it was before was perfectly clear. It ordered the Pension Commission to give to a member of the forces totally disabled and helpless, a "helpless" allowance, and I do not think it should be changed.

Pension Act Amendment


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no objection, if yhe committee is willing, to striking out this clause.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the idea of the amendment? Was it to limit the claims as suggested by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) ? If so, I certainly think the clause should toe struck out.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The amendment is to make clear the intention of the act. It provides that the "helpless" allowance shall be paid only in cases where the helpless condition is directly attributable to war service. As a matter of fact that is the practice in vogue by the board at the present time, and inserting this amendment will in no way change that practice. But if the members of the committee have any fear in their minds that the practice will be changed, I am quite agreeable, so far as I am concerned, to striking out the proposed amendment. But it will not change the practice.


Charles Gavan Power: Then why put it in?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The Pension Act in certain cases can be made more self-explanatory.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I move that section 5 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 6-pension to widow:
Charles Gavan Power: This means that from now on the widow of a soldier who married after the concurrence of the disability, that is to say, after the soldier's discharge from the army, will obtain a pension. This question has come up before almost every pensions committee. To make myself more clear, let me give a specific example. We have refused to give a pension to the woman who marries a man afflicted with tuberculosis. We feel that the woman who marries a man, knowing that he is suffering from a disability which will sooner or later cause his death, is not entitled to a pension. We have taken that stand because we thought there must be some finality in pensions. We did not wish to have in Canada the state of things which has occurred in the United States, where the pensions to-day, I am told, are higher than they were ten years after the Civil War. We are granting a pension now to the woman who marries within one year of the soldier's discharge. But who knows that at the next election-because all of us are politicians and want to get votes

we shall not be asked to extend this to five years? That is what happened in the United States. Who knows that we may not have a young girl marrying a doddering old soldier of eighty and drawing a pension? We are opening the door to that from the moment we grant these amendments. I will take the time of the committee to read the reports of previous committees. The report of the 1919 committee was based on the principles of administration which had been enunciated by the executive committee of the Canadian Patriotic Fund with respect to the administration thereof. The details of these principles are enumerated and, amongst others, this appears:
No ex-soWier's wife shall have any claim unless marriage occurred prior to the ex-soldier's discharge.	.
In the 1920 committee the same question was brought up and fully discussed. Here was the suggestion:
That the dependents of a pensioner who contracted marriage subsequent to che appearance of disability or to discharge from the Forces be not discriminated against in the benefits of the Pension Act.
Note.-As the law now stands, a woman who marries a soldier after he is disabled is not entitled to a pension on the deatn of her husband. Should, however, her husband's death be due to service, his children may be awarded a pension. The above suggestion has been before former committees; it received the earnest and repeated consideration of your committee Under the proposed plan for the insurance of returned soldiers, dealt with later in this report, a disabled man will hereafter be in a position to protect his wife by taking out a policy on his own life. This insurance wul be available at a low cost to all returned soldiers no matter how seriously they may be disabled. In view of this new provision, and for other reasons, your committee was unable to reach a decision in favour of the proposal.
Now let me take the report of the committee of 1921, in which this suggestion was dealt with:	.
That penision be awarded to a widow married after the appearance of the disability if the marriage takes place six months before death.
This suggestion received the very earnest consideration of your committee and the administration of the law in this respect by the Pension Board was thoroughly inquired into. As the law now stands, a woman who marries a soidier after the appearance of the injury or disease which resulted in his death, is not entitled to pension but the children may be awarded pension at orphan rates. This suggestion has been before former committees which did not recommend any material alteration. Under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act a disabled man can protect his wife by taking ouit insurance on his own life. Your committee was unable to reach a decision n favour of the suggestion.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does my hon. friend say that in 1921 the suggestion was made
Pension Act Amendment

that if the soldier was married six months previous to his death his widow would get a pension?


Charles Gavan Power: I have just read from the "Appendix to the Journals of the House of Commons of Canada, 1921. Report of Special Committee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment". Of this committee the hon. gentleman was a member.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I be permitted to make a statement. I want to say there is either a misprint or some other error in the record, because I moved that resolution myself last year. I first moved that the widow be granted a pension if the marriage took place within five years of the soldier's discharge. That was defeated by a majority of only one. Then I moved that the pension be granted if the marriage took place within two years after discharge. Nothing was said about death at all but simply that the soldier should receive the pension. I want to say also that my hon. friend from South Quebec (Mr. Power) supported that resolution both last year and the year before.


Charles Gavan Power: Never. (


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then I am mistaken; I thought my hon. friend had done so. My proposition was defeated in the one case by a majority of one and in the other case by a majority of two. This year the committee have seen fit to recommend that a pension be granted under these conditions, and I think it is no more than justice that it should do so. On previous occasions I cited the cases of young men who enlisted, possibly in some Canadian town, and married. I know two cases of the kind where young men happened to meet girls in the town where they enlisted and married them although it would have been far better if they had not done so. These women were granted their separation allowance while the husband was overseas and got a pension if he came back wounded and died of the wound. On the other hand the young man who was engaged to be married and went overseas but returned with a disability and married when he came back-that man's wife gets no pension; she is not recognized as the man's wife, for the purposes of the pension, either by the Pension Board or by the government of this country. I think a great injustice has been done in this respect and I think the House should pass the recommendation brought forward. I would like to point out to the minister in

charge of this bill that there is a little discrepancy in the wording. Section 6 of the bill reads:
Subsection one of section thirty-three of the said act, as amended by chapter sixity-two of the Statutes of 1920, is further amended by inserting after the words "married to him" in the second line thereof the words "within one year after date of discharge from the forces or".
And the act goes on to say "before the appearance of the disability which resulted in his death." This would be contradictory.


James Arthurs: The word "and" should be substituted for the word "or".


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The "or" should be
omitted and the clause should be worded- "and after the appearance of the disability which resulted in his death."


James Arthurs: The argument advanced by my hon. friend for Quebec South is a very contradictory one. He has said that because the recommendations of previous committees along these lines were rejected, consequently this recommendation should be rejected by the House.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not say that. I was simply pointing out that the recommendation had already been considered by previous committees and I was giving their reasons for rejecting it.


James Arthurs: I might return the compliment to my hon. friend from Quebec South by saying that he has assented to many of these changes which were also reviewed and rejected by previous committees. Although the Committees did1 not see fit to recommend them at the time they have since been accepted by the House. My hon. friend's argument therefore, would not apply. My hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) has already given instances of unsatisfactory operation of this act in regard to Certain classes of widows. I might point out another class whose claims, I think, are indisputable. We had many thousands of wounded men in England who were there discharged from hospitals as convalescents. They married young women over there, in some cases Canadian girls who had gone to England to see them. They married in England believing themselves to be convalescent. On the other hand many men returned to Canada wounded and married girls in this country, knowing absolutely nothing of this provision of the act in section thirty-three. They married under the supposition that if anything did happen to them on account of

Pension Act Amendment
their wounds received in war their widows would be given a pension from the government. This is the class of widows for whom this act is intended to provide and I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment as proposed.


John Arthur Clark: Under the section as it stood a woman who was Living with a man would be entitled to a pension, hut if she refrained from living with him and married him after the war she would not be entitled to it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is under the act as it stands without the amendments contemplated by the bill?


John Arthur Clark: Yes. It does seem to me that the woman who waited until after the termination of the war and then married, should be given a little more consideration than the woman who happened to be living with a man before the war.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Sulb-section 3 of section 33 of the Pension Act of 1919 reads:
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 may, in the case of his death and in the discretion of the commission, be awarded a pension-
And so forth. Then it provides for another class, the woman who was not recognized as the wife in public, not married to him, but living in open prostitution. She is granted a pension. Yet, in the case of the conscientious couple, who do not marry until after the soldier comes back from the war, the widow is denied a pension. I submit, there is a great injustice done in this case, and I think the House would be well advised to accept the recommendation of the committee. My hon. friend from Quebec South has always been solicitous on behalf of the pensioner, in fact, one of the most anxious men in the House in that respect.


Charles Gavan Power: But you have to think of
the country, too.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is a small
class of these women.


Charles Gavan Power: The class will grow.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No, it cannot.


Charles Gavan Power: Why not?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Because the time has expired during which they can apply. I
am strongly opposed to leaving this wide open, as it is in the United States, but, I think, there should be provision for those bona fide married within one year?


John Arthur Clark: The hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) has expressed what I intended to say, perhaps in clearer language than I could have done, but the class of case which this is intended to cover includes, in fact, all returned soldiers, you might say, and they were absolutely ignorant of what were going to be the regulations up to about the beginning of 1920. This only covers those who were married prior to, about the commencement of 1920; so that two years have already elapsed since application could be made. We must hear in mind that, up to that time, there has been no opportunity for returned soldiers to familiarize themselves with the law. At that time the law was fairly clear, and by that time they had had a fair opportunity to familiarize themselves with the effect of the law.


Charles Gavan Power: I wish to answer two
statements which have been made. First, the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton states, with some justice, that I have always endeavoured to look after the soldiers. That is true, but we must look after the country. I quite agree that the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton and the hon. member from Burrard (Mr. Clark) are absolutely sincere when they state that we will stop at one year, but, surely, they have been in politics long enough to know that, at the next election, we will be asked to extend this time to another five years, and, before long, we will have exactly the same situation as has arisen in the United States. That is the reason I object to this clause being inserted in this act. I do not wish the door to be open to people who, after all, do not deserve the pension. It is all very well to say that a young girl was engaged to a soldier who came back disabled, and that she should be entitled to marry, but I do not see why the country should pay a pension to this young girl for the next twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years. There is always a certain amount of justice in paying for the widow, or giving a pension to the girl who was married to the soldier before he went overseas, but I cannot, for the life of me, see why we should pay the pension to the girl who married the soldier when he came back disabled. I cannot understand what claim she has on the country, or what possible claim she
Pension Act Amendment

ever will have. I admit there are some hard cases. It may be a little hard for the engagement to be broken off, or for the girl to get married and find that she is not entitled to a pension and will not get it. The comparison between the unmarried woman and the engaged girl is, perhaps, a good one, but there are other anomalies in the act, too. You give a prostitute a pension, but you will not give the widowed mother a pension. The com-5 p.m. mittee in this House, in spite of the order of this House, has for years refused to give the widowed mother a pension. Is she not more entitled than the girl who is engaged?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the widowed
mother not getting a pension now?


Charles Gavan Power: Not getting half enough.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But she is getting a pension?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, but not getting as
much as the engaged girl is receiving.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston) :: I am somewhat in sympathy with the hon. member for Quebec South. I took this point in committee, and my strong argument was that, so long as we refuse increased pensions to those who are suffering at the present time, and so long as we refuse the required assistance to tubercular cases now on our hands, and to blind cases, we should not go round looking for other people to whom we could give pensions. If this country is rich enough to give the blind all they require, and to give tubercular cases all they require-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the hon. member claim that he advocated increases to any of these classes?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes, I took that stand the other night in regard to tubercular cases. I think I took the stand more than once that, if this country were rich, and if we had satisfied those who are wounded or had suffered from the war to the full extent that they required, then I would go further. This amendment also opens up certain cases, which, I think, we should proceed very slowly with; that is advanced tubercular cases, advanced mental cases, and so on. If a person had married, and the soldier had a wound which developed into a very bad case afterwards, that might be dealt with, hut I do not like the wide-open door, as demonstrated in the amendment.
[Mr. Power.)


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understood the hon. member from Kingston (Mr. Ross) to say he advocated increase of pensions all along the line.


Arthur Edward Ross: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: He was one of the men who opposed the concession to the widowed mother that I pressed for in committee most strenuously. He was one of the strongest opponents of any man in the committee to that proposition.


Arthur Edward Ross: My contention was that the man who had suffered should be pensioned.


William Garland McQuarrie: The hon. member for Quebec South made some remark with reference to the pension for widowed mothers. A resolution was passed in this House, on the motion proposed by the hon. member rot very long ago, which, I understood, called for a pension to be given to twidowed mothers, irrespective of whether they had other children who might be able to support them.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on clause 6. We have passed the clause 1 regarding the widowed mother.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is an amendment to be brought in by the minister, carrying out the resolution introduced in the House on the motion of the hon. member for Quebec South? Has this committee entirely disregarded that motion?


Herbert Meredith Marler: This subject was fully considered and discussed in committee. The committee investigated the resolution Which was passed in the House on 3rd May last, and we also examined the law on the subject; and I dealt with this particular section of the act in my address to the House. The committee appointed by this House in March last recommended that that section of the law relating to the matter be not changed.


James Arthurs: The word "or" there should be "and."


Herbert Meredith Marler: The provision as
amended by this section is that no pension shall be paid to the widow of a member of the forces unless she was married to him within one year after date of discharge from the forces, or before the appearance of disability which resulted in his death. I think the amendment should stand. The word " or " is obviously the right word to express the intention.

Pension Act Amendment


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think the section is
perfectly plain; I do not see how there can be any misunderstanding.


Herbert Meredith Marler: There are two things to be considered, the date of discharge and the appearance of disability, either of which is a deciding factor. The section is quite in order.
Section agreed to on division: Yeas, 49; nays, 10.
On section 8-Bonus payments continued.


George Newcombe Gordon: (Shall section 8
carry?


Charles Gavan Power: No, Mr. Chairman; I was about to discuss section 7 when you declared it carried. I object to the section as it stands and I want to discuss it. I move that we return to that section.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the unanimous wish of the committee to return to section 7?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 7-Power to cancel pension of prostitute.
Charles Gavan Power: This section amends section 40 of the act, which provides that the pension of a female pensioner who is found to be a common prostitute, or who openly lives with any man in the relationship of man and wife without being married, shall be suspended. This section now adds the words " or who is immoral." Why add those words at all? There is such a wide difference, for instance, between my interpretation of what is immoral and the interpretation of some of my hon. friends opposite. One of my friends opposite might possibly think it immoral to bet at the race track; I do not think so. Some hon. gentlemen may think it immoral to smoke cigarettes; I do not think so. And when new commissioners are appointed it is not improbable that we may find them depriving some woman of her pension because she happens to smoke cigarettes. I think we had better leave the act as it is. It is enough to provide that she shall receive no pension if she is a prostitute or is living openly with a man in an unmarried state. I object to making the section so broad.


Mr. BUREAU:: You would have to define " immoral."


Charles Gavan Power: Exactly.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think that these words are superfluous. It is sufficient to provide that no prostitute or unmarried woman living with a man shall be given the pension.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power), my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), and I, are not, I fancy, quite qualified to discuss questions of morals. May I suggest that the chairman of the parliamentary committee undertake the task?


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear; that is one on the chairman.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The amendment is approved by the Board of Pension Commissioners. The object is to empower the commission to suspend the pension of any woman who, while not coming within the legal definition of a prostitute, has, by her immoral conduct or misbehaviour, rendered herself ineligible, according to the intention of the act, and proved unworthy of further consideration.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would the hon. member give us a definition of the various acts that might be considered immoral?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am afraid I am no better able to do that than my hon. friend.


Mr. HANSON:: This amendment raises some fine questions of ethics. I am inclined to support the view of the hon. member for Quebec South; I suggest that these words be deleted. If they were incorporated in the act I am afraid some hardships would ensue. We have Puritans in this country who would even argue that smoking tobacco is immoral; and I have read speeches of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) which would seem to indicate that the policy of protection is immoral. And with that I wholly disagree. I do not see the necessity for the amendment, even after the explanation of the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee. I will vote against it.


Mr. VIEN:: The words "or who is immoral" ought certainly to be removed. Why should a woman be declared to be immoral by the officers of the board simply because she takes a glass of beer when beer is illegal? This is an encroachment on the freedom which everyone should be allowed to exercise to the limit. If this section were enacted as it stands, with these objectionable words in it, some woman might be deprived of her pension because she did
Pension Act Amendment

something which some cranks believed should be prohibited. These words should be struck out, and I am quite sure the committee will support that view. If I were a constituent of my hon. friend from Quebec South I would congratulate him on his motion. If he will move that the word, "immoral", be deleted from the statute, I shall be pleased to second his motion.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not see any definition of the word "immoral" in the interpretation clause, so under the circumstances I do not think any harm will be done by withdrawing the section.
Section withdrawn.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The amendment which I am suggesting should come after section 25, subsection 3, of the main act. The amendment is substantially in the words recommended by the committee. It reads:
Provided further that any disability from which a member of the forces who served in an actual theatre of the Great War was suffering at or prior to the time of his discharge shall for pension purposes be deemed to be attributable to or to have been incurred or aggravated during his military service, unless and until it be established by the commission that the disability was not attributable to or incurred or aggravated during such service.
I have inserted the words "or prior to". I think the minister will have no objection to this alteration.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the object of
my hon. friend in moving the amendment?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I understood that last
night when the House discussed and passed the resolutions on the Pension Act it was the intention that this very section should be embodied in the bill.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The amendment which
my hon. friend moves is more or less in the same terms as those recommended by the parliamentary committee. We discussed Section 25, subsection 3, at very great length, and a sub-committee was appointed to draft a suitable amendment, which was afterwards submitted to the Justice Department, and the officers of that department then drafted the amendment in the following form; to apply after section 11:
Any disability from which a member of the forces who served in an actual theatre of the Great War was suffering at the time of his discharge shall for pension purposes be deemed to be attributable to or to have been incurred or aggravated during his military service unless and until it be established by the commission that the disability was not attributable to or incurred or aggravated during such service.

