[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. J. E. GUERIN (St. Ann) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Criminal Code (embalming).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GUERIN:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that it shall be definitely ascertained that life has departed from the body of a human being before the operation of embalming takes place. It has become a universal practice to embalm bodies, and this is generally done in such haste that it is really a question whether or not a person

Supreme Court Act
is dead before the body is taken by the undertaker and embalmed. We know very well that there are instances-and they are comparatively common-where the appearances of death are present but where life is really not extinct. This bill merely provides that a certain length of time shall elapse between the declaration of death and the process of embalming. I suppose we can discuss the matter further when the bill comes up for consideration.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the motion is put I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to the question of whether or not the bill is intra vires of this parliament, having regard to the decision of the privy council in the reciprocal insurance case. I doubt very much whether that is so, having regard to that decision.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The question will be considered.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time, on division.



MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Marriage and Divorce Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BOURASSA:: This is a very simple matter; it simply has the effect of restoring the marriage act as it was previous to 1925 >
by striking out those clauses which acknowledge divorce as well as by amending the title anil the first clause of the bill which mention divorce. The bill declares also that this change will not affect pending cases or the validity of decrees or judicial decisions which have been rendered since 1925.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENITENTIARY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: This bill is to empower
the grand jury to visit these institutions and make a presentment, without expense to the country. At the present time grand juries are not permitted to do this, and inasmuch as these institutions are managed by the crown it is believed that in the public interest
the grand jury should be allowed to inspect all such institutions under the control of the department of the Secretary of State.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
9,	to amend the Companies Act.
He said: This bill proposes a number of improvements in general methods as regards companies in order to afford greater security to the investor. With a few minor alterations it is substantially the bill introduced last year in the Senate, amended by a Senate committee, and reported to this house too late for consideration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
10,	to amend the Timber Marking Act.
He said: The purpose of the bill is merely to make provision for the removal from the register, by giving authority to the exchequer court to order such, of timber marks that are no longer used.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon, ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Mr. CAHAN:: Explain,


Ernest Lapointe: The purpose of this bill is to amend section 37 of the Supreme Court Act. That section as amended in 1920 defines the conditions under which special leave may be granted to appeal from a provincial court, other than the court of highest resort in the province. Two conditions are mentioned in the section as it is, but there has been a difference of opinion as to whether the two conditions must exist or whether they are only alternative. This bill is for the purpose of removing any doubt as to that and to provide that the two conditions must exist.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA GRAIN ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to
Questions
[Stage Direction]
introduce Bill No. 12, an act respecting grain.
He said: This revision and rearrangement of the Canada Grain Act is in accordance with the recommendations of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization submitted last year. The work was carried out during the vacation by the Board of Grain Commissioners through their solicitor, Mr. Biggar, and I think this covers the recommendations of the special committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Thomas Langton Church: What sums by provinces have been spent, since its inception in 1902 to the end of 1929, of the grade separation fund, showing the amount contributed by the railways, the municipalities and the fund itself?


Mr. DUNNING:: Expenditure for protection at highway crossings 1909 to December 31, 1929 Grade
Province	crossing fund	Municipality Railway	TotalBritish Columbia	
$ 116,402 16	$ 317,047 05	$ 122,068 64	$	555,517	85Alberta	
122,592	78	278,014	70	207,734	57	608,342	05Saskatchewan	
43,695	79	520,896	18	256,129	69	820,721	66Manitoba	
16,450	54	47,115	53	53,265	66	116,831	73Ontario	
2,066,392	98	4,780,874	00	7,945,204	76	14,792,471	74Quebec	
169,593	14	523,589	10	372,484	46	1,065,666	70New Brunswick	
60,869	19	53,006	68	74,103	58	187,979	45Nova Scotia	
78,257	98	74,117	88	47,341	64	199,717	50Prince Edward Island	450 34	
675 50	1,125 84$2,674,704 90	$6,594,661 12	$9,079,008 50	$18,348,374 52


CANADIAN NAVY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to scrap Canada's navy?
2.	What does Canada's navy cost to maintain annually ?
3.	What does Canada's navy now consist of and where is it now located?


