[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) presented the third report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.
First report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Harris.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) :: I move that the supplementary estimates which have been reported this day by the select standing committee on railways and shipping be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), I desire to lay upon the table orders in council numbers 439, 445, 449, 469, 509, 545, 736, 742, 766, 767 and 772, passed under the authority of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932.
I may say with respect to one of those orders in council dealing with Esquimalt, a question was asked the other day as to whether any new authorizations would be made. This is not a new authorization, but it contemplates $16,000 of an authorized expenditure of $191,000 being expended at this point rather than $31,000 as was originally intended. In other words, $15,000 will not be expended on repairing the dry dock and $16,000 will be spent on the dry dock grounds out of the original appropriation of $31,000, included in the $191,000. It is an entirely new item so far as items are concerned, but it does not increase the expenditure authorized.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: With regard to the tabling of orders in council from day to day, as only one copy is tabled, it is impossible for the different members who desire to see them to have that opportunity. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that they be printed either in the votes and proceedings or as an appendix to Hansard so that every hon. member will have an opportunity to study them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will be a matter for consideration.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Do all these orders in council deal merely with the expenditure of
1784 .
Criminal Code

money, or are there any passed under the provision respecting .peace, order and good government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is-and I think I am accurate-there is none of them dealing with other than the expenditure of money, and with respect to money expenditure the basis for all such expenditures except, I think, with respect to the item I mentioned, will 'be found in the printed report that has been before the house some time. When there is any order in council passed under the provision relating to peace, order and good government, I shall endeavour to direct special attention to it.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, to amend the criminal code (Trustees defined. Disposition of fines).
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The bill is rather a simple one. The first section provides for an amendment to the interpretation clause in regard to the word "trustee." "Trustee" in the criminal code is defined as a trustee appointed under deed, will or other instrument in writing. The amendment is to include trustees who will be named under an act of parliament.
The other amendment is in regard to the application of fines. Generally speaking, all fines imposed, save those in regard to revenue, go to the treasurers of the various provinces to be disposed of as they see fit. There is in the present section a special clause in regard to Ontario allowing certain fines to go to the municipalities. The idea is to put Ontario on the same basis as the other provinces in respect to these fines. The matter was litigated recently and a case went to the judicial committee last autumn in regard to a large fine which was imposed in Toronto some years ago.


Mr. FACTOR:: Under the new amendment will the fines go to the treasury of the province of Ontario?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, to be disposed of as the Ontario legislature may see fit.


Samuel Factor: It takes away the effect of the decision of the privy council in respect to the Jarvis case and re city of Toronto.


Mr. GEARY:: May I ask the minister if the proposed bill is to be made retroactive in any way?


Hugh Guthrie: No.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What is the amount of Canada's public debt at the present time?
2.	How much of this debt is owing inside Canada ?
3.	How much outside Canada?
4.	How much in New York?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1, 2, 3 and 4:
Unmatured funded debt:
Payable in Canada. . . .8 1,SSI,461,020 85 Payable in Canada and
New York	 131,040,900 00
Payable in New York. . .	240,000,000 00
Payable in London. . . . 311,668,136 39


S 2,564,170,057 24
[Stage Direction]
Less held in sinking funds	 62,387,324 01
$ 2,501,782,733 23 Temporary loan	 15,000,000 00
82,516,782,733 23
Mr. BOULANGER:: What was the total debt of Canada at the end of the fiscal year, March 31, 1932?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unmatured funded debt. .$2,564,170,057 24 Less held in sinking funds	 62,387,324 01
$2,501,782,733 23 Temporary loan	 15,000,000 00


$ 2,516,782,733 23 WESTERN RELIEF
Mr. BERTRAND:: 1.	Were the supplies to relieve the western people purchased by the Dominion relief committee?
2.	Were these purchases authorized by said committee?
3.	If so, how, where and by whom were they made?
4. How many car loads of supplies were purchased and sent to the west?
5.	Were said car loads of supplies carried free of charge by the railways?
6. What was the chief merchandise thus supplied?

C.N.R. Branch Lines


Mr. GOTT:: Of Ontario's donations of food to the west, what percentage was sent by the residents of Huron South?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to questions 17 and 18, may I say that the contribution of food made to the relief commission in Saskatchewan and to other portions of western Canada were made without reference to the federal government, and we are not in a position to answer those questions. The relief commission in Saskatchewan was appointed by the provincial authorities. I can give later, if it is so desired, a report as to the number of carloads that were shipped, but I cannot undertake to indicate in detail what the cars contained nor the points at which they originated.
Questions dropped.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my
right hon. friend if he would be able to give to the house at an early date-I would not expect an answer to-day-a statement of any further legislation that is likely to be brought down this session. We have now an indication of the budget resolutions to be considered, and the order paper, I think, contains mention of all other legislation of which we have had any intimation up to the present, apart from what may be based upon the reports of committees. If my right hon. friend could indicate at an early date what if anything in the way of further legislation is to be introduced, I think it would facilitate the work of the house generally.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was looking into that
matter to-day. The Department of Agriculture may have two or three bills, one of which I think will be laid before the house within the next day or two, and there may be other amendments of departmental measures from that department. There are also one or two other bills, departmental measures, and of course depending upon the progress of events there may be another measure for submission to the house with respect , to which I cannot say more than that it is a possibility. Beyond that, so far as I could ascertain at noon today, after carefully considering the matter for some time, while I do not wish to make a definite statement which the right hon. gentleman would not in any event accept, I can only say that so far as I know there is
no legislation to be brought down other than that I have mentioned.
The right hon. gentleman spoke of legislation based on the reports of committees. I made clear the other day that further legislation would be introduced with respect to the problems of unemployment and matters of that kind. I gathered from what was said that the right hon. gentleman included that in the measures he mentioned. If he did not,
I desire to indicate that on Saturday next I expect that representatives of all the provinces will be here, and that legislation will follow that conference of a character that cannot be wholly determined until such time as we have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the representatives of the provinces.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Railways by way of supplementing a question addressed to him yesterday by my genial friend the hon. member representing Antigo-nish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), lord high admiral of the north Atlantic fleet. I refer to the extension of chapter 34 of the statutes of 1929, under clause one of which the construction of a Canadian National branch line from Sunnybrae to Guysborough was authorized. I trust that the minister will be good enough to arrange for one year's extension of that act. I would also ask if he cannot give us some assurance that work on this branch line will soon be continued and pushed to completion. The road is now seventy-two per cent completed, and as the government is confronted with the problem of unemployment I suggest that here is a splendid opportunity of providing employment, now so urgent a matter.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The hon. member for
Pictou (Mr. Cantley) has drawn this matter to my attention on other occasions, and my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough also brought it up yesterday.


William Duff: And at other times too.


Robert James Manion: Yes, certainly.


William Duff: We are both interested in this, my hon. friend from Pictou and myself. There is no distinction between us in that respect.


Robert James Manion: I was not going to make
any distinction between the two as a matter of fact. In regard to the continuation of the
C.N.R. Branch Lines
/rn iTAXTn
UUlVliVi.VJiNO
construction, that branch line is in exactly the same position as all the other branch lines throughout the country in that continuation of construction depends to a certain extent upon general conditions in the coming months. Regarding the extension of the time for construction of the line which my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough mentioned yesterday, the government will bring in a bill some time this session to extend the time.



[Stage Direction]
REPORTED LAY-OFF OF SHOP WORKERS On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the
Minister of Railways if he can give us any information with regard to the reported layoff of large numbers of employees in the Canadian National Railway shops. Winnipeg I know is in consternation over the report.


Robert James Manion: This question was brought up in the house a couple of days ago by some other hon. member, and I pointed out then that a committee from the shops had been here and had gone on to Montreal and was dealing with the management, in whose hands, of course, rests this whole matter. I was advised by Mr. Hungerford to-day that the management are still dealing with the committee and they are hoping to get some sort of an arrangement which will be more satisfactory than the original proposal. That arrangement, of course, is a matter between the management and the committee, but like my hon. friend I trust that the result will be better than the proposal contained in the original statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I state
to the minister that I have had representations from both Edmonton and Stratford as to large numbers of railway employees being summarily laid off at both these cities, and the representations are to the effect that numbers of these men will become a public charge unless in some way arrangements can be made to have them retained at least on part time.
I hope that the minister is bringing that phase of the situation before the railway company.


Robert James Manion: I brought that phase to
the attention of the railway company some weeks ago because it had been brought to my attention-I do not exactly remember how- that a lay-off was likely to happen, and at that time the officers of the railway indicated that large numbers would have to be laid off.
I suggested to them that in view of the unem-

ployment situation they should endeavour to keep on as many employees as they possibly could, and their final proposition which was published in the press last Friday contemplated the laying off of only about half the number originally proposed to be laid off according to the statement of the railway officials to me. The men themselves agreed to a shorter working week, and the company decreased the number it proposed to lay off. But the committee is still negotiating with the management. I presume that Edmonton and the other point mentioned by my right hon friend are in exactly the same position as Winnipeg, and that whatever decision is arrived at in regard to Winnipeg will be applicable to the other shops throughout the country.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I heard the answer given by the Minister of Railways in regard to the completion of the Sunnybrae-Guysborough branch line. Do I understand the minister to say that so far as he is concerned he does not know whether this construction will proceed or not? Can he not give an answer to the effect, that it shall proceed?


Robert James Manion: I have already answered
the question of my hon. friend from North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) a couple of times, and the situation with regard to the Sunnybrae-Guysborough branch line is the same as that of all other branch lines. The management under present financial conditions do not recommend going ahead with construction of any branch lines, but providing conditions improve they may change their recommendation.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That is a very good
answer. Thank you.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I would ask the Minister of Finance if a cheque to cover the dominion share of the municipal expenditures incurred in British Columbia in connection with relief work,- the order in council for which was passed on March 2, has yet been sent; and, if not, when such moneys to cover the dominion's share of municipal expenditures will be sent?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The money was sent by wire I think on Monday last, very early in the week, at

Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection
all events. In fact, it was the first money that was forwarded after the bill received the royal assent.



NEW ZEALAND TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: Mav I ask
the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he expects to give the house any information on the New Zealand treaty?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, I expect to.


Samuel William Jacobs: This session or next?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Following the
question that has just been asked, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if it would not be possible to make some official statement before we resume the debate on the budget because the New Zealand treaty is necessarily a matter of which many of us would like to make mention at that time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I could not say definitely. We are awaiting some further word from New Zealand.



PETROLEUM AND NAPHTHA INSPECTION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. 20, to amend the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act-Mr. Ryckman-Mr. Tummon in the chair.
On section 1-Tests of petroleum.
Mr. RYCKMAN:: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was last before the committee I was troubled by some matters which appear to be cleared up in the general statute, chapter 159 of the revised statutes of Canada. First, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to clause 2 of the act, the interpretation clause, subsection (j), where specific gravity is defined. As mentioned by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly), it is quite true that these tests were taken at about 60 degrees. From section (j) I read the following:
"Specific gravity" means the weight of any fluid as compared with the weight of distilled water, both being at the temperature of 62 degrees by Fahrenheit's thermometer, the barometer standing at thirty inches; and specific gravity is expressed by stating in pounds and hundredths of a pound the weight of a gallon of the fluid compared or to be compared.
There is a schedule attached to the act, which defines the mode of testing, and specifies
the pyrometer. Following the specifications for the pyrometer or testing apparatus are directions for applying the flash test. These directions are very minute, and they show how important it is that the temperature should be given every attention. For instance, if the room be too cold the temperature must be brought up; if it be too warm it has to be lowered. The amendment proposes only that there shall be a change in subsection (b) of section 10. There are three subsections in section 10, and all must be complied with. If I may be permitted I shall read the three clauses in section 10. They are as follows:
(a)	If, when tested by the pyrometer
described in the schedule to this act, at a lower temperature than eighty-five degrees by Fahrenheit's thermometer, it emits a vapour that will flash; or,	_
(b)	if it weighs more than eight pounds and seventeen hundredths of a pound per gallon; or,
(c)	if it weighs less than seven pounds and seventy-five hundredths of a pound per gallon.
As we are aware the suggestion is that the seventeen-hundredths of specific gravity should be changed to four-tenths. Section 10 has been in the statutes for a long time; I know it was in the revised statutes of 1886. As has been certified this change can have no deleterious effect, and the effect may be beneficial. The temperatures are settled by the act through the clauses I have given.
While this matter is of a somewhat technical nature I hope hon. members will feel they understand the proposal, that it is only a minor change in the specific gravity arrived at by the test prescribed in the act itself in accordance with the schedule.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 3, to amend the Boards of Trade Act.
He said: The sole amendment made by the Senate is to this effect, that representatives to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce may be appointed by the council of the several boards of trade, as well as at the annual meetings of those boards. After the bill passed this chamber the boards of trade throughout Canada made representations to the Senate that as the section then stood the necessity of appointing representatives at the annual meetings of all boards of trade should be obviated, and that these representatives
Patent Act
[Stage Direction]
should be appointed in the alternative either at the annual meeting or, if not then appointed, by the council of the board of trade. Representations were made to me while the bill was in committee in the other chamber, and I thought at that time the amendment was well .advised. It is for that reason I now move concurrence.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 4, to amend the Patent Act (as amended).
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Tummon in the chair.
On section	1-Conflicting applications:
notice to applicants.
Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Chairman, I may say that since this 'bill passed its second reading it has been considered by a special committee of this house. I do not think any committee could be more patient than that committee has been in hearing the representations made by those interested in patents, and especially by the representative patent lawyers of the country. The bill is reported with amendments, and the entire committee concurred in the amendments suggested.
The first section of this bill deals with conflicting applications for patents. Formerly such patents were referred to arbitration under section 22 of the Patent Act. In 1923 parliament passed an amendment to the effect that, after arbitration proceedings were initiated, either party to those proceedings might apply to the exchequer court for the determination of the conflict, and that thereupon no further proceedings should be taken by arbitration. The result has been that in order to obtain access to the exchequer court arbitration proceedings have necessarily been begun, which were very expensive to the prospective litigants, and then, after considerable expenditure had been made by the one or both parties in preparation for the arbitration, on the application of one of the contestants, the whole case came within the jurisdiction of the exchequer court. After thoroughly considering the matter and in the hope of avoiding these circumlocutory proceedings and obviating expense for applicants for patents who could ill afford to bear that expense, the committee has unanimously adopted the proposed amendments to section 22. Some changes were made, ibut section 22,

as now expressed in section 1 of this bill, has received the unanimous approval of the committee, and I think I may say the unanimous approval of all the experts who appeared before the committee. I therefore move that section 1 be adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Invalid claims not to affect valid claims.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This section is important in this respect. It has been held by our courts that in an action for the infringement of a patent, if there were one valid claim in the application and several which were invalid, effect would be given to the valid claim. But the contrary is true if the action is one in which a patent is sought to be impeached. The committee concurred unanimously in this section, which abolishes any distinction between the two kinds of action. The section now provides that in any action or proceeding respecting a patent, whether it be an action for impeachment or for infringement, which contains two or more claims, when one or more of such claims are held to be valid, but another or others invalid and void, effect shall be given to the patent as if it contained only the valid claim or claims, so that all of the issues in the controversy before the court may be decided by the court.
I move adoption of the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tummon in the chair.
On section 1-Provincial analyst.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: This section deals with the administration of the act and is important from the viewpoint of the department. However, I do not think there can be any difference of opinion as to the working out of the provisions. This section defines a provincial analyst as follows:
"Provincial analyst" means any analyst appointed by the government of any province and having authority to make any analysis for any public purpose.
The new words are those which are underlined in the section. I might explain that at

Excise Act
certain points throughout the dominion there are analysts, who have not been appointed directly by the provincial governments but who have received authority to make tests and analyses. This section will permit the services of these analysts to be used in an official capacity.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Power to refuse or suspend licence.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: This section will permit
the minister to give to the commissioner of excise the power to sign revocation of licences to brew beer. At the present time this takes up considerable time of the minister. It has been the practice that where a person has been convicted of selling liquor without a licence, should he possess a licence to brew beer, it is immediately revoked. I think this work could well be entrusted to the commissioner of excise.


Ernest Lapointe: None of the functions
covered by the section to be amended are important?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It is true that this section transfers ministerial authority to an administrator, but I think I have stated correctly the character of the authority involved.