This statement is submitted after days of argument and careful consideration of a great deal of the evidence given before the parliamentary comittee. I cannot impress too strongly upon hon. members that it is very dangerous to insert in the act any new section without the most mature consideration and the best legal advice. If the committee think that any amendment should be accepted without such consideration and advice they are taking a very grave responsibility which I for one would not dare assume.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do I understand that the chairman of the Pension Committee is moving the amendment which was drafted by the law officers of the Crown?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The minister will move
the amendment.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That amendment, I
think, should be accepted instead of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South; it covers the same ground.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I wished to add just
three words, "or prior to", but I think legally the construction works out about the same in the absence of those words. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Then, Mr. Chairman, I
beg to move that section 11 of th * act be amended by adding thereto the following:
Any disability from which a member of the forces wiho served in an actual theatre of the Great War was suffering at the time of his discharge shall for pension purposes be deemed to be attributable to or to have been incurred or aggravated during the term of his military service, unless and until it be established by the commission that the disability was not attributable to or incurred or aggravated during such service.
That is the amendment proposed by the parliamentary committee in its report.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would suggest that
that amendment should come after section 25; that is a more appropriate place than section 11.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am sorry to disagree
with my hon. friend, but as the Justice Department thought it right and proper that the amendment should be inserted after section 11, I do not think it would be wise to adopt his suggestion, because I for one do not know what effect those particular words would have if placed after section 25.

Pension Act Amendment


James Arthurs: I can easily understand the attitude taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Ladner). The bill as brought down is not strictly in accordance with the resolution as adopted yesterday. That, I understand, was an inadvertent omission. There was a long debate in the committee on the subject, and as I recall it, the ideas expressed by my hon. friend were concurred in by the committee. So that the difference is apparently only one of degree; there was practical unanimity with regard to it. It is simply a matter now of whether the original submission of the committe shall be accepted, or the proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Do I understand that the question of where this provision should be in the act was referred to the Justice Department, and that they expressed the opinion that it should come in section 11?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I give my hon. friend that assurance.
Amendment (Mr. Beland) agreed to.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have an amendment to offer to section 11 which, in the circumstances, will come just before this proviso. The amendment is that section 11 be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
The commission shall award pensions to or in respect of members of the forces who have suffered disability, in accordance with the rates set out in schedule A of this act, and in respect of members of the forces who have died, in accordance with the rates set out in schedule B of this act, when the disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made was attributable to or wai incurred or aggravated during military service.
Provided further that when a member of the forces has suffered disability or death originating in military service undertaken after the declaration of peace, no pension shall be paid unless such disability or death war. attributable to military service as such.
I may say that the wording of the last part of this amendment is taken from previous sections of the act, and undoubtedly it has been passed upon by the Justice Department. The reason for this proposal is that prior to the amendments of 1920 and 1921 of this particular section, the insurance principle was introduced and maintained in respect of members of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces. Subsequently section 11 was amended in the manner indicated, with the intention of discriminating between those who served in the Great War and those continued in military service provisionally. The actual effect, however, of the amendments as now interpreted by the Pension Board is to deprive former members of the forces and their dependents who now present their claim for pension of the rights formerly established on their behalf by Parliament. If a disability terminated fatally prior to September, 1920, the dependents became pensionable whether or not the disability was directly attributable to military service as such. The dependents of former members of the forces whose disability terminated fatally subsequent to September, 1920, are not pensionable unless it can be shown that the disability or death was directly attributable to military service as such. I submit that that is a discrimination which was not intended and should not prevail. Those who served in the Great War and were demobilized at the conclusion of hostilities should be treated on the same basis, provided that their disability or death may be definitely related to the period of service dealt with in the original Pension Act. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this amendment arises to some extent out of alleged interpretations made, or practices carried out, by the Board of Pension Commissioners. In a memorandum issued by them on September 29 there is a suggestion that section 25 (3) of the Pension Act does not apply to any case unless entitlement exists under section 11 of the act. However sound the legal opinion behind that interpretation may be, its effect is that the provision of section 25 (3), which states that no deduction shall be made from pension under certain conditions, does not commence to operate until the man becomes pensionable under section 11. So it may happen that a man who sustained disability during service and subsequently suffered an aggravation of that disability may have that part of his pension relating to the aggravated disability lowered until it equals his pre-enlistment disability. Under these circumstances, the Pension Board has the power, and does in fact carry out the principle, of cutting off the pension entirely, particularly in those cases which have been dealt with since September, 1920. Now, the original idea of the Pension Act as was disclosed in the debates at the time it was under consideration by Parliament, was that there should apply fundamentally the principle of insurance, and that is why you find in the act of 1919 the words "or was incurred or aggravated during service." But when the war was over and the services of the

Pension Act Amendment
Canadian Expeditionary Force were at an end, it was necessary to make provision for thbse in the permanent forces, and in doing so the principle of insurance was taken away. So that in 1920 the words " or was incurred or aggravated during " were taken out of section 11, and there were added in 1921, after the words "military service," the two words "as such."
In the working out of that legislation it is found that certain injustices arise. In the case of certain diseases it is impossible for medical opinion to determine the true line of demarcation between preenlistment disability and aggravation. The result is a great deal of dissatisfaction. These amendments have so narrowed down the underlying principles of the act, and it has been administered in such a way by the board, that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in all parts of the country. Some of the criticism levelled at the board is, in my opinion, perhaps too strong and should rather be levelled against the act under which they operate. When the permanent force was organized it was seen that men might very easily at times meet with an accident on the street, a bicycle or street car accident, for instance, and as the act was originally framed a man would be entitled to a pension for injury obtained in that way; but that was not the intention. The object of the amendment I have proposed is to make the first portion of section 11 conform with the original intention of 1919, so that there will be a broad avenue of approach under the law to the Pension Board, and so that the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force will all have an equal right in that respect. The idea of the proviso which I have added is to take care of the permanent force, because you will notice, Mr. Chairman, that the words are put in there "undertaking service after the declaration of peace". In this way the applications for pensions are divided into two classes, those from the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and those from the permanent force. I admit that that is an important step, but the amendment in my opinion would have the effect of doing away with a great deal of the dissatisfaction throughout the country. A claimant approaches the board in many instances without expert assistance to present his case, or perhaps with that assistance, and he finds himself confronted with insurmountable legal technicalities. The board have to make their own decisions; there is no superior court to which

they can go. The result has been in the actual working out of this act that in many cases where pensions should have been awarded they have not been granted. I have personal knowledge of such cases. Under the amendment I propose, the board will have a freer hand, and the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, as distinct from the permanent force, will have a better opportunity of presenting their just claims, and without fundamentally altering the principles laid down in the act.


Herbert Meredith Marler: This question was very fully discussed in the committee, and the result was the amendment which has been moved by the minister. This amendment places the onus of proof directly on the commission to establish whether any disability the soldier may be suffering from was or was not attributable to or aggravated by war service. Let me assure the House, in the first place, that the special committee have every possible sympathy towards the returned soldier in every particular. The act has been very carefully revised by the committee, and the amendments which are brought in to-day are the amendments which the committee appointed by yourselves have recommended. I would ask, with all respect, whether my hon. friend would really consider it advisable to place in a complicated act like the Pension Act such a clause as he proposes without submission to legal advice.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I submit that I am only reinserting the clause which was placed in the act in 1919, and under which the board operated for a number of years. I am simply trying to re-establish the breadth of that provision, as against its contraction, which is now proposed.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Does my hon. friend suggest that the board does not pension a man whose disability has been aggravated by war service?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I make no such submission, but I do submit that even with the amendment which has been made, in the case of a pre-enlistment disability with aggravation, if the aggravation ceases after September, 1921, there is no award for the pre-enlistment disability.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Does my hon. friend suggest that if a man suffering from disability entirely recovers and is perfectly well on his discharge, he should be given a pension?

Pension Act Amendment


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not proposed at all. The proposal is that if a man is enlisted as A-l, with no disabilities that come under the exceptions here, and goes into a theatre of war, any disability from which he suffers on discharge must be due to the war, and my point is that it is so difficult to draw a line of demarkation between preenlistment disability and aggravation that the act should be broadened. In the actual working out, in the case of a man dying after September, 1920, no pension would be granted to his dependents in such a case.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The dependents will get a pension provided the disability is due tc war service. Would my hon. friend attempt to broaden the scope of what is clearly medical testimony by legal verbiage? The question of whether the disability is due to war service or not is a question of medical evidence, and we here in Parliament cannot simply by putting a few words in the act affect that in any way. I have not had sufficient opportunity of studying the matter carefully, but I would suggest that if we accept my hon. friend's amendment we run the risk, not of broadening, but narrowing the act, because at, the present time medical testimony is the testimony the soldier must rely on in order to connect up the disability he is suffering from after September 1, 1920, as being directly attributable to war service. The act as it stands is eminently fair, as any returned soldier will tell you, and sufficient to protect any soldier who is suffering from any disability which has been incurred on or aggravated through service, and these were the cases which Parliament intended should be pensionable.


John Arthur Clark: I should like to place on record the resolution which the parliamentary committee passed when this amendment was being considered, and I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Ladner) whether this resolution meets his point. It reads as follows:
The committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the act should be so framed that it will mean that a soldier who saw service in a theatre of war will receive a pension commensurate with the disability as it exists on discharge, except in cases where the departmental medical officer can show beyond peradventure that the disability existed prior to enlistment and has not been aggravated on service.
I know that the amendment was designed to meet that, and I should like to ask my hon. friend whether this resolution as passed by the parliamentary committee
meets the point he is making, because I am not quite clear in my own mind as to just in what respect it would not achieve the object he has in mind.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The effect of the resolution is simply to shift the onus to the board. In fact, we have been told time and again that there was no such thing as onus of proof under the rulings of the Board of Pension Commissioners, but many of us have found that there is such a thing, and the object of the resolution and of the proposed amendment is to settle that question. It is shifting to the board the duty of establishing whether there is a right to a pension under the existing law. That is entirely different from the proposal I am submitting. My proposal goes more deeply to the principle underlying the Pension Acts. My object in amending section 11 is to enable all members of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces to come in under the protecting words which existed in the 1919 act " or was incurred or aggravated during military service." When those words were taken out it changed the principle of the act. As to the intention of the act, let me refer hon. members to the report of the committee of May 26, 1921. In that report this very section was under consideration and men learned in the law, and other able men, gathered together on that occasion thought there was no question about this matter. I read from pages 84 of the report of 1921:
That in the case of a pensioner suffering from a disability incurred in a theatre of war, no deduction be made because of disability shown to have existed prior to enlistment, and that section (25) paragraph 3 of the existing Pensions Act be accordingly amended.
I ask hon. members to follow this closely:	,
Mr. Nesbitt: Is that not the case now1?
Mr. Redman: I think that is the law '
Witness: It is obvious.
And so the committee carry on their investigation and make their decision on the strength of the conclusion that that was an obvious interpretation of the law. But we find that in September of last year the Pension Board found another interpretation and they made a ruling that subsection 3 of section 25 does not apply to any case unless entitlement exists under section 11. Now what is the consequence of subsection 3 of section 25. That subsection reads:
No deduction shall be made from the pension of any member of the forces who has served

Pension Act Amendment
in a theatre of actual war on account of any disability or disabling condition which existed in him previous to the time at which he became a member of the forces.
And then there is a proviso:
Provided that no pension shah be paid for a disability or disabling condition which at such time was wilfully concealed, was obvious or was not of a nature to cause rejection from service.
Now, any ordinary member of the House
__any layman or lawyer-reading that
section would understand it to mean that the soldier would have the advantage of claiming a pension notwithstanding a preenlistment disability. But it appears that before a man can come under that section he must show that there is a pensionable claim under section 11. Therefore very few men with pre-enlistment disabilities get any advantage of the section providing that no deduction shall be made for a pre-enlistment disability. Consequently, I claim that in view of the interpretations by the Board of Pension Commissioners, and the legal technicalities that exist, the provisions of the law should be broadened. Under my amendment they will be broadened so that in future we shall not have the confusion which has been pointed out.


Mr. IRVINE:: Would my hon. friend explain, by citing a simple illustration, what will happen if the provision of which he speaks is inserted?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Before the vote is taken on the amendment, I wish to say that I fully appreciate what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) has in mind, and I fully agree with his expressed wish to see the law carried out as he suggests. I submit, however, that the amendment offered by the minister fully covers the ground-I refer to the amendment to section 11. Did I not think so I certainly would support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South, hut I am well convinced that such is the case. The matter was given due consideration. I was one of the three members selected by the Pension Committee to confer with the law officers of the Crown and have a section drafted that would cover this very thing. We were all satisfied-the law officers of the Crown and ourselves-that the phraseology of the amendment would meet the case. I believe that the amendment submitted by the minister fully covers the ground and will take care of the cases alluded to. I realize, as the hon. member himself says, that possibly the regulations prepared by the Pension Board might have 
a little different meaning from this present section. But it was in order to' clear up any doubt with regard to these regulations that the section in question was drafted and submitted by the minister to-day-I feel sure of that. In view of my willingness to admit this, and I am one of those who fought for the amendment, I think that the amendment proposed by the minister ought to be acceptable to my hon. friend.
Amendment (Mr. Ladner) negatived.


Leon Johnson Ladner: We desire to have a vote on it.


George Newcombe Gordon: There could have
been a vote had hon. members indicated their desire by standing up.


Leon Johnson Ladner: A number of members did stand. I submit there is no need of hurrying matters through in this fashion.


George Newcombe Gordon: I put the amendment and declared it lost, in accordance with the evident wish of the majority of the committee. I did not observe that any hon. members had risen.


Thomas Langton Church: In the discussions which have taken place in this House this session on the subject of caring for our returned soldiers comparatively little has been said about our blinded men. Now there were 225 of our men in all who lost their sight during the war directly or indirectly as the result of military service. At the present time they are finding it hard to get along, and they get little active help.
These men were heard before the Pensions Committee, and they only occupied a few minutes' times in presenting their case. They made a strong plea for action by this legislature. I do not propose to speak at any greater length in urging their demands on the present occasion. They presented two matters for the consideration of Parliament. One was that the direct pension allotted to them be increased from $600 to $900, and the other was that more sympathetic consideration be given to several special cases where extenuating circumstances might be involved. The high cost of living may be reduced, but it is quite impossible to reduce the high cost of being blind.


Charles Gavan Power: I rise to a point of order. Is there anything before the committee to which the hon. .member is speaking?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes.

Pension Act Amendment


Charles Gavan Power: What is it?


George Newcombe Gordon: The matter we are dealing with, with the consent of the committee.


Thomas Langton Church: It is one of the most important questions yet dealt with. Think what these men have suffered on account of the war. If they had stayed at home, they would have had their sight. They might have become profiteers during the war, become millionaires and received a title or a baronetcy. They would have retained their sight, and would not have to go around seeking a miserable pittance of a pension, as they are doing at present. They have to do all kinds of things to make a living.
I want here to commend the great work being done by men like L. M. Wood, and Capt. Baker and other patriots for the Pearson Institute in Toronto. They have been making efforts to improve Pearson Hall and to provide facilities for efficiently taking care of the blind. Yet they have to depend on voluntary subscriptions and on even a tag-day for help. The increase asked is only $300 for 200 men, or $60,000 a year-about what Parliament would toss off for -a small wharf or lighthouse. I may say they are also asking that the Pension Board be given power to consider these cases. I am glad to see the act is broadened because the amendment may take care of such cases. I want to refer to some of the difficulties-because they are difficulties-which confront the soldiers suffering total disability on account of blindness. In the first place, there is a prejudice against the blind man. He can do certain work, but he cannot do any work which requires sight. There is a prejudice against the blind man to-day and people try to shun him. They do not want to employ him. People consider them totally disabled, and not fit for any occupation. They get discouraged.
I desire to point out one or two of the difficulties which confront these men. Approximately 200 or 225 men lost their sight during the war, directly or indirectly as a result of military service. They have tried to adapt themselves to their former positions. I think about 80 per cent were trained at the Dunstan Institute for Blinded Soldiers and Sailors, under the direction of Sir Arthur Pearson, and 66 were trained in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, working in conjunction with the Institute for the Blind and Pearson Hall, Toronto. There are certain things which the blind can work at.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is six o'clock.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I should like to say a few words before the bill is reported.


Thomas Langton Church: The Chairman has
called it six o'clock, and the hon. member is out of order. The bill is not yet going to be reported without the blind soldiers' case being fully dealt with here and now.


