Mr. SPEAKER:: With reference to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) as to his right to introduce a bill to repeal the Military Service Act, 1917, I beg to state that I have looked into the matter most carefully and have read the statute in question and have examined also the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.
The main contention of the hon. member for Peace River is that since it was possible for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to introduce a bill to revive and amend a statute which is listed as spent, then he has the right to introduce a bill to repeal a similar statute. Reviving a dead law is possible and permissible. If the hon. member's bill provided that the Military Service Act be revived, it would be in order, but he proposes to repeal it after it has been actually repealed by this house. It is listed in schedule A of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, which is entitled: "Acts and parts of acts repealed, from the date of coming into force of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927."
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked for leave to introduce his bill in 1922, the Military Service Act was spent but it had not yet been repealed by statute. This is the reason why the bill was placed on the order paper, but Mr. Speaker Lemieux ruled it out because the act, although still on the statute books, was spent.

If that decision were right, and I am sure it was, there is a better reason this year to rule out the bill of the hon. member for Peace River. That reason is that the Military Service Act has disappeared from the statute book.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the special committee appointed to inquire into operation of the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Pouliot.
First report of the joint committee on printing.-Mr. St. Pere.
First report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Vien.
First report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Weir.

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

Mr. JAQUES:: 1.	How much money has been allowed by the imperial government for the assistance of imperial men in Canada since October 14, 1935, what money was in hand before that date, and what was the cost of administration?
2.	How much money has been allowed in Alberta, and to whom should a man apply for assistance?
3.	How many of such men have received assistance in Alberta, and how much? What are their names and addresses, and the name of their respective regiment, together with their regimental number?
4.	What is the allowance for man and wife, and how much is allowed for each child under 16 years of age?
5.	If a man is unemployed and has no other means, does he qualify for assistance such as food, clothing and shelter, dental treatment or other necessities, and to whom should he apply?
6.	What grant is made to each branch of Canadian legion, if any, out ot imperial funds, and by whose authority was the grant made?
7.	What are the names of the members of the said administration, and are they imperial men or Canadians?


Mr. POWER:: 
BOCK SPRINGS, ONT., POST OFFICE
Mr. STEWART:: 1.	When was a post office first established at Rock Springs, Leeds county, Ontario?
2.	When was the location of said post office changed from Rock Springs?
3.	How far from Rock Springs is said post office now located?
4.	Why was said change made?
5.	Who requested the change in location?
6.	Who recommended the change?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	1st June, 1883.
2.	On the 17th August, 1936. The Rock Springs post office was closed and a new office established at Bell Crossing.
3.	Bell Crossing is 2J miles east of Rock Springs.
4.	In the interest of the boxholders on the former Rock Springs R.R. No. 1 and No. 2.
5.	D. E. Lewis of Brockville.
6.	District director of postal services, Ottawa.


FOREIGN POLICY AND EUROPEAN SITUATION
Mr. CHURCH:: Has any action been taken by the government to assure His Majesty's government of Great Britain of Canada's moral support, interest, cooperation and aid in the present foreign situation, and will any papers relating thereto be tabled?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker,
the answer to the question as drafted is in the negative. As already indicated in answer to a question by the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) on March 1, the government has been receiving from the United Kingdom government certain communications relating to the international situation. Such communications are continuing. As indicated in that answer and in answer to a question by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), on February 25, these communications are in the nature of information rather than consultation upon policies. As such, they are helpful to the Canadian government in assisting it to understand the actual facts of the current situation.


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is the government yet in a position to review the reply given here last week and the week before in the light of Germany's action as it relates to Canadian foreign policy?
2.	Will any papers or correspondence be tabled?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1. The questions to which reference is apparently made dealt with the policy of the government of the United Kingdom in respect to the League of Nations and to Italy. The
Petitions of Right

action to which the present question refers does not appear to call for any revision of the answers then made.
2. Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: 1.	What is the total population of the province of New Brunswick?
2.	How many persons of French extraction are there in such province?
3.	How many federal employees are there at the experimental farm, at Fredericton, New Brunswick?
4.	How many of these are of French extraction?
5.	How many of them can speak French, if any?
6.	How many graduates in agricultural sciences does the federal Department of Agriculture employ in the province of New Brunswick?
7.	How many of these are of French extraction ?
8.	How many of them can speak the French language ?


DOMINION FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INSPECTORS
Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: 1.	How many fruit and vegetable inspectors does the government maintain in each province of the dominion?
2.	Are they appointed by the civil service commission? If so, since when?
3.	Was knowledge of the French language always required by said commission from such inspectors in the province of Quebec?



PETITIONS OF RIGHT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) of which I gave him informal notice some days ago.
During the session of 1936 the Minister of Justice gave an assurance that a bill would be prepared by the Department of Justice to amend the existing law with respect to petitions of right against the crown. On March 24, 1937, the Minister of Justice informed the house that a draft bill had been prepared and submitted to the various departments of the government, preparatory to being submitted for approval of the governor general in council, but that more time was required for the final preparation of the bill. The Minister of Justice, however, then renewed his assurance for the present session

of parliament. Is it the intention of the government to introduce such a bill during the present session of parliament?


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is one which presents certain difficulties, and as I said last year, the various departments of the government have been communicated with in regard to this matter. As a result of that consultation a draft bill has been prepared which would meet at least to a large extent the views of the hon. gentleman. This draft bill, I must say, has not yet been considered by the governor in council, and I am awaiting the first opportunity to lay it before my colleagues. I hope it will be possible to introduce it afterwards.



CURRENCY AND CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Pursuant to press reports that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has stated in Edmonton that the government expects to have complete control of currency and credit by 1945, I would ask: is the legislative program of the government complete for this session, and if not, may we expect any legislation to be brought down that will change the present structure of the banking system?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press report to which my hon. friend has referred. I would wish to see the statement itself and also to ascertain how accurate it is before attempting to comment upon it.
With regard to the question which my hon. friend has just put concerning the legislative program of the government, I would say to him that the program will not be completed until the session of parliament itself is completed. As to whether any legislation of the character mentioned will be brought down, I can only say that the government will make its policy known on that as well as on other matters as the occasion arises.



SPANISH CIVIL WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the

Spanish Civil War
orders of the day I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). As it is now definitely established that the German and Italian governments have sent large numbers of troops, equipped with all the essentials of modern warfare, to fight against the legitimate government of Spain, will the Canadian government immediately remove the embargo imposed last year on exports to Spain? Failing that, will the government extend the embargo to include exports to Germany and Italy?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question. I would say to him in the first instance that his question appears to be a little out of order, in that it seeks to convey information- whether accurate or inaccurate I cannot say- rather than to seek it. However, my reply to the question is this: no embargo has been placed on exports to Spain. The embargo imposed last year applies only to exports of arms and munitions. This action followed similar action by the members of the nonintervention committee, representing twenty-seven European countries. Though Canada was not in a position to supply any appreciable quantity of arms or munitions, this course was followed in order to prevent exports from Canada contributing in any way to render ineffective the efforts of the signatories to confine the struggle to Spanish territory. The European countries primarily concerned have taken no action such as is proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). The Canadian government does not propose to take such action. No exports of munitions have been made from Canada to Germany or to Italy.
May I add to what I have said in the way of a formal reply to my hon. friend that at this time we are witnessing momentous events on the continent of Europe. We are witnessing also momentous events on the continent of Asia. Canada lies midway between the two as a part of the continent of north America. Unless it is the desire to have it appear that our country is anxious to participate in these events, to become a party to or a part of what is happening on the continents of Europe and Asia, it is desirable, I believe, that all persons in positions of authority and responsibility in this country and who have anything to do with the shaping and moulding of public opinion, whether in parliament or in the press, should refrain from taking any steps or making any representations which would appear to have a contrary aim and purpose. Moreover I think we should be particularly guarded in what
we say and what we do for the further reason that we should wish at all cost to avoid making the present appalling situation on the two continents I have mentioned more embarrassing for the countries faced with it, in their efforts to work out a solution.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: In view of the Prime Minister's statement, will the government then put an embargo on war materials going into Japan?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I had hoped that possibly without inquiry the Prime Minister would be disposed to make some statement to this house regarding the government's appreciation of the European situation. While Canada is a part of the north American continent, we are profoundly concerned about what is now happening in Europe; and with the wider knowledge and fuller information that the government possesses, it did occur to me that the Prime Minister might think the time had come to make some statement, as I have said, on the government's appreciation of that situation so far as it affects this country. I concur in what the Prime Minister said a moment ago, but surely if in the parliament of Great Britain a discussion can be carried on of the kind that the newspapers report, no harm can result from having the head of the government in this country indicate what the government's appreciation of the situation may be. There is a vast difference between an acrimonious debate and a statement or appreciation of a position. We may easily fall into a wrong attitude of mind with respect to this matter. It is idle to say that we have not the right to discuss any matter that affects the welfare of the Canadian people. If England can discuss it in the manner in which it was discussed, surely Canadians are not doing them a disservice if we ascertain the views of the government with respect to these matters in the light of their fuller information than is accorded to the average man.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to precede what I had to say, although on second thoughts it did not seem necessary to do so, with the observation that I hoped no one in this house would seek to draw wrong inferences from my statement. Practically all statements are capable of different interpretations. There is no statement that can be made at the present time with respect to world affairs which, if persons wish to be partisan in their attitude, cannot be interpreted in different ways. What I said will be understood, I believe, by the Canadian people as being a frank expression of the view which the government takes regarding
Electric Power Export

the events which I have spoken of as happening on the continent of Europe and the continent of Asia. I have said nothing whatever to indicate any desire on the part of the government to limit in any way freedom of debate in this house with respect to any question. That freedom exists at all times; it is the right of every hon. member to exercise it in his own discretion. My right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), has just said that the government gets wider information and gains a fuller knowledge of conditions, through dispatches which it is receiving from Europe, than possibly hon. members may obtain through the agency of the press. In regard to that may I say that such knowledge and information as the government have received through the dispatches which have come to us from Europe and from Asia only serve to confirm the wisdom of the statement which I made a moment ago in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I wish to repeat that if any useful purpose is going to be served, in respect to the situation either in Europe or Asia, by having these matters debated at great length, then, if hon, members so decide, the government will seek to place no restriction upon their utterances; but the government must, with respect to its own utterances, make them in the light of the responsibility which attaches to everything the government says at this time.



ELECTRIC POWER


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: As
I see it, after listening to the very able speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the object of this bill is to relieve the government of any responsibility for initiating legislation in connection with the export of power. Just why the government is afraid to take responsibility I do not know.
What is the proposal that is before the house at the present time? The government proposes to turn over to a private member, in relation to a matter so important as this, the right to initiate legislation. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) have characterized it as legislation of very great importance, and in my opinion it is altogether too important to be 
turned over to any private member or to any private bill. Behind a private bill there is always the motive of profit, whereas international amity should be the purpose of the government in a situation of this kind.
I agree with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) said. If the government really desires to give parliament the power to pass upon the exportation of electricity, all it has to do is to accept his suggestion and amend the statute so as to provide that before any measure to export power becomes effective it shall have the approval of this house.
It is not my intention to deal with the bill at any great length, but I wish to deal particularly with one aspect of it, namely, the question of the revocability of licences. In the course of the debate so far, three cities have been mentioned, Massena, Niagara Falls, and Chicago, and I will try to show, from our experience in connection with the development of electricity through water diverted at each of these centres, that it is next to impossible to revoke a licence for the exportation of power.
Let us take, first, Massena. During the last year of the great war, in 1918, the aluminium interests at Massena, New York, a branch or subsidiary of the Mellon interests in the United States, were the greatest exporters of that metal to the allies. In 1918, wishing to divert more water from the St. Lawrence, they applied, through the International Joint Commission, I believe, for the right to erect a weir in the south channel of the St. Lawrence river, above the head of the Long Sault. Of course, the government of the day objected. It was a violation of one of our international treaties, the Ashburton treaty, which stipulated that no obstruction should be placed in any international navigable channel between Canada and the United States. But when it was represented to the government of the day that the aluminium company were supplying a very large proportion of that metal used by Great Britain as well as by Great Britain's allies in the prosecution of the war, the government consented to the erection of a weir in the St. Lawrence river on the condition that it should be removed "five years hence," that is to say, in 1923.
What happened? The weir was erected and the aluminium company diverted from the St. Lawrence 25,000 cubic feet of water per second through a power canal over to Massena, situated on the Grass river in New York state, and there from a head of approximately 25 feet they were able to develop from 80,000 to 90,000 horsepower. What was

Electric Power Export
done in 1923? Indeed the company did not wait until 1923, because, before that date, they asked for an extension of the lease, notwithstanding that the war had then been over for practically five years. In 1928 they went after something very much more important, namely, permission to raise the weir another six feet. That is far different from carrying out the agreement to remove the weir at the end of the five years. To-day that company is diverting 25,000 cubic feet per second. It is developing from 80,000 to
90,000	horsepower from 25,000 cubic feet of water, 12,500 of which belongs to Canada.
I should like the Prime Minister when he speaks again to tell us whether that agreement can be revoked. I do not believe it can, because the interests are too strong, not only in connection with the electricity but in the realm of oil. The same interests are behind both, and they have shown great strength. Hon. members may be familiar with what took place in Colombia, South America, when the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and the Gulf Oil Company-the latter belonging, I am told, to the Mellon interests-were trying to obtain oil leases in that country. The effort resulted finally in the overthrow of the government. The incoming president, Doctor Herrera, tried to obtain a loan, just as the outgoing president had done; and what did he do? He went to Washington and was there given a banquet; and the gentleman who sat beside him was none other than the Secretary of the United States treasury, the late Andrew Mellon, then head of the Mellon interests, who controlled, I am told, the Gulf Oil Company, and the aluminium company on the Grass river at Massena, New York. Well, what was the upshot? Instead of cancelling the lease for oil for the Gulf Oil interests in Colombia, which it was alleged had been obtained illegally, as a result of the president's visit to Washington Colombia extended the lease and obtained its loan of 84.000,000. That is one instance of how revocation did not take place, of oil in that case, of electricity and water in the case of Massena. The second instance is Niagara Falls. Most hon. members are familiar with the situation there. It would seem that Divine Providence, in laying out the course of the Niagara river, knowing that this great territory of Canada has a cold climate and for heating would require a lot of white coal for a large part of the year, and that in Ontario teeming millions of people would in due course be settled, determined that ninety-four per cent of the flow of water in that river should pass over the Horseshoe falls on our side of the line.
In due course it was realized that there were great potential power resources at
Niagara Falls, and in 1909 the two countries blade a treaty to prevent the robbery of the water that flows over the falls. Later came the International Joint Commission, and it was arranged that for the preservation of the beauty of the falls not more than 56,000 cubic feet per second of water should be taken for power purposes, and of that 56,000 cubic feet it was stipulated that 36,000 should belong to Canada and 20,000 to the United States. That was not nearly as generous to Canada as would appear on the face of it; for what was the situation at that time? The Niagara-Hudson interests, which control all or practically all the power in t'he whole of western New York state, had a plant on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, either in operation or about to operate, known as the Canadian Niagara Power Company plant. They were diverting 10,000 cubic feet per second, and all of the power that they generated with our
10.000	cubic feet of water was exported to the United States, barring a small quantity on which I am told the Ontario Hydro has a call if required.
In determining how much water Canada should have out of the 56,000 second feet this
10.000	second feet diverted by the Niagara-Hudson company or the Canadian Niagara Power Company was charged to Canada, which left us with only 26,000 second feet. Again the Ontario Hydro, or at that time the Ontario Power Company, had a long-term agreement with United States power consuming interests by which these interests were supplied with 60,000 horsepower, requiring the diversion of 3,600 second feet from the Niagara river. In other words at the time the allocation was made of 36,000 feet to Canada and 20,000 to the United States, the United States were already obtaining from Canada 13,600 second feet; so we were left with 22,400 second feet. That was the situation at Niagara Falls. It is a situation which cannot be revoked. The hydro longterm agreement for the exportation of their
60.000	horsepower does not expire until 1950, and I do not know how long the term is of the Canadian Niagara Power Company plant which diverts 10,000 second feet of water. So that at Niagara as well as at Massena we are getting the short end of the stick.
Our power resources are gone from us, whether we would use them or not. Who' does not know what happened during the great war, when the power shortage in Ontario was very acute? At that time I was associated with a large plant which used a great deal of hydro power, and I know that there was great difficulty in obtaining power to run
Electric Power Export

that plant. Why did we not revoke the licence to export the power generated from the 13,600 second feet taken from us? I am not saying we did not agree to do it, but we cannot revoke the agreement.
What is the situation at Chicago, the third instance to which I wish to refer? At Chicago, in spite of anything the premier of Ontario says, Canada does lose a lot of water. I made a speech recently in London, Ontario, in which I discussed the Chicago situation, and later the premier of Ontario said that I must be wrong, because water does not run uphill, and he is reported in the press as saying that on account of lake Michigan being several hundred feet higher than lake Huron therefore no Canadian water can run out at Chicago. But of course the premier of Ontario is not always right; in fact is often wrong, and on this occasion he was very far wrong. As a matter of fact those two great lakes are on the same level, to all intents and purposes one lake, joined by a channel twenty miles wide, the straits of Mackinac. So that the water pouring into those two great lakes pours into one common reservoir. The watershed on the Canadian side from which water flows into those two great lakes is larger than the watershed from which water flows into them from the United States. And of the water diverted at Chicago half is Canadian water.
Now what is the situation there? For the twenty years from 1915 to 1935, the diversion at Chicago for domestic purposes, for power purposes and shipping, has approximated 10,000 cubic feet a second. Thirty-six miles west of Chicago at the town of Lockport, where the Chicago	drainage canal	drops into	theDes Plaines	river,	Chicago	develops 36.000horsepower of electrical energy, half of which is developed from Canadian water because half of the	water	diverted	belongs to	us.Prior to 1900 water was diverted at Chicago in small quantities. In those old days they used to pump it over the height of land ten miles west of Chicago, a height of about twelve feet.	They	pumped	the water	and
sewage over and poured it into the Des Plaines river. But since 1900 it flows by gravity through a canal twenty-four feet deep and two hundred feet wide, and they can take almost any quantity they want. Up until 1935 they were diverting approximately
10,000	cubic feet per second, and to-day while they are not taking that much they are still diverting about 7,000 cubic feet per second. I am aware that by 1939 they have to reduce the amount taken to 4,000 second feet, but if the bill now before the United States congress passes-and they will move heaven and earth to see that it does-instead of 1,500

second feet plus about 2,000 feet for domestic purposes, the 1,500 will be changed to 5,000.
Canada has protested for years against the diversion of water at Chicago, but can we revoke it? No, we cannot. It has had a disastrous effect on lake levels, apart from the question of power. But the fact is they are developing power with it, and on the rest of the river, the Illinois river, between Chicago and the Mississippi, down which our water flows along with the United States water, there are six other power sites. Some of them develop a small quantity of power, but the whole six, when in full operation, will develop another 70,000, or, plus the one at Lockport, approximately 100,000 horsepower. A large proportion of the water used in the plants down the river will be water diverted from lake Michigan.
If the government of Canada cannot revoke the situation at Chicago and cannot do anything towards revoking the situation at Niagara Falls-and it cannot do anything to change conditions at Massena-what can it do if in a short time it enters into an agreement to export to the United States another hundred or more thousand horsepower? It cannot do anything. I do not believe the government can revoke any contract to export it may enter into with any other government or any organization of producers.
There are the three pictures. May I at this point recapitulate: at Massena 80,000 to 90,000 horsepower has been developed, one-half of which is developed from Canadian waters. If that water were diverted on our side of the line we would have at that point about
40,000	or 45,000 horsepower. At Niagara Falls we receive only that power for ourselves which is diverted from 22,400 second feet; our share of that water should be 36,000 second feet. This is the condition, in face of the fact that 94 per cent of the water at Niagara Falls flows over the Horseshoe Falls on the Canadian side. Canada is getting the wrong end of the stick, if I may use that expression, in connection with each of the three great power developments which have come about from diversions of water one-half of which is from our side of the line.
In the white paper presented to parliament a short time ago I find at page 104 item No. 54, respecting an order in council. In this order in council there are very important statements which bear out my statement to the effect that once power is exported and used in the development of industries on the other side of the line, it is impossible to cut it off without international difficulty.

Electric Power Export
I have known many large industries in the United States which have used Canadian power, and have gained that information from my association in a business way with some of those great industries. I do not see how it is possible to cut off power from large industries which may be using it. For instance, how can you cut off power from the Lackawanna Steel Company, if they are using it? It is one of the largest steel plants in the United States. If they are not using it, then I know that other companies are using power developed from water diverted from the Canadian side of the line. That power cannot be cut off, because they have long term contracts, and those contracts must continue in operation.
Let us now give some attention to item No. 54 in the white paper. We are told that it is a certified copy of a report of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Royal Highness the Governor General on the 25th August, 1914. The text is as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 16th June, 1914, from the right honourable the Secretary of State for External Affairs, calling attention to a recent opinion of the public service commission of the state of New York in the matter of the application of the Canadian-Ameriean Power Corporation for permission to import an additional 46,000 horse power of electrical energy from Canada into the United States.
Then, omitting the remainder of the letter, we will read from the middle of page 105, where we find the American opinion with respect to the importation of power.
Without going into details, it seems sufficient to say that the prohibition of exportation from Canada of this present electric power which now comes into this country would paralyse business and industry of many kinds and would deprive numerous localities of electricity for light. American-produced Niagara power is so far from supplying the vital needs of the sections of the state above described that the immediate results of such prohibition would plainly amount to a great public calamity.
How are we going to revoke power, the prohibition of which would cause a great public calamity? I am surprised to find that the government wants to place in the hands of a private member, no matter how brilliant he may be, the introduction of a bill which might bring about a great public calamity, and embroil this country in troubles with the country to the south of us. I am sure the Prime Minister would be one of the last to condone any such action because, I am pleased to say, it would appear that on every occasion he tries to keep this country on an even keel internationally, and out of any possible trouble. I continue the quotation:
The form of securing a licence yearly from the dominion government is required by the dominion law, but such licence lias been granted yearly to the other great producing electrical corporations of Canada, and no reason appears for apprehension that any discrimination would be made against the Electrical Development Company or the Toronto Power Company, lessee. We have nothing before us but the suggestion that the Dominion of Canada may at some future time forbid this exportation. This commission must assume that international relations affecting so important a subject as the means of continuing great industries which have grown up in reliance upon the use of this imported power, and as well the interests of the Canadian producing companies themselves, have become fixed

As I said, they certainly are fixed at Massena; they certainly are fixed at Niagara Falls; they certainly are fixed at Chicago- -and subject only to such changes as will fully protect the great commercial and industrial interests and rights now served by this power brought from Canada. The time has long since passed when governments proceed ruthlessly from pure national rashness or anger to destroy the settled accepted commercial relations and formally vested rights of persons and corporations.
That is just as true to-day as it was when it was written.
In conclusion I will say that if the Minister of Justice, as he intimated on March 10 might be possible, can persuade the Prime Minister to adopt the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, there will not be much need to find fault with the bill.


Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is of great importance to the province of Ontario, one of the constituencies of which I represent. I am opposed to the export of electric power. I believe electric power is an asset of which we should not deprive ourselves, and one which we should use to the greatest extent for the benefit of our people.
We have in Canada another asset of very great importance; I refer to gold. Gold enters to a great extent into the monetary and economic life of the country. It has been found necessary to refuse permission to export gold except for purposes of the adjustment of international balances and foreign trade. Gold is a product of the earth just as electric power is a product of the water that flows over the dam. Electric power is necessary for the welfare of Canada and its export is a different matter from the export of cereals, lumber, cattle or such other products. Canada is fortunate in having great water powers; in fact we are congratulated upon having them in such abundance. It appears to me that the duty devolves upon us of carefully
Electric Power Export

guarding these water powers, and the electricity produced therefrom should not be allowed to go out of the country.
The practice followed was established by an act which has been on the statute book since 1907. That act practically prohibits the export of power, except in a few cases where licences are granted. The bill we are now considering deals in the main with the manner in which we may permit the export of power, but I think there is behind it a more important principle, namely, whether we will permit it at all. As I said before, I am against the export of power; I believe we should develop the power in this country. The late Sir Adam Beck spent many years of his life in furthering the development of the water powers of Ontario, and we are all proud of the hydro electric system in that province. It has done a great work in bringing power to the people at rates cheaper than ever prevailed before. Power is being delivered to the people of Ontario at a rate which is probably less than that paid in any other country.
The object of this bill is to permit the exportation of electricity from Ontario to the United States. The question to be decided is who will grant the licence. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) placed on Hansard a sketch of what had happened in connection with the export of power from 1907 up to the present time. He furnished us with a great deal of accurate information. During the course of his remarks he directed attention to the attempt made by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) in 1928 and 1929 to take away from the governor in council the right to grant or to refuse these permits. The Prime Minister referred also to the fact that Mr. Hepburn, the present Premier of Ontario, was a member of this house when the bill was passed in 1929. I do not know why the Prime Minister referred to Mr. Hepburn in the middle of his speech, unless it was because of the attitude of Mr. Hepburn with regard to this legislation.
The Prime Minister stated that three applications were made to the government in 1937 for the export of power, two being from the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, and one from Ontario. The two from Montreal were made to the government prior to November, 1937. The Prime Minister stated quite frankly that the government had come to a decision that it would reconsider who should give the permit for the export of power. This decision was arrived at in connection with the two applications from Montreal, and when Mr. Hepburn came forward with his application, the government had decided to leave it to parliament to decide whether or not export should take place. It

now appears that prior to the opening of parliament, when reference was made to this bill in the speech from the throne, at any rate before the bill was introduced in the house, the Montreal applications had been either abandoned or withdrawn and the only application before the government was the one from Ontario.
For this reason I may be pardoned for referring more or less in detail to the Ontario position. I do so because the Prime Minister, speaking on the second reading of the bill, felt it necessary to place a great deal of detailed information on Hansard. A peculiar position exists in the province of Ontario. When Mr. Hepburn came into office he came to the conclusion that the hydro electric contracts were not profitable or economical. Instead of trying to seek a market for the surplus power, as he is evidently trying to do now, he proceeded to repudiate the contracts under which electricity was furnished to the hydro electric system of Ontario. He threw the whole matter in the air, as it were. Subsequently he made arrangements with some of the companies for reduced quantities of power at reduced prices and in that way stopped any possible litigation on the part of the companies. But he did not succeed in making an amicable arrangement with the Beauharnois company. That company did not take his action lying down; they sued the government and got judgment for something like S600,000 or $700,000. Since the judgment was sustained by the supreme court, the only way out for Mr. Hepburn was an appeal to the judicial committee of the privy council, but he did not take this course, because the judgment had been upheld, I believe unanimously, by the supreme court.


Ernest Lapointe: I think it was by the appellate court.


Alexander James Anderson: Mr. Hepburn then
found that he had to humiliate himself and negotiate with Beauharnois, which he did. He entered into an arrangement with that company for the delivery of a quantity of power, not much less than that covered by the original contract, for a long period at a price of $12.50 per horsepower. The price under the previous contract was $15 per horsepower. Mr. Hepburn took all the advantage he could of this change of contract which reduced the price and extended the period with respect to a smaller quantity of electricity. But he found that he was left with an excess of power, and in order to save the province some money he asked this government to consent to the export of this power to the United States.

Electric Power Export
The export of power is a national matter. It should not be considered a provincial matter, and certainly not a county or district matter. It is something that affects the whole country, and any policy in connection therewith should be the policy of the federal government. Export comes within the jurisdiction of the dominion government. One may ask why, that policy having been followed for over thirty years, the government of Canada should hesitate in 1937 to deal with any of these applications, and particularly with the one coming from the province of Ontario. What has happened in the meantime? We have the assurance not only of the Prime Minister but also of the leader of the opposition that for a number of years no new applications for the export of power have been granted, that the only applications that have been granted are renewals of licences that have been running for some years-and in regard to those I do not think they have been altogether justifiable, because they are not national in character. They have not served to satisfy any particular emergency in connection with the nation. They have been granted solely and only for financial purposes, in order that the hydroelectric commission and companies exporting electric power may have their books better balanced than they would have been without such export of power. That is not a national matter, and personally I feel that the export of power, if it be permitted at all, should be permitted only for purposes which are emergent in their nature or national in their character, and not provincial.
Then we come to the other principle of the bill. There is first the question whether we should allow electric power to be exported, and then there is the question of the method of granting the permit. I have asked, why did the cabinet refuse to deal with the application when it came before them? All I can say is that I look at it very much as the man on the street does. We have to take our information as we get it through the press and otherwise, and rumblings have been heard that our friend Mr. Hepburn, of Ontario, is not particularly enamoured of the Liberal party at Ottawa. In fact, he has gone so far as to say that he is not a King Liberal but of some other branch of Liberalism. I do not know what he means by that, but when a man occupying the position he does makes a statement of that kind against the prime minister of the dominion, it indicates a certain amount of animosity and ill-feeling, and I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and the cabinet were quite aware of the feeling existing between the premier of Ontario and the federal cabinet.
I do not know that the feeling between the premier of Quebec and the cabinet is altogether friendly. I would imagine from statements that have appeared in the press recently that the premier of Quebec cannot be regarded as a very close friend or much interested in the advancement of the Liberal party in the federal arena. The feeling in these two provinces was no doubt well known to this government, as it was to every hon. member of this house or the man on the street, and the question naturally arises: Why did this government hesitate to deal with the application? I cannot say, but after thirty years of experience with the practice that was established under the act of 1907, and in view of the fact that in recent years no new permits have been granted, it appears to me that the power of granting or refusing permits was in very safe hands in the dominion cabinet. Then why should there be any hesitancy in assuming the responsibility that falls upon the cabinet? We have responsible government, and the government were given the power under that act to refuse or to grant the permit. They have the same power with regard to the export of gold, and they do not hesitate to exercise it, and so far they have done very well in controlling the export of gold. Why should they not exercise the same power with regard to the export of electric power? It looks as if they were animated by a certain feeling of fear, a desire to throw off responsibility-I was going to use the word "shirk"; perhaps that is rather offensive. But it looks very much like that, and the man on the street will say that the government are shirking their responsibility in not exercising their power to grant or refuse this permit.
How does the government get over it? By a private bill. I am not going to deal with that, because my leader dealt with it extensively the other day, and showed the absurdity of the position of the government; and it has already been referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). Whenever a matter of public concern is allowed to be brought before the house in a bill sponsored by a private member, it is simply a cover for the government in power behind which they can take refuge and evade the responsibility of deciding the question for themselves; and I am frank in ' saying I think that is what this legislation is for.
Let me go a little further. We are endeavouring to establish the rights of the federal parliament under the British North America Act. Time and again we have heard it stated, and it is true, that the powers of
Electric Power Export

the federal parliament are being reduced or invaded by the provinces. But here we have a bill by which the right to say whether or not power shall be exported is left, not to the cabinet, not to the governor in council, but to the lieutenant governor in council of the province from which the electric power is to be exported. Is it not apparent that the Prime Minister and his cabinet are admitting a great amount of weakness? They are not courageous enough-I do not want to say that offensively; but they have not shown courage in dealing with the matter. And have they not shown, by wanting to throw responsibility on the lieutenant governor in council in the province, that the cabinet of the dominion, the governor in council, is not capable of making a decision that would be acceptable to the people?
When the private bill comes in, what are the conditions that are a sine qua non, which must accompany it? The application must be accompanied by a certified copy of an order in council of the province, in this case, Ontario, that they can do without that electricity, and that its export would not injure the province in any way. But it goes further. It so happens that a large amount of this excess electric power originates in the province of Quebec. It comes into the province of Ontario and is sought to be exported to the United States through Ontario; and in such case the petition and the private bill must be accompanied by an order in council of the province in which the electric power originates. It looks to me like fear of the opposition this government is going to get from Mr. Hepburn of Ontario and Mr. Duplessis of Quebec, and so they seek to put the responsibility upon the province and lift it from the governor in council. They ask that the lieutenant governor in council decide.
When the bill comes here, what will be the result? I have been favoured-I do not know how many other members have-with a copy of a letter sent by Mr. Hepburn to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) applying for this permit. Mr. Hepburn certainly wants the export of this power, and if he were asked for an order in council or a certificate that the power could be exported without injury to the province, he would certainly grant it. The Ontario government being Liberal-I am not concerned as to whether friendliness exists between the government there and the government here-the request of that Liberal government would be very acceptable to the administration at Ottawa, Liberal as it is to-day. They would not turn

it down, because the electorate which elected the premier and the government of Ontario is the same that elects the members from Ontario to this house, and those members would not wish to offend the provincial government. The same applies in the province of Quebec. But what is the logic of leaving it to the lieutenant governor in council of a province to decide whether it is justifiable to export power from that province, the government of the dominion taking advantage of that position and running to cover under orders in council or certificates of the province? My feeling is that this bill is brought in for the purpose of allowing this government, first, to unload the responsibility upon the provinces, and second, when it comes to the house, to unload the responsibility upon the individual members of the house rather than upon the government itself. This government was elected with a tremendous majority, yet it does not show enough courage to assume the responsibility of making it a national matter.
So far as I am concerned, I am against the export of power at all; and if in the course of the discussion on the bill it should be decided by the house to permit export, I yet believe that the power should be vested in the governor in council; let that body be responsible to the house and to the country for the policy of the people they represent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are debating at this time of its second reading the principle of the bill with respect to the export of power. May I at the outset, remind hon. gentlemen opposite that the principle of the bill which is now before the house is, to all intents and purposes, the same as that of the bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) in 1929. The principle of the bill which was introduced in that year by the hon. member was that no export of power should be permitted without the approval of parliament. It was a bill intended to give parliament greater control over the export of power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The licence was still retained, though.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment. The principle of the bill was as I have set forth. That is the principle of this bill. The present bill, however, goes a little further in the matter of prohibiting the export of power than did the bill of the hon. member for Leeds. The bill of the hon. member for Leeds provided that there should be the approval of parliament, without indicating how that approval was to be given. So far as the export of

Electric Power Export
power was concerned it remained permissible with the governor in council. This is a bill which takes away that permissive power from the governor in council and prohibits the export of power. That is the difference between the two measures. In its terms the present measure specifically prohibits the export of power. That is the principle underlying the general bill. It does, however, contain a provision that, while the general law is that of prohibiting the export of power, exceptions may be made if parliament in its wisdom deems it desirable and right that exceptions to the general law should be made.
My reply, in a word, to all hon. members opposite, who say that the government in the procedure it is adopting is actuated by fear or favour or any other ulterior motive they may ascribe, is that in so saying they are simply passing condemnation on themselves for their support of the bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Leeds. I believe that practically all hon. members who have spoken from the opposite side were in the house when that bill was passed. The measure introduced in 1928 received first and second readings. As re-introduced in 1929, it received first, second and third readings unanimously. They all supported it. I ask the hon. members who have spoken, when they supported that bill, Were they seeking to have the government get rid of responsibility; were they seeking to take away responsibility from the ministry and put it on parliament; or were they trying, as I believe they were, to make it more difficult for the export of power to be made, by requiring that the approval of parliament should be given in the first instance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I answer the question?


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the right hon. the Prime Minister will allow me to correct him, I was not in the house at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend was not. That was the loss of the house. As between the matter of having the house approve the export of power and of having the governor in council approve its export, might I remind hon. gentlemen opposite, as members of the Conservative party, of the position taken by Sir Robert Borden, who was the leader of the Conservative party at the time the 1907 bill was introduced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I answer the
question which was asked by the Prime Minister?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I answer the right
hon. gentleman before he proceeds? He asked that the question be answered, and I am ready to answer it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, all Tight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 5 of the act as
it now stands states:
No person shall export any power or fluid without a licence, or any power or fluid in excess of the quantity permitted by his licence, or otherwise than as permitted by such licence.
An absolute prohibition, at the present minute.


Ernest Lapointe: Without a licence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Without a
licence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now we are substituting a private bill for a licence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The existing
statute gives the governor in council power to issue a licence that is permissive. The first thing my hon. friends would have said, if the present government had granted the application of the Ontario government, is that the governor in council had taken that action either out of fear of or of favour for the administration at Toronto; that they had been afraid to leave the matter to parliament, notwithstanding they had declared as respects the earlier applications from Quebec to leave the matter to parliament. That is what we would have been hearing to-day. May I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that, as far as the Ontario government is concerned-and I have reason to know its mind in this matter-it would have much preferred to have had the old bill remain exactly as it is and to have had the governor in council grant a licence for the export of power with or preferably without the subsequent approval of parliament than to have the matter of its application referred, as it is being referred under the present bill, for approval to parliament itself. That, I believe, is the truth of the matter.
However, I was recalling the position taken by the leader of the Conservative party at the time the bill regarding export of power was introduced in 1907. Sir Robert Borden then said-and I think he was right in his contention-that the governor in council was the last body which should be expected to decide a matter of this kind. He gave his reasons; they were quite explicit and applicable to what some hon. gentlemen have been saying-that the governor in council is concerned with matters of policy; that council has not the opportunity to get the full and
Electric Power Export

exact information with regard to these matters enjoyed by other bodies, such as a committee of the House of Commons or the railway commission, which are able to bring before them the parties that make the application and to place on the parties themselves the onus of making good the case on their own behalf. Sir Robert pointed out that an administration would have to depend in large part upon the word of some official of a government department as to what it might be best to do with respect to any particular application. But he went a step further, and said there was another reason why the governor in council should not be trusted with this power, namely, that the council was actually and necessarily a partisan body, composed of members of one party. He did not think it right that members of one party should have it within their power to grant or withhold applications for licences to export power, which if granted might mean a great deal to their friends, and if refused for partisan reasons might mean a great loss to those concerned.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Those arguments did not
prevail in that case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those arguments did not prevail in that case, but they are prevailing to-day. What I am pointing out to my hon. friends is that such is the argument we would be hearing from them to-day if we had proceeded in any other way than as we are proceeding. Let me ask the house this question: What would have been the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite if we had retained the act of 1907 as it stands and, under that act, had either granted or refused the application of the Ontario HydroElectric Power Commission at the present time?
Let me say at once that, so far as this bill is concerned, I think that as a general act it ought to be considered wholly apart from any application for the right to export power. The government's decision with respect to having this question referred to parliament at this session was made before we had any knowledge whatever that an application would be forthcoming from the government of Ontario or from any organization connected therewith. The evidence of that is to be found in the written documents, the replies made to the Montreal Light, Heat & Power Company and to Aluminium Limited, wherein we pointed out that, in the past, parliament had been gradually taking the position that it should have more in the way of control over the export of power. For that reason, we were unwilling that the cabinet itself should grant further applications without

allowing parliament to express its view. We felt-which is the true sequence of the matter -that the bill which my hon. friend, the member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), introduced in 1928, and which, in 1929, was given its three readings unanimously in this house, contained a principle with respect to which there could be no question at all at this time. If the house had been willing at that time unanimously to permit the export of power, subject to the approval of parliament, we felt that at the present juncture, with the added knowledge, and experience that has come with the years, it would be prepared to support a bill embodying a similar principle and indeed, if anything, rather strengthening that principle, namely, the principle of parliamentary control of the export of power.
Let me come back to the question of what would have been said to-day had we adopted any other attitude. After having stated in writing, to the Montreal Light, Heat & Power Company and to Aluminium Limited, the decision to submit the matter at this session before taking any action with respect to the applications, so that parliament might review the whole situation, suppose we had granted the application of the Ontario government. What would have been said by hon. gentlemen opposite? Why, we would have been told that what we had refused to do for the province of Quebec, we had done for the province of Ontario. We would have been asked, why had we refused in the case of Quebec what we had granted in the case of Ontario? And their answer would have been Because the government of Quebec was a Conservative government and the government of Ontario a Liberal government. Every hon. member knows that is what would have been said in the strongest terms by hon. gentlemen opposite. But they would have gone further. We have only to consider what the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said at Petrolia the other evening, and what he and several other hon. members have repeated in the course of this debate. They would have said there was yet another motive for the government's action-I do not care what motive it was. And that is the reason why we cannot escape in this discussion making some mention of the application that has been received from Ontario since the government's decision with respect to Quebec applications was made. Suppose we had said, "We will grant this application of the Ontario government and leave it to a resolution of the house," as the leader of the opposition says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not a resolution.

Electric Power Export


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, then, a bill, approving the action of the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ratifying and approving the order in council granting the licence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us see exactly what the position is. My right hon. friend says that what we should have done was to approve that application.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or disapprove.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And then we should have brought the order in council to this parliament and introduced a bill asking for the approval of the action of the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or disapproval.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: You could have refused it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says we should have disapproved it.


William Earl Rowe: No; I said you could have refused it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us take both views.


Ernest Lapointe: Then we would not have had a bill afterwards.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us see where we would stand on either count. Assuming that we had approved, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, who has just spoken, would have repeated what he said at Petrolia the other evening; he would have said that the government had approved the application out of fear of the government of Ontario.


William Earl Rowe: Not if you refused it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But if we had granted the application.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subject to approval in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend would have said that the government at Ottawa had been dragooned into approval by the government at Toronto, that Mr. Mackenzie King was afraid for his life of Mr. Hepburn; we would have had all that sort of talk. This would have been given as the reason why the application had been granted. And what would the leader of the opposition have said? He would have said, "What greater pressure could the government have put upon its following to support its action than to make a government measure of this matter? The government has granted the application and now it comes to parliament and says to its following that it must approve
its action by an act." Well, what would the government be saying, by implication, in such circumstances? It would be saying, "You have to support the act or the government will be defeated; if you do not support it you will be voting against the policy of your own administration." And then the right hon. gentleman would have added, "Under the circumstances, what freedom is there on the part of any member of this house to decide for himself, on the merits and to vote as he likes?" That is what he would have said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to point out that the right hon. gentleman is conducting a debate upon a supposititious statement, which under the rules he is not permitted to do. He is not permitted to say what other people would have said but must deal with the situation as it is. Anyone who dignifies that sort of thing with the name debate cannot have a proper realization of the misuse of words.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a natural inference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that is nonsense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The truth of the utterance must be coming home to my right hon. friend, or he would not take exception to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is in keeping with the right hon. gentleman's' other statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know his line of argument better than he does himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have been going around the country misstating it long enough.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been sitting opposite my right hon. friend for a good many years, both in office and in opposition, and have come to understand his tactics fairly well, and I know that no matter what attitude-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rules do not permit one member to assert what another member would have said but only what he has said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All I have said is that I know certain things, and one of the things I do know is this-that whatever I propose my right hon. friend is going to find ground to oppose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The records do not show that, do they?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh yes, on these party matters; on questions where there is party controversy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They show quite the opposite; they do show unfairness. Look at the British treaty, for instance.