Mr. EULER:: The authority granted by
this section is analogous to that given to the commissioner of customs in connection with seizures.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: This is similar only, if
I may say so, in a lesser degree. Where conviction has been made for an infraction of the liquor laws of the provinces, it has been our practice to cancel any licence held by the offender.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Recovery of penalties.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: This is a matter of
administration and I can best explain it by reading the note. It is as follows:
The section as it stands provides for trial of excise offences before a judge of a county court, or before a police or stipendiary magistrate or any two justices of the peace. There are other functionaries vested by the provincial legislatures with the powers of two justices of the peace, e.g., the chief magistrates of Prince Edward Island, but who do not come within any of the classes specifically described above. Doubt has arisen as to whether such persons have jurisdiction to try offences under the Excise Act, and it is thought expedient to confer such jurisdiction upon them specifically.
This is merely an effort to arrive at uniformity of administration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 13 inclusive, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the fifteenth of the month when in the ordinary course certain expenditures will have to be made, and if the house is agreeable I should like to ask for interim supply. Of course, this can be done only by unanimous consent and if it is obtained I shall move that you, Mr. Speaker, do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply to consider certain resolutions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What will be
the amount of interim supply requested? I understand it is to bo one-sixth of the total.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are asking for onesixth with the exception of certain special items, where we are asking for one-quarter. This is necessary if we are to function smoothly in the matter of the payment of our accounts. The new system of accounting requires that money must be voted and available in order to be ear-marked before commitments are made. The special votes in connection with which we are asking for one-quarter are Nos. 35 and 36, covering the Senate and the House of Commons. When the Senate and House of Commons are in session we are at the peak of our expenditure in connection with these votes. With respect to vote 45, experimental farms, we are asking one-fourth for that as well, because this being seeding time, it is the time of year when the largest experiments in the department are made. We are asking the same with respect to vote 186, geological survey, mines. At this period of the year the parties are leaving for the field and they must be placed in funds. Many of them live in remote areas not near to banks, and they must take actual money with them. Under our new system of accounting where there is no opportunity of switching accounts or of utilizing other funds, as was the case in the old days, when perhaps one-twelfth might suffice, the vote must be available in full. Another item is 207, care of patients under the Department of Pensions. This vote is very heavily called upon at the present time. It is an item which is largely uncontrollable and doctors' bills are flowing in from all parts of the country. The overhead at this time is therefore particularly heavy. Item 209 is for pensions. This is for pay and
Interim Supply Bill

allowances of ex-soldiers in the hospitals. Vote 210 is for unemployment relief, pensions, and vote 211 is operating expenses, pensions. One smaller vote is for the Commercial Intelligence branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. These total amounts we are asking for under the division of one-quarter aggregate $2,236,407.85, as against the sum of $33,108,718.84, which represents one-sixth. I merely mention these figures to indicate that the amount we are asking for as one-fourth is relatively small compared with the total amount asked for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some of the
items which my hon. friend has just enumerated have not been discussed at all. It is customary to obtain from the government the assurance that if such interim supply is passed it will not be taken as in any way committing the house to any one of the items nor in any way prejudicing the full discussion of an item and its ultimate rejection if so desired.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so; it is distinctly
and clearly understood that it is without prejudice to the full rights of the house to discuss these items in extenso.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon.
member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), to take the chair.


Ernest Lapointe: A great honour.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Ernst in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When last evening I
stated the order of business for to-day I was not aware that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) proposed to take interim supply to-day. Had I known, I would have mentioned it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $33,108,718.84, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year e9ding 31st March, 1933, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1933.
* Motion agreed to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $2,236,407.85, being one-fourth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, namely, votes Nos. 35 and 36, Senate and House of Commons; No. 45, Experimental Farms; No. 186, Geological Survey; Nos. 207, 
209,	210 and 211. Pensions and National
Health; and No. 286, Commercial Intelligence Service, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1933, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1933.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RHODES moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Ernst in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the Public Service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1933, the sum of $35,345,126.69 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 43, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1933.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No 40, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of securities to be issued under the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1931, No. 2.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Ernst in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25, respecting debts due to the crown.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if it would suit the convenience of the house, I would suggest

Debts due the Crown
that, without committing ourselves to the principle of the measure, we go into committee. .1 have particularly in mind the circumstances that objection has been raised by some of the provinces. There is no desire on the part of the government to attempt to enact legislation which does not carry the judgment of the provinces, and if that objection is pressed to any extent, we can amend the bill accordingly in committee.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Ernst in the chair.
On section 1.-Deduction of sums due the crown out of moneys due or payable by the crown.
Ernest Lapointe: The minister has foreseen the objection that would be raised on behalf of some of the provinces. I think I can speak for that of Quebec. They claim, and I think they are right in submitting, that it would not ibe fair for the government of Canada to retain either the whole or part of the subsidy to be paid to the province as a compensation for any debt or alleged debt, due to the crown in the right of the dominion by the crown in respect of the province. The subsidy is due in virtue of the constitution and some debts which may be claimed by the government of Canada from the provinces would not possess the same status as the payment of the subsidy. For instance, when, I think, my hon. friend was premier of Nova Scotia, that province strenuously Objected to the dominion keeping the subsidy due to the province under the constitution, because of a claim that the dominion thought it had against the province for payment of certain militia expenditures in .connection with a strike.
According to the civil law of Quebec, two debts may be compensated when they are equally due; they are demandable and liquidated. I do not think a claim of the character of the one I have mentioned and others of the same nature ought to be offered by the Dominion of Canada in compensation to prevent the payment of a subsidy. I would ask my hon. friend to strike out from the bill the mention of debts due by provincial governments.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As the hon. member for Quebec East knows, I anticipated this objection and I have a rather intimate knowledge of the circumstances to which he refers. Of course in that case I should say this, that at that time the account was in dispute. We took rather exceptional ground that the attitude of the federal authorities was very highhanded. I thought that then and I still think so. In this case I have nothing of that sort in mind. I do not believe it is right and fitting that the dominion should attempt to interfere in any event with the subsidies; those are sacred things and they must be paid.
I shall, however, give a case which arose the other day where one of the provinces-I shall not mention the name-was in arrears in a very substantial amount in its obligations to the federal treasury, and at the same time it was pressing us for payments on pension accounts which it had sent in. It is manifestly unfair that a situation like that should not have some remedy applicable to it. The object of this bill was an entirely different one, as my hon. friend fully realizes. It was more largely concerned with individuals and in that case I do not think any exception can be taken. I would therefore ask my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to move that section one be amended by striking out the words "provincial government" in the second line.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I move accordingly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was going to ask the minister whether it would not be possible to include municipalities in that amendment. I do not know just what relationships may be existing between the dominion government and the municipalities, but in connection with some of these relief works in which the dominion, the province and the municipality are cooperating, it may very well be that the municipality may get behind in its payments, and in such a case I would not like to think that the dominion government would hold up any subsidy to the province-I know, of course, that no subsidy goes direct to any municipality-because of any sums that a municipality might be owing. Would it not be possible to exempt the municipalities?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There would be no objection if the danger my hon. friend has in mind were to arise, but as a matter of fact the municipality would be in an entirely different position from the province because, in the first place, we pay no subsidies to municipalities. In the second place, my hon. friend had reference to money coming to municipalities in virtue of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. There again we have no contract whatsoever with municipalities, our contracts being entirely with the province.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why put in the
municipalities?
Narcotic Drug Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That would place us then
in the position of an individual or corporation who were debtors on some other account to the dominion, a matter entirely different. I would not anticipate a case where this legislation would be exercised if an account was in dispute.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 8, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Ernest Lapointe: Would the minister say what the amendment is?


Hugh Guthrie: The amendment made by the Senate gives the right of appeal in case of conviction under the clause. I see no objection to a man having the right of appeal under those circumstances.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 30, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Ernst in the chair.
On section 1-Moratorium on annual representation work.
Ernest Lapointe: What is annual representation work?


Mr. MURPHY:: It is the work required
to be done each year by the holder of a mineral claim. After a miner records his claim he is required under the act to do one hundred dollars' worth of work or else pay one hundred dollars in money each year until he obtains final title.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Ernst in the chair.
On section 1-"Drug" defined.
Mr. MacLAREN:: These amendments are being made to the act so that it will conform with the regulations which were adopted at the Geneva Narcotic Convention held in the year 1931. The amendments are few in number; they affect neither retail druggists nor physicians. As wholesale druggists are affected they have been consulted in the matter, and have raised no objections to the proposed changes. While the retail druggists are not affected they have been informed regarding the changes. I might explain that clause 1 is to broaden the definition of the word "drug." Not only can it be made in the natural way, but if it is prepared by a synthetic process it comes under the definition of the word "drug."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-" Opium " defined.
Mr. McGIBBON:: I should like the minister to give the committee a definition of some of these terms.


Murray MacLaren: I must refer to the act, if I am to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Liniments, ointments and other preparations excepted.
Ernest Lapointe: What is cannabis sativa?


Mr. COTNAM:: I think it must be Ultra vires.


Murray MacLaren: I think in Quebec the
term is cannabis sativa, the vowel "i" in the word sativa having the sound of the vowel "e". Hitherto this was a drug which was not included in the list which might be used. It is one form of the drug used in India which, I believe, goes under the popular name of hashish. Probably hon. members have read about it. There is no objection to the use of it, and therefore permission will hereby be granted for its use.


Mr. NEILL:: I thought the minister said
this bill did not apply to retail druggists.
I find this section refers to retail druggists.

Supply-Pensions


Murray MacLaren: I hope the report does
not show I said it had no reference to them; certainly I intended to say that it did not affect them. If the hon. member will read the explanatory notes I think he will find my statement is correct. In them I find the following:
Such necessary changes do not in any way affect the medical profession or retail druggists in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4

Neglect to keep records.
Murray MacLaren: I should explain this
section, because it is rather important, and has special reference to codeine. While codeine may be sold by retail druggists without registration, if it is imported in wholesale quantities it must be registered. The change is for the purpose of checking up the proper uses of morphia and codeine.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We will proceed with
supply, Pensions and National Health.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are we not to proceed with item No. 11 on the order paper?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will have to stand
until Monday. Some information I am seeking I have not yet received.



PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Ernst in the chair.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, $451,284.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Has the
minister the figures in regard to the actual cost in the first place of the Board of Pension Commissioners, in the second place of the pension tribunals and in the third place of the Pension Appeal Court?


Murray MacLaren: I am endeavouring to get that information for the hon. member. In the meantime I am prepared to answer any further questions in this connection.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the committee, but it seems that the matter of pensions is one to which 41761-113
this house and country,must pay attention. I received information from the Board of Pension Commissioners the other day, and from it I learned that at that point there are 23,900 applicants for pensions, that in the pension tribunals there are 2,650, and before the appeal court there are 1,316, making a total of nearly
30,000	applicants for pensions to-day. I think it is quite apparent to everyone in this house that at the rate those cases are being heard they will never be disposed of in the history of man. Those applicants are dying all over the country, and they have not yet been given an opportunity to be heard. Parliament in its wisdom, or its unwisdom, gave these boys the right to be heard. That right having been granted, neither parliament nor the country is justified in putting any impediment in the way of its being exercised. It is quite apparent that with thirty thousand cases before the tribunals now the machinery is absolutely inadequate to function successfully.
I am going to make a suggestion to the minister-I have made it to the Prime Minister a good many times in the last few years -that we conscript the county judges to hear the cases in the first instance. I see the difficulty of creating more machinery, and I do not think we should do so, because in a year or two we would have a large number of officials on our hands with nothing to do, and the difficulty would be to get rid of them. More than that, we would have difficulty in getting the proper class of men to act. Consequently if we conscript the county judges to hear the cases in the first instance, those cases could be cleared off in about twelve months. Then I would convert the Board of Pension Commissioners into an executive body. Finally I would throw the tribunals and the appeal court together and make the combined body a court of appeal. I do not see why one man should not constitute a court of appeal. Then we could have enough courts to handle the appeals in ten or twelve months and give these men an opportunity to exercise the right that parliament said they should have. I feel we are not doing justice to the men, and we are not doing justice to ourselves, for having granted them the right to be heard, we are not justified in putting any impediments in the way of their exercising that right. I make this suggestion to the minister because I am so thoroughly co'n-vinced that otherwise these thirty thousand cases cannot be successfully handled.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
am not in a position to say whether the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for

Supply-Pensions

Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) is practical or not, but I should like to join with him in urging that something be done immediately in this matter. I think any of us who have a number of pensioners in our constituencies must constantly be faced with the fact that the machinery provided by parliament for dealing with their cases has not proved adequate,* and that there have been delays resulting in a great deal of. hardship to those concerned. I hope that something may be done without delay to remedy this unsatisfactory condition of affairs.


Murray MacLaren: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are the figures for the pension advocates included in any of those totals?


Mr. ARTHURS:: 
Murray MacLaren: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How many advocates are there?


Murray MacLaren: Thirty-three.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How many commission counsel?


Murray MacLaren: Ten.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Mr. Chairman, in common with the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) and other hon. members who have been for some years members of the pension committee, I have been greatly concerned with the present situation of thousands of applicants awaiting decisions on their cases. I am of the opinion that we have about all the legislation we need; I think the act as it stands is a good act and that it fairly well covers the necessities of the occasion, but we run into difficulties when we consider the machinery for carrying out the intentions of the act. I think it may be taken for granted that the people of Canada as a whole, that every hon. member of this house and any government which may be in power is anxious that these men should be dealt with properly. There is complete unanimity in that respect but the people of Canada as well as hon. members of this house have been wondering for a long time why it is that their intentions

Supply-Pensions
179a
so definitely expressed have not been put into force. In speaking in this way we are not trying to be critical of the minister or of the government, we are simply suggesting that perhaps it may be necessary to go a little further in simplifying and amplifying the machinery of the act. Perhaps in an attempt to be solicitous for those who are deserving of pension and to see that no one not deserving shall slip in, we have made the machinery too cumbersome for its purpose. As stated by the hon. member for Muskoka, there are in the neighbourhood of 30,000 applicants awaiting consideration, many of whom have been waiting since the time the act came into force in 1930.


James Arthurs: And some before that.


Alfred Speakman: Yes, and some before that, although I am speaking of the applications made under the new act. That is a long time for men to wait who are rapidly sinking into premature old age or who are hopelessly ill.
I have discussed the suggestions made by the hon. member for Muskoka with the hon. member himself and with others. I am not quite certain that his suggestions are the best, but I have not heard any others which offer any improvement. After all, there is a body of men scattered throughout the country who, on the whole, hold the respect of the people for their knowledge of law, their ability to sift evidence and their honesty and fairness of purpose. Whatever we may say about the salaries paid, we all agree that our judiciary is a body of men which can be depended upon to give fair opinions and decisions. Although they are not trained in this particular act, which is very intricate, they are properly trained in the sifting of evidence and even though the most of the evidence offered in these cases is of a medical character, the judiciary has had certain experience in the consideration of this type of testimony in the trial of civil damage and other suits.
It is obvious to all of us, and particularly to those who have been working on pension matters from year to year, that hundreds of these men are losing not only hope for the future but confidence in the country for which they fought and which promised to look after them. They are losing confidence in the legislation :by which this country has endeavoured to carry out its promises. When the committee met a couple of years ago and evolved the present machinery it was thought it would be fairly ample for every contingency, that the cases would be handled with reasonable expedition and that there would be very 41761-1135
little accumulation by this time. It is obvious that the committee was mistaken and that the machinery, effective though it may be within its limits, is not able to cope with the tremendous accumulation of applications which has occurred. Humanity dictates that we must supplement the present machinery with something else which will prove effective 'but, as the hon. member for Muskoka has said, we must not set up a tremendous machine to employ hundreds of men which after the accumulation has been taken care of will constitute a problem with which this country will have to deal. The suggestions offered may not be the best, but I would impress upon the minister and the government the need of immediate attention to this matter. If no other suggestions are put forward, it is due to this house and to the men chiefly interested that the suggestions which have been offered should be weighed and considered in a careful and sympathetic manner.
The minister may remember that twelve months ago I spoke in this chamber in connection with a particular case, that of a man by the name of Martin. The minister was good enough to interest himself in this case which was expedited so far as a hearing by a tribunal was concerned. This man had his hearing months and months ago but, as is the case with nearly every favourable decision, his case was referred to the appeal court where apparently it has been buried. In the meantime, the man is sinking rapidly. Such action is not fair to the man and it is objected to by all his friends. These people know his condition; they attended the hearing at the tribunal and having heard the decision, took it for granted that the man had won his case. The delay in a final decision 'has created a very bad feeling among all those with whom he was acquainted. This man's case is typical of hundreds and thousands of other cases.
I say now, as I have said before, that I am not in favour of the present provision which permits an appeal on the part of the commission from a favourable decision by a tribunal. The men who meet the applicant face to face are able to size him up, and I have always held that they are best able to decide, from their personal impression of the man, whether or not his case is a just one. I have felt that the final authority should lie somewhere, and I have regarded the tribunal as the logical body in whom it should lie. The law provides otherwise, however, and to some degree it has resulted in protecting the treasury. But to a greater degree it has increased the delay and the cumbersome nature of the machinery. I would suggest, therefore,
Supply-Pensions

that when the proposal of the hon. member for Muskoka is weighed, those judges, if they are appointed, or whoever is appointed to look after the matter, should be given some power of finality, so that when they have heard a case it will not be merely the disposition of one stage of the proceedings, simply piling up in greater numbers cases that must be finally disposed of subsequently. If appeal from their judgment is necessary something might be done along the line suggested by the hon. member, which was in effect this: that the present members of the pension tribunals might be utilized as judges of appeal, divided into several courts of perhaps three members in each. These experienced men who are now engaged in the work might then form a sort of enlarged appeal court by means of which the whole matter might be expedited. Every man in this chamber and in the country as well has in mind the absolute necessity of dealing with this question and dealing with it in time to be of some good to the men for whose benefit the act was passed. I am not speaking critically; the mistake was mine as well as every other member's, because I took part in the committee in setting up this machinery, and my hopes have been frustrated, as have the hopes of every other member of that committee. It is obvious that it is not the fault of the minister or of the government itself. The fact is that the machinery we set up, under the conditions in which we set it up, was inadequate to meet the situation. But the situation must be dealt with, and lacking a better suggestion-and I for one am prepared to accept any suggestion from any quarter which might meet the situation-I would urge that this proposal that has been made be not turned down without the most careful and sympathetic consideration.