Mr. PORTER:: I have just received a letter from the office of the Master of the Supreme Court of Ontario, Belleville Mr. S. S. Lazier, and the best way to present the case to the committee will be to read the letter, so that it may be placed on Hansard. The letter reads:
E. G. Porter, Esq., K.C.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
My dear Porter:-
You will remember no doubt Mrs. Wrti'iJck formerly of Belleville, now of Pleasantdale, Sask., for whom you had some correspondence and interviews with the Militia Department some time ago. She is in serious trouble now and I am giving you the particulars, hoping that you may be able to do something with the Pension Department that they may give her what I think she should reasonably be entitled to.
The facts connected with the enlisting of the young man, which probably you may have forgotten, are practically as follows: Mrs. Wren-nick, with her four sons, went west some 10 or 12 years ago and eventually located at Plea-santdale, having located a half section. Shortly after going there one of the sons was killed by the horses running away with a reaper. Another son, William, as you will remember, lost an arm and leg on the Grand Trunk here before going west, and the other son, Louis, was delicate and has been gradually getting worse with lung trouble. Ernest, who i3 entered in the Miliitla Department as Lance Corporal E. J. Wrennick, No. 440998, 5th Battalion, was the only one of the family who had good health and was able to earn money. He was earning, When he enlisted, something over $2,000 a year on the railroad and was able to keep the family in very comfortable condition. He went overseas and was killed. I received a letter from him from France in which he said he had made a will leaving everything to his mother and Willie, the cripple. However, no will could be found, and the lot which was located in his name was patented after his death in his name, which was practically of very little use to Mrs. Wrennick or William, as there are a number of others in the family, married daughters, who would be entitled to share in the property, if it Was ever sold or divided. In fact they could have claimed their share at any time, as you know. They started in with a pension to Mrs. Wrennick of something like $45 a month but last year or the latter part of the year before it was reduced to $25 a month, as they deducted the proceeds of the farm from amount they had been allowing he* * eau 1 n

Pension Act Amendment

conceive of any reasonable men adopting suclh a picayune system in dealing with the relatives of those men wbo lost their lives in the service of their country. It is true that after paying actual expenses they were at in their harvesting and threshing and things of that sort, there was a surplus of some $300 left, but this had been made by such work as the two boys were able to do on the place, and d d not take into account any wages payable to them or the cost of their (living. As a result the family of three with all the necessary incidental expenses was expected to live out of the $45 a month. It is simply impossible for them to live on any such sum, and it is not reasonable to expect that they should, under the circumstances. There is no reason why this small surplus from the farm should be taken from her pension, as anything there was in it was made from the work of the boys and should go towards their living. Mrs. Wrennick is in actual want, and it is too bad that a woman who has been as comfortably off in her time as she has been should be reduced to the condition that she is now in because her son on whom she depended for her living lost his life in the Great War. The least they should do for Mrs. Wren-nick would be to give her the ful1 allowance, which I think is $60 a month, to enable her to live with some degree of comfort for the remainder of her life, whiioh is not likely to be very long as she is now over 80 years of age. She has written me often asking me to get you to take the matter up for her with the authorities, but things have been so upset nearly for the last year that I did not like to bother you With it.
I shall be personally obliged, and I know you yourself would be glad to do anything you can to see if some arrangement cannot be made to give her something reasonable to live on.
Should you require any further information of any sort I shall be glad to furnish it. I know by personal knowledge that the facts are as I have stated them and they can be proved substantially by affidavit, if necessary.
Does the law, as it stands, entitle the Board of Pension Commissioners to make the deduction they have made, or is this woman entitled to the full pension? Do the amendments now brought in make provision for a case of this kind?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The letter which the
hon. member has read to the House will appear in Hansard. I will read it to-morrow morning, and I will see that my hon. friend is furnished with an answer.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the Chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-1THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 151 (from the Senate), respecting The Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company.-Mr. Kennedy (E dmonton ).

Bill No. 154 (from the Senate), to incorporate National Casualty Company-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 134 (from the Senate), for the relief of Roy Wilbert Shaver.-Mr. Mc-Giverin.
Bill No. 138 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frank Clifford Gennery.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 139 (from the Senate), for the relief of Sarah Brackinreid.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 140 from the Senate), for the relief of Mildred Catherine Touchbourne.- Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 143 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick McClelland Aiken-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou ).
Bill No. 155 (from the Senate), for the relief of Eva Florence Heavens.-Mr Rankin.
Bill No. 156 (from the Senate), for the relief of Dorothy Lillian Jewitt.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 157 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Mae Larivey-Mr. Ryek-man.
Bill No. 158 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Caroline Hilton.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 159 (from the Senate), for the relief of Eva McRae.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 160 (from the Senate), for the relief of Warren Garfield Young.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. 161 (from the Senate), for the relief of Benjamin Charles Bowman.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 162 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ivy Elsie Myron-Smith.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 163 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian May Maybee.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 164 (from the Senate), for the relief of Phoebe Levina Simpson.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 165 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Preece.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. 166 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick Greenhill.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 167 (from the Senate), for the relief of Hazel May Dillon.-Mr. Mc-Quarrie.
Bill No. 168 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Arthur Parish.-Mr. White.

Pension Act Amendment
Bill No. 169 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Hayden.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 170 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bertha Plant.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 171 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Murray Johnston.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 172 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Percival Allen.-Mr. Porter.
Bill No. 173 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Leonard Armstrong.- Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill No. 174 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry Hardy Leigh.-Mr. Mc-Murray.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 177 (from the Senate), respecting a Patent of Simon W. Farber.- Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 178 (from the Senate), respecting a Patent of Daniel Herbert Schweyer. -Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
Bill No. 179 (from the Senate), respecting certain Patents of the Holophane Glass Company.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 181 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Ann Phair.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 182 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Park Jefferson.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 183 (from the Senate), for the relief of Eva Maud Ginn..-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 184 (from the Senate), for the relief of Louise Janet Maude Bigford.- Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 185 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Dickson Couch.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 186 (from the Senate), for the relief of Cecil Grenville Bell.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 180 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Maud Evelyn Clark Leith.-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 181 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Ann Phair.-Mr. Church.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 4, to incorporate Canada's sons. -Mr. Gordon.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 192, to amend the Pension Act, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
221i
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, when
the House rose at six o'clock I was suggesting that the minister do something for the blind, beyond what is recommended in the report of the committee. The proposal made is that the rate be increased1 from $600 to a straight pension of $900. It is true they got a war bonus of $300 and a small allowance for an attendant. The representatives of the blind organizations met the committee. They did not occupy Very much time, only a few moments, and their request was first that the straight pension should be increased from $600 to $900, and that consideration should be given to a few special cases. The number who would benefit would be about 200 men, which, at $300 each, would mean an expenditure of $60,000, or about as much as it would cost to build a breakwater in some little port in this country on which no one would tread. It was said during the debate yerterday that there is no country in the world that has done more for its soldiers than Canada. I admit we have done a great deal, but there is no country in 'the world whose soldiers have done more for it than the soldiers of Canada have done for this country. When you talk about what Canada did for the soldiers and what Canada did for its builders of character, the school teachers, I would ask what Canada has done on the other hand for the builders of railways in this country. We have three transcontinental railway lines now where one would have done, and the builders of these railways- very many of them-have become very wealthy. I understand that up to the present time we have expended $487,000,000 in pensions, gratuities and so forth, but let us not forget how differently Canada has treated the builders of railways in this country to its soldiers and teachers. If these blind men had been like a lot more, they might have stayed at home and have had their sight to-day. They might1 have been war profiteers and millionaires with a title like some others who stayeld behind, but their desire was to sacrifice everything and go to the war. They served their country at the front and lost their sight, and every true Canadian must think with feelings of sorrow and pity and of respect -and even of pain and remorse-of these gallant men who now have lost their sight and who fill our hospitals and walk our streets to-day. I think there is a unanimous) desire among the people of Canada, indeed, almost an anxiety, "lest we forget" the 225 men who are afflicted in this way,
Pension Act Amendment

and who get a miserable pittance from a none too grateful country. What is $300 in a case of this kind? Would any man in this Chamber, would any one of. us who were not fortunate enough to be able to join the colours, be willing to lose our sight for twenty-four or forty-eight1 hours for that amount? These men have lost their sight forever. I know a great many of them in my own city, and God forbid that the day will ever come in Canada when we shall forget the great debt of gratitude that we owe to these blind heroes and patriots. I believe that the people of Canada would very glady approve the voting of this trivial and insignificant amount.
I went to meet the train on which some of these blinded heroes returned, and saw the pity for them of fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, sisters, and children as they waited at the station for the troop trains, bringing these men home from the front. How these relatives grieved for them and wondered what they could do for thefii, and how they could stand it. They had no work to support the home. Would they be able to get any employment or to take part in anything at all, even in any reeration? I heard one little fellow whose chief regret was that his father would not be able to see a football or lacrosse match again. His father was an amateur sportsman, and took part in these sports, and this little boys keenest regret was that his father would not be able even to see a game again. I know a graduate of Queen's University, a man of great ability, who would be earning $25,000 or $30,000 a year if he had his sight, but who to-day is practically earning only a couple of thousand, because he is blind.
A blind man needs an attendant to take him out on the street, and other people to wait on him. That is not an isolated case. There are other cases where the the men can do a little work, but there are a great many who can do no work, and what the great majority of them can earn would not keep body and soul together. I have seen these men at the Pearson Institute. They probably earn a little money making baskets, but there are baskets galore on the market now, and that calling probably will not last very long. I deeply sympathize with these men. I sympathize with them as a representative of a big city which has probably more blind men than any other city in Canada, and that is why I am asking Parliament to take this step. These

mens' lives are made miserable by the loss of their sight-they can never more look into the loving faces of father and mother, brother and sister, wife or children. There are 70,000 Canadians buried in France to-day, sleeping until the resurrection morning. We owe it to the men who have fallen and who will never return to see to it that the sacrifices they made-will not have been made in vain

by looking after these blind comrades.


Lewis Herbert Martell: What my hon. friend seems to be advocating seems fair to my mind. I know two or three cases in my own county where the man's wife has to lead him around by the hand, and the man is only getting a pittance of a pension. Would my hon. friend advocate that those who have become blind as a result of the war should receive the maximum bonus? If so I would agree with him.


Thomas Langton Church: Yes, certainly I do. That is a detail that the committee could work out. If any hon. gentleman lost his sight for twenty-four hours, hel would not be-satisfied with a pittance of $300.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I was not speaking of those only partially blind, but totally blind.


Thomas Langton Church: We devoted two days
to the discussion of oleomargarine. We have devoted two days to the consideration of the needs of soldiers who have not lost their sight. Surely we can spend a little time in considering the necessities of the 225 men who lost their sight in the service of their country. When the committee rose at six o'clock I was referring to the report of the Pensions Committee. That report is a good one in many ways but it is seriously lacking in any consideration for the demands of the afflicted men in whose behalf I am now speaking. We have passed legislation which provides for large expenditures of the public money where cattle, sheep and swine are concerned. It is not out of place to ask Parliament to vote such a comparatively small sum as $60,000 in order to provide for the welfare of those men who lost their sight in struggling to uphold the freedom and liberty which we all enjoy to-day. In order to demonstrate to the committee the grevious handicap under which these men are Labouring and the justness of their demands for consideration at our hands, let me quote a few paragraphs from the evidence given this session before the parliamentary committee. The witness is Mr. D. J. Mc-Dougall, and I ask hon. members to pay care-

Pension Act Amendment
ful attention to the power and eloquence with which he urges the case of the blinded men. The evidence of the question is to be found at page 355 of the committee's proceedings of May 11 last. Mr. Mc-Dougall says:
However, while we are not here to claim any preferential treatment for a special class such as the blind soldiers, we feel that there are certain difficulties which confront a soldier suffering from the particular disability of blindness which it would be well to place before you. There have been approximately 200 or 225 soldiers who lost their sight during the war, either directly or indirectly as the result of military service. These men have been for the most part trained to re-adapt themselves to changed conditions. Many of these men-I believe 80 is the correct number-were trained at the St. Dunstan's Institute for Blinded Soldiers and Sailors, under the direction of ,Sir Arthur Pearson ; sixty-six of these men were trained under the direction of the D.S.C.R., working in conjunction with the National Institute for Blind at Pearson Hall, Toronto. It has always been assumed that there were certain handicrafts at which the blind could earn a more or less secure livelihood, but it must be admitted from practical experience that many of these hold very little opportunity for anything but a very precarious existence. A very great many of these men who have been trained at Pearson Hall have been trained in such handicrafts as making baskets and doing netting, and some of them at St. Dunstan's were trained in various occupations, such as boot and shoe repairing, mat making, and so forth, all of which have been found entirely impracticable in Canada as far as earning a livelihood is concerned. It ds quite true that there are exceptional cases where these men earn sufficient money by these means to keep themselves going and to support their wives and families, but the majority of these men, if they are earning anything, are doing very little to add to their pension. Not only does the bland man lose at least 75 per cent of his earning capacity as a result of his blindness, but the expense to which a man is put as a consequence of his blindness is, I have no doubt, increased. Consider some of the situations with which a blind man might be confronted. For example, many of the men who have been trained at Pearson Hall and St. Dunstan's have engaged in small businesses. In Toronto there are several blind soldiers attempting to run tobacco stores, newspaper stands, and ventures of that kind. It is not possible for a totally blind man to do this work without sighted assistance. A blind man may start his tobacco store, but he must pay for sighted assistance to conduct that business; otherwise it is impossible. The sighted man, no matter what other disabilities he may have, is quite able to conduct his busiiness without any assistance. Further, take the case of a man in Toronto at the present time who is preparing to enter Unriver-sity. A sighted man, no matter what other disability he may have, is able to go ahead and do his work, but a blind man must pay for assistance. This particular man is at the present time preparing to enter university next fall, and he is paying from $14 to $18 a month simply for reading simply to have somebody read the work to him, something which would be entirely unnecessary in any other class of disability. Another man engaged in the life insurance business, of course, needs a guide to conduct him about the city to and from his places of business. He must pay this guide, at a conservative estimate, from $35 to $40 a month-I do not know the figures, but it is not likely that he could employ a boy for less than $8 or $9 a week to work for him day in and day out. Any blind man who is required to travel about from place to place must have assistance. It is quite impossible for a blind man to do much travelling without having assistance, and that assistance must be paid for, and in a very great many cases it is necessary for the blind man to take an escort right along with him, and consequently have to pay a double fare.
There are one or two paragraphs more I wish to quote:
The disability of blind ex-service men is permanent. They are blind and will remain blind. In ten to fifteen years from now they will still be carrying on as they are carrying on now, but probably with even less success than at the present time, because although it is generally assumed that a blind man becomes more efficient as time goes on, that only holds good up to a very limited time. Perhaps during the first few years of his blindness he does become more efficient, but after that his progress is very, very limited indeed, if there is any progress at all. He strikes a groove and must remain therein. Ten or fifteen years from now these blind men will, in all iprobaoliity, be making a few baskets occasionally, but the country will then be flooded with the products of this class of work. Already there is a very limited market for them, because the patients in the D.S.C.R. workshops and hospitals all over the country have turned them out by the ton and the country has been flooded with them. Although these conditions may change, the permanent disability of these blind men cannot change. At present they are receiving a pension of $600 a year, plus a high cost of living bonus of $300 a year, plus their attendant allowance of $300 a year. The attendant allowance is supposed, like charity, to cover all things; but, gentlemen, Like charity it does not cover very much. You can readily understand that $25 a month is inadequate to cover the expenses of a guide in the case of a blind man whose business necessitates his moving from place to place. For example, if I had employed a guide to come to Ottawa from Toronto I would, in all probability, have exhausted my $25 for this month. It is quite certain that the $25 a month attendant allowance is not sufficient to cover all requirements. The pension of $600 a year, no matter how the high cost of living may be reduced, will always be inadequate. The high cost of living may be reduced, but it is impossible to reduce the high cost of being blind. The pension now paid-$900 a year including a bonus of $300 a year-will never be too much.
The present pension of $600 a year plus the bonus of $300 a year will never be more than sufficient. We have therefore come before you to petition that the $300 a year now called "bonus" be included in the permanent pension. It is possible that some may regard this petition as premature. It may be said that there are no indications that this bonus of $300 a year is going to be cut off.

Pension Act Amendment
I would also like to refer to the evidence in regard to the few special cases which the minister told me the other night he would take care of if I gave him the particulars. The evidence of one of the blind witnesses I presented to the Committee, Mr. Lynes, is as follows:


George Newcombe Gordon: You also urge more sympathetic consideration af special cases where extenuating circumstances may be involved. Would you mind telling the Committee a little more fully just what you mean by that?
Mr. Lynes: Several members of the Blinded Soldiers' and Sailors' Club are men who have been very unfortunate; they have lost their sight through V.D.S.-venereal disease

or from drinking wood alcohol. The fact remains that they were in the army at the time, and it was their misfortune. We would like the Committee to give very sympathetic consideration to these men. They are out in the world now without any means of support, not receiving any pension or allowances, and the majority of them have wives and families to support. I think something should he done for them. They were members of the C.E.F. It is their misfortune, not their fault, that they lost their eyesight through drinking wood alcohol or from V.D.S.


George Newcombe Gordon: Do you suggest that in such cases they be not given a full pension, but that certain considerate treatment he given them?
Mr. Dynes: I ask for considerate treatment for them.