Mr. MALCOLM (for Mr. Ralston):: 1.	No.
2.	Total cost of the Canadian naval service for the fiscal year 1928-29, $1,836,487.65.
3.	H.MCfi. Champlain (destroyer) based on Halifax, N.S. H.MjC.S. Vancouver (destroyer), based on Esquimalt, BjC. H.M.C.S. Festubert and Ypres (minesweepers), based on Halifax, N.S. H.M.C.S. Armentieres and Thiepval (minesweepers), based on Esquimalt, B.C.


POSTAL SERVICE-AIRPLANES
Mr. WHITE (Mount Royal):: 1.	What was the amount of expenditure by the govern,ment upon the purchase or rental of airplanes for the postal service in the calendar year 1929?
2.	What was the amount of revenue derived from the airplane postal service in the same year ?
3.	What was the amount of expenditure in operation and maintaining of the airplane postal service in the same year?


Mr. WHITE (Mount Royal):: Dropped.


ROBERT ATKINSON
Mr. MACDONALD (Cape Breton South):: 1.	Has the Post Office department been advised of the conduct of Robert Atkinson, _ of Glace Bay, who on February 6th, 1930, carried the mails to safety at the imminent risk of his life?
2.	If so, what steps, if any, have been taken by the department to officially recognize this man's bravery and devotion to duty?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Taking steps to ascertain exact conditions with a view to assisting him.


NORTH VANCOUVER RIFLE RANGE
Mr. ESLING:: In connection with the expropriation of land in North Vancouver for the purpose of a rifle range, what sums of money for legal expenses have been paid to the firm of Macdonald and Prenter of Vancouver, or to either member of this firm?


Mr. MALCOLM (for Mr. Ralston):: $1,039.57 was paid to Mr. A. B. MacDonald.


FARM LOANS-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. ESLING:: 1.	Since the organization of the board, how many applications for farm loans have been received from British Columbia?
2.	How many applications have been granted?

Unopposed Motions for Papers


Charles Avery Dunning: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this question be incorporated with No. 15.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Questions 15 and 23 will read together and will stand.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. ROBINSON moved:: For a return showing: 1, Total number of seizures of Canadian craft by United States prohibition agents, from January 1st, 1922, to December 31st, 1929.	[DOT]
2.	Total number of seizures that turned out to be illegal.
3.	Total number of Canadian lives lost through the indiscriminate shooting.
i. Total number of Canadian boats, large and small craft, destroyed through shooting by American enforcement officers.
5.	Total number of cases in which protests have been made to the United States government.
6.	Total number of apologies received from the United States government.
7.	Total number of cases not yet settled, giving dates.
8.	What progress has been made with the cases yet unsettled.
9.	What steps, if any, the government has taken to put a stop to the shooting and murdering by American enforcement officers of Canadian citizens.
10.	Total number of Canadians killed by United^ States prohibition agents in 1929.
11.	Total number of Canadians wounded by United States prohibition agents in 1929.
12.	Total number of Canadian prisoners taken by United States prohibition agents in 1929.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I would direct the attention of the house to paragraph 9 in the motion:
What steps, if any, the government has taken to put a stop to the shooting and murdering by American enforcement officers of Canadian citizens.
I submit that a question so worded should not be permitted. As to the other questions, I think it will be possible for the government to supply the information requested but I do not think that an hon. member of this house has the right to make a reflection of the kind implied in that question upon the officials of the government of any country.


Mr. GOTT:: Substitute the word "killing."


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Would it not be satisfactory to delete the word "murdering" and let the question stand?


Hewitt Bostock: I would have to rule it
out because the rules of the house are that nothing disrespectful must be stated against
a friendly government. This question states that murders have been committed, and I think it must be dropped.


Mr. HANSON:: It might be provocative
to the Americans.


Hewitt Bostock: It is out of order.
Motion as amended agreed to.