Mr. GRAY:: I rise to make a plea on
behalf of the returned soldiers who are applying for pension in the smaller centres. I had not the privilege of hearing the address of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mc-Gibbon), but I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), that he suggested something about county judges having jurisdiction over the matter. I had hoped to discuss that very subject when we were last considering this question. Like the hon. member for Red Deer, I have no fault to find with the legislation; but I do find fault, as the returned men themselves find fault, with the machinery which has been set up under that legislation. That machinery is too cumbersome. We did not realize exactly the extent to which appli-[Mr. Speakman.l
cations for pensions would be made, and now we find that in the smaller centres the men are not having their cases heard by the pension tribunal. The minister the other night intimated that the members of the tribunal are working at full capacity, and I have no doubt that he is correct; but may I cite one specific example which I am sure is typical throughout Canada. In the county of Lambton, in the city of Sarnia, no tribunal has met although for over a j'ear, as I am informed by the Canadian Legion, some twenty-eight or thirty cases have been waiting to be disposed of. It is true the tribunal have met in London, but all the cases they can handle there are those from the county of Middlesex and the city of London, and it is recognized pretty general^ that they are unable to sit in the various county towns throughout the provinces. For this reason returned soldiers throughout the dominion find that their cases cannot be heard, while, as pointed out by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), men are dying and going to their graves without the relief that was promised by their country and in the legislation itself when it was adopted.
I submit that in order to speed, up the matter some additional machinery should be created. To this end .1 was going to suggest the appointment of the county judges. With all respect to them, I submit that in the majority of counties, especially in the smaller county towns, the county judges are not overworked, and I am sure that they would undertake the work without extra pay. This would obviate any additional expense to the government, and the judges would be able to administer the act just as well as any tribunal; for after all it is only the administration of a statute. As the hon. member for Red Deer has pointed out, the judges are used to hearing evidence and they would know the various . applicants who would come before them. Everything considered, we should be able to clear the decks and have justice done the soldiers. In addition to that, may I point out to the minister that it would be, in the end, a real economy to the country. It may be said that there are some centres where the countjr judges are overworked and therefore would be unable to deal with the situation. In such centres an additional county judge might be appointed for the duration of the act. I suggest, therefore, that the members of the tribunal be left to sit on cases as they are now doing in such centres as Toronto, Windsor and the larger places, but that in the smaller centres-in the county I have the honour to represent and in the

Supply-Pensions
large majority of other counties-some action be taken to expedite the proceedings and to see that the returned soldiers shall get a square deal through the administration of the act.
I am not complaining of the act, nor am I finding any fault with the minister; what I am complaining of is the machinery under which the act is administered. May I suggest also that in the smaller centres the pensions advocates are not giving, in the preparation of cases, that assistance which they should. To some extent this is no doubt the fault of the men themselves; but it has been my experience, and no doubt the experience of other members of the house, that the great bulk of the work has fallen upon the shoulders of the Canadian legion, who are doing it gratuitously in their spare time. They are working without any remuneration but merely in the hope that their reward will be the granting of pensions to those men whom they are helping. In the majority of cases, members of the legion or, where this is not so, others who are patriotic enough to assist in the preparation of cases, are doing the work. I do not think that is fair, and rather than pay large salaries to advocates I would suggest that in those centres some allowance might be made to the men of the legion and others of that sort who are giving valuable assistance.
I do urge the minister to see that the work of hearing applicants be speeded up. I am sure that anything that may be done to bring this about will meet with the unanimous approval of all parties in the house, and I urge upon the minister and the government to consider it. I gather from the remarks he has made in reply to the hon. member for North Battleford and others that it has not been definitely decided by the government not to introduce legislation this session. Let us have it in ample time, and if it is intended merely to establish additional machinery I am sure that we on this side of the house will support it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It would appear to me that as regards the northern part of Saskatchewan, at least the part I represent in the Commons, two main difficulties confront the returned men. One is in regard to those who are on the land and I intend to say something about that later on when that item comes up. The other is in regard to the pension question that we are now discussing. I asked the minister, I think twice this session, whether the government was considering the matter of bringing down new legislation in connection with returned men, and I think
the hon. member for Red Deer also asked the question once, but so far the minister. has given the answer simply that the matter is under consideration. In other words, no definite answer is given and we do not know in the Commons, and I am satisfied that the returned men throughout Canada have no idea as yet whether anything is to be done this session or not. My conclusion, from the answer of the minister, has been that we are not going to have any new legislation this session. If I am correct in that assumption, I think the returned men throughout Canada ought to know about it. The government ought to have its mind made up by this time whether it is going to do anything in the way of ameliorative legislation this session or not, and if not, the quicker that fact is known, the better; there is no use in delaying it.
Apart from that there is the question of the act. I think the act is all right or about all right. The administration of it is the difficulty. Some think we have too much machinery; some think we have not enough, and others think we ought to add to it. Thousands of cases are waiting to be settled; progress is not taking place as it should and the returned men are becoming very much dissatisfied. I was wondering whether the minister could not have a conference with the pension board, the tribunal and other bodies to discuss the whole situation in an endeavour to arrive at some conclusion whether the suggestions made here to-day can be acted upon, whether anything can be done to improve the administration of the act, and thus hasten the hearing of those thousands of cases that are at present clogging the administrative machinery.
I appreciate the answers the minister has given me so far.	I know he occupies a difficult position.	I know the
problem requires thought	and perhaps
the government's mind has not as yet been made up, but I believe in the interests of the returned men throughout Canada they ought to know whether they are to expect anything in the way of legislation this session. They ought to know this at once. It is very important that anything that can be done to hasten the hearing of all these cases should be done, because I know in the North Battle-ford riding we have many cases that have not yet been heard, and the returned men there are not very well pleased. They are working hand in hand with the legion and all the other soldier organizations to get action. I have done my best to cooperate with them apart from politics at all, yet many cases have not been settled and as has been mentioned here this afternoon, if they are not settled soon
Supply-Pensions

the men will pass away and redress will be impossible. I would therefore be glad if the minister, while we are in committee on this question, could deal with one or two of those phases in such a way as to send out at least a note of encouragement to the men throughout Canada who are expecting redress and who so far have not received it.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I desire to mention just two difficulities with which I have met in connection with this legislation. I well realize that the committee who drafted this legislation hoped it would meet the situation. It was hoped that the judges who actually saw the applicant for pension and who heard the evidence which he and his witnesses gave, would be the final judges as to whether he should receive a pension or not. Great disappointment has been created in many instances where, after a case has been worked out and a favourable decision obtained from the tribunal, it has been found that the government advocate has appealed the case and then, after long months of waiting, that the appeal board has turned it down on some technicality. I know there are many cases before the appeal board, 'but this has been a very disappointing feature in connection with the working out of the legislation.
There is also the old difficulty of diagnosis. If a certain diagnosis is chosen, it might be worked on for months or years and finally there might be disagreement in regard to it. It seems too bad there is not some judge who could give a man a pension either on the diagnosis chosen or for whatever his trouble is or whatever the judge thinks it is. It is unfair that these men should be denied the privilege of pension through no fault of their pwn, but simply because of a difference of opinion as regards diagnosis.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I should like to say
a word in support of the general idea of some effort being made to speed up the work of determining whether men are entitled to pension or not. From my observation it would seem to me that if the present plan is followed, many of these men will go to their graves before we or the country will know whether they are pensionable cases. In the portion of northern Ontario in which I live, I know of cases where I have been making every effort I could, where the Great War Veterans have been doing the same thing and where the Canadian Legion are constantly trying to bring cases to trial, so to speak, but where men have been waiting for two years or more, ever since the last legislation was passed, and do not seem to be

any nearer getting before a tribunal than when they started.
The statement made yesterday about tribunals going into certain districts and spending a day hearing certain cases and then going on to another district, is true so far as northern Ontario is concerned. I know of men who have been notified that a tribunal would be in a certain place on a certain day and who have travelled a hundred miles to be there that day, only to find, just before their cases were to come up, that the tribunal had moved on to another place. I believe if the proposal of the hon. member for Mus-lcoka-Ontario, which was supported by my hon. friends opposite, whereby district court judges could be conscripted for this work, were adopted, it would facilitate at least the primary part of the work and send the men on, if necessary, to a court of appeal. These judges are men trained in taking and weighing evidence; the applicant comes before them for a pension; the medical officers are there and they are in a position to decide, I think as carefully and accurately as any group of men who could be found anywhere. Surely the country has an obligation to say to those soldiers:	You are or you are not entitled
to receive a pension. The fact that we are now fourteen years from the conclusion of the war and that there are still some 26,000 or 27,000 applicants for pensions whose cases have not been heard and who have no idea when they will be, does not speak well for the administration of the act. Whether the county judges are the right ones or not will, I presume, be for parliament to decide, but certainly some steps should be taken to bring this matter to a conclusion and let the country and the returned men know who are entitled to pension and who are not. The cases are becoming so long drawn out and the dissatisfaction which is being created is such that one can hardly express the feelings these returned men have for what seems to them to be a deliberate neglect of what they look upon as an inherent right to have their cases thoroughly examined and a final decision made.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I should like to make a few observations relative to the working out of the present pension legislation. First I should like to make it very clear that so far as I have been able to ascertain there is no disposition on the part of the ex-service men to blame anybody in particular because of the present delay. The facts are, as hon. members of the house who were then present, are well aware, that in 1930 the whole matter of pension legislation was reviewed by a

Supply-Pensions
committee of this house. That committee in conjunction with representatives of the exservice men worked out amendments to the then existing legislation with a view to solving the question. That the legislation has not worked out as well as anticipated is not a matter for blame of the government or of the ex-service men or of the members of the committee. I think it is conceded by all that the pension legislation passed in 1930 and as amended in 1931 had in view facilitating the hearing of claims for pensions and their adjudication, but in the working out of that legislation certain defects have become obvious. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister not in any critical mood but as the result of considerable inquiry from the men who are involved and from the officers of the various organizations representing the men.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, the present congestion occurs at two points; first, before the Board of Pension Commissioners. I believe that to-day there are before that board approximately 23,000 cases. The number was greatly increased by reason of the amendment introduced in 1931, which had the effect of referring back to the Board of Pension Commissioners all those cases which had previously been refused by them. The reason for the referring back was because of that provision which is ordinarily known as the benefit-of-the-doubt clause, which was introduced in 1931. I am not going into that in detail because it is familiar to all who have studied the question. But as the result of that 1931 amendment there was referred back to the board cases which they had previously dealt with to the number of 15,311. Since the passing of the 1931 amendment more than 14,000 cases have been dealt with by the Board of Pension Commissioners, but there stand unadjudicated to-day more than
23,000	cases. At the present rate it is estimated that it will take years and years to adjudicate upon the cases already before them. Pension applicants making application to-day find that even with the machinery operating at maximum speed it will be years before their case can be determined.
As to the steps that should be taken to alleviate the congestion at the initial point, I am not going to elaborate. I understand that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has made certain suggestions. I feel that the minister and the department are fully seized of the situation, and to put it in a plain, frank way, I think it is up to the department to work out some method, whether it is the method suggested or not, whereby the
hearings before the Board of Pension Commissioners can be speeded up, and speeded up very considerably.
So far as the tribunals or the secondary courts are concerned, my opinion is that they are getting on very well indeed and that at the present time they are not in any sense congested. They are able at the present time to take care very comfortably of the cases that come before them, but in view of the fact that so many of the cases heard by the tribunals and decided in favour of the applicants are appealed on instructions from the Board of Pension Commissioners, we find congestion again before the appeal court, and there is the place where the present congestion is most marked. I have in mind a particular instance. Individual cases prove nothing perhaps, but this is a case which has been pending since 1927 to which I wish to draw attention. A favourable decision was granted in 1930. The case was referred to the court of appeal. I have investigated the record and I find that the applicant was dealt with very generously by the court of appeal. They found upon going into the facts that in their opinion a favourable award was not justified and they referred the case back to the tribunal, suggesting that further evidence was necessary on certain points and giving the applicant the opportunity to adduce further evidence. That case went back, was heard, and a second decision was given in favour of the applicant. The case was appealed again, on instructions from the Board of Pension Commissioners- I am not saying whether they were right or wrong in doing it-and now it is held up again by the court of appeal. I have visited that court and have looked up their records. There is congestion. But it is not their fault. I think they are doing as much as is humanly possible, but it is not possible for them to hear and determine expeditiously all the cases that are coming before them.
Ex-service men and their organizations, rightly or wrongly, feel that too great a percentage of the cases determined favourably to applicants by the tribunals are being appealed, and therefore delayed. The psychological effect throughout this country is very, very bad. Take the case I instanced. It is the case of a widow. She is at present ill and penniless, living on charity in a third-rate hotel in the city of Winnipeg. There have been two decisions in her favour and yet the matter comes before the court of appeal again and is there awaiting decision.
Mere criticism is of no value in itself unless some suggestion can be made. I draw to the attention of the minister-I know that he has
Supply-Pensions

perused it-and to the attention of the house the joint considered opinion of the various ex-service men's associations, presented to the government with certain suggestions. Briefly, their suggestions relative to relieving the congestion in the appeal court are, first, that more care should be exercised by the Board of Pension Commissioners before they order an appeal from a favourable decision by the tribunal. Secondly, that inasmuch as the court of appeal consists of only three members, and the tribunal of twelve, sitting in threes, and in view of the large percentage of appeals coming up from the tribunals to the court of appeal, that court has more to do than it can handle. The suggestion has been made by joint committees of all the organizations that the court of appeal be enlarged-but in such a way as to involve no additional expense in administration-by making available for decisions in review the full membership of the tribunals. Roughly, the suggestion is that the same chairman of the court of appeal be retained, and that the legislation be amended so that the court of appeal may call upon any two members of the tribunal to sit in with the chairman and review cases. If that system were adopted, instead of one court of appeal consisting of three men there could be about fifteen men sitting, and five courts could be in operation instead of one.
' By that method there would be no additions to the personnel of the present machinery, no increase in the expense of administration, and there would be the advantage of expediting the hearing of appeals. Further, there would be coordination of the work of the appeal court and the trial courts.
Rightly or wrongly the feeling is abroad that there is not proper coordination between the court of appeal and the tribunals, the trial courts. The witnesses come before the trial courts sitting at given centres. Those courts hear the witnesses, observe their demeanour and weigh the evidence. It is a well known principle of law that an appellate court will not reverse the decision of a trial court upon matters of fact-on matters of law, yes, but on matters of fact, no, unless it is obvious there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. In view of the fact that 60 per cent or more of the cases decided before the tribunals in favour of the applicants are appealed, and approximately 75 per cent of the appeals are allowed, there is a feeling that something is wrong, and that through lack of coordination between the two courts a weakness exists. There is a belief that if members of the trial courts were allowed to sit in on the appellate courts they would gain

experience both in the trial and appellate divisions, and as a result there would be better administration of justice and greater expedition in the administration of the act.
There are two points for consideration. First, there is the congestion which cannot for years and years be relieved with the present machinery. Secondly, we know of cases which have been heard before the appellate court wherein the applicants have received favourable decisions, and yet because of appeals being filed in the meantime they could get no relief. We know of cases where applicants have received favourable decisions from trial courts. Those decisions have been appealed and the applicants have had to wait six months or a year for the hearing of their cases. In the .meantime they may be in want, in destitute circumstances, and urgently in need of medical attention which they do not receive. I may receive the answer, "Oh well, ultimately the appeal court will decide in their favour, and the decisions would be retroactive." The answer is that many of them die in the meantime, and many others suffer hardships. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, although I know the minister is endeavouring to do everything within his power, and that these matters are constantly in his mind, I earnestly urge upon him to consider, not at another session but before this session closes, the making of certain amendments to the existing legislation which will expedite the hearing of cases.