George Newcombe Gordon: On compassionate grounds?
Mr. Dynes: Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: Although their blindness has been caused more or less by their own fault?
Mr. Dynes: Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: Not like other cases, where the blindness was directly attributable to service?
Mr. Dynes: That Is it.
Mr. MacDaren: Did these oases occur in Canada or overseas?
Mr. Dynes: Some of them ir Canada and some overseas, some of them in England.
With respect to the minister let me say that he served his country well in the late war. I have received letters from many men who were brought into contact with him overseas and who spoke most appreciatively of his services. I wish to say further, Mr. Chairman, that the more I look into the record of these blinded men the more I regret that the government and Canadian public have not a better conception of the duty which they owe to them and to their families and I do appeal to the House to take some favourable action tonight. Next I wish to read to the committee a letter with regard to the case of one who lost a son and got nothing:
To T. D. Church, Esq., M.P.,
re. Soldiers' Re-establishment etc.
Dear Sir,-*May I take the liberty of oalling to your attention while "debating", to the fact that the War 'Gratuity 'has been given to all soldiers who returned as you know, and also in recognition of some of the fallen. I should like to know in the name of justice how such

a discrimination can be made between the dead: it is out of all faith and justice. It cuts me to the heart, and I know thousands besides, to see such treatment meted out to those who have given their all. And I trust it is not too late to have that matter rectified, and that the Pension Board and all concerned will remember, "Worthy is the lamb that was slain", which appeals to one and all. Trusting I am not troubling you too much by asking your kind support in this matter.
This is signed by the mother of one of the unrecognized soldiers who fell in the war. He was 18 years old, going to school, enlisted, and was killed when he was nineteen and a half. She had another son, an office boy, and, as he was earning a few dollars a week she lost her pension- through technicalities-red tape. Shame -on such treatment! I appeal to the ' minister in this case. I do not say that all of the mothers whose sons went to the war should get something. There are hundreds of cases similar to this, where, for instance, the mother has to go to work, and receives no pension merely because a younger child is an office boy or has some petty job. This is not a very creditable state of affairs for a country which contributed $900,000,000 to the railways. Will the minister give the blind men what they ask? I will he very much disappointed if the chairman of this committee and the committee's report is small in soul and shows a spirit lacking in generosity towards these blind soldiers, and I regret the committee did not give them favourable treatment. These 200 men will be very much discouraged, if they do not receive something. All it will mean, as I said, is $300 per year for 200- men or about $60,000-the price of a small breakwater. Let this Parliament do its duty by these poor men who sacrificed all for Canada.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) seemed to think that I was opposing what he had to say. My hon. friend seemed to think that I was referring to partial blindness, whereas, as a matter of fact, I said total blindness. I had a case of a young man named Spence, who had a wife and two or three children. It is a pitiful case, because he is totally blind, as a result of the war. He is going through the streets, and he is only receiving a pittance. However, that is not my purpose in rising. I have every confidence in the chairman of the committee. In my short experience in this House, I do not believe any member of a committee has devoted himself more assiduously, and with greater ability, to the task

Pension Act Amendment
assigned him than the hon. member from St. Lawrence and St. George (Mr. Marler).
I had not many cases to present to him. In fact, I did not deem it necessary to appear before the committee. I gave him what information I had, privately, and placed before him my contention, in so far as my constituents were concerned, in regard to the matter of pensions. I find, now that his report is brought down to this House, that he has done his utmost, in so far as it was equitable and just, to meet my contentions, but where my contentions were not considered equitable and just by him, he did not hesitate to disregard them, even though I was his colleague on this side of the House. I do not believe there is one man in the House who has sacrificed more time and done more work. While other members were permitted to remain in the corridors of the House, during the ordinary routine, the hon. member from St. Lawrence-St. George was either in the committee room, or in his own room, devoting himself to private study and consideration of the question of the advancement of returned soldiers throughout Canada. I congratulate my honoured chief, and the members of the Government, that they saw in the hon. member from St. Lawrence-St. George, who was unknown to a great many of us, the great ability which he subsequently showed that he possessed. He is not actuated by any personal motive. He has a great business in his own constituency, and his time could very well be taken up with that business, but he has given that time and great ability to the service of Canada. I am sure that, while most men are very anxious to have the honour of being appointed chairman of a committee, this position was not sought by him, but he undertook to comply with the request of the members of the Government and of his fellow members, and the confidence that they have had in the hon. member was justified, because they could not have found an abler representative, or a more fair-minded man, than he. My hon. friend from North Toronto is a very excellent and affable fellow, and my object in rising to-night was to correct his statement when he said that I had suggested that 1 was not in sympathy with the blind men. I simply rose to ask my hon. friend if he would advocate extra treatment for those who had, as a result of the war, been deprived of their sight for life, and, if so, I was in favour of every word he ceuld possibly say, because, in my own constituency, one of the brightest intellects has been deprived of the opportunity of taking his place in life, having lost his sight as the result of the war.
Before resuming my seat I desire to congratulate once more my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-iSt. George, who is a returned man himself, and I want to say that we love and admire the hon. Minister of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) and if he wishes to know how he is loved and admired, he should come down and find it out from the ladies of the province of Nova Scotia. Sometimes, when we ask too much, the hon. minister has to turn us down, but we have found, in the final analysis, that he is a mighty good minister and has done his best.


Mr. SPENCE:: I do not wish to enter into this discusion at any great length, because I feel I am not confident. I know very little about the matter, and there are hon. members in this House who are very competent to look after the interests of the returned men, because they know more about the subject matter than I do. I desire to say that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), in advocating these the cause of the returned soldiers, and making these requests, is doing so in all sincerity, because, if any man ever was acquainted with the returned man, that member was. He was a most indefatigable man in their interests. When the men came home from the front, whether they reached Toronto at five in the morning or five in the evening, my hon. friend never failed to meet them. All that he has done has been done in perfect sincerity. I believe the hon. Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is an excellent gentleman, and that he has shown cordiality in his treatment of every one. I feel however, that there are some hon. members in this House who have not shown the respect to the hon. member from North Toronto that is due to him. He is presenting the case of these men before the House in all sincerity, and I hope they will listen to the remarks of the hon. member, the same as they would listen to any other member in this House.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is nothing provided for in the way of transportation for the blind under certain conditions.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will deal with that when I speak.


Mr. BANCROFT:: I heartily agree with what has been said by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) regarding the blind

Pension Act Amendment
returned men. A man who lost his sight overseas should be given a pension that would place him beyond the need of dependence on relatives, and $600 is certainly not sufficient for that purpose. These men should be made to feel independent, and I think that every hon. member would agree to the suggestion to have the $600 increased to $900, which would be little enough.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no doubt at all that the blind men ought to be treated as special oases and that we should do everything possible for them. As I recollect the matter, the blind man gets a total pension of $900 a year, with a special helplessness allowance of $750, which is the maximum. Has there been any change in regard to that special allowance?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will explain that in a minute.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: I will go a step further than hon. gentlemen in this matter. I submit that this Parliament would not be doing its duty by those men who were blinded in the war if it did not provide a pension for them of $200 a month. The sum of $2,400 per year would be considered b>
members of this House as less than they are entitled to as a sessional indemnity. Members of Parliament receive $4,000 for an attendance of four months at the outside, and I certainly do not think that these returned men, who were blinded in the service of the country and had been deprived for all time to come of any possibility of earning their living or making their way in the world, should receive less than $200 a month. They may make a few baskets or trivial things of that kind, but that sort of thing will not support them; and I earnestly submit that this Parliament should make provision for at least the amount I have suggested.


Mr. HARRIS:: With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), my understanding is that the special allowance of $750 to which he has referred1 is more or less of a temporary nature, the pension, including bonus, being $900. The other allowance, which has been made from year to year, is, I believe, really only temporary. If the Government would increase the pension to $900, with the $300 bonus, these men would be placed in a somewhat better position than they are in at present. I trust the minister will accede to this request.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I should be devoid of all gratitude if I did not acknowledge the en-

comiums that have been showered upon me by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) and the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell), although I must disclaim much of the merit they have ascribed to me. Before the bill is reported I feel that I had better give some information to the member for North Toronto in regard to the totally disabled and the blind. They receive a maximum pension of $900, $300 of which is a bonus. My hon. friend suggests that we make this $300 'permanent. The parliamentary committee has recommended that the bonus in the case of all pensions be extended for two years, and I have no doulbt that before that time has expired that 'bonus will have become part and parcel of the pension of at least the blind men. The special allowance of $750 is not, as the hon. member for East York (Mr. Harris) has said, a temporary allowance. Section 15 of the Pensions Act makes it imperative for the department to pay a helplessness allowance up to a maximum of $750. So that a blind soldier receives $900-$600 pension with $300 bonus -and if his condition of helplessness warrants the full amount, the maximum allowance of $750, or a total of $1,650. The committee has also recommended that the blind men shall receive free transportation. That is part of their report. Many of the recommendations of the committee are not provided for in the bill because they require no statutory enactment. But apart from those that have been submitted to the House in the form of bills, all recommendations, according to advice from the Department of Justice, can be carried out by Order in Council or by regulations; and I can assure the House that it will be my agreeable duty to carry out those recommendations and to do all I can to relieve painful situations wherever they may be found. There is no class of returned men that deserves more consideration than those who have been blinded in the service of their country. Their case appeals to our sympathy. It appeals to me, it appeals to the Government, and I am sure it appeals to every member of the House. I may tell the hon. member for North Toronto, who has taken such a deep interest in this class of the disabled, that I shall be pleased to have brought to my attention any special case that calls for consideration, which I shall be pleased to give it. If it is the pleasure of the committee to report the bill I may say that all the recommendations will be carried out to the letter.

Cancellation of Leases
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1922-23

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31st, 1923, was presented by Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Charles Stewart (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 153 respecting Notices of Cancellation of Leases of Dominion Lands was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-Written notice of cancellation to be deemed effective from date on which it is given.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the bill as originally drafted has been amended, I deem it advisable to state shortly its purpose. It provides for validating the cancellation of mining, timber and grazing leases simply for the purpose of bringing up to date the statutory validation of such cancellations as have taken place. In most cases there is no doubt as to the validity of the cancellation, but in a few cases where neglect may have taken place in respect to service or other procedure it was thought wise to place the cancellation beyond doubt.
There is, however, one cancellation in question. Some years ago a lease of coal lands on the Smoky river, in the province of Alberta, was granted to one Johnson, of the city of Edmonton, which was subsequently transferred to an American citizen named Isenberg, who was represented by an agent named Hoppe. During the war Hoppe was proved to be an alien enemy and left the country, and inasmuch as Isenberg had failed to pay the fees due on the lease the department cancelled it. Subsequently this particular area was re-staked and granted to other parties, with whom the department had a dispute, and eventually my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) cancelled this second lease. Since January I have been approached on various occasions by representatives of the estate of Isenberg, who contend that his estate is being unjustly deprived of the benefits
accruing from the lease as the cancellation was not in order and should be withdrawn. I felt I was not competent to deal with the matter and turned it over to the Department of Justice. I mention these facts because I have been notified that an hon. member is to move an amendment to withdraw this particular cancellation from the operation of the bill and have the rights of the parties determined by the courts.
With respect to clause 3 of the bill, when we reach it I intend to move that it be stricken out, for three reasons. The first reason is that the "late government by Order in Council subsequent to the cancellation of leases held, I believe, by Shillington and Bernard, set aside this area, which is eighty miles distant in one direction from railway facilities and sixty to seventy miles from Grand Prairie, the nearest railway station, in the other. By section 3 the Senate has endeavoured to change the method of dealing with these particular leases, by putting the matter under control of Parliament. The second reason is that all these leases have been granted by the Department of the Interior subject to approval by the Governor in Council. The third reason is that this is a matter of negotiation between the Dominion government and the province of Alberta. That is to say, negotiations for the transfer of natural resources, which would include these particular areas, are going on, and I do not think we should by legislation put that area under the control of the Dominion Parliament. I mention these things briefly, so that hon. members will understand the situation when I move that clause 3 be struck out of the bill, and also when an hon. member moves an amendment, a copy of which was laid on my desk. I may say also that the Prime Minister was two days ago approached by the Consul General of the United States who, representing the Department of State at Washington, stated that a citizen of the United States was being deprived of his rights in that connection and asked that his claim be settled in the court. I think it is only fair that the committee should know these facts.


Thomas George McBride: May I ask the minister why he is cancelling all these leases? It is a very serious proposition.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not cancelling any leases. I am validating all cancellations of leases that have been made up to date; that is all.
Cancellation of Leases


Arthur Meighen: This is a bill that
will have to be considered as a whole. There is not very much reason for passing clause 1 unless we determine virtually to pass the whole bill. I have no exception to take to the recital of facts made by the Minister of the Interior. First of all, perhaps I may be permitted to restate the purpose of the bill. It is to validate cancellations of leases. The minister does not himself officiate in the granting leases. Unless his attention is specially called to the matter, he does not know when a lease is granted; it is done by the officials of the department under the terms of regulations approved by the Governor in Council and authorized by this House. They contain a provision for cancellation. That provision is exercisable upon default-default in payment; default in living up to the conditions of the lease as to working the mine; default in any respect. The minister himself officiates in case of default; he must exercise his personal discretion and supervision in the cancellation of the lease. The purpose of the bill is to validate cancellations that have taken place to date. The Senate has inserted a provision that no lease shall be granted without the special authority of this Parliament in respect of an area of land near the Smoky river, being a district very rich in coal between the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern, away near the eastern boundary of British Colum bia. That amendment of the Senate has very little relationship to the bill; it is just a precaution, looking to the continued preservation of that area for the country, that the Senate decided to take. Coming back to the main provisions of the bill and to the suggested or anticipated amendment that is to be moved excepting from its provisions certain cancellations, I may point out that in the year 1918-well, I cannot say what year it was, but in that year or the year previous, this Smoky river lease was granted under the provisions of the regulations, just as the Minister of the Interior says. I say I do -not know when it was granted, because the minister does not know about these things personally. But in the year 1918 that least was cancelled. It had come into the property of one Isenberg, or, as J understood it, into the joint property of Isenberg and Hoppe. In my absence in England, the acting minister, the late Hon. Mr. Sifton, being persuaded that the lease was in arrears

and, I have no hesitaiton in saying, being doubtful also of the loyalty to the allied cause of the lessees; being, 
indeed, suspicious of their active intervention against us-took cancellation proceedings. That the lease was in default there was no doubt; that ample notice had been given there was no doubt. In my judgment, there was not the least doubt as to there being quite sufficient cause for the cancellation, nor do I know of anything defective in the cancellation. The cancellation was made. Subsequently, in the regular course, through the departmental officials, the same property was re-leased. Upon my return the facts were brought to my attention chiefly through evidence before a Senate committee. It appeared that everything had not been quite regular in the granting of that lease, whereupon I immediately cancelled it on the ground of irregularity. That brought the property back to the Crown, and I then, as Minister of the Interior, issued a recommendation which took the form of an Order in Council reserving to the Crown that area and putting it out of the power of the departmental officials to make any further leases thereon, being of the belief that that area would ultimately be of great value, for the purposes chiefly of our national railways. Now, since that time persistent efforts have been made on the part of the first lessees, the Isenbergs and Hoppes-for myself, I came in contact only with the latter family- to secure a revival of that lease. I say they have been made ever since; I know they were made during the continuance of my office as Minister of the Interior, all of which efforts were resisted. This bill, if it passed in the form presented by the minister, would validate and clear away any doubts that might exist as to the regularity and effectiveness of 'all the cancellations, including that cancellation. An	effort	is	being	made	to makean	exception	in the	case	of thatcancellation. The minister was good enough to intimate to me a few hours ago the facts as he stated them	to	the	House.	I cannot seeany reason at all for any exception.	If	it	is right in	principle
to validate cancellations, then the validating should apply to all cancellations. I cannot see any reason for making any exception. It may be the Hoppes have commenced some legal proceedings. Others have a right just as good as theirs-at least, we are not in a position to say they have not, and there is no difference in principle between cancelling rights that are in litigation, and cancelling rights that

Cancellation of Leases
are just as good that are not in litigation. Consequently, I say to the minister, either stand by the bill validating all these cancellations, or withdraw the bill. Speaking on this subject only for the present, for I think it is better not to have that confused with the other question as to whether the Smoky River area should be statutorily reserved, I express my judgment unreservedly that we ought to treat all alike, and if we are going to validate irregularities, validate all of them and do not make exceptions of any of them.


Charles A. Stewart: When
this bill was introduced I was made aware that there would be an amendment moved for the purpose of allowing action to be taken on this particular property. We have -been notified through the Consul General of the United States that one of their citizens had appealed to them for protection in connection with this matter. I have no knowledge of this case except as I have already stated to the House. Perhaps the hon. gentleman who intends to move the amendment may have something to say.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-limitation of time for actions claiming relief against cancellations :
Mr. McMASTER:: I have an amendment
to propose in connection with this clause. I have listened with attention to what the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has said, and were I responsible for government policy I would feel inclined to say it is a wise thing not to have post hoc legislation, but not being in that position, I think that it is right for me to propose this resolution which I think is of importance in regard to section 2 as it stands. Section 2 now provides that no action or other proceedings shall lie or be instituted "unless the same was or shall have been instituted within one year from the date of the giving of the said notice." If we are to make any exceptions, I think we should safeguard any rights which have been acquired by the institution of proceedings up to the passing of this act, and I therefore move that clause 2 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
No action, suit, petition of rlgnt or other proceeding shall lie or be instituted, prosecuted or maintained against His Majesty o-* against the Minister of the Interior, or the Attorney General, or any officer of the Government of Canada, claiming any relief or declaration against or in respect of tlhe cancellation or forfeiture of any
stioh lease, license, permit or other authority by means of any such notice as aforesaid, unless the same was or shall be instituted or presented before the date of the passing of this act.


Arthur Meighen: The minister, I think, should speak first, but surely he could not accept that amendment.