Electric Power Export


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want my right hon. friend to get into a quarrelsome mood.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but I am prepared to quarrel over that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, if my right hon. friend is prepared to quarrel, I am not going to quarrel with him; I want him to keep in a quiet frame of mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Too proud to fight.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I am not going to quarrel with him; he is not in a condition of health at the present time to quarrel and I shall not start quarrelling with him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What a shameful statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is a shameful statement? [DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: That one, as every decent man here knows.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is? If I have said anything that hurts my right hon. friend's feelings, or the feelings of anyone else, I am deeply sorry for it, but I am sincere when I say I have no desire to quarrel with my right hon. friend or have him get into an unpleasant mood. There is no need for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the point of order I raised, I desire to point out that under the rules it is not permissible for anyone to make statements as to what somebody would say. The record of what anyone has said governs, not what another member says he would have said. More than that, I say that this is well defined by the rules, so well defined that it is hardly necessary to mention it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure I
have a right to draw the inference as to the line of argument that would have been adopted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it was not adopted; that is the answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid
I cannot follow my right hon. friend in his interpretation of the rules. What I am as sure of as that day follows night is that if this government had come into this house, having approved an application of the Ontario government, and asked its following to support the application because the government had granted it, the government would very quickly have been told, and the country would have been told, that we had put pressure upon our own following so that they had to support the application. On the other

hand, assume we had refused to grant the application-the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe nods his head-what would he and the others have said? Immediately they would have said, "This is resentment on the part of the present Prime Minister of Canada because of what has been said about him by the premier of Ontario." That is what would have been said from one end of Canada to the other; that there had been no judicial appraisal of the situation; that the application had not been considered on its merits, but, because the head of the government of Ontario had been unpleasant and critical and said some things unworthy of him about the Prime Minister of Canada, the latter had taken his revenge by refusing to grant the application made by the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission. I am not going to permit hon. gentlemen opposite to say that now, or at any time to come. I wish to make it plain at the present time that, if this bill passes and a private bill is introduced, based upon it, hon. members on this side of the house are to be free to vote as they please on that measure. I shall ask them to do what they think is right in the light of their own best judgment, regardless altogether of what view I may take. I know the position I intend to take; there has been no doubt in my mind all along as to that. But no greater compliment could have been paid me by hon. gentlemen opposite than their taunt, "We do not know where the Prime Minister stands at the present time." Why do they not know? For the simple reason that I have not said and do not intend to say a word to any hon. member on one side or the other as to how he ought to vote on the private bill when it comes to the house, except that I shall expect every hon. member to consider the bill on its merits. That is the reason I have been silent with respect to my own attitude on the private bill. When the bill comes in, I shall, of course, have to say what course I deem the wisest and best.
In order, however, that the action of the government with respect to the present measure may not continue to be completely misconstrued as it has been by hon. gentlemen opposite, I want to make it perfectly plain again that the intention of the government with regard to this measure had been reached before any application came from Ontario at all. The policy decided upon prior to that time was to take the course we are now taking among other reasons because we believed it would command the unanimous approval of hon. members of this house, and that we would have no debate as to the wisdom of the course, seeing that already all hon. mem-

Electric Power Export
bers in a previous house had on two occasions supported the principle of greater parliamentary control. These are the reasons for the policy adopted by the government. There has been no change of attitude on the part of the administration from the time it considered this matter, when the first Quebec application came to it, up to the present.
Another criticism has been made, namely, that the present bill requires that the provinces give their consent in advance to the export of power. Here again a provision is made which accords with what was the unanimous view of the house a few years ago. I spoke the other day of the resolution introduced in 1925 by Mr. LeSueur of East Lambton, at the time a member of the Conservative opposition. The resolution, when introduced, read that there should be no export of power except off-peak power. The discussion on the resolution brought out some differences of view. The government of the day suggested that Mr. LeSueur's resolution should be amended by striking out the words " off-peak power " and substituting " only with the consent of the provinces concerned." The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was leading the opposition at the time, said that he would agree to that amendment. Why? Because he believed that it would bring unanimity in the house on the question of the export of power. He added further that he believed no provincial government would want to export power. But it was for the purpose of attaining unanimity that that resolution was amended, and that as amended it came to be accepted unanimously by this house at that time.
Now, if in the present bill we had omitted that obligation on the part of the provinces would there not have been criticism from hon. members opposite? They would have asked, Why is the province of Quebec not to be consulted with regard to the export of power that belongs to it? Why is the province of Ontario not to be consulted with regard to power that belongs to it? Here is the creation of more in the way of friction between the provinces and the dominion, another constitutional difficulty arising, an effort on the part of the federal administration to take exclusively into its hands the whole question of the export of power, to determine it at Ottawa, whereas the power belongs to the provinces and not to Ottawa at all. Remember the position as to this matter. So far as the power in question is concerned, it is admitted that the power belongs to the provinces; that it does not belong to the dominion. Where the dominion's jurisdiction comes in is in dealing with matters that pertain to trade
and commerce. For that reason, when it comes to exporting power beyond the boundaries of Canada, the provinces are not free to do as they will with their own. That is where the jurisdiction of the federal government arises. I say then that, since the provinces own the power themselves, it is only reasonable and right that the dominion, before taking a stand as to what is to be done with respect to the export of that power, Should ascertain whether the provinces are agreeable and willing to have the power exported. Supposing we had not made this provision, what would be said of the legislation we are presenting to this house now? It would be said that the federal government, without even consulting the province of Quebec, or the province of Ontario, or any other province concerned, was taking their power and granting the right to export it, regardless of how exporting this power might affect the interests of consumers, might affect industrial interests on this side of the line, or serve to create competitive interests on the other side. We would deserve to be condemned strongly if, in the bill which we have before the house, we did not say that before export of power is permitted by a private act of the federal parliament, it must be ascertained that the provinces concerned are agreeable to the export and have safeguarded the interests of consumers in the provinces.
It was the present hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) who first raised the point the other evening. What do I find? I find, on looking over the debates in this house at the time of the LeSueur resolution, that the hon. member's objection at that time was in a precisely opposite direction. He contended that all we were providing for by that resolution was that the province from which the power was to be exported was the only province to be considered; that the power might be generated in another province, and, instead of limiting the consent to the province from which it was proposed to export it, we should, he said, go further and require the consent of every province concerned; exactly what we are doing in this present measure. The hon. member said on June 15, 1925, as reported on pages 4279 and 4280 of Hansard:
Take the case of a water power which may be located in one province but vitally affects the rights of another province, for instance the Winnipeg river-I am not citing that specifically but merely as a general illustration -one province might be willing to consent to the export, but the other province, vitally affected by that export, might be opposed, and yet would have no voice in the decision by reason of the amendment suggested by the Prime Minister.
Electric Power Export

My amendment, as he thought, had reference only to the province from which the export was to take place. My reply to him was:
Mr. Mackenzie King:	In what I suggested
I used the expression "with the concurrence of the province or provinces in which it is proposed to develop such power."
In other words, by inserting that very provision, namely, that the province from which the power was to be exported-and if there should be another province concerned, the province generating it, should be consulted- parliament declared that power which the provincial government considered was needed in the province should not be exported under licence. At that time we were merely taking a position which was reasonable and just, and which the hon. member for Kootenay East then endorsed. But now the hon. member imagines all sorts of evils with respect to the insertion of this particular provision. He says, "We know this is equivalent to an invitation compelling the government to give licences when applications come before parliament." He says that once you require a province to indicate its consent, to all intents and purposes you are obligating yourself to meet that consent. That is a diametrically opposite position to the one he took in the discussion in 1925.
I must say I do not think we would be justified, as a federal parliament, in legislating to authorize the export of power under a private act, unless we were perfectly certain that the provinces in question were agreeable to the export, and unless we were assured, by the province itself, that the authorization we were proposing would not in any way injure the interests of which it ought to be guardian. I believe that explanation completely justifies the clauses requiring consent of the provinces.
The hon. member for East Kootenay next took exception to the fact that certain permissive powers given to the governor in council with respect to licences, are to remain in the statute where they apply to the export of fluids, but are to be eliminated where they apply to the export of power. He thought there was something sinister about this, and that we must have in mind in some way giving larger privileges to private interests, in connection with power, than those now existing.
What is the reason for having omitted those permissive restrictions? There is none, other than the fact that we were taking from the governor in council and giving to parliament itself the right to grant authority, and parliament has the power to impose any

restrictions it pleases. The reason that there were certain restrictions put in the original legislation was that parliament was delegating certain functions to the governor in council, and in delegating to the governor in council these functions, care was taken to indicate within what particular limits they might be performed.
But here the situation is reversed. Under this legislation we are taking from the governor in council the power to grant authority and we are leaving it to parliament itself. We are leaving it to parliament to insert any provision it may please as to conditions, as to the duration of the contract, as to only surplus power being exported, as to whether there shall be an annual review or power of revocation by the governor in council, as to the price at which the power is to be sold- if it is to be exported-and as to any other matter which may be of interest and concern to the public of Canada in the export of power.
But if it will serve to remove any suspicions, and if in the minds of any it will make for a little more effective control of the export of power, to have more in the way of detail set forth in the general act, I shall have no objection whatever, when the bill reaches committee, to proposing an amendment, which I have drafted and now have before me, to provide that, with respect to any private bill which may be introduced, certain provisions which are set forth must be complied with. Among those provisions will be one having to do with the sale only of surplus power; one with the price at which power can be sold, if exported to another country, as compared with the price to be charged in this country; a provision with respect to the duration of the right to export; and the right of the governor in council to terminate the right to export; and provisions with respect to one or two other particulars, which I shall outline when I introduce the amendment.
So far as provisions of the kind are concerned, which would be certain I believe to find their place in any private act respecting the export of power which might be passed by this parliament, there is no need for concern on the part of hon. members.
I come now to a somewhat singular statement made by the leader of the opposition. The other day my right ihon. friend said that the government is leaving it to a private member to bring in a bill respecting the export power, when never before in our history has a measure of this character and importance been submitted to parliament by a private member. He asked if any one had ever heard of such a proposition in all the history of this parliament. One would have thought

Electric Power Export
tihat the right hon. gentleman, knew all the history of this parliament, and that he could not possibly err in making a statement of the kind.
What are the facts? The facts are that the first bill permitting the export of electrical power from Canada was a private bill passed in this parliament. The very first bill respecting the export of power was a private bill, introduced by a private member in the house. The Canadian Power Company was incorporated in 1887 by private act of parliament, 50-51 Victoria, chapter 120, giving authority- 

to contract in writing with any company which may have heretofore erected, or which may hereafter erect, a bridge across the Niagara river, for permission, upon such terms as may be agreed upon, to carry one or more wires for electric light or other purposes, upon and over the said bridge towmrds the United States shore of the Niagara river, and connect the same with the wires of any electric light company, or other company in the United States, and may also contract with such company to work the said electric light, or other power, jointly.
The act of 1887 was amended in 1891, but the authority to export was not affected. By implication, the authority to export was extended by chapter 89 of the statutes of 1893, by giving the Canadian Power Company authority to connect-
-any other wires or cables which the company may lay across the said river.
That had reference to the Niagara river.
My right hon. friend has said there never was a precedent for anything like this in the history of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the same thing at all.


Mr. STEWART:: The act to which the Prime Minister refers was passed long before the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Which entirely changed the policy, I submit. Does the Prime Minister think the effect of (hat act would be superseded by the provisions of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907, and has not a licence been taken out under that act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say the first right to export power from Canada was given by this parliament, not under a public act, but under a private act. That is the point at issue.
Now may I come to what my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition said in conclusion. It was, I think, a reflection upon every hon. member of both houses of this parliament. He suggested that to permit the introduction of private bills to authorize
export of power would result in lobbies of a character that it would be difficult for hon. members of this parliament to resist. My right hon. friend has once or twice stressed the fact that what he wanted with respect to the further export of power was an act of parliament. He wanted that because the bill granting authority to export would have to go through both houses of parliament and be assented to by the crown. This bill will have to pass both houses and the private bill, if one is introduced, and is to become law, will have to pass both houses. The private bill will have to go before a committee and the justification of the measure will rest upon the applicants. Hon. members will have all sides of the argument presented and will be able to form their own opinions. But notwithstanding the fact that such a bill would have to go before both houses of the Canadian parliament, the right hon. leader of the opposition says that because a lobby may develop, the government should not make provision in this legislation for the authorization to export pcjwer to be given by parliament under a private act.
The same thing was said by the hon. member for Kootenay East. He recited his experience in connection with what he termed a most terrible lobby at the time of the application for the export of Carillon power. What was the result of the lobby in connection with the export of power from Carillon? The application was not granted; the lobby was of no effect whatever! The application went before the private bills committee and it was killed there. That shows how much members of parliament of that day were influenced by what the hon. member for Kootenay East termed the worst lobby he had known in his experience in public life. I wonder if the members of the present parliament are not to be equally trusted, if their integrity is not as great, if they are not equally sensitive as respects their honour, if their personal character is not as high; are they to be expected to exercise less in the way of judgment, less in the way of prudence and wisdom, less in the way of patriotism than was the case with members of a previous parliament? I say it is wholly unworthy of my right hon. friend to make a suggestion of the character he did.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved that the house go into committee on the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is to be an
amendment of any importance I should like this to be taken up in committee on another
Electric Power Export

day. We have a few amendments to offer, two of which are exactly the same as those suggested by the Prime Minister. Perhaps we could go into committee of the whole and then the Prime Minister might be good enough to place on the votes and proceedings or on Hansard the details of the proposed amendments. I think that would enable us to deal with the matter more expeditiously than we otherwise could.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The course
suggested by my right hon. friend is, I think, a good one. I shall be only too pleased to follow along the lines suggested.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-"Export" and "exportation" defined.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only
change here is the addition of the words "or contrivance." In order* to make clear the provisions of the act in so far as they relate to the export of fluids, may I say that there is in the present bill no change in any of the provisions of the existing act other than a slight redrafting. A distinction has been drawn in the present bill between the provisions of the act relating to the exportation of fluid and those which relate to the exportation of power and the provisions with respect to each have been kept separate and distinct, the reason being that the exportation of power is being provided for by a private bill instead of by licence as has been the custom heretofore.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Licence to export fluid.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we have reached the point where we should rise because there is involved here the whole underlying principle of the statute. I should like to state this more clearly. It was unanimously agreed on two occasions that licences for the export of power should be issued with the approval of parliament. There was a prohibition in section 5 against any export, and that is the point to which I desire to direct attention. There was an absolute prohibition in the section of the old statute, which reads:
No person shall export any power or fluid without a licence, or any power or fluid in excess of the quantity permitted by his licence, or otherwise than as permitted by such licence.
2. No person Shall, without a licence, construct or place in position any line or wire or other conductor for the exportation of power, or any pipe line or other light contrivance for the exportation of fluid.

The only method by which you could get around that prohibition in the old statute was by means of a licence. The suggestion contained in the bill introduced by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), to which the house agreed twice, was that a licence should be subject to the approval of parliament. Now we are changing that and no provision for a licence is being made in the new statute. It is proposed that the question of licence shall be dealt with by a private bill, but I submit that a private bill is not the proper place in which questions of licence issued by this country should be dealt with. It is the public bill that deals with the granting of a licence by Canada; it is under the authority of the public bill and not the private bill that the licence issues. If we are going to do away altogether with the question of licence, then all those problems to which the Prime Minister directed attention a moment ago, which we desired to submit as questions of policy, and all the conditions to be urged with respect to the licence itself arise. There is nothing about the licence left, and that was the reason I was going to suggest here that the question should be reconsidered from the standpoint of how the permission of the Canadian parliament was to be expressed. The private bill is intended to deal with that and it is going to impose conditions, but clearly a private bill should not authorize the granting of a licence. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will admit at once that it is wholly unworthy of this parliament to have a private bill-


Ernest Lapointe: Section 3 of the present bill applies only to the export of fluids.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am raising the question now because the question of electricity is left entirely out of the new section. There is a differentiation between fluids, such as water or natural gas-which is not a fluid-or oil.


Ernest Lapointe: There is nothing new in principle with regard to fluids.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Electrical power is taken out of the section.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but it will come later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the section where we begin to consider the question that arises -I mention it now because I think it is the beginning of it-as to whether or not the licence feature is to be continued with respect to electricity. Just as it stands now, there is nothing that permits a licence to be issued. I think the Minister of Justice will admit that it is entirely wrong that a private

Electric Power Export
bill should make provision with respect to a licence because the granting of a licence is the act of the whole government of Canada. To do this without a licence would create extreme difficulty in administration, and I might say to the committee that t'he amendments we have deal also with the period of time during which the right to export should exist. At the present time the licence to export expires on the 31st day of March each year; it is then renewable for only one year, and the provision that I was going to suggest in order to meet any difficulty on that ground was that it should be made clear that, in accordance with the general view of the order in council of 1914, the conferring of the right to export power created no vested or other right of any kind. I think that is essential.
The other question, in order that it may be before the committee, is that of surplus power. The question of what is surplus power would in my judgment be a matter that would arise for consideration each year. That is, where you have a yearly licence which expires on March 31, and may then be renewed for another twelve months, what was surplus power in the preceding twelve months might not be surplus power in the following twelve months. In other words, the demand for the use of power at home may be so great that surplus power no longer exists; whereas if you take the standard of surplus power at what it was in 1938, then you have a continuing licence notwithstanding what might be the demands for the use of power at home. It was to overcome that difficulty that I have also drafted a short amendment, and I mention it at this stage because this is the section which takes electric energy out of the provisions of the general bill and no longer makes any provision for the issue of the licence.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, Mr. Chairman, I still think, this section having regard only to fluid, that some of the remarks of the right hon. gentleman would come more properly when we reach the section with regard to power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree.


Ernest Lapointe: But I would ask at once, Is my right hon. friend not making a mistake in saying that the bill, which was introduced by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), and was passed by parliament, retained the system of licence with regard to power as well as with regard to fluid? The bill of the hon. member for Leeds repealed section 5 of the old act, which provided:
No person shall export any power or fluid without a licence, or any power or fluid in excess of the quantity permitted by his licence-
And so forth. There is established a distinction as between power and fluid. With regard to fluid the bill of my hon. friend maintained the situation as it was:
No person shall export any fluid without a licence.
But with regard to power it did away with a licence altogether. It said:
No person shall export any power without approval of parliament.
There is no previous licence. It is the first step.
No person shall export any power without approval of parliament or on any terms or conditions other than those approved by parliament.
I think my right hon. friend is wrong when he says that the purpose of the bill of the ihon. member for Leeds was, first, to have the licence issued by the governor in council and then a bill introduced in parliament approving it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree as to that.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, then, there is a distinction to be made as between the two. I really believe that section 3 of the bill applies only to fluid, and as it remains as it was before I think it might be allowed to go through, reserving the discussion of the export of power until we reach section 4.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I indicated that that was one method by which the matter might have been dealt with, merely approval of the licence. Perhaps I did not make sufficiently clear what I now see is the difficulty in the legislation introduced by the hon. member for Leeds, that it did not indicate clearly when the licence was to issue. Presumably it would be provided for in the private act. It may be my lack of clarity that has caused the difficulty. If the minister will be good enough to look at section 3, he will see that it now for the first time deals with the question of licence, and eliminates for the first time the question of granting a licence with respect to electric power. In other words, the section becomes no longer applicable to electricity, and inasmuch as it is not applicable to electricity it would be incongruous that a private act should deal with the higher exercise of power by the government, namely, the granting of the licence. It would be putting in a private act so-called a provision with respect to the exercise of executive power by the government of the country, namely,
Electric Power Export

the issuing of the licence itself. The private act should not do that. Perhaps I have not made my point as clearly as I should.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes; but does my right hon. friend say that a private bill cannot give the power to export without dealing with the issuing of licences as well?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly would answer in the affirmative; quite so; I agree with the minister at once. But there should be, in my judgment, a licence, because an act of parliament extending for a year would involve, in the very nature of things, the passing of another act of parliament next year and every year.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes; but an act of parliament may be for more than a year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite. But in view of our past history in this matter and the order in council of 1914, consequent upon what was said by the utility commission of New York, I submit that in the private act the provision for the licence should not occur because it is a high executive act, and we should put it in a public bill and make provision whereby under authority, if you will, of the private act the licence and the record of it and everything of that sort would be kept by the crown.


Mr. FACTOR:: You mean after the private act was passed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite, and we should make provision for it here in the broad public legislation dealing with the question of export. I entirely agree with the minister that our jurisdiction is only with respect to export. We have nothing to do with power qua power except such as is developed in the St. Lawrence, and we have something to say there because there is the question of navigation; but with respect to power created by private enterprise, the provinces have to deal with that. But we have trade and commerce under federal jurisdiction. What I cannot contemplate is that there should be no record of the authorization except the statute. There should be information that this licence is on record. But if we do not contemplate that, this section need not stand so far as I am concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to that section, I am proposing to move the following amendment:
- That section 4 be amended by adding the following subsection:

(4) Every such private act shall, unless it is otherwise expressly provided therein, be read and construed as including provisions that,
(a)	The quantity of power to be exported thereunder shall, notwithstanding any provision therein fixing the quantity of power to be exported, be always limited to the surplus power in excess of that required for distribution for use in Canada;
(b)	the power exported shall not be sold outside of Canada at a price less than the price of power produced and sold under substantially similar conditions for use in Canada;
(c)	the said private act may be repealed by proclamation of the governor iu council, at any time, upon such notice as the governor in council shall prescribe, or, if the governor in council is satisfied that the conditions imposed by paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection are not being complied with, without notice;


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hesitate to remind the Prime Minister that he negatives his argument of this afternoon by saying that the governor in council may by proclamation repeal a private act. At least it detracts a great deal from any force that attached to his argument, because this amendment gives the governor in council power to put the matter back " as you were." It is a very unusual power. For that reason I suggest that the right hon. gentleman might permit the committee to rise and then, with this amendment on Hansard, we shall have an opportunity to read and study it, because there are one or two matters which I do not believe are covered. They are covered if we accept that broad one, namely that a proclamation may repeal a statute. There are some other sections as well which may be looked into.