Mr. ROSS:: I think the hon. member who has just taken his seat has laid his finger upon most of the sores in connection with thi3 matter. Probably I would do well to review the progress which has been made at various times in an endeavour to satisfy the returned men. I think all people are convinced, when they look at the large sums of money which have been spent in an endeavour to give the returned men satisfaction for the sacrifices they made, that there has been no great effort to economize.
The procedure we have known for years and years arose from the formation of the Board of Pension Commissioners. That body had absolute control in the matter of the pensions of ex-service men. All men who have served know about the activities of the pensions board. As time went on there was a feeling, first that the actions of that body were arbitrary; secondly, that cases were heard in camera, and that the men who gave decisions concerning the eligibility of applicants to pensions did not see the applicants. Because of that condition the board of appeal

Supply-Pensions
was formed, and the two organizations I have named worked for some years. But as the hon. member who has just spoken has said, there was no coordination or cooperation between or standardization in those two bodies. There was a feeling that jealousy existed between them, that they were working contrary to and criticizing each other.
Then we came to the committee of 1930. When the statement is made that ex-service men are dissatisfied, the reply might be made: "Well, this is your own legislation." I should like to say, however, that in the committee of 1930 every attempt was made to keep free from partisanship. The legislation under which we are now operating is the result of an endeavour by the returned men to wipe' out difficulties and get away from dissatisfaction. Consequently, arising out of a decision of a meeting of returned men in Regina, the suggestion was made that tribunals be formed, and that they be empowered to sit on cases after they had been heard by the Board of Pension Commissioners. Then, the court of appeal formed the third court. So that no matter what government was in power, and no matter who may have been the minister, undoubtedly there was the greatest endeavour to give satisfaction.
Here is where the difficulty arose: Throughout the meetings of that committee we were constantly informed that the Board of Pension Commissioners were overburdened, and were unable to deal adequately with the applications. But what happened? The legislation not only placed upon the Board of Pension Commissioners all the burden they already had, but sent back to them all the cases that had been commuted and all the cases that had been dismissed. It was pointed out in committee then:	If the Board of Pension
Commissioners are overburdened at the present time, how in the world are they going to function when this additional burden is thrown upon them? It was my belief at that time-and I did not support the legislation; the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man) stood with me-that this was bound to fail. In short, you were going to plug the machinery right at the beginning. And it has turned out just as we predicted. I am afraid we are again in this position, that we are not getting cooperation between the Board of Pension Commissioners and the tribunals. It may be that one is too hard and the other is too easy, but there is no cooperation. You have two courts reviewing cases. The Board of Pension Commissioners review each application. They do not say, "We dismiss the application." They just simply say
in their letter, "We do not grant this." Then they add, "You may take this now to the chief advocate of the tribunal." If there was some cooperation and the reason was given why the application was refused, it would save a whole lot of reviewing and would give the tribunals a better opportunity to go on with their work. But imagine the position. Here is legislation directing that the case be reviewed thoroughly by the Board of Pension Commissioners. They do not grant the application, therefore the case goes to the tribunal. It is taken to the tribunal by the advocate. Someone says the advocates do not work. I differ absolutely with that statement; they do work. But the advocate has got to go through the mill with the case, and when he is satisfied it is ready for hearing it is brought up. A little bit of standardization of opinion would save all the delay. Suppose it was announced: "We have sat on this case in camera; now we will throw it open and submit it to the tribunal." I do not think "tribunal" is the appropriate title. In my opinion the apt title would be "travelling pension board." If this travelling pension board were part of the Board of Pension Commissioners, the men would not be disposed to appeal their cases, for there would be something definite, something determinate in the way in which they were dealt with. What happens now? The man goes through the mill again with his case, his eligibility is established, and he goes away quite satisfied that he is going to get his pension. Then within ten days he gets a notice, "Your pension is appealed." No reason is given for this action. I have taken up one or two cases and asked the reason for appealing them, but without getting any satisfaction. Apparently it is just a matter of routine. Does that occur in only a small proportion of these cases? No, I am told the appeals run as high as eighty per cent of the cases dealt with. There is the cause for dissatisfaction, that after going through two courts the returned man gets a letter saying, "Your case is appealed." He does not know on what grounds it is appealed, nor does the advocate. Every service man knows what a pension board is, and I would keep that title before him. I would change the system so that instead of a court sitting in camera you would have travelling pension boards. Then it is quite clear the number of appeals would be trifling. Our intention at the time the legislation was passed was that the man should have the benefit of this appeal court.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Supply-Pensions


Arthur Edward Ross: That was our thought in the
committee of 1930, that the court of appeal we had proposed would be for the benefit of the man. But now he has to go before a third court to fight his case. If the first two courts were pension courts, then of course there would be no appeal, and the appeal court would be what we intended it should be-a third place for the man to have his case reinstated. Let me add, Mr. Chairman, that the committee recommended and this parliament gave the men exactly what they wanted, but evidently some unseen, occult force has upset our plans. When we formed this court of appeal it was the intention that it would be for the benefit of the returned man.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr, ROSS:	Instead of that the Board of
Pension Commissioners have used it as a court of appeal to the extent of eighty per cent of the cases dealt with. That is the position we are in, and that is the difficulty. We should take the organization and say: "Here, work together, cooperate, coordinate and get this thing settled." I think, if anything, the county court judge would be the best man for the appeal court. I have no objection to the present courts of appeal. They have dealt fairly with any cases I have had before them. In several instances, as has been said, they felt there was further evidence that could be brought out, and instead of giving a decision they sent the case back to the tribunal. In that way I think the present head has shown his hearty sympathy for the returned man. All that is needed is a spirit of cooperation, a desire to work together; but a feeling of jealousy has crept into these courts, and as a result the returned man has suffered.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: May I ask
the indulgence of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to refer to one other point? In doing so I may be crossing a bridge that may never be reached. It has been intimated to me that there is a move to change the legislation in this respect, that the tribunals which at present hear the cases and have power to adjudicate and render a decision are to have that power, withdrawn, and that travelling boards are to be constituted, boards of inquiry to gather the facts in relation to each application, and then to submit it to the Board of Pension Commissioners for decision. If that be so, I suggest to the minister that any step in that direction would be a .mistake. The whole trend of future legislation with a view to carrying out the wishes of those immediately concerned has been, instead of 
centralizing the matter of decisions in Ottawa, to decentralize as far as possible to the districts in which the men live. In the development of this legislation there have been brought into being the tribunals which sit in given centres and before which the applicants can bring their testimony and discuss their case with the members. The returned men have great confidence in this system and feel that they will obtain the best measure of justice by being face to face with the trial court which is to adjudicate upon their cases. There is a well grounded fear that if the power of adjudication is taken away from the tribunals and they be permitted to act only as fact finding bodies, the applicants will not obtain the treatment expected. I do not say that this action has been mooted by the government but it has been intimated to me on very good authority that it is under consideration, and I take this occasion of drawing to the attention of the minister that any step along this line would be considered as retrograde in character.


Murray MacLaren: In a discussion of these matters, practically everyone seems to have an opinion a little different from his neighbour's. I do not blame the machinery so much; if we want to criticize, perhaps we should criticize that special committee of which I along with several other hon. members of the house, was a member. This committee placed so much work upon the proposed organization as to make it practically impossible of being effectively carried out. The fault does not lie with the organization, it lies with the authority which placed an almost impossible burden on the machinery. Certain of the amendments enacted last year did a good deal towards remedying this trouble. I would remind the committee that when the amendments of 1930 were passed there were 19,000 final payment cases given authority to come before the court and there were 6,000 cases before the old appeal board. That did not offer a fair start to any organization or machinery.
I do not think it is proper to try to make the actual facts appear more unfavourable than they are. No doubt there were many difficulties encountered, but I do not think a fair picture of the conditions prevailing has been presented. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Kennedy) has repeated several times that it will take years and years for the pension appeal board to handle its work. 1 think the facts of the case are against that statement. As I said the other day, in seven months this board has dealt with 14,347 cases. In seventeen months the tribunals have dealt

Supply-Pensions
with 6,00S cases and in thirteen months the appeal court has passed on 2,947 cases. I do not think the hon. member referred to that. In my opinion this machinery is working quite rapidly; it is all a question of the number of cases to be heard and providing the facilities for hearing them. The different courts are working industriously and in one instance they are getting on quite rapidly. I do not mean to convey that there is complete satisfaction with the result, but I think the true facts present a different aspect from that attempted to be given by hon. members.
Hon. members interested in these matters should go down to the department and see it in operation. They should meet the officials and discuss the different aspects of this matter.
I suggest that this would be to the mutual advantage of hon. members and the department.
One hon. member has stated that no court has been held at Sarnia. I am sure if this had been drawn to the attention of the officials the error would have been rectified, although I am of the opinion that there is probably some good reason for a court not having been held. Another member referred to the fact that a tribunal had sat and then moved on before a certain applicant could present his case. I venture to say that a proper explanation can be given for this. The itineraries of these tribunals are arranged several weeks ahead in order that witnesses may be gathered together, and if a man should arrive too late, the court must move on in order to keep its appointment somewhere else. If the hon. member will give me the particulars in this connection, I shall be very glad to look into the matter.
The suggestion was made that the judges of the county courts should handle these cases. Hon. members have expressed opinions for and against this suggestion, and I shall at present not offer comments. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) has stated that there should be cooperation, coordination and standardization. Hon. members should not be of the opinion that the members of the courts do not consult or cooperate. I encourage them to do so, and, irrespective of my encouragement, I know they do. I do not say that they do it so constantly, because there is some difficulty when men are scattered throughout the country. But that point is not lost sight of.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. SANDERSON:: No. I would ask that you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Tummon in the chair.


Frederick George Sanderson: When the committee rose at six o'clock the minister was making some observations arising out of the discussion this afternoon. A few nights ago, when we were in supply on this item, I made some brief remarks and I want to repeat some of them. In my dealings with the minister he has always been very kind and patient, gone to a great deal of trouble and taken a personal interest in any matters I have brought before him, and I do not want him to think my remarks are at all critical. My only desire is that out of this discussion will come, if not this session-and I hope it will this session-perhaps next session some amendments to the Pension Act to overcome some of the difficulties and defects that have been found since the amendments have been added,
I have also nothing critical to say in regard to any official of the pension board, the tribunal, the appeal court or the department.
Mention was made this afternoon of the special committee that sat in 1930. I think the personnel of the committee of 1930 was practically the same as that of the committee of 1928, and most of the hon. members who spoke this afternoon were members of both those committees. In passing I should like to remark that the committee of 1928 and that of 1930, in recommending amendments to the Pension Act, made an earnest and sincere attempt to frame those amendments in the light of the evidence placed before them. This afternoon the hon. member for Kingston City mentioned the fact that almost everything the representatives of the legion and of other ex-service associations suggested, was carried out and embodied in the amendments made to the act in 1930. I think the greatest difficulty which the committee had at that time, and which appears to have been the bone of contention in regard to granting pensions ever since the inception of the act, that thousands of ex-service men had been discharged on demobilization without medical examination,' and that many had been discharged with a medical examination which was not very thorough, I do not lay the blame for this entirely on the authorities of that time, because when the men returned from overseas they were all anxious to get out of the service and back into civil life, and I believe many returned men at that time, for that reason, hesitated to say they had any disability. Those who were in charge of the administration of the act from the time of its
Supply-Pensions

inception to 1928 before the first committee was formed, and again up to 1930, were confronted with the situation that the great difficulty which lay in the way of a returned man receiving a pension was the fact that it was impossible for him or anyone else to prove absolutely that his disability, no matter of what sort it might be, was traceable to war service. The amendments were framed largely for the purpose of overcoming this problem so that the returned man, if he could not prove by medical authorities that his disability could be traced to war service, would get at least the benefit of the doubt and, if possible, a pension would be awarded to him.
From my observation of the working of the act since 1930 in connection with quite a number of cases that have come under my notice, I have reached the conclusion that the returned man does not always get the benefit of the doubt, as was intended under the amendments. In some cases it is perhaps more difficult now to prove that his disability can be traced to war service than it was before the amendments were added in 1930. If this objection could be overcome, I do not think there would be much criticism of the Pension Act. The trouble seems to me to be that we have too many boards or courts. We have first the Board of Pension Commissioners, second, the tribunals, and then the appeal court. In many instances where a returned man comes before a tribunal and the evidence is brought out, the verdict is that he is eligible for pension. He leaves thinking he has won his case and he is at last going to receive a pension. But that does not always happen; for the reason that the appeal court, which has not seen the man as the tribunal has, reviews the evidence and reverses the decision of the tribunal, the result being that the man who thought he had been granted a pension, does not receive it. That is a difficulty which should be removed, some method ought to be worked out whereby the intention of the amendments as added in 1930 in regard to giving the returned man the benefit of the doubt, may be made clearer and workable.
In connection with the act as it stands there are many other matters which in my opinion are not working out to the benefit of the exservice men. I well remember that in the committee of 1930 the hon. member for Kingston city took the stand-and I do not think he had any supporters; I am free to confess that I did not agree with him-that the whole machinery with regard to pensions would be clogged; that it would not work. As time has passed his judgment has proven

to be correct: there is a clogging of the machinery making it very difficult for the returned man to secure a pension. He may be out of work, as in many instances he is; he may have a wife and family depending upon him, and he is kept waiting for months and even years. I have in mind two cases that came under my observation, where the applications for pension were made before the Board of Pension Commissioners, one in September, 1930, and the other in November, 1930. In both cases the decision of the Board of Pension Commissioners was that the men were not entitled to pension. Both those cases were handed over to the tribunal, but they have not yet been heard and they go back to 1930. Surely that should not be. There should be some method whereby those cases could at least be heard and disposed of, favourably or otherwise, without that length of time elapsing. We have in, this country many men who have made applications for pensions and have been turned down, and that condition will continue to exist. Apart altogether from the justice of their cases, whether they are entitled to a pension or not, the whole machinery should be speeded up. I made that suggestion to the minister the other night, but from his remarks this afternoon I do not think that he took it seriously. The other night he gave the committee the number of cases that had come up, the number of cases pending, and other information in that regard. I know there is a tremendous number of cases pending, and thousands and thousands of cases which have not even come before the pension board yet. It is a well known fact that many men returned from overseas apparently physically fit, but as the months and years went on, some disability developed which they claim is due to their war service. That condition will continue, and if there is any way in which the minister and his department and the government can work out some amendments to the act to accelerate the machinery, I think I can assure him that if those amendments are brought down even this session he will receive the most sympathetic cooperation from this side of the house.
I would appeal to the minister to take into consideration, I will not say the criticism, but the suggestions that have been made this afternoon in regard to the working out of the Pension Act. I know that the minister is sympathetic. I know that he has a very heavy department to administer and that at times it may be difficult to satisfy the claims of returned men, but if he would give this matter some attention, I think with his offi-

Supply-Pensions
cials he would be able to work out some solution which would improve the condition that now exists.
The hon. member for Kingston this afternoon mentioned another matter. He thought that there was not the proper cooperation and coordination between the pension board, the tribunal, and the appeal court, and he mentioned especially the lack of cooperation as between the tribunal and the appeal court. It may be so. I have no knowledge of this, but the hon. member for Kingston as a rule speaks of things of which he has full knowledge, and he must have some information which bears out the remarks he made this afternoon. No hon. member who sat in this house three or four years ago will deny that at one time there was a lack of cooperation and coordination between the pension board and the appeal board of that day. That was proven, I think, before the special committee on pensions that sat in the session of 1928. This is a matter which should receive the attention of the minister, and if it is one of the difficulties that is keeping ex-service men waiting, not only for months but for years, to get a hearing, the minister should take action to remedy it without delay. I feel satisfied that he will, and that he will be able to work out some solution of this very difficult problem. It is a problem that has grown with the years and will continue to grow. I do not think that this country will be able to reduce to any material extent its expenditure on military pensions for the next fifteen or twenty or perhaps thirty years. My own opinion is that the number of applications and the expenditure for pensions will continue to increase.
The suggestion was made this afternoon by some hon. members that a solution of the difficulty might be to have the county court judges hear the pension cases. They may be right, but I do not think so. I am not in favour of that suggestion. I do not think the county court judges should be asked to take up this work. I think rather it should be done along the present lines, but the difficulties that now exist should be smoothed out.
I will mention a matter on which I dwelt for a moment or two the other night. The travelling tribunals when they visit certain places to hear cases do not clear up all the cases they have on their docket. Notices are sent out to returned men that their applications for pension will be heard at a certain place on a certain date, and they travel perhaps many miles to get to that place with the expectation that at least their cases will be heard. But the cases are not all heard. There may be ten or twelve cases on the
docket and only three or four or five may be heard, and the men whose cases are not heard have to go back home without even knowing when they will have another chance to have their cases heard.


Murray MacLaren: They may have not been sent for. Unless they are prepared they should not come.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am speaking of cases where the men have been sent for, and where their cases have been prepared for them by the pensions advocate, and where they have been notified by mail to come, with transportation sent to them in many cases to the place where the board is sitting. They are notified to be there on a certain date and that their cases will then be heard.


Peter McGibbon: Considering that these
bodies are working as hard as they physically can and that there is now an accumulation of thirty thousand cases to be heard, with more coming in all the time, what is my hon. friend's solution for the difficulty?


Frederick George Sanderson: One solution that
occurs to my mind now would be for the tribunals to make their docket lighter. Do not load it up with a lot of cases to hear in one or two days which they cannot possibly finish in less than six or seven days.


Peter McGibbon: I am afraid the hon.
member did not get my point. With thirty thousand cases to be heard it is absolutely a physical impossibilty for the present tribunals, the pension board, and the appeal court to handle them if they worked twenty-four hours a day. What is my hon. friend's solution for that difficulty?


Frederick George Sanderson: The solution I suppose would be that the machinery and staff should be enlarged, which would entail more cost to the country.


Peter McGibbon: And in two or three
years you would have to dismiss them.


Frederick George Sanderson: That would be an easy matter. We are dismissing civil servants all the time.


Peter McGibbon: You would not get good men to take the job just for a year or two.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not agree with
my hon. friend from Muskoka on that. I am sorry we	do not agree,	but I	should like toask him	this question:	Does	he	think it isfair that	returned men	should	be	notified tobe at a	certain place	to have	their cases
heard, and, after waiting two days, not have them heard?

Supply-Pensions
Mr. MoGIBBON: I agree that is not fair.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am glad we agree
on that.


Murray MacLaren: I should like to have the names of those men, because I should wish to have investigations made.


Frederick George Sanderson: I will send them to
the minister to-morrow.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman-


Robert James Manion: I wonder if the hon.
member would allow me to speak first. Like the hon. member for South Perth who has just taken his seat, I was on the committee. It is well to point out, as did the hon. member for Kingston to-day, that the scheme put into force in the year 1930 was formulated by the soldiers themselves. My hon. friend knows that.


Frederick George Sanderson: I mentioned that.


Robert James Manion: Yes, probably so.


Frederick George Sanderson: And I said all their
suggestions were carried out.


