BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MONDAY SITTINGS

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Monday, the 11th of May, instant, and every Monday thereafter to the end of the session, Government notices of motions and Government orders shall have precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting of the House to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to extend the time within which the Saint John and Quebec railway company is to complete the construction and equipment of its line of railway from a point at or near Centreville, in the county of Carieton, to a point at or near Andover, in the county of Victoria, to the thirty-first day of December, 1927, both with respect to the agreement entered into under the authority of section three of The Saint John and Quebec Railway Act, 1916, and also with respect to the subsidy agreement made under the authority of section six of the said act: provided that the said extension shall only be granted with respect to the first named agreement after the consent of His Majesty on behalf of the province of New Brunswick has been obtained.

He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted, with the subject matter of thi9 resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I
desire to direct the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) to the drowning of nine Canadian sailors at point Pelee on lake Erie in a great storm, when their sand ship turned over, as reported in the Toronto Globe, May 4. From that report I take the following:
When your correspondent questioned the life-saving crew at point Pelee life-saving station they stated that their life-saving facilities are utterly inadequate, there being no lookout station, no good binoculars, and a condemned rowboat for the lifeboat, any rescue work being done and taken care of for the most part by the Flossie G., a gas fishing launch.
Wil) the government order a thorough inquiry into this disaster, the loss of life, and the lack oi any proper or adequate lifesaving facilities cr up-to-date station at this point, and other inland ports on the Great Lakes?


Mr. CARDIN:: I shall be very glad indeed to cause inquiries to be made into this disaster and the means to prevent such loss of life in future. I will take all necessary means to cope with the situation.



GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia): Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) inform us whether he has considered the advisability of giving to the Agriculture committee the proposed amendments to the Grain Act, so that they might consider them in the meantime?
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have just instructed the clerk to give notice of the resolution.



CANTEEN FUNDS BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved the third reading of Bill No. 32, respecting the disposal of the Canteen Funds.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Ex-

CanadcrUjS. Convention
temal Affairs) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, by the	Hduse of Commons,-
That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Convention and Protocol between His Majesty, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, and the United States of America, for regulating the level of the Lake of the Woods, and of identical letters of reference submitting to the International Joint Commission certain questions as to the regulation of the levels of Rainy Lake and other upper waters, laid upon the table of the House on Thursday, the 26th of February, 1925t which was signed at Washington on the twenty-fourth day of February, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty in respect of Canada by the plenipotentiary therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: I made some comments on this matter the other day when it was first introduced. I would like the government to explain what alterations have been made; why the protocol at the end; and generally what has been the cause of the many years of delay that have occurred, holding the matter unsettled until this time.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: The matter is settled on the identical lines proposed by an order in council passed by the government of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) in 1921.	The delay since that date was
largely occasioned by the action of the state of Minnesota, who were raising objections of one kind and another, principally urging the objection that it would be well to include Rainy lake and the upper lake levels, and that matter might be settled. We have contended, I think in line with the action of the former government, that the lake of the Woods question be settled first and that, as is provided before in the treaty, the matter of the upper lake levels be a matter of inquiry before the commission. Some attempt was made at one time to ask us to bind ourselves to accept the finding of the commission. My right hon. friend will notice that that has not been done. It is identical, without a change in any particular, so far as I am aware, with the arrangement that was proposed for the consummation of a treaty under the order in council of 1921. The delay was occasioned, as I stated before, by the action of representatives of the state of Minnesota, but they finally agreed to the treaty as it was presented, and it was ratified by congress. It remains for our ratification to put it into effect.


Arthur Meighen: I understand, then, that
Governor Preus' contentions have been abandoned in so far as they conflict with the original lines of settlement?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I also understand that
the question of the upper lakes remains just where it always was, a subject for submission to the International Joint Commission without any commitment at all whether we accept or whether they accept. If I remember correctly, Governor Preus and Mr. Backus both were insistent upon the land owners affected in the lower lake regions sharing in some of the damages which would result from the upper lake control. This is one of the contentions, then, that have been abandoned by Governor Preus and the state of Minnesota?


Charles A. Stewart: Governor
Preus never pressed that point with us. What he did press with respect to damage was that there should be an arrangement as regards damage in the upper lakes. The difficulty was that he was trying to get a commitment of the governments to compensation for such damages as might accrue in the upper lakes after the finding of the commission. I am not sure whether that contention was put forward prior to 1922 or not, but the whole difficulty was the question of the upper lakes and the damages resulting there. My right hon. friend will remember that Mr. Backus was very heavily interested in the upper lakes as regards his own property, and it was really the question of the upper Lakes which delayed the whole thing. We would not agree, stating that we stood on the former ground; that we would not accept in advance the finding of the commission, but that we would let the matter go before the commission and abide by the result of that commission and the decision arrived at by the government.


Arthur Meighen: There is really nothing
at variance with the original finding of the royal commission and the order in council authorizing the execution of the treaty in pursuance thereof?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Meighen: I congratulate the government on adhering loyally to the wise lines laid down by their predecessors in this case.
Resolution reported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate informing their Honours that this House has adopted the above resolu-

Pension Act

tion and requesting that their Honours will unite with this House in approving the above mentioned convention and protocol, and that the clerk will carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 70, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Disabilities in respect of which pensions claimed.
Mr. CLARK:: I think the minister was
asked whether this new clause is the same as the clause which was introduced in the bill of last year?


Mr. BELAND:: This is a new provision.
The reason for it is to make the clause clearer. In some cases the disability which is pensionable makes its appearance one, two or three years after discharge, although it can be related to an injury or a disease that was incurred during service. The change is made in order to make it clearer that if the injury or disease was incurred during service, the disability which is related to it, though it might make its appearance long after discharge, would be pensionable. If my hon. friend will read the amendment-


John Arthur Clark: I have read it. I will be
glad if the minister will give us an example of how the pension can be different under the new clause from what it was under the old. I cannot see how the new clause is capable of any different interpretation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It has been so claimed
by the Board of Pension Commissioners, that if a strict interpretation of the clause is adhered to, some cases may arise in which the pension will not be awarded, whilst with the present amendment it will be perfectly clear that the injury or disease resulting in disability will make the disability pensionable when they are related to each other. I think myself the clause is clearer as it reads now. It will do away with any possibility of doubt, and that is the only object they have in view.


Mr. ARTHURS:: If the minister would
point out to the committee the different changes between the present bill and the bill of last year, that would facilitate matters.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My intention was to do
that, and I shall be glad to comply with my IMr. Mackenzie King.]
hon. frend's request, as the several clauses are called. The most important clauses were submitted to the House last year.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Has the minister
any idea of the number of cases in which pensions have been refused through a strict interpretation of the act?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no particular case
in mind at the present time, but had I given any thought to that question I might have been able to cite some instances in which such a situation might arise. If my hon. friend would apply his acumen to the clause as it is now amended and to the section as it previously stood he would see that in the present case the language is clearer and that there is no possibility of misinterpretation. Disability might make its appearance two or three years after discharge and be related to service overseas although such disability was not apparent at the date of discharge. As the clause now reads it provides that if the injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred during military service then the disability is pensionable. That suggestion was made by the board to render the section clearer.	Though they
agreed	that they	had not	interpreted itdifferently so far, they pointed out that the strict interpretation of the act as it stood before	might lead in some	cases to	therefusal	of pension	when the	disability	had
made its appearance long after discharge.


Thomas Langton Church: The amendment to section 1 does not go far enough; there are a large number of oases which it does not cover at all. Hundreds of men to-day, as the minister no doubt knows, are not one hundred per cent efficient, and this inefficiency is beyond any question traceable	to service	overseas.	A
great many men after their return worked a month or even a year or two and then found themselves disabled so far as any efficiency for civil pursuits was concerned, and under section 1 as now amended a large number of these cases will be barred out. Indeed, there are men whose disability arose from their war service who were not taken care of under the section as it originally stood and who even now will be left out of consideration. There should be a much more liberal interpretation of the intention of the clause. I know of a soldier who died in Winnipeg a short time ago to whom a pension had been refused, although he had served four years in the war, and his people had not enough money to bring him home for burial in Toronto in my own constituency. This man's sickness developed after the war, but there was no doubt whatever

Pension Act
that it was due to his service overseas. Such men are dying in thousands; every month there are hundreds of deaths occurring among those returned men who have been denied proper consideration through an illiberal interpretation of the act. The estimates for this department are five million less than a year ago. These men will not live forever; and I think that the time has come now for more generous treatment of our veterans. These men are getting up in years and they are unable to work 365 days in the year; and they have their families to keep. There are some of our Canadians as well, men who were brought up in this country, who went overseas early in the war, in their anxiety to get into active service, and joined the British forces, and now they are unable to get any pension, either from the British government or from the government of Canada and do not come under any existing legislation.


Mr. POWER:: Did I understand the hon.
gentleman to say that, there were Canadians by birth who enlisted in the British forces and who did not get any pension?


Thomas Langton Church: Yes, I have in mind at the moment particularly the case of Colonel Young, of Kingston, who is well known to the hon. gentleman, I have no doubt. That soldier went and enlisted in the British forces, and when he applied for a pension he could not get it. Those of our veterans who are unable to get any consideration when in distress are now obliged to apply to the cities for relief. There occurs to my mind at the moment one case, a soldier named Taylor, in which I had some correspondence with the minister: a pension was refused this man who lives in the riding of my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Sheard). He has been writing to the board for months without any satisfaction and was receiving assistance through the city. The authorities claim that his sickness was not due to service overseas. With all due respect to the minister, I do think that there should be some broad rule to cover all these cases. When application is made to the minister he says he can do nothing that is not laid down by the act; and after a lot of time is spent in correspondence with the board they take the same attitude. The result is that the city has to come to the relief of these men. The amendment to the act, I repeat, does not go far enough.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister tell us
who drafted the clause as it stands? Was it drafted in the Justice department?
181*


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it was submitted
by the secretary of the board.


Arthur Meighen: I prefer the drafting in
the old clause; it is simpler and at the same time more perspicuous. I am doubtful as to the wisdom of leaving out the words "attributable to." According to the present wording of the clause, the pension is payable if the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability "was incurred during such military service." The old wording was less circuitous, and the words "attributable to" were used. It seems to me that the disability might be attributable to military service although it was not actually incurred during such service; I do not know whether it is or not, but that is just possible. I would suggest that we make it read "attributable to or incurred during such military service."


Henri Sévérin Béland: I see the point. My intention was to move that we strike out in certain clauses the words " attributable to ", which appear in some other sections. The idea is to carry out what has been designated by the so'diers generally as the insurance principle. The moment disability is incurred during military service by a man who was in a theatre of war, it is equivalent to disability attributable to military service. The word " incurred " covers everything. When the disability is " incurred " during military service, it may or may not be " attributable to " service, but it is covered by the word " incurred ". It is a much more comprehensive word and the words " attributable to " are quite unnecessary, the word " incurred " covering everything.


Mr. MANION:: As the section was worded last year, to the ordinary reader it would appear to have a wider interpretation than in its present form. Is there any narrowing of the application of this provision by leaving out the words " attributable to "?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no objection to inserting the words " attributable to ", but they are entirely superfluous in the opinion of the pension board.


Robert James Manion: To the ordinary reader
there would appear to be very many unnecessary words and phrases in our legislation, and I do not think the minister need troub'e himself on the score of the words " attributable to" being superfluous. They might just as well be reinstated.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if there is any possibility of the
Pension Act

interpretation of the section being narrowed the words " attributable to " should be left in. Certainly the phrase " attributable to or incurred " during military service would from the legal point of view, broaden the interpretation, and therefore the retention of the words " attributab'e to" cannot do any harm. If the section is passed in its present form', a strict interpretation might exclude a pension for any injury which did not appear until years after a man's discharge. Therefore I think if the minister has no objection'- and he says he has none-these words might well be reinstated.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Mr. Chairman, I can
see where the section might be restricted or it might be enlarged. For instance, under the old act I believe if a man suffered a disability while on leave it was not "attributable to" service; under this section it would be. On the other hand, if tuberculosis appeared one or two years after discharge, the cause of it might be very readily traced back to his military service, and in this case the omission of the words might have a restrictive effect on the interpretation of the clause. Personally I should like to see the words "attributable to" put in again, for that reason. I do not think it will work any hardship to anyone. There was a time when the clause read "attributable to his military service as such." I always objected to the last two words. They were struck out on one occasion, later they were reinstated, and then later still they were again struck out. I think those words "as such" did work mischief. To my mind the words "attributable to" should be retained for the reasons I have already stated.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: It seems to me
that the omission of the words "attributable to" of necessity narrows the application of the section. A man might be gassed on service, apparently recover, and be discharged as uninjured, but later on, as the hon, member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) said, tuberculosis might appear. That is a disability "attributable to" the injury "incurred" on service. The injury "incurred" on service is the gassing, it is not the tuberculosis; but the tuberculosis is the disability "attributable to" the injury, the gassing, incurred on service. So I do not think you can leave out the words "attributable to" without narrowing the application of the section.


Mr.   BBLAND@: Of course, I respect my
hon. friend's opinion. In the example he has just given the disability is due to tuber-

culosis, caused by an injury or disease which was incurred during military service.


George Black: But it was not
"incurred."


Henri Sévérin Béland: I should like to have just
one case indicated where the words "attributable to" would be necessary or useful. I do not think a single case can be cited. However, as I have said, I have no objection to leaving the words in. In the case cited by my hon. friend, the disability makes its appearance, let us say, two years after service. It is the disability which is pensionable, not the injury or the disease. Now, was that disability caused by an injury or disease which was "incurred" during service? It can be not "attributable to" service.


Robert James Manion: The word "caused" is not in the clause.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Resulting from.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Have there not been
many cases of men who have been discharged as A No. 1 and who later made application for pension because their disability developed later and was attributable to service, but was not apparent on discharge? I think if we pass this clause as it stands those men would be absolutely cut out. I think the minister himself knows a number of such cases.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There are undoubtedly a
number of cases in which the disability made its appearance long after discharge, but this disability was found to be resulting from an injury-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: "Attributable to"; and those words have been stressed repeatedly by the pension board.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend, if I may
say so, does not remember exactly what has taken place. It is not the disability attributable to military service that is considered, it is the injury of disease resulting in disability. Now the disability makes its appearance, we will say, years after discharge, and is found to be the result of injury or disease which was incurred during service. This word "incurred" makes the clause a good deal wider than the words "attributable to," because the man may have incurred th_t injury or disease whilst he was absolutely outside the ranks, he might have been on leave, he might have been playing football or baseball and suffered an accident. Well, his injury would not be considered as "attributable to" military service, but it certainly would be considered as having been "incurred" during military service.

Pension Act
So I submit the word "incurred" is a good deal wider than "attributable to," and of necessity comprises the latter.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If the clause is made
to read, "was attributable to or incurred during such military service" it would have a much wider interpretation.


Mr. HARRIS:: If this clause passes in its
present form, with the words "incurred during such military service," the scope of the act will be considerably narrowed. I have in mind the case of a man who came back from overseas and was passed as physically fit, sound in every way; but after being on his farm for a year he had to take hospital treatment, and last year he was nine months out of the twelve in hospital. He certainly is not physically fit now, but if the clause remains as it is I do not suppose there would be any possibility of his receiving consideration. I suggest that both phrases should be included.


Robert James Manion: The question is whether
the two phrases or only one should be included. Certainly the two would be stronger than the one. Since the minister indicates that it would not make any difference from his standpoint, I suggest that the words "attributable to or" be included.


Mr.   RELAND@: In order to meet the wishes of hon. members I would move that after the -word "was" on line 16 the words "attributable to or" be inserted, so that it will read:
-when the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made was attributable to or incurred during such military service.
Personally I do not see that it enlarges the provision in any way, but I am willing to have it in.
Amendment agreed to and section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Improper conduct.


Mr.   RELAND@: This provision was in the bill of last year. The first part of section 2 is merely a reproduction of the act as it is to-day. The only new provision is paragraph (c). It provides that in the case of any venereal disease contracted prior to service and aggravated during service in a theatre of actual war, pension shall be awarded for the whole disability, but there shall be no increase of pension afterwards.


Charles Gavan Power: ' If the disease is contracted on service and causes death, is there any pension to the dependents?


Mr.   RELAND@: No.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not see why we should make the distinction. You give pension to the man while living if he contracts this disease on service, but you do not give it to the poor unfortunates he leaves behind if he dies.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is this clause not
identical with the clause in the bill that passed this House last year?


Mr.   RELAND@: I think so.


Arthur Edward Ross: From the minister's first remarks in regard to clause 1, it would seem that the pension commissioners were experiencing some qualms of conscience and were willing to widen out the provisions of the act, but now we find that on the contrary they are trying to contract. In paragraph (a) it is provided that the commission "may", when the applicant is in a dependent condition, award such pension. It seems to me the word "shall" should be used, to make it imperative. With regard to what the hon. member (Mr. Power) has just said, there is a distinction between the two classes. In one case the man has been treated and is supposed to be cured, but service brings back the trouble; in the other he incurs the disease during service.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not quite understand
that.


Mr.   RELAND@: Paragraphs (a) and (b) are not new; they have been on the statute book for a number of years. As to the new paragraph (c), it is broader than the old one; it uses the word "shall"-imperative.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
'On section 3-Children of pensioner classes 1-5.
Mr.   RELAND@: This clause was in the
bill of last year. It is to extend the provision of the former act under which pensions are awarded to the children of pensioners in classes one to five when the pensioners die of a disability or disease which is not pensionable or which is not their war disability. Let me give an example:	A man who is pensioned 100 per cent on account of amputations is killed by lightning. In ordinary circumstances, in classes one to five, his dependents would not be pensionable, but in this case the dependents would be pensionable. In other words, the death is not related to service at all, but as he is a high-ddsability pensioner we make a provision in the law that his dependents shall be pensionable. That provision existed for five years in the original
Pension Act

act passed in 1919. In 1924, this House provided for an extension of that provision for five years, but that provision was defeated last year in the Senate. We are re-introducing it this year.


John Arthur Clark: This section applies only to high disability pensions, 80 to 100 per cent?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: There are many cases where women have had the care of a husband for a period of five years, the care becoming greater all the time, and if a man dies at any time after the period of five years, whether his death was due to contagious disease or any other disease not attributable to service, if his death occurred only one day after, the widow would not get a pension; but under this section she would?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Pension in accord with extent of disa bility.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This is a new section. The first part is the same as has been provided in clause 25 of the Pension Act almost from its origin, but we make an exception for tuberculous cases. The awarding of the pension has been left an all cases to the Board of Pension Commissioners, and in exercising that discretion they have based themselves upon a certain table of disabilities, but here we are providing specifically for a certain class of pensioners, that is, the tuberculous pensioners. It will be seen that subsection (3) provides:
Pensions for disability resulting from pulmonary tuberculosis, when during the treatment of a member of the forces the presence of tubercle bacilli has been discovered in the sputum or it has been proved that the disease is moderately advanced and clinically active, sshall be awarded and continued as follows:-
Then it gives, first, the ease of the man who saw service in a theatre of actual war and who incurred tuberculosis there. He is to be pensioned for two years at 100 per cent without any possible reduction. Then there is another class of tuberculosis pensioners, those who contracted the disease during service, but who did not see service in a theatre of actual war.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Just at that point, does not subsection 3 (b) of section 4 apply only to aggravation in the case of those who did not see service in a theatre of actual war?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, it applies to all.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It does not say so.
Would the minister read subsection 3 (b)?