Ernest Lapointe: I am told that there are precedents for such a course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I am thoroughly familiar with them. But I should like, if it were possible, that we have an opportunity to study that amendment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Could we not have all the amendments which the government now propose put in the votes and proceedings to-morrow, or read now on the record, so that we can consider them all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is the following additional amendment of section 4:
That section 4 be amended by inserting, immediately after the number 4 at the beginning of the section and before the word "section," the following words:
"Subject as hereinafter in this act pror'ided."
The effect of section 4, among other things, is to repeal certain of the provisions relating to the existing system of licensing export of power. It is the intention to retain this licensing system with respect to licences at

Electric Power Export
present in force. The purpose of the minor amendment which the government wishes to effect is to make clear, as will be specifically set forth in section 9 of the bill, that the authority of the governor in council to renew or revoke existing licences to export power is not impaired and still subsists.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is pretty nearly
there now, in section 9.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, coming
to section 5, there is a similar amendment:
That section 5 be amended by inserting, immediately after the number 5 at the beginning of the section and before the word "section," the following words:
"subject as hereinafter in this act provided."
For that the explanation is similar to what I have already given.
That section 9 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"9. The said Act is further amended by inserting after section 10 thereof the following:
"11. Nothing in this act contained shall affect any licence existing at the date of the commencement of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act Amendment Act, 1938, and every such licence may notwithstanding the repeal of any of the provisions of this act by the said Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act Amendment Act, 1938, be renewed from time to time or revoked by the governor in council in the like manner and circumstances and with the like result and subject to the like terms and conditions as if such provisions had not been repealed but remain in force."
The object of the amendment to section 9 is to remove any doubt which may now be felt as to the adequacy of the section, as it appears in the bill, to provide for the legal continuance of the existing licences and the authority of the governor in council, under the act of 1907, to renew or revoke these licences.
This amendment, together with the minor amendments to sections 4 and 5, continues the authority of the governor in council to renew or revoke the licences at present in force, which exists by virtue of the act of 1907, and the regulations made under that act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are the amendments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those are the amendments. I may have one additional amendment, but I wish to consider it further before placing it on the record.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With regard to section 6 of the bill, which provides a new subsection 2 for section 8 of the act, I can find no authority for parliament to enact such a section unless as preliminary thereto parliament declares such lines, wires, conductors, and contrivances to be "works for the general advantage of
Canada". The only way in which it is possible,
1	believe, for parliament to obtain legislative jurisdiction over the lines running through any province is by declaring them to be "works for the general advantage of Canada," and I should like the minister to consider an amendment to section 8, the first subsection to read something like this:
(1)	All transmission lines or lines of wire or other conductors for the exportation of power and all pipe lines and other like contrivances for the exportation of fluid, from any place in Canada to any place outside of Canada, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
I think that might be followed by a subsection which is contained in the bill-


Ernest Lapointe: May I say to my hon. friend that the amendment as it is is merely the old section, subsection
2	of section 5 of the old act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I say to the minister that that is perfectly true; but when we came to consider certain questions with regard to the Beauhamois and other hydro-electric undertakings, we were all, I believe, of the opinion-all of the lawyers who were consulted at that time with regard to the new licence for Beauhamois-that that section at present existing is ultra vires of parliament unless there is, preceding it, a declaration that the transmission lines constructed in a province for that purpose are to be deemed "works for the general advantage of Canada." I am merely suggesting that for consideration, because I propose to move an amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: The suggestion of my hon. friend recommends itself
to me, as it probably will to other members of the committee. I shall take time to consider it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was about to suggest another slight change in section 8. Perhaps I can read now the entire section 8 which I propose to move when the bill comes before the committee. It would read something like this:
6. Section 8 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
8. (1) All transmission lines or lines of wire or other conductors for the exportation of power and all pipe lines and other like contrivances for the exportation of fluid, from any place in Canada to any place outside of Canada, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
(2)	Subject to any regulation of the governor in council in that behalf, the governor in council may grant licences for the construction, placing or laying of any transmission line or line of wire or other conductor for the exportation of power, or of any pipe line or other like contrivance for the exportation of fluid.
Electric Power Export

(3)	No person shall, without a licence, construct or place in position any transmission line or line of wire or other conductor or contrivance for the exportation of power or any pipe line or other like contrivance for the exportation of fluid.
That makes a change, first, in order that parliament may clearly and beyond doubt obtain legislative jurisdiction; and, second, I suggest that any line for the transmission of electric energy might very well in this section be called a "transmission line," because the technical term is really "a transmission line" or a "line for the transmission of electric energy," and the mere word "line" without the word "transmission" is not technically sufficient to be clear without judicial interpretation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The proposed amendment takes notice of the distinction between export to a foreign country and export interpro-vincially.


Ernest Lapointe: Would it be too inquisitive to ask whether there are other projected amendments?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Frankly, some of us had in mind several additional amendments, but I am inclined to think they are all met by the suggested amendments that have just been read by the Prime Minister. My view is, if I have a correct appreciation of the extent and value of these amendments, that they cover practically all that we had in mind in the suggestions which we proposed to make to the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps it
would be best then for the committee to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



WAR VETERANS' ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister Of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 35, to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Before the bill is given second reading, perhaps it would be in order to congratulate the minister upon having awakened the government, this sleeping giant of a government, long enough for it to do something about the problem of the 5,100 odd unemployed veterans with service in an actual theatre of war who were found by the veterans' assistance commission to be wholly or partly unfit to work. I believe the minister will admit that in the

task of rousing this sleeping giant he has been aided by some gentle prodding by members on this side of the house and also by a most emphatic recommendation from the veterans' assistance commission, which will be found at page 69 of their report, as follows:
Unfit Veterans
That the War Veterans' Allowance Act be amended by removal of "age 55 years," where it refers to the granting of an allowance because of disability, preaging and general unfitness;
And further:
That the act be amended so as to permit a more liberal interpretation of legislation covering the granting of the allowance at any age to a veteran who saw service in a theatre of actual war and who, because of his unfit condition, or other handicaps, is unable to maintain himself.
As the house will see, that was a most emphatic recommendation; but I am afraid, from what the minister said the other day, that this sleeping giant rolled over and went to sleep again before the minister was able to get him to do anything about the 10,000 unemployed veterans who served in a theatre of war and who are fit. It appeared from the minister's remarks that nothing was to be done about these 10,000 fit veterans.
If it is intended to cover all the 5,100 odd wholly or partly unfit veterans, then probably everyone in the house will agree with the principle of this bill, and the minister himself, speaking the other day, said that such was the case. His remarks will be found at page 1041 of Hansard where he is reported as follows:
All those who are partially fit or unfit will be looked after under the provisions of this legislation.
If that is the intention of the government, we can all approve of the bill; but there are one or two reservations I should like to make. In the first place, it seems to me that in the new section 4 an element of permanency is introduced. As the minister knows, our amendment in 1936 provided that veterans of a certain class need only be temporarily incapable of maintaining themselves; they did not have to be permanently disabled. In this section, however, we find the words, "and unlikely to become capable of maintaining himself," which I am afraid may be interpreted as adding a feature of permanency, which would mean that a veteran must be permanently disabled. As against that, the veterans' assistance commission have recommended that the men be given every incentive to get work and to reestablish themselves and get off the allowance. I suggest that the section should be amended to make it quite clear that the veteran, in order to get the

War Veterans' Allowance Act
allowance, need not be permanently disabled. Further the resolution which was passed the other day and on which this bill is based did not mention anything of that kind but simply referred to those "incapable of maintaining themselves," although the minister himself, speaking in reference to these men, said that they should be men who would not likely again become self-supporting. In my opinion it would be unwise to restrict this new classification in that way.
Another feature of the bill which should be looked into carefully is the provision that if the recipient is drawing old age pension he cannot get the war veteran's allowance. The minister may be quite right in his amendment on this point, but I hope the effect will not be to enable the government or the war veterans' allowance board to force veterans onto the old age pension. After all, they prefer to get the war veterans' allowance. The benefits under the War Veterans' Allowance Act are greater than benefits under the Old Age Pensions Act:	for example, a
veteran's widow can get an allowance for a year after the veteran's death under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, but that is not the case under the Old Age Pensions Act; then under the War Veterans' Allowance Act the soldier may have a home of a value of 82,000 without its -being taken into consideration in setting his allowance, which also is not the case under the Old Age Pensions Act, and there are several other respects in which it is of much more benefit to come under the War Veterans' Allowance Act than under the Old Age Pensions Act. This particular section of the bill dealing with the Old Age Pensions Act should be carefully considered.
Then I have a new suggestion to make in regard to the War Veterans' Allowance Act. We have now had experience for several years in the administration of the act, and there are many instances in which recipients of a war veteran's allowance are unable to get medical treatment. These men are indigents; they have no money to go to a doctor or a hospital or to get dental treatment. I suggest that it would be wise if the government at this time took steps to provide for giving some hospitalization and medical and dental treatment to recipients of the war veterans' allowance. It might mean that if a man were treated he could go out and earn his own living and go off the allowance, whereas at present he probably cannot get treatment at all unless he gets it from the city authorities, and in many instances gets worse and worse and has no chance whatever of getting off the allowance.
I think the same thing applies to pensioners. Our pension law at the present time requires proof of pensionable disability. We have seventy or eighty thousand soldiers who have suffered gunshot wounds but are not drawing pension at all; many of them have never applied for pension; yet if they have trouble with their wounds they cannot get treatment unless they can prove that they are suffering from a pensionable disability, which means that they must put all the expensive pension machinery to work to prove entitlement to a pension, whereas all they really want is treatment. I think the time has come when the government of Canada should give serious consideration to this whole question of medical and dental treatment, and hospitalization. In that connection I would refer again to the report of the commission, a significant finding. At page 35 they say:
We were much impressed on the occasion of our public sittings to see the evidences of ill health in a group of men who were the finest physical specimens in the country when they enlisted. It is of course difficult to measure good health or ill health by a casual inspection. There is one test of ill health, however, that is observable. The teeth of the veterans whom we saw were in a deplorable condition. How good health could possibly be retained with such poor teeth is difficult to understand.
It was perfectly obvious to us without being told-though we were told it on many occasions -that these veterans could not afford the dental treatment they needed. Certainly they could not afford the new sets of teeth that were dictated in most instances. Yet it was equally obvious to us that the country could not afford the physical deterioration resulting from these bad teeth.
I throw out that suggestion to the minister, that he give serious consideration to the question of treatment.
Another feature of this bill is that while it covers some of the South African veterans, it does not, as I understand, cover any Canadians who were domiciled in Canada before the South African war and who went to England and enlisted with the imperial forces there, nor does it cover soldiers who came to Canada for the first time after the South African war, although they may have been domiciled here since 1903 or 1904; the bill merely covers Canadians who served in a Canadian contingent in the South African war.
This bill will place on the war veterans' allowance board serious responsibilities. At present they have a very wide discretion; but by the bill they will be given even wider discretion, which means that their task will be much more difficult. In fairness to them I should like to say that in my short experience in public life I have never come across a board or a governmental authority which has
War Veterans' Allowance Act

received so much favourable comment. On every side one hears that this board, under Mr. Walter S. Woods and his associates, is doing splendid work. I should like here to pay tribute to the members for that work; they are rendering splendid service to this country, and I believe they may be relied upon to exercise in a satisfactory manner the increased discretion given them in this bill.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Some of the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Green) would perhaps have been more applicable in the discussion in committee. But since he has introduced them and as it is nearly six o'clock, may I add a word which perhaps the minister will consider during recess. Subsection 3 of section 4 reads:
An allowance shall not be awarded or continued under this act to a veteran or a recipient while such veteran or recipient is in receipt of an old age pension. . . .
The point I would like to make is this: A war veteran if married is entitled to $40 a month; but an old age pension is limited to $20, unless the man's wife also has an old age pension, and it would be unfair, as the hon. member suggested, if the attitude were adopted of compelling them on reaching the age of seventy to go under the Old Age Pensions Act, in which case their pension would be dropped from $40 to $20 a month.
There is one other point I should like to mention. It is not in criticism, but I should like the minister to confirm the apparent meaning of this section. I remember some years ago when a somewhat similar bill was up, dealing, I think, with the soldier settlers; there appeared to me to be some ambiguity in the language, and I asked the minister, with his deputy before him, whether the words in the bill meant so and so, which appeared to be the favourable interpretation. The minister assured me most emphatically that it was so. Six months later when I tried to see that the act was enforced in that way, that same deputy assured me that he was under no obligation whatever to pay any attention to anything the minister had said in the house, that he was guided solely by the legal meaning, and he entirely repudiated the meaning which the minister had positively given in the house. It may be my suspicious nature, but I am not quite clear whether the language used in paragraph (c) of section 4 is definite enough. It says that they will give this award to those who are:
. . . incapable and unlikely to become capable of maintaining himself because of economic handicaps combined with physical or mental disability or insufficiency.

The old section read:
. . . permanently unemployable by reason of physical or mental disability.
We always run up against this case; we would say to the board: "This man is incapable and permanently unemployable." They would say: "No, he is not; he could run an elevator." Perhaps the man was a logger or something. They would say: "Oh, well; this man could do something; he could flag a train at a railway crossing." They could always see some possible situation in which a man, unless absolutely bedridden, could do something, disregarding the fact that a logger could not become a bank clerk or something of that kind, and elevator jobs are very few. And we wanted the term introduced-I think it was introduced later-"economic disability"; but still it is a little vague. I should like the minister, if he could, to assure us after eight o'clock that that provision, "economic handicaps combined with physical or mental disability," will positively mean what it appears to mean, and we shall not have to prove that a man is almost bedridden before we can get him this award; otherwise very little benefit will result over the old act. The words, "economic handicaps combined with physical or mental disability," might compel the man to prove he was practically bedridden.


Charles Gavan Power: He could be a member of parliament.


Mr. F. C. BETTS (London):: May I point out to the minister that in making the two appointments to the board he has undertaken a grave responsibility. These are important positions, carrying salaries of $6,000, and I ha ve heard it suggested that the appointments should be made by the civil service commission. I do not urge that, but I would emphasize the extreme importance of maintaining in this board the same humane disposition in dealing with cases coming before it that has been manifested in the past. Needless to say, the men to be appointed will have to be capable, and will have to possess qualities of the head. But it is essential that they have, too, qualities of the heart, because particularly in dealing with returned soldiers' legislation a great deal depends upon the administration of the act.
There have been items of war veteran legislation, the utility of which have been entirely destroyed by a too technical administration and interpretation of certain provisions. I hope when appointing two new members to the board the minister will dismiss from his mind all political considerations, and install men who will make their first consideration

War Veterans' Allowance Act
the welfare of the veteran. Most emphatically, the appointees should be returned men, men who have had a reasonable amount of service in the line. This is not a job for staff officers, unless they have had considerable regimental duty as well. There is no man so well qualified to deal with the veteran as one who has shared 'his hardships and his problems.
May I remind the minister of something he knows very well: the veteran will stand discomfort and hardship, privation and danger quite cheerfully, but he will not put up with what he describes as being chevied about. Under that heading fall all sorts of technical refinements, that disposition to introduce a mass of precedents in dealing with returned soldier legislation, which has been regrettably present in the attitude of certain other boards and commissions dealing with returned soldier legislation but not, I repeat, in connection with the war veterans' allowance board.
I should like to have seen in this legislation some provisions entitling those who draw the allowance, but who are not in receipt of a pension, to treatment and hospitalization in departmental hospitals. Perhaps that is something which may come later on in the session. I should like to see a provision for the payment of transportation costs of applicants to the nearest points at which they can be examined. As to the general purpose of the bill, may I quote from the minister's remarks in the debate on the resolution. At page 1039 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
It may be said that in passing this legislation we shall be fulfilling to the utmost the requests of the returned soldiers themselves as expressed through the dominion convention of the Canadian legion held in Port William early in February when a resolution was passed on the subject of cash bonus to veterans of the great *war. The resolution reads in part:
"That this convention endorse the resolution, passed by the dominion executive council to the effect that it is unalterably opposed to the principle of any bonus for service in the great war, conceiving it to be the responsibility of the government of Canada to adequately provide only for those disabled as a result of war service and dependents and dependents of the fallen and to ensure adequate assistance for those who saw service in a theatre of actual war and who are now by reason of economic conditions combined with their disability, tangible and intangible, resulting from war service, unable through no fault of their own to secure employment."
I am not going to discuss the matter fully, because I believe my remarks might be more appropriate in committee under section 4 of the bill. May I go on record now, however, as submitting that as it now stands section 4 will have to be drastically revised if the intention of the resolution passed by the
legion convention is to be carried out. At present I shall not go farther than that.
I should like to add my words of congratulation to what has been said, subject to a revision of section 4, which would bring the measure entirely in line with the minister's remarks I have just quoted.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, because I welcome this bill I do not propose at this stage to speak at length upon it or to indulge in any carping criticism. I believe the measure will receive general commendation. I speak at this time rather because I fear that certain restrictive provisions in the bill may tend to impair its general usefulness. I desire io give the minister full credit for his intentions with regard to this measure, but I believe it is only proper to point out that the parliamentary inquiry of 1936 proved conclusively the necessity for such a measure. I think we should not overlook the fact that the two years' delay in caring for a certain category of veteran has meant growing misery and harrowing insecurity for the men in this category.
I am at a loss to understand why we should always have to wait until conditions become most acute before remedial legislation is introduced. I feel sure that such a policy will result in additional cost to the country as well as increased suffering and misery for those affected. If we review the history of legislation dealing with ex-service men, I think we shall find that the rather grudging attitude taken toward legislation of this kind has increased the ultimate cost. We should keep this experience in mind as we try to bring legislation of this sort to its final stage. I am particularly anxious, if we accept responsibility for the category of ex-service men as defined in this bill, that we should make certain that the responsibility is adequately and justly discharged. As I say, I have a definite fear that certain restrictions in the bill may detract from the reception it will receive from ex-service men in general.
I should like to refer particularly to the sections of the bill dealing with those who served in the South African war. As has been pointed out by preceding speakers, the benefits are limited to those who served in the Canadian contingents. I am bound to bring to the attention of the house the large number of
War Veterans' Allowance Act

men who served in the imperial units during the South African war and who very shortly after their periods of service established domiciles in Canada and have been residents of Canada continuously since that time. They have become closely identified with our national life and our national enterprises, and it seems unfair to discriminate against them in a measure of this kind. I should like to direct attention to this additional fact, that a large percentage of those who served in imperial units during t'he South African war enlisted for service in the great war of 1914-1918.


Walter Edward Foster: I do not think the hon. member is in order when he discusses different clauses of the bill on the second reading. He should discuss the principle of the bill at this time and discuss the different clauses when the bill is in committee.


Charles Grant MacNeil: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-"The South African war."
Sir EUGENE FISET:: As section 1 deals with the South African veterans I should like, in the name of my old comrades, to convey to the hon. minister (Mr. Power) my sincere and grateful thanks for bringing the South African veterans under the provisions of this bill. I never had any doubt, knowing the minister as I do, that he was one day bound to accede to our requests, and I can assure him, if I can judge from the numerous letters I have been receiving since the introduction of this bill, that his name, perhaps for the first time in his life, is going to be blessed from one end of the country to the other.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain
just what class of veterans who served in South Africa will be covered by this section?


Charles Gavan Power: As is well known to hon. members, the War Veterans' Allowance Act heretofore restricted the veterans' allowance to those who served in the great war. This section extends the act to veterans who served in the Canadian contingents in South Africa during the hostilities commencing on October 11, 1899, and ending on May 31, 1902. Representations were made before the parliamentary committee of 1936, and again during the last session of parliament, among others by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I told him at that time that there might be certain difficulties, but that I would go into the matter thoroughly in an endeavour to bring these men under the provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
As has already been suggested, a goodly percentage of these Canadians who served in the South African war served also in the great war, so they would in any case be eligible under the provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. As to the exact number, we had some discussion about that last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is just what I was
about to ask the minister.


Charles Gavan Power: I am able to say this:
There were 7,366 veterans who left Canada in the Canadian contingents for South Africa. Only 5,325 of these saw service on land during the campaign, the rest having arrived
subsequently to the cessation of hostilities and many of them never landing in South Africa at all. After deducting mortality from this 5,325, we estimate those now living to number approximately 3,500, and it is believed that at least half of these saw service also in the great war-this, of course, is only an estimate- and would therefore have entitlement under the act as at present. That would leave 1,750, of whom it is doubted if more than ten per cent are indigent and unprovided for, so that the total to be looked after by this amendment would not be more than 200 to 250. The expenditure is estimated to be from $30,000 to $35,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to ask the minister in reference to a case I know of, that of a Canadian-born who served in the South African war and went with the corps to the relief of Mafeking, where Baden-Powell was besieged. This man came to see me a few days ago, and in the course of conversation told me his story. I am not sure that I can relate it with an absolutely clear understanding of all he said, but I understood him to say that after he reached South Africa he was transferred-he was in "C" battery

to Rhodesia. I assume he was transferred to some imperial corps. Would that soldier be qualified under this amendment? After he came back he studied for a doctor, and then went west to practise. He is now over sixty years of age, and has been back in Toronto for many years and is destitute. I was wondering if his being present at the relief of Mafeking would make him eligible for the war veterans' allowance.


Charles Gavan Power: H he enlisted in the Canadian unit, I do not think there is any doubt that he would be eligible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Thank you.


Mr. STREIGHT:: I think I can explain
that to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). After the siege of Mafeking Rhodesia borrowed some artillery from the imperials, they took "C" battery from the Canadian forces, and those men went and served in protecting the border around Rhodesia, but they were still under Canadian pay and allowances.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister what allowance he would receive?


Charles Gavan Power: Up to a maximum of
twenty dollars a month if unmarried, and forty dollars if married, provided he is eligible under the other sections of the act.
War Veterans' Allowance Act


Mr. STIRLING:: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the phrase, "theatre of actual war" and the interpretation placed upon it.


Charles Gavan Power: In connection with South
Africa?


Grote Stirling: It appears in the explanation in connection with the bill. The case I desire to draw to the minister's attention has to do with the great war, but the same phrase is used with regard to the South African veteran. The War Veterans' Allowance Act sets out quite clearly what "theatre of war" -was intended to mean, but as soon as the board undertook the administration of this act it was necessary to have a closer definition of what "theatre of war" meant with regard to the act. What I say is in no sense a criticism of the board. Rather would I associate myself with the well-chosen words of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) this afternoon in appreciation of the work that the board has done. Cases have arisen, not many in number, which do not seem to me to be receiving the intent of parliament-shall I put it in that way? The particular case I drew to the board's attention was that of a man who was on the strength of the military police at Folkestone. He was sent over to France in 1917, to carry out certain duties entrusted to him with regard to the election. I am told that others who were sent on similar duties actually were killed.


Charles Gavan Power: Some of us think they should have been.


Grote Stirling: Possibly, but I was not for a moment looking at the matter from a partisan point of view. There seems little doubt that the car this particular man used was demolished by a direct hit. True, he was not in it. He has now come to a physical and financial disability, and his age is such that there is no question, I think, of his being eligible but for the fact that he does not come within the definition laid down by the Department of Justice. That definition is that to come within the category of those who served in a theatre of actual war a man must have been on the strength of a unit that was so serving. I was present in the house when this statute was passed, and it does not seem to me that that case is receiving what parliament intended such cases to receive.
I am told there are one or two other cases, not many in number I believe. There was one of a man sent over on conducting duties, and another of a man sent over on post office
CMr. Power.]
duties, and he was actually wounded, but he does not receive the benefits of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I would draw the attention of the minister to these cases rather with the request that he should see whether, if they are not numerous-and I understand that they are not-they could not be brought within the meaning of the act.


Charles Gavan Power: I am familiar with the cases submitted by my hon. friend. The particular case he mentions is one of those borderline cases that are very difficult to deal with, very much like the case of the conducting officer. There may be some discussion between us as to whether the man was actually serving at the front when he was engaged in the work of a political campaign-


Grote Stirling: He was carrying out the duties he was sent there to perform.


Charles Gavan Power: I assume he was employed by the government, and not by a political party. I take that for granted.


Grote Stirling: I assume that.