Charles A. Stewart: My difficulty in the matter is this. So far as I know, no proceeding has been instituted with respect to any lease for the purpose of obtaining action at law except this particular one, if proceedings have been instituted in this case. I am not sure that they have. If so, it has not yet come to my knowledge. The amendment would mean, as I understand it, that proceedings could not be instituted unless taken before this act was passed.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not grasped the full effect of the amendment. The present section 2 provides this: that either in respect of a lease already granted or to be granted no action may be effectively taken unless it is commenced within a year after the cancellation of that lease. In respect of any cancellation past or future, one year is given after cancellation for action, and no action can be taken thereafter. The amendment says that in respect of any of such leases no action shall be taken unless it has been taken already. What about leases in the future? No man could take an action at all under the amendment. I do not think the hon. member for Brome intended that, but that is exactly the effect of his amendment.


Thomas Vien: I understand that the bill has only the effect of validating cancellations already made. If the bill had for its purpose the giving of power to the minister to cancel such leases in future, I think my right hon. friend's point would be well taken, but as the bill simply refers to cancellations in the past, and as the amendment refers to cancellations in respect of which legal proceedings have been already instituted, I think my right hon. friend's point that in future the minister will not have the right to cancel any leases does not apply.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member should read clauses 1 and 2 separately, and then he will see I was quite right. The first clause validates past cancellations. We are past that; that is done with. The second clause says that in respect of any cancellation whether it has been made or is to be made, the right of action for relief against
Cancellation of Leases

the cancellation must be taken within a year. If the hon. member will read only the second line, he will see that it refers to the future as well as the past. It says:
No action, suit or other proceeding, either at law or in equity, shall lie or be instituted, prosecuted or maintained against His Majesty. . . claiming any reQief or declaration against or in respect of the cancellation or forfeiture of any such lease, license, permit or other authority .... unless the same was or snail have been instituted within one year from the date of the giving of the said notice.
So that if the amendment passes it would have the effect of stopping all relief in respect to cancellations already made unless action has already been instituted, and would prevent any relief in the future altogether.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is not the intention.


Arthur Meighen: It is the effect of'it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would submit
for the consideration of the committee whether, as clause 1 refers to permits or leases granted befoire the date of the passing of this act, that should not be read in conjunction with this amendment which I have proposed, which I think would make it clear that it only referred to leases granted before the passing of this act. That is my intention in moving the amendment. If my right hon. friend can suggest any words which would make that meaning clearer I would be very glad of the benefit of his legal acumen and mastery of the English tongue.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will the hon. member kindly explain why these particular people should be given greater rights than the other people whose leases have been cancelled-all of them, we will say, with equal informality?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The only reason I
can suggest from a somewhat cursory examination of the record is that these people had spent, according to the information I have received, some $235,000 in connection with this matter; and if there is any possibility of irregularity about the cancellation, it seems to me that their rights should be safeguarded to prove this before the court. After all, the only thing that this amendment does is to prevent the doors of the court being shut in the face of these people. If my hon. friend asked me why, as a matter of general policy, I would not prefer to see that

treatment meted out to everybody I would have to agree with him, but that is not the question we are discussing at the present moment.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Having passed section
1,	which validates all these notices and makes the cancellations good, what is the point of letting men go to court about it? Not the notice but the law has destroyed those previous existing leases. Having destroyed them under section 1 of the act what has a man got to go into court with?


Andrew Ross McMaster: There is this to be said in favour of the resolution, that it is somewhat more of a hardship, after people have started their legal proceedings, to have the possibility of those legal proceedings being successfully taken away from them. After all this ought to appeal to my hon. friend-the fact that people have spent thousands and invoked the aid of the court, while not an absolute guarantee, is certainly evidence of their bona fides and of their belief that they have a just and reasonable cause to promote.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is not my hon. friend's objection really to passing section 1 of the act which is already adopted? That destroys any right that man could possibly have. It might be doubtful before whether his lease was really dead or not by the act of the department, but once you pass that section there can be no question about it-it is absolutely destroyed. Now, my hon. friend proposes to give him the right to go into court. I should think, perhaps, my hon. friend had better limit the right to a coroner's court because it will only be an inquest.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think my hon. friend has hardly grasped the distinction- it is a distinction in fact although it may not be a great distinction in principle. While the door may be closed to those who have not started their proceedings it remains open to those who have actually commenced them. That is the difference.


Lomer Gouin: I think my hon.
friend should wait until we consider clause
5.	In that clause We reserve any recourse which may belong to the party in respect of cases now pending.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am willing, with
the permission of the committee to withdraw my amendment at this time, reserving my right to move it when we reach clause 5.

Cancellation of Leases


Arthur Meighen: The matter of wording is one thing which is very simple; the matter of what we ought to do is another thing. I quite agree with the Minister of Justice that if we intend to give effect to what the hon. member wants, the right way to do is to addi at the end of the bill a clause exempting pending litigation from these effects. Now I am opposed to what tthe hon. member is seeking to bring about aside entirely from the wording of his instrument. It is perfectly proper when you are changing an existing law as to the distribution of civil rights to except pending litigation. That is right and proper. That is not what we are doing here at all; we are validating cancellations, not as between individuals but we are validating cancellations of the Crown as against individuals. When we are doing that we have no right at all to select one and say "Here, we will save you, we will protect you from the desolating effect of this act." What better right does a man get merely because he has issued his writ? Does that at all improve the status of his claim? Not in the least. The hon. member says these people have expended $235,000. Well, first of all, I do not think they have expended a fraction. I, perhaps, should not impart here information that came to me as minister, and still I am free to do so. We had an investigation made. I am speaking only from memory but it is pretty good, and I feel certain the result of the investigation was that there was no evidence of any real work done at all. There was not work done to amount to as many dollars as there are thousands of dollars in the information given the hon. gentleman. It may be they spent money employing engineers, prospectors, and lawyers, incorporating companies, trying to sell charters, and all those things; but I do not think they spent any substantial money at all in actual coal development. Why? Because there is no way to get the coal out after they develop it; there is no railway in there. As I understand, it is a deposit of tremendous wealth that some day-after there is population to use it, and transportation to reach it- will be of very great value indeed because it has a quality very high, is very accessible after you reach it by transportation, and easily worked. But I do not think there is any ground for the claim that very substantial actual money has been spent in operation or in work that amounts to anything. But even if there had been, of all the lessees whose rights, if they have any,
are cancelled by this bill, there is not one of them that cannot come forward and show that he has invested money too. He will come forward just as soon as we recognize that he has a claim and he may be able to make his claim just as well as these people, if not better. Why should the fact that they have asked for a petition of right or perhaps got a fiat, have any application to the matter? This was four years ago. They start and ask for a fiat a month ago and we say, "All right; we will not let this act apply to you at all." But here is a man whose lease was cancelled thirteen months ago and we say to him, "We will never let you apply for a fiat at all. We gave this to Mr. Hoppe and Mr. Isenberg because we allowed them four years but we will not give you four months." How can the minister stand up against argument of that kind? He cannot. If it is proper to cure the informality of these cancellations

which is purely technical if it exists; for the life of me I do not know what the informality is-but if it is proper to cure them, cure them all, and, if it is not right to cure them, leave them all to their legal rights, Hoppe, Isenberg and all the rest.


Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: Would
this debar a person whose lease has been cancelled, whether it is a specific one or otherwise, from making a claim for monies invested, provided he proved his claim?


Arthur Meighen: Unless he has no claim for monies invested and if his lease is cancelled-


Robert Milton Johnson: If he has no claim, he will not get in?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Robert Milton Johnson: But if he has a claim, he will.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. It is to cure the informality in the lease. It is so that they will not come back and say that there is an informality in the lease, and claim that lease over again.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: I understood a certain lease was cancelled some time ago for departmental reasons. The persons who now control these leases, or are alleged to control them, say they were illegally cancelled, and I suppose the purpose of this clause is an effort to protect their rights, if they have any. That is pretty fair legislation. It may be quite true that the Department of Justice is
Cancellation of Leases

very strongly of the view that the claim alleged is not well founded in law, but such claimants are usually given the benefit of the doubt, and their rights, whatever they may be, are protected. It is exceedingly difficult for this House, or the committee, to try out the alleged rights, and determine the question.


Arthur Meighen: That is all right, but why shut out everybody else and let Hoppe in?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is difficult to answer that. I cannot. But I presume the idea is that one particular party who has commenced proceedings, or about to commence proceedings has been pressing his claim and, perhaps, the others have abandoned whatever rights they might have. That usually happens in these matters.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps, they have not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the hon. member would make that apply to everybody, I do not know that I could answer it, but, on general principles, I would think it not unfair legislation to protect whatever rights there may be of persons who allege that their leases were unjustly cancelled.


Mr. SHAW:: Why should we validate the cancellation in any particular case? Why not leave these parties to the courts in the regular way? If they have any claim they can prove them in the courts of law.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Because
they cannot get into the courts of law, unless this amendment be passed.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Why validate the cancellation?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member makes a statement that they cannot get into the courts without this amendment. They can go into the courts whether the bill is passed or not, but they must get a fiat, because the proceeding is against the Crown. The only thing that will shut them out of the courts is this bill. If we are going to shut out of the courts all the people who have had leases cancelled, then shut them out, but do not let in Hoppe and Isenberg, and then bang, bolt and bar the door.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall leave be given to withdraw the amendment?
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 3-Certain coal mining rights and coal lands in Alberta not to be disposed of without special statutory authority.
Charles A. Stewart: I move that section 3 be struck out.


Arthur Meighen: I object to the hon. minister's motion. If Parliament believes it is in the public interest, why should Parliament not say this area is not open for leasing? There is no reason why it should be open for leasing. There is no railway there. If you open this for leasing, it is merely a matter of speculation. The minister may say "I will not grant the lease". There is no reason why Parliament should not say that special area should be reserved; that the discretion of the department will be exerciseable over all the reserves, but that special area, which is one of very great potentiality and future value, particularly in relationship to our national railways, shall be left, and Parliament alone shall dispose of it. There is no reason in the world why that should not be done. The minister says that that may interefere with our settlement of the natural resources question with Manitoba. How in the world could it? In fact, it is the best way to be sure it will not interfere. If the minister grants the lease, the lease is given and the reserve is gone to the lessee, but if we shut the reserve up, then the reserve stays there in the position it is to-day and if it is transferred to the province, it goes with the rest of the property that is not leased. This makes certain that there will be no hindrance at all, as respects this land. I do not know why the hon. minister objects to it, unless he believes it is in the public interest to grant a lease of the property, and, really, I do not think he does. If it had ever been brought to my attention before the lease was granted, I am sure there would never have been one granted, and I took the first opportunity I could to cancel it, set the leases aside and forbid all leases of it.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend's argument is that now, for the first time, we should change the well established policy of handling the natural resources of Canada, because forsooth trouble has arisen in reference to a lease

Cancellation of Leases
which has been set aside by an Order in Council. I can thoroughly agree with him. So far as I am concerned, I will abide by the terms of the Order in Council. There is no good reason why leases should be granted upon this particular area, but I do not know why at this particular stage, after 35 or 40 years of dealing with the natural resources through the Department of the Interior, subject to Order in Council, it becomes necessary that any particular tract of land which is part of the natural resources of the province of Alberta, and in regard to which negotiations are proceeding between the provincial government and the government of Canada for the return of those resources, should be placed absolutely under the control of the Parliament of Canada, and not where these leases have always been, not only coal mining leases, but other leases, of timber and grazing lands. You might as well say we ought to set aside our various reserves by act of Parliament, because perhaps they will be a matter-


Arthur Meighen: They are set aside.


Charles A. Stewart: That
may be your opinion, but it is not mine, and I do not know why, at this particular time, if I may be permitted to say so, the Senate should take action upon a bill of this kind, with which this particular amendment has no more connection than the sun and the moon have, one to the other. That is my objection to the action at this time, and that is why I am asking that this section be stricken out of the bill.


Arthur Meighen: As far as the connection is concerned, I am disposed to agree with the minister. The only connection is this-and doubtless this is why the amendment is here-the one conspicious cancellation is the Hoppe and Isenberg cancellation. The Senate, of course, were aware of that, because it was a Senate committee that made inquiries into the matter, and, consequently, when this subject came up, many of the senators, who had been made aware of the immense value of this area, thought it should not be included in the general area that was subject to disposition by the departmental officials, but should be specially kept out, and simply returned as the property of the Crown. The minister is wholly wrong in thinking that he will be, in the least, hampered in connection with the natural resources and their transfer to the province by this, because only Parliament can transfer one acre of this land to the province of Alberta. If the minister comes to an agreement with the government of Alberta, and wants to put it into effect, he has to come to this Parliament, and consequently the statutes of this Parliament will operate over the Hoppe lease and over every other lease in the district. It would be just as free as if this were at' his disposition for leasing. I am sure the Senate did not put this section in because of any distrust of the Minister of the Interior. The only reason it was done, and quite evidently, was because the matter was brought to their attention by a bill that related to the very subject. The Senate apparently is convinced that no matter what minister comes in-and another minister may be in next week, one never knows,-no chances should be taken of the alienation of this tract. And unless the minister feels that this is a tract that really should be subject to the ordinary regulations he should not ask to have this section struck out. If he does think that it is a tract that should be subject to the ordinary regulations as to lease, then of course he is right in moving his amendment. But I do not think he is of that opinion. In fact, he says he is not. Well, if it is land that should! not be alienated at all, as any one who looks at the map will admit, then there is no possible exception to be taken to the section, because it protects the property, no matter who may be Minister of the Interior or what government may be in power.


Charles A. Stewart: It is all very well for the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) to say he has entire confidence in the Minister of the Interior, but this lease has been a matter of controversy, I believe there was an investigation into the question in the Senate in 1919, and no suggestion was made by the Senate at that time to take the property from the control of the Department or from the Government. My hon. friend cancelled the lease. He passed an Order in Council by which the property was set 'aside and taken from the control of the Department of the Interior, and that Order in Council has continued until to-day. I heartily agree with him as to the advisability of preserving this particular area, but I cannot understand why it should become necessary at this time for the Senate or the Parliament of Canada to change entirely the policy that has been followed with respect to any portion of the natural resources of
Cancellation of Leases

Alberta, or indeed of any other part of the Dominion. If it is necessary, why should not the Parliament of Canada take tne same action with respect to all the resources in the Northwest territory that are very far removed! from 'any means of transportation? You might as well take the Norman oil lands, and the whole subject that is involved in the (prospect of oil discovery in the Northwest, and place them under the control1 of Parliament. If that is the proper thing to do I have no particular objection. But 1 do say that it is strange at this time, upon this occasion, that this particular area that is now involved in the transfer of natural resources to the province of Albera, should be taken from the control of the department. This matter is not settled by any means, and I want to serve notice on this committee that so far as I am personally concerned I intend to resist this thing to the limit.


Arthur Meighen: Resist what?


Charles A. Stewart: Resist
the incorporation of this particular section in this bill.


Arthur Meighen: I thought the minister meant that he would resist the alienation of the land.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as I am concerned, I do not think that there should be any leases granted on this land until railway facilities are within the vicinity.


Arthur Meighen: The minister's mind
has somehow got into the wrong groove.


Charles A. Stewart: The .minister's mind has not.


Arthur Meighen: Yes; my hon. friend is proceeding on the assumption that this is something exceptional.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my hon. friend say it is not exceptional?


Arthur Meighen: Yes; I was going to show why.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my hon. friend show me any other instances in which the same thing has been done in connection with natural resources?


Arthur Meighen: I can.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, do so.


Arthur Meighen: The minister himself has given one instance, that of forest areas. The minister is prevented by statute

from leasing forest areas as he can ordinary lands. The statute provides that they must be dealt with only in a certain way; but they cannot be alienated.


Charles A. Stewart: By permanent lease.


Arthur Meighen: They cannot be alienated at all; that is forbidden. Now here is an area of land which, in the judgment of the Senate-and I think it is also in the judgment of this House-should not be alienated because it has potentialities in respect of coal. Why, then, should it not be set aside and protected against the ordinary regulations, even though the minister himself now in office can be trusted not to alienate it? I might refer also to our game preserves and many other things. If it were the opinion of this House that those northern areas which are supposed to have some oil in them should not now be opened to lease, then it would be right for this House to close the gate and say, "We will not leave it to the departmental officials or to regulations at all to shut off that area". I do not think that would be wise. It is better, I think, to lease those lands to see if we cannot develop oil there. But it is not better that we should lease this particular coal area. If I were of the opinion that the area around the Norman oil well was such that it should not be developed for oil purposes, I would support a bill to prevent that. I am not so convinced, however. But the minister is convinced, I am convinced, we are all convinced that this particular area should not be leased or made subject to the ordinary regulations. Why not say so, then? It is no reflection whatever on the minister so to declare.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think that probably the minister is construing the action of the Senate, as a reflection on himself, but I see no reason why he should do so. It does occur to me that this anthracite coal field, of a very extensive area, is not only of great actual value but is of great potential value and should therefore be preserved, and preserved in this particular way. It is because the Senate realized the potential if not the actual value of these coal lands that this particular section has been incorporated in the act, and I think the Senate is to be commended for its action. The minister, I think, is misconstruing the intention of the Senate in that regard. I agree with the leader of the Oppositioin (Mr. Meighen) that the mere fact that this section is incorporated

Cancellation of Leases
in the legislation will not in the least militate against the transfer of the natural resources to the province of Alberta. It will be necessary, in transferring those resources, for this Parliament to pass an act, and all that you would have to do would be to include in that act a clause providing for the revocation of this section, if you like, or include these lands specifically in the transfer. I heartily support section 3.