CANADIAN STOCKS HELD IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. CAIIAN moved:: 1.	For a copy of all conditions or regulations prescribed by the treasury of the United Kingdom, under the provisions of the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, governing the admission of stocks of the Dominion of Canada to the list of securities authorized for investment by trustees in the United Kingdom.
2.	For a list of stocks of the Dominion of Canada, with respect to which such conditions or regulations have been complied with.
3.	For a copy of all declarations or agreements made by the government of the Dominion of Canada authorizing the disallowance of legislation of said Dominion which appears to the government of the United Kingdom prejudicial to the holders of such stocks of the Dominion of Canada, who are resident in the United Kingdom.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
there may be some papers asked for which the government will be unable to furnish, but we will be happy to bring down all we have.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MANION moved:: For a copy of all papers, letters, orders in council, or other documents dealing with the deepening of the St.. Lawrence river between the eastern end of lake Ontario and Prescott (or Ogdensburg).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
this resolution covers possible correspondence between the Canadian Department of External Affairs and the legation of the United States at Ottawa, as well as correspondence between that department and our own minister at Washington. It should, I think, be understood that the same practice will be followed in Canada as is followed in Great Britain, and that correspondence of a confidential nature between the legations and the government should be treated as such. There has been some correspondence with the United States government with regard to the subject matter of the resolution but I am not sure that that correspondence can be brought down at the present time inasmuch as the matter is one which in part is still under consideration. Some of the information asked for can and will be brought down.



Unopposed, Motions for Papers


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this is not
a debatable motion, but the observations of the right hon. the Prime Minister necessitate a clear understanding, as this is a matter which may frequently recur. As I understand the practice in England, interdepartmental correspondence or correspondence between an ambassador and his minister, containing instructions regarding the form of a despatch, is regarded as private and confidential and is not brought before parliament, but the despatch framed upon the instructions is always considered to be properly laid before parliament. Interdepartmental correspondence is privileged to some extent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course, the
element of time enters into the question and may determine as to whether or not the papers shall be tabled.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Kingston (Mr. Ross) has had tabled a return of which I was unaware, and I do not ask that correspondence which has been already tabled be brought down. What I want is the correspondence which has not been brought down under the limits which we all understand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it, the
reference to interdepartmental correspondence refers to only foreign affairs; interdepartmental correspondence between other government departments has always been available to parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not necessarily all interdepartmental correspondence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WOODSWORTH moved:: For a copy of all correspondence between, (1) The British and Canadian governments or their representatives in any way referring to the intervention of the Attorney-General of Great Britain in the case of Nadan versus the King, before the judicial committee of the Privy Council; and,
(2) All correspondence between the Dominion government or its representatives and the lieutenant-governor or government of Nova Scotia or their representatives with reference to the Nova Scotia Bill or Act to abolish the upper house in the province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
objection to this motion provided there is any correspondence to be brought down, and that the consent of any other government involved is first obtained.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Kemble Esling: For a copy of report on which was based order in council No. 418T, 17th March, 1926, permitting the further entry of Doukhobors to Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Provided there is any such report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mir. J. G. ROSS (Mouse Jaw) moved:: Whereas after thorough investigation by this house it was decided to improve the export standard of Canadian wheat and to recommend to the Board of Grain Commissioners that a rigid inspection toe enforced at Fort William and Port Arthur; that .the board maintain strict supervision at the transfer elevators and at the seaports in Canada in order to safeguard the certificate final for Canadian wheat;
And whereas large quantities of Canadian wheat are annually shipped through the United States to their seaports and through their seaports to the markets of the world;
And whereas in the United States the board cannot supervise the transfer of or the handling of Canadian grain through its different movements to the seaport;	_	_ _
Therefore be it resolved-That, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that the exporter of Canadian wheat from other than Canadian seaports deposit with the Board of Grain Commissioners ten cents per bushel, either in cash or by filing a bond, which amount 6hall be rebated when tire wheat so exported has been inspected and found when loading at the American seaport to be the Canadian export standard of the grade as designated on the certificate final.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, when yesterday the
speech from the throne was adopted so hurriedly without any amendment from tfhe opposition, none of us who had resolutions upon the order paper expected to be called upon so soon to disouss those questions. I have, however, been waiting to take the first opportunity to bring this question before the House of Commons and the people of Canada. Last year we investigated very thoroughly the Grain Act 'before the agriculture committee of the House of Commons and from that investigation came certain amendments to the Grain Act which have bad am important bearing c.n the grain situation in the Dominion. W.e first of all intimated to the Board of Grain Commissioners that we wanted a change made-and we put that change in the act last year-to raise the export standard of Canadian wheat. We asked the Board of Grain Commissioners to have a closer supervision of the inspection of grain at Fort Wil-