Robert James Manion: I remember that the hon. member for Kingston made a proposal which, in the newspapers, was called the Ross scheme; the other was called the Power scheme, because it was introduced by the chairman of the committee. I remember clearly that some of my colleagues and I supported the scheme put forward by the hon. member for Kingston, and I have a clear recollection of being waited upon by a number of officers and soldiers who told me they were opposing anything like the Ross scheme, and that they adhered strictly and continually to the scheme which with the unanimous approval of the committee ultimately was put into effect.
I mention those facts because I believe it is well to keep them before us. In other words, the members of that committee, who came from all parties in the house, did everything they could at that time to put into force the scheme requested by the soldiers themselves as a residt of their Regina convention. I was told at that time that their action was a result of the convention, and I believe I was correctly informed. Beyond that, it is well to remember that before this government came into power a vast amount of money had been spent for pension purposes. There had been an expenditure of about $47,500,000. Considering that immense amount of money, it is well to remember that the total national revenue of Canada before the year 1900 never amounted to

$50,000,000. I mention that fact merely to indicate the immensity of the undertaking before us. It is not always as easy to deal with a question as one might believe. I think the hon. member for Muskoka has said, and the statement has been made this afternoon on several occasions, that 30,000 cases are awaiting attention. I am informed by the officers now sitting in front of the minister that the number is only 23,900, and that includes cases which are not at all serious. There is no use making the condition any worse than it really is. I am informed by one of the officers in front of me that a few days ago a soldier who had served only one day applied for a pension.
Although mentioning these facts, I am not trying to indicate that there is no room for improvement; we all know there is. Last year we made improvements, and they had been made before; but it seems to me we shall be making a mistake if from year to year we continue to change the act. I mention these facts as one who was a member of the old committee. I believe my hon. friend from South Perth served at that time, but I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was in the house then. Certainly all parties in the house put forth an endeavour to satisfy the soldiers to the greatest possible extent.


Frederick George Sanderson: I quite agree with my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: Probably we went the absolute limit, because hon. members will recall that an election was at hand, and all parties were anxious to give satisfaction.


Frederick George Sanderson: I quite agree with the minister.


Peter McGibbon: I cannot let the minister get away with that. May I say that I pride myself in the accuracy of my statements. Although I have sat in this house a good many years I never had to withdraw any statement I had made. Irrespective of what the officials have told the minister, I must say that the figures I am about to give came to me a few days ago from the secretary of the Board of Pension Commissioners. Although I have given them to the committee already, I feel I must now repeat them. The number of applications on hand by the Board of Pension Commissioners on February 29, 1932, was 23,900. On the same date there were 2,650 applications before the pension tribunals, and before the appeal court there were 1,316. If those figures are incorrect I cannot be blamed; I took the time from their clock-

Supply-Pensions
they gave it to me. Those figures were supplied Iby the Board of Pension Commissioners, and I submit, sir, that we should take as correct the figures we get from officials of this department. I know the gentlemen sitting in front of the minister dispute my figures, but with all due respect to them I think statistics supplied by the Board of Pension Commissioners are more reliable than statistics supplied by them.


Robert James Manion: I have asked the officers of the department now sitting in front of the minister, and they adhere to the figure of 23,900. They say, however, that there are a number of cases now being dealt with by the aippeal 'boards which are not included in that figure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I do not regard this discussion as being in any way a waste of time. I think the joint intention of hon. members who have participated in this discussion is, if possible, to improve the administration of the pension scheme. One of the finest notes in the whole discussion is that not the slightest tinge of partisanship has 'been displayed by any hon. member who has spoken.
The hon. member for Kingston to-day gave a very able resume of the history of the pension legislation in the Dominion of Canada. Many hon. members in this house will recall the first struggle which took place in the years 1919 and 1920 through the organized veterans' organizations to have important amendments made to the pension legislation. They will recall the work that was done by parliamentary committees sitting from year to year. Finally, as a result of recommendations made by a parliamentary committee a royal commission presided over by my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth was appointed. That commission went throughout Canada and heard evidence. As a result of their report legislation was passed to form the federal appeal board, and a system of soldiers' advocates. That system was not considered to operate as people thought it would, and in 1930, as the result of the work of a committee of that year, the present act was brought into effect.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said this afternoon that there were two flaws in the present administration. I agreed with him as far as he went. I am convinced of one thing, that the first defect in the present administration resulted from the amendment passed in 1931. That amendment was ex. cellent, to a certain degree, and will, in time, operate to the benefit of ex-service men and
the nation. The flaw in it, however, in my opinion is that it has placed upon the Board of Pension Commissioners a task which they cannot efficiently carry out. I am convinced, from personal observations, that to-day the pension board is trying to carry out a task which is really beyond its powers. The first remedy-and I am speaking in the most friendly way to the minister-if we are to keep in force the amendment of 1931, is if possible to enlarge the Board of Pension Commissioners so as not to have the system glutted at the outset.
The other evening I spoke about the pension tribunals, and so far as my observations have gone I must say these gentlemen have carried out their duties in a most exemplary manner. As far as the province of British Columbia is concerned-and this part of my remarks might possibly be political-I have nothing but commendation for the minister because of his choice of the two distinguished gentlemen he has appointed from our province to carry out the work of the pension tribunals. I do not believe that in the entire province you could find two gentlemen who are better qualified for carrying out this very important work. If the personnel throughout the rest of Canada is of the same standard it is of a very high order indeed.
This afternoon the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray), complained that the tribunals did not visit the small centres. My hon. friend from Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) suggested in a very constructive sense indeed that some of the powers for the secondary review might very well be bestowed on the county court judges. This, I think, is well worth consideration by the minister. For some fifteen or sixteen months we have trained twelve able officers of the pension tribunal. By their decisions, some of which have been upset by the appeal court, they must now have a very intimate knowledge of the Pension Act, and I believe they are thoroughly competent to deal impartially with any cases which may be brought before them, and that they will give the returned soldier the benefit of the doubt without imperilling in any appreciable degree the security of the treasury. I have always had the suspicion that the ultimate tribunal is inclined to be influenced by too careful consideration for the security of the treasury as against the merits of the case affecting the returned soldier.
I wish to object most strenuously to the system of commission counsel. I believe the officers of the pension tribunals can be de-
Supply-Pensions

pended upon to render a fair and impartial verdict in regard to every service case that comes before them. Now the minister has got twelve men trained in this work, and he might very well allow each one to form a pension tribunal. This would give him twelve courts instead of four, which would go some distance towards meeting the point made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario and the hon. member for West Lambton.


Murray MacLaren: We have six divisions
now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then he could have two apiece for each court. That would enable the smaller centres to be visited, and the grievance in this respect would be immediately remedied.
My experience is that the main grievance of the ex-servicemen to-day is twofold. In the first instance, there is the delay in dealing with the case of the successful appellant which has been appealed from the pension tribunal to the appeal court of Ottawa. In the second place, there is the system of having a commission counsel lodge an appeal against the successful pension applicant. I think it absolutely contrary to all the accepted canons of justice and equity that an official under the direction of the Board of Pension Commissioners, the court of first instance, should himself direct the appeal from the decision of the gentlemen of the pension tribunal-who have seen the applicant and, as was said by an hon. member this afternoon, have studied his demeanour and have heard all the evidence- to a body down here who can only refer to the record of the case. As I say, I am convinced that even if your tribunals to-day were your ultimate court in regard to pensions, the treasury would not suffer to any appreciable degree. Then there is the delay here in Ottawa after the successful applicant has his appeal launched by the pension advocate. You have the machinery clogged throughout the three stages. I urge the minister to enlarge the personnel of the board as I have suggested, which he could do without incurring extra expense. I may tell him that they are far more sympathetic towards the cause of the returned soldier than they were nine or ten years ago. That may be due to the threat of appeal machinery hanging over their heads. If you enlarge the machinery of your court of first instance, if you make one member of the pension tribunal a quorum to hear appeals in the country, and if you take away from the commission counsel the power of launching appeals in the appeal court, I am 
convinced that the thirty thousand cases to which the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario referred will be disposed of within eight or ten months, with resultant satisfaction to the many ex-servicemen throughout the dominion.


Mr. GARDINER:: Has the minister any information as to whether the Board of Pension Commissioners in the past have used detective agencies for the purpose of securing information about applicants for pensions prior to the time of their enlistment?


Murray MacLaren: I have no knowledge on that point. I do not know that I thoroughly follow what the hon. member is asking.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps the minister will allow me to answer. There have always been what are known as social service investigators, who do make investigations with respect to the applicant's family history.


Robert Gardiner: Has it been the practice of the pension board to employ detective agencies for the purpose of obtaining information with regard to the applicant for a pension prior to the time of his enlistment?


Murray MacLaren: I cannot say as to employing detective agencies, but I can quite understand the pension board would investigate the early history of an applicant for pension whenever they thought it necessary. The early medical history might have a very direct bearing upon the man's disability.


Robert Gardiner: Would it be necessary, for instance, in the case of a man claiming a pension for an injured arm or hand to make such an investigation? I can quite understand that in cases of certain diseases such an investigation might be necessary, but not for a physical injury.


Murray MacLaren: I would say it might be necessary to ascertain whether the loss occurred previous to enlistment or not.


Peter McGibbon: The man could not enlist if he had lost an arm or a hand.


Murray MacLaren: Presumably a man might enlist although he had one eye or imperfect sight. I can understand that in some cases it is necessary to investigate a man's condition previous to enlistment.


Peter McGibbon: Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister must have a lapse of memory. A layman's opinion with respect to a man's sight previous to enlistment would be absolutely worthless.

Supply-Pensions


Murray MacLaren: That is not at all what I had reference to, Mr. Chairman. I say it may be necessary to investigate a man's past medical history.


Robert Gardiner: I had a case brought
to my attention the other day which seemed to me to be rather extravagant. The Thiel Detective Agency of Montreal was engaged to find out something about the applicant prior to enlistment. In this man's file there is a report signed by T. A. Lawson, acting general manager of the Thiel Detective Agency. The person whose history was to be investigated, the man who was applying for pension, had an injured left hand, and the board had supplied him with certain casings to put over that hand. The investigator began his work on April 2, 1924. He left Ottawa, went to Toronto and then to Collingwood, and came back to Ottawa again. On May 14 he went to Regina, then to Moose Jaw, then to Caron, back to Moose Jaw, again to Regina, then to Prince Albert, to Shell Brook, then back to Moose Jaw, to Mossbank, then to Cranbrook, British Columbia, to Fernie and finally back to Ottawa, arriving here on June 6. When the matter was brought to my attention it did seem to me that the Board of Pension Commissioners must have been pretty hard up to find an excuse to avoid paying a pension to a man whose hand was injured through war service.	.


Murray MacLaren: I might suggest that
the proper course is to furnish me with the particulars so that the case may be looked into. Each case should be explored thoroughly m order to see what can be said on each side.


Robert Gardiner: I suppose this file will
be available to the minister if I discuss the matter with him some time?


Murray MacLaren: Certainly.


Alan Webster Neill: Since the matter has been
introduced I should like to say a word or two on this question of investigators. I have no objection to the ordinary investigator who goes around and asks a man about his occupation, his ability to work, or his income, or who asks the man's employer these questions, but I do not like the way some of these men do their work. As my hon. friend from Acadia has mentioned, the department does not hesitate to spend quite large sums of money in investigations of this kind, and I know of one case in which an investigation was carried out in the old country and brought 41761-114
forth evidence trying to show that a certain injury had been caused eleven or twelve years before the time alleged.
I do object to the procedure followed in one case which came to my knowledge. The question largely turned upon whether or not the man was deaf previous to a certain occasion, and one of these industrial investigators, or whatever they call them, was sent around to make an inquiry. He did not go near the man; he did not tell the man he was making this investigation, nor did he tell the people whom he interviewed that his inquiry was of vital importance to the man in question. I will not say he snooped around, although that word was used; I suppose he was carrying out his duties to the best of his ability. He would go to a little town; he would go to the grocery store and ask the proprietor, "Do you know John Smith"? The answer would be yes, and then he would ask, "Is he deaf"? The storekeeper would answer, "I do not know; I never noticed it. I do not think so." That would go into the record, and that was the procedure followed right along. The investigator did not tell the persons he interviewed how important the matter was to the soldier; the soldier himself had no opportunity of hearing this evidence, but when the matter came up for decision that man lost his case largely because there were several foolscap pages of evidence of a similar kind. I was told that if I were given an opportunity of seeing this damning evidence I would not have been dissatisfied with the decision of the court, but I put this to the minister: If this man had been accused of a crime would evidence obtained in that way have been used against him? Of course it would not. The people would have been sworn and they would have been confronted with the accused. But because he was a soldier asking for a pension, that sort of evidence was accepted. Surely that is carrying this investigating business too far. I objected at the time and I still object. If we are to have these courts, with two government counsel against one counsel for the soldier, surely the inquiry should be conducted in a legal way and evidence which is not given under oath should not be accepted.


Murray MacLaren: May I correct my hon. friend in his statement that two government counsel are employed as against one for the soldier? That statement has been made before, but it is not so. Two government counsel do not appear as against one advocate for the soldier.

Supply-Pensions


Alan Webster Neill: There are never two counsel for the government?


Murray MacLaren: Not in the same case.


Alan Webster Neill: Possibly I am wrong, but in any case that is a detail which has very little bearing on the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the beginning there were two counsel, for purposes of training.


Alan Webster Neill: I can give the minister particulars of the case, if he wishes them.


Peter McGibbon: I am glad to hear the minister say he would like particulars of these furnished to him, but I ask him now what good it will do. I have a case that was turned down by the court of appeal; I think judgment was signed by Judge Hyndman. The man has a cardiac condition, with rheumatism and arthritis, and he is absolutely incapable of doing anything to-day. It was absolutely proved that his condition was due to war service, but in their investigations they got a positive reaction to a Kahn test for syphilis, and on that ground Judge Hyndman signed judgment depriving this man of his pension. That test is not specific; any medical man knows it is not definite. You will get it in connection with many other diseases. This soldier was a respectable man; he absolutely denied ever having had that disease, but even if that had been true it could have had nothing to do with his disability. The judgment was absolutely absurd and ridiculous to any man with any knowledge of medicine, and through that judgment this man lost his pension. I do not hesitate to say that I could submit that evidence to one hundred medical men, and that one hundred per cent of them would say he was unjustly deprived of his pension, but what recourse has he? If I give the minister the evidence will he say that he will correct this injustice?


Murray MacLaren: Would you repeat your question?


Peter McGibbon: If I submit the evidence to the minister will he correct this injustice?


Murray MacLaren: This gives me an opportunity to say a word to many hon. members who perhaps do not fully understand the working of these courts. I have nothing to do with the pension board; it is my duty to allow that board to form its own judgments without interference, especially as the minister could not possibly know all the circumstances of the case. That is also true with regard to the tribunal and the appeal court. In a

judicial way these bodies are independent of the minister, as they should be, and so I take that attitude. What I said to my hon. friend the leader of the Progressive party was that I should lay the files and the information before him. It does not follow that I am going to express any opinion on any particular case, but I will assist any hon. member to the best of my ability.


Peter McGibbon: I think the minister is quite right, and I never thought anything else, but his remark might have caused some misunderstanding. The point I am trying to make is this: We have a final court of appeal which has given a judgment which is absolutely absurd and which has deprived a man of what is rightfully his. What recourse is left to that man? He won his case before the tribunal when he proved that his disability was due to the war. That was accepted by the court of appeal, but they deprived him of any benefits because in performing a routine test they obtained a positive reaction for syphilis-a reaction on a test which is not specific .and final and which is obtained in many other diseases. And the man absolutely and positively denied having this particular infection. There is a case of rank injustice. The judgment was signed by Judge Hyndman of the court of appeal. Now the man is down and out and cannot earn a dollar; he is a cripple.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under the meritorio.ua clause, how many cases have been submitted to the Board of Pension Commissioners since the amendments of 1930, and in how many of them has decision been rendered?


Murray MacLaren: I am afraid I have not the numbers here; I believe I stated that there were thirty-seven applications and one hearing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As a
matter of fact, there were forty-seven applications, roughly speaking, and so far only in one case has decision been given. Surely that is an absolute outrage after eighteen months; in that time decision should have been rendered one way or the other. I know of applications that have been made from all over Canada to the Board of Pension Commissioners, and only one judgment has so far been rendered under this clause. I cannot conceive the reason for this delay. These are the most urgent cases of all, as a rule.


Mr. COOTE:: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a complaint made to me by several applicants for pension who have been ordered to report to Belcher hospital for examination. In one instance the applicant

Supply-Pensions
had a bad heart. He was engaged in manual labour, and when he complained he was taken to Belcher hospital, put to bed and taken care of for about a month before the examination was made. If this is the practice that is to be carried out, then I submit that these men have very just grounds for complaint. It is obvious that in most cases a heart affection improves after the patient has been in bed for some time under proper care, and if the returned soldier is to be examined for heart trouble he should be examined the moment he comes in from the country, for that is the time when his heart is bothering him. I know nothing about medicine but I do submit in all fairness that that is the proper time to have the medical examination. After the man has been in bed a month under proper treatment it is highly probable that the doctors will report his heart as normal; then he goes back to work and after a short interval his heart begins to bother him again and interferes with his work. This is one practice which the minister could rectify; he could see to it that when men are sent for examination the examination is made at once. The doctors should see the man under the conditions in which he has to work ordinarily. Will the minister undertake to have the present practice changed?


Murray MacLaren: I should like to have the particulars of the case. I shall have to make inquiries first to see whether that is actually the case.


George Gibson Coote: If it is, will the minister see that the necessary change is made?


Murray MacLaren: I shall be pleased to
look into the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister also look into the question I have raised in regard to meritorious cases?


Murray MacLaren: After all, what is a
meritorious case? It is one who is not eligible for pension-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under
the act.


Murray MacLaren: Under the act, yes; one who is not eligible under the act but who has done something meritorious or in whose history there is something that warrants the authorities in going outside actual eligibility in order to meet the case. That is on the one hand; on the other there are a great many cases that are waiting, cases that come under the act and that should be taken up first. I understand that the Board of Pension Commissioners 'takes up first those 'Cases that are 41761-114J
pressing; as far as possible they are heard in the order of priority of urgency. There are other cases that come before the meritorious cases, because the latter have no entitlement at the outset.