George Newcombe Gordon: The minister of the Interior moves to strike out section 3. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
The committee divided on the question: Yeas 46, Nays 46.


George Newcombe Gordon: There being a tie I vote in favour of the amendment, which I declare carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On Section 5-Rights saved.
Andrew Ross McMaster: I beg to move the following amendment to Clause 5:
That the clause as it appears in the bill be stricken out and the following be substituted therefor:
This act shall not affect any rights under any judgment rendered before the date of the passing of this act or claim in any action, suit or petition of right or other proceeding instituted or presented before the 1st day of July, 1922.


Charles A. Stewart: Our
original bill stopped at Clause 2, but I have no particular objection to Clause 5 as drafted here.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment involves very nice principles of law as to the general effect of the bill, and I do not think it should be accepted on the spur of the moment.


Arthur Meighen: The real effect of the amendment is simply to say that this shal'l not apply to the Hoppe-Isenberg lease.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Or any other.


Arthur Meighen: There is no other, as the hon. member knows.


Andrew Ross McMaster: As a matter of fact the hon. member does not know whether there are half a dozen.


Arthur Meighen: I mean he is pretty sure of it. There is only one piece of litigation, and that doubtless has been commenced since or about the time of the
introduction of the bill. The amendment simply excepts that litigation. Really I cannot see any basis for such exception. If you say to Isenberg and Hoppe: "Although you have had four years since the cancellation and only enter your action now in order to be relieved against the cancellation, your case shall be considered"; how can you say to their brother over here, who has had only thirteen months to enter action: "Your case shall not be considered; we will not give you even fourteen months"? It is unfair to act like that. I respect the appeal of the American government, but if that appeal is sound we should not pass the bill at all. Isenberg and Hoppe have not one particle more right than the poorest skeleton coal or oil operator in western Canada. If there has been informality in their cancellations, they should have just as much right as any one to plead that informality. I think there is justification from the public standpoint for the department to validate informalities if they are informalities of the most technical character; but I do not think it is right to go beyond that. I understand that that is the only class of informalities to be validated. If that is so, then let us validate the whole of them and not make fish of one and flesh of the other; particularly, do not open the door to these big men and shut it to other men whose rights are just as great but whose influence is very much less.


Lomer Gouin: The amendment added to the bill by the Senate is general. It reads:
This act shall not affect any rights under any judgment rendered before the date of the passing of this act, or under any action, suit or other (proceeding instituted before the first day of May, 1922.
This applies to all parties interested. Now it is proposed that Clause 5 shall be amended so as to read:
This act shall not affect any rights under any judgment rendered before the date of the passing of this act or claim 'in any action, suit or petition of right or other proceed,ng instituted or presented before the 1st day of July, 1922.
I do not see any objection to that. Those who have cases now pending, or who may be desirous of instituting an action or asking for a petition of right up to the 1st July may do so. This amendment is general. It does not give any particular right to the gentleman mentioned by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and from what I know of the record I am not at all sure that even if they have a petition of right now pending there is much chance of their obtaining judgment in their favour.

Cancellation of Leases



SUMMONS

Arthur Meighen: What the minister says is in theory quite right, the amendment in its language is general; but the effect is very particular. I do not see any justification for fixing the 1st May or any other date. Why should those who have entered action by the 1st May be specially favoured?


Lomer Gouin: This is to cover any pending cases up to the 1st July.


Charles A. Stewart: The original hill ended with Section 2; Sections 3, 4 and 5 were added by the Senate. We did not contemplate anything beyond Section 2.


Arthur Meighen: I think in that respect the original bill was right. I do not agree with the Senate amendment. But in actual application the Senate amendment does not favour anybody, because there was no litigation; in actual application my hon. friend's amendment does favour somebody, because there is litigation; consequently the actual effect of my hon. friend's amendment is really serious and creates a discrimna-tion. I do not believe in saving those who happen to have entered action by the first of May. Why, their cases may be seven years old; the only case in question, now, indeed, is four years old. Another man's case may be only a few months old; why should you shut him out? He has the right to ask for just as much time as the other fellow has. When the Crown is dealing with its contractors it must treat all alike; when Parliament is dealing with its contractors it must treat all the same. When Parliament is making legislation affecting the civil rights of individuals, then it excepts pending legislation between them; that is quite proper. But when Parliament is dealing not with rights as between individuals but with rights as between itself, the country, and citizens, why it must treat all precisely the same; and a man's right is not one whit better because it is entered in court. To say that a man who, before he knew anything about this litigation, had the good luck to have entered his case shall have any stronger position than the man who, though his case may be only one-quarter the length- may be a very young case-did not enter it, is discrimination of the most indefensible kind.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The right hon. leader of the Opposition the other day declared himself a convert to some remarks I made about the wheat board.


Arthur Meighen: I was converted before the hon. gentleman made them.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I simply repeat the right hon. gentleman's own words; 1 would not have attempted to make such a statement without those words to rely upon. Now, there is a great deal in what he says with which I am in entire agreement. I am going to suggest to the minister that if he protected the rights of any people who took action within two months, that would put every one on an equality and, I think, render the legislation quite unobjectionable.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If the Minister of Justice will look at section 2 he will see that the condition of entering any action or proceeding is that it must have been instituted within one year from the date of giving the notice of cancellation. I really cannot tell whether the provisions of section 5 as drafted by the Senate or the amendment of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) are intended to dispense with that condition. I suggest that there would be no difficulty in changing section 5 so as to read "the first day of' July" if my hon. friend wants that done, and adding to it: "subject to the provisions of section 2 of this act." In that event only those people could come in who had instituted their proceedings within a year from the cancellation, and everybody would be on the same plane.


Lomer Gouin: If you do not want to affect a pending case I do not think the amendment would be fair. Suppose a case had been pending for five years or for two years? There was no prescription before.
Mr. BAXTER. But section 2 is drawn in such a way as to prevent the bringing of any action,


Lomer Gouin: In section 5 an exception is made of pending cases.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Well, why not simply protect the rights of people who commence an action or proceeding within one year from the cancellation of notice?


Lomer Gouin: There was no proscription before; any interested party had the right to take action three or four or five years after. I think my hon. friend (Mr. MoM aster) should strike out the words "or other proceeding" in his amendment. What does he mean by "other proceeding"?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Other legal proceeding.

Soldiers' Settlement Act


Lomer Gouin: The amendment says "other proceeding." A letter might he a proceeding.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not intend the word "proceeding" to have that broad interpretation; I simply meant legal proceeding.


Lomer Gouin: The words "action, suit, or petition of right " appear in the amendment. Why not strike out the words "or other proceeding."


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am willing to do that.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it is material to strike these words out unless we intend to pass the amendment; and the hon. member suggested a change in it. His argument is good, but I think he frankly yields my point. But if he is making provision for two months he should make it six, because the holders of these leases could never get notice and have their actions entered within two months. They live in various parts of the world and they would not likely hear of it for a long time. But my own suggestion is: if you are validating these leases, validate the whole of them; cut the whole clause out.


Lomer Gouin: The House is perfectly free to reject the amendment, but I do not think we should accept the suggestion that we grant two months more within which new cases may be brought against the Government.


George Newcombe Gordon: Mr. McMaster asks for leave to strike out of the amendment the words "or other proceeding." Shall the amendment carry?


Jacques Bureau: Read it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Moved by Mr. MteMas-ter that section 5 be amended to read1 as follows:
This act shall not affect any rights under any judgment rendered before the date of the passing of th'is act or claimed in any action, suit or petition of right instituted or presented before the first day of July, 1922.
Amendment (Mr. McMaster) agreed to on division: yeas, 85; nays, 45.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SOLDIERS' SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Charles Stewart (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 193, to
222i
amend the Soldiers' Settlement Act, 1919, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.-Mr. Marcil in the Chair.
On section 1-To consolidate indebtedness of settlers who have not abandoned the land or terminated agreement:
James Arthurs: Will the minister kindly explain?


Charles A. Stewart: This is to enable the Board to grant relief to settlers already on the land by changing the terms of the repayment of their loans so that every settler will have twenty-five years within which to pay the indebtedness incurred by him prior to the 1st of April, 1922. This period will be reckoned from the date of consolidation to be fixed by the board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble:
James Arthurs: Before the bill passes, I should like to move to add a section. There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction in the ranks of all the returned soldiers so far as their re-establishment is concerned. It is claimed that returned soldiers who have settled under this land settlement scheme have been given a certain advantage over those soldiers who are anxious to establish themselves in other ways:	in other words, who desire that
grants should be made for housing purposes along exactly the same lines followed in the land settlement scheme. Our sister colony of New Zealand has an act for the purpose of settling the soldiers upon the land or in any position in New Zealand, and their scheme is almost exactly on the same lines as the land settlement scheme now before Parliament. It provides three options in the repayment of loans; first, the whole principal on demand at an annual interest of five per cent; secondly, payment on an amortization plan covering a term of twenty-five and a half years, with 7 per cent interest; thirdly, payments or an amortization plan which allows the payments to be extended over a period of thirty-five and a half years. All these plans have been included not only in a land settlement scheme comparable with the one now before the House, but in their scheme for those who wish to establish themselves in the urban parts of New Zealand. There can be no doubt that we cannot consider any returned soldier as being re-established until he has some interest in the country,
Special Loans

until he has a home for himself. I therefore move that a new clause be added to the bill to be known as clause 7, as follows:
That loans upon the terms of previous sections he made for the (purpose of building or purchasing houses for returned soldiers.


Charles Marcil: The resolution constitutes a new charge upon the revenue which, according to section 54 of the British North America Act is out of order. That section says:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Punpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General. In the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SPECIAL LOANS

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service, and to provide:-
1.	That the Governor in Council may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by Parliament by any Act heretofore passed, raise by way of loan, under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, by the issue and sale or pledge of securities of Canada, in such form, for such separate sums at such rate of interest and upon such other terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, such sum or sums of money as mav be required, but not to exceed in the whole the sum of three hundred and fifty million dollars, for paying maturing loans and obligations of Canada.
2,	That the principal raised by way of loan under the proposed Act and the Interest thereon shall be charged upon and payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
William Stevens Fielding: The purpose of this resolution is to authorize the issue of new loans to meet obligations arising during the coming year, or in the early future. We have treasury bills outstanding of $143,000,000; we have a loan maturing on 1st of December of the current year of $182,000,000. These two sums make, for the current year, $325,000,000. Against that we have already raised in New York a loan of $100,000,000, so our needs in that respect will be $225,000,000. But we take authority also to provide for a loan, maturing November 1, 1923, of $172,000,000, and a loan maturing November 1, 1924,
TMr. Arthurs.]
of $108,000,000, the two making $280,000,000. This added to the previous sum gives a total of $350,000,000. As these amounts will cover only existing liabilities I do not imagine there is any occasion for further explanation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the proceeds are ear marked?


William Stevens Fielding: They will go into the common pot.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved to introduce Bill No. 197, to authorize the raising by way of loans of certain sums of money for the public service.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 1-Loan authorized.


William Stevens Fielding: The bill is in exactly the words of the resolution which has just been adopted.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, resolutions reported, read a second time and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 198, to amend the Customs Act, 1907.
Motion agreed to and the bill was read the first and second times and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On section 1-Governor in Council may order imported goods to be marked, stamped, branded or labelled.
William Stevens Fielding: This is a bill founded on the resolution which has been already agreed to.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose it is exactly the same as the resolution.


William Stevens Fielding: I think in this case it is exactly the same. In one of the other bills, I am not sure whether the definition

Customs Act
here and there may be slightly different. Substantially, in each case, the officials have made a transcript of the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We will have to rely on my hon. friend's statement. I have no doubt it is absolutely correct.


William Stevens Fielding: I can give that assurance. I do not wish to press the bills tonight. They might stand over.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite willing to take the hon. minister's word for it.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 199, to amend the Inland Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-Excise duty changed-
Henry Lumley Drayton: I presume the bill is in substance exactly the same as the resolution.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, in substance it is exactly the same. There may be a few slight differences in matters of formality but in substance the bill is a transcript of the resolution.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. FIELDING
(Minister of Finance) Bill No. 200 to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, was read the first and second times and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-Purely mutual insurance companies subject to tax:
Henry Lumley Drayton: This, I take it, is in the same position as the other bill.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I give my hon. friend the same assurance.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion on Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 201 to amend the Customs Act and the Department of Customs and Excise Act, was read the first and second times and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-Consular certificates, valuation for duty, and of currency:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the
minister give the same assurance in regard to this bill as in the case of the others?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 188 respecting the Canadian Patriotic Fund was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Chairman, the
purpose of this bill was explained on the first reading, indeed, the words of the resolution very fully explained it. I mentioned at the time of the introduction of the bill that I would find it necessary to suggest an amendment as respects the province of Manitoba. It appears the Canadian Patriotic Fund has not been operating there, but that similar work has been carried on by other organizations, notably, I think, by the Red Cross. I propose therefore, if the committee will agree, to add to the bill a second subsection as follows:
In the case of the .province of Manitoba, in which province the Canadian Patriotic Fund is not operating, the corporation may make arrangements with any association or organization established therein for purposes similar to those of the corporation tor the carrying on of such relief work in the said province and may out of funds provided by this act pay to such association or organization such sum or sums as may be mutually agreed upon between the corporation and such association or organization.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that the distribution of the fund will be left entirely to the management of the Patriotic Fund?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That, as before, they are agents of the Government,
Patriotic Fund

the matter being left to their own discretion as it has been very satisfactorily left in the past?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. I do not know
that I would call the Patriotic Fund agents of the Government. However, they are the recognized agents of the people of Canada, and we make no change whatever. We assume they will be capable and will apply this money in the same manner as they have done in the past. The constitution of the Fund is established by act of Parliament, and its expenditure is subject to audit by the Government of Canada. In these respects there is no change.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When I used the term "agents" I meant agents only for the purpose of disbursing the money.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, not technically.


Mr. PUTNAM:: In Manitoba I suppose they will deal only with the provincial branch of the Red Cross?


William Stevens Fielding: Whatever organization is found performing similar service in Manitoba might be chosen by the Patriotic Fund. It is left pretty largely to their judgment.
On section 1-In case of need Governor in Council may pay sums not exceeding $900,000 to Corporation.


Mr. LOGAN:: The Canadian Patriotic Fund is a great institution. It did remarkably fine work during the war for which the country owes it a great debt of gra-tutide. But, Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Patriotic Fund in the majority of places has been absolutely demobilized. It was not intended to be a peace organization. But although this is a splendid institution and did extremely good work during the war, at the present time I doubt very much whether it is wise to give it all this money. I find a bill introduced by the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in connection with the Canadian Red Cross Society empowering it to do the very work that is intended to be done by the Patriotic Fund. Then why select the Canadian Patriotic Fund, which is operating only in the larger places. In many small towns and villages you will not find any Patriotic Fund society functioning to-day. Therefore I submit that some of this $900,000 might well be given to the Red Cross or some other institution such as the Knights of Columbus, who are taking a very keen interest in our peace problems. But if you want to do really good work for the unem-

ployed-and I say this from the bottom of my heart-give a portion of this $900,000 to the Salvation Army. After all, this is the best institution to look after our unemployed, for those in charge of it know the needs and troubles of ordinary men probably better than any other institution in the world.


William Irvine: I am not entirely clear
what this vote is for, but I understand it is intended for the Patriotic Fund, and I am wondering if the money is to be spent for the purpose of giving relief to unemployed returned soldiers who are not disabled. If that is the purpose, I have a few remarks to make. I understand that at the close of the war the Patriotic Fund had in hand some $7,000,000, and decided to look after the dependents of returned soldiers who had not been provided for by the statutory regulations. I am informed that this entails an annual liability of about half a million dollars, and that at the present moment the Fund has in hand over four and a half million dollars. If that be so, then it has sufficient money to keep going for about nine years. I may be wrong, but it seems to me there must be some intention of enlarging the scope of the activities of this organization and of asking it to administer relief to unemployed. If so, that relief could only go to returned soldiers, because the charter of this organization does not permit it to deal with anybody else. If, then, this relief is to go to returned soldiers only, what about all the other unemployed? So far as I am aware, there has been no provision made for unemployment generally; I do not think any solution of the unemployed problem has been made from the point of view of returned soldiers on the one hand and other classes on the other. If we are to deal with this question at all we should deal with it from the national point of view. If this legislation is to relieve unemployment I want to oppose it, first, because this organization lacks administrative facilities. It has a head office, with, I think branch offices in each province, and its administrative services would depend upon local voluntary committees. Now, local voluntary committees have not given satisfaction in the past. While, no doubt, their intentions were the very best, they were more or less unaccustomed to that kind of work and they performed it in the sense of giving charity. They sometimes ask

I was going to say impertinent questions about certain things belonging to

Patriotic Fund
people in need of relief. They would condition the relief to be extended on the possession by these people of certain articles. They would ask, for instance, if the person whose case was being inquired into had a piano; and if he did they would say: "You do not need relief if you have a piano." That sort of thing gave a good deal of dissatisfaction among the returned soldiers largely through the charitable nature of the administration of the work of this organization. I therefore say that satisfactory results would not be produced if relief to returned soldiers were administered under this organization. Further, we should not distinguish between returned soldiers and other unemployed persons excepting only the cases of returned soldiers suffering from a disability. Every ablebodied returned man should be placed on the same basis as any other workingman; if he is not, a great deal of dissatisfaction and suspicion between one workingman and another will be created. If one workingman is receiving relief where another is not, there will be trouble. It might be possible under that arrangement to give relief to returned men who had no dependents at all while a married civilian with a large family and in need of relief would not get any assistance. If this money is to be paid out by the patriotic fund organization for unemployment relief, its scope should be extended to meet all cases of unemployment. I must always say "if", because I am not certain of this. If it is not to be expended in relieving unemployment, I hope I will be corrected.