Charles Gavan Power: I take that for granted. In any case the whole question turns on the interpretation of the term, "service in a theatre of actual war." As my hon. friend has pointed out, the fact is that the Department of Justice has ruled that conducting officers could not properly speaking be said to have served in a theatre of actual war, and for that reason it ruled that they were not eligible under the provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I do not know that anything can be done about the matter. I would hesitate to propose an amendment which would still further enlarge this definition of service; it might allow eligibility to a very large number of persons for whom it was never intended that there should be provision in legislation such as this. After all, it must not be forgotten that these men were not wounded in the discharge of their military duties. People coming under this act are those whose disability cannot be attributed to their war service. They did not necessarily suffer injury or disability at the front; their disabilities are post war or such as may be assumed to be due to the war, owing to the strain and hardships which they underwent. It is perhaps difficult to imagine that a man whose duty was purely a civilian one such as that of a returning officer in an election would be put to any strain or hardship comparable with that of those who saw actual service in the trenches. However, I have no objection to giving consideration to the case submitted by my hon. friend.

War Veterans' Allowance Act


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would the minister give consideration to those who served in the South African campaign as members of imperial units and who established domicile in Canada almost immediately after the close of the campaign? The reason I ask consideration of such cases is that a very large number of these men enlisted in the Canadian expeditionary force during the war; they were in some degree the back-bone of the instructors required; many of them, through no fault of their own, did not see service beyond England or Canada, and therefore, unless in receipt of a pension, are not eligible for the benefits of this act. As I endeavoured to point out before until I was reproved, if they have established twenty years' residence in Canada and are now over sixty years of age and in destitute circumstances, I see no reason why they should not be taken care of under this act, particularly as they no longer can establish even a remote claim in respect of the imperial government. They have been closely identified with our national life all this time, and I think it would be quite proper that they should be given consideration, particularly as many of them served in the Canadian expeditionary force and did valuable work and, because of the very fact that they gave such valuable service, were not allowed to proceed to France and are therefore excluded from the benefits of this legislation. I ask the minister if he has given consideration to their case.


Charles Gavan Power: I have.


Howard Charles Green: As it stands at present, the War Veterans' Allowance Act provides for an allowance being paid to a person domiciled in Canada at the time of the great war even though he served in the imperial forces; but as I understand this proposed amendment to cover South African veterans, a Canadian domiciled in Canada before the South African war who went to England and served with the imperial forces would not be eligible.


Eugène Fiset: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that every single Canadian who went to South Africa became an imperial soldier when he arrived there? We were all on the same footing. The imperial government provided for all gratuities as well as pensions. The Canadian government had nothing whatever to do with the matter.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, I believe the imperial government provided the pay of the soldiers and defrayed all expenses. But that is not the question I am asking. I think we should cover the case of Canadians who went to
England and enlisted with an imperial unit. This amendment covers only those who served in a Canadian contingent.


Charles Gavan Power: I doubt very much if there are very many of those, and I hesitate to recommend to the committee at the present time that we pass legislation with respect to them. If it is found that there is any hardship with respect to Canadians domiciled in Canada who went to the old country to enlist during the South African war, perhaps those cases can be dealt with later, but I would not like to enlarge the act at present to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the statute broad enough as it now stands to deal with this last number of cases-those domiciled in Canada who went to Britain?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not broad enough?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think so. It says, "any former member of a Canadian contingent" who served in the South African war.


Howard Charles Green: Could that not be clarified so that it would also include those who were domiciled in Canada but enlisted in an imperial unit?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think that would apply to more than a very few officers, who are not likely to require such a provision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are some privates.


Charles Gavan Power: The only cases I have in mind are some of which I have personal knowledge, men who went over in cattle boats or on transports and afterwards joined some unit or another. A great many, I believe, joined Lord Roberts' Horse or some of the independent or so-called irregular units. If there is any real demand, I do not think there would be any difficulty about making provision later, but I should not like to change the act now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there will be difficulty in the next year. The thing cannot be done except by parliament. The only suggestion I have-and perhaps the minister would consider it-is whether we might not say, "in the case of domiciled Canadians" serving in the South African war, instead of "members of a Canadian contingent." I do not know whether the minister thinks that is going too far or not. That is in subsection 3 of section 2. I just put it to the minister.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection at all to giving the matter consideration although the numbers are so few that it is really hardly

War Veterans' Allowance Act

worth while bothering about. At the same time, as my hon. friend says, if there be only one, perhaps it is worth doing it to rescue him from destitution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be, in view of the nature of this legislation.


Charles Gavan Power: If the committee would be willing to let that subsection stand, I would have no objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not let the section stand, if one paragraph is to stand?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; let the whole section stand.
Section stands.
On section 2-War Veterans' Allowance Board.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest the following
amendment:
That subsection 5 of section 3 of the act as enacted by chapter 48 of the statutes of 1936 be amended by adding after the word "subsection" in the fourth line of the original bill the words "or from the date of his appointment to the board."
Subsection 5 of section 3 reads as follows:
Any member of the board who, prior to or at the time of his appointment, was or is employed in the public service of Canada, shall be eligible upon application within three months from the date of the coming into force of this subsection, to become a contributor under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. . . .
That referred to the coming into force of that subsection, which was in 1936. Should it so happen that any member of the civil service of Canada was appointed as a member of this board, he would not be eligible to elect to become a contributor unless we added the words which I now propose, "or from the date of his appointment to the board."


Howard Charles Green: Is it intended that there shall be two boards sitting? Provision is being made for five members. How is the work to be divided among them?


Charles Gavan Power: The act requires quorums of two and two signatures for each decision. It might be that, if there were a rush of 'work, two quorums could sit.


Howard Charles Green: It is not intended to provide for a full board of five in every case?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Grote Stirling: Will they always sit in Ottawa?


Charles Gavan Power: Up to the present it has been found more advisable, almost necessary, for them to sit here.


Mr. DUNNING:: I move:
2. (1) (a) Subsection five of section three of the said act, as enacted by chapter 48 of the Statutes of 1936, is amended by adding after the word "subsection" in the fourth line thereof, the words-
"or from the date of his appointment to the board."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Gavan Power: There is another amendment I wish to propose. It is not in the printed bill. It reads:
2. (3) Section 3 (a) of the said act as enacted by chapter 48 of the Statutes of 1936, is repealed, and the following substituted therefor-
" Subject to the provisions of this act, the board shall have full and unrestricted power and authority and exclusive jurisdiction to deal with and adjudicate upon all matters and questions relating to the award, increase, decrease, suspension or cancellation of any allowance under this act and to the recovery of any overpayment which may have been made: and effect shall be given by the department and the comptroller of the treasury to the decisions of the board."
This is similar to a provision in the Pension Act passed by this house in 1936. The purpose is to make it quite clear that this board is entirely free from any influence or intervention on the part of any person.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has sole jurisdiction in the premises.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. There was a similar section which I am now asking the committee to repeal in favour of this because I want to make it as strong as the provision in the Pension Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: I move the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Veterans to whom allowances payable.
Frederick Cronyn Betts: This is the section about which I was speaking before dinner. It will be remembered that in the old section there were defined three classes of veterans who became eligible for allowances under the act. First of all, there were those who at the date of the proposed commencement of the allowance had attained the age of sixty. That was one class. Then there was another class who, in the opinion of the board, were permanently unemployable by reason of physical or mental disability. That was the second class. There was also a third class, who having served in a theatre of actual war had attained the age of fifty-five and were, in the opinion of the board, incapable of maintaining themselves

War Veterans' Allowance Act
because of disability, pre-aging, or general unfitness. My understanding of the intention of the legion convention at Fort William and of the resolution passed on that occasion, and also of what the minister intended to convey in his remarks on the resolution introducing this bill, was that the first two classes would be maintained as they now exist; and by the present section 3 that is done. The only difficulty or uncertainty or unsatisfactory condition
1	see is as to the third class. As I say, my impression of what was understood at Fort William was that the third class would be preserved very much as it existed except for the fact that the age limit of fifty-five would be swept away; in other words, those who were eligible only if they were fifty-five years of age would now be eligible irrespective of their age. I doubt whether the present section 4 which is being substituted for the old section 4 has that effect. I would refer to paragraph (c). In attempting to define this third class, section 4 provides:
Subject as hereinafter provided allowances under this act shall be payable with the approval of the board to any veteran who has been domiciled in Canada for the six months immediately preceding the date of the proposed commencement of the allowance, and who-
Then it defines classes one and two. Then in paragraph (c) it deals with the class I have described as the third; that is to say, it describes them as those who do not qualify by age or disability under the two preceding paragraphs, but having served in a theatre of actual war are, in the opinion of the board, incapable and unlikely to become capable of maintaining themselves because of economic handicaps combined with physical or mental disability or insufficiency.
The point I would make is that in the old definition no regard was had to the question whether the applicant was likely to become capable of maintaining himself. The sole question for determination was whether he was or was not capable of maintaining himself. Those words, "unlikely to become capable of maintaining himself," introduce a restrictive feature which was not heralded in the remarks the minister made on the resolution, and was not the understanding of the convention at Fort William. I suggest that the intention of all parties in the house would be carried out if the words, "and unlikely to become capable," were omitted.
Then I am very much afraid that subsection
2	clips the wings of the board almost entirely in dealing with the third class to which I have reference. Subsection 2 now reads:
The provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection 1-
And paragraph (c) of subsection 1 is the paragraph which would let in this third class. -shall not be construed to apply to any veteran who is, in the opinion of the board, physically and mentally capable of maintaining himself if work were available.
My submission is that many of these burnt-out veterans for whom this legislation is designed, while not capable of performing a hard day's work, a full day's work, and for that reason unable to compete successfully in the labour market, are nevertheless capable of maintaining themselves if work of a certain kind is available. For instance, many of them could maintain themselves as elevator operators, night watchmen, caretakers, timekeepers, if such work were available. But of course there are very few such jobs available. It seems to me that by that subsection we are not only making it possible for the board to refuse allowances to men in that category but actually tying the hands of the board, preventing the board from giving relief in many cases in which relief should be given. It seems to me that the board will have to ask itself, if work were available, Could this man maintain himself? As I say, a man might be capable of maintaining himself as an elevator operator or caretaker or in some other form of sheltered employment if it were available. If the board decided that he was fitted for that type of work, it seems to me that they would be compelled to refuse him the allowance.
I should also like to hear from the minister as to subsection 3, which provides that an allowance shall not be awarded or continued to a veteran while such veteran is in receipt of an old age pension. That comes as somewhat of a surprise. I do not think there was any mention at Fort William of a provision of that sort, and I do not think legislation containing such a provision can be said to fulfil to the utmost the requests of the returned soldiers themselves as expressed through the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion held at Fort William'. I am hoping that the minister will be able to dispense with that provision.


Howard Charles Green: In endorsing the remarks of the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts), I would point out that when the special committee on returned soldiers' problems considered this paragraph so carefully two years ago, we expressly distinguished between veterans permanently unemployable and temporarily unemployable, the idea being that a man of fifty-five to sixty need not show that he was permanently unemployable. I suggest that the intention is to give the board very
War Veterans' Allowance Act

wide discretion, and that these words, "unlikely to become capable," in paragraph (c) should be cut out, and subsection 2 be cut out also. There will be then no question at all of the powers of the board, and we need have no fear that the act will not be fairly administered.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister be good enough to outline how the board would iproceed to determine eligibility under paragraph (c) of subsection 1? How would he define "economic handicaps"?


Charles Gavan Power: Possibly a man who has
not had a job for four or five years and could not get one; that would perhaps be an economic handicap. I do not like attempting to define these things. The trouble with most of our pension legislation has been that we have defined either too much or too little. If we define too much we sometimes let in a large class of people who are not entitled at all. If we restrict the powers of the boards or commission and do not allow them the widest possible discretion, many hardships are incurred.
It has nothing to do with this, but by way of digression may I say that if at the inception of this pension legislation we had appointed a board, such as the veterans' allowance board, and given them the widest possible discretion in the awarding of pensions, I think we would not have got into all the snarls that we have since been in with respect to pension legislation. Every time we introduce legislation which specifies distinctly a class or classes we get into trouble, either by excluding someone or by including too many. The officers of the department and myself have given a great deal of thought to the phraseology of this section for the past four or five months, we have written and rewritten it not once but many times, and this is the best we can submit to the committee. I have no objection whatever to any hon. member trying his hand at drafting, and if he can make a better job I am quite willing to adopt it. It must be borne in mind, however, that this is not a relief measure, it is not intended to give relief to people who are only temporarily out of employment. That is a municipal and provincial matter. There would be no proper way for this department to administer an act which provided that a man would get the allowance for a short period of time merely because he is out of work. This is intended to deal with people who are burnt-out, and we have purposely made it as broad as possible, leaving the fullest possible discretion to the members of the board.
^Mr. Green.]


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister consider inserting the word "fully" before the words "physically and mentally capable," so that it would read, "who is, in the opinion of the board, fully physically and mentally capable"?


Charles Gavan Power: In the first place I think it would not be good English, although I have not much regard for literature in making legislation. But I do not think it would help.
If he is physically and mentally capable, I suggest he is fully physically and mentally capable.


Alan Webster Neill: No; he might be physically and mentally capable of running an elevator, but not of doing heavy manual work.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think the word "fully" should go in there.


Mr. CLARK (York-Sunbury):: Does the
expression, "theatre of actual war," in paragraph (c) include England?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


William George Clark: Or the
ocean?


Charles Gavan Power: No. In the act "theatre of actual war " in the naval force is described in this way:
In the case of the naval forces, the high seas or wherever contact has been made with hostile forces of the enemy, or wherever the veteran has sustained injury or contracted disease directly by a hostile act of the enemy.


Mr. MUTCH:: What about the Royal
Canadian Air Force? Is not England an " actual theatre " for them?


Charles Gavan Power: We can determine from the War Office whether it is or not, according to the nature of their service. The War Office has laid down certain regulations.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I know there were men on the North Sea patrol who were stationed all the time on the island.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, quite true.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Was much difficulty experienced by the board in complying with and construing the definition in the former act? I refer to the definition which reads:
-in the opinion of the board, incapable of maintaining himself because of disability, preaging and general unfitness, and in either case is-
And so on.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps I am not quite clear, but do I understand the hon. member to suggest that we should use the phraseology of the former act, and leave out only the

War Veterans' Allowance Act
words " fifty-five "? Does he believe the phraseology of the former act is preferable to the suggested phraseology?


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I have not expressed an opinion.


Charles Gavan Power: I am asking, purely for the sake of information, and to gain assistance.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: If that is as far as the minister will go, I would say that that definition would, in my opinion, be preferable to the one now suggested. But the suggestion I make is that the words, "unlikely to become capable," be dropped. At the risk of repeating myself, I would say my objection to the section as it now stands is that in the former definition no attention was paid to what was going to become of the veteran in the future. That was not a matter which came under consideration by the board at all. The question for determination was: Is he capable now of maintaining himself? By introducing the words, " unlikely to become capable," I suggest we are narrowing the clause.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not prepared to agree that we are narrowing the clause by the language used in the amendment. But perhaps this might appeal to the committee: In the case of a man who has just suffered a broken leg, I do not think it is the intention of the committee-certainly it is not the intention of the board-that he shall be eligible under the act. There must be some kind of permanency, and the word "likely" does not bar him! Surely the board has the right to use its discretion as to whether he is likely. Perhaps that is not a good word; it may not be a proper expression, but certainly it means probability. I think all hon.. members will agree that there should not be any intention of making a person eligible who has a mere temporary disability.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have read the section
carefully and have listened to the observations of the hon. member for London. It does seem to me that it divides itself into three classes, and the governing word in the third class is the word "combined." First, the veteran gets an allowance if he is sixty years of age. Second, if he is not sixty years of age, but in the opinion of the board is unemployable, permanently, because of physical and mental disability, he gets consideration. The third case refers to any age, but not qualifying for age or disability provided under the two preceding paragraphs. However he has served in a theatre of war, and in the opinion of the board is incapable or unlikely to become capable of maintaining himself, because of economic handicaps, combined
with physical or mental disability or insufficiency. That certainly makes the physical or mental disability or insufficiency the governing factor, when linked with the other provisions of that subsection. I cannot see it any other way.


Grote Stirling: He has to have all those things.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; as the section reads, apparently he has to have all those things. Is that the intention of the government?


Charles Gavan Power: It is intended to apply
to a man with partial disability, but who, as well, has certain economic handicaps.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it must be combined with physical or mental disability or insufficiency. The word "combined" would worry me.


Charles Gavan Power: He should really have the
two; he should be incapable of obtaining work, owing to his physical or mental insufficiency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: The economic handicap is
his incapacity to obtain work owing to his physical or mental incapacity. The danger in making this section too broad would be that immediately it would be used by every veteran out of employment. It is not intended that that man should be covered. I am free to admit, as I have already done, that this is a most difficult clause to draft, and I would welcome assistance from anybody.
The only thing I can do is suggest to the committee that, in view of the manner in which the War Veterans' Allowance Act has been administered in the past, and in view particularly of the manner in which this particular section has been administered since 1936, it might take my present recommendation. Hon. members will recall that there were some doubts as to just what the language meant, and under what category veterans would come, in view of the language then proposed. But I am quite free to say that apart from what I might call the first rush of applications from people who had the idea, through newspaper reports, that every veteran over fifty-five yeai's was eligible, the board has had no difficulty whatsoever in administering the section as it stood after the 1936 amendment. It is for that reason I am convinced that we must allow the widest possible discretion to the board, and it seems to me that we should not load on their shoulders the onus of having discretion in refusing people who quite clearly should not be entitled, owing to the fact
War Veterans' Allowance Act

that, although they are out of employment, they are not suffering from other tangible or intangible disability. It is the best we can do, under the circumstances, by way of language.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How would the minister
like this:	"Does not qualify by age or disability under the two preceding paragraphs, but having served in a theatre of actual war,
is,	in the opinion of the board, suffering from such physical or mental disability or insufficiency as renders him incapable of maintaining himself."


Charles Gavan Power: That was the wording we
had at one time, but I forget why we changed
it.	I need not tell the right hon. gentleman that the section was written and rewritten; many drafts were torn up. However, I have no objection to considering the suggested wording.


Alan Webster Neill: There are three paragraphs in this section, but paragraph (c) is the only one which specifies that a man must have served in a theatre of war. Am I right in supposing that this stipulation does not apply to those coming under paragraph (a) and (b) ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The definition of "veteran" covers that.


Charles Gavan Power: The definition would cover that. The only man eligible under the War Veterans' Allowance Act is the man who served in a theatre of actual war, with the exception that if a man has obtained a pension, even though he served only in Canada, he would be eligible.


Alan Webster Neill: Then, why put those words in the paragraph? They are superfluous and calculated to make one misunderstand it.


Charles Gavan Power: It is to cover the man who does not qualify by age or disability but who has served in a theatre of actual war. On that account, because of his service, he is entitled to come under the provisions of the act without having to be either permanently unemployable or sixty years of age.


Alan Webster Neill: You have stated that "veteran" means a man who served in a theatre of war, and it seems to me superfluous to find it again in paragraph (c). It gives the impression that service in a theatre of war applies only to paragraph (c). If a veteran is defined in the act to mean a man who served in a theatre of war, what is the need of mentioning that service in paragraph (c) ?


Charles Gavan Power: The principal thing was to make it clear to the soldiers themselves that only those who served in a theatre of war would be eligible.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not put it in (a) and (b) ?


Charles Gavan Power: That is well understood in connection with (a) and (b). I do not want there to be any doubt in the mind of anyone as to those benefiting having served in a theatre of actual war.


Alan Webster Neill: That is just what I want to avoid and I suggest that it should be in (a) and (b). That will be the first question asked.


Charles Gavan Power: We cannot put it in <a) and (b) because some of those men may be pensioners.


Howard Charles Green: I think we are all agreed that what we are aiming at is to take care of the 5,100 odd veterans who served in a theatre of actual war, who are unemployed and are wholly or partly unfit.


Charles Gavan Power: Quite.


Howard Charles Green: Many of these men may be only forty or forty-five years of age, and it would obviously be unfair to insist that the board must find that such a man is unlikely to be capable of working again. We all hope the younger men in this group will be capable of working again. Surely the department is amply protected by the two provisions that an applicant must be suffering from economic handicaps-in other words, he must have been out of work for two or three years-and in addition must have a physical or mental disability or insufficiency. Surely those qualifying words are strict enough; they go a good deal further than the recommendations of the veterans' assistance commission.


Charles Gavan Power: There is nothing strict about the word at all. With the provisions as suggested by my hon. friend, a man who had an acute case of pneumonia would be qualified, and that is the man we do not want to qualify. There must be some degree of permanency about it. I think the committee will understand that we could not hope to administer this act with men going on and off as they obtained employment. This is legislation for the burnt-out veteran, and the implication is that those who qualify are no longer able to work or are not in a position to hope ever to work. I do not want to go quite that far and I do not think it will be interpreted in that way, but I certainly want to avoid having the benefits go to those who are only temporarily unemployed.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Would paragraph (c) cover a man who was incapable of continuing in his ordinary occupation or vocation? I have in mind a farmer who is a returned man

143S
War Veterans' Allowance Act
but whose health does not permit him to do the heavy work of farming. Would he be expected to go away from home to look for some easier work?


Charles Gavan Power: If he is not capable of any gainful employment he would be eligible.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I do not think that answers my question. As someone said this afternoon, he might be capable of running an elevator, but to get such employment he would have to leave home and go fifty miles away to a town or city. Would he be expected to leave his family?


Charles Gavan Power: That would be his economic handicap. That is why those words are in the section. *


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: "Incapable of maintaining himself at his ordinary occupation"- is that the way it would be interpreted?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, broadly speaking.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I should likp to inquire as to the eligibility of a man, say forty-five or forty-nine years of age, the average age, who is too old to be accepted in the employment for which he has been trained. The minister is well aware that a large number of veterans are considered to be too old to continue in employment in certain important industries in this country. Would the fact that they are unable bo resume the vocation for which they were trained qualify them under this clause?