Robert James Manion: May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, though I do not like to put you to any extra work, that in view of the complicated nature of the clauses, it would make it much more simple if they were read in advance.


The CHAIRMAN:: Has each member an
underlined copy of the bill?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but one cannot read
the clause and follow the minister's explanation at the same time.


George Newcombe Gordon: I will read section 4,
taking it up subsection by subsection.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it will be sufficient, Mr. Chairman, if you start at the underlined sections, which are new.
Subsections 1 and 2 of section 4 agreed to.
On subsection 3 (a)-Pensions for pulmonary tuberculosis.


John Arthur Clark: Is there any change from the present law in this section except that the pension shall be continued without reduction for a period of two years?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no such provision in the act to-day.


John Arthur Clark: But pensions are awarded in such cases under the law as it stands to-day.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, there is no such law
to-day. This is a new clause. I may say, however, that it is the practice.


Robert James Manion: This makes it statutory.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Under what authority can
the Board of Pension Commissioners award pensions in such cases unless there is some authority for it in the Pension Act?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Well, it is very seldom we hear complaints of the generosity of the pension board.


John Arthur Clark: No, I am only suggesting-


Henri Sévérin Béland: I quite understand my hon. friend; I was just joking for the moment. The board has in practice awarded a pension of 100 per cent to tuberculosis cases which were moderately active in the ease of those who saw service in France or England, and pension has been awarded in such cases for

Pension Act
a period of two years without reduction. If I mistake not that was a recom-
4 p.m. mendation of a former parliamentary committee, but whether of last year or of the year before I am not certain. As my hon. friend is aware, this class of cases has been discussed many times in parliamentary committees, and the recommendation at one time or another was made that tuberculosis cases should be pensioned at 100 per cent for two years without reduction. That has been the practice of the board, and this will make it statutory.


John Arthur Clark: As I understand it, there is a provision in the old act for awarding pensions to the class of cases mentioned in this section, but the change that this section brings into effect is that the pension shall be continued now by statutory authority without reduction for a period of two years?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have got the bearing of the subsection I referred to since the chairman has read the section. It provides that the man who saw service in a theatre of actual war shall be paid 100 per cent pension for tuberculosis if there was no aggravation, while the man who did not see service in a theatre of actual war, though he gets a pension of 100 per cent if the tuberculosis was incurred even during the other part of his service, gets only 90 per cent if there was no aggravation that might have been caused through service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is right.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There are two wise provisions here which were not in the old act. One is that the pension shall continue at the full rate, 100 or 90 per cent as the case may be, for two years. The other very wise provision is that the pension shall not be reduced by more than twenty per cent at any one time, and that these reductions shall not be nearer to each other than six months, which means that the pension will not be cut off all at once, but, that the man will have a gradual chance to re-establish himself.
Subsection 3 (a) agreed to.
On subsection 3 (b).


John Arthur Clark: Is not this case covered by the preceding subsection 3 (a) ? This reads, " In the case of a member of the forces who did not serve in a theatre of actual war whose disease was aggravated during military service-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is nothing for
aggravation, just attributable to or incurred
during sendee. Would the minister explain the meaning of that last clause; that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply if the disease manifested itself within a period of three months after enlistment?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It leaves it in the discretion of the board, in a case where the disease made its appearance during the first three months after enlistment, to decide the amount of the pension. In such a case in all probability the disease would be pre-existing. Of course he may be pensioned 100 per cent for all we know. If the disease develops within three months, he may be awarded a pension of only 50 or 70 or 80 per cent, at the board's discretion.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If he contracts a disease within three months after enlistment he may be pensioned only for aggravation?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is right, if he had
not served in a theatre of actual war.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not know that I
would like to agree to that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The board would consider
the case, and if the disease develops during service he would be pensioned in any case.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have no great objection.
Subsection 3 (b) agreed to.
Subsection (4)-When no deduction from pension. Agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5, subsection (3)	(a)-Final
payment in cases of disability between 5 and 9 and 10 and 14 per cent.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In case the pensioner
takes the final payment, later becomes stranded, and is in need of medical attention, of course, if his disability is increased, he is entitled to a reconsideration by the board and a readjustment of his pension. But if his disability is not increased, is he entitled to free treatment at any military hospital?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, if lie requires treatment.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Even if his disability
is not increased?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
Pension Act

On section 5, subsection (3) (fo)-Pension after award of final payment.


Robert James Manion: The latter clause of this
paragraph reads:
Provided that the deductions from future payments of pension shal not exceed fifty per cent of the pension payable.
Ultimately he wipes out the final payment, but temporarily they cannot take more than fifty per cent of the pension off.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is right.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Under the old act they simply withheld payment until the initial payment had been absorbed?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: 1 think it is a
petty thing to make a provision that the disability must be increased by five per cent. I do not know how any medical man can [DOT]<ay in such cases what five per cent means. I think those words should be stricken out, and the section should simply say "if the disability be increased." A man has a great deal of difficulty in getting back at all. In fact, I am not altogether in favour of this provision in regard to final payment. I think if a man has a disability at any time he should be paid, even if it is two per cent, and he should not come under any provision as to final payment, because he has too much trouble getting back. He has to go to som* medical officer and get him to say that he is in a worse condition than when he was given the final payment. The man who examined him at that time perhaps cannot be found. If a man has a disability he should be paid and kept on; there has been too much cutting off. For instance, a man is asked to undergo an operation, and he has to take the operation. If he does not take it he has to get out. I do not say that those are the words, but that is the effect of it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Just for information,
is there ever an instance where the pensioner must take final payment whether he elects to take it or not? I never was in favour of the final payment, I do not think it works well for the pensioner. I do not think he should be compelled to take the final payment.


Arthur Edward Ross: No, but suppose
he is in this position:	That there is a suggestion whispered in his ear that if he does not take it he will have to get out and get nothing, and therefore he takes it. I do not consider it is just. I pass over the Other 	I ; i ; rij j i^i
matter, but coming down to the five per cent increase, I do not see how any person can figure it out. The five per cent should be struck out, simply leaving the word "increase." He has a hard enough time to get there at all. I have known cases where they have to chase around the country and give a doctor a fee to have the case reconsidered.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I usually find myself in general agreement with the hon. member for Kingston, and I feel he is an authority on these matters, but I must disagree in regard to the five per cent. However, I may be wrong. If this five per cent is cut out and the pension board says to a man, "Your disability is only seven or eight per cent and it does not amount to much," he may get nothing. I think five per cent is about the smallest percentage. If the five per cent provision is cut out I think it would be difficult to work out. I should like to have the view of the hon. member for Kingston on this. I think it is a safeguard to the pensioner, because, if his disability is increased five per cent, the 'board must consider his case; but if we cut out the five per cent, his disability may increase six or seven per cent, and they may not take him on.


Arthur Edward Ross: I make this suggestion :	If we leave the word " increase "
only in the section, they would get a pension under this section. If it is two per cent, or five per cent, or ten per cent, there is no pension.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I see the point. Perhaps
my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) is not apprised of the point made by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). It is true that the appraisal of disability goes by 5 per cent, and the phrase "5 per cent" there is perhaps also superfluous. If we said, for instance:
If subsequent to the award of a final payment it is found that the disability of the member of the forces has increased he shall be restored to pension. . .
That means, as it reads, "by 5 per cent or over." There is no objection at all to making this amendment by striking out the words "by 5 per cent or over," and I move that the clause be amended accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph (b) as amended agreed to.
On section 5, subsection (3) (c)-Final payment offered but election to continue on pension.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This is simply a gift we
make to a man who has no disability.

Pension Act


Robert James Manion: But it is a gift in the sense that he has been offered the gift previously.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He has been offered, not a gift, but compensation for a certain disability. He has refused to take the compensation and he has elected to remain on pension. As the months or years go by, this disability disappears entirely and his pension should disappear accordingly. Then, in accordance with the subsection, he may claim the amount that was offered to him at the time that he was still under the disability.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think there was a
definite reason for inserting this clause. This was discussed in committee on previous occasions. I know there was a feeling amongst returned men-I am not saying that they were right-who had been offered a final payment and did not accept it, that their pension had been arbitrarily cut off and that it should not have been cut off. This is to prevent anything of that kind. The fact is that it will not amount to very much in money because these payments are small. These final payments are made only for small disabilities.


Henri Sévérin Béland: But there are still a large
number of pensioners between 5 and 15 per cent, there are as many as 4,000 still on pension.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But many of them will not take final payment. Many of them will be continued for years.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are now being continued.
Paragraph (c) agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6- Wear and tear of clothing on account of amputation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sure this clause will
not lend itself to any objection. It is a new clause for the purpose of carrying out a request that has been made for a long time by amputation cases, that they should have an allowance for wear and tear of clothing. It is putting into the statute the recommendation of the parliamentary committee to provide for an allowance of $54 per annum for leg amputation cases and $22 per annum for arm amputation oases.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Annual allowance for maintenance of parents.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This is clear in itself.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Conditions under which pension shall be paid to widows; subsection (1) (a).


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would the minister
please illustrate what kind of case this would apply to?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Here is the law as it stands to-day and has existed since 1919. It provides that:
No pension shall be paid to the widow of a pensioner unless she was living with him or was maintained by him or was in the opinion of the commission entitled to be maintained by him at the time of his death and for a reasonable time previously thereto.


Mr. LADNER:: In a case of excusable
separation or one in which a court of law would pronounce judicial separation, would the opinion of the commission be entirely in their discretion?


Henri Sévérin Béland: This would cover such a
case of separation, but in those cases the widow herself must not be responsible at all in the eyes of the law for having lived away from her husband.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Supposing a judicial tribunal had found in favour of the woman for a judicial separation, would the commission have the superior authority to determine otherwise?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think they would
exercise that authority.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have read through this
section and the amendment. This sub-clause apparently puts complete autocratic power and discretion into the hands of the commission. I am not going to take up the time of the committee in discussing difficulties and complaints that we have had in the past. This clause is going to have far-reaching effects, and I think it would be better, in the interest of the pensioners, if, in those cases where there can be no difference of opinion, for instance, the case I cited of a judicial separation, the commission should follow the findings of fact. I realize that at this stage it is difficult to make any fundamental changes, but from' my individual judgment, based on experience, I raise the objection that it is not wise to place such complete authority in the hands of the commission, by which they may make a finding contrary to the rules of judicial tribunals on questions largely of fact and law such as separation, and so on.


George Black: Is it the intention
now to reconsider cases in which a pension is being, paid but in which further payments are being withheld if in the opinion of the
Pension Act

commission the widow was indiscreet, or something of that sort?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Section 33 of the Pension Act as it stands to-day might throw some light on the question which has been raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Ladner). Subsection (4) of section 33 reads:
(4) A woman who has been divorced or legally separated from a member of the forces who has died shall not be entitled to a pension unless she was awarded alimony or an alimentary allowance, in which case she shall be entitled if she is in a dependent condition to the equivalent of the widow's pension or to the equivalent of the alimony or alimentary allowance which was awarded her, whichever is the smaller in amount.
Would that provision meet the case suggested by my hon. friend?


Leon Johnson Ladner: But that provision is
repealed by the present section.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, that subsection is not repealed.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have not the act before
me so that I cannot tell.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
On section 8, subsection (1) (b).


Henri Sévérin Béland: Some of the subdivisions
of this subsection are quite involved and I might perhaps just briefly 'explain them. Paragraph (i) provides that if the marriage has taken place within one year after discharge, then the widow is pensionable in all cases, if the death is the result of the pensionable disability. Paragraph (ii) provides that if the marriage takes place after the coming into force of this act and the man secures from the Board of Pension Commissioners a certificate that the disability from which he suffers is not likely to result in death, then should he die from that disability the widow is .pensionable.


Robert James Manion: Can he ever get such a
certificate?


Henri Sévérin Béland: He might. If I had lost
a little finger and got a pension, I might go to the board and ask for a certificate that this disability was not likely to result in my death, and they would issue the certificate. But blood poisoning might develop later through an accident of some kind to that finger and I might die, and in that case my widow would be pensionable.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But that is an extremely unlikely case. Take the case of an amputated leg.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In that case I would not
issue a certificate.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister does not think that it would be possible for a man with an amputated leg to obtain a certificate that such disability might not result in death?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would not give such a
certificate.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: So that we may see
what value if any there is in the clause, the minister might suggest some case in which the certificate would be given.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Paragraph (iii), I think, covers the point. It provides that in the case of a member of the forces who has married between a period of one year after his discharge and before the coming into force of this act, and who has obtained a certificate showing that any pensionable injury or disease from which he is suffering at the time of marriage would not result in death, the pension shall be allowed the widow.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The paragraph says
"who has obtained" the certificate. I take it that these words would preclude the possibility of his going to the commission after the coming into force of the act. Would it not mean that he must have secured the certificate before the passing of this legislation?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think so; he may obtain it at any time.
Sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) agreed to.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Sub-paragraph (iv) relates to the man who has married between the period of one year after his discharge and the coming into force of this act and who has died of a pensionable disability. That is what we call the "prudent marriage" clause. If it may have been presumed at the time of marriage that no symptoms existed which a reasonably prudent man, making reasonable inquiries, would have known of, and if he could not have known of the existence and the potential seriousness of the injury or disease which ultimately resulted in death, then the pension shall be paid to the widow. This is going one step further.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have in mind the concrete case of a certain Mrs. McSweyn who married a man with a pensionable disability. At the time of the marriage he had pernicious anaemia although they did not know about it. They lived on for a time and he died. Would she be entitled to a pension under the clause? They made no inquiries, for the simple reason that they suspected nothing; no prudent person is expected to inquire concerning something about which he has no suspicion at all.

Pension Act
The "prudent" clause therefore does not come into operation in this case. But would the clause cover his case, due to service?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it would, if any
prudent man made reasonable inquiries.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would that mean going
before a doctor prior to the marriage ceremony and having a complete examination on all phases of health?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, I do not think it would go as far as that. There is nothing in this clause which would entail the calling in of a medical man.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I put these questions because I know they are pertinent to many cases, and I thought the minister was basing the legislation on the experience and advice of the board.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: On whom will the
burden of proof rest? For instance, would the man's medical history sheet with the medical board be taken into account at the time of marriage to decide whether his injury would be liable to cause death? Or would it be up to the widow to prove that his injury was not apparent at the time of marriage? Just what would be the procedure?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course, if we referred
to the man's own medical documentation it is likely that the pension would be refused. My impression is that the burden of proof, if you choose to call it so, should rest on the widow or her relatives or friends.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What would be taken as proof?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The widow would make a claim for a pension


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Personally I do not
think this provision is of any value, I do not think anyone would ever get a pension under it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I did not draft this clause, and it is going a long distance, I must say.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Theoretically, it is.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. I presume the widow in such a case would file a claim for a pension, she would say under which clause she was claiming, and I suppose it would be for the board to examine all the papers in the man's case, and it would be a matter of correspondence between the widow and the board. Presumably she would have to establish that at the time of her marriage anyone who knew her husband and who made reasonable inquiries
could not be aware of a disability which was likely to result in death.


Mr. BOYS:: Will the minister state the
meaning of this clause? I have read it, reread it and read it yet again, and the more often I read it the more confused I become. It seems to me with its involved language, its first proviso and its second proviso, it is impossible to reach any understandable construction of it. I presume it comes from some definite source, and no doubt the minister has a marginal note which in a few plain and distinct words will illustrate what this is intended to cover. I have really done my best, reading it over and over again, to figure out what relief it is intended to afford, but having done so I cannot reach any conclusion.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am no lawyer, and if my hon. friend finds it difficult to extricate himself from the maze of this subsection, I must confess that my chances are getting slimmer and slimmer every moment. But here is the recommendation of the parliamentary committee which dealt with this phase of thc Pension Act last session:
That a pension shall be paid in the case of a member of the forces who has married between the period of one year after his discharge and the coming into force of this act, and who has died of a pensionable disability prior to the coming into force of this act when the marriage took place at a time when no symptoms existed from which a reasonably prudent man, making reasonable inquiries, would have known of the existence and the potential seriousness of the injury or disease which ultimately resulted in death.
That is word for word as we have it here. This clause may be absolutely clear in one particular case, where a woman married a man without knowing at all that he was war-disabled, and thought that for all ordinary purposes of life he was 100 per cent fit. She may be in a position to establish that to the satisfaction of the board because other people who knew him thought the same, in which event she might be lucky enough to secure a pension.
Sub-paragraph (iv) agreed to.
On section 8, subsection (1) (c).


Henri Sévérin Béland: The paragraph we have
just dealt with covered the case of a man who died before the act came into force; this covers the case of a man who died afterwards. He is married between a date one year after his discharge and the date of the coming into force of this act, and he fails to secure a certificate from the board. On his death his widow is welcome to claim a pension on the ground that when she married him he did not, in the eyes of the
Pension Act

ordinary observer, appear to suffer from any disability which was likely to result in death.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The previous paragraph applies to the widow of the man who may have died just previous to the coming into force of this act, and this paragraph applies to the widow of the man who dies after the passing of the act. Is there any sense in them?


Charles Gavan Power: Does anybody understand
what it means?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Chairman, I understand what it means, but I must point out how enormous are the difficulties in giving effect to the meaning of these paragraphs.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the minister guarantee that the Board of Pension Commissioners will understand what this legislation means?


Henri Sévérin Béland: They have not been consulted, but I presume they will understand it.
Subsection 1 (c) agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Widow of pensioner classes 1 to 5.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This is similar to clause
3.	We have these two clauses in order to amend the corresponding clauses in the Pension Act.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In last year's act there
was a compassionate allowance in meritorious cases; is that provision in the bill of this year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It has been in the act
since last year.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But the bill was not
passed last year, was it?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, it was passed with
amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Pension to widowed mother prospectively dependent.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This is the second very
important clause of the bill. As I explained last year, the amount involved if this clause is adopted will be very large-probably $700,000 immediately, and an annual increase of about $50,000.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the minister explain
the principle of the provision? The amount of money involved is a secondary consideration if it has merit in other respects.
[Mr. Beland.l	'


Henri Sévérin Béland: Under the act a widowed mother who is a widowed mother at the time of the soldier's death is pensionable as an ordinary widow, with a few limitations. That is, she may have an income up to $240 pei year; she may have a house of her own; she may derive, say, $2,000 from a business or occupation, but these things are not taken into account; she receives a pension as a widow of $720 a year. If she has sons or daughters who may be considered sis able to contribute to her support, there may be deducted from the pension $10 a month for each child contributing. This has been the provision of the act since 1919.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was there not an
amendment to the act to provide that the $10 a month for each child should be deducted from the pension whether the children actually contributed to her support or not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is the law as it
now stands?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was it in the law
in the first place?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No. Now, the prospective dependent widowed mother is one who becomes a dependent widowed mother after the death of the pensioner. If the mother is a widow at the time of the pensioner's death, she comes automatically within the widowed mother's class. If after the man dies of a pensionable disability the mother becomes a dependent widow she is pensionable, under the present law, at the discretion of the board according to her need. If she has an income of $240, it is taken into account; if she earns a substantial income from her occupation, that is taken into account. And, of course, if she has sons and daughters who contribute to her support, that is also considered.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And if she earns small wages, is that not also taken into account?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. I am referring to
the case of a widowed mother who does not come within the class of widowed mothers provided by the act. Now, if this amendment is adopted, all those mothers that are widowed to-day that are not in the widowed mother class will come automatically into that class, and the financial liability involved in the increase of their pension will be as I have stated.