Henri Sévérin Béland: None of this money will be used to relieve unemployment.


William Irvine: May I ask, then, what it will be used for?


Henri Sévérin Béland: To relieve sick soldiers and their dependents.


William Irvine: Am I correct in saying that they have already $4,000,000 in the treasury?


Henri Sévérin Béland: 


William Irvine: Then I cannot see the necessity for this legislation, especially if they are expending only $500,000 annually. That is why I made the remarks I did; I could not see the necessity of this provision unless it was intended to carry on relief work. If I am assured that no relief work is intended, then I do not need to prolong my remarks. Otherwise I would have had something more to say on the matter.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is a fact that the Patriotic Fund has $4,500,000 left. The activities of the Patriotic Fund have been confined to the returned men; none of their money is being used to relieve unemployment. The main purpose of their expenditure is in relieving the families of sick soldiers-the sick soldiers themselves and their dependents. My hon. friend seems to think that if the patriotic fund has $4,500,000 left it should ask for no more money. The association is really not. asking for further money, but the executive council of the association have come to the conclusion that they cannot under present conditions extend to what they call emergency cases the assistance which they have heretofore extended. In his very clear statement the other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) referred to the classes of persons which are the subject of the association's activities. First, there are the continuous cases, and then there are the emergency cases. The class of continuous cases they consider as having a first lien upon their funds. For the information of the committee I will give a concrete case. A returned soldier who had been in good health until a year ago lost both his legs through an accident, thus sustaining a disability in no way attributable to his war service. This man and his family were therefore placed in the most pitiful condition.


William Irvine: I am glad to know that attention has been given to returned soldiers; I concur in that. But would the returned soldier whose case the minister has cited be any worse off than the ordinary workingman who might meet with a similar accident? And if you are going to vote public money to look after the one, why not vote public money to look after the other?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend seems to take the position that we should not help anybody if we do not help all. But if the one class only should be helped, my hon. friendi will be the first to admit that the returned man should first be attended to. That does not mean that the Government should not come to the relief of the other, but I say that the point made by my hon. friend, who has a logical mind generally, is not well taken. Let me explain further the activities of the Canadian Patriotic Fund. These continuous cases are considered as a first lien on the fund. The case of the man who lost both his legs is being relieved and will be until his death,
Patriotic Fund

I might say, and his wife and dependent children will be looked after until they are in a position to provide for themselves? It is a continuing case, and there are a large number of cases of that kind throughout the Country. The organization consider that they are obliged to support these cases to the end. Considering the funds that remain at their disposal, and after having had some actuarial work done, they have come to the conclusion that is impossible for them to discharge their obligations to this class of cases unless they give up the emergency cases.
What is an emergency case? It would be, for example, the case of a soldier who, in good health yesterday, is suddenly taken ill to-day with pneumonia and laid up, absolutely unable to provide for himself and family. The Patriotic Fund steps in and helps him provide for medical assistance and subsistence for himself and his wife and family until he has recovered and is in a position to resume his occupation. The Patriotic Fund has come to the conclusion that they are no longer able to attend to these emergency cases. They are not coming to the Government asking for money or assistance. They have simply laid the facts before the Government, and the Government has come to the conclusion that as the Patriotic Fund has the machinery to continue this emergency work, we should step in and provide the amount spent last year. My hon. friend may look upon the figure as being extraordinary, and indeed, $900,000 is a large amount of money, but I asked the officials of the association what amount they had spent during last year, and their answer was that they had spent on an average $80,000 a month on emergency cases. Then the question for the Government to decide was whether we should allow the care of these emergency cases to fall back upon public authorities, municipal, provincial or federal, or come to the assistance of the Fund and provide the money they have expended, and expended to the satisfaction, I believe, of everyone concerned. That is the situation.


Hance James Logan: Suppose an emergency
case arises in a place where there is no Patriotic Fund.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The idea is that the Government by providing the amount that was spent last year will enable them to carry on exactly the same work they were doing last year. It is possible that the

Patriotic Fund may decide to extend their activities to places where they are not represented so far. They may be able to do that if the emergency cases diminish to a certain degree in the larger cities. I grant you that their activities have been largely confined to the larger cities and towns, but I know of cases in the smaller towns which have been relieved by the Patriotic Fund.
As to the discrimination between the returned soldier and the ordinary emergency case, the Patriotic Fund has nothing to do with the ordinary emergency case. The only cases that they consider are returned soldier eases. Are we going to step in and say to the Patriotic Fund: You should look after the unemployed and any emergency cases that arise among civilians. That would be contrary to their act of incorporation and against their regulations. Their activities are confined to the returned men, and that is why the money has been granted. Emergency cases outside of the returned soldier class is another matter entirely, and a matter for further consideration, and for the time being I am not in a position to elaborate any policy in that respect to my hon. friend.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: The
Patriotic Fund, if I recollect correctly, was formed for the purpose of dealing with cases of necessity that arose during the period of the war. The organization extended generally throughout the whole country, but when the war ended the organization entirely disappeared in many parts of the country. The ladies who had been interested in its operation ceased to take any part in carrying on the work because entirely new conditions had arisen. This is a very large sum of money, and I do think that the committee should have information before it as to the parts of Canada where the Patriotic Fund is still in operation. I think we are entitled to more information than the minister has given us before we are asked to vote approximately $1,000,000 to be distributed in various parts of the country. I know that in our part of the country the organization has disappeared. It may be that in other parts of Canada, particularly in the larger cities, certain well-disposed people have maintained the organization.
Closely allied with this question, is the larger question of the unemployed and the aid which this country may be called upon to give in that connection during the coming year. The case as put by the minister

Patriotic Fund
appeals to my sympathy in a general way. The statement has been made that the Patriotic Fund has $4,500,000 in its possession. That is a very large amount, and if the benefits that flow from the expenditure of this money are confined to a few localities in the country, you will naturally have men and women in those parts of the country where the fund is not operating, and who might otherwise receive assistance from it, point to the fact that the Government is coming to the assistance of people in other localities, but not in theirs. We ought to know in what parts of Canada this organization is now operating, and we should be able to exercise our judgment after that information is obtained. I submit that the bill ought to remain in committee until we have the facts before us.


Mr. MANION:: I should like to say a
few words about this organization. I remember well when the Patriotic Fund was formed during the war. It may be of interest to the committee to explain that when the war ceased the Patriotic Fund, which had collected funds throughout this country*, had in their possession about $7,000,000,000, and it was decided at that time that the organization should go on, utilizing the interest on that principal, and possibly a part of the principal, for purposes of relief in such cases as were not reached by the ordinary departments of the Government, such cases, for instance, as the minister cited a few moments ago. Sir Herbert Ames, who took a very prominent part in the work of , the Patriotic Fund, was the one to organize this post-war relief organization which continued the work of the Patriotic Fund. The matter was gone into very thoroughly for some weeks'-it was in the old Museum building I remember-and the returned soldiers many of whom were in the House at that time, were very pleased with the organization. Now if, as my hon. friend states, there are some sections of the country to-day that are not being served by this organization it is no doubt the fault of those particular districts themselves. For example just the other day I had a letter from a man who was a returned soldier and who was sick in one of the Toronto hospitals. His wife was also sick in a place near Regina-I have forgotten the exact locality but it was some little village not far from Regina. I took the matter up with the Patriotic Fund people here in Ottawa and they wrote out
to their branch nearest the little town where the woman lived, and they provided her with help. I know this to be a fact because the woman's husband' was in my office- a few days ago and told me that the Patriotic Fund had given his wife a good deal of assistance. That is just one instance of the work being done. There are many cases of returned soldiers and their families who will come under an organization of this kind. Let me give a further illustration: A man who has been receiving a pension dies and his family become more or less destitute. If he has not died from war disability there is no provision made that I know of whereby that man's family is looked after, and there may be a period-it may be only a few months! perhaps it may be a few years-during which those people will require some help.'. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Irvine) suggests that that should be done for everybody. I agree with that principle* but unfortunately the country cannot follow it at the present time. However, I believe that in the case of the men who served overseas and risked their lives for this country and the cause of liberty, if we can get the country to aid them and their dependents we should attempt to do it. The granting of assistance by the Government to the amount of $900,000 is rather a surprise to me; I did not know they had intended doing anything of the sort. I am speaking of the principle involved in a general way. I believe the principle is an excellent one, and that this organization should be carried on for the assistance of the returned soldiers and their dependents who do not happen to come under any fund in any branch of the Government at the present time. As a general rule I am very pleased to give whatever support I can to the minister on an occasion of this kind, and I am sure that my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and my hon, friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) will take the same view. If there are parts of the country that are not being served by this patriotic fund I think it can be taken for granted that, that service will be extended to them-I think I am correct in the statement-by establishing in those districts branches such as now exist in other parts of the country. In my own city at the' present time practically the same organization exists which existed throughout the war. There may have been some slight change in the officers but the organization is still there1 carrying on its work. I know that on many occasions I have had the dependent of a soldier write
Patriotic Fund

me and tell me of some pitiful case and I immediately referred it to this branch of the patriotic fund. I know, the organization has done a good piece of work in my own city, and I am sure it performs the same type of work in other parts of the country.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would like to say a word or two about the work of the Patriotic Fundi. Immediately after the war the organization which was being carried on temporarily, and without any expense to the public, was, to a certain extent, broken up. A central organization was formed which divided the country into districts, and you will find to-day that the organization is in touch with many parts of the country which we do not perhaps hear much about. There are representatives of the Patriotic Fund in different parts of Canada covering not one but two or three counties. They look after all these deserving cases, and I think that the minister will find there' is a fairly good organization yet. Although they have not by any means the number of branches that existed during the war yet the central parts of the country are looked after by some central representative of this organization and1 every meritorious case is dealt with. Manitoba has its own organization, but the rest of the Dominion is looked after by the Patriotic Fund; and I am sure representatives of this fund will be found in Nova Scotia who look after large areas embracing two or three counties.


William Irvine: I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation the minister gave. I wish first of all to make it clear to the committee that I am certainly not opposed to doing the very best for the returned soldier in any way whatsoever. It is not that you are giving him more money than I want you to give, nor giving him better attention than I want him to receive- that is not my point of contention at all. If it comes down to this that we cannot help everybody and we should therefore help those that are most in need then I am willing to say that the returned soldier should receive the help. But that is not the point I have in mind. I want to show this: First, if there is going to be an emergency case, would not the Patriotic Fund consider the case of a man who had not had work, say for some months, who had no coal to put in the stove, and no food for his family, to be an emergency case? And if they help that man who is in that condition, because of unemployment, would

it not be unemployment relief? There is my first point. The next is, that I claim that this organization-while it may have done very necessary work during the war- work which the government was slow in undertaking-although it has done that excellent work, I am prepared to say that the organization is not efficient. It does not hold the confidence of the returned soldiers themselves. It does not hold the confidence of the returned soldier, therefore its work will not be appreciated in a manner that will give the highest satisfaction. Moreover it is really not a national organization to-day. If you are going to spend this money for emergency cases- such as those explained by the minister, or for any other purpose in regard to returned men-then I would suggest that you allow the returned soldiers' organization to spend this money itself. It is a national organization. The G.W.V.A. are organized all over this country. They know the cases of their brother returned men better than any society people of this country, and I suggest that you spend this money-if you are going to vote it-through the G.W.V.A. organization of this country. One other point. I do not think that the returned soldiers of Canada want to get charity. I think if they are subject, as they are, to accident and to come under this emergency measure, so is every other citizen of this country; and if you assume the working conditions to be such that every man who has the misfortune to suffer an accident ought to be a subject for this particular relief, make it so that he will get that relief, and you will satisfy the returned soldiers. I claim in conclusion that they do not want anything that savours of charity handed out by a charity organization that does not have sufficient machinery to administer the funds that you are going to place at their command. Next, I say, if you are going to spend this money for the returned soldier, expend it through the returned soldiers' organization.


Thomas George McBride: I do not think the hon. member (Mr. Irvine) has ever taken a very active part in the Patriotic Fund, or helped people connected with that fund or he would not have talked as he has done. I may say that while I have not been very actively identified with its work, I did considerable collecting in one way and another when the war was on, and I wish to state that there was a class of people identified with this work animated by the very highest motives they were people whose loyalty

Patriotic Fund
money would not purchase. They were working from a patriotic standpoint, they were men and women who were above reproach, and so far as I know the organization out West is still in existence. I am not going to take up the time of the House, it is not my custom to do so, but I wish to refer to a case that was brought to my attention some time ago. It was the case of a man who had served four years overseas. He was discharged and after he came back was working for about two and a half years, when he developed asthma. Under the present laws he could not get any assistance in the way of a pension. I took the matter up with the Pension Board in Ottawa, and with the Minister of Health (Dr. Beland), but did not succeed in getting any relief. That man cannot work and is at present in the hospital. Now the people in charge of the Patriotic Fund are looking after his wife and three children. They are visited regularly by representatives of the Patriotic Fund; they not only get assistance but they receive attention. Out in British Columbia people of the highest type are connected with the organization and they give their services without any hesitation to the cause of the returned soldier. It has been said by an hon. member that all classes of people should come in. I say that the returned soldier has a special claim on this country. He did a special work for the country overseas. I am not going to slight men that are out of work, but I know men here were earning $3 to $5 a day when returned soldiers were being paid $1 a day. Should these men who remained at home be placed on the same level as the man who risked his life for his country? I do not think so. I think the returned soldier should receive first consideration every time. The organization out west, as far as I know, is quite capable of taking charge of the funds, and giving the country a good service.


Hance James Logan: The hon. member represents one of the largest constituencies in Canada. How many Patriotic Fund societies are there in his constituency, at the present time, which are actually at work?


Thomas George McBride: One at Kamloops and there was one at Merritt.


Hance James Logan: There was one.


Thomas George McBride: Yes, a year ago there was still one at Merritt, and there was one
at Prince George when I was there two years ago. I understand that it is still in existence; in fact, they were talking to me about it when I was up there, before coming to Ottawa.


Hance James Logan: I think the hon. member's answer is a fairly good argument against granting $900,000 to one institution. The Patriotic Fund societies in his large constituency seem to have ceased to function. My criticism is that this institution has become, to a certain extent, defunct in a large part of Canada, particularly in the small villages, small towns and country places. I am not objecting to the amount of $900,000, because there is no doubt that sum is required, but I say that we should not vote the whole $900,000 to one institution which is strong in the large cities, but in the towns, villages and country places has become a thing of the past. We have in those places Red Cross Societies doing splendid work, being reorganized again to-day just as strong as ever-organized for peace as well as they were for war. Why vote all this money to one institution and ignore all other institutions which can better carry out the purpose for which this bill is introduced?


George Black: If there is one item which should pass, it seems to me it is this small vote of $900,000 to the Patriotic Fund. To say that that fund does not reach all parts of Canada is not correct. Speaking for a constituency about in the same latitude as that which the hon. member from Cariboo (Mr. McBride) represents, I may say I have the honour to be one of the original directors of the Canadian Patriotic Fund. The constituency of the Yukon subscribed sufficient to take care of all the cases there, and they sent thousands of dollars to the fund at Ottawa. It reaches the class of people and cases which none of the government institutions could reach, and it is meant to fake care of soldiers' families who need help, in addition to the separation allowance and the soldiers' pay. I say that that institution in the various constituencies of Canada today does a work which no other institution can. It includes all sects. People who belong to various institutions, such as have been mentioned to-night, are all represented in that fund. There is no branch of that fund existing in this or that small town. The matter of organizing one and getting the benefit of $900,000 and additional funds
Patriotic Fund.

which may he subscribed in the various localities is a mere matter of detail, and can be arranged. I submit the motion should go through, and, if anything can (be added to it, all right.


Mr. KNOX:: I wish to say that I had a case a year ago where a returned soldier had died of "flu," and left a widow with a number of small children unprovided for. There was no possibility of getting a pension for them, and 'I took the matter up with the headquarters of the Patriotic Fund in Ottawa, and by referring the case back to some people in the city of Prince Albert, who knew the circumstances, I secured a pension for her, of, I think, $75 a month. I point this out as an instance of the good that may be done by a vote of this kind, and I give it my support.


Hance James Logan: Was it a pension from the Patriotic Fund?


Andrew Knox: Yes.