Charles Gavan Power: If a man of forty-five was as physically fit as a man of that age would normally be, he would not be eligible under this clause even though there was no work available at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How would the minister think this would do in place of paragraph (c) ? We have dealt with paragraphs (a) and (b), and could we not say this:
(c) does not qualify by age or disability under the two preceding paragraphs, but having served in a theatre of actual war, is, in the opinion of the board, suffering from such physical or mental disability or insufficiency as would entitle him to such allowance if he were not disqualified by reason of age and otherwise as provided by the preceding subsections.
I have not written it out, but I just wanted to get the sense of it. This is the comprehensive clause as it covers every class not covered by the two preceding paragraphs. It has the one rider, namely, physical or mental disability or insufficiency in the opinion of the board. That is, first of all the board must satisfy
itself that the man is not sixty years of age; second, that he is not permanently unemployable because of physical or mental disability.


Charles Gavan Power: That means total disability.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Permanent unemployability means total incapacity. Let us take the third paragraph, which covers everything:
Does not qualify by age or disability under the two preceding paragraphs, but having served in a theatre of actual war, is, in the opinion	of	the	board,	suffering	from	such
physical or mental disability or insufficiency as would entitle him to an allowance to the same extent as though he was qualified under the two preceding paragraphs of this section.


Charles Gavan Power: May I just repeat it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Here it is:
Does not qualify by age or disability under the two preceding paragraphs, but having served in a theatre of actual war, is, in the opinion	of	the	board,	suffering	from	such
physical or mental disability or insufficiency as would entitle him to the benefits of this allowance were it not for the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b).


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps if I repeated it- " Is in the opinion of the board suffering from such physical or mental disability-"


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or insufficiency.


Charles Gavan Power: "-or insufficiency to such an extent as would qualify him-"


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, under the preceding paragraphs, if it were not for the restriction of age or permanent disability. Is that too broad?


Charles Gavan Power: No; I do not think it is broad enough.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That covers every case except those two.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be glad to read it in Hansard, but I think it would narrow it. Did I understand my right hon. friend to say it would cover the economic handicap?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it covers everything. It is intended to cover every other kind of case that would qualify him were it not for the distinct provisions of (a) and (b); that is, his lack of age, his lack of permanent disability. Then if he is physically unfit and mentally unfit, he would be entitled to the allowance as though he fell within (a) and (b) but for the disqualification of age and permanent incapacity which he is not suffering.


Charles Gavan Power: The first difficulty I see is over the word "suffering." That would imply medical examination of some kind. We would have to change that language, for the idea is to get away as far as possible from medical
War Veterans' Allowance Act

examination. We hope there will be no necessity for medical examination except so far as to exclude the man as being fit under the next subsection, but I shall be very glad to let this section stand and come back to it on another occasion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps we will sit down
and write a section before the next sitting.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister give us his opinion about the veterans' allowance in connection with old age pension. Cannot he make provision that the amount shall be only less any amount he receives from old age pension?


Charles Gavan Power: No; I think this is all right. I do not think there is any danger of the man being deprived of his old age pension or of this allowance, but I think we are all in agreement that he should not have the two. The paragraph reads:
An allowance shall not be awarded or continued under this act to a veteran or a recipient while such veteran or recipient is in receipt of an old age pension.
If he is in receipt of an old age pension and prefers to come under our act, all he has to do is to abandon the old age pension and we will give him the allowance; but what we will not do, and do not propose to do, is to allow him to come under our act and also allow him to draw $10 under the old age pension in addition to $10 under this act. As the members of the committee know, there is an exemption up to $240, which is counted as exempted income. Cases have arisen where a man drawing $20 under the War Veterans' Allowance Act maintains he has a right to draw $10 more from the provincial government in old age pension, and some provincial governments were only too glad to show their generosity when they were dealing with seventy-five per cent of somebody else's money, some insisting that they be allowed to give the man this $10. Our reply was: "All right, you can give him the whole amount, and we will not give him the war veterans' allowance."


Alan Webster Neill: I have known a case where a man's application for war veterans' allowance was refused, and he was told: "You are seventy years of age; go and take the old age pension." There would be that disposition. The words in the section are:
An allowance shall not be awarded or continued-
They may say: "You are in receipt of an old age pension, and therefore you will receive nothing under this act."


Charles Gavan Power: If he wants to fool us he
can drop his old age pension and come to us and say: " Please give me the war veterans' allowance."


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the provincial government may aid him in doing so.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what will inevitably happen.


Charles Gavan Power: We did. not think of it in
1930 when the act was first passed; but had parliament of that day known that old age pensions would be extended on such a scale as they have been, arrangements would have been made so that anybody qualifying for old age pension at the age of seventy would go on the old age pension and not have the war veterans' allowance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Too near an election at
that time.


Charles Gavan Power: Possibly, and no amendments were made after the election. Of course, there was always the hope that there would be an early and successful appeal to the people. At the present time, when the federal government is paying a war veterans' allowance to people who are entitled to war veterans' allowance and to people who are entitled to old age pension, I suppose if we shifted them on to the province we would save twenty-five per cent, but there has been never any disposition of that kind under any administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it has always been
regarded as our responsibility under defence.


Howard Charles Green: There is no intention that
this section will be used to force veterans onto the old age pension?


Charles Gavan Power: No, the other way round.


Mr. POTTIER:: Is "maintaining himself"
interpreted to mean under the old section maintaining himself and dependents or maintaining himself only?


Charles Gavan Power: It had some reference to
dependents.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Before we leave paragraph
(c) of section 3, the minister said that his main preoccupation was to give the board the most unfettered, the widest possible discretion. I think we all want that. He also said that under the former section which it is now proposed to repeal, after the first rush of applications that came in there was very little difficulty experienced by the board in dealing with the applications and in construing the legislation. I would point out that under the former definition all that the

War Veterans' Allowance Act
board had to do was to form an opinion that the applicant, provided he was fifty-five, was incapable of maintaining himself because of disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness. The board had to form no opinion whatever as to what would become of the applicant in the future, as to the probability of the applicant being unable to maintain himself in the future. But by amending the section in the manner proposed we are casting on the board the necessity of making up its mind in every case whether the applicant will be capable of maintaining himself in the future. So the minister is doing just what he says he does not want to do, hampering and fettering the board, clipping their wings.


Charles Gavan Power: We say, "if in the opinion
of the board." We do not fetter or hamper them. We say: "If a man is, in the opinion of the board, incapable and unlikely to become capable." The board decides whether he is likely or unlikely to become capable of maintaining himself.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: The minister is asking the
board to decide something it was not required to decide before, the probability of the applicant becoming capable or incapable. That is an added restriction on the board. That is my objection.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister is not willing to change paragraph (c) of subsection 1, would he consider wiping out subsection 2, which further restricts the board?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think I can consider wiping out subsection 2. That is the safeguarding provision to prevent this from being an unemployed relief act.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but the minister said with regard to paragraph (c) that economic handicaps meant, for example, that a man had been out of work for, say a year. Yet subsection 2 is contradictory. It says, "physically and mentally capable of maintaining himself if work were available". The two do not fit in. I suggest that subsection 2 come out. The department is amply protected by the wide terminology of paragraph (c). [DOT]


Charles Gavan Power: I would not like to ask the board to carry on under this act without having at least this safeguard in it, to make it quite clear that it is not the intention of parliament that mere lack of work would be a qualification.


Howard Charles Green: But you have also the qualification in paragraph (c) that the veteran must be "unlikely to become capable of maintaining himself". If that is left in, surely it is sufficient protection.


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry, but I cannot agree.


Mr. QUELCH:: How would this affect a farmer on some marginal land who is incapable of working the farm himself? Would he be allowed to turn the farm over to his son to maintain himself?


Charles Gavan Power: I suppose that if his action were construed as fraud or evasion, he would not be eligible. But otherwise I imagine


Victor Quelch: He could not run the farm himself, and if it is sub-marginal land he could not afford to hire a man to work for him. Would he not be eligible for the allowance?


Charles Gavan Power: Some men who are on farms are now in receipt of veterans' allowance, and some deduction is made owing to the fact that such a man is not obliged to pay rent and he gets some subsistence from his farm. But there is a section in the act, section 8, which states that when it appears to the board that-
-any veteran has made a voluntary assignment or transfer of property for the purpose of qualifying for an allowance or for a larger allowance than he might otherwise have been entitled to receive, the income derivable from such property shall, in determining the allowance, if any, which such veteran should receive, be taken in account as if the assignment or transfer had not been made.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister explain what procedure will be followed to determine what degree of physical or mental disability or insufficiency would enable a man to qualify? Would the man be subjected to an examination? The reason I ask is this-


Charles Gavan Power: He would have to have a medical examination to determine whether he is fit. I have already said that.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the pre-aging be a definite factor?


Charles Gavan Power: In tangible or intangible handicaps. What an intangible handicap is I do not know; I cannot define it. But if a man is not just able to work or cannot hold a job because his physical and mental condition is such that he is not capable of doing it, then he comes under the act. I cannot explain it any more than that. If it is just a case of his being out of work because the mill or the plant is closed down, he does not come under it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or if he is lazy.


Charles Gavan Power: The Minister of Finance says that if he is lazy he does not come under it. I say unfortunately in most cases he does.
War Veterans' Allowance Act


Mr. LAWSON:: As the minister has intimated that it is his intention to reserve this section for further consideration, despite his opinion as expressed this evening in answer to questions of the hon. member for Yale, I am going to ask the minister to reconsider the views he has expressed with respect to the interpretation given by the justice department to the words, "served in an actual theatre of war."


Charles Gavan Power: Will my hon. friend try his hand at drafting something to cover his case, and I shall see what I can do.


James Earl Lawson: Yes, I shall be very glad to do so. I do not know whether it was last session or the session before that I personally went before a committee of the house over which the minister was presiding, and I thought I had the minister's sympathetic consideration of the situation. One of the cases I then had in mind was that of a sergeant who had been on conducting parties and had actually been under fire. There is no necessity of my repeating the circumstances as the minister is thoroughly familiar with the facts; but I feel that, in view of some cases which have come to my attention, and as we are now extending this war veterans' allowance to practically the limit to which it can be extended,- an injustice is done in many cases by adhering to the interpretation given by the justice department. I welcome the suggestion of the minister and I shall try my hand at drafting something to meet the situation.


Charles Gavan Power: In any case the bill will not pass this evening; certain sections of it have been held over, and I shall be glad to consider any amendment which my hon. friend suggests. But I warn him that I would not like him to make it so broad as to cover those who have not actually had fairly meritorious service.


James Earl Lawson: Oh, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But if the man is an
enlisted man acting under orders and he is a casualty, surely he should be entitled to it.


Charles Gavan Power: This factor has to be taken into account: The Department of National Defence decided which men were to have medals. I think that is perhaps the determining factor in this whole situation; and as I understand, conducting officers were not awarded the victory medal. The election men should have been awarded a victory medal, because they won the election, but I do not know about the war.


Grote Stirling: That is another feature.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After all, the test should be, Was he an enlisted man; if he was an enlisted man, did he suffer a disaster in a theatre of war?


Charles Gavan Power: Well, he did not. This man did not suffer disaster during the war. This is not a wounded man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The one I am talking about is one who did. It was in a minor capacity.


Charles Gavan Power: I believe that those who did suffer any disability in a theatre of actual war would be pensionable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think so.


Charles Gavan Power: He is eligible under the
War Veterans' Allowance Act if he suffered injury. But this is the case of a man who suffered no injury whatever; he had a short and rather uneventful service, in that he crossed over in one case conducting troops, as a conducting officer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was he an enlisted man?


Charles Gavan Power: Presumably he was an officer.


James Earl Lawson: He was a sergeant. My recollection is that he actually did suffer some injury, but I would not like to state that for a certainty.


Charles Gavan Power: If he had any injury due to his war service or to service in the army during the war he would be entitled to a pension.


James Earl Lawson: No, because he cannot
prove his present incapacity is attributable to the injury.


Charles Gavan Power: Ah, that is another point. But I imagine if he had any injury incurred on or attributable to service, he would have entitlement under the Pension Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has always been
my understanding.


Charles Gavan Power: And there would be no
difficulty about getting war veterans' allowance. But as I understand it, this is the case of a man who is now disabled owing to illness or to incapacity which has occurred since the war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not necessarily referable to his wounds.


Charles Gavan Power: Not referable to his wounds at all. That man is not entitled normally to the benefits of this act. But as I said, I should like to consider the matter. There

War Veterans' Allowance Act
cannot be very many such cases. I should like to consider an amendment which would not broaden the act to the extent of covering persons who did not serve' in a theatre of war, yet might cover cases such as are mentioned by my hon. friend.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: We have been wandering
more or less all over section 4 of the act, which, is being amended, and as the minister is going to reconsider various subsections, I suggest that subsection 3 might work a hardship on the married man. This subsection provides that the allowance shall not be awarded or continued under the act to a veteran or the recipient of an old age pension.	As is well known, the old age
pension is $20 a month, and, if a man is married $40. But if, as is usually the case, there is a gap of five or ten years between the ages of husband and wife, it might happen that refusal to give the veterans' allowance to a married man might reduce his potential income by half. I do not believe there is provision for a man who is drawing the old age pension to waive it.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. The moment he drops it he is eligible.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: So long as it is clearly established that he may do so, it is all right. This subsection says that the allowance cannot be awarded or continued-


Charles Gavan Power: "While such veteran or
recipient is in receipt of an old age pension.''


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It is clearly the intention
that a man need not sacrifice $40 a month because he is already in receipt of $20?


Alan Webster Neill: Can he be allowed to give
up the $20?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Before leaving section 3 I
hope that the minister will see fit to drop, or at any rate to modify, subsection 2. However, if he does not do so, I believe he will agree with me that we ought to endeavour to write king's English into the statutes. I am no purist, but in subsection 2, it seems to me, if I may trust my ear, we have made a mistake, and I am ashamed to say I do not know whether it is in mood or tense. Let me read it:
The provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection one shall not he construed to apply to any veteran who is, in the opinion of the board, physically and mentally capable of maintaining himself if work were available.
My submission is that "were" is not correct; it should be "be" or "is." There are some schoolmasters in the chamber. Perhaps they can tell us.


Charles Gavan Power: I am informed that this
very point was submitted to the law clerk- though I refuse to accept the authority of the law clerk on this particular point-who stated that "were" was good English. Personally I think it is, but I shall not start a controversy with my hon. friend. If he can find an authority among the schoolmasters in the chamber justifying the change to "be" or "is," I shall be glad to consider the suggestion.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Can the minister tell us
by what method economic handicaps are measured? In committee we endeavoured to devise a formula to deal with the industrially unfit. In disqualifying those who are physically and mentally capable of maintaining themselves where work is available, no reference is made to the particular vocation for which such men have been trained. I submit that subsection 2 imposes too severe a restriction, because there are men who are industrially unfit to undertake work of a sort that might be available; that work might be such as they could not be reasonably expected to perform, and yet it could not be said that work had been absolutely denied them.


Charles Gavan Power: If he has a disability or
if he is suffering from an insufficiency he is qualified for consideration.


Charles Avery Dunning: You cannot go much
further than "insufficiency."


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am. referring to the restriction contained in subsection 2. "Physically and mentally capable of maintaining himself if work was available" seems to me to contradict the intention of paragraph (c) of subsection 1. The ex-service men would like some assurance that this deals with those commonly designated as the industrially unfit.


Charles Gavan Power: It is no use trying to get me into a hole on this. What the ex-service men wanted was provision with respect to men who were out of work, and this is not intended to. cover men who are simply not employed. My hon. friend will remember the discussions in the committee, and there is no question that representations were made to cover people who were unemployed without any question whatever of disability. This bill is not intended for that purpose.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Inasmuch as "economic handicaps" is not defined, the minister might perhaps insert some such words as these: "Lack of opportunities provided by the economic system, combined with. . . .".
War Veterans' Allowance Act


Mr. BROOKS:: Is there any set amount which the board considers sufficient for a man to maintain himself. Suppose he has an income of $150; would that preclude him from the war veterans' allowance?


Charles Gavan Power: The act fixes a maximum of $730 for a married man.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If he received $200 from some other source he could still receive the war veterans' allowance?


Charles Gavan Power: We allow him the maximum including that. There are a very large number who are receiving $10 a month pension and they still receive the war veterans' allowance.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will a nursing sister who is married, whose husband is out of employment and who is otherwise eligible, be allowed to qualify?


Charles Gavan Power: There is no double standard. The nursing sister who is married is as much entitled to support her husband as her husband is entitled to support her. I do not see any difficulty about that.


Mr. LENNARD:: Suppose a man was entitled to assistance under the act but died before he had either applied for or received assistance: would his widow .be entitled to temporary assistance?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Mr. McNIVEN (Regina):: I understood the minister to say that the maximum receivable under the War Veterans' Allowance Act was $40 for a man and his wife, and that earnings were permitted up to $250.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Would that $250 include a pension?


Charles Gavan Power: Anything.


Donald Alexander McNiven: If he received a pension of $250, thj,t would be his maximum?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I have a complaint from the disabled veterans' association, indicating a good deal of dissatisfaction among the veterans in the west, on the part of pensioners receiving very small pensions of $5, $10 and $15 a month. Many of them are in receipt of a governmental allowance varying from $480 to $730 a year, and these men are having difficulty in getting along. Their degree of unemployability is the same; they are living under identically the same conditions,

and they are protesting against that difference between the amounts payable to individuals of approximately the same pension rate. I wondered whether the minister had received any complaints in regard to that situation and whether there is any possibility of remedying it.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps my hon. friend is referring to certain pensioners receiving small pensions who complain that the unemployment assistance given by the department is not adequate. It has no reference to this bill. But if the organization to which my hon. friend refers is that which I have in mind, having its headquarters at Regina-


Donald Alexander McNiven: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: -its program calls for $45 per month for each single veteran; for each married veteran, $65 and $12.50 for every dependent child, so that under that program a man, his wife and three children might receive over $100 a month. That would be for all veterans. I am sure that parliament will not support the proposals of that association.


Donald Alexander McNiven: They have greatly modified their proposal, because in their letter to me they asked only for a maximum under the War Veterans' Allowance Act of $50 a month; that is an increase from $40 to $50.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it the same organization?


Donald Alexander McNiven: This is the disabled veterans' association of Saskatchewan, incorporated under provincial charter in 1934. They point out that this allowance is just a bare subsistence, and that returned men, as other married men, have furniture, kitchen equipment, etc., continually going out of repair, and that they have no funds to replace these. They therefore suggest that this allowance be increased. It is a very modest request in comparison with that to which the minister has referred, and undoubtedly will receive more favourable consideration from him on account of its modesty.


Mr. CLEAVER:: We have had a good deal of discussion in regard to subsection 2, and I think some of us feel that this subsection may not be interpreted by the commission as generously as the minister has indicated to-night it should be. Would the minister care to consider the feasibility of defining the word "work," somewhat in this way:	"The
word "work" referred to in this subsection shall not be intended to mean sheltered positions." My reason for that suggestion is that the commission, if they wanted to construe the section strictly, would not be able to trump up the old well-remembered example of the

Penitentiary Act
elevator operator, a job which is not available. Would the minister consider defining the word "work"?


Charles Gavan Power: I shall give it consideration.
Section stands.
On section 4-Certain deductions not to be made.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this section?


Charles Gavan Power: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: They follow as a matter of course if there is a pension.


Charles Gavan Power: There are certain regulations, and it is only in case of necessity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: First, there must be a pension.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly in the case of the Military Cross it must be a case of necessity, and, I think of the Distinguished Conduct Medal also, but not the Victoria Cross.


Howard Charles Green: Are those grants paid by
the government of the United Kingdom?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; we have nothing to do with it.


Donald Alexander McNiven: The minister has frequently emphasized during the course of the debate that this is not an unemployment relief measure. I am anxious to know whether there will be any other bill before the house or anything in the estimates in which unemployed returned soldiers will be under consideration. I have in mind a resolution passed
by the conference of mayors held in this city on March 16, at which it was resolved that the dominion government be asked to assume immediate full responsibility for administration and financing of public assistance, including medical and hospital service, to exservice men and their dependents, such assistance to be on at least as high a scale as municipal relief.
On June 1, 1937, at Saskatoon the urban municipalities association for the province of Saskatchewan at their annual meeting passed a resolution in similar terms; a conference which is now in progress had a similar matter under consideration and, I believe, arrived at a similar conclusion. The matter is very urgent-


Charles Gavan Power: I do not like to interrupt, but I do not think this has any connection with this bill, and I am in hopes that I may be able to go into supply later in the evening and probably be able to reach an item in the estimates under the title of unemployment assistance. It would be appropriate if the hon. member would make his observations on that item.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Thank you very much.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 36, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: This bill has only one clause and it is very simple. It reads:
1. Subsection four of section forty-four of the Penitentiary Act, chapter one hundred and fifty-four of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as enacted by section nine, chapter twenty-seven of the statutes of 1932-33, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) Subject to the provisions of subsection two of section one thousand and nineteen of the criminal code, any period during which a convict is detained in the gaol or other place of confinement pursuant to the authority of this section shall not be computed as time served in the execution of his sentence, unless he be so detained pending an appeal by the attorney general or counsel for the crown."
While section 1019 of the criminal code states that this is subject to any direction
Canada Evidence Act

the court of appeal may make to the contrary, the amendment is merely to add to the section ini the Penitentiary Act the words, "subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of section 1019 of the criminal code." The intention is to harmonize the two.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps this affords me an opportunity to make one observation I should like the minister to consider. Some months ago there was a criminal trial in the county of Renfrew. Upon an appeal being taken, the court ordered a new trial in any event, and the execution that had been ordered was of course vacated. But no judgment has been given on the question as to whether or not the case should not be discharged on the ground that there, in any event, was no evidence to go to a jury. This matter is causing a good deal of comment, because it has been long delayed.
I do not know that the minister can do anything, but I suggest that in a case of this kind it might be desirable to do something to expedite the delivery of judgment. This is now the month of March, and it is a long time since the trial took place. I venture to mention this now because this bill may be the only vehicle which would enable me to do so. I had intended to do it at some other time, but perhaps the minister would go into the matter to see if something can be done to have judgment given without further delay.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall look into the case.


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


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 37, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1

Wife or husband competent and compellable witnesses for prosecution.
Ernest Lapointe: This is to add to the exceptions under section 4 of the Canada Evidence Act one whereby the wife or husband may be a competent and compellable witness, one against the other, when one is charged for the theft of property belonging to the other.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: While they are living apart.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, when they are living apart. This has been recommended by some magistrates, and more particularly by the late commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Already there are eight cases excepted from the general rule, and this will be another one. For instance, witnesses may be compellable one against the other in cases of seduction, vagrancy, the abandonment of a child, and so on. I believe this is a proper change to make.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It really extends the exceptions to the general rule that the husband and wife are one, and permits either to be called against the other where one has stolen from the other while they have been living apart.