Pension Act


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is it the purport of the
amendment that those coming under this class will not have their earnings or income taken into consideration when the pension is fixed?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is it. Private income to the extent of $240 per annum will not be considered.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But if they are not in a dependent condition they do not get any pension?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If they are earning
enough to make a living they do not get any pension; none of them do. I never could see any reason why a distinction was made between these classes of widowed mothers, and the reason there will be a large initial payment now is because those coming under this class have been held out of pension although they were not able to make a living for themselves.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The original idea of this
widowed mothers clause was to provide for the widowed mother whose son and only means of support went to the front and was killed. Parliament said, these widowed mothers will be considered, with a few limitations, as widows, and their income will not be taken into account in the payment of pension. Now, take the case of a soldier whose father and mother were not dependent upon him. He went to the front, came back disabled and was made a pensioner. He does not contribute toward the support of his mother or of his father; he dies of his pensionable disability; later the father dies and the widow becomes more or less dependent. She has an income of say $240, she has a house of her own, and a good position. If she is of the class of the widowed mother, she will get a pension of $720 a year under this new clause. Under the act of to-day, the board examines whether or not she is in need, and if she i3 in need they will award a pension to the maximum of 100 per cent. As a matter of fact, a number of these mothers to-day who were not widowed at the time of the man'3 death receive a full pension because they are in absolutely destitute circumstances, and in the opinion of the board had the man lived he would have contributed substantially to their support-they take that into consideration to-day and come to the help of the woman to the extent of her need. I presented this clause last year, and I want it to pass again now, or I would not have introduced it. But I want the House to know exactly
the conditions. It means that this woman will fall automatically into the widowed mother's class and that she will be pensioned as a widowed mother, with the limitations I have stated before, and this will immediately increase the pension bill by $700,000.


John Arthur Clark: Is that $700,000 odd annually.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: That is not for arrears?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, to adjust to-day.


John Arthur Clark: That takes into consideration arrears?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It will be paid every year, as long as they live.


Robert James Manion: How much next year, for
instance, or two years from now?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Next year it will be the
same amount, plus about $50,000.


John Arthur Clark: It is $700,000 odd this year, and next year it will be nearly $800,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It will be $700,000, plus
an annual increase of $50,000 or thereabouts.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister in explaining this clause referred to the case of a widow having a good earning capacity,-perhaps $2,000 a year; she will receive a full pension under this section. But is this clause not framed to include a number of widows who perhaps do not receive remuneration for service? Has the minister the information as to how many widows are not able to earn their living, and who are really meritorious cases, as against the hypothetical case he gives, which is not quite so meritorious. How many meritorious cases would there be in this class?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not in a position
to say exactly, but there is a large number of mothers who are widows to-day and who are pensioned according to their need only, a sufficiently large number to mean an increase of $700,000 if their present pensions are made equal to that of widowed mothers.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Then why is the legislation placed before the House if it has not real merit behind it?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is the recommendation
of the parliamentary committee.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But for what reason is this change made?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend was a
member of the committee himself; I did not belong to it last year.
Pension Act


Leon Johnson Ladner: I was not on that committee.


William Alves Boys: I can quite understand the
pension being increased to the extent of the maintenance she had been receiving, but it is difficult to realize why it should be increased more than that. If the soldier had lived, and had been maintaining his mother to the extent of four or five hundred dollars, and then he dies, the mother is deprived of that amount, and one can well understand why the country might in that case provide a pension to the extent of the maintenance she had been receiving. But where a mother had been receiving maintenance to the extent of one or two hundred dollars, we will say, and the soldier dies, that is the extent of her deprivation, and then under this clause all of a sudden a pension very much larger than the amount she had been receiving from the soldier is given her, and just at the moment I do not see why that should be done, although I am entirely sympathetic to legislation of this kind. Perhaps the minister would explain why it is that her position should be so much better financially by reason of the death of her son.


James Arthurs: One reason why this
clause was passed by the committee was to take care of cases where there was a young man going to school. Not only was he not supporting his parents, but they were supporting him, giving him an education. He gets killed over there, and subsequent to his death the father dies, and by force of circumstance or otherwise the widow becomes dependent.


William Alves Boys: I do not think this applies to
cases of that kind at all, because the closing words of the section are, "and who in the opinion of the commission would have been wholly or to a substantial extent maintained by a member of the forces had he not died." The case my hon. friend mentions is a case where the soldier was contributing no maintenance at all, but this clause applies to cases where in the opinion of the commission there had been maintenance either wholly or to a substantial extent by the soldier.


Charles Gavan Power: 
William Alves Boys: I frankly say that I did not appreciate the prospective feature of this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Defence against cancellation of pension: re-instatement of pension.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This is a new section, never introduced in the House before. Hon. gentlemen will readily grasp the meaning of it. The clause in the act to-day reads as follows:
The pension of any female pensioner who is found to be a common prostitute, or who openly lives with any man in the relationship of man and wife without being married to him shall be suspended, discontinued or cancelled.
Some cases of hardship have been brought to my attention, one in particular from the western provinces, of which there was some mention in the House last year. This is to provide that a pension shall not be cancelled or discontinued without an opportunity being given to a pensioner to present to the commission her side of the case.


Charles Gavan Power: Suppose a case in which the pensioner finds that the commission has not given her a proper opportunity to explain, has she an appeal?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, she would not have an appeal.


Charles Gavan Power: In this ease we do not state how the commission is to advise the pensioner that the pension is to be cancelled. We simply say that the pensioner will obtain some kind of a hearing. Wre do not instruct the commission as to what kind of a hearing or what notice is to be given. We are not very much better off than we were before. The commission will simply say , "Yes, we wrote a letter saying we were going to cut off the pension and ten days after we cut off the pension ".


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think the hon. member is taking an extreme view of the situation. Up to the present time a number of pensions have been cancelled in the case of widows, presumably on account of immoral conduct on the part of the pensioner, presumably without opportunity being afforded to show that the information which had been furnished to the board was erroneous.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the minister seriously tell me that the Board of Pension Commissioners would deliberately cancel the pension of a woman on any such grounds as those, without previously giving her a hearing? If
the board have done that in the past, they should have been fired long ago.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It has been done.


Mr.   POWTER@: They have no business to
do it. It is a most serious thing, and they should have made it their business to make a thorough investigation into the matter.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I suggest to the minister
that the mere right of appearing before the commission is not really a protection to the persons concerned, unless they have also the right of appeal; because I have seen cases where the commission have made up their minds; you may submit a great deal of evidence, but frequently they do not show much of a disposition to change their minds. Considering the fact that it is the whole pension and is of serious consequence to the appellant, what objection would there be to allowing an appeal to the appeal board in a case of that kind?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think one step at a time is sufficient. This is a step in the right direction. Since the Pension Act was passed in 1919, it has been substantially amended in the years 1920, 1921J 1922, 1923, 1924 and again this year. I think we have advanced in this direction as far as we should go. The representations which have been made to me go only to the extent of providing that the widow who is to be deprived of her pension on account of immoral conduct should be offered an opportunity of presenting her case before the pension is cancelled. No claim has been made for any further amendment. I understand my hon. friend's suggestion is that an appeal should be provided in these cases, but no appeal is provided for such cases at all now. I do not say that it will not come in another session, but I suggest that we take this step this year and see how it works.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is there any arrangement made in regard to the children of the pensioner?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: It places the widow in
the same position as she was before, except that her pension will not be cut off until an appeal has been made.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is correct-until her
defence is presented to the board.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I hardly think that
latter statement is correct. This act simply gives her an opportunity to present a case, but if she refuses to present any defence, her pension might be cut off. Is there any time
Pension Act

limit given in which she may present her
case?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think so.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think there should be a time limit.


Charles Gavan Power: It is very hard to make a
time limit.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think a number of
occurrences under the Pension Act have demonstrated to us the inadvisability of giving absolute discretion to the pension board in all these matters, and in this case there should be a time limit-six or twelve months, or whatever time the committee think necessary.


Leon Johnson Ladner: She is given an opportunity.


Charles Gavan Power: If we provide a time limit
the commissioners would immediately seize on that time limit, and if she came in a few minutes late she would be out of court.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The board writes her
a letter, and if she does not come back with her statement, it is left to the pension board to say that she should have come back in two or three weeks.


Charles Gavan Power: She can go to see a good
member of parliament, like my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell).


Arthur Edward Ross: I ask the minister
what arrangement the board had made in the ease of children of the woman who loses her pension?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think the children would be affected by it.


Charles Gavan Power: The children always get it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If the pension is paid on account of the children, the guardian will take care of the children.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then they should come under the law of the province.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, there is a provision in the Pension Act for those cases.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The point I raise in
regard to the time limit I think is well taken I would like to see the amendment made effective. I think possibly we should go a step further than what has been the practice of the board. This amendment never should have been necessary. It is a very severe indictment of the practice of the pension board that it should be necessary for this parliament to pass an amendment of this kind, because under British law a person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty; he should

always be given an opportunity to put up a defence. The apparent need for this amendment is the direct statement that this has not been the case in times past; I should, therefore, like to see some definite time given to these people to put in a defence.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In line 7 there are the
words "may direct." We might add:
And a delay of three months for such purpose shall be deemed to be reasonable.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not think that is long enough, as it might be difficult for a woman to assemble her evidence in three months. It would be possible for her to enter a defence in that time, if that is what is meant, and then if her case were not proven at the end of three months, I presume her pension would be cut off while her case was under consideration.


William Alves Boys: I would favour a much shorter period than three months. If there were a case at all where a woman would want to be prompt in her defence, it would be one where an accusation of this kind was made against her. It stands to reason that if a notice of this kind were sent to her accusing her of such conduct and intimating that her pension was going to be cut off, two weeks or a month at the outside would be ample time for her to notify the commission that she wanted to be heard. The clause does not say that she must get in her defence within any reasonable time; it states simply that she must be given an opportunity. I remember bringing to the attention of the minister a case in my town where a woman had had her pension actually cut off without any notice, and without an interview or investigation from her standpoint. Later on when the facts were gone into, the charges which had been made against her by somebody unfriendly to her were found to be without foundation and she was reinstated. It is contrary, as my hon. friend, (Mr. Caldwell) says, to British justice that a person should be deemed to be guilty of conduct of this kind without a hearing. I understand this clause provides that before she can be deprived of her pension she must be given notice. The only thing I would suggest, if that were necessary, would be that the notice should be sent by registered letter to the address where she is receiving her pension cheques from month to month. But I think that can be left to the commission and they will no doubt send the notice there. If the woman is receiving her cheques regularly, she will get the notice. In such a case she should act promptly and one month should be ample time

Pension Act
in which to file her defence. If she is not sufficiently interested in her pension and in defending her reputation to file her defence within a month, I would never blame the pension board for cutting her off.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I would think this is
right the way it stands. I was on the committee, and the way it stands, that the pension cannot be cancelled until she 'has entered a defence, would be in her favour.


William Alves Boys: It says: "until an opportunity has been given."


Clifford William Robinson: Yes. She has to be
given an opportunity. Why limit her to a month, or any time? The cancellation cannot be made until she has had that opportunity.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister any
information as to the number of women who have had their pensions cut off without a hearing prior to the present time. Are there any such?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think only two cases
were brought to my attention.


Robert James Manion: Under this provision no
such injustice will be done to a woman as to cut her pension off without a hearing?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


George Black: The cases in which this clause would be brought into play must be very exceptional and the cases in which the pension board would cancel pensions would be very flagrant. With the amendment as now offered, the improvement is so great that no time limit is necessary. The amendment as it stands now might very properly be left with the pension board, and parliament at a later session may amend it if it is found to be abused.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: The last provision states that any pension which has been suspended, discontinued or cancelled, may be reinstated. If there is anything in the nature of a hardship or if a widow thinks she has not had proper opportunity, that provision gives her a chance to have her pension reinstated. I think it is better without putting in any time limit at all.


Leon Johnson Ladner: There is a weakness in
the last proviso in that there is no obligation on the commission to give a reasonable opportunity for the appearance of the person concerned. They have their own authority in that connection. It is presumed, of course, that they would hear the person concerned.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It must be presumed that the pension board will act as reasonable men and carry out the spirit of the act.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Supposing a woman's
pension has been previously cancelled and she can prove that she is not guilty, it is in the discretion of the commission whether they will reinstate her pension or not. If the woman can prove her case, there should be no discretion about restoring her pension.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is very difficult to go to that extent. The Board of Pension Commissioners would have to examine and weigh the evidence which is brought before them and if they consider that the defence against the accusation brought against the woman is not sufficiently weighty, they may suspend the pension. The second proviso is perhaps superfluous, but I do not think it can work any injustice, nor do I think it is any reflection upon the board.


Robert James Manion: This brings up a question raised in the House last year, and I remember putting myself on record in regard to it. It should be with a great deal of hesitancy that the Board of Pension Commissioners or any board of a like nature should be placed in the position of a morality squad looking into the character of pensioners or any other group of people. Last year the case came up of a man having his pension discontinued because of boot-legging. This case was brought up by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Personally, I think the pension board should act very slowly about judging the character or morals of any pensioner in this country. Unless for a very flagrant breach of the ethics of life, no board should be placed in a position where a crank or a number of cranks on that board could have the right to rule out the pension of somebody or of the dependents of somebody, whose morals we did not look into when we took him overseas. I hope the minister will discourage in every possible way he can the judging of morals of pensioners unless the breach is very flagrant.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Additional pension to dependents.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This is only to do for the mother of any ex-imperial or ex-allied officer with pre-war Canadian domicile what is done for the mother of the officer who served in the Canadian expeditionary forces.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-New schedules.

Pension Act


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This is to incorporate permanently the bonus into the pension as was done last year in the act which passed this House but which failed to become law?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are there any changes in the schedules?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No; the schedules are the same as those of last year.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Term.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This provides for the prolongation of the term of the commissioners other than the chairman. Two commissioners were appointed for three years and two for two years, and their term would expire this year if we did not re-appoint them. The number of appeals before the board is still very large and we shall require all the commissioners we have now.
Section 14 and section 15 agreed to.
On section 16-Appeals.


John Arthur Clark: What is the effect of the amendment?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The amendment is merely to bring this section into conformity with an earlier section. We have amended section 11 of the act, and in lines 17 and 18 we have changed the former clause in some respects to make it clearer. This is to conform with the amendment to that section.
Section 16 agreed to.
On section 17-Operation of certain provisions and review of cases.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This is to provide for the retroactive operation of certain sections of the act.
Section 17 agreed to.
On section 18-Hearing by member of board.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This section is intended
merely to make a correction in the French version, in which there was a mistake. It does not affect the English version.
Section 18 agreed to.


George Black: Is there no provision in the bill whereby the findings of the board in regard to the percentage of disability may be appealed from? I thought that was to be one of the provisions of the bill. The

board might find a man's disability to be 50 per cent, and as things stand now he can only put up with that. Could there not be some provision to enable him to appeal on that question?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Last year there was a provision for appeals on assessment but this was not passed by the Senate. At that time I had not the experience which I have since gained. The number of appeals on entitlement is so large at the present time that I do not think it would be wise to provide for any appeal on assessment. The number of appeals would naturally be very large; any man would be open to appeal his appraisal of disability. It would cost him nothing; it would be only a matter of a move on the part of the pensioner to have his assessment made 40 per cent instead of 30, or 30 instead of 20, or 70 instead of 50 as the case might be. I have consulted the members of the Board of Appeal on this point and have asked their opinion regarding the desirability of appeals on assessment, and they have sent me a memorandum in this connection which has confirmed me in the opinion that it would not be wise at present to provide for such appeals. We have 44,000 disability pensioners every one of whom, except those who are 100 per cent disabled, would be eligible for appeal if they chose to take advantage of such a provision. Of necessity therefore the number of appeals would run into tens of thousands. Moreover, the fixing of disability on re-examination would' be subject to appeal as well. So that my hon. friend will realize that the Board of Appeal would be so overwhelmed that it would be well nigh impossible for them to consider appeals on assessment for a year and a half or at least a year. The number of entitlement appeals now entered is 4,738; of these, 1,567 have been ruled upon as being not within the board's jurisdiction; 1,060 have been heard, and 2,111 remain still to be dealt with. During the period of January 1, 1925, to March 31, 1925, 1,005 individuals filed appeals with the board. The board works assiduously, hearing, on an average 102 cases per month, which I think is rather large in view of the fact that it must hear the representative of the soldier and examine into his documents which generally are voluminous. The board have to weigh all the evidence before they reach a decision. So, at the rate of 102 cases per month it would take them at least one year and ten months to dispose of all those entitlement cases. I am afraid it would clog the wheels of the appeal board.

Pension Act
if we were to allow appeals on assessment. I think the time will come when we will have to allow such appeals, or at least appeals from final awards. We do not have final awards as yet, but I think we should have them. They have them in England and in the United States. These final awards cover what it is a decided pensioner should be paid during the rest of his life whether his disability remains stationary or not. We have what are known as permanent cases, but there is no finality about them, because should the disability increase the amount of pension may be increased after one, two or three years; and should the disability decrease the amount of pension may be reduced. I think it should be in order before very long to provide for final awards. There would be some abjection taken by the returned men, but generally speaking the great majority of them would agree that the final award system should be adapted in Canada. If we allowed appeals on assessment, as I explained to the delegation which met me on this subject, we may have as many as 50,000 appeals during one year, and it is the opinion of the board that the provision might lead to frivolous appeals. Of course we would admit that entitlement appeals should be heard first. I am advised that we may expect appeals at the rate of from 50 to 75 per month for an indefinite period. So I cannot see just now that it would be possible to effectively deal with appeals on assessments.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would it not be
possible-I think the minister admits that it will be necessary in the future, if not now- to set up a separate tribunal to try appeals on assessment? When he says that every pensioner, except 100 per cent disability cases, would have the right to appeal, I think he has forgotten section 15 of the act that passed this House last session. It placed certain restrictions on the right to appeal on assessment, and is as follows:
15. Subsection one of section eleven of chapter sixty-two of the statutes of 1923, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
(1) Upon the evidence and record upon which the Board of Pension Commissioners gave their decision an appeal shall lie in respect of any decision of the said Board of Pension Commissioners, provided that in cases of assessment appeals the appellant shall be required (a) to obtain the consent of an official soldiers' adviser before presenting his appeal; (b) to present certificates of examination from two independent qualified medical practitioners in the form of statutory declarations on approved forms which shall contain an estimate of the percentage of disability, and (c) that the estimated percentage of disability as set out in the certificates provided for shall indicate the appellant's condition to be at least two classes higher than he has been assessed by the Board of Pension Commissioners.
182i
This was threshed out very thoroughly by the committee fast session, and we thought that by inserting this restriction we would, to use a common expression, "put them over the sieve"-the trivial ones would be sorted out, and only the deserving cases would come to the attention of the appeal board. There is one other point in connection with the request or an appeal on assessment. It is a point I supported very strongly last session, and I still support it-that if the pension board admit attributability under the present act, and only give a 5 per cent pension, the man is out of court, although he might be entitled to 40 per cent or even more. There have been probably more hardships in respect to this matter than there have been in respect to the absolute cutting off of pensions. The minister would do well to consider it seriously before he shuts the door. He has always been inclined to do justice to returned men in the matter of pension, but I cannot help thinking there should be a right of appeal here, even if it is necessary to set up a separate tribunal to hear appeals on matters of assessment.