Grain Trade-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
liam and the different inspection points throughout Canada. We also asked the Board of Grain Commissioners to supervise more Closely the transfer of grain through the transfer elevators om the great lakes. We also asked to have a closer supervision of Canadian grain through seaports in Canada, buit we made nio move towards supervising the handling of Canadian grain through the United States.
A large portion of our grain is shipped each year through United States ports, and I see no reason why we should trust the handlers of our grain in the United States more than we do our own people in this country. Therefore I ana endeavouring to have the house pass a resolution to compel closer supervision of Canadian *ferain through United States channels and seaports. For that reason I ask that any exporter of grain in Canada from other than Canadian seaports, deposit with the Board of Grain Connmissnotners ten cents per bushel in cash or by filling a tend, which amount shall be rebaited when the grain has been inspected while loading at the United States seaport and found to be the export standard of the grade as designated on the certificate final.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Inspected by whom at the United States seaport, might I ask?


John Gordon Ross: That would
have to be set up by parliament or by the Board of Grain Oommassmon'ers.


Hugh Guthrie: Would it be by a Canadian representative or by a foreign representative?


John Gordon Ross: Necessarily by a Canadian representative, I would say. We teip this wheat out through United States ports and we do not follow it up to see that practices that have been carried on in the past in Canada are noit carried on in the United States. Last year, while we were before the agriculture committee, several of the members from western Canada were gathering information in regard to the export of our grain and I found out, by getting into touch with certain importers of grain in the old country, that practices of mixing must have been carried on in some of the United States channels. In ordter to safeguard our Canadian certificate final which carries our Canadian grain through a United States port as well os through a Canadian port, I wish [DOT] to have enforced an inspection at the United States seaport. In order that this may be accomplished, I ask the Board of Grain Commissioners, so as to force the inspection there,
to impose a penalty of ten cents per bushel either in cash or by filing a bond. There are not many exporters of grain from Canada and grain is exported in large quantities by those exporters. Therefore I ask for the filing of a bond in some oases.
Another reason for .that is teat one of tee exporters may ship a cargo of wheat from Port William to Fort Colbome, but for some reason he may wish to divert 'that cargo from Port Colbome to Buffalo. If in that case he has filed with tee government a bond heavy enough throughout the season, he can report to the government and the bond oovers a cargo so diverted.
During tee investigation before the agriculture committee, we found, for instance a certain lowering of grade was carried on in different United States ports, which practice actually diverted grain through United States ports instead of Canadian ports. In other words, the restrictions we have, here on tee handling of grain in Canada to-day and the supervision that we have set up, really discriminate against Canadian channels and Canadian ports in favour of United States channels and United States ports, Therefore I want bote channels of export to be put upon the same 'basis.
There is another angle to this resolution. It proposes that all Canadian grain crossing tee American boundary shall pay that penalty of 10 cents per bushel until such wheat is exported out of an American seaport.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask, have we
power to do that, and is not this really putting an export tax of 10 cents a bushel on grain?


John Gordon Ross: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What else is it?


John Gordon Ross: It is not putting an export tax on grain, but it proposes to provide a penalty to force the inspection of Canadian grain crossing the border to see that when it is finally exported it shall come up to the standard designated on the certificate final. I might say further, in reply to my hon. friend, that the adoption of this resolution by the house as it now stands would put an export duty on wheat milled in bond in the United States, and I would like to know if my hon. friend has any objection to that.
The resolution calls for a rebate when the grain on inspection is found to be up to the standard designated on the certificate final when it passes out of an American seaport, and it calls for a rebate in no other case
84	COMMONS
Grain Trade-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
That 10 'Cents per bushel is put on as the Canadian wheat crosses the boundary, and is only rebated when that wheat is exported as wheat through an American seaport. At the present .time the United States have a duty of 42 cents a bushel against our wheat. We cannot therefore sell our wheat to the United States.


Robert James Manion: And not much of anything else.


John Gordon Ross: We appear to be doing quite a business with them.


Robert James Manion: Not as much as they are
doing with us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Free raw materials.


Ernest Lapointe: Wait for the budget
speech.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaiw):: But the American people like to take our grain and mill it in bond, and in that way, by mixing our good wheat along with theirs, they take away to some extent the market from the Canadian miller. If the American people wish to wipe out their tariff on Canadian grain, I see no reason why we should not allow them to mill our wheat, but I do not think we should allow the American miller to take advantage of the superior quality of Canadian wheat that is passing through that country, when that action in no way raises the value of that grain in the Canadian market. The man who mills Canadian wheat in the United States pays exactly the same price for it as does the Canadian miller. It is bought in competition on the Winnipeg market on a Fort William basis, and the milling of Canadian wheat in the United States does not in any way raise the price of Canadian wheat in Canada. My hon. friends opposite are smiling, bult that is the fact; and furthermore it does not raise the price of American wheat in the United States, although they have a duty of 42 cents a bushel against Canadian grain.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The case you are now
making shows that the consumer does not always pay the duty.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: In natural products he may not.