Mr. BROWN:: I am not sure that the objection taken by the hon. gentleman from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) is altogether well founded, -but these institutions are not locally organized to the extent that they were during the war. It is hardly to be expected that that fervor should continue, and that these organizations should exist in such large numbers as they did, but the fact that this organization is in existence, even in the larger cities, I think, warrants the belief that it is prepared to carry out the work that is entrusted to it. What seems to me most necessary is that the people through the country should be well informed in regard to the privilege and the opportunity they may have of having distress relieved, and, if -the members of this House would make it a point to fully inform their constituents of the privileges that are available to them, it seems to me there is no reason why this fund, as already organized, should not meet the needs which it was specially intended to meet.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Might I ask the minister if the Canadian Patriotic Fund will bo called upon to account to this Government for the funds received and the disposition thereof, and if not, if the minister has considered the advisability of having this fund disbursed by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, I think I may answer my hon. friend that the Patriotic

Fund sends the Government a synopsis and a report of its work. This association is in a position to carry on this work more economically than any Government agency. That will be adfriitted. The second point is that on every important committee of the Patriotic Fund the G.W.V.A. is represented. If this money were to be given to the G.W.V.A., or if we had proposed this evening to appropriate $900,000 to the G.W.V.A., my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) would have asked: "what about the Grand Army of United Veterans, and what about the Army and Navy Veterans? You are discriminating."


William Irvine: Does not the hon. gentleman think it would be an excellent way to unite them all?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It would be mighty difficult.


Mr. LEWIS:: In regard to this $4,500,000, is it at the present time let uot as a loan, or is it bearing interest?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Oh yes, it is bearing interest. I do not know at what rate.


Arthur John Lewis: It would mean $225,000 interest. Are they utilizing this interest at the same time? I want to say as far as the value of the work is concerned, the Red Cross is practically doing the work you speak of as being done by the Patriotic Fund Association. For that reason it seems to me that the Red Cross is also deserving of help from this Government, and if it would be possible to give $200,000 to the Red Cross, it would be a good disposition of the money because that is the institution that is reaching the men in the villages and rural places. I believe the larger institution is naturally working in the more congested places in the cities. In the rural places, and also -in the small villages, there is still work to be done which falls on the Red Cross Society.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



THE INCOME WAR TAX ACT, 1917, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 187 to amend the Income War Tax Act, 1917, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-Exemption in respect of children.

Income War Tax Act
William Stevens Fielding: As I have already explained, it is not the purpose of the Government to undertake a general revision of, or make extensive changes in, the Income War Tax Act. I have no doubt that in a matter of such importance many hon. members may have in mind changes they would like to suggest. For myself, I have always felt that the forms of return and so forth were rather cumbersome, but it may be that in the light of experience these difficulties will be found unavoidable. However, that may be, I did not attempt to deal exhaustively with that question. There are three or four outstanding points, however, that are dealt with that are not likely to be the cause of any difference in the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon.
friend, I think, has covered some of the cases I drew to his attention in the budget debate. If I read the bill properly I think he has covered the case of widowers and widows with dependents, as well as others having indigent and ill relations depending on them.


William Stevens Fielding: It is broadened a little in that respect.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes; and the case of commercial travellers and others in a similar position is also dealt with.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It appears, however, that the scolding that we got in regard to the form of returns has been groundless. The minister will find it pretty hard to improve upon what he has already got.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not attempted to do so, and my hon. friend may be quite right. We look at the matter from a different point of view; but if it is found possible to make improvements that will be done. I know there is a widespread opinion that the present system of making up returns is cumbersome and irritating, but it may be that we cannot help it. I hope, however, before another session comes that we may be able to investigate the matter, and if we cannot do better I shall have to acknowledge that I was mistaken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I, too, hope that my hon. friend Will be able to do better, because we are getting more experience every day. But I did not think that he would be able to do it in six months. Now, I wonder Whether the minister has been thinking of the necessity for amending the bill having regard to
cases where the income, which would otherwise be liable to taxation, is held by incorporated companies-that is to say, companies incorporated for the purpose of receiving and holding income on which the taxpayer would otherwise have to pay a tax. This is a matter I have always had before me in the past. Looking at the returns I was not in a position to say that any ratepayer was incorporating companies for the purpose of defrauding the revenue, but it is an evil that has to be watched for. Has the minister considered the advisability of amending the act to meet the case? In other words, does he find that ratepayers are taking advantage of the incorporation of companies for the purpose of avoiding taxation?


William Stevens Fielding: I think there have been some cases, and1 my hon. friend is right; the matter needs to be carefully watched and looked into. We are not able to deal with it in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Travelling expenses:
An hon. MEMBER:: Does this apply to railway men?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is intended to cover trainmen and commercial travellers.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, that is the intention.


Thomas George McBride: Does this exemption apply to railwaymen, engineers, conductors, etc.? These men are put to a lot of extra expense when they are away from home, and they should be allowed a reduction of at least $300 a year.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It applies to them.


William Stevens Fielding: It is intended to cover trainmen.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Normal tax on person not resident in Canada and not a British subject:
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the object of the reservation as to proclamation?
On section 5-Banks not now entitled to former deductions:


William Stevens Fielding: This relates to a provision which to our regret was inserted in the American law by which Canadians on our border line are placed at a disadvantage. We want to think it was a
Income War Tax Act

mistake, but a resolution having been already adopted in the House to say that we shall have a similar provision in our law, we are giving effect to it by this amendment. We hope that on the representations now being made to the American government they will change their legislation in that respect, but if they decline I suppose we will have to put this into operation.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that the forms prescribed for agriculturalists are almost not understandable by them. I have helped a great many to prepare their income tax returns, and I know many others have had to pay a fee to have the forms properly completed for the income tax department. Is it not possible to so prepare a form for agricultural people that they can easily comprehend it and complete the return themselves?


William Stevens Fielding: I recall that in this and other respects there is a good deal of dissatisfaction over the forms. Some portion of these returns which is demanded may be unavoidable. All I can do is to assure my hon. friend that in the interim we will look into the matter very carefully.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask my hon. friend to go further and give a general invitation to every member of the House to send in forms which he thinks would suit.


William Stevens Fielding: Did my hon. friend give that invitation when he Was Minister of Finance?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: And did he get any response?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I got no forms.


William Stevens Fielding: He cannot expect me to be more successful now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask my hon. friend to give that general invitation.


William Stevens Fielding: I do now.


Robert Gardiner: Has the hon. minister taken into consideration that members of provincial legislatures have to spend a great deal of their indemnity in looking after the interests of their constituents?


William Stevens Fielding: Do my hon. friend's remarks refer entirely to the members of provincial legislatures?


Robert Gardiner: I am speaking on their behalf at the present time.


William Stevens Fielding: I have heard a gentle suggestion that some consideration should be allowed to members of this legislature; but the suggestion regarding the members of provincial legislatures is quite new to me.


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


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. D. D. McKenzie (Solicitor General) the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 92 to amend the Dominion Elections Act was read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. D. D. McKenzie (Solicitor General) the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 124 to amend the Escheats Act was read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 133 to regulate the sale and inspection of root vegetables.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister promised to give some consideration as to the last section of that bill, which provided for repealing part of an old act, which I urged upon him should not be done at this time. I hope he will allow Section 22 of the old act to stand.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: When this bill was in committee I promised that I would not ask for its third reading until two sections were further explained. The first of these was Section 13, as to the meaning of which there was some doubt. I find that the meaning is just as I intimated yesterday, namely, that all potatoes and roots shall be sold by the pound with the two exceptions stated here, that is, green vegetables and potatoes sold by the closed barrel. I think that is quite satisfactory, as the cubic capacity of the barrel is designated. With regard to Clause 2 referred to by my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), if it were cut out we would have four different acts

Oleomargarine
dealing with this question, which would be an impossible situation. The very passing of this legislation necessitates the repeal of parts of three other acts. Consequently this section should remain. I think the bill is all right as it stands, and I would therefore move that it now be read the third time.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the reason for this?


William Richard Motherwell: Complaint has been made that when a customer goes to buy a small quantity of vegetables and they are not sold by weight he does not know what he is getting. A bag of potatoes is usually looked upon as containing 90 pounds, but in some cities an 80 pound bag is recognized.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I agree with the minister that this cuts out Section 22 which states that 60 pounds of potatoes is a bushel. I asked the minister last night if it would not be possible to have this still apply to local sales. I do not think that would affect the present act, otherwise I would not suggest it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind the hon. member that the committee stage is now passed. The only question that can now be raised is whether or not the bill should be recommitted and a motion would have to be made to that effect. I mention this simply to point out that hon. members may speak only once on the third reading; there can be no discursive arguments as in the committee stage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



OLEOMARGARINE ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 194, to amend the The Oleomargarine Act, 1919.
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: Mr. Speaker, I fully expected that the Minister of Agriculture Mr. Motherwell) would say something before the bill received its second reading. This is the only opportunity we shall have of discussing the merits of the bill. I did hope, when the second reading of the bill was adjourned last night that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) would be present on the occasion of the second reading, in view of the attitude he took a year ago and also when the resolution was before the House.


George Perry Graham: That was not the reason given by my hon. friend last night.


Donald Sutherland: No; I have not had an opportunity of looking over the bill since. The bill contains nothing but a provision for a continuance of the regulations for another year-the regulations being, I assume, those that were in existence a year ago. I can see in my mind's eye the Minister of Agriculture standing up last night, waving this bill before the House, and characterizing it as a "rotten old bill," on which the House was asked to vote. Now, it is going pretty far for the Government to ask Parliament to adopt a measure which is characterized by the mover of it as a "rotten old bill". It is pretty nearly the border-line of anything that has ever happened before in Parliament.
Now, 1 am not going to take up very much of the time of the House to-night because this matter-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friends to my left applaud that statement, and well .they might, in view of the assertion made by their leader last night that ever since this bill came before Parliament it was the sense of Parliament that the provision should be made permanent. It was upon the recommendation of the hon. leader of the Progressive party that the measure was by Order in Council adapted in the first instance. At the next session Parliament was told clearly and distinctly that the measure was a temporary one, necessitated by the exigencies of the war. At the next session the same thing was repeated, and on that occasion I predicted that this procedure would continue for a little while and eventually we would be asked to make this a permanent measure.
Now, I am inclined to agree with the Minister of Agriculture in what he stated last night in regard to the dairying industry. Any one who has looked over the returns of the imports into this country during 1914 and throughout the last few years cannot but be alarmed by the extent to which we are to-day buying our d'airy products from foreign countries, particularly from the United States. Only an hour or two ago we passed a provision under the budget proposals exempting from sales and inland revenue taxation all ingredients that enter into the manufacture of this article. The Minister of Finance states that this is a legitimate article of food and that it in no way interferes with
Oleomargarine

the dairying industry. My contention all along was that oleomargarine as manufactured in this country is not oleomargarine at all but is simply a process by which butter is adulterated by the addition thereto of cheap ingredients by the manufacturers. The manufacturers of this product receive an advantage over any other class of manufacturers in this country. They alone are permitted to adulterate butter- and there are strict regulations in regard to the manufacture of butter in this country, the result being that those who buy butter know what they are purchasing. This article of food, if it is as good as they say it is, what harm would be done if there was stamped upon the containers in which it is put up a statement giving the proportions of the different ingredients entering into its manufacture, so that the purchaser might know what he was paying for? That, would be a reasonable thing to do, and would bring no hardship to anybody. I believe that the Government are determined to put this measure through this session, and I advise them to consider this suggestion. It is done in connection with many other commodities under the Pure Foods Act; it is done in the case of patent medicines and it is done in the case of fertilizers. I believe greater fraud is being perpetrated on the people of this country in regard to this article of food than is the case with any other product. Why was it that last year we lost $200,000 of revenue collected in the form of duty but refunded to the two manufacturers of this article, at a time when the resources of our country are strained as they are? That is something I quite fail to understand, particularly in view of the fact that nearly all this stuff comes from the United States. There is a measure before the United 'States Senate to-day the object of which is to place a duty upon oleomargarine and all butter substitutes, as well as butter itself, to the extent of 8 cents a pound. That is practically a prohibition on our butter; it will not now be able to find a market in the United States; yet you are going to permit all these raw materials to be brought into Canada and to enter into competition with a Canadian industry that is struggling for existence. I ask, is that fair? I would like the minister to consider the advisability of incorporating in his regulations some such provision as they have in the United States and in other countries-because a tax of ten cents a pound is imposed on oleomargarine manufactured in the United States if it is coloured to look like butter.

In order to protect the people of that country it was found necessary to impose a tax of quarter of a cent of a pound on the stuff. We are told that this is the only country where this article of food' is subject to such stringent regulations. I made the statement when the resolution -was before the House that the manufacturers of oleomargarine in this country enjoy greater privilege and greater freedom in the manufacture of this stuff than anywhere else in the world. They are in absolute control of the situation. It is true that some veterinary inspectors are appointed to look after the manufacture of this article in the packing houses, but I do not know that a veterinarian is a very competent judge of what should constitute food for human consumption. He may be able to treat animals for disease, or a dog for fleas or something of that kind, but I do not think he is a competent man to judge whether an article is fit for human consumption. We have a department of Health, and I cannot understand why this article has not been referred to them long ago for analysis, to find out just what it consists of. We are giving the manufacturers all these liberties-I see some hon. gentlemen opposite smiling, among them the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who loudly denounced this iniquitous measure a year ago. I remember how he denounced it as an injustice to the dairying interests of this country.


Mr. ROBB:: I remember very well my hon. friend's speech of last year in opposition to this measure. Will he say that he voted against it when it came to a vote?


Donald Sutherland: I certainly did,
and I moved an amendment. The chairman of the Agricultural Committee also loudly denounced this measure, yet to-day he is absolutely willing to let it go through without a protest. What a change in hon. gentlemen opposite since they have taken seats on the right hand of the Speaker. The hon. member for Joliette also denounced this measure, as well as many other hon. members opposite who are now willing to let it pass without a protest.
Under the conditions that prevail in this country we are asked to continue this measure for another year. That is the very thing the Minister of Finance denounced last year. He said the measure should be made permanent. Yet now he is willing to have it extended for another year. Apparently this is a compromise,

Oleomargarine
and I am afraid that it is the Progressive party who are dictating the policy of today. I cannot understand the present attitude of the Minister of Finance and of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and of the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy), who also denounced this measure strongly last year. Yet his voice is silent now. I do not intend to move an amendment to-night.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I voted against the resolution, but as it passed, does not my hon. friend think it is a waste of time to be opposing this measure now?


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend
is very anxious to save time when it suits his purpose.


Jacques Bureau: Time is money.


Donald Sutherland: I would suggest to the minister that perhaps he may see fit to incorporate in the bill when we go into committee the resolution that I moved a year ago, which reads:
Section seven of the said act is amended 'by adding thereto the following words "and are also marked or labelled with a statement of the ingredients and the iproport'cn of each ingredient used 'in making the oleomargarine contained therein".
This I think would [DOT] overcome all objection to the measure, because I am not, and never have been, arguing against the exclusion of oleomargarine or the prohibition of its manufacture in this country, but under present conditions I think it is a very short-sighted and foolish policy for this Government to permit the bulk of this stuff to be brought in here from the United States and be manufactured in the two large packing houses which are carrying on the business in this country, in competition with the products of those who are very seriously handicapped by the conditions I have referred to.
Comparing 1914 with 1922, in 1914 there were 91,900 pounds of butter imported into Canada. During last year there was imported into Canada from Great Britain 2,163,984 pounds of butter. There was also imported from the United States 1,100,781 pounds more than was imported in 1914.
I have very imperfectly endeavoured to point out the most objectionable features of this measure. This stuff is not being used as a spread for bread, as most people contend. We have the statement of the head of the Dairy Branch of the Department of Agriculture that over fifty per cent of this stuff is used for shortening and
cooking purposes. I pointed out last night, and I may as well refer to it again, that there were 41,102,118 pounds of butter, lard, and oleomargarine and lard compounds imported into this country free of duty and free of sales tax. Yet we heard the Minister of Justice claiming in this House the other day that the Liberal party was a free trade party, but that they were in favour of maintaining a reasonable amount of protection for the industries of this country. Those were not his exact words, but that was the only implication they carried, and I have no doubt that was the impression he desired to leave on the House. In the face of that statement, this stuff is coming in to-day absolutely free from the sales tax or restrictions of any kind, and at the same time it is handicapping and discouraging agriculture at a time when it needs encouragement more than ever from the hands of the Government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-time extended for importation, and sale:	1
Henry Lumley Drayton: Before the clause carries, I would ask the minister a question. He stated in the House last night that he was introducing a rotten old bill. I wonder if he has re-vamped it.


Donald Sutherland: Has it decayed
any more since last night, or is it in better health ?


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from 'Committee of Supply.
Resolutions concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
TWENTY-tSIXTH ANNIVERSARY OF ENTRY INTO PARLIAMENT
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on this the 26th anniversary of your entry into this Parliament.


Hewitt Bostock: I thank the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for his kind words of congratulation, and the House, generally, for joining in the words of the Prime Minister. I feel that I am as young as I was twenty-six years ago. I am bound to say thig: That there

Peace Treaties

is no senatorship, no judgeship, no governorship comparable to the friendship of the hon. members of this House. As long as Providence and my electors send me to Parliament, I shall remain here. The greatest honour that could he bestowed on me after twenty-six years of parliamentary life is the speakership of the House of Commons, where I fully realize that service must after all be the guiding star of the public man. I thank you for your great kindness and courtesy during the session.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 1 a.m. Saturday.
Saturday, June 24, 1922.