George Gibson Coote: I did not get the minister's
reply to the point I raised. I can assure him that there are several men who have told [DOT] me that what I have stated has actually taken place so far as they are cornicerned. When I have an opportunity I shall look uip the files, because it can be easily proved. If the minister will assure me that, in the event of his finding what I have represented to be correct, he will put a stop to the present practice, I shall appreciate it.


Murray MacLaren: If the hon. member will let me have the names, I shall have the matter promptly investigated and let him know. I think, however, it is fair to hear all the facts first.


Alfred Speakman: I can give the minister a history of a case that occurred long before his time. This was a mam in my own neighbourhood, a young chap who came back from overseas with some weakness that caused him to have fainting fits when under heavy work, so that he could not carry on his ordinary job. He looked as fit as a fiddje when he was resting, but he could not do any work; his heart bothered him. I knew nothing about his heart, but at my solicitation he was sent to hospital three times for examination. The facts as I am giving them were confirmed by 'the doctor. The man was put under observation in a state of absolute quietude, and he remained in bed for some time. While in bed his heart behaved normally-it always did when it was in bed. I complained; I said [DOT]that, though I was a layman, I did not think it was common sense to examine him under such conditions. I suggested that he should be examined under conditions in which he usually showed his symptoms. Finally, in order to get rid of me, thinking me a nuisance, they said "We will give you authority to have him examined under whatever conditions you suggest." I had him put through a physical test for two or three minutes and immediately his heart action was affected. That was what they said. I can assure the minister of this case because I accompanied the man on each occasion in order that I could verify what he said.
Before six o'clock the minister made three statements, or rather one statement that might be divided into 'three parts. First, he commented on the difference of opinion among
Supply-Pensions

the members and spoke of the consequent difficulty of arriving at any conclusion from what they said. My own observation was that there was unusual unanimity on the part of hon. members as to the best method to be tested out. The minister then said, quite correctly, that the situation which existed was no fault of the different boards, the Board of Pension Commissioners, or the tribunals, or the appeal court, but was the fault of the committee of which I had been a member as well as himself, we had imposed on these bodies an impossible task which we expected them to perform. He said we had placed them in such a position that there was bound to be an accumulation of work, and I heartily agreed with him. But unfortunately the minister concluded with the statement that the situation was not so bad, that the boards were keeping up with their work fairly well, and that there was not so much cause for alarm. May I state what my experience has been-not my opinion, which perhaps is not worth as much as the minister's, considering the position he occupies; he is more closely in touch with affairs than I am, although I have had a good deal to do with the matter. I would suggest 'that in all that has been said this afternoon and evening, we have been endeavouring to rectify the error Which the committee made. We acknowledge we were wrong. Some of us may have disagreed somewhat in the committee itself, but as one of those who agreed to a unanimous report, I am prepared-and I suggest there are others- to rectify a mistake which the minister says we made, in order to take these men away from the impossible position in which the minister suggests they are placed, and to take from them that impossible load which the minister indicates we have placed upon their shoulders.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to ask the
minister whether Belcher hospital in Calgary is owned by the government or whether it is leased; and if it is leased, when the lease expires and what chance there is of having this hospital moved to a better location? It is one of the worst locations they could have got in Calgary. It is located on Eighth avenue, the main business street of the city, with street carts running in front of it and a switching track up the lane behind it. I understand it was formerly used for a warehouse and it is a place illsuited for a hospital. If this building is simply under lease by the government, the hospital should be moved to some more suitable location as soon as the lease expires.


Murray MacLaren: The lease has something like six years still to run.


George Gibson Coote: What rental is being paid
for the building?


Murray MacLaren: I do not recall the
rental, but it is quite high. It has to run something like six or seven years.


Mr. IRVINE:: Some years ago the Alberta legislature decided to offer government house for sale. There were no offers to buy the house, whereupon it was restored as the residence of the lieutenant-governor. I suggest it would be an excellent use of government house to make out of it a hospital for returned soldiers. I shall ask the minister to keep that in mind for the future.


George Gibson Coote: As a final word I should
like to say that it would be much appreciated by the returned soldiers in Alberta who have to use a hospital, if the government would see fit to have that hospital removed to a more suitable location.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: I regret I have
not been present during the entire discussion on this matter, but I should like to make a few observations regarding the operation of the Pension Act. I understand this legislation was brought into existence with the unanimous assent of the house, and that it is not looked upon as a party measure. Nevertheless, almost every one of us realizes that there is a great defect in administration and I want to point out one defect which I think exists in the law and should be remedied. I do not wish to coin a startling phrase, but I really believe the returned soldier, who is an applicant for a pension, is under our legislation treated in a worse way than a man who is charged in our courts with an ordinary crime, and I think I can prove what I say. When a man is charged in our courts with a crime and the court of first instance renders judgment in bis favour, a judgment of not guilty, the crown has no appeal; the only appeal it has is against sentence. What is the situation that we find under the pension law? I understand the cardinal principle in the act was that a returned man, an applicant for pension, ought to have the benefit of the doubt; that is one principle that has been enshrined in our legislation. What happens? By law he has in the first instance the benefit of the doubt. He goes before the tribunal and a declaratory judgment is passed in his favour. That is, his case passes altogether from the region of doubt and partakes of the nature of a positive judgment. Then what happens? The crown appeals the case. After

S upply-Pensions
that what is the mental attitude of a returned man towards his country? A competent tribunal has passed a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to a pension and the court of appeal wipes out that judgment altogether and claims that he is not so entitled. Therefore when I make the statement that under out present legislation an applicant for pension is treated less fairly than a man charged with a crime, I think it goes without argument that such is the case.
I believe the legislation might be remedied in this way: * I understand the returned men asked for this court of appeal in order to protect their rights. This country, once a judgment is passed by the tribunal in favour of a pensioner, ought to stand by that decision, and the right of the erowm to appeal should be wiped out of the statute.
I should like to refer to the matter of congestion which exists at present in regard to the hearing of applications for pension. If that congestion is not removed before long, it is certainly going to be disastrous to this parliament and government at the next election. I know the returned men are becoming absolutely dissatisfied; they are wondering what is happening. I should like to make this suggestion by way of an improvement in the existing legislation. Recently we had a debate in the house about the salaries paid to our judges, and I think it was indicated that we have in our population of 10,000,000, more judges than they have in Great Britain and Ireland with a population of 45,000,000. I am not in favour of reducing judges' salaries, but that is another matter; I am in favour of giving the judges more work. I would suggest that the county court judges, in order to get this congestion cleared up, might have equal power with the pension tribunal and for that matter we might give to the service of the returned soldier applicants for pension, two weeks of the long vacation and possibly the first week of the ensuing court session. I make these observations in all sincerity, as a returned soldier, and also at the suggestion of the combined returned soldiers' organizations of the constituency which I have the honour to represent.


Peter McGibbon: I should like to ask the minister whether he has decided to take his tubercular cases away from Calydor sanatorium?


Murray MacLaren: The answer is no, I have not decided. I think there will not be many going.


Peter McGibbon: Then that compels me
to make a few observations, Mr. Chairman, and I predicate them upon this, that parliament and the government should keep faith. When they cease to do that, we are in a deplorable condition. That necessitates my going back for about ten or twelve years when a parliamentary committee of this house on pensions requested the government of the day to make an agreement with Calydor sanatorium in the district of Muskoka for taking care of the tubercular patients who are wards of the government. The committee made that request because this institution is one of the best in Canada or on the continent of America, and because they were not able to use it to the extent that they wanted to use it. At that time there were many thousands of patients nominally listed as tubercular but in whose case the final diagnosis had not been made, and consequently they were not drawing a pension. The object of the request was that this institution should be used to make a final diagnosis and clear up these cases in order that they might be properly treated and that those who were illegally drawing full-time pensions should not be allowed to draw them. The people of (hat institution agreed to the request of the government, and they put up three dollars to every one that the government of the day put up. They increased their staff and overhead expenses, and they have never got the patients to which they were entitled according to the agreement. As a result the overhead and cost of maintenance for the patients was increased even for civilians, and to-day that institution is in financial distress. Probabfy I should not say that but it is a fact, due to the agreement which they made with the government of this country. They lived up to the letter and spirit of the agreement, but the country did not. The institution never got the patients that they were legitimately entitled to expect, although I do not believe that any number was definitely specified in the agreement.
I ain informed by the medical superintendent, Mr. Chairman, that the other day this institution got a letter from the department that it was going to close the whole thing out, going to scrap that institution and leave it with that increased staff and increased overhead expenses. The surprising thing to me is this, that when I spoke to the minister about it he did not know anything about it although the letter that was received by the institution said that the matter was finally settled. Now the question I want to ask the
Supply-Pensions

minister is this: Who is running his department? Are the officials going to decide and settle matters of policy and give final judgment without the minister knowing anything about it? If I were minister and an official did that for me he would lose his job the next morning. It is a most humiliating position for officials in a department to decide and settle matters of policy and notify those concerned that that is the end of it without the minister himself knowing anything about it. Over and above that, the point I want to impress on the committee is this, that parliament and the government of the day solicited the agreement with that institution; it was recommended by the pension committee of that day, and the government of the day made the agreement. The institution lived up to the spirit and the letter of the agreement, and as a consequence they have suffered serious financial loss. What I want to ask the minister is this: Is he going to repudiate the spirit of that agreement?


Murray MacLaren: So far as that question goes, I do not .propose to answer any question suggesting that the minister .is going to repudiate anything. I have further to state that *my hon. friend has not stated the case correctly. Without delaying the committee I wish to state that I did not make that statement to the hon. member for Muskoka-On-tario. I did know about the matter, and it was not terminated. Conditions were proposed to this sanatorium on the same basis as all the other sanatoria in Canada. The term of the agreement has expired. Further, I am still looking into the matter to see if there is any obligation on the department in honour, if not according to the letter of 'the law.


Peter McGibbon: I would ask the minister to be a little more definite and say wherein I mistated the case.


Murray MacLaren: It is very easy. The member stated that I did not know that notice had (been sent. I did know it. It was proposed that they continue on the same basis as other sanatoria.


Peter McGibbon: All I have to say, and I will apologize if I am wrong, is that when I went in to discuss it with the minister he did not know anything about it.


Murray MacLaren: Excuse me, I did.
. Mr. McGIBBON: The minister said he did not.


Murray MacLaren: I must ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.


Peter McGibbon: I am willing to withdraw it if I am wrong, but I had to produce a letter to the minister to let him know what I was talking about. If he knew about it, I would not have had to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Care of patients and medical examination respecting pension, $2,200,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the minister to explain -the reduction of $800,000? According to the minister's annual report there were 12,077 admitted to hospital last year as against 9,941 in 1929-30, and inpatient treatment was given to 15,519 as against 12,939 in 1929-30. So that the medical population is increasing all the time in these hospitals. How is this decrease justified?


Murray MacLaren: The three million dollars which was voted last year was in excess of the requirements. There was spent last year 82,275,000, which left a balance of $725,000, so that actually it means that we are getting along with $75,000 less this year. I do not know whether that will cover the requirements.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries - administrative, $1,333,000; insurance, $35,000; hospitals and clinics, $1,567,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do the same explanations attach to the reductions in this vote?


Murray MacLaren: The ten per cent is a factor.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In connection with the hospitals and clinics?


Murray MacLaren: Yes, there has been some reduction in staff. The decrease is made up of a reduction in staff, and the ten per cent cut.


George Gibson Coote: How much of this item is for salaries? The item does not make it clear.


Murray MacLaren: It is entirely for salaries.


George Gibson Coote: The second section of the item is an expenditure for insurance; is that for salaries?


Murray MacLaren: That is in connection with the administration of life insurance on the disabled men.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Pensions
Compensation (pay and allowances), $1,950,000.
Alfred Speakman: Was the entire amount of last year's vote spent? I notice there is a reduction of $800,000, and I was wondering if the entire amount had been expended. If so how could a reduction take place?


Murray MacLaren: The sum of 8875,000 was unexpended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment relief, $1,250,000.
Mr. VENIOT:: Who are eligible under that vote?


Murray MacLaren: Pensioners who are in need of help, bearing in mind the pensions they are receiving and other means at their disposal. The other day the vote was increased to the extent of $875,000. Last year the vote was $1,250,000, but in the supplementary estimates of two or three days ago an increase of $875,000 was made. During the last year relief was administered during the summer months, a procedure which is not customary. Then, there were more applicants, and the municipalities now direct the men to the department rather than find work for them locally. For those reasons there are more calls on the resources of the department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is a
pensioner eligible, no matter what the assessment of his pension may be?


Murray MacLaren: He is, if it is a small assessment. If it is sufficiently high he does not receive money from this vote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is there a fixed percentage?


Murray MacLaren: No, he could not depend on the pension. If he received a full pension he would not come under this vote, because his pension would be sufficient. If, however, he received only a small pension his receipts might be brought up to a certain figure.


Peter John Veniot: What relief can be given to a returned soldier who has applied for a pension, whose case is not decided and who is unable to work or to find work? I understand that no relief is given in such cases, and am wondering if it is not possible to make provision for them. I have in mind two instances where applications have been brought 'before the pensions 'board, and in both cases not only are they unable to find work, but if they could find it they would not be able to take it because of their incapacity. These men are literally at the
mercy of their friends and neighbours. Both are married, and one has a family of six children. Surely in cases of that kind something should be done, although there may be no authority under the act.


Murray MacLaren: The cases described by my hon. friend would come under the civil unemployment relief, but not under the present vote.


Peter John Veniot: When there is no work for them, what must they do? Are they to starve in the meantime? So far as I know there has been no direct relief provided. There are numerous cases throughout the country such as I have described, although I cite only two from my own county. Perhaps the minister would consult with his officials and see if during the winter months some relief could be afforded. Fifteen or twenty dollars a month would be very helpful in the winter time.


Frederick William Gershaw: Could the minister tell us if this money is actually being spent? I ask the question because I have received communications from two merchants to the effect that these moneys have not gone forward to the needy people.


Murray MacLaren: The relief is not tendered in cash, but orders for groceries and coal are given. Cheques are sent to householders to pay rent bills.


Frederick William Gershaw: Have those cheques been going forward? The merchants have been objecting because of the delay.


Murray MacLaren: My hon. friend will
understand that those payments had to await passage of the supplementary vote for $875,000, and the royal assent, which was not obtained until a short time later. Cheques have gone out.


Mr. McLEAN:: How many in the three maritime provinces received relief under this vote ?


Murray MacLaren: If the hon. member
wishes I shall send that information to him; I do not have it before me.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the back amounts be paid in cases where assistance has not been given since January? As I understand it, the exservice man cannot get this relief unless his pension is low. In addition to the pension he receives he is allowed about $4 per week until the sum he receives is brought up to about S60 per month. I understand since January these payments have not been made.


Murray MacLaren: I have explained that they were not made because we had not the money with which to make them.
Supply-Pensions


Arthur Edward Ross: Will back amounts be paid?


Murray MacLaren: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Operating expenses and working capital, $400,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is
the explanation of this item?


Murray MacLaren: Office expenses, telegrams, telephones and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sheltered employment, $70,000.
Mr. HEAPS:: What is this item for?


Murray MacLaren: We have workshops at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and Hamilton, where disabled men are employed at making and repairing furniture. This represents the sum necessary to make up the deficit.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There has been a good deal of complaint in Winnipeg at the department not reopening the workshop that was burnt down some time ago. The disabled men who formerly worked there are in many instances depending on municipal relief. Can the minister hold out any hope of reopening that workshop?


Murray MacLaren: I would not wish to encourage my hon. friend. The building was destroyed. About twenty-five men were engaged there. As a matter of fact these factories have passed their original objective, which was to train the men, not to give them employment for the remainder of their active days. But these factories have been continued, although there is some discontent among those for whom we cannot find room in them. While these factories do give complete relief to the men who are able to get into them, still I do not think it would be in the general interest to acquire more factories.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many are employed in the four shops still in existence?


Murray MacLaren: In all, one hundred and ninety.


Abraham Albert Heaps: So it costs $70,000 a year to look after those one hundred and ninety men?


Murray MacLaren: That is right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would it not be better to
pay those men a fairly substantial sum and do away with the factories?


Murray MacLaren: They are earning their
living in those factories. This is a better way of helping them than the method suggested by my hon. friend.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would not the same argument apply equally as well to those returned men in Winnipeg who to-day are doing practically nothing on account of the shop having been burned down?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Last Post Fund, $35,000.
Ross Wilfred Gray: I am heartily in sympathy
with the minister in his endeavour to reduce the estimates wherever possible, but it does seem to me that in this particular instance no reduction should be made. The amount last year was $40,000. The minister is reducing it this year by $5,000. There is no more worthy item in the estimates than the grant to the Last Post Fund. I think the minister is well aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the local organizations to raise money for this particular fund. I would urge that he increase the vote to the original amount of last year. I am sure every hon. member would be heartily in accord with a motion to this effect.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Murray MacLaren: I agree the fund is for
a very worthy purpose, and I will see if anything can be done on the lines suggested by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pension tribunal, $65,700.
Mr. MacLEAN:: There seems to be considerable dissatisfaction, Mr. Chairman, in the working of this tribunal. After the pension tribunal has met the applicant personally, gone into all the details of his case, and decided in his favour, I think it is most unfair that an appeal should be taken by an official of the department, with the result that in many cases the successful applicant before the pension tribunal is deprived of his pension. It would be a good deal better not to grant a pension at all than to inflict this hardship on the successful applicant. I think this should be looked into, and I should like to hear what the minister has to say on the subject.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Tummon) :: All that has been discussed on the previous item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War veterans' allowances, $1,300,000.
Alan Webster Neill: As this represents a cut of
twenty per cent, I hope it does not mean there will be any reduction in the purposes of the grant. This is one form of soldiers' relief that has worked well. Perhaps as times improve we might like to see the act extended,

Supply-National Health
but up to the present the administration has been satisfactorily conducted. The officials seem to be willing and anxious to do their best for our war veterans and the consideration of cases is kept well up to date, and I do hope this cut does not mean a permanent reduction, because these men are dropping in, so to speak, all the time as they become of age. I hope the minister can give some explanation as to surplus funds last year that will reassure the men in that regard.