James Dew Chaplin: Oh natural, nothing.


John Gordon Ross: I do not wish
to discuss this resolution at any great length. The object is simply to force the inspection of Canadian wheat at the American seaport to see that it has not deteriorated in quality
[Mi. J. G. Ross.]
in any way, to see that the Canadian seaport is under no disadvantage in the shipment of wheat-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only difficulty I
have in following the hon. gentleman is this: what control can we exercise over the American port authorities?


John Gordon Ross: If the exporter
does not wish to have the inspection made in the United States, he simply pays the 10 cents a bushel penalty. It is entirely up to him. But if the inspection is made and it shows that the grain has deteriorated in quality, surely the Board of Grain Commissioners of Canada should cancel that certificate final.


Mr. GEARY:: In what way does the
deterioration occur?


John Gordon Ross: By the mixing
of grain.


George Reginald Geary: Then it is bootlegging against the United States.


John Gordon Ross: No, a lower grade of grain might be mixed with it.


George Reginald Geary: Then you would have a
greater quantity going out than was shipped in.


John Gordon Ross: If my resolution goes through as it stands, the milling in bond of Canadian wheat will be done at an extra cost of 10 cents per bushel or about 42 cents per barrel. That will give the Canadian miller that much advantage in the world's market.


James Malcolm: The resolution standing on the order paper in the name of my hon. friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) raises two or three important principles in the conduct of trade. I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity to devote more time to a study of the resolution, for the reason that I had no expectation that it would come up so soon. I had asked the Board of Grain Commissioners to give me their opinion on the resolution so that I might be able to submit it to the house when the resolution came up for discussion.
The resolution proposes to stop the milling of Canadian wheat in bond in the United States, or else have Canadian wheat which is milled in bond in the United States pay a duty of 10 cents a bushel. Canadian wheat is undoubtedly used to step-up the grade of American flour for export. The practice at the present time is this: Wheat is held iD

Grain Trade-Mr. Malcolm
bond in a warehouse at Buffalo, and when the wheat is milled for export in the form off flour, the importer is given a rebate of the duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But how can we thus interfere with the matters that are involved in the bonding of wheat? The minister realizes that our wheat goes through in bond, and it is milled in bond, and it goes out of the United States sometimes, I think, under a false name; but leaving that aside, how can we, by passing this resolution, put an export duty of 10 cents a bushel on bonded wheat without interfering with the whole bonding arrangements between the United States and Canada?


James Malcolm: That is a question that presents great difficulty. I doubt very much if it could be done.
If I may be allowed to continue my argument for a moment, I should like to point out to my hon. friend from Moose Jaw some of the difficulties that present themselves in connection with this resolution, and at the end of my remarks I will suggest to him how the matter can better be dealt with.
The wheat is milled in the United States in bond, and when the flour milled is exported a rebate of the duty is granted on the Canadian wheat entering into the flour. May I point out to my hon. friend that this rebating of duties paid on raw materials is handled in very much the same way by the Dominion government. For instance, we give a rebate of the duties on raw materials entering into a commodity which we export, and I would not like to recommend a disturbance of that principle. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) spoke of Canadian wheat paying a duty when entering France and Germany. As a matter of fact, Canadian wheat does not actually pay any duty entering France or Germany. France last year raised 30,000,000 bushels of wheat more than Canada, but it was not of so good a quality. Of that enormous production of wheat France exported a very substantial quantity. Every time a wheat exporter in France exports a million bushels he gets a certificate from his government, which permits him to import a like quantity of any other kind of wheat for milling.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Duty free?


James Malcolm: Duty free. The duty is rebated in both France and Germany on the quantity of weat imported to offset the quantity exported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is only when they have an exportable surplus.