Leon Johnson Ladner: A man at some point
distant from Ottawa may be found upon medical examination to be entitled to a certain disability, but when the return is made to the central office at Ottawa the decision of the local medical authorities is overruled or a decreased pension is awarded, with resulting injustice to the pensioner. It seems to me that in these cases the pensioner should have the right to appeal to a higher tribunal; he should not be entirely subject to the arbitrary and dictatorial authority of the officials in Ottawa who do not know his case, who have not the knowledge and information they should have to enable them to make a wise decision. The minister would be well advised to consider the right of that class of case to an appeal to the Eederal Appeal Board.


Robert James Manion: Last year there was a good deal of discussion in the other House as to the expenditure involved in the pension bill and in the amendments proposed, and in that connection there were many contradictory reports. Has the minister the official figures as to how much the amendments will cost the country?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There are approximate
figures covering the most important changes. For instance, the amendment with regard to marriage after the appearance of disability will involve the expenditure of $396,000 annually.
Pension Act


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I suggest that the
amount involved should be given for each amendment. The minister should be pretty sure of the figures, and if he has not got them now I suggest that he have the committee rise in order that he may get them. They may mean the life or death of this bill.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have requested the Board of Pension Commissioners to supply me with that information in connection with the different amendments. In respect to many of the clauses of the bill they admit their inability to estimate closely the expenditure to be incurred. They say that $83,000 is the approximate amount to fee paid out in respect of the number of parent beneficiaries under section 7. As to section 8, with regard to marriage after the appearance of disability, the immediate expenditure involved is $396,000 per annum.


Robert James Manion: These are the figures the minister gave us a moment ago?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. Under section 10,
which deals with widowed mothers prospectively dependent, the liability to be incurred by adjusting to the higher rate the pensions now in force is estimated at $700,000 per annum. That is a conservative figure; I have been informed that it may be $800,000. The annual increase in the future is estimated at $48,000. Some financial liability is also involved in other sections, but the board say they are not in a position to estimate exactly what that expenditure will be.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: They would be relatively small anyway?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. The hon. member
(Mr. Manion) made an inquiry last year as to the question of bonus, and I have secured exact figures in this regard. The making of the bonus permanent does not increase the liability, because the bonus is paid now. The present amount of bonus is $7,948,330.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What are the total
pension payments this year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are $34,000,000.


Robert James Manion: According to the figures
the minister has given, the total amount involved in the proposed changes is about $1,179,000, plus a few smaller figures which, I suppose, would not amount to very much. I wanted to have these figures because it is important we should have some official indication of what the cost will be. We have dealt this afternoon with a bill of nine pages, and I am sure the minister will agree that that
 ,
is very good work. I want to emphasize once again the fact that- there has been no obstruction or no evidence of any desire to hold up this bill. I am sure the minister agrees with me


Henri Sévérin Béland: I agree with my hon.
friend.


Robert James Manion: There has been no disposition to hold up this bill or the other bills. I call attention to this because some unfair statements were made in that connection. I believe most of us have no other desire than to deal with these bills affecting the soldiers in an absolutely fair and non-partisan manner. I say that of the minister as well as of ourselves. I do not think that we should try to use it as a political club at all, and I wanted to be put on record in this matter once again. I am very pleased to know that the minister absolutely agrees with that statement.
Schedule A agreed to.


Mr. GOULD:: I wish to introduce something which may be a little foreign to the bill, but if I am in order now-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: It cannot be introduced here. We are now on the schedules.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand my hon.
friend wants to make a few remarks.


Oliver Robert Gould: I do not know at what other point I could very well introduce them. I wanted to ask the minister's opinion upon this question: A soldier, a transient passing through a municipality, becomes ill and is taken off the train. He is attended to by a local doctor, who prescribes that he should immediately go to the hospital. The soldier goes to the hospital and is taken care of there, but he dies and is buried. The hospital, of course, desires to know where it is going to get its remuneration from, and it threatens action against the municipality from which this soldier was directed by the local doctor. What is the solution of a problem of that nature? I wish to say that I have a case in point in my own municipality, and I wondered if the minister has ever had a similar case before him, and if provision has been made for cases of that kind. I argue that the hospital authorities should not go without their remuneration, and that the municipality is not liable. This man served overseas, and he was without means. I think some provision should be made to take care of such cases.

Toronto Harbour Commissioners


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would only say it is a matter of attributability or occurrence during service. If the soldier who is suddenly taken ill and is taken to the hospital suffers from a disease which can be related to his war service, the government bears the whole charge of his treatment, and also of his burial if he is in destitute circumstances. In the other case, I do not know who is responsible, but surely not the government, and I am only concerned about the government at the present time.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would he come under the Last Post fund?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I was just coming to that. If he is in destitute circumstances, the Last Post fund provides for his burial expenses.


Oliver Robert Gould: May I take it, then, that the government recommends this municipality to take this case up direct with the government?


Henri Sévérin Béland: They may bring in the
case at any time.
On schedule B.


John Arthur Clark: I would like to ask a question at this point that I should have asked earlier, with regard to widowed mothers. I have in mind the case of a widowed mother who unquestionably was supported by her son. His whole assigned pay went to the widowed mother. His wife was living at the same time, but she did not get his assigned pay. That man dies and the pension is paid to the widow. Now prior to the introduction of these amendments that widowed mother could not receive a pension except a very small amount, I have forgotten just how much-


Henri Sévérin Béland: 


John Arthur Clark: -because of the fact that another pension had been awarded. Is a case like that covered by these amendments? Can that widowed mother who was unquestionably supported by the son receive a pension?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sorry to say that is not covered by the present amendments. The act in this regard remains what it was.
Schedule B agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
The House in committee on Bill No. 42, to amend the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act, 1911.-Mr. Church-Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Mr. CAHILL:: I think the hon. member
in charge of the bill should explain what it is about.


Thomas Langton Church: The object of this bill is to amend the original powers of the commission ratified by this parliament in 1911 by adding thereto these three sections. At Sunnyside, in the western part of the city between the Humber river to Sunnyside there has been erected on filled in lands a park and playground for the people of the city of Toronto, solely at the expense of the city. No government money has been spent on this project or playground. The amount involved is a little over three million dollars for the boulevard, driveway reclamation and buildings.
There are two parties to this bill; one is the city council, which supplied the money to the harbour commission on the bonds of the harbour commission, guaranteed by the city; so that it is all civic money involved. The government built a breakwater there and made the expenditure for it themselves. I may say that when the act was passed previous ' to this the people voted on this whole harbour proposition and approved of it. Fifty per cent of the money was expended for the park and boulevard scheme by the harbour commission and fifty per cent by the city. There are twelve miles of waterfront, and the commission bought out and obtained control of this whole waterfront, to be used for the benefit of the public forever. Half of the whole scheme was industrial and half park.
The sole object of the bill is to validate the expenditures of one unit at Sunnyside. The cost of the park and recreation grounds has been paid by the city. The people as I said, voted on the project and approved of it. This bill was presented to the city council and passed unanimously by that body. The Private Bills committee went into the whole matter 'and passed the bill unanimously.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: According to the law
the harbour commissioners are under the supervision and control of the Department of

Toronto Harbour Commissioners
Marine and Fisheries. Has this bill been submitted to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and has it been approved of?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows bills are never submitted to the departments. They would be referred at the request, I presume, of the minister of the appropriate department to the appropriate committee. I think that has been done in this case.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
knows all bills concerning harbour commissions are public bills introduced by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and I see by the annotation that this is an amendment to chapter 26 of the statutes of 1911, which is a public statute. This is a private bill purporting to amend a public bill. I do not say that there is anything wrong about it, but I think it should at least have been submitted to the department under which all harbour commissions come.


Thomas Langton Church: Might I explain, for the
benefit of the minister, that the Department of Marine and Fisheries are consulted only where their work actually is and that is out on the harbour proper, or as affecting navigation. This work is on the shore and it has always belonged to the city. It is all on unimproved land owned by the city. We have filled it in and carried out a nice park scheme. The minister, I think, has been there and has seen the work. The harbour commission was reconstituted in 1911 when the government made an arrangement whereby three commissioners are appointed by the city council and two by the government. The city spends its own money through this harbour board. The Dominion government spends its money outside of the harbour on the local water through the Public Works department. This particular bill is just a validation of what has been done at Sunnyside by the city on its own lands through the harbour commission. The Department of Marine and Fisheries are consulted, and in every case they have given their approval of every bit of the work done in their own field, which is out on the actual waterfront. This is purely a park scheme at Sunnyside west of the exhibition grounds. The land and the money spent all belong to the city. The whole harbour programme was submitted to the various government departments and the whole scheme has been approved from time to time. They are heartily in favour of it. Sunnyside is a great picnic ground and park centre for the people of Toronto. The reason we come here is to vali-

date to 'let the government know that we are partners with them in this scheme. Although this has not cost the government a single cent, we are here to let the government know what we are and have been doing ourselves on the city end of it.


Frank S. Cahill: I would suggest that the
hon. member allow the bill to stand until the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) is in his place. It seems unreasonable that this bill should be pressed forward tonight. It appears to be a matter pertaining to the harbour commission of Toronto and the minister is not present. This comes under the Harbour Commissioners Act. If the bill is all right, there is no doubt the minister would approve it. If it is not all right, it should not be rushed through without notice. _


Arthur Meighen: The minister must know what the system is. There is someone in the department whose business it is to watch any legislation, private or otherwise, affecting that department. This applies everywhere. Certainly, the minister, having learned of this bill, would have taken steps to have had objection. taken to it before the committee if the department had any objection. It is hardly fair to ask the hon. member to postpone his bill because the minister is not here. It is not his fault that the minister is not here. On its face, the bill does not appear to be one in which the Department of Marine and Fisheries would be concerned, for the reason that it affects such portion of the harbour commission's work as is carried on wholly out of Toronto money and not out of public money at all.


Frank S. Cahill: Is the public money and
Toronto money not put into the same fund?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I am familiar
with this undertaking. This particular phase of the work is something which was entered upon as a civic improvement. Some people in Toronto think-and they are in the majority at the present time-it is better that it should be handled through a commission instead of through the city council, and the city council spends its money in connection with this Sunnyside improvement through the harbour board, the council having confidence in the harbour board. The reason why this bill is brought into this House is very simple. The commissioners have gone ahead as they have, thinking they had every legal right to do it, acting, as they were, as trustees for the city and spending municipal money, and

Toronto Harbour Commissioners
have done the work. The works are there. The amusements go on, the harbour board collecting the revenues and rentals. The question was raised whether they had any legal right to do this. What we are doing here is merely legalizing what is already done, and we are doing it, as hon. gentlemen will see, in connection with a matter which has absolutely nothing to do with Dominion activities. The harbour board are chosen, not because they are the harbour board, but because they are a body of men in whom the municipality has confidence, and their actions in running this park have absolutely nothing to do with their jurisdiction as a harbour board. But as they are the creation of the Dominion, if there be any question as to their legal powers, this is the proper place to come.


Mr. MURDOCK:: My hon. friend might
have noticed in a very prominent paper the other day great criticism of the government for the money which had been and is now being expended in assisting to create and maintain an amusement park at Sunnyside for the people of Toronto. My hon. friend may be entirely right in saying that no federal money is being spent on this project, but my judgment has always been that this is a part of the general harbour improvement scheme of the city of Toronto and that a fair proportion of federal money has been expended from the Humber down to the old fort.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What paper was that? I should like to have a look at it.


James Murdock: My recollection is that
it was the Montreal Gazette, or the Standard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would be
the Standard.


James Murdock: It is a constant criticism. I am not complaining, but my understanding is-and I think if my hon. friend inquires a little more closely, he will find I am right- that some public money has been spent there in filling up the property.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The federal aid has not been sufficient to look after the harbour itself. The city has spent, prior to the present time, more money than the government has, and city moneys are going into the harbour proper which ought to be entirely a government expense. As regards government money, the government contract is not even implemented. As a result of concessions of land and the undertaking of responsibility by the municipalities, there is the government's straight contract that a bridge is to be built to the island, making that island useful. This has not been done. Instead of the government having spent more money in Toronto than Toronto is entitled to for harbour improvements, the fact is that the government has not implemented its promises. The contract still stands, and the fact is that, instead of spending too little money, if anything Toronto has spent far too much.


James Murdock: Is it not a fact that
there is just one Toronto harbour improvement scheme running from the Humber to Scarborough and including the entire shore line of Toronto, and that the works at Sunnyside are a part of that improvement scheme?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend thinks that a merry-go-round is part of a harbour improvement, he is quite right; but nobody except my hon. friend would ever think that a merry-go-round, switch-backs and bathing houses are part of a harbour improvement. This is something which is super-added entirely by the municipality at its own expense. The only reason it is connected with the harbour matter is, as I have already explained, that the harbour board is a body of men doing work in the vicinity whom the city council think, are better able to look after this work than the city itself.


Thomas Langton Church: Since confederation the
government has assumed responsibility for the shore protection of the harbour at Toronto, and off Sunnyside erected a breakwater. The city paid the entire cost of the park and filling. The government has spent, since 1867, only 86,000,COO or $7,000,000 on Toronto harbour and the revenue from concessions in this park annually is between $90,000 and $100,000.
Some legal advisers were of opinion that it was not necessary to come to parliament for an amendment such as is here proposed to the Harbour Act of 1911; they thought that there was power enough in the act to enable the commissioners to go on with the work. But some doubt was raised a short time ago and it was thought better to apply for an amendment to clear up any doubt in the matter. The words in the statute of 1911 enabled the commissioners to " hold, develop, maintain and improve " the place and it was thought that in these four words they had the power to go ahead. This bill is simply declaratory; the object is to make the act perfectly clear. The breakwater at Sunnyside was constructed by the government itself, but there was nothing behind the breakwater at all; and so far as the actual amusement park is concerned the newspaper quoted is entirely in error; the government has not contributed a cent to its creation and upkeep.
2864	COMMONS
Toronto Harbour Commissioners
Sunnyside beach is situated at the extreme west end of the city and extends along the lake shore from the Humber river on the west to Wilson avenue on the east, a distance of one and a half miles. It contains about 120 acres of land all of which has been reclaimed. Through this area runs a boulevard drive fifty feet wide and a lake shore promenade twenty-four feet wide. The bathing pavilion is a concrete structure four hundred feet by one hundred and twelve feet and has accommodation for 7,700 bathers at one time. The amusement resort contains restaurants and refreshment booths, band stands, dodgem, frolic, whip, old mill, Sunny-side racer, aero swing, merry-go-round, shooting gallery, games, guess weighing machines, putting green and baseball diamond. All concessions are under the control of the harbour commissioners, they are leased to concessionaires at a nominal rental plus a percentage of the gross receipts. With the exception of the bathing pavilion, all the concessions are operated by the lessees who have already expended upwards of $500,000 on amusement devices and buildings. Nearly four millions have been spent on park and driveway, filling and boulevard.
Altogether, this is one of the finest amusement parks to be found in any city of the same size on the continent. The people voted on the whole harbour bill, and as I have already said this amendment to the 1911 act is only declaratory legislation; it is merely intended to clear up the intention of the statute of 1911. I hope that there will be no difficulty about passing the bill. The lands were filled in before the breakwater was constructed as a whole. The commissioners get no salary. They were working to get control of the waterfront for the public.


Charles Gavan Power: Who paid for the ground which is now used for amusements. Was it paid for with the money of the federal government?


Thomas Langton Church: It was the city's money. The government paid for the breakwater.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, do I understand that the breakwater was paid for with federal money?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: I understand further that
the merry-go-round and the other amusements situated behind the breakwater could not have been put up unless the breakwater had previously been built. If I am not right in that statement I wish to be corrected. Am I wrong?
IMr. Church.]


Mr. SHEARD:: Yes. As this is in my
riding perhaps I might foe permitted to say a word about it. The government and the city collectively constructed the breakwater and the city did the filling in behind. That is how the thing started. The city then went on filling in and improving the land and they spent a lot of money; the government did not spend any money at all on this. The money was taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers of the city-money that was wasted. Why. even the tops of a farm were brought down to make a top dressing for a Parkdale boulevard and bathing ground, and when they got it finished it was inhabited principally by Jews. The Jews occupied it and even put a sign up, something to this effect, "After the war we gave you Palestine; for Heaven's sake let us have Sunmyside." The city found itself in possession of a large acreage of ground but it had not the power either to lease or to sell it or to establish any permanent improvement. All that this bill contemplates and all it asks is to validate the city in the power to lease this property made by the filling in of the land behind the breakwater, and to establish thereon amusements suitable to a sumlmer resort; and to loan money to any corporation or company that might operate there. That is all there is to it. Not a dollar of government money has gone into the park to which this bill relates. We simiply ask that the old act .foe so amended that the city shall have that power; otherwise the place will remain a grass plot. They cannot get anyone to occupy it because they cannot give a lease long enough to make it worth while for people to construct any merry-go-rounds or amusement buildings that are required to make the thing a going concern. There is no harm whatever in the bill; there is no liability on the part of the government, although there is a considerable liability on the part of the local taxpayers. I ask that the bill be passed. The council have agreed on the matter; and although the original bill which my hon. friend brought down was a very serious one they have modified it now, having come to a satisfactory decision among themselves. I think they have produced a bill which is absolutely innocent and as reasonable as we could hope the present council of the city of Toronto could draw up having regard to the taxpayers. Hon. gentlemen need have no hesitation about passing the bill; and the trepidation of my hon. friend (Mr. Power) is, I was going to say, altogether sectional.

Toronto Harbour Commissioners


Charles Gavan Power: I think I am entitled to receive the congratulations of the House on having drawn out my hon. friend (Mr. Sheard) who has made an able, lucid explanation of the manner in which the Toronto city council had arranged to settle any disputes that might have arisen over those which took place at Geneva in the League of Nations. The Toronto city council has, I think, dealt with a question which has been disturbing, one might almost say, the peace of nations for several centuries; and it has dealt with that question well: It has placed the Jews in one of the best parts of Toronto. But I do not think that this answers all the objections which I was about to raise, one of which was that this amusement park could not have been constructed had not the federal government first furnished the funds for a breakwater behind which the city filled in and laid out playgrounds. As to the other objection, I may be mistaken in this portion of my remarks when I say that I understand that the harbour commissioners of Toronto receive a certain remuneration for their services.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Gavan Power: Do they give their services
gratuitously?


Charles Sheard: They all do, but I do not know whether the chairman gets anything or not. But he is here; you can ask him.