Murray MacLaren: This item is an unavoidable expenditure. If the men are qualified I presume they will be paid no matter what may be the estimate. This is one of the most satisfactory parts of our pension work.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much was spent last
year?


Murray MacLaren: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
point out that up to September 1, 1931, when the legislation had been in force for one year, the number of those receiving allowances was 3,019, representing an expenditure of $990,084. That was the first year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then it is quite possible that the amount provided in the estimates will be sufficient for the ensuing year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should
like to quote just one other paragraph from the annual report of the department:
The work is up to date in so far that on December 1, 1931, 8.490 applications had been received by the committee, of which 8.375 had been finally disposed of; the remaining 115 having been deferred for further information or awaiting consideration.
I think this is an example to the three courts we have dealing with applications for pension in Canada.


Murray MacLaren: I am very glad these
officers are receiving a little recognition, because really this committee is doing a very good work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Health

quarantine: salaries and contingencies of organized districts, public health in other districts, Tracadie and Bentinck Island lazarettoes and leprosy generally, $192,000.
Peter John Veniot: I was speaking to the minister the other day with regard to a rumor that the lazaretto at Tracadie might be closed
and the lepers removed to the quarantine station in Quebec. At that time the minister assured me that nothing had been heard of it in the department for at least the last year and a half. I should like to know if the minister is in a position to-night to say that there will be no removal of the lepers from Tracadie to the quarantine station in Quebec; I should like to get it on record.


Murray MacLaren: I am in a position to say that the matter is not under consideration at all, nor is such action contemplated. Of course I cannot say it never will happen, but I have no intention of making any change at present.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Health-immigration medical inspection, $163,200.
Abraham Albert Heaps: How much was spent under
this vote last year?


Murray MacLaren: For the ten months we spent $180,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister tell us
how many doctors are engaged in this work abroad?


Murray MacLaren: There are twelve doctors overseas; last year the number was reduced by four or five.


George Gibson Coote: Are their salaries being reduced?


Murray MacLaren: The reduction applies to everyone.


Peter John Veniot: With the policy of the government a very definite restriction in immigration, why is this amount necessary?


Murray MacLaren: It is necessary to have
a certain number of medical inspectors. We have two in London, two in Liverpool, two in Glasgow, one in Belfast, one in Paris, one in Hamburg and two in Antwerp. That is the minimum.


Peter John Veniot: I thought we were not
permitting any immigration from the continent. If that is so, why keep medical inspectors over there?


Murray MacLaren: I am acting in conjunction with the Minister of Immigration, and I accept his advice as to the number of doctors he thinks should be there.


Peter John Veniot: Then when the immigration estimates are up perhaps the minister will give us that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-National Health
[Stage Direction]
Grant to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $18,000.
George Gibson Coote: I should like to know why
this item is being reduced by $2,000.


Murray MacLaren: It is the ten per cent
reduction.


George Gibson Coote: Is it the intention to pay
the blind a smaller pension this year? This is about the last place we should start to curtail our expenditures.


Murray MacLaren: If the hon. member will look over the grants he will find them all treated in the same way.


George Gibson Coote: I do not think these blind
people ever received sufficient pension, and I protest against the action of the government in making this reduction.


Murray MacLaren: This is not for pensions to the blind. It is a grant.


Mr. HEENAN:: Surely the government are not going to cut the blind as well as those who can see. They are going a long way when they reduce by $2,000 the grant to the Institute for the Blind. I had thought that before now they would have revised the old age pension scheme so as to take care of the blind under that provision. Had a real government been returned to power, the blind would have been receiving assistance to-day under the old age pensions legislation. Surely this is one place where the government should have refrained from putting their knife into the allowance made to suffering humanity-an allowance of $20,000. The matter is wmrthy of reconsideration.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In connection with this grant to the institute for the blind, may I say that during the last campaign I was asked whether I was in favour of pensions for the blind, and I said I was. Probably, therefore, it would be consistent for me now to repeat that statement here. I am not going to make a speech, but I wish to call the matter to the attention of the minister. It seems to me that if this parliament can legislate on pensions because of the disability of age, by the same token they have power to pass legislation to meet the disability of lack of sight. The age set under the Old Age Pension Act is three score years and ten. That age is fixed because it has been found that after seventy years of age a person who is without means of supporting himself is helpless. The basis of the pension is the physical inability of the individual to make his way in this world. Age is one disability and lack of sight is another, and if blindness comes before the

age of seventy it is a disability that prevents the individual from earning his living. I urge that upon the minister. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River suggested that if a real government were in power they might do something about it. In reply to the hon. gentleman I would point out that in 1926, I placed on the order paper-and this was when a government which was supposed to be a real government was in power-this question:
Is it the intention of the federal government to introduce legislation to provide pensions for the blind?
The answer I received, which is of record, as given by the then Prime Minister, now leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), was:
The matter of pensions for the blind is not enumerated under the provisions in the British North America Act applying exclusively to the dominion.
That was the stand taken by the party supported by the hon. member. But apart altogether from that, I think the principle is sound, and I hope to see the day when, whether it be by an amendment to the old age pensions legislation, or by a separate act, legislation will be introduced in this house making the matter of pensions for the blind a federal burden to be dealt with by Canada as a whole, so that those afflicted people will get similar treatment throughout the dominion.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Will the
minister give some details of the expenditures under this item? What is the work done by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind? How many persons do they care for?


Murray MacLaren: The institute was formed by the combination of existing organizations in Canada and it works in close affiliation with similar local bodies. The total expenses incurred exceed $200,000 per annum, which is raised from grants from the federal, provincial and municipal authorities, and from private subscriptions. Industrial establishments are maintained at Halifax, Ottawa, Toronto and Winnipeg. There was authorized in 1919 payment of an annual grant of $10,000 for a period of five years.


Edward Joseph Garland: I doubt
whether during the last nine years there has been a single session when some hon. gentleman somewhere in the house has not asked that this item be increased rather than decreased. The necessity for caring for unfortunate people so afflicted touches a keen chord of human sympathy, and I think this

Supply-National Health
should be one of the last departments to be affected, if ever it is affected, by the so-called economy program of the government. I join with those who have preceded me in protesting against this reduction. There are one or two other items in which reductions are equally inexcusable, but this one certainly will not receive the approval of the Canadian public. Any reduction in a vote intended to take care of acute human suffering or of a disability of this type will be protested against all over Canada.


Alfred Speakman: I wish to say one word in support of the attitude that has been taken towards this reduction. In protesting against it I would point out something that perhaps is not apparent to everyone. At this time, during a year when able-bodied men, in full possession of all their faculties, find it unusually difficult to secure employment to support themselves and their families, it becomes doubly and trebly difficult for people who are afflicted with any major disability, and particularly blindness, to obtain work. These people are placed at a peculiar disadvantage at this time when competition for any position at all is so keen. All positions to-day are eagerh' sought by men in full possession of all their faculties, and under these circumstances the condition of the blind becomes very much accentuated. I would protest against the reduction. I think that public opinion, to say nothing of the opinion in the house on all sides, would certainly have supported a substantial increase in such an item rather than a decrease. May I also support the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, a suggestion which has been discussed in this house from time to time but never dealt with; I refer to the question of pensions for the blind. The blind form a class set apart from all others; their situation is so peculiar that pensions granted to them would not arouse jealousy among other people. It would not establish a precedent whereby others suffering from other infirmities might come forward and demand similar consideration. This disability forces people to move in a world of darkness all the days of their life, and to people so afflicted generous treatment should be given. Such treatment, I say, would not be resented by others nor would it constitute a precedent; on the contrary, it would be appreciated and supported by the whole country. Another factor must be considered, namely, the extent of such assistance; I do not mean individual assistance, but the total cost. After all, and most fortunately, this is a class comparatively limited in numbers and the total cost would
not be such as to prohibit reasonably sympathetic consideration of their case. I hope that at some time, and the sooner the better, the house will have the pleasure of supporting a measure which will provide, on the part of the people of this country, financial assistance for the blind.


Robert James Manion: May I point out to my hon. friend that in past years this grant has not been so large as it is this year? The grant started originally in 1919 at $10,000 and for a number of years continued at that figure. In 1921-22 it was raised to $20,000 and in 1924-25 and continuing years it was dropped again to $10,000. Then in 1928-29 it was raised to $15,000 and it has been $20,000 for only a couple of years. No one questions the sympathy to which my hon. friend and the other hon. gentleman have given expression in regard to people who are blind, but the fact is that it was thought the easiest way to deal with all these grants was, if there were to be any cuts at all, rather than cut out some entirely, to make a ten per cent cut in all of them, and this has been done. In view of the past amount of the grant, I think that is the fairest method that could be adopted. I am not quarrelling with the statement made by anybody in regard to the sympathy these people deserve, but at the same time this seems a fair action when one remembers the grant was $10,000 only a few years ago.


Alfred Speakman: The remarks of the
Minister of Railways afford me an opportunity for making another protest. I think there is some justice in his contention that it is better to reduce all the grants by a certain percentage than to eliminate some entirely, but I notice one grant is eliminated, that to the Canadian Social Hygiene Council, an organization which has done splendid work throughout the whole country, the value of which can hardly be estimated, work of an educational character which, if we consider the fact that every year brings a fresh contingent of young people who arrive at the age when such education is necessary, must be carried on continuously if it is to be of anj' value. May I suggest that it would be well for the future of Canada, well for the future of the entire community, if the suggestion made by the Minister of Railways were carried out completely and none of these grants, particularly that of the nature I have indicated, were cut out.


Peter Heenan: Just for the information of my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and for his informa-
1S20
Supply-National Health,

tion only, because, if I remember aright, I do not think he was a member of the last parliament-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I said 1926.


Peter Heenan: I am speaking of 1926 to 1930. The hon. member stated that he placed a question on the order paper in 1926, asking whether it was the intention of the government to introduce legislation to provide pensions for the blind, and the then prime minister, now leader of the opposition, answered to the effect that the matter came within the jurisdiction, not of the federal parliament but rather of the provinces. I want to point out to the hon. member that the then prime minister replied correctly on that occasion. The difference is, however, that if one were' to ask that question to-day, the present Prime Minister would say that it was not in order for a member of the opposition to ask questions with respect to the policy of the government. The situation is this, that this being a matter that did come and still comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces, we had representations made to us by various provinces that the first time the Old Age Pension Act was amended we should take care of the blind. The blind people in 1928 or 1929, I am not sure which, had the assurance-I was on the delegation that met them -that the first time we amended the Old Age Pension Act they would be taken care of under it, of course with consent of the provinces. The act was amended last session and the representation was made across the floor of the house to the present government, but they did not see fit to accede to it. That is why I made the remark I did.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I should like to thank the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy river for explaining once more that this is one of the many things which the party he supports would have done had they remained in power.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene, $9,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: This appropriation is not cut just ten per cent and the Minister of Railways should explain why the tip of the scythe has cut more deeply in one spot than another in the garden of flowers. In this case we shall have no blossoms this year and nobody will be happy. There will not be any more seeds sown. Why is it that in some cases only the flower has been cut off, while in others almost the entire plant has been stricken down?


Murray MacLaren: It is obvious what the position is. Under special conditions a reduction has had to be made in the vote this year.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like to know the conditions. If the members of the committee will take a glance down this column they will find some very interesting facts. First of all, as mentioned by the hon. member for Red Deer, the appropriation for the Canadian Social Hygiene Council is entirely cut off; this appropriation to the Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene is reduced by more than fifty per cent, but apparently we conceive it to be necessary to maintain almost the entire expense in connection with the grant to the Chief Constables' Association of Canada and the grant to the Interparliamentary Union, the latter being reduced by only $60. I disagree with the principle enunciated by the Minister of Railways; but if, as he asserts, it is the policy under which these estimates have been cut, surely an explanation should be forthcoming from him why in this case fifty per cent is cut off this appropriation and only ten j>er cent cut off that to the Chief Constables' Association.


Alfred Speakman: While the minister is considering his answer, might I suggest that this is a 'peculiarly inappropriate vote to be cut at this time. A few days ago, in common I assume with a few of the other members of the house, while perusing the columns of a newspaper published in this city, I noticed some rather unfavourable comments in respect of, shall I say the sanity of members of parliament, including members of the government and leaders of the house. If we are to take that editorial seriously, might I suggest that an increase rather than a decrease in this vote might be necessitated? But apart from that and speaking perhaps more seriously, the time in which we live and the nervous strain under which we are all working-I mean the people throughout the country'-would certainly necessitate extreme care and possibly increased expenditure in respect of this particular appropriation. I think it was a mistake, at least in this instance, that the doctrine enunciated by the Minister of Railways in regard to a ten per cent cut, was not adhered to, instead of a fifty per cent cut being made.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member for Red Deer has not fully explained whether the restoration of the grant to its old standard was in his opinion for the purpose of taking care of the mental condition of members of the House of Commons, or that of the Ottawa Journal.

Supply-Justice


George Gibson Coote: While the minister is cogitating his answer may I say that if one cared to be facetious he might suggest that the economic conditions obtaining in this country under the present government are such that we may need a very large grant to take care of all the people who will become mentally deranged. Speaking seriously, I believe that the economic conditions in this country at the present time are going to increase, and have already increased, the strain upon institutions and people who are caring for the mentally deranged, and I think that this is one of the last votes that should be reduced if the Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene is making any proper use of the grant. I say that in all seriousness, and I am surprised that the Minister of National Health would reduce this grant by fifty-five or sixty per cent. Certainly he should explain to the committee why this grant has been reduced from $20,000 to $9,000 at a time like this. We need something more than the simple statement that all these grants are ' being reduced by ten per cent, because the reduction here is over fifty per cent.


Edward Joseph Garland: This committee is entitled to an explanation, and I for one will not allow the vote to pass until we get one. That is the least we can expect from the minister.


Murray MacLaren: I have no further
explanation to give beyond the one I have already given.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
that explanation?


Murray MacLaren: There is a reduction all around this year in view of the financial stringency.


George Gibson Coote: The financial stringency is
driving [DOT] some people almost out of their minds; in fact, some men in this country have been driven insane because, of it. How the financial stringency can be given as an excuse for reducing thi-s grant by over fifty per cent is beyond my imagination.


Edward Joseph Garland: If we receive no better explanation from the minister than we have had I am opposed to the item carrying.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the interparliamentary union, $540.
Edward Joseph Garland: What is
this item for?


Murray MacLaren: For some reason it has been put forward by my department for
several years. That is the only explanation I can give. I might mention that I happen to be president of the Canadian branch just now, and when we have our annual meeting I hope that everyone will be present.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I
suggest to the minister quite respectfully that he might just as well out out this vote. It is only $540 anyhow for the interparliamentary union, and members of parliament whose indemnities have already been cut can stand the .cutting out of this small sum. It will mot be missed, aind we could add that much to the vote for the blind.


George Gibson Coote: Will this add anything to
the health of the country?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Administration of Justice-Exchequer Court of Canada-contingencies-judges' and court officials' travelling expenses, remuneration to sheriffs, etc., printing, stationery, etc., and $150 for judges' books, $7,500.
Printing, binding and distributing court reports, $3,000.
['Mr. Justice Duff visited Washington last month and had a conference with the representatives of the American government. The case is rather complicated at the present time. The right hon. gentleman is, I think, fully aware of the intricate and delicate legal questions that have been raised, and at the moment there has been no determination of these preliminary questions, with respect to which reports had to be made to enable further action to be taken. But some\n41761-115J\nprogress has been made by reason of the conference that took place last month.']
Alfred Speakman: I want to ask a question which may properly come under 'this vote. There are occasions when private citizens, having or thinking they have a claim against the crown, wish to proceed against some body representing the crown, and I understand that before they can do so a fiat must be granted by the Department of Justice permitting them to bring suit. The question arose through a request made to me by one of our returned men. He had got into some dispute with the pension commission and he was under the impression-I am not familiar with all the details-that he was being wrongfully refused payment of pension after thei act had been complied with to the extent of the pension itself being granted in part. He was then advised that the nest step 'to be taken was to proceed against the pension commission, and that in order to do that he had to secure a fiat from the Department of Justice permitting him to bring suit. I am not familiar with the procedure, and I should be glad if the minister would tell me first whether, under any circumstances, suit of tha't nature may be brought ; if so, is it necessary first to secure a fiat? Also, what procedure must be followed in order to make application for that fiat? If the minister can answer that it will enable me to reply to the inquiries made.


Hugh Guthrie: All actions or suits against the crown
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries

can be commenced only by a fiat permitting action to be brought. I do not know the facts of the case to which my hon. friend has referred, but he may take it as the law generally that no suit can be entertained against the crown without the consent of the crown, which is the fiat. Application for a fiat is made to the Minister of Justice, and when granted suit can be brought in the exchequer court. In any reasonable case a fiat is never withheld.


Alfred Speakman: Thank you. If that is the case a person wishing to apply for a fiat simply communicates with the Minister of Justice stating his case and making his request?


Hugh Guthrie: There is a form of petition submitted when a request is made for a fiat. A petition is filed, and then on the recommendation of the minister His Excellency the Governor General endorses it, "Let right be done." That is the fiat.