James Malcolm: Yes. This law permits
the French millers to buy a certain quantity of good Canadian wheat to step up their grade. It makes a market for Canadian wheat, but, true, it brings a lot of lower grade wheat into competition with Canadian wheat on the Liverpool market. But the fact remains that milling in bond in any country to some extent is permitted, and the Canadian wheat grower does benefit to that extent.
I do not know whether my hon. friend is altogether right in expecting that we should stop the flow of wheat through American ports. While a considerable amount of wheat of Canadian origin is exported through American ports, an equal amount of American wheat is exported through Canadian ports, so that in this respect the respective exports balance.
I should like my hon. friend to understand that this question can be handled only by an amendment to the Canada Grain Act. It was not discussed in the committee on agriculture last year; it is an entirely new question and involves some principles of trade which I think are vital; one of which principles the hon. leader of the opposition has mentioned. I believe with him that this matter will have to be very carefully considered, and I would suggest to my hon. friend that when the grain act, which has been revised by Colonel Biggar and the Board of Grain Commissioners, is up for consideration in committee it would be much wiser on his part to present his resolution to the committee on agriculture and have it debated there.
I should like my hon. friend to consider the advisability of withdrawing his resolution, reserving to himself the right to submit it as an amendment to the grain act, for that is the only way in which it could be properly considered.


Hewitt Bostock: Do any other hon. members desire to speak?


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have a chance to read this resolution and study it. The proposal looks to me so unreasonable and dangerous that I certainly cannot favour it at the present time, and I am glad the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) has advised the mover to withdraw the resolution. I cannot understand the hon. gentleman's reason for bringing it forward. First of all it calls for the preservation of Canadian grain according to the Canadian certificates. Then he goes on to talk of the evil of allowing the grain to be milled in bond
Grain Trade-Mr. Evans

in the United States. I certainly do not understand what is the real purpose of the resolution.
We ship a great deal of grain through the United States ports. In fact, some years ago when we erected an elevator at Buffalo it was considered to be one of the most advantageous places for getting grain into the European market, being within a few hours run of New York, where the best ocean rates and ample space are available at all times. Now, to prevent our wheat going through there under a penalty of ten cents a bushel is to my mind creating a dangerous precedent. What we should seek to do is to preserve our grain according to its certificates as it goes out of our own ports. That has been the problem with us so far. In fact the danger of our wheat being contaminated when shipped through American ports is no greater than when it is shipped through the port of Montreal. Last year the president of the wheat pool accused even the heads of the Department of Trade and Commerce of not seeing to it that our grain was not mixed in the port of Montreal. Now to put a penalty on wheat going through New York or any other American port is, I think, a dangerous precedent, and I for one am bound to vote against it.


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that
most of us who are vitally interested in this question are entirely unprepared to discuss it, and I should like to support the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his request to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) to withdraw his resolution. We have travelled from resolution No. 1 down to No. 21 on the order paper this afternoon, so that no one interested in this question is prepared to enter into any lengthy discussion of it, and I hope the hon. minister's suggestion will ibe adopted by the mover of the resolution.


Mr. A. B. THOMPSON (East Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just one word in favour of this resolution, the purpose of which, I take it, is to encourage the export of more grain through our Canadian ports than through Buffalo and other American ports. If we can encourage the shipment of grain through our own ports it means more cargo for Canadian vessels, more freight for Canadian railways, and more work for Canadian workmen. Therefore I am strongly in favour of the principle of this resolution.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a form of protection for the grain growing industry. The

Turgeon grain commission went much further than this resolution goes. It recommended that an embargo should be placed on hard wheat routed through American ports. Some three years ago I made an investigation of this movement myself. I saw the grain in the Buffalo elevators and I found they were mixing our Canadian hard wheat with their American stuff; in fact bootlegging was going on all the time. This bootlegging of our fine No. 1 hard wheat is doing Canada untold injury in the overseas market. Last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) sent some of his inspectors over to England, and they reported that they saw no bootlegging. Of course, they would see none. But if they had kept their eyes open they would have seen the condition of affairs in Buffalo and other American ports.
We have heard a lot about free trade in connection with the grain growing industry of western Canada, but I do not see my hon. friends the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) present to protect the interests of the free trade party. For years and years they said: Keep pumping more wheat growers into the west; it is a free trade industry, a north and south bound industry instead of an east and west bound overseas industry. But there has been a change in the condition of affairs on the prairies with Argentine and other wheat growing countries back into the world market. In a word, the law of supply and demand is coming into operation again, with the result that the wheat growing industry of the prairies is calling for protection to-day. The resolution moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw is part of a loaf. Well, part of a loaf is better than no loaf at all. It will do something to check up this bootlegging of our grain in the United States.
Three or four years ago the Toronto papers spent a large sum of money on an investigation of these bootlegging practices in the United States. They engaged Mr. Porter, a prominent newspaper man in Winnipeg, to investigate the ports of the United States and to write a series of articles on the result of his investigation. Week after week his articles appeared in our newspapers with pictures of the American elevators, the unloading of the grain boats and the milling of the wheat, and it was apparent that bootlegging was going all the time. Is this to be allowed to continue forever? The moneys spent on our Canadian ports to-dhy aTe wasted; the moneys spent on harbour works at Halifax, Quebec, and Montreal are wasted ; the moneys being spent at the head of the lakes on docks, wharves and elevators are being wasted. Some