Charles Gavan Power: To judge from the work
which that hon. gentleman does on behalf of the city of Toronto and Toronto harbour in this House I should think he ought to be handsomely paid. Of course if the commissioners are not paid, my remarks have no bearing on the subject. I was about to object to the harbour commissioners, paid by the federal government, devoting any of their time to collecting money for amusements. But I think my original objection still remains, that the federal government have indirectly, and possibly very directly, contributed largely to a work which, after all, is not in the public interest of the Dominion, that is to say, the placing of a bathing beach for the use of certain well-known and highly respected citizens of Canada residing in the city of Toronto. One of the principal characteristics of those citizens is that they certainly are able to look after themselves financially-usually they take everything in a financial way that is not nailed down, and I do not know just why the other citizens of Canada should be called upon to contribute to their enjoyment.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman, in answer
to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr Power), let me say that the whole shore line where this particular breakwater is built was being washed away every season. This work was constructed, in part, by the Dominion government, the estimates being passed in this House in the way that we would vote estimates for work in any other part of the Dominion where the federal government is responsible. Inasmuch as the breakwater was built to protect not only the shore line but also the main line of the old Grand Trunk -now the Canadian National-and the vacant -space was there to be filled in, why not put it to some use so that revenue could be derived from it? I do not for one moment think that it is to the credit of the hon. gentleman to cast reflections on honourable men, whether harbour commissioners in the city of Quebec or in the city of Toronto, who many times during each week, year in and year out, give of their services for the benefit of their native towns. If my hon. friend will just glance back over the last ten or twelve years since these harbour commissioners have been giving their services freely for the benefit of their communities-


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask what reflection
I cast on any harbour commissioners?


Joseph Henry Harris: If he will bear in mind
those harbour commissioners, I think he will agree with me that they are gentlemen of the very highest calibre not only in the city of Quebec but also in the city of Toronto.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, may I ask-


Joseph Henry Harris: Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that at the present time in the city of Toronto the gentlemen of Liberal leanings who are on the harbour commission of that city are, in my opinion, deserving of a great deal of credit not only from the citizens of Toronto but also from the members of the Liberal party who occupy the treasury benches.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman-


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
compete with my hon. friend in volume of


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The Minister of Justice has the floor.	[DOT]


Charles Gavan Power: I had risen to a point of
order, Mr. Chairman, and I appeal to the House.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The hon. Minister of Justice has the floor at the present time.
Canada Highways Act


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, I appeal to
the House, I had risen to a point of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: All right, there is a
proper way to appeal to the House. The Minister of Justice has the floor.


Charles Gavan Power: I appeal to the House.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is a proper way to appeal to the House. If the hon. member wishes to take that course he may do so. Shall clause 1 carry?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry if I am responsible for this little storm. I have nothing to say against the principle of the bill, I think the object in view is a good one; but I think it is an unusual course to amend a public bill by way of private legislation. With the understanding that this will not constitute a precedent for the future, I have nothing more to say.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Playgrounds, Sunnyside.
Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Chairman, what is the
meaning of the latter part of this clause with regard to the power of expenditure, "either partly for themselves and partly for the commissioners"? That will not entail any liability on the part of the Dominion as far as their expenditure is concerned?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, it does not form part of that work at all.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, may I be
permitted now to make the remarks which you, in your wisdom or otherwise, decided I could not make a moment ago? I wish to point out to the committee that I had made no reflection whatsoever on the harbour commissioners of Toronto, and therefore the remarks of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Harris) were entirely uncalled for. I wish also to say that I was on my feet and only desired to interrupt the hon. member for that purpose and for no other.


Mr. DUFF:: It seems to me that before
this bill was introduced it should have been referred to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) for consideration.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Mr. Chairman, I may
say that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries considered this matter very carefully. A deputation from the city of Toronto waited upon him and were received most courteously, naturally so of course, and they concluded that he thought this request was a very reasonable one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[The Chairman.]
On section 3-Use of lands, amusement areas and so forth.
Mr. MARTELL:: Mr. Chairman, do I
understand it to be laid down as a principle that no private member can introduce a bill to amend a public statute? It is always done in the legislature of my own province. It does not create any precedent at all.


Arthur Meighen: This is a private bill, not a public bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Any private member
may introduce a public bill for the purpose, but this is a private bill.


Lewis Herbert Martell: With all due deference
to the hon. Minister of Justice, I submit that a private member may introduce a bill to amend a public statute.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely, but he does it
by way of a public bill.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member is right; it seems to me this bill should be in public bills and orders. But I do not want to raise the point. I rise to 'ask where clause 3 is. It is not in the bill here.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is in the reprint,
which will be found on the file immediately following the original bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 68, to extend the period of The Canada Highways Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Operation extended.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my
hon. friend was to give us some information as to the work yet to be done.


Mr. GRAHAM:: When the resolution was
before the House I promised the hon. member for West York that I would give him the figures with regard to work under contract yet to be done in Ontario. The following will give that information:
Project No. 4.-Kingston to Brockville, $16,545.20.
Percentage of work done, 84 per cent.
Project No. 5.-Brockville to Prescott, $23,804.90. Percentage of work done, 74 per cent.	.
Project No. 6.-Prescott to Ottawa, $58,000. Percentage of work done, 68 per cent.
Project No. 33.-Ottawa to Pt. Fortune, $120,000. Percentage of work done, 54 per cent.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
This expenditure is now being audited. Forty per cent of these amounts will be payable under the act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we got
most of the other figures on the previous discussion. The minister can assure the committee that no further government commitments are involved; that all that is done is to extend the time for two years?


George Perry Graham: Yes, that is all. It is
hoped that at the expiration of the two years all the provinces will have earned the amounts allotted to them under the Highways Act.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 69, respecting the construction o>f a line of railway forming part of the Canadian National railways between Turtleford and a point in township 48, range 12, west of the third meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Arthur Meighen: As this is the first of
the branch lines bills of the session, I think it would be appropriate if the minister would give us a review of the work actually accomplished after the passing of the acts of last session, in the west if not elsewhere, and review the claims of this bill with special reference to the objections raised to it which resulted in its defeat last year in the other House.


George Perry Graham: The information which
my right hon. friend asks for was laid on the table at the opening of the session.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I know; the amount done was about $1,650,000 worth all over Canada. But where was it done, and why was it not possible to get more done?


George Perry Graham: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister be kind enough to read to the House the report of the management on the construction of this line?
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


George Perry Graham: The memorandum is as
follows:
Turtleford S.E., Mile 0-67.	Cost.
Grade now ahead of track-23 miles.
Proposed in 1925-20 miles grade; 30 miles
track	 $ 755,000
Proposed in 1926-24 miles grade; 37 miles track; 67 miles ballast	 1,116,000


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it would help us all if we were to get some idea from the minister as to really what will be done this year, whether this work will go on this year or what is to happen. Very often we make far better progress by not having too big a programme. The programme 9 p.m. the country had already before it in building branch lines, evidently from the results shown, and I think everybody knows it, was altogether too big a programme. Now, is this work to be gone on with this year? If it is, what other work is to be displaced? How much money is to be spent altogether this year? What commitments are we to look forward to in connection with our branch line construction this year? Generally, cannot we get some business idea of the situation?


George Perry Graham: I will read again to my
hon. friend what it is proposed to do on this line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have had
that information on every single project brought down to this House, and if we had carried out what was told the members of this House in 1923, and again in 1924, we would have had completed lines by this time. It is all very well to bring these statements from official sources and say that these things will be done, but we all know they will not. There is a limit to the work the system can look after, and what I wanted was to see if we cannot get some solid, definite idea of what work will be done, and what finance ought to be supplied in connection with the whole branch lines programme.


George Perry Graham: I am bringing these bills
down early in order that some branch line construction can be done this year, and the sooner we get them through both Houses- and this is why I am urging so strongly that we make as rapid progress as possible-the greater the amount of work that can be done; but if the bills do not get through till July, then by the time the company gets around to start construction, we probably will interfere with the farmers in their labour requirements. There is a good deal of friction as to the labour for the railways and the labour required on the farms, and if we have to come here every year for every branch line the autumn is soon frittered away without much being done. But if we can get our short programme for this year through in a week or two, the company

C.AT.R.-Branch Lines
would practically have the summer to make a start. Heretofore they have not had a very great length of time to work. The bills, so far as I know at the present time, are all before us, and hon. members can see by looking at the order paper what the programme is and what is intended to be done. I give the House the full information as given to me, as to what the companies expect to do, but they will have to get a fairly early start in order to accomplish it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like
to know, if the minister is clear about it, what the company thinks about it and what they intend to do. I think it was in 1923 or 1924 that we heard letters read from the president as to the necessity or advisability of the line; and then officials who had to do with these lines were examined, and we found they were absolutely and entirely against them. Instead of wanting to build the lines they advised against them. I refer to the people on the ground. The hon. gentleman will remember the case.


George Perry Graham: I do not remember the
case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Radville
case. All you have to do is to turn up the examination of these officials. There are other cases besides that one. There is no question about the facts.


Arthur Meighen: And the Kamloops case.


George Perry Graham: I do not remember it, I
am sure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister
says that the proper locating engineers have gone over the line, have agreed to it and say that it is going on and that it is proper, I do not want to hold it up. But I do not want-as happened in another case-to find out that the House had acted in error, when we thought we were acting on what the gentlemen in charge of the work considered should be done, but what was found out afterwards to be absolutely wrong.


George Perry Graham: I am not going over that
matter again, but I am anxious the contractor should get at the work early. This line has been looked over not once, but twice or three times. This is the third time the Canadian National board has asked that this line be constructed, and I think I have read a fairly succinct and distinct statement why the board thinks it should be constructed.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the real author
of the statement my hon. friend read? Is it Sir Henry Thornton, or some other official?


George Perry Graham: It was sent to me by the officials of the Canadian National board, accompanying a copy of the bill itself. I suppose it is from the engineers; it is from prominent officials of the railway, giving the reasons for this construction.


Arthur Meighen: The statement which was read, as far as I could catch it, did not contain any definite, final recommendation. It did not say that the board felt it would be a paying line, and that they were anxious to have it built. Last year this House was placed in a position which was wholly unmerited. We had read to us on the authority of the president a recommendation that this line should be constructed, and that this line and the other line should be built. Then the officers of the president went before committees elsewhere and took stands in no way consistent with the general recommendation which had been made.


Frank S. Cahill: Where was that?


Arthur Meighen: Just a few feet from here. They gave a clear intimation that they did not feel the road should be built.


George Perry Graham: Who?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The locating
engineers.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, Mr. Macleod and
Mr. Ruel also.


George Perry Graham: He is not the manager
of the road.


Arthur Meighen: He is pretty close to the president.


George Perry Graham: He knows something about the affairs of the railway.


Arthur Meighen: We appeared before
others who were dealing with the question as giving very little attention to the legislation which we passed, because we acted too hastily on a general recommendation. I think the minister would find some interesting evidence if he would read the statements made by officers of the company before a committee of the other House.


Mr. DAVIES:: Having the honour of representing the constituency through which the proposed railway will run, if it happens to pass the Senate this year, and knowing the country as intimately as I do, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that that road should be built. I have lived in that part of the
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

country now for over eighteen years and I know the inhabitants and settlers intimately. They opened up that country between forty and fifty miles from the city of North Battle-ford away back in 1905, and they were promised when they went into the Rabbit lake country, that if they would only go in there and open up the country, within a year or two they would have railway communication. That country was opened up with a first-class type of settler, Englishmen, Scotchmen, Irishmen, Canadians and Americans very largely. Time after time their hopes of railway communication have been dashed to the ground. Somehow or other the official promises that were given were not kept, and a few of the settlers started to leave the country after building up a decent home to live in. They found out that it was utterly impossible for them, under conditions before the war, to raise farm produce and market it when they had to haul it a distance of anywhere from forty-five to sixty miles. Last winter when I was in the city of North Battle-ford I saw one man coming in with two loads of wheat from a distance of over sixty-five miles. The wheat was grown in a country the crops of which were better than seventy-five per cent of the crops in northern Saskatchewan. In the year 1912-13, I think it was, the provincial government were so convinced that this was a necessary road that they guaranteed the bonds for some forty miles, and the proceeds of those bonds are applicable to a part of the line provided for in the bill at the present time.
When the war broke out the settlers in that country did not for one moment keep agitating for the railway. Instead of that practically every young man in that country enlisted, went overseas and fought at the front, and many a schoolhouse in that district to-day has a little brass tablet on the wall placed there in memory of the boys who went to the front and gave all for their country. After the war the question of railway construction again became a paramount one. The Canadian Northern Railway had promised to build into that district, and as I said a moment ago, their bonds had been guaranteed. In the year 1920 the Canadian Pacific Railway applied for a charter to build a road from Cory, near Saskatoon, to Birch lake, practically paralleling the proposed Canadian Northern road the whole way. A strong deputation of gentlemen from that district came down here prepared to support the application of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but the hon. gentleman who represented that constituency at that time, acting I be-
lieve under pressure of the government of that day, fought very strenuously against the Canadian Pacific Railway getting the charter. The Hon. Dr. Reid, who was Minister of Railways at that time, told that deputation personally that if the Canadian Pacific Railway did not get their charter the Canadian National Railways would immediately start in to build that road from Turtleford to Hafford, upon the branch line running from North Battleford to Prince Albert. The deputation, after putting up a strenuous fight, went away satisfied that Dr. Reid would carry out his promise and I understand that he did. Contracts were let for, I think, forty miles, but only twenty-three miles of the grade were completed. The reason I understand that more was not done was that labour at that time was very difficult to get, wages were very high and, as the contractor has told me several times, it was a practical impossibility for him to get enough labour to fulfil the whole of his contract. In another chamber la^t year an hon. gentleman, in seconding the resolution that this bill should be laid over for another year practically said that this work had been given in that country to help out the settlers because they had no work to do. Probably that hon. gentleman was misinformed by someone or another because the contractor told me an entirely different story. During the second session after this government came into power, they brought in a bill covering a number of branch lines and we know the fate that befell that bill. Last year this was brought in as a separate bill and to the astonishment, I think, of hon. members, this bill was again defeated. During the various stages which this bill took both in this House and in the railway committee last year, not one objection or argument was put forward against it.	I hope this year it will receive the
support of every hon. member in this House and that the Senate will see its way clear to let the bill for this railway go through.
I should like to say a word or two about the country because I know it intimately. The country through which this railway goes is one of the best districts in northwestern Saskatchewan. The twenty-three miles that have already been graded have been graded through the very roughest part of the whole line. We hear a good deal about mixed farming at the present time and this is an ideal district for mixed farming. There is something in that district which is unique in western Canada. Let me give this illustration to show hon. members the type of men and women who are farming there. A man

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
has gone in there and established a creamery which is fifty miles away from a railway depot. He is making good, and last year at this point, fifty miles away from a railway, he turned out over 100,009 pounds of butter. That shows the type of country this is and the type of men who are settling there. These men and women are well nigh hopeless of getting railway accommodation, and I get letters from them day after day. Last year after the session was over I travelled all through that country, and to the very best of my ability I pleaded with those men and women to stay and try it out for one more year because I believed this year the railway would come to a successful fruition. They *have spent in that district over $150,000 on roads, and the roads are good. You can go all through that district with a car and you will not be stuck in mud holes or anything else. The whole district has been organized into school districts. In some parts of it we have a foreign population, and these boys and girls are being brought up and educated to the true ideals of British citizenship. I would plead with hon. members of this House and, from my place here, with hon. members of the Senate at least to give this railway to these men and women who have had the grit and determination to stay in that district. The type of country is such that neither this government nor the provincial government has yet had to give a dollar's worth of relief to those settlers. We do not owe any money in that district for seed grain and relief. Relief has been granted in exceptional cases, but the local municipalities themselves have always successfully financed their own affairs. They have granted their own relief and they have paid for seed grain for their settlers. Once more, I do hope that this bill will have a successful passage through this House and through the Senate. If any people in this country have earned and deserve the right to railway communication, the people in that district certainly have.
Sir HENRY DRA.YTON: The last time the bill for this line went through this House, it went through without any discussion at all. It was taken as read. There was no objection except that it ought to be in the estimates. It is a good thing that we should have a little discussion on it now, so that it cannot be said that the House was entirely asleep when it passed this legislation. I have been greatly impressed by what my hon. friend (Mr. Davies) has said. The great thing we want in connection with these branch line bills is to have the lines built where they are really needed, not in places where there
are other lines, nor where they are not a crying necessity. As a matter of fact, it is a crime to build a railway where it is not absolutely a crying necessity. My view is that where you have agricultural land as you have it in the west, there comes a point beyond which no one should be asked to haul grain or produce or anything else. This is not any new view. I have always held it. The hon. member has shown-and my recollection bears him out and it is by reason of that recollection that I did not oppose this bill last year-that farmers there are hauling their produce, I think he said, sixty-two miles. I have always felt that any haul in the west involving more than a day is a haul which cannot be looked upon as practical or economic, and I still maintain that view. Here we have a place where the haul is very heavy. Hon. gentlemen to my left say that a ten-mile haul is sufficient. No, we can do with longer hauls than that in the west and the west does not mind that. The people of the west are willing to take their produce greater distances as long as they can do the one thing which is necessary, and that is, make farming pay. To do that they must be able to look after that haul in a day. That I look upon as an absolute minimum of railway accommodation which we should try to give them. These oases of real necessity ought to be looked after, and if we look after too much, we are in peril of not properly looking after them. We should be very sure in connection with every railway project, first, that the line is not a political line, second, that it is a proper construction in the public interest. I see no reason why this bill should not pass.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Certificate of minister as to mileage.
Arthur Meighen: Is this the same wording as was used last year?


George Perry Graham: It is the same thing
exactly except for section 2 which provides for the utilization of trust funds in the province of Saskatchewan.


Arthur Meighen: Does it include the
amendments which were made by this House and the Senate?


George Perry Graham: This is a copy of the
amended bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
George Perry Graham: We intend to follow the
custom of last year and refer all these bills to the committee on Railways and Canals as if they were the bills of a company and not under government control.
Bill reported.



REGINA-AVONLEA

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from May 1, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Hon. Mr. Graham Mr. Gordon in the chair:
Resolved, (1) That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction or completion prior to the thirty-first day of August, 1927, of a line of railway from a point about five miles south of Regina to Avonlea in the province of Saskatchewan, by the Canadian National Railway Company;
(2)	That the company may issue notes, notes, bonds
and securities in respect of the said construction, and the Governor in Council may authorize the guarantee thereof;	.
(3)	That provision be made for the issue of certificates
as to mileage by the minister, but neither the minister in the issuance of such certificates nor the company in the performance of the work of construction and completion or in the issue of its securities shall, unless by consent of parliament, exceed the estimated distance, expenditure and average expenditure per mile by more than fifteen per cent; and if upon final survey it appears to the company that the expenditure involved in the completion thereof will exceed the limits of expenditure estimated the company shall not commence nor proceed with the work without first obtaining the approval of parliament;	,
(4)	That the nature, terms and forms of securities to be issued and guaranteed shall be such as may be approved by the Governor in Council and signed by the Minister of Finance;
(5)	That to enable the work of completion of the said line of railway to proceed forthwith, the Governor in Council, pending the issue and disposal of such guaranteed securities, may authorize advances to be made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund, such advances to be reimbursed to His Majesty from the proceeds of the sale or other disposition of such securities;
(6)	That the minister shall annually present to parliament a statement of the work and expenditure, advances and amount of advances reimbursed, and all such other information as he shall require or direct.