Ernest Lapointe: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is desirable.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Are the husband and wife competent and compellable witnesses under these circumstances by the law in England?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know. Under our own law they are competent and compellable when one or the other is charged with an infamous offence, such as seduction, vagrancy, neglect to provide the necessaries of life, the abandonment of a child under two years, unlawful carnal knowledge, rape, bigamy and abduction. I do not know whether under the English law this provision appears.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think so, although I am only speaking subject to correction. I believe there was not long since a case in which an action was brought by a wife against her husband for stealing from her while they were living apart. She gave evidence. However, my memory may be at fault in this connection.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Reception in evidence.
Ernest Lapointe: This suggestion has been made more particularly by Mr. J. W. McFadden, K.C., crown attorney in Toronto, who wrote me as follows:
Section 29 of the evidence act should be redrafted. Our courts are flooded with prosecutions of eases where bad cheques are given. Some of these cheques are given on banks ranging from Halifax to Vancouver. Most of

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
these cheques are for small amounts. We cannot go to the cost of bringing a banker but by section 29 we are able to prove the statement of the man's account by affidavit. The section, however, is deficient in that it only provides for cases where the man has got some account in the bank. Where, however, cheques have been given and there is no account at all there is no provision made and the consequence is that we cannot think of launching a prosecution.
I have taken this matter up with Mr. Rogers, secretary of the bankers' association, and he is quite alive to the necessity of some amendment. Some time ago I drafted an affidavit for use in the courts. This has been a real boon to bankers in that they are not wasting three or four mornings in court and incidentally it has saved the city several hundreds of dollars in money. Where, however, there is no account we still have to subpoena these bankers.
This is to make the law apply when there is nothing in the books showing an account, in the event of a charge being laid. Under the law as it is, if there is a charge in the books it can be proved by affidavit, but when there is nothing we have had to bring witnesses to court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only prima facie, in any event.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


René-Antoine Pelletier: It is not intended to apply to cases where there are not sufficient funds.


Ernest Lapointe: That is correct.


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


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide that time served in the permanent naval, military and air forces of Canada may be included in the term of service of an officer or a constable for pension purposes; and to restrict the application of the act in respect to members of the reserve.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: There are two main amendments in the bill which will be introduced. As the law now stands, it
provides that the time served in the permanent forces of Canada may be included in the term of service of an officer for the purposes of pension under this part. This amendment inserts the words, "naval, military or air" in the expression, "permanent forces of Canada." It has not been clear under existing statutory definitions that the expression "permanent forces of Canada" included the naval and air forces as well as the military. It has always been the intention to include this service.
The other amendment has to do with reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were provided for last year.


Ernest Lapointe: We enacted the following clause:
Every member of such reserve on being called up for duty or training will be subject to this act, and all rules and regulations made thereunder from the date of his being called up, which date shall be the day on which he is advised by registered letter to report himself for duty.
We desire to restrict the application of this section. For instance, it is not desired that a reservist should be entitled to all the benefits of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act such as pensions, etc., unless he is injured or killed on duty. Under the section enacted last year the reservists were entitled to all the privileges of the permanent police force, and this is to restrict the application of the section to when they are injured or killed on duty.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 40, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH	'


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, what are the rules with respect to going into supply when there is an amendment pending. I just forget the practice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is suspended until Monday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does it require a motion?


Ernest Lapointe: The rule has been changed to meet such a case as this.
Supply-Procedure


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought we made a motion to suspend. Has the rule been amended to the extent that we can go into supply without a motion being made with respect to suspension?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: My understanding of the rules is that a motion is necessary for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair on Mondays or Tuesdays, but such a motion is not necessary on Thursdays. This being Thursday, I should think that the amendment moved on March 8 would not be considered to-day.


Alan Webster Neill: On the point of order. This same thing happened some years ago, and the Prime Minister moved a motion to the effect that the procedure on Thursday or Friday, as the case may be, would be the same as on Monday or Tuesday. I remember his moving a motion to that effect in order that the debate could be continued.


Charles Avery Dunning: When the debate was adjourned on the first occasion, I inquired into the matter in order that our proceedings might be regularized. I found it was quite competent to leave the adjournment of the debate on the order paper until a day upon which it could be resumed, without affecting in any way the right of the house to continue in committee of supply on those days of the week upon which under the rules Mr. Speaker might leave the chair without question put.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought some motion was necessary.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the old rule, yes, but under the amended rule, no. However, we can check that up. I would point out that the committee has acted already in accordance with that understanding. This is not the first occasion on which the debate has stood over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want to delay the proceedings in any sense; I just wanted to be certain about the practice. I can remember some difficulty arising on one occasion. I was not in the chamber the other evening when the matter came up or I would have mentioned it then. I am still uncertain about it. Obviously Mr. Speaker cannot leave the chair without a motion being put with an amendment pending.


Charles Avery Dunning: The debate will continue on the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There should be some form to regularize it.


John Frederick Johnston: Standing
order 28 reads:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question provided that, except by the unanimous consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not cover
this at all.


John Frederick Johnston: This is
Thursday, and the Speaker leaves the chair without question put.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But not when an
amendment is before the chair. I submit that that rule applies only on the initiation, and not to-day.


John Frederick Johnston: We are
going into supply without the need of a motion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not when there
has been an amendment to a motion for going into supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Beauchesne deals with
the the question in citation 233.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just
going to read that citation:
The adjournment of debate on an amendment to the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair may create an exceptional result, owing to the direction contained in standing order 28 that on Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, provided that, except with the consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken on a day other than Thursday or Friday. If an adjourned debate on such an amendment, is standing upon the order paper when supply, for consideration of which in committee it is not necessary to propose the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair, is to be taken, the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate is removed, and procedure on the amendment lapses, in order that the Speaker in obedience to standing order 28 may leave the chair without question put. See May, p. 476. Such a situation may arise at the end of the session when all the estimates have first been taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.
It simply means that the motion is suspended until we reach the day when we move to go into supply. Then we cannot go into supply until this motion is disposed of. It will appear on the order paper on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, and it will be impossible for the government to proceed with supply on any of these three days until it has disposed of the motion.

Supply-Pensions-War Veterans


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty arises
from the use of the word "lapse." It will be observed that Doctor Beauchesne's citation says:
-it is not necessary to propose the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair, is to be taken, the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate is removed, and procedure on the amendment lapses.
It was that which induced me, thinking it over this morning, to raise the question, and I did not have time to-day to look up the rules. I had intended to speak of the matter earlier in the day. If procedure on the amendment lapses, I think a motion is necessary to the effect that it shall not lapse, or something tantamount to that, because if the procedure on the amendment lapses the situation which the editor of this volume indicates might happen has happened.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is only when all departments have been in supply that any difficulty will arise, because the government would then be free to take supply only on Thursday and Friday. But if there remained one department to go into supply, that department could not be proceeded with until any amendment to the motion for supply had been disposed of. Only when all departments are in supply would a motion be necessary to prevent any amendment of the sort from lapsing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As long as we understand the situation, it does not make any difference. It might be that the question would be raised, and I thought it was desirable to anticipate it.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Would it be possible for the government to go into supply on Thursdays and Fridays only and in that way evade resuming the debate on the amendment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We cannot take on Thursdays and Fridays the estimates of any department which has not previously been called on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. It is only towards the end of the session when we might reach a time when all departments would have been already in supply and then the situation my hon. friend suggests might happen. But if we took supply only on Thursdays and Fridays, we would want something else to do on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I just wanted an
explanation.
Pensions branch-War veterans' allowances,


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain how this vote is divided between the three 51952-92
classes of recipients, those over sixty, the permanently unemployable, and those incapable of maintaining themselves?


Charles Gavan Power: While I have not the exact figures, there would be approximately two-thirds over sixty and one-third under sixty.


Howard Charles Green: Does the one-third include the class incapable of maintaining themselves?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, that class amounted to about 1,100, and it is now about 1,200 since the amendments of 1936 came into effect.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Will the additional $300,000 take care of the new classes eligible under the amendments we have been discussing to-night?


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly not. I have hopes of being able to obtain a supplementary vote of something approaching $1,250,000 to $1,500,000. It is estimated that the total expenditure involved under the act we have been discussing to-night is about $2,000,000, but in view of the fact that all the applicants will not come in at the same time or all during the one year, about $1,250,000 to $1,500,000 will be sufficient this year.


Donald Alexander McNiven: What is the amount paid out in each province and the number of recipients in each province?


Charles Gavan Power: That will be found at page 83 of the annual report. It is as follows: Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, number of veterans 629; New Brunswick, 295; Quebec, 1,076; Ontario, 3,997; Manitoba, 1,104; Saskatchewan, 572; Alberta, 870 and British Columbia, 2,763. Those are the figures as of March 31, 1937. There are a great many more since then.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Does the report also show the amount paid in each province?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: In estimating the additional amount required the minister spoke of asking for $1,250,000.


Charles Gavan Power: Approximately.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Can the minister tell us whether the effect of the new section 4 he is proposing in the War Veterans' Allowance Act will be to enable the board to grant an allowance to any man who, in the opinion of the board, is incapable of maintaining himself because of disability, pre-ageing or general unfitness? Does the minister think the



Supply-Pensions-War Veterans
proposed wording of section 4 of the act will give the board the same power to grant allowances as they would have had under the old act with the fifty-five year dead-line removed?


Charles Gavan Power: More power.


Howard Charles Green: Are expenditures in line with the estimates that were made some years ago of the cost of the war veterans' allowance?


Charles Gavan Power: Very closely. I cannot guarantee anything regarding the bill which we have been discussing after the amendments proposed this year have been passed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War veterans' allowance board, $86,595.
Charles Grant MacNeil: Would it be possible to carry out a very simple suggestion? A number of men apply for disability pensions and their claim is rejected. They feel then that they are through with all applications for consideration by the federal government. Would it not be possible in cases where it is apparent that, even though the claim for disability pension is rejected, the applicants might be considered for war veterans' allowance, the file would automatically pass to the war veterans' allowance board and be considered by it? In a number of instances men have written to me with regard, for example, to disability pensions. It appears to me that they are eligible for war veterans' allowance. I take the matter up and find possibly that their cases have been overlooked for a considerable period by reason of a lack of correlation of activities between the two departments.


Charles Gavan Power: As a matter of fact there
is the very closest collaboration. For instance, in my own office, where, as my hon. friend can guess, I receive a very large number of letters dealing with pensions and war veterans' allowances, when I find that for some reason or another the man who has written cannot be awarded a pension, I turn cue letter over to the war veterans' allowance board. I know that is being done in the district, and I hope it will be done in an increasing degree in the future.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I also refer to the
section of the act dealing with separation, where the wife and husband are not residing together. On what grounds is that separation considered? If, for instance, they are separated because of circumstances over which they have no control, for example, because of some temporary inconvenience, probably some difficulty in securing a house for which arrangements have been made upon
[Mr. BettsJ
removal from one point to another, is that considered to be "separation" within the meaning of the act?


Charles Gavan Power: The board has the right of discrimination, and I am told that there has not been very much difficulty about the matter. There have been cases, where a separation is of a more permanent nature than my hon. friend mentions, where perhaps some trouble has arisen, but generally speaking there has been no trouble.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am anxious to have the
point cleared up. It is a matter of interpretation. I have had every consideration from the board. But I have in mind the concrete case of a man who removed from Regina to Vancouver. He intended to arrange for his wife to follow him; but it was impossible to complete arrangements for the house he had intended to secure, and through no fault of his own his wife remained for six months in Regina while he was in Vancouver. An inspector reported the facts and circumstances; it was decided that the couple had been separated for that period, and steps were taken to recover overpayments made during the period of separation. I should like to have some assurance if possible as to whether that interpretation will be continued in respect of separation under such circumstances, through no fault of the parties themselves, they not residing together although the husband continues to support his wife.
Mr. POW'ER:	I understand the matter
was adjusted when all the facts were brought to the attention of the board. Even though I gave my hon. friend an interpretation of what I thought this act meant, after the amendments which I propose to-night to give the board full discretion and authority to deal with all applications my interpretation would not be worth very much.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Has the department any
arrangement with representatives of the soldier settlement board for collecting information in the different districts, and if so. what are those arrangements?


Charles Gavan Power: They do all the investigation in rural districts.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What compensation, if any. do they receive?


Charles Gavan Power: None. Do not press that
matter; the minister of Mines and Resources might ask to get some. They do not get any from us.

Supply-Pensions-Veterans Bureau


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Do headquarters check up
on information from the representatives of the soldier settlement board, or do they take their information as final?


Charles Gavan Power: Which headquarters?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Headquarters at Ottawa
of the war veterans' allowance board.


Charles Gavan Power: We send there to get the information. We have no facilities available; we have no employees in those districts. It would be impossible for us to have employees in all the rural districts of the country: so the investigations are made at our request by the soldier settlement board.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And the information they send the department is regarded as final, I assume?


Charles Gavan Power: Not necessarily. There is an inquiry, such as any other inquiry might be, and there is information.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I notice that the grant for temporary assistance is about three times as great as last year. What is the explanation of that?


Charles Gavan Power: I suppose it can be explained by the ruling that twenty peT cent of the staff of this board, like twenty per cent of the staff of every department, must be temporary. Only eighty per cent are allowed to be permanent. All these people, of course, are appointed by the civil service commission.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would the minister refresh my memory as to just what is covered by "sundries"?


Charles Gavan Power: I shall get the information for the hon. member. It is really a contingent reserve of SI,500 to cover all unforeseen expenditure in connection with the board. There is $100 miscellaneous.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would that apply to replacement of office fixtures or, for instance, slightly used carpets?


Charles Gavan Power: That comes under equipment and maintenance, which is $300.


Howard Charles Green: What facilities have the board for having applicants examined medically, or for giving treatment to recipients of an allowance?


Charles Gavan Power: Departmental facilities.


Howard Charles Green: Can the board ask to have a recipient given treatment at one of the military hospitals?


Charles Gavan Power: The act does not provide for treatment privileges anywhere. Of course, if 51952-924
the man is a pensioner, he is entitled to the same kind of treatment as any other person.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible to have some extension of treatment facilities for war veterans' allowance recipients?


Charles Gavan Power: I prefer to take that up when we come to the discussion of treatment. I should not like to introduce any legislation to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Veterans Bureau, $194,435.
Charles Grant MacNeil: 'What is the reason for the reduction?


Charles Gavan Power: The work is decreasing, and there is a decrease in staff. The decrease in staff and salaries amounts to $14,200.


Mr. ESLING:: Originally there were three soldiers' advocates on the mainland in British Columbia. One resigned. We always hoped that there would be one permanently located in the eastern portion of the province. He was appointed from that district and had given much of his time as secretary of a branch of the legion, having appeared on behalf of exservice men before various bodies that came along. Then, when the resignation of the advocate in Kamloops took place, and with the vast number of cases at Vancouver, his time has been so fully occupied in assisting in the Vancouver office that he is seldom able to go to the interior. In other words, when there is a sitting of a quorum he hurries in two or three days ahead of time, and it is absolutely impossible for him to prepare the cases of men in the interior. He goes to a central point and endeavours to reach those men. Perhaps he has to cover cases within a radius of 100 miles. It is an impossibility, and the various legions feel that the interior applicants are suffering an injustice by reason of not having a proper presentation of their cases. I brought the matter up at the last session, and we thought the minister was sympathetic to the suggestion, but thus far nothing has been done. The minister can readily appreciate the fact that with four-fifths of the exservice men located at the coast, in Vancouver and adjacent cities, the time of both advocates in Vancouver is so fully occupied that it is impossible for proper service to be given to the applicants in the interior. Will the minister be kind enough to give the matter further sympathetic and favourable consideration for the benefit of applicants all the way from the Okanagan to the Alberta border, who are without representation?
1452	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-Veterans Bureau


Charles Gavan Power: I have every sympathy for the request made by my hon. friend. I know no man in this house has taken more interest in the veterans generally than he has, and I know he wants to see something done particularly for those in the interior. Since he last brought the matter to our attention we have given it considerable study and we find that we are up to date in the work in British Columbia. A quorum has been in session at Vancouver and Victoria for several months and is just now about to proceed to points in the interior. This quorum will hold a session at Kamloops on April 6, after which it will visit Revelstoke, Vernon, Nelson and Cran-brook. Some fifteen entitlement applications will be heard at these points together with a few miscellaneous cases. On completion of these sittings, the only entitlement cases awaiting quorum hearing in the interior of British Columbia will be one at Prince George and two at Prince Rupert.
The work in hand in British Columbia does not warrant the appointment of an additional advocate. We already have Mr. Walter Drin-nan and Mr. D. F. Markland at Vancouver and Mr. G. H. Sedger at Victoria. We formerly had four advocates in British Columbia, Mr. E. S. Keeling having been on the staff at Vancouver. This advocate, however, resigned some little time ago and has not been replaced because the work in hand did not warrant his replacement. Mr. Markland. who formerly lived at Fernie, has been specially detailed to look after the work at interior points. He is in the interior at the present time interviewing applicants and witnesses and otherwise making arrangements for the quorum sittings mentioned above. We have constantly sent Mr. Markland on trips through the interior to interview applicants, to give information and generally to render any service he can. His visits are always organized in advance; the officials of veterans' organizations at each point are notified of proposed visits; lists of applicants who want to interview the advocate are compiled, and the advocate takes with him a summary of the record. In this way, I think the requirements of the applicants in the interior of British Columbia have been given effective attention.


Grote Stirling: The minister said there
were fifteen cases; does he mean fifteen at each of these places?


Charles Gavan Power: Fifteen all told.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Markland's headquarters are at Kamloops?


Charles Gavan Power: No. Vancouver. He is
working around the interior now.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Are the services
of the advocates available to those imperials who do not come under the Pension Act? If the imperials could be helped in some way to obtain the pensions they seek from the British government, this would be of great service to them.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know that the
advocates would be recognized by the British ministry. We recognize them so far as our department is concerned, but we have made no arrangement for their recognition by the British government.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The plight of the
imperial veterans is a sorry one, and if the services of the advocates were available to them this might be of great assistance and a good deal of suffering might be avoided. Could something not be done to have the services of the advocates made available to the imperials who are not looked after at the present time?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A few minutes ago the
minister gave the figures of those receiving the war veterans' allowance in the different military districts. I was struck at the time by the great discrepancy in number between my own province of New Brunswick and British Columbia. There is a difference in population between New Brunswick and British Columbia of about two to, one, but we have 295 and British Columbia has 2,763. This seems to be a very great difference between the two, and I should like to have an explanation.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps some British Columbia member would be only too glad to describe the charms of that province.


Howard Charles Green: The veterans know a good
province when they see it.


Charles Gavan Power: About twenty-five per cent
of the war veterans' allowance men live in British Columbia at the present time. I can only say that they drift to that province.


Alan Webster Neill: And there is no more land west of British Columbia.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Twenty-five per cent of
all those receiving the allowance are in British Columbia?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. We are not surprised that some of the British Columbia members are vocal.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Where are these pensions advocates of various grades employed? For instance, where is the pensions advocate grade V, and eight of them of grade IV:

Supply-Pensions-Unemployment


Charles Gavan Power: The chief pensions advocate is employed in Ottawa. The grade V advocate would be employed in Toronto, that would be Mr. Harry Bray. I have the information here by districts, if that would serve.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Yes; that would serve my purpose.


Charles Gavan Power: At headquarters there are three of grade IV and one of grade III.
In "A" district, that is the province of Quebec, there is one grade III and one part time.
In "B" district, Nova Scotia, there are three part time.
In "C" district, eastern Ontario, there is one grade IV.
In "D" district, central Ontario, there is one grade V, one grade III and one part time.
In "F" district, London, the position is vacant at present. No permanent appointment has been made since the vacancy was created by the retirement of Colonel Shannon about a year ago.
In "G" district, there is one grade IV, one grade III and another part time, who is in the branch at Port Arthur.
In Saskatchewan there is one grade IV who is retiring at the end of this month, one grade I and one part time.
In Alberta there is one grade II and one part time.
In British Columbia there is one grade IV, one grade I and one part time.
In New Brunswick there is one grade II.


Frank Exton Lennard: Under what grade does the pensions advocate at Hamilton come?


Charles Gavan Power: That is Mr. Flett, is it not? He is part time.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: When is it proposed to fill the vacancy left by Colonel Shannon's retirement, and what grade is it?


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot say at the moment. It depends on what work there is.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Who is doing the work at London now?


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot remember his name, but the work is being done very efficiently, I believe, by a man who was a clerk.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Potter is his name. How is he rated?


Charles Gavan Power: I think he is a clerk, and may be advanced to a higher grade. Recently there has been some consideration regarding promotion or some advancement. *


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Before this item is carried could the miinster give me exact information on that point?


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot do so offhand, because whatever happened happened within the last month or two and my book is made up only to January 1. I am under the impression that some recognition has been made of the efficient service which he has been giving, but I would not like to commit myself definitely.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Would the minister allow this item to stand until that information is available?


Charles Gavan Power: I think that request is hardly reasonable on the part of my hon. friend. I shall be only too glad to give him all the information he wants, but does he think that the item should stand on account of one employee?


Frederick Cronyn Betts: If the minister will undertake to give the information before his estimates are closed.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly.


Donald Alexander McNiven: The minister said that the pensions advocate in Regina is retiring. Does he contemplate filling that position?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Why not?


Charles Gavan Power: One pensions advocate in Saskatchewan, Mr. Adams, has been here for the past year, because there is not enough work for him there and there is some work here. At present that work is wound up and it is not necessary to replace him.


Mr. PERLEY:: Will this be permanent or temporary?