Alfred Speakman: A copy of the petition may be secured from the Department of Justice?


Hugh Guthrie: The form of petition is in accordance with the rules of the exchequer court, which are available to anybody.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
['The form of petition is in accordance with the rules of the exchequer court, which are available to anybody.']
Hugh Guthrie: The next item is in connection with penitentiaries. Unfortunately my deputy is not in the chamber.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Go ahead.
Penitentiaries-amount required for cost of administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies and equipment, maintenance and discharge of inmates at Kingston. St. Vincent de Paul. Dorchester, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Collins Bay penitentiaries, $2,655,700.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I should like to refer to the case of Fontaine and Lacasse, who, on account of a miscarriage of justice a few years ago, were sent to a penitentiary. Afterwards it was found that they were innocent. I understand they have made application to the Department of Justice for compensation. To bring the facts clearly before the committee I shall read an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of March 17, 1932:
The Citizen has received a letter from Lionel Fontaine in which he appeals to us again to draw his case to the attention of parliament. This we do in the belief that until some restitution is made a blot will remain on Canada's reputation for impartial justice.
Fontaine is one of the two men (Lacasse is the other) who were charged, "identified," and sentenced as the guilty persons in the robbery of an Ottawa milk salesman in Rockcliffe in the
[Mr. Guthrie.l
fall of 1929. They were given two years and served seven months of that term before their innocence, by an extraordinary turn of events, in which the police had no part, was established.
It is now nearly two years since Fontaine and Lacasse were shown to be the victoms of a miscarriage of justice. But they have received no redress.
Then the closing paragraph is as follows:
Presuming no steps have yet been taken to "amend the incident" it is time that something were done. Fontaine asks on behalf of himself and Lacasse for compensation to the amount he would have earned if gainfully employed during the seven months the two lay in prison innocently convicted. We respectfully call the attention of the authorities to this request once more and suggest that the compensation be paid.	.
I think the request is very reasonable, because had they been falsely accused by a layman he would have had to make compensation.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member is no doubt aware of the fact that while we in this parliament make the criminal law of Canada, the Department of Justice or the government does not administer that law throughout the provinces. The unfortunate prosecution which resulted in the conviction of these two young men was undertaken at the instance of the attorney general's department of the province of Ontario. His officers made the arrest and conducted the prosecution; the federal department of Justice had no part in it whatsoever. Conviction was made after a trial in the province of Ontario, and sentence was imposed by a court of that province. The prisoners were ordered to serve their terms in the penitentiary at Kingston. As soon as the true facts were brought to the attention of the former Minister of Justice he recommended that the two young men in question be released. I do not think he had authority to make a payment of money, or to do anything other than he did do-to have the young men released as speedily as possible. This case has been before me at least half a dozen times, and in each instance I have informed the applicants that if they have any redress they must seek it from the legislature of Ontario, in which province the prosecution was instituted. It is one of those unfortunate miscarriages of justice that sometimes take place, but I cannot see that the federal department is in any way responsible for it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The Minister of Justice has said an injustice was done to these men. Naturally the Canadian people will think they are entitled to compensation. So far as I can learn, no application has been made to the provincial legislature. It would seem that

Supply-Justice

Penitentiaries
pressure should be brought upon the provincial authorities by the federal government so that this anomaly may be remedied. From the article appearing in the Citizen one would conclude that these young men think they should receive compensation from federal authorities,


Hugh Guthrie: They have no reason to think that, because ever since they were liberated they have been informed definitely and on many occasions that any claim to compensation or indemnity they may have should be lodged with the Ontario legislature. They know that; I do not know whether or not they have made application there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have learned there is to be some reorganization in connection with the personnel of the penitentiary at Kingston. Is the minister in a position to make a statement in that connection?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes; reorganization is contemplated. We have two penitentiaries at Kingston. One of them is in course of construction, and has hitherto been referred to as the preferred class penitentiary. The name has been changed and it is now known as the Collins Bay penitentiary. That institution was controlled by an acting warden who had never been appointed to the wandenship. Formerly he had been an inspector on the penitentiary staff, and he has now returned to his duties as inspector at Ottawa. Another member of the staff named Allen, who was chief engineer, has been appointed warden of the Collins Bay penitentiary. Warden Ponsford of Kingston penitentiary has retired. The position is now vacant. There is an acting warden in that penitentiary, a man who has been for a long time on the penitentiary staff, but the appointment will be filled by the Civil Service Commission. The advertisement for that position has recently been current, and I think applications are all in and are now under consideration. I do not know what the determination of the commission will be in that respect. There is also another change through the retirement of General Hughes, who for many years was superintendent of penitentiaries. That position is likewise vacant and an advertisement is current by the Civil Service Commission to fill it.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister any information regarding a criminal by the name of Bagiev? He escaped from Oakalla provincial prison some time ago. It is said he was sentenced to a ten-year term at New Westminster penitentiary and was released after serving only five years. Later he was picked up by the provincial police and put in the
provincial prison at Oakalla. He is now advertised as a very desperate criminal who boasts that he will not be taken alive.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I have some information with regard to the case. This man Bagley, or Brown-I think Brown is his correct name-was implicated, with three others, in an armed robbery some six or seven years ago. They were convicted and received fairly long terms in the penitentiary. Brown, or Bagley, was sentenced to a term of ten years and twenty lashes. His three companions in crime were released in 1928 and 1929. Brown was not released at that time. He did receive the lashes that were imposed and has served with remission-because remission is allowed for good conduct-six and a half years of his term. In November, 1930, he was released for deportation to the United States, being an American citizen. He was deported. Subsequently he seems to have again come to Canada in some way or other, and committed a further crime, for which he was placed in the provincial prison at Oakalla, British Columbia. From that prison he escaped, and has since been guilty of some other serious depredation, I do not know exactly of what nature. I believe at the moment his whereabouts are not known, but, I understand, he is regarded as a dangerous criminal.


Thomas Reid: Is the position of warden at
New Westminster penitentiary being filled?


Hugh Guthrie: No, that also is awaiting action by the Civil Service Commission. The warden at New Westminster resigned to take the position of chief of police of the- city of Vancouver.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How does the Civil Service Commission go about filling the position of warden of a penitentiary?


Hugh Guthrie: I must say quite freely
that I have not been consulted about it either directly or indirectly by any member of the commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Have any of
them ever been in a penitentiary themselves?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot say as to that,
but I understand that they selected a committee and placed the applications before the committee to deal with. I know of one case -and I fancy that my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition will recall it-where the Civil Service Commission made an appointment some years ago and actually brought the man from Nova Scotia to fill it, but when he got here they reconsidered the matter and told him he could not have the position, and
Supply-External Affairs

appointed another man. But I do not know the modus operandi adopted by the Civil Service Commission in regard to these appointments, more than the fact that they advertise the vacancies.


Frederick William Gershaw: A few years ago a resolution was discussed in this house regarding the advisability of providing work for inmates of penitentiaries with a view to supporting their families. Has anything along that line been considered?


Hugh Guthrie: Nothing along that line
has ever been adopted. I do not think anything of the kind is in force in any prison in the British Empire. I believe in some prisons in the United States something is done in this way, the inmates being paid at the rate of about ten cents a day.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
London-salaries and expenses of the office of the High Commissioner for Canada, including $1,800 additional salary for the High Commissioner to that authorized by chapter 15, R.S.C., $123,660.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether the Prime Minister as yet assumes responsibility for the utterances of the high commissioner or not, but if he does perhaps he will explain ito the committee what the 'high commissioner meant when he said 'the other day, as reported pretty generally in the press of Canada of April 6:
On every hand-
This is referring to the British people.
On every hand it is said that since the reformation there has been nothing of such importance as the economic conference in Ottawa next July.
I have been ait a loss to appreciate the significance of the reference to the reformation in connection with the economic conference, but perhaps the Prime Minister can explain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, the remark must have meant that there has 'been an entire reformation of the fiscal system of Great Britain, and 'this is a manifestation of it, being the result of the efforts in that direction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I notice the high commissioner also says:
The conference is spoken of in Great Britain as the new dispensation in British history. Independent of politics, independent of everything else, it is realized that the empire is facing a determination of its independence on international contacts.
Can the Prime Minister explain the sentence, "The conference is spoken of in

Great Britain as the new dispensation in British history"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It marks an epoch probably, and epochs and new dispensations are more or less synonymous. Possibly the high commissioneir thought another landmark in history was -being passed which was very important to the whole British empire. I am bound to say that my attention had not been directed to that particular part of his remarks. The first observation I had seen. Assuming he is correctly reported, I cannot think he meant other than just what is said, that the coming economic conference is a very great and important event in the minds of -many people, that the British public were expressing great hopes and expectations of a favourable outcome of the conference to be held in -this city next July, and that under the newer dispensation of closer trade relations between the various component parts of the empire another -epoch would commence. I imagine the words "new dispensation" were used in that sense, rather than as affording liberty or licence,-if one might use either word-t-o indulge in other than the most hopeful expressions of good will and of belief in the future of the commonwealth of nations under closer union and a new dispensation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Evidently the high commissioner is indulging in a large measure of prophecy; we hope he may not be humbugging the British public, as well as the Canadian, in what he has had to say. Does that account for the $1,800 additional salary being given to the high commissioner?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact the
salary is lessened by $1,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The item reads:
Salaries and expenses of the office of the High Commissioner for Canada, including $1,800 additional salary for the High Commissioner to that authorized by chapter 15, R.S.C.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am quite sure the right hon. gentleman has overlooked the fact that the salary of the high commissioner is $10,000 under the statute, and that for many years an additional $2,000 has been paid. There is nothing new in this item; $2,000 less ten per cent leaves $1,800, and the language of the item is exactly as it has been for several years. The salary is $12,000, less $1,000 representing ten per cent of $10,000, and less $200 representing ten per cent of the additional $2,000 which has been voted yearly during the. last ten years. That is the explanation; there is no increase at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-External Affairs
Washington-representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments, $92,900.
Mr. SPENCER:: Would the Prime Minister give the reasons for this decrease?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The decrease represents
ten per cent of the salaries and a readjustment of staff. The salary reduction amounts to $4,759, and the balance is represented by an adjustment of personnel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geneva-salaries and expenses of the office of the Canadian advisory officer, $22,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who is the Canadian advisory officer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Doctor Riddell. He has
been in that position for some years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geneva - Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1932, including secretariat, international labour organization and permanent court of international justice, $220,613.94.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The increase in this item comes about by reason of the slight change in the standard used for the purpose of determining the amount to be paid by each of the member nations of the league. Our share amounts to not quite thirty-five one-thousandths; the exact figure is 3%9s>i. We pay that proportion of 1,079,669-63 gold francs, or $227,621.10 in gold dollars. The slight change made in the basis of adjustment by the finance department of the League of Nations-for they have a budget, and what amounts to a minister of finance-imposed that amount upon us.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How are the expenses
allocated?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The old basis was the
postal union rates. Linder that system rather a heavy burden was imposed upon us, but some adjustments have been made and now we have an arbitrary allotment, fixed by the department of finance of the league. Perhaps the details would take some time to explain, but the representatives of the nations first of all determine how much will be required for the year. This year there is an extra amount in connection with the disarmament conference and the expenses incidental to it. Then thejr apply a principle at which they have arrived, and as a result our share is almost thirty-five one-thousandths. The expenses are divided into 99i parts, of which we pay 35 as our share.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was wondering if the
question of population had anything to do with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the question of
population was not regarded as a sound basis upon whioh to determine these contributions when the league was started. I suppose my hon. friend is familiar with the fact that the postal union arrived at certain understandings upon which they classified the different countries, and our original contribution was made under that classification. It imposed upon us rather a heavier burden than would have been the case if population had been the standard, because we occupied a position of somewhat greater importance, from the standpoint of the international postal union, than was indicated by our population. I remember discussing the matter at some length with Sir Herbert Ames when he was attached to the financial section of the league, and he explained to me the difficulties which had been encountered in the early days in arriving at some basis on which the computation could be made. It is not based solely upon population. There were factors which determined the action of the international postal union at one time, and those factors have been considered. Finally the arrangement I have indicated was arrived at, by which the whole cost was divided into 99J shares, our portion being 35.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It always seems
rather strange to me that it is only under an item of expenditure that we have any opportunity of finding out anything definite in connection with our policies with regard to foreign affairs, but apparently this is the only way we can get at it.
There are one or two matters with reference to which I should like the Prime Minister to make some statement. I refer first to Canada's attitude, in the league, with regard to Manchuria and conditions in China. I think almost everyone must have been disappointed at the attitude of the league, especially in the earlier stages of the trouble. I do not know just what is the position at the present moment, but whatever that may be with regard to the league proper, still the league is only a combination of the member nations, and as yet we have not had a statement as to the attitude of Canada as a member of that league. I wish we might have from the Prime Minister some statement with regard to that whole matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know whether
the hon. gentleman desires that I should enter into an historical discussion, in the first in-

Supply-External Affairs

stance, of the incidents that led up to the present conditions in Manchuria and the difficulties that have been encountered in an amicable adjustment of the differences between Japan and China. If so, I shall have to take another occasion for that, but I should like to remind my hon. friend that Canada was not a member of the council of the league, and of course responsibility for the conduct of the business of the league when the assembly is not in session must rest with the council.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not want to interrupt-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is quite all right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Each member of
the league is at liberty under certain circumstances to make representations to the council with regard to anything that is liable to upset the peace of the world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was only going to point out that the conduct of the league was determined by the council up to the time the assembly'met and that Canada had not membership in the council. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman desires that I should indicate just what steps were taken by the council. I assume that hon. members are all familiar, from reading the newspapers and the official reports that have appeared from time to time, with the steps that were taken by the council. In the end, the assembly was called together, and as it was called together at a time when the representatives of the government were present in Geneva, in connection with the disarmament conference, they were asked to attend the meeting of the assembly. They did attend at that assembly, participated in the discussions, and assisted in arriving at the conclusions which were reached and which, you might say, were practically unanimous as to what position should be taken.
I did not think it would be wise, and I certainly accept the responsibility for having so advised our delegates, that we should endeavour, with the slight knowledge that we possess as compared with those who are constantly in touch with the situation at Geneva, and those who are responsible for the investigations in Manchuria, either to blame or praise this country or the other in connection with matters so serious as those involved in the then differences between Japan and China. But in view of what the hon. gentleman has said, and owing to the fact that I have not brought with me the papers connected with the meeting at Geneva, I shall be glad to let the item stand and indicate to

the committee just what was done so far as we were concerned, the part our delegates took in the assembly, and the opinions which they expressed at that gathering, and which I think would reflect at least the sober, intelligent and moderate judgment of Canadian public opinion. I shall be glad to do that, and the item can stand for that purpose.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Thanks very much. May I ask the Prime Minister, if on some future occasion he brings this matter to the committee, whether he will also be prepared to give the committee some idea as to what instructions have been given to the Canadian delegates to the disarmament conference? That is a matter of general interest to the people of Canada, and it would be well for us to know just where the government stands with regard to the whole disarmament question. Are we prepared to take any sort of lead with regard to such matters? I suppose that at this late hour there is hardly time to go into that, but when the Prime Minister is bringing down other information possibly he will be willing to give some idea as to where our delegates stand at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Chairman.
Item stands.
Expenses of Canadian delegates to the assembly, council and commissions of the League of Nations, $17,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who were the delegates apart from the two ministers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item does not cover the gathering to which the hon. gentleman refers. The meeting of the assembly the other day was a special meeting called as I indicated a moment ago; and as our delegates were present in Geneva attending the disarmament conference they attended the assembly gathering. This item covers the expenses of the. assembly meeting, which is usually held in the fall, and the amount against which it is placed, namely, 818,000, represents the expenditure for last year's meeting. The expenses generally run from $15,000 to $25,000, depending upon the length of the meeting and the numbers that attend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geneva - Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1932, including secretariat, international labour organization and Permanent Court of International Justice, $220,613.94.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item will stand and I will endeavour to make an explanation such as the hon. gentleman desires.
Item stands.

Survey oj National Ports
External Affairs-salaries, $87,678; contingencies, $67,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a slight decrease in the departmental staff, as will be observed, and the rest of the decrease in expenditures is represented by the ten per cent reduction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Privy	Council-salaries, $42,984; contingencies, $7,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a slight decrease brought aibout by a small reduction in staff and the application of the ten per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Office of the * secretary to the governor general-salaries, $29,322; contingencies, including house allowance of $1,500 per annum to the secretary to the governor general, $70,500.
Mr. BENNETT; This is the item of last year, with reductions.
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one item I propose to leave. There are three items at the top of page 56, and the first of which, the item for hospitality to foreign visitors, No. 233, has been reduced this year by $23,000, because there were two extraordinary obligations incurred last year for which provision was made. The roya'l houses of Japan and Siam were represented in this dominion during that period. The second item is a revote of some money that has been standing in connection with the arbitration of the I'm Alone case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that the item for hospitality is exclusive of anything connected with the imperial conference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. That is one item I am not going to touch.
Miscellaneous-to provide for the arbitration expenses-"I'm Alone" case (revote), $9,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the Prime Minister report any progress in connection with that case?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Justice Duff visited Washington last month and had a conference with the representatives of the American government. The case is rather complicated at the present time. The right hon. gentleman is, I think, fully aware of the intricate and delicate legal questions that have been raised, and at the moment there has been no determination of these preliminary questions, with respect to which reports had to be made to enable further action to be taken. But some
41761-115J
progress has been made by reason of the conference that took place last month.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 8, 1932