[Stage Direction]
Location from a point about five miles south of Regina to Avonlea, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Mileage already graded-Nil.
Estimates-
Mileage including existing grading, 33.
To be expended, $941,000.
Average expenditure per mile, $28,515.
At a recent sitting of the House this resolution was in committee but no action was taken on it, progress being reported. I understood that a few gentlemen particularly in this corner of the House wished to discuss it and it was thought wise not to go further with the matter then. These bills will all be referred to the committee on Railways and Canals, but perhaps it is just as well to have that discussion now. I have no objection to having

the matter considered and that is why it was postponed on the previous occasion.
Oliver Robert Gould: Who are the promoters of
the bill?


George Perry Graham: The Canadian National
board made a certain agreement with the city of Regina in regard to some outstanding differences, agreeing to give their reasonable support to the city in the construction of this line. Among other things, a hotel was projected by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway some years ago in the city of Regina and that hotel was partly constructed. The Canadian National did not wish to go on with the completion of it and, reasonably I might say, the government did not wish to encourage them to carry it out. Certain streets had been closed by the city for the railway, and certain properties had been given; arrangements had been made for the construction of a station, and all that sort of thing. In order to abrogate the whole agreement that had been made between the city and the Grand Trunk Pacific, this new agreement was arrived at as a sort of clearing house of all differences, and the Canadian National recommended this bill in pursuance of their promise to give reasonable support to the wishes of the city for the construction of the line.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister is no doubt
aware that one of the best hotels in Regina was sold under the hammer since this recommendation was made to him.


George Perry Graham: That is all the more reason why we should not build the hotel.


Mr. McTAGGART:: This is a most extraordinary proposal. The only justification for this line of railway seems to be the fact that a certain railway company in the past defaulted in the construction of a hotel. I think thait probably the minister knows of some other reason for building this road and I should like to hear it.


George Perry Graham: Now I will give the additional reason; I felt sure that what I said a moment ago was what hon. gentlemen wanted to know first. The statement I made first was in reply to the question as to who was the promoter of the line. The following memorandum explains the question-the clause an regard to the hotel I will not read, having already explained it:
It is proposed in 1925 to call for tenders for grading if possible, to be completed during that year, at an estimated cost of approximately $397 000, including right of way, and so on. In 1926, it is intended to lay the track, ballast the line and generally complete it at an estimated cost of $544,000 for the year.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
The line will run from Avonlea to a point on the Regina-Boundary branch, about five miles south of Regina.
The object of the line is to give a direct connection into Regina from the Gravelbourg branch, and also from the territory in the vicinity of Radville. It will also make saving to the railway in hauling grain off the Gravelbourg branch. In fulfilment of an agreement reached with the city of Regina, authority to construct this line is being sought in lieu of cancellation of an obligation contracted by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to construct and operate a hotel in the city of Regina.
The saving to the railway for short routing the grain is estimated at $27,000 per year. Not less than $1,500,000 would have been required to finish the proposed hotel in Regina which would have imposed a fixed charge of $75 ,000 per year; besides it is considered the hotel would have made an operating loss of some $50,000 per year. Against these savings of $152,000 are the fixed charges of the cost of the line of $47,050, the fixed maintenance of way of $29^700, and the annual cost of an interlocker with the Canadian Pacific Railway estimated at $5,000, or, a total of $81,750 per year, showing a net saving of about $70,250 per annum.
There would be something like 80,000 acres of territory, all of good farming land given closer railway connection, thus offering some assistance to farmers on the route.


Oliver Robert Gould: Has the minister looked over the map carefully to see where the road is running, so that he may give us his own judgment on this branch line?


Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Chairman, I am not personally interested in this district at all, but recently I received through the mail a map of it, and I may say that I am heartily in agreement with the principle laid down by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) as one that should govern the building of these lines-that the first consideration should be the placing of farmers within a reasonable distance of their market. As I looked over that map I was forced to the conclusion that there is absolutely no justification for the building of the line when there are so many other places that are very much removed from railway facilities. I know the minister (Mr. Graham) is not giving us reasons that seriously -weigh in his own mind why this line should be constructed, and I am confident its construction will not appeal to the members of this House.


Mr. HIOPKINS:: Mr. Chairman, it so happens that this line passes through the district that I have the honour to represent, so it may not be out of place for me to say a word or two in regard to it. I should like to discuss the railroad situation for one minute if the committee will bear with me. A system of centralization has grown up in Canada. Everything that it is possible to centralize in Montreal, is centralized there; if it slips by Montreal it is stopped at Toronto; if it slips by Toronto it goes to Winnipeg. But I
want to say to hon. gentlemen that that great territory between Winnipeg and the Rocky mountains, a thousand miles long and as wide as you like, is represented by men in this corner of the House who do not believe in centralization. We believe in decentralization. Transportation is our great problem in that country, and we want the long hauls for the carload lots and the short hauls for the expensive local freights.
Let me show you what they have done to us in years gone 'by. Fifteen years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway started a railroad from Weyburn to Lethbridge, a distance of 445 miles. They built the line within 25 miles of Lethbridge-no mean city and, the natural distributing point of that country-and then they said, "We have not got any money to go further." About the same time they started a line from Moose Jaw southward' that would strike the Lethbridge line at Assiniboia 111 miles west of Weyburn, but when they got within 15 miles they said, "We have got no more money we cannot complete it." The consequence was that for years we had to bring our coal, our lumber and our fruit 800 miles further than would have been necessary had that little gap been built. I say to members of this House, we do not like that kind of thing. A few years ago they started a line from Avonlea to Swift Current-another city of no mean pretensions. They got 122 miles built, and the members of this House have been fighting year after year to get that line extended to Swift Current, but always the answer is, "We have no money." For lack of that line being completed we have to switch all our lumber, all our fruit, all our cement and the hundred and one other things we need around by Avonlea, 150 miles further than would be necessary if they had put in that little kink. And now they ask for a line to go across to Regina, a million dollar line running right through my district, and a number of my constituents send me letters and telegrams saying, "Mr. Hopkins, support the line. We gave you a good vote last time." I will tell those people that we have got too many lines in too many places, and I will also tell them that they have been built because of just such letters being sent as those sent to me. I will tell them that I consider it a crime for me to support that line when there are people in that country drawing their grain for forty and fifty miles. I will tell them that if they put that line across that territory to Regina, that will be another million-dollar white elephant. We have put on six hundred of them in the last five years, and Canada cannot stand any

C.NJt.-Branch Lines

more. Now, I know that that is not going to get me any votes, but I am going to tell you that it is not necessary that I get votes, it is not necessary that I come back to this House, but it is necessary that some men in this country stand up like men and denounce such projects.


Mr. MORRISON:: Mr. Chairman, this
proposed line runs across one corner of the constituency which I represent, and I think perhaps I had better say a few words too, for fear I do not get all the votes I should. Now, the minister has not explained to us what, legal claim the city of Regina holds against the government to carry out the agreement of the Grand Trunk Pacific with the city. I think the government should show us that we are really legally obligated to the city in this matter. It is claimed that the Grand Trunk Pacific had agreed to build in the city a hotel. Now, the story of how that proposition was put on is, I think, very illuminating. A bunch of real estate men, back in the good old palmy days of 1910, 1911 and 1912, got together and secured an option on a lot of property around where the proposed hotel was to be built. Then they got busy in an effort to have the city of Regina bonus the Gland Trunk Pacific. Some other citizens in Regina who were not in on this scoop also got busy and showed that it was against the law of the province for a municipality to bonus any such project, and! they engaged a lawyer to institute proceedings for an injunction. But there were so many influential citizens in on this real estate scoop that they brought pressure to bear on the lawyer to drop the case, and before a legal man could be got from Moose Jaw or Winnipeg to take it up, the legislature passed a special act enabling the city of Regina to bonus the Grand Trunk Pacific. Then these enterprising people got busy, dug a hole up on Albert street and stuck up a framework of steel a mile away from where it should !be. That is as far as they proceeded with their hotel. Now.it is just such manipulation and unbusinesslike procedure as that which wrecked the Grand Trunk Pacific and some of our other railways, and if the government is going to proceed along the same course we shall be pulled down too. We have got to come to a stopping place.
_ There is no real necessity for this hotel, it has been abandoned, but to satisfy some citizens in Regina it is now proposed to build a line from Regina across to Avonlea. There is not a farmer in that district that has to go over twelve miles at the outside to a Station, and ten miles catches very nearly all 
of them. The country is all under cultivation, it is well served by railroads to-day, and there is no more necessity for this branch line than there is for the hotel, not a bit. It will take a let of trade away from Moose Jaw city and land it in Regina, but that would be no benefit to the district. That is not what we are here to look after. The Canadian National Railways have enough burdens to bear without our loading them up with another million-dollar liability. The minister said this line would give sendee to Radville. I received a letter from the Radville Board of Trade to-day asking me to protest with all my might against this line; Radville does not want it. I have not beard one elector say one word in favour of this proposed line; I did not hear about it at all until I came to Ottawa, and I do not think anybody is asking for it except a few men in the city of Regina. It has been said that where there is no actual necessity for a railway no work Should be done, and I heartily agree with that. I would ask the members to do all they can to stop this project right here and now.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am mot acquainted
with the location, of this road or of the necessity for it, but I cannot help thinking it is rather unfair that members who have railroads in their own constituencies Should discuss this matter in this way when the member for Regina (Mr. Motherwell) is not in the House. I imagine he is interested in it. I am only making the suggestion to the minister that it might be well. for the committee to rise and report progress so that the matter can be taken up again when the member for Regina is in his place.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. member not assuming too much? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) usually claims he is against the rest of the government.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I am entirely in accord with the statement that has been made in the committee to-night that those districts which 'are in the greatest need of railway facilities should receive the first attention. If it is true that there are other districts which need branch lines more than this one, why this discrimination? In view of what has been said by several members here to-night in regard to the needs of other districts, would the minister tell us why this district is getting preferred treatment?


Mr. LEWIS:: I have had quite a number
of telegrams from people in my district in support of this line; naturally they think they could get to Regina much more quickly if it

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
were built. But I am not in favour of the line; I think the money could be better spent if the construction was at the other end, from Neidpath to Swift Current. It would suit my people very much better.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur John Lewis: Hon. members laugh, but I
would point out that so far as coal is concerned it travels from Swift Current down to Moose Jaiw, to Avonlea, to Gravelbourg and to Neidpath-all the way round that district, a distance of nearly three hundred miles, whereas the district might be served by our Canadian National Railways running into Swift Current, a distance of twenty-five miles. There is a gap between Swift Current and the line which is proposed to be extended. Of course we cannot offer an amendment, but if the government can see fit to use this money for the building of this line, only on the other end, extending it into Swift Current, it would serve the whole of that district and would save the people there thousands of dollars yearly.


George Perry Graham: This is the most remarkable scene I have ever witnessed. I respect the feelings of hon. gentlemen more, perhaps, than they think. This resolution is going to canonize someone. R is the first time in my experience that anybody has objected1 to a line in his own vicinity. I feel that I do not want to be a party to crowding this thing on them, and in order that we may give it more consideration if necessary, I move that the committee rise and report progress.


William Findlay Maclean: What has the
minister to say about this discrimination in the matter of providing branch line facilities?


George Newcombe Gordon: The motion is not
debatable.
Progress reported.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the committee have leave to sit again?


Arthur Meighen: I was going to suggest,
Mr. Speaker, that the committee have leave to sit again when the Minister of Agriculture arrives.


George Perry Graham: I would not agree to any specific date, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, (1) That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction or completion prior to the thirty-first day of August, 1928, of a line of railway between Bengough and a point at or near Willowbunch, in the province of Saskatchewan, by the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the "National Company") and the Canadian Northern Railway Company (hereinafter called the "Northern Company"), jointly or severally;
(2)	That a part of the cost of such construction and completion, as specified approximately in the schedule hereto, shall be provided by the Northern Company from the proceeds of issues of debenture obligations heretofore made, and now standing, subject to certain trusts, to the credit of the Provincial Treasurer of the province of Saskatchewan (hereinafter called "trust funds"), and the balance, also as specified approximately in such schedule, shall be provided by the National Company. To enable such balance to be provided, the National Company may, subject to the provisions of the proposed act, issue notes, obligations, bonds and other securities (hereinafter called "securities"), and the Governor in Council may authorize the guarantee of the principal and interest of such securities. The said companies shall be authorized to take all necessary steps, jointly or severally, to enable the trust funds to be used as herein provided.
(3)	That provision be made for the issue of certificates as to mileage by the minister, and neither the minister in the issuance of such certificates, nor the said companies in the performance of the work of construction and completion, nor the National Company in the issue of its securities for the balance of cost after deducting trust funds available shall, unless by consent of parliament, exceed the estimated distance expenditure and average expenditure per mile, and the estimated amount of trust funds available, by more than fifteen per cent, and if upon final survey it appears to the said companies or either of them that the expenditure involved in the completion thereof will exceed the limits of expenditure estimated, the said companies shall not commence nor proceed with the work without first obtaining the approval of parliament;
(4)	That the nature, terms and form of securities to be issued and guaranteed in respect of the balance of money by the National Company shall be such as may be approved by the Governor in Council and signed by the Minister of Finance;
(5)	That to enable the work of completion of the said line of railway to proceed forthwith, the Governor in Council, pending the issue and disposal of any such guaranteed securities, may authorize advances to be made to the said companies, or either of them, from the consolidated revenue fund, such advances to be reimbursed to His Majesty from the first moneys available therefor;
(6)	That the minister shall annually present to parliament a statement of the work and expenditure, advances and amount of advances reimbursed, and all such other information as he shall require or direct.
183i
C.NJt.-Branch Lines

[Stage Direction]
Location	Mileage already graded	Estimates	Mileage including existing grading	To be expended	Average expenditure per mileFrom Bengough to a point at or near Willowbuneh, in the Province of Saskatchewan	
To be provided by the Northern Company from trust funds, as specified in Resolution 2 and pursuant to chapter 2 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1924, approximately	0	27	$ 945,000	$ 35,000400.000 545.000 $ 945,000	To be provided by the National Company as the balance of cost as specified in Resolution 2, approximately
Arthur Meighen: Perhaps before we go
into committee the Minister might inform the House whether the government is serious about this resolution; or is it only a try out, too?


George Perry Graham: This bill, like others, is a serious recommendation. The conditions of the other line were somewhat peculiar. I did not dream that nobody in the House wanted it. It was recommended in accordance with an agreement made by the Canadian National Railways with the city of Regina which agreement stated that the Canadian National Railway Company would give it reasonable support; and I submit that in recommending it they kept their contract.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the minister in connection with this line would give us a statement as to railway policy. We had this matter u,p two years aigo and again last year. There was a project very much favoured by the people of the district of extending the line from Bengouigh west. It was to run west, almost parallel, perhaps branching off a little to the southern boundary, a. distance, as I recollect it, of some eighty odd miles, which if constructed would have looked after farmers who are to-day without proper railway connection and at such a distance that they cannot economically haul -grain to railhead. I would like if the minister would explain the present construction, which appears to be deflected somewhat to the north and away from the district that really requires it. I am not saying that some people may not be helped here, -but I Would hope that helping them is not going to defeat the hopes of those to the south, which are of very, very long standing.
fMr. Graham.]


George Perry Graham: As my hon. friend knows, there was a good deal of discussion in the committee last year over what was called the Radville line, and I think there has been contention over it for a good many years. The original project of the Canadian Northern was to build the branch as outlined in this bill, but last year a change was made to cover a greater amount of territory, the line to run in a direction more southerly, if I relmember the map correctly. The question arose in the committee last year that part of this territory might better be supplied by the Canadian Pacific. Now the committee and parliament have been expressing more and more every year the desirability of lessening the overlapping in railway construction by the two lines, and the Canadian Pacific has agreed, I understand1, in fact, I have seen a letter to that effect, to construct a .line to take care of the large part of the territory the Canadian National Railway was proposing to take care of in its last year's construction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Which construction, Radville or Bengough?


George Perry Graham: Radville.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
anyone will look after that.


George Perry Graham: It is in that direction, although I will not say it goes to Radville itself. I will read .the memorandum on the Bengough-Willowbuneh line:
It is proposed in 1925 to let a contract for the grading of the 27 miles to be completed in that year at an estimated cost of $500,000. In 1926, the track-laying and ballasting will be done and the line generally completed to Willowbuneh at an estimated cost for that year of $445,000.
I may say the distance is 27 miles:
This line replaces the Radville S. & W.,-a bill for which was turned down in the Senate last year. During

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
the discussion on the bill last year, it was suggested that if the Canadian Pacific Railway would build eastward into the Fife Lake territory, the Canadian National Railways would be prepared to withdraw from the territory south and west from Radville. Now the Canadian Pacific Railway is prepared to build into the Fife Lake district, not from the east, but from Assiniboia, with the idea of eventually running east from Fife Lake to cross about the territory proposed to be covered by the Radville S. & W. Line, the Canadian National Railways are undertaking their original proposal in that country,-the extension of their Mary-field Branch from Bengough to Willowbunch.
The justification of this line is the fulfilment of undertakings in the past to construct this line, and also that it will give rail communication to the town of Willowbunch, and shorten the road haul for the farmers in the district south of there.
It is figured the production from the area tributary to the line will be 650,000 bushels of grain on the average per year, besides 170 carloads of freight in and outbound composed of live stock, coal, lumber and merchandise. About ten miles road haul would be saved on the average to the farmers served by this line, and computing this to be worth | cent per bushel per mile on the 650,000 bushels expected from this line, it would mean an annual saving to the farmers of $48,750 for grain haul alone.
Although to build this line, it is estimated will cost $945,000, arrangements have now been made with the Provincial Government of Saskatchewan to consent to the release of $400,000 of trust funds, which had been previously raised for the purpose of construction of lines in the Province of Saskatchewan. This makes the amount to be voted by parliament $545,000.
I think that is about in line with what I said at the beginning. I do not know how it will strike parliament, but dt struck me as a very good solution if the Canadian Pacific would look after that territory and eventually lead to practically the same territory as would have been covered by the Canadian National branch in last year's programme. The Canadian Pacific would not build down into that territory if the Canadian National built, so the Canadian National has returned to its original proposal to build from Bengough to Willowbunch, and the Canadian Pacific is to build easterly as indicated.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Will the minister say
that there is an arrangement at the present time between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National with regard to the development of railway facilities in that country? Does he know there is such an understanding?