Charles Gavan Power: This will be permanent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment assistance, $2,350,000.
Charles Gavan Power: It is under this item that I am prepared to discuss anything connected with unemployment of ex-service men, and incidentally discuss the veterans' assistance commission report, the so-called Rattray report. I understand some of my hon. friends would like me to make some statement with respect to the attitude which we intend to adopt in connection with the report. I do not want to lead the committee into error. Properly speaking, as is known to most hon. members, the unemployment assistance provided under this vote really applies only to pensioners, but in order to have an appropriate item under which to discuss the case of non-

Supply-Pensions-Unemployment
pensioners who are unemployed I have suggested to certain hon. members that that discussion take place on this item.
The veterans' assistance commission was set up in July, 1936. It operated until January 6, 1938. It toured the whole country and obtained all available information with respect to unemployment and kindred matters as relating to ex-service men. A report was filed with the department, which has been printed in blue-book form and has been tabled and placed in the hands of all hon. members.
The commission in that report made a number of recommendations. I propose to deal with them one by one. The first recommendation, found on page 65, deals with workshops. It recommends:
Workshops
Whilst it is agreed that the operation of workshops can be considered only as in its experimental stages and whilst appreciating the fact that owing to local conditions it might not be possible to establish workshops in all the important cities in Canada, yet the commission believes that it is justified in recommending :
That favourable consideration be given to any applications for assistance that might be received from the management of any workshop now in existence, or under consideration, providing that it can be shown that the workshop is justifying its existence in the community and that the continued employment of veterans in the workshop is necessary and the objective of revolving labour is being carried out.
This recommendation has been implemented as provision has been made in the estimates for the continuation of the workshops which were commenced by the veterans' assistance commission in Montreal and Regina; also for limited assistance, if necessary, to the workshop project in operation at Moose Jaw.
Montreal
The Montreal workshop was started in January, 1937, and the grants to date to finance its operations amount to $55,000. Eighty men are at present on the pay roll, and 329 men have graduated, through the workshop, to permanent employment in other organizations. This is the valuable feature and the primary objective of the workshop.
An employment division is operated in connection with the workshop and the honorary local committee, with the following results:
Total placements to February 28, 1938
Permanent	 300
Semi-permanent	 234
Casual	 436
Probational training	 86
1,056
Regina
A grant of $10,000 was made to assist in the development of a workshop at Regina. This was established on the 1st September, 1937, and operating quite successfully, the principal development being the salvaging of building materials. At the present time, a contract is in hand with the city for the demolition of a three-storey hotel building, and the erection of a one-storey store at a contract price of $1,480.
Moose Jaw
A grant of $1,000 was made to a board of trustees at Moose Jaw for the purpose of assisting the operations of a workshop, which has been going for two or three years.
The next recommendation was with respect to probational training:
Probational Training
Recommended that an application be made so as to permit the continuance of the probational training scheme beyond the end of the present fiscal year;
And that the Minister of Pensions and National Health be given discretion:
(a)	In the matter of granting training to the younger type of veteran, even if a prospective employer is not in sight, providing that the honorary local committee and the department are satisfied that such training will more readily fit him for suitable employment.
(b)	That discretion also be given to the Minister of Pensions and National Health whereby he may authorize the payment of tuition fees for any veteran, otherwise qualified, who may require a short period of coaching, or training, for the employment he seeks, providing that the applicant is willing to study in his own time and without any other expense to the government.
This recommendation of the commission has been implemented as provision has been made in the estimates of the department for the amount considered necessary to allow of the continuation of probational training for the next fiscal year.
Regarding the added recommendations (a) and (b), it is considered that the enabling authority P.C. 1004, dated the 5th May, 1937, allows the department to carry out these recommendations of the commission in special cases.

Supply-Pensions-Unemployment
Probational Training Week ending March 12, 1938
Completed
Employed	Not
as Employed Tourist retained On
District	Started	Disc'd	trained	otherwise	guides by employer	strengthMontreal	.. 84	12	21	2	45	1	3Halifax	.. 99	3	41	1	12	42Charlottetown.. ..	. . 2	2	Ottawa	.. 30	5	14	i	2	8Toronto	. . 248	42	133	5	21	47Hamilton	.. 25	5	11	9London	.. 11	1	7	i	2W'indsor	.. 3	2	1Winnipeg	. . 49	3	23	2	21Regina	. . 6	6	Edmonton	. . 3	. .	3Calgary	. . 15	8	i	6Vancouver	. . 44	9	23	i	4	7Saint John	.. 1	1	Total	. . 620	80	292	10	45	44	149
Expenditure to date: $58,053.
The recommendations with respect to tools, equipment, transportation and repayment fund comes next:
Tools, Equipment, Transportation, Repayment Fund
That as long as the honorary local committees remain in active operation, a sum of money be placed at their disposal through the local units of the Department of Pensions and National Health, this to provide for:
(a)	Supply of tools, equipment and transportation to unemployed veterans qualified to follow some recognized trade such as carpenter, mason, plasterer, tinsmith, plumber, et cetera.
(b)	Where transportation only is required it is recommended that this be supplied to unemployed veterans proceeding to definite employment in any occupation.
This recommendation has been implemented as provision is being made for the continuation of this assistance, although it has only been taken advantage of to a very limited extent.
With respect to the Canadian corps of commissionaires:
Canadian Corps of Commissionaires
As it is very unlikely that organization of the Canadian corps of commissionaires can be satisfactorily completed throughout Canada by March 31, 1938,
It is recommended:
That favourable consideration be given to the matter of financing the corps' national headquarters' activities beyond the end of the present fiscal year.
This recommendation has been implemented, and limited assistance will be given to the headquarters organization of the corps for next fiscal year, for the reason that it is
considered that the success of this scheme depends to a very great extent on its becoming self-supporting.
The next recommendation was with respect to a survey of departments of federal government in connection with employment of veterans:
Survey of Departments of Federal Government
in connection with employment of veterans
The commission reaffirms the recommendation contained in its interim report covering a survey of government departments in connection with the employment of ex-service men:
That each department of the federal government be requested to make a complete survey at Ottawa and all branches in the provinces of:
(a)	The possibility of absorbing a further number of veterans into government service:
(b)	All positions under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission:
(c)	All positions that are exempt from the procedure of the civil service commission;
(d)	The survey to include harbours, canals, et cetera;
(e)	The departments to supply information in the form of a report stating percentage of veterans employed in positions exempt from the provisions of the civil service commission;
That employment upon the projects conducted under the Department of National Defence should be reserved to veterans of the great war and members of the Canadian militia forces, with a preference given to the former;
That in order to promote the employment of a large number of veterans by contractors doing business with the federal government, such contractors be required to supply information as to the percentage of veterans employed, when tendering for government supplies of any kind whatsoever;
That all things being equal, the contractor who employs the largest proportion of ex-service men should have preference in the awarding of the contract;

Supply-Pensions-Unemployment
That in order to set an example to private business firms, the government agree not to dismiss any ex-service men, except for misdemeanour, inability to perform duties in a satisfactory manner, or upon reaching the age limit for retirement.
I am afraid I am not quite clear as to what that recommendation meant. In so far as positions which come under the Civil Service Act are concerned, veterans already have a preference. I do not know what inquiry could be made to ascertain what further preference could be obtained. In any event the committee of this house now dealing with the civil service commission, if it so desired, could make an inquiry into that matter.
With respect to small holdings the commission recommends:
Small Holdings
The commission would not recommend that any more unemployed, either pensioners or non-pensioners, be placed on small holdings until sufficient time has passed to determine whether projects of this kind have a reasonable chance of being successful by making unemployed veterans self-supporting.
If these projects prove successful, and it is decided to increase the numbers,
The commission recommends:
That these be settled under the same control, conditions, supervision, and selection as those with which an experiment is now being made.
The following settlement schemes which are initiated under the direction of the commission are actively under way:
Toronto
Amount granted: $48,000.
This was intended to provide for the placement of 20 veterans and their families on small holdings. Fourteen veterans have been settled so far, and the committee are now investigating and arranging for the purchase of the balance of six holdings.
Windsor
Amount granted: $37,400.
The amount is intended to provide for the settlement of twenty families, and a section of land amounting to approximately 125 acres. Six families have already been settled, and it is expected that the full quota of twenty will be on the property by the 15th April, 1938.
Winnipeg
Amount granted: $16,000.
The Winnipeg committee have settled twelve veteran families, representing fifty-three individuals, on separate holdings. These vary from three to forty acres, and are situated from five to twenty-seven miles from the centre of Winnipeg.
(Mr. Power.]
The next heading is "employment of older type of veteran with dominion, provincial, municipal governments, also private business firms:"
Employment of Older Type of Veteran With Dominion Provincial, Municipal Governments, Also Private Business Firms
That the dominion and provincial governments, cities, municipalities and business firms, who operate superannuation and pension schemes for their employees, be urged to give sympathetic consideration to the employment of the older type of veteran who may have the requisite qualifications for certain positions less suitable for the younger men and yet who cannot fulfil the age qualification; these men to be accepted for employment on the understanding that they will sign a "waiver" of all claim to pension or superannuation on retirement or discharge.
As already indicated in this report, if men, who saw service in a theatre of actual war and who were domiciled in Canada at time of enlistment for service in the great war, should be accepted for these positions, they may on retirement or discharge, providing they are otherwise qualified, be granted war veterans' allowance.
That I take to be a more or less general recommendation, and I do not know just what specific implementation would be called for.
In connection with the employment of veterans on dominion-provincial projects it is recommended:
Employment of Veterans on Dominion-Provincial Projects It is recommended:
That provision be made in all agreements, covering projects to which the dominion government contributes part of the cost, for the employment of a reasonable quota of veterans, irrespective of whether they have been in receipt of relief during the first three months of the year or not.
It is further recommended:
That veterans in receipt of small disability pensions and relief assistance from the Department of Pensions and National Health be not debarred from employment on these projects.
That provision be made in all agreements, covering projects to which the dominion government contributes part of the cost, for the employment of a reasonable quota of veterans, irrespective of whether they have been in receipt of relief during the first three months of the year or not.
That is being studied; I cannot just say how it would be worked out.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is there provision now for a certain percentage to be taken on contract work?


Charles Gavan Power: Dominion-provincial arrangement?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understood there was.

Supply-Pensions-Unemployment


Charles Gavan Power: No, I do not think so, but I shall look it up. There is a provision, of course, that no man shall be barred from employment on account of political affiliations, race or creed. But I do not know that in connection with dominion-provincial projects there is any special preference or quota for veterans.
Collection of Radio Licences
That the sale and collection of radio licences be assigned to veterans and that post offices, stores and others cease to handle the sale of these licences wherever it is possible to secure the services of ex-service men for this purpose.
In connection with the collection of radio licences I have made certain representations to the Minister of Transport. The subject is receiving consideration by his department. I should like to deal with it at a later date, because it requires further explanation. Briefly I would say this, as I have already said to various veteran organizations, that the best way for them to obtain their preference is to go together as veterans and put up some kind of proposition to the Minister of Transport whereby they would undertake the collection of all radio licences in Canada. I would have the combined veteran organizations lay before the Minister of Transport some specific plan. That would be in the interests of the soldiers and of the government, because the government would have only one person to deal with in connection with all radio licences. That suggestion has been made to the soldiers, and those to whom I mentioned it thought it was well worthy of consideration. So far, however, no specific action has been taken in the matter by any of the veterans' organizations.
With respect to the civil service preference to non-pensioners:
Civil Service Preference to Non-Pensioners
That veterans of the great war not in receipt of pension, but who are otherwise qualified and who served in His Majesty's forces, providing they saw service in a theatre of actual war. be given preference for positions in the civil service of Canada on an equal basis with pensioners when granted marks in the civil service examinations.
This recommendation will do away with the special preference granted to pensioners under the Civil Service Act, as it at present exists. I have referred this recommendation to the Secretary of State, in order that he might pass it on to the committee dealing with the civil service. I imagine it has already reached them.
In connection with superannuation or pension of federal civil servants and service in the great war, the commission recommends:
Superannuation or pension of federal civil servants and service in the great war The commission recommends:
That the Civil Service Superannuation Act, being chapter 24 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, should be so amended as to provide that the time spent on active service by members of the civil service of Canada, who saw service in the armed forces of the country during the great war, 1914-1918, may be counted for the purposes of superannuation.
This recommendation has been implemented to the extent that reference has been made to the Minister of Finance, for the reason that a change would be necessary to the superannuation act. The suggestion has been offered to him that he might refer the recommendation for the consideration of the parliamentary committee on the superannuation act.
With respect to the unemployed imperial veterans it is recommended:
Unemployed imperial veterans
That notwithstanding representations already made by the government of Canada to the British government, in connection with the problem of unemployed imperial veterans, now resident in this country,
It is recommended:
That a conference be arranged between representatives of both governments, this for the purpose of devising ways and means whereby these unemployed ex-service men who served in His Majesty's forces may be permanently rehabilitated in the land of their adoption or repatriated, if they so desire, to the British isles.
The commission feels that the position in which the unemployed ex-imperial soldier or sailor finds himself in Canada justifies immediate action on his behalf.
The commission stated they felt that the position in which the unemployed ex-imperial soldier or sailor found himself in Canada justified immediate action on his behalf.
Without any government intervention, towards the end of 1937, and I believe at the request of the Canadian legion, a representative of the British legion visited Canada in order to discuss with imperial veterans in this country problems affecting those veterans. I cannot say whether a report has yet been made, but I expect a report will be made to the Canadian legion, and should be published shortly.
With respect to hospitalization of imperial veterans I find this recommendation: Hospitalization of Imperial Veterans
That, in view of the fact that the number of Canadian veterans resident in the old country who are in receipt of disability pensions is about equal to the number of imperial veterans now resident in Canada who draw pensions for war disabilities from the imperial government.

Supply-Pensions-Unemployment
It is recommended:
That consideration be given to the matter by the Canadian government with a view to arriving at a reciprocal arrangement with the British government whereby hospitalization and medical treatment will be extended by the British government to Canadian pensioners resident in the old country and by the Canadian government to imperial pensioners resident in Canada.
If a reciprocal arrangement could be arrived at, it would, in our opinion, do away with the necessity of rendering accounts for hospitalization and treatment in this connection and facilitate more prompt attention being given when treatment or hospitalization is required.
I can see no possibility of implementing this recommendation.
The British Ministry of Pensions has an office in Ottawa, which deals with all affairs relating to pensions and treatment for imperial veterans in Canada and the United States; and treatment is arranged, on repayment, through hospital facilities provided for by this department. The affairs of Canadian pensioners resident in Great Britain are dealt with through the office of the overseas representative of the department in London, England.
By order in council, P.C. 948, dated the 23rd April. 1937, provision has been made for class 2 treatment, at the expense of the Canadian government, for veterans who were pre-war residents of Canada and in receipt of pension for a disability due to service with His Majesty's forces during the late war.
The next recommendation is:
Indigent Veterans Who Served in a Theatre of Actual War in a Campaign Prior to the Great War
That a sum of money be provided each year to permit payment of a monthly allowance to indigent veterans, who have reached the age of sixty years and who were domiciled in Canada at time of enlistment for service in a war prior to the great war, providing that they saw service in a theatre of actual war and are in possession of an honourable discharge.
This recommendation has been implemented to the extent that an amendment was introduced to the War Veterans' Allowance Act to provide for the admission of veterans of the Pouth African war, on the same basis as veterans who served in the great war.
The next recommendation had to do with soldiers' clubs or hostels and reads:
Soldiers' Clubs or Hostels
The commission made a survey of the operation of a number of soldiers' clubs or hostels in Canada but has not yet had the opportunity of obtaining information covering the activities of the United States government in this connection.
Soldiers' homes in the United States are operated directly under the supervision of the government.
We recommend, therefore, that, in order that a complete report may be made available, a survey should be made of the United States system of handling soldiers' homes, and upon completion of which, a definite recommendation be forwarded by the commission, in the form of a supplementary report, to the Minister of Pensions and National Health not later than December 31, 1937.
This recommendation has been implemented to the extent that the commission was requested to make a survey and to submit recommendations. The recommendations which are contained in the report of the commission, dated the 5th January, 1938, are receiving the consideration of the department.
By order in council, P.C. 139, dated the 19th January, 1938, a grant of $2,500 was authorized to be paid to the Ottawa Branch of the Canadian Legion, B.E.S.L., for improvements and repairs to the property, or the purchase of equipment for the legion shelter at Ottawa.
By order in council, P.C. 138, dated the 19th January, 1938, approval was given for the payment of a grant of $10,000 to the Red Cross Society of Vancouver, such grant to be used for alterations to and equipment of any building that the red cross may secure for the purpose of a hostel for homeless ex-service men in Vancouver.
The next recommendation had to do with unfit veterans, and reads:
Unfit Veterans
That the War Veterans' Allowance Act be amended by removal of "age 55 years," where it refers to the granting of an allowance because of disability, preaging and general unfitness;
And further, that the act be amended so as to permit a more liberal interpretation of legislation covering the granting of the allowance at any age to a veteran who saw service in a theatre of actual war and who, because of his unfit condition, or other handicaps, is unable to maintain himself.
This recommendation has been implemented by the introduction of an amendment to the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
In connection with a provisional economic allowance for unemployed non-pensioned veterans, the recommendation reads:
Provisional Economic Allowance for Unemployed Non-Pensioned Veterans
That in the case of unemployed indigent veterans who are not in receipt of disability pension and who served in His Majesty's forces in a theatre of actual war and were domiciled in Canada at time of enlistment, unemployment assistance in the form of a provisional economic
rMr. Power.]

Supply-Pensions-Unemployment
allowance be granted during such time as they are unemployed, through the Department of Pensions and National Health.
It is recommended:
That the maximum basic rate of allowance be:
Single men, $18.75 per month.
Man and dependent wife, $30 per month.
It is considered that dependent children are and should remain a responsibility of the provincial or municipal government concerned.
We also recommend:
That no allowance should be paid on behalf of the children of unemployed non-pensioned veterans who would benefit under this recommendation;
That it be understood that no unemployment assistance shall be granted by the department to an unemployed veteran unless he is registered with the Employment Service of Canada, or that evidence is produced to the department that work has been sought and is not available.
Should any veteran, without valid reason, refuse employment for which, in the opinion of medical officers, he is medically fit, he should be denied any allowance.
We strongly recommend that any veteran obtaining, or attempting to obtain, assistance from the Department of Pensions and National Health by fraudulent means should be prosecuted.
It is the opinion of the commission that no ex-service man or his dependents should forfeit their provincial or municipal rights as citizens because of the fact that the veteran concerned has or, if he is married, he and his wife have, been granted an allowance by the dominion government.
We further recommend:
That where application is made by a veteran for an allowance, such allowance shall be granted by the dominion government on the understanding that if he and his family are in receipt of relief, or are eligible for relief, from a provincial government or municipality, the granting and the acceptance of an allowance from the dominion government shall not relieve the province or municipality, in which he may be domiciled, from the responsibility of any obligations to the veteran or his family not covered by the payment of an allowance from dominion government sources;
And that it shall be understood and agreed that the province or municipality concerned will continue to accept responsibility for the payment of relief on behalf of any of the dependents of the veteran, not included in the allowance received from the dominion government;
And also that the provincial government or municipality shall in all cases provide such other welfare services to the veteran or, if he is married, to his dependents, as are unprovided for in the federal regulations covering the granting of the allowance or pension.
That is the main recommendation. An amendment which has been introduced to the War Veterans' Allowance Act is intended to provide for those who have been classified as partly fit and unfit by the commission, but it is not the intention of the government to make any provision for the payment of a
grant to those who have been classified by the commission as fit. As I stated the other day, the government prefers to proceed by way of endeavouring to find employment for these men. I want to repeat that the government does not think it should accept responsibility for the care and maintenance, whether by way of an economic allowance or otherwise, of 100 per cent fit men.
I should like to go a little further and say that in so far as I have been able to understand this particular recommendation of the veterans' assistance commission, it has not met with the support of the returned men themselves. I think I have received only one resolution favouring the implementation of this recommendation as made. Every other returned soldier organization has said that they did not want it because it was not enough. They have stated in specific terms that they will take this as a minimum, but they do not want it unless it is specifically understood by the department that the allowance of $18.75 for single men and $30 for married men is the minimum and not the maximum. They go beyond that and ask that non-pensioned unemployed men, not disabled, be given full relief at the expense of the dominion government. In the case of a married man with five or six or more children, that would mean $60 or $70 per month or more on the basis of the Winnipeg rates which are considered to be fairly good. So far as I am aware, there is no demand for the exact implementation of the report of the veterans' assistance commission by any large body of returned soldiers. So far as I am aware, it has only served for the apparent justification for greater demands being made on the treasury. If those demands were acceded to, the very purpose for which this economic allowance was recommended would disappear. The exact words of the recommendation are:
In recommending a basic rate, the commission does so because while it is enough to give them food and lodging, it is not enough to take from them the incentive to take work.
The reason for recommending this economic allowance was in order that the men might have an incentive to obtain work and not that they be maintained in anything like comfort. Every returned soldier organization has requested that at least a reasonably fair rate be granted to these unemployed, non^pen-sioned, non-disabled ex-soldiers.
I could go on at some greater length to discuss the policy of the department with respect to these men, but in view of the shortness of the time at my disposal this evening I would be quite prepared to discuss

Supply-Pensions-Unemployment
it further at another time. I should like to state to the committee what I believe is the policy that should be followed, generally speaking, by this department, and which I believe has been the aim and object of all governments and of all ministers in the past. This is the formula which has been evolved by the officers of the department, which I think I can say I explained to gatherings of returned soldiers in every section of the country since the last session of parliament and which, so far as the principle is concerned, has not met with any objection:
The first duty of the government is to those of the Canadian army who suffered injuries during service, and to the dependents of those who died.
Second, to those who have given service overseas and are now unable to earn a living owing to age or physical infirmity.
Third, to those yet capable of working but of themselves unable to find employment, by endeavouring to provide facilities and by obtaining the local cooperation and support which will assist in their return to the industrial life of the country.
These provide for consideration, first, to those who served in the Canadian forces; second, to those who were in Canada at the outbreak of the war; and, third, in a more limited degree, to those who came to Canada within a reasonable time after the termination of the war.
I think that statement covers pretty well the general policy not only of myself but of previous ministers with respect to returned soldiers generally, and I think if I remain within the four corners of that I am substantially following what I believe the Canadian people want. I do not think that at present the people of this country are prepared to support and take as a direct responsibility the care of men who are now a municipal responsibility and are not being left to starve because they are being looked after by the municipalities-men who are physically fit and might be forty or forty-five years of age; in fact, two thirds of those reported by the commission as unemployed and fit are below fifty. I do not believe the country wants to pay these fit men an allowance for the rest of their lives.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
[Mr. Power.1
Friday, March 18, 1938