George Perry Graham: I may say that I read
a letter from Mr. Grant Hall outlining just what I have intimated to the House, showing that they propose this year to begin construction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have they existing statutory powers to construct in that territory? *


Neil Haman McTaggart: I think before we proceed with this line of railway from Bengough
we are entitled to full information with regard to the Radville line. The Radville line a year ago involved an expenditure of $3,800,000 odd of the money of the tax-10 p.m. payers of this country. At the time that proposition was before this House I opposed it on the ground that the line from Radville south and west was not a feasible proposition, and as a result of the opposition offered in this chamber the bill was amended so that the Canadian National management would have authority to build a road either from Radville, Ritchie or Bengough. I submitted then, and I submit now, that the Canadian National Railway, or their board of engineers at all events, knew at that time that the railway should have been built in the first place from Bengough south and west in the district of Fife lake and Wood mountain. They had that information, but for some reason the road was projected from Radville. Following the rejection of the bill by the Senate the Canadian National engineers were sent into that district, and they were surveying the Radville territory as recently as January last, according to the information I have. I believe they went on the ground some time after harvest, in the fall of last year, and made a survey of the Radville line as proposed before this House last year. Now what I want to know and what I think the country is entitled to know, is what was the result of the information w'hich they procured when they made a survey of that line. I do not know if the minister has it in his possession at the present time, but I think the House and the country are entitled to that information. These people through that south country have suffered tremendously for many years because of their inability to secure a railway, and while the district south of Radville does contain an area where the people are a long way from the railway, that area is comparatively small. The difficulty with the Radville line was that it penetrated forty or fifty miles or more of a country which did not warrant the building of a railway. If the line had been built from Bengough, as proposed two years ago in this House, south and west to Fife lake, and then extended to as far as range 7 or 8 or 9, west of the third meridian, there is no other branch of the Canadian National which could serve a better country or one better calculated to develop railway tonnage. That country between what is known as Big Muddy through Fife lake country and clear through to White Mud river, is a country where there has been scarcely a crop failure since the settlers first went in there. I do
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

not live there myself, but I know it well. It is better than the district I live in. In 1910 when there was a general crop failure throughout southwestern Saskatchewan, in the region know as Summer Cove there was an average yield of grain running from twenty to thirty bushels to the acre. Mixed farming is carried on throughout the Fife lake and Wood mountain country which is different from the area west of the White Mud river. Would the hon. gentleman tell us what information he has with regard to the report of the engineers whom the National Railway had on the ground last fall and winter?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman knows that these engineers never come to me with reports, unless they are asked for by me. I am not an engineer and do not know anything about the engineering end. I know that the Canadian National board and the Canadian Pacific Railway seemed to arrive at an arrangement which I thought would meet the situation more nearly than any other arrangement which could be made. I would suggest this-and this is why I want to send the bills to-committee-that we proceed with the bill and get it to the Railway committee. Then we could notify the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National as well. They will be glad to come with their engineers and thresh out the whole matter in detail. There is nothing to hide about it, but this committee and myself are a combination that would not be able to thresh out engineering questions, and there are a hundred questions my hon. friend would like to ask the Canadian Pacific officials. I would like some assurance that this other road is going to be built. My suggestion is that we should get this in the form of a bill, as is done in the case of other bills. If it were a Canadian Pacific Railway bill it would be referred to the Railway committee without discussion. I am not objecting to the discussion, but we could have that discussion much better in the Railway committee than anywhere else.


Neil Haman McTaggart: I do not know if you get my point. I am not offering any opposition to the bill, and I hope that I may not have to offer such opposition, but I want to get a general statement covering a mistake made last year. How did it come that the Canadian National made the mistake last year with regard to the Radville line.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend can get
that from the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we got that ourselves from the engineers. My hon.

friend will correct me if I am wrong, but as I recollect it, the engineers were called last year in connection with the Radville line, and they said they had always reported against it. They said it could not be built and would be a waste of money.


George Perry Graham: They did not say that in my presence.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
evidence on oath before the Senate, but they were talking for themselves and not for anybody else.


Neil Haman McTaggart: My hon. friend from
West York is quite correct. I heard the statement made by the engineering department of the Canadian National, and those witnesses, not only before the- Commons committee, but before the Senate committee, intimated that so far as. the railway companies were concerned, they had always advocated the construction of the line from Ben-gough rather than from anywhere else.


William Findlay Maclean: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: We are only
now considering a resolution. The matter will have to come before the House in com-

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
raittee in connection with a bill, and I have no doubt the minister will come before us with all the information. The information we would really like would be an assurance that no further attempt will be made to throw away money south of Radville in that Big Muddy river district in the manner described, and that instead of having lines built which are more in the nature of political fences than anything else, we will have lines built for the farmer. If the minister comes down and assures the House that there is no more danger of that Radville proposition being attempted to be put through I think the resolution might pass.
Resolution reported read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 74, respecting the construction of a line of railway forming part of the Canadian National Railways between Bengough and a point at or near Willowbunch, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


George Perry Graham: Would the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. McTaggart) be satisfied to have the bill go to the Railway committee?


Neil Haman McTaggart: Yes.
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister	of	the Interior) moved	that the
House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it	is	expedient to	amend The	Dominion
Lands Act, chapter 20 of the statutes of 1908, and the acts in amendment thereof, by providing,-
(1)	Notwithstanding anything contained in the
said act,	no	person shall	be granted	entry forlands situate within that part of the provinces of Saskatchewan	and Alberta	south of	the south
boundary of township 16 in the Dominion Lands system of survey unless such person submits evidence satisfactory to the Minister of the Interior that he or she is in permanent residence and conducting farming operations upon a farm of not less than eighty acres distant not more than nine miles in a direct line from the parcel for which entry is desired, exclusive of the width of road allowances [DOT]crossed in the measurement, or that such person is the father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister of a settler in permanent residence and conducting farming operations as aforesaid;
(2)	That notwithstanding anything "to the contrary in the said act, the minister may sell school lands required as right of way for any project or for reservoir, church, cemetery or hospital sites,
at a price to be fixed by an officer of the department as the actual market value of the land, and upon such terms of payment as the minister may prescribe, provided that the government of the province in which the land is situated expresses its approval of the sale and price in each case;
(3)	That where an application is made by the holder of unpatented school lands purchased under the provisions of this act prior to the first day of January, 1923, or by the legal representative, or registered assignee of such holder, the minister may, with the consent of the government of the province in which the lands affected are situate, rescind such contract, or contracts of sale, as to any portion thereof and in such form and area as the minister may prescribe.
Upon such rescission the holder or his legal representative, or registered assignee, shall be held to be indebted to the crown for principal and interest in accordance with the terms and conditions of the original contract, or contracts of sale, in respect only of the area to which such contract, or contracts, have been confined, and the account, or accounts, of the holder, legal representative, or registered assignee, in the books of the department, shall be adjusted accordingly. In such readjustment, any moneys paid on the original contract, or contracts, may, in the discretion of the minister, be applied in satisfaction of the principal and interest owing, or principal accruing under the contract, or contracts, as amended; provided that there shall be no refund of any moneys.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Neil Haman McTaggart: I do not think we
should let this resolution go through too hastily. I want first to assure the minister that, coming from the district which this resolution directly affects, I have great pleasure in giving it my full support. I know the situation well, and I am glad to see the minister is taking a step to meet the difficult situation which we have there. One suggestion, however, that I have to make in connection with this resolution-and I recommend it to the minister's consideration-is that, instead of having this legislation apply only to lands south of township 16, it should apply to the entire area as far north as the South Saskatehawan river. The situation is the same and the river would be a natural boundary. To make an arbitrary arrangement that there should be a difference with regard to the working out of the Dominion Lands Act as between north and south of township 16, will create a situation whereby many perplexities will be bound to arise. For example, supposing when this measure becomes law, a resident living in township 16 or 17, desires to make entry for a parcel of land in township 15, what will the situation be? Will he have a right to make entry? As the situation with regard to climate and soil in connection with abandoned lands south of the Saskatchewan river is practically the same, I would recommend very earnestly that this legislation be made to apply as far north as the South Saskatchewan river.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Charles A. Stewart: This is a
departure from the strict principle that applies to homesteading, inasmuch as we are first giving a preference to applications of residents over those of people living outside of the territory. This has never been done before. Personally I am very anxious to prevent homesteading in those areas, but there are some circumstances in which sons of residents in the locality can advantageously be settled' on some of those lands and permitted to carry on agricultural! pursuits. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it will be well to discourage as far as possible the carrying on of agricultural pursuits, because most of the people there have turned their attention almost altogether to ranching. I am speaking of the area where this legislation will apply particularly and I do not want to extend this privilege over too great an area. I quite foresee the difficulty my hon. friend has pointed out, that some one, for example living in the township just north, might be deprived of the privilege, but I would like to see what sort of an onslaught is going to be made on us for opening up some of those lands. I confess I am not friendly to encouraging agriculture in that area, because we know it is the dry area, and we are rather attempting to encourage ranching, a system of agriculture that we know will be successful there. But we think it is a hardship to deprive a young man coming of age of the privilege of a free homestead if it is available and if, in our opinion, after investigation, there is a reasonable chance of success. That is all we are putting this clause in for.


Neil Haman McTaggart: I do not want to hold up this bill, or to enter into a long dissertation upon it, but I want at this time to correct a misapprehension on the part of this House and the people of this country regarding that area. An arbitrary ruling was made, I think in 1921, with regard to the regulations of the Dominion Lands Act by setting aside as area A all lands in southern and western Saskatchewan south of township 16. Under that ruling those lands have been blacklisted. That area is known as the blacklist, as area A under the Dominion Lands Act. What are the facts with regard to that area? I live in it myself, in township 12, where a heavier tonnage of agricultural products is raised than in any other area of Saskatchewan. I make that statement without fear of contradiction. It is not true that the country is not fit for agriculture. It is one of the best districts in Saskatchewan or Alberta, but it has a feature which hon. 	I
members and the public at large do not understand. I have explained it several times before and I am going to explain it again for the benefit of hon. members. The land in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan is uniform. It is a heavy clay soil that is very general. When you get to a few miles west of Weybum, what is known as the Missouri plateau, you reach a different class of land entirely. You have a class of land which is broken, where you have large areas of first class soil, large areas of medium class soil and large areas of the poorest kind of soil, areas that are fit only for grazing purposes. Consequently you see, Mr. Chairman, the hardship it is on residents of those large good areas to have their land classed and put down as being unfit for agriculture, when that argument applies only to those areas that are sandy and, of course, fit only for grazing.
In regard to the point involved here, I have objected time and again to that arbitrary ruling setting aside the line south of township 16, because for a considerable distance south of the South Saskatchewan river the quality of the soil and the climate are practically the same. There is no justification for making township 16 the dividing line as between one class of these lands and another, and that is one of the reasons why I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. If he is going to give countenance in legislation again to the belief that there is a difference between the land south of 16 and the land to the north he will simply create a blacklist against the land in the south country. I do not know whether the minister is familiar with the country, but I venture to suggest that in that area between what is known as the Cypress hills and Maple Creek, to the town of Assiniboia, which includes a district of approximately 50 or 60 miles wide and covers 100 miles long, there is some of the very best agricultural land in the west; there is no area in all western Canada that has developed more agricultural products in the last twelve years. All that area is south of township 16, and that is the regrettable feature of this proposal. There are many immigrants coming into the country to-day from the United States for the purpose of settling on farm land and when they make inquiries they will be told not to go into that country because it is the dried out section, to use the term which the minister has employed. But it is no such thing. It is true that there are parts of that country that are dried out, but they do not lie mainly south of township 16; as a matter of fact, most of the dried out areas are north of it.

C.NJR.-Branch Lines
Let me refer to one. Anyone going through on the main line of railway between Swift Current and the Alberta line will pass along a sandy or bad area north of that line, not far from where I live. Again south of the Cypress hills, between them and the American boundary, there is an area that can be described as dried out, where it was a mistake in the first place for people to settle. In fact, close to my own town there is a considerable area that should not have been settled at all. But my point is that to make township 16 the dividing line between what is considered as good land and what is considered the dried out section is simply to leave a blacklist on that country south of township 16, and that is a rank injustice to the people who are trying to make that part of the country profitable.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite
agree with my hon. friend (Mr. McTaggart) that some of the finest land in western Canada lies in that area; and I might include the area directly south of Swift Current along the boundary line. There is a portion in southern Alberta, not far from the boundary of the Saskatchewan, which is very fertile. But generally speaking the best of these lands are already homesteads. I believe that the area my hon. friend mentions is almost without exception all given over to homesteads as far west as Assiniboia. Now. I am not suggesting a black List of the territory. What we propose under the amendment, as my hon. friend will realize, is that in some of those areas where we have application for opening up homesteads in what we consider to be lands unfitted for that purpose, such lands should be dealt with in a particular way. We do not want to blacklist any lands; but there are frequently alongside some of these ranches fairly desirable quarter sections suitable for farming purposes and we are simiply asking the right to deal with these particular cases and to trea/t the sons of residents of the locality as preferred settlers. That is all we are doing. Township 16 has of course been fixed upon more or less as an arbitrary boundary, but we are merely experimenting in that regard. To 'be frank, I am afraid that we shall have a considerable demand for land's where I do not think that settlement should be permitted. However, we are trying this out to see how it will work.


Arthur Meighen: When was the blacklisting done?


Charles A. Stewart: There is no such thing as a blacklisting, but in 1921 it
was decided not to permit more homesteading in certain areas.


John Morrison: Any abuse of the privilege of opening up land south of 16 can be overcome by the inspectors making a proper report to the department. If, in their opinion any land is not fit for farming purposes they can refuse to allow it to be homesteaded. But there are men living there who cannot sell out to-day, and as their boys are coming of age, and they are unable to keep them at home, it is desirable that they should be able to obtain land adjacent to the homestead for their boys. In that case, they do not need to put up buildings, and while the land would not be worth while to an outsider, who would be free to go anywhere he liked, it is certainly of value to those who are resident in the locality and who cannot move. There is not much inducement for the outsider to come in but undoubtedly the resident who is stuck there and cannot sell out can utilize the land adjacent to his farm. The outsider of course can go north where there are lots of good homesteads. This move on the part of the government is a good one, and will, I think, bring a good deal of satisfaction to the residents of that south country.


Mr. COOTE:: I want to commend this
move which the minister is making and which I think is a very proper one. I believe that the sons of the people who have pioneered that country should have the first choice of any homesteads that are available. I would suggest to the minister however that he is making the area, to which he is applying this scheme, altogether too small. There are many areas in Alberta where the scheme should be put into operation. There are a great many young men coming of age and there are no homesteads available to them unless they go several-hundred miles north; and it is rather a hardship, after these old pioneers have gone into that country and established a community, suffering all the hardships which pioneers have to endure, to see the few homesteads that are left picked up by outsiders. I suggest that along the foot hills west of Claresholm there are a number of families who in some cases have one or two sons that are old enough to establish homesteads and who might be given an opportunity to take up these lands. The land along there is nearly all held under lease but a few quarter sections have been released and they do not always go to residents in the vicinity. The scheme which is outlined in this resolution is a splendid one, but I would advise the minister to enlarge the area to which it should apply. I think we have
Annuities Act

been altogether too free in disposing of homestead lands to Doukhobors, Galicians and people of other nationalities who it is doubtful would be an asset; more likely they are a liability to the country. It will be only a few years before our young men will be looking for free lands and there will not be any good homesteads left for them within a reasonable distance of the railway. I think the minister should go a good deal further in this bill and apply the scheme to considerable areas in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I think it is only right that what free lands are left there should be reserved for the people who have pioneered that country.
Resolution reported, read the second, time and concurred in. Mr. Stewarlt thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 75 to amend the Dominion Lands Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT 1908 AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 71 to amend the Government Annuities Act, 1908.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into icommilttee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Limitations as to persons and amounts.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister explain the purpose of this bill?


James Murdock: Under the present act the minimum annuity that can be purchased is $50. The proposal is to permit the purchase of a S10 annuity. That is the only change. The reason for the amendment is that a number of employers, it is said, find themselves disposed to purchase outright annuities of $10 each as Christmas presents or as bonuses for employees who have been with them for many years. In fact, for some time the department has had on deposit from one firm a considerable sum of money in anticipation of this amendment being made.


Robert James Manion: What is the purpose of a $10 annuity-is it intended as a Christmas present?	.


James Murdock: It is 6aid that some employers instead of giving their employees bonuses at Christmas time or some other form of present would prefer to purchase outright $10 annuities. Last Friday I placed on

Hansard a memorandum of the single cash payment required to be made on the purchase outright of a $10 annuity under which (the annuitant would benefit at the age of 65. Suppose the annuitant was 45 years of age, this annuity could be purchased under plan "A" for $40.25; under plan "B" for $25.88, and under the "10-yiear guarantee" plan for $47.80.


Robert James Manion: Whalt is plan "B"?


James Murdock: Under plan "B", in case of death before the annuity begins, there will be no return of any part of Ithe purchase money. A $50 annuity under these three plans would cost $201.25, $129.38 and $238.99 respectively; which is sometimes regarded as a little high.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 43, to amend the act to authorize rearrangements and transfers of duties in the public service.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Duties and powers of minister and department to be exercised by minister and department to which transfer of duties is made.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister kindly explain the bill?


Ernest Lapointe: Under chapter 67 of the Revised Statutes concerning the Department of Agriculture, it is provided that the duties of the minister with regard to certain matters under his control may be transferred to some other department or branch of the civil service, and that the management of any one of those matters so transferred shall go to another minister of the crown, and such minister is substituted with all the powers and duties of the Minister of Agriculture. An act was passed in 1918 to authorize rearrangements and transfers of duties for all departments in the public service. Under this act, the powers, duties and functions of any minister of the crown may be transferred to another minister, or from one department to another, or from one branch of the service to another. Now the commission which is considering the revision of the statutes has suggested this amendment, which will make the

Public Service Rearrangement
provision in the Department of Agriculture Act general for all departments. The amendment will remove any doubt as to the transfer of such duties. It is merely a formal matter.


Robert James Manion: If the minister wished to
simplify the work of his department through the transfer of a particular branch of it to the Department of the Secretary of State, for instance, then this bill would permit that transfer and vest in the Secretary of State the authority over the branch so transferred; is that the idea?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The power already existed under the act of 1918, but this makes it quite clear that the duties in question are automatically transferred, in the case my hon. friend mentions, to the Secretary of State.


Robert James Manion: Would that be a permanent transfer?


Ernest Lapointe: Until the Governor in
Council changed it again, if he chose to do so.


Robert James Manion: I received a letter the
other day, I have forgotten from whom, protesting very strongly against this measure and implying that there was "a nigger in the woodpile," as the expression is. I do not know where the nigger is myself, and the Minister of Justice does not know either, I hope.


Ernest Lapointe: I assure my hon. friend
it is entirely a "white" deal.


Robert James Manion: Then we have the assurance of the minister that it is merely to simplify the procedure?


Ernest Lapointe: It does not even change the law. It simply makes it clearer and more uniform.


Robert James Manion: Has the transfer of
branches from one department to another been very frequent?


Ernest Lapointe: No. It was done a
good deal during the war, because of the arduous work that some ministers had to do. Of late it has seldom been done.


Robert James Manion: Under this law could a
branch be transferred from the outside service to the inside service?


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose it could.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I .think the minister is right- in saying that during the war orders in council were passed making transfers of certain rights and duties for the purpose of expediting business. I do not remember
of the powers under the 1918 act being exercised in any other way. But how would the employees be affected if a branch outside were brought inside to a department which looked upon the activities of the outside branch as entirely unnecessary? Would the duties of those employees so transferred simply lapse? If so, it would be an opportunity for the appointment of a whole lot of other officials. Has this whole question of employment been considered in this connection?


Ernest Lapointe: This bill makes it clear that the only thing that is changed is the control of the branch by one minister instead of another, and its being in one department instead of another. Everything else remains the same. The present act reads as follows:
1. (1) The Governor in Council shall have power,-*
(a)	to transfer any powers, duties or functions or the control or supervision of any part of the public service from one minister of the crown to any other minister of the crown, or from one department or portion of the public service to any other department or portion of the public service; or,
(b)	to amalgamate and combine any two or more departments under one minister of the crown and under one deputy minister.
So 'that the employees are raither protected by the amendment, because it is made clear that nothing is changed except the head of the department or of the branch. I have pointed out that the change was suggested by the commissioners who are studying the revision of the statutes. The wording is borrowed from the Department of Agriculture Act, chapter 67 of the Revised Statutes, and the provision is made applicable to all departments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The real effect of that section in the act of 1918 would seem to be to make it clear that the minister or the department to whom the branch was transferred would in law have those powers; that the original power is in no way lost by the transfer. But my point was with regard to transfers from the inside to the outside service, or vice versa.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not mentioned
either in the act as it exists to-day or in this amendment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not sure
but that it should be mentioned. However, I understand the minister to assure us that any transfer under this bill will not in any way affect the standing of those in the civil service.


Ernest Lapointe: I am giving that assurance to my hon. friend.
Migratory Birds Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is quite
sufficient for me. I had hoped that there was something else behind the bill-that there was to be a combining of departments to cut down expenses. If my hon. friend would say that was the real reason of it, we would all say, Amen.


Ernest Lapointe: It may be used for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall this bill be
read a third time?


Robert James Manion: Next sitting of the House.


Ernest Lapointe: Why hot pass it now and
give the Senate something to do?


Robert James Manion: Only because there is one
member who is not here at present who might possibly want to ask a question. Otherwise I would have no objection.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 44, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second ;ime, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Regulation as to possession of birds.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister explain?


Charles A. Stewart: Certain
court decisions have made it appear that the present act and regulations forbid the possession of migratory birds legally taken in open season at any other time than in open season. That is, if one shoots game birds during the open season, and then has them in his possession after the open season closes, he is liable to prosecution. I am curing that by making the regulations conform with those in vogue in the provinces.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is that
going to work out? We have no period stated in the bill. I suppose the minister's idea is to bring in regulations providing how many weeks or days.


Charles A. Stewart: My idea is that the regulations will conform with the provisions of the provincial game acts. They vary somewhat in the different provinces, but 
we will arrange it so that there will be no confusion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If we pass paragraph (aaa) I suppose the regulations, which will be made by the Governor in Council, will provide the period which each province provides by statute.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister explain just how we have concurrent jurisdiction here and the necessity for concurrent legal action?


Charles A. Stewart: This amendment is necessary because of the fact that prosecutions have taken place in the province of Manitoba where the birds shot legally in open season were held until after the close of the season, which was 'permissible under the provisions of the provincial act, but not permissible under our act. In order that there shall be no confusion in the minds of those responsible in the various provinces, we are providing regulations for the keeping of game the same as those prevailing in the provinces.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I confess I am
not familiar with the present method of administration of game laws. I have not followed it this last few years, but is there any conflict at all between the local and the Dominion enforcement of law? How is it arranged? It used to be arranged, as I recollect it, by the local authorities looking after the enforcement of the law through their local game keepers and the like, or through local police officers. W'hat do we do about it? Are we now employing a number of men to see that people do not shoot birds out of season?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, to
some extent, but my hon. friend will notice that by the next section we are making an arrangement with Ontario, which is practically the last province, to utilize their
11 p.m. game officers in the enforcement of the law. We have very few men, and they are mostly in eastern provinces, very few all told, who are enforcing the Migratory Birds Convention Act. The desire is to utilize the game officials of the provinces.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like
to ask the Minister of Justice as to what in his view is the underlying jurisdiction in connection with the enforcement of game laws, whether it is provincial or whether it is Dominion.


Ernest Lapointe: I will be pleased to look into the question and answer my hon. friend.

Migratory Birds Act
I would not venture to give an opinion on it to-night.


Charles A. Stewart: The federal
authorities have the responsibility of enforcing the Migratory Birds Act, because it is based upon a treaty with our American neighbours, but our desire is to utilize the provincial officials who are engaged in this work, and the arrangement provided by the next section covers the Ontario officials.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
effect of what my hon. friend says is this, that so far as the Migratory Birds Act, which, of course, is something we have in common with the United States, is concerned, the regulations adopted under it have been made by the government. to conform to the different open seasons in the provinces. Am I right in that?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, practically so. There may be some slight differences. Our regulations may not conform in all cases exactly with the regulations of the provinces as to open season, and so on, but there could be no shooting of migratory birds under the provincial acts because the federal authorities are responsible for the enforcement of the act in its entirety.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, there is a
treaty in connection with this matter, and that makes it a matter of federal jurisdiction under the British North America Act. Section 132 of the British North America Act provides:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or for any province thereof, as part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
So as there is a treaty, we have the right to deal with it.


Robert James Manion: Did I understand the
Minister of the Interior to say that the Dominion government has the right to make regulations as to open season?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as the migratory birds are concerned.
Mr. MANIiON: But not in regard to others?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What game birds have we got that are not migratory?


Charles A. Stewart: A great number, quail, partridge, prairie chicken, to mention only a few. Over these the provinces have jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-provincial officers to be game officers, except as to moiety of fines.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
reference to subsection 2 of section 12 which "shall not apply to any such officers"?


Charles A. Stewart: That is so
far as payment of moiety of fines is concerned. This section is simply to provide that the Ontario game officers shall be officers for the enforcement of this act.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will	the federal
department be responsible for any expenses? There have been disputes in the past over expenses.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes, we
have to be responsible for expenses in connection with the enforcement of the act.
M,r. ROSS (Kingston):	Will	that apply
just from the passing of this amendment or to the past as well? There have been several cases in dispute.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend refers to Ontario, we have an arrangement for the settlement of past disputes. This arrangement was made when giving authority to these officers to carry out their duties, I cannot give my hon. friend the particular instances, but we have had1 a full discussion and a full understanding with the department in Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-No one to buy, sell or possess bird, nest or egg during prohibited time.
Henry Lumley Drayton: It looks as if this section were rendered necessary by the previous amendment.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Are there not special privileges or lioemse given to certain individuals to have in their possesion these eggs and so on?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, there
are certain individuals who are collecting for different purposes, but they must get permission or license. There are certain officers who give these privileges to collectors, and they are always given with the approval of the chief migratory bird officers. The permission comes through the local officials, but. the permission is passed upon by the chief officer: In most cases they are persons of some note, and the officers do not grant these licenses indiscriminately. Scientists are given this permission
Dairy Produce Act

to collect for museum and university purposes and so on.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 72, to amend the Dairy Produce Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Regulations.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: While this bill is
not very long, it is very important. The purpose of the bill is to refuse the grading privileges to anybody who persists in the adulteration of either butter or cheese. We have had one case referred back from Great Britain where butter has been found to be adulterated with various oils, and when we bring it home to the culprit, he sometimes pays a fine; but proceeds to repeat the offence, feeling that he can make more money by paying the fine and continuing to commit the offence than to refrain from doing it. The most effective way is to refuse to grade the product of those who are guilty of the offence; then, they cannot export their produce. By that means you protect your butter and your cheese from being adulterated and sent abroad, because these adulterations destroy our market. We are making a practice of doing this at the present time, -but it is not quite clear that we have the authority to refuse to grade. Therefore we want to amend the act to make it clear that we have the right to refuse to grade butter or cheese in the case of persistent adulteration. I think the provision will be very effective. If anybody challenged our right now we might 'have difficulty in proving that we have the right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. minister says one thing and the statute says another. He wants the power to refuse to grade dairy produce in the case of obstinate people who will not comply with his regulations. That limitation is not in the bill. There is no limitation here at all.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister is taking the right to refuse to grade anybody's dairy products, and withholding the grading certificates from anybody whenever he pleases.

I should have thought, when dealing with a statute in as important a matter as this, the statute should make it clear in what particular kind of cases the department should take that extraordinary power. It seems to me this matter has not been properly considered or drafted. Surely we do not want something on the statute book of Canada that is going to give any minister the right, without the slightest cause being shown, of refusing to grade dairy products and withholding grade certificates. The statute should show why that is being done. It should show that it is to cover the case of people who are not treating their dairy product properly and are hurting the trade. It should not 'be left in that position when it could be made right in a very few minutes, if anyone would take the time to do it.


William Richard Motherwell: If we specified one reason then we could only refuse to grade for that one reason. There may be other reasons besides adulteration. Take a case in point: Out in the west mold in butter has developed, particularly in unsalted butter. We have made careful examination, and we know that some factories get the mold germ, and unless you look after a case of that kind, it is apt to get worse. Some factories persist in shipping moldy butter, and nothing has brought so much distress to the handlers of Canadian products this year as moldy butter. It is just as bad as adulterated butter; as a matter of fact, it is worse, because it develops so rapidly and1 permeates, not only the outside but the entire mass. We have had the worst experience this year since we have started to ship unsalted butter. It seems to me the discretion should be wide enough to apply to moldy butter as well as to adulterated butter, and there may be other things as well. I think the department could have no possible object in refusing a grade unless they were satisfied it was doing positive harm. This power we are taking is nothing like the power taken by Australia, where they absolutely refuse to allow any grade to go out except the top grade. They are jealous of their grades of butter. We are not going that far. We simply want to take authority to refuse to grade. In this bill we specify adulteration as an indication of what the bill is intended to cover, but it is not necessarily confined to adulteration. We could think up everything imaginable in this connection. Foi instance, you might have a persistent offender in the matter of exporting moldy butter, butter in dirty boxes, or butter improperly wrapped in unclean paper. There are a dozen .other things one might think of, but one

Dairy Produce Act
might forget one thing, and if that were not in the bill, we could not put a stop to it without an amendment. That is one of the reasons why we wish to leave the bill as it is. I think the officials of the department may be trusted not to exercise this provision unless they absolutely have to do so. We are exercising it now without the authority, and we think it is better to have a general authority than to have a specific one applied to one offence.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not see any reason why it should not be made plain why this should be done. It is not to be done on account of the colour of a man's hair or his eyes; it is to be done because something is wrong with his butter. It is not stated in the bill that it is done because the butter is bad. My point is that it is a question not of saying that you must have good butter-


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -but of saying that this departmental action can be used only for the purpose of seeing that people do get good butter. As the bill now stands, what parliament is being invited to do by this government, that always believes so much in democratic ideas and wants to get away from bureaucratic measures but is showing more and more of them than any aggregation we have ever had in this country before, is to give it power to say: We are going to take the right to refuse to grade any farmer's butter we like and we shall not say for what purpose we are going to do that, but for any reason, good, bad or indifferent that appeals to us, we are going to say that that man cannot sell that butter.


William Richard Motherwell: He can sell it locally without a grading certificate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is begging the question entirely. That man cannot under this measure sell his butter in the export market.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He is penalized without the slightest thing being said why he should be penalized, without his being told that this is being done in order to assist the production of butter, in order to maintain the standard of Canadian butter, that this is being done because he has moldy butter, rancid butter or anything else. There is nothing of that kind in the bill. Of course, if the government want to legislate in that way, it is for them to say so. It is so easy, if someone
would take just a few minutes time, to cover the cases where this action should be taken. Any legislature that takes the trouble to look after the rights of the individual would see that this was done. Why cannot it be done in this instance?


William Richard Motherwell: I will give my hon. friend another instance in regard to which this action should be taken, and that is with regard to cheese. During recent years local factories have followed the practice of shipping cheese almost as soon as it is made to the cold storage plants where it is graded. It is so immature that it is merely a bundle of pressed curd, and it is impossible to do justice to the cheese in that green condition. For instance, supposing a cheese is set somewhere in this neighbourhood and shipped to Montreal a day, or two or three days after it is made, it is just a bundle of curd and it is impossible to do justice to that cheese in the way of grading it when it arrives at Montreal. We want to be able to refuse to grade that cheese for a period at least.. Supposing a shipper wants that graded immediately and put right on the steamer. We cannot grade it immediately and do justice to the cheese. It has to mature for at least ten days before any grader can give justice to it. We want to refuse to grade it until, in our judgment, sufficient time has expired that a reasonably proper grade can be given that the cheese will stand up to. We could specify that too, but this would mean that you would have to have a certain number of these things specified and then you might not catch them all. There is no thought of being arbitrary in this matter. After all, the discretion must lie with the officials of the department as to when they will exercise this authority. As I have pointed out before, this is not a harsh measure, unless some person wilfully wants to go and exercise it an some' brutal or objectionable way, and such an officer should not be in the department to do that. We have to have the bill in this way or to specify everything imaginable that can occur, and I do not think, on short notice, we could catch them all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want
that done. All I want done is to see that this refers to the question of quality. It does not. There is nothing in this bill referring to standard or quality. The minister is quite right in what he says as regards cheese and I entirely agree with him that cheese ought to be kept for a certain length of time before it is graded for export. The country has been hurt by cheese being shipped that is far too green,
Dairy Produce Act

and the fanners would be away ahead financially if we had some such proper method of ripening cheese as they have on the continent,


William Richard Motherwell: We have no authority to do that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want to give
the minister authority to do it, but I do not want to give him an omnibus right to do as he pleases with one man and do something different with another.


William Richard Motherwell: We would not do
that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I aim not at all sure, but what I would like is to be sure that this country's legislation dealing with an important matter of this kind makes it clear that that power-and it is a big and serious power as regards the right of the individual -has to be made use of for a certain purpose, for the purpose of seeing that butter and cheese are being kept up to standard. Nothing of that kind is stated in the bill.


William Richard Motherwell: We do not go that far.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend, as I recollect his explanation when he introduced this measure, said that he wanted to have these powers in cases of persistent violations of regulations.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why cannot
that be stated?	-


William Richard Motherwell: But there are other things like the question of cheese. We are doing this now and there has not been a single objection to it, but you never know when you are going to run across some cantankerous customer who will object just for the fun of it.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I find a good deal
of strong common sense in what the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) says and for some reasons in addition to those which he has specified. I believe also it is rather an unhealthy practice to give too much power to any officials without stating the reasons for which the power is given. I would suggest that it would be a comparatively simple matter to state those reasons succinctly, without going into the various cases. So, far as I am aware, there are only two cases why grading certificates should be refused. The first is the unfitness or unsuitability of the product for grading. That would apply to cheese because of its condition. That applies to the product. The

other condition would apply to the individual, and that is a man who consistently violates the provisions of the act. That, to my mind, would practically cover the two cases. I have another reason also, and that is the educative value of letting people know why their stuff was not graded. That educative value is something that should be considered. When an act is passed the people should know why; they should know the reason why their stuff is refused the grading certificate. And when that information spreads throughout the country, when the people know that 'their produce must reach a certain quality and be in a certain condition before the certificate will be granted, there will be a greater impetus to the movement to improve the quality of the goods exported. I think myself that the contention advanced by my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) is a sound one.


William Richard Motherwell: In the drafting of a bill you simply state what you want to do and it is not usual to give any explanation as to why ilt is done. The reason for the passing of the law soon gets around. Quite frequently when a new act is passed an explanation accompanies it, especially among new settlers But it is not usual to incorporate such explanations in the act itself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am going to make a suggestion to the minister. I suggest that the section should read:
For refusing to grade unfit and unsuitable dairy produce and for withholding grading certificates to any person habituallly disregarding the regulations under this act-
That covers the two points.


William Richard Motherwell: Thalt would be too wide. We might ibake the ground that "unsuitable" included second or third grade butter which although it might not be creditable to the country, would still find a market. But we are not debarring any butter that is wholesome or merchantable from going abroad. We have not gone so far, although they do in Australia and New Zealand. What we have in mind is adulteration, which is a distinct offence. The time may come, when we are neck and neck with New Zealand and Australia, when we shall find it necessary to adopt the same practice and to keep our second and third grade produce at home. At present however we are simply applying the regulation to produce in which there is adulteration or mold, both very objectionable. At present mold is not an offence at all; adulteration is. But the moldy butter may be improved by a little more cleanliness on the part of ithe factory. If some of the

Meat and Canned Foods Act
factories that are turning out moldy butter, and are thus prejudicing the entire butter market of Canada, do not take steps to remedy this evil, there should be some way to bring them to time. But this is not even an offence at the present time; it is simply gross carelessness on the part of the makers, to the detriment of shippers generally. As regards green cheese, there is no offence; there is no law providing that cheese shall be a certain age before it is shipped. A good *many of the factories have not proper storage facilities; they have no cold storage, and with the temperature at 80 or 90 in the shade in the summer, the conditions are not favourable to proper maturing, as they would be with a temperature around 60.


Alfred Speakman: I cannot see that anything would be wider than a law giving the officials absolute power to refuse the certificate for any cause. I quite agree that in the case of such produce as the minister has mentioned the certificate should not be granted to enable exportation. But I do not think that any powers could be wider than those conferred in this act, which is as wide as the universe.


William Richard Motherwell: We have to put on these regulations gently.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I move that the section be amended by adding after the word "produce" the words "being unfit or unsuitable for export," and after the word "certificate" the words "to any person habitually disregarding the regulations under this act".


Mr. NEILL:: I want to point out an objection that has not yet been raised. The minister is taking the power to refuse to grade dairy produce, and it is suggested that it should be limited to unsuitable dairy produce. How is he to know that it is unsuitable until it is graded? It might be perfectly good butter; the man might have had a change of heart after making one or two bad shipments, and after he had got religion, he might send perfectly good shipments. Is his produce to be rejected simply because he may have happened to make some bad shipments in the past? The amendment is no better, because it takes power to refuse to grade dairy produce that is unsuitable. But how is the minister to know that it is unsuitable until it is graded? I think that we might omit the first part of the provision. The shipper cannot know what his produce is rejected for unless it has been graded. The latter part 184
of the clause, it seems to me, would be ample to meet the object of the minister, which is to prevent the export of inferior butter.


William Richard Motherwell: My intention was
to refer all these bills to the committee on Agriculture, but this one seemed to be so simple, and the explanation I gave appeared to be so complete, that I thought we could dispose of it without referring it to that committee. But if our experts are to disagree probably we shall get a better decision before the committee on Agriculture.
Progress reported.
Bill referred to the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.



THE MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Second reading of Bill No. 73 to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.-The Minister of Agriculture.
Arthur Meighen: I rise to protest against
our going on any later to-night. We were here until one o'clock this morning. The more we expedite business the more we are imposed on.


William Richard Motherwell: This is just a
motion for second reading and reference to the Agriculture committee.


Arthur Meighen: If we get that done
there will be something else proposed. There should be one or two other members here on this bill.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, I
move that this bill be now read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.


Arthur Meighen: I object. The government has not the slightest excuse for trying to rush these bills through one after the other at midnight. The bills may go to the committee on Agriculture; we are not all on that committee. This is imposing on good nature. We have put through a very large proportion of this order paper to-day, and we were here until after one this morning. This landsliding of everything to the committee on Agriculture without any discussion here is not the right thing to do, anyway.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?


Arthur Meighen: No.

Questions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There being
objection, Mr. Speaker, we do not press the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the
House.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Wednesday, May 6, 1925