Grain Trade-Mr. Millar
of the money spent on railways is being wasted as well, and we are not getting the full benefit of a connected Canadian transportation system including elevators, railways and waterways. If there is one industry that should be protectionist it is the grain trade in this country, with conditions as they are in the prairies to-day. The wheat pool is nothing but a form of protection, and I hope it will be successful in its efforts at present, even though it only controls 55 per cent of the crop.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution deals with a condition which has been a source of annoyance to the Canadian wheat grower for some time. For many years Canadian wheat passing through American channels has not reached the old country market in an entirely satisfactory condition, and in addition confusion has been brought about among those who buy the wheat with the result that in many cases a lower price has been paid for Canadian grain coming even through Canadian channels. However, I feel with many other members that with this resolution coming on so quickly we are not prepared bo arrive at a conclusion with regard to such an important matter, involving many points which must be carefully considered. I feel that I would not like to decide at the moment whether o-r not it is a practical move.
The question of maxing has been raised, and the question was asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) as to how the grain was deteriorated. I remember that during the time the Turgeon commission was investigating the grain trade they were asked to look into this very matter and I believe took a trip to New York for that purpose. Their report was that they were unable to find proof of mixing at that port but it happened that the chief inspector, Mr. George Searls, was in England at the time, and he stated that mixing certainly did take place, because he saw the grain arriving at the English market containing American grain.
This discussion would be hardly complete unless there was something said about protein content. Let me say that in the states from Buffalo east the demand for Canadian high protein wheat is even greater than in the western states, and the millers in that part of the United States are very anxious to have our high protein, strong wheat in order that they may mill it in bond or perhaps bootleg it. There seems very good reason to believe that part of the grain is bootlegged, and in that way the American miller gains an advantage and sells his product in competition with
our grain in the British market. The question also was raised during this discussion as to whether or not the American tariff increased the price of American wheat, and I must say that I agree only in part with the hon. member for Moose Jaw with regard to this question. There is. a type of strong, hard American wheat grown in the northwestern states with which our hard wheat comes in competition, and in that case the American tariff does increase the price of American wheat.


Edward James Young: Always.


John Millar: No, not always, but except at a time when there is a surplus of hard wheat it does raise the price of American wheat. On the other hand in such a year as this, when high protein, strong wheat is plentiful, it would not in any degree affect the price. However, a great deal of the American crop is grown in other parts of the United States; it is soft wheat and is sold in competition with Canadian and other wheat in the old country and world markets. This wheat is not in the least affected in price by the American tariff, and cannot be so affected.
I believe someone on the other side asked whether the consumer paid the tariff. I believe these two different classes of wheat will illustrate the point I wish to make, that sometimes the consumer pays the tariff. In the case of the hard wheat in those years I mentioned, when the price is raised, undoubtedly the American consumer pays the tariff, but it matters not how much tariff is placed on our wheat; it will not protect our Canadian farmers in. the least. American wheat is not coming into Canada at present, even at 12 cents a bushel. It has been suggested that the duty might be raised to 42 cents per bushel, following the brick for brick policy which has been advocated. That would not affect 'the price one iota; it would not increase the price of wheat by a fraction of a cent on this side of the line.
I hope the hon. member for Moose Jaw will see fit to withdraw this resolution, following the suggestion made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in order that hon. members may have more time to give consideration to the matter.


John Gordon Ross: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition, in discussing this matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, raised the question of banding wheat. As a matter of fact Canadian wheat milled in bond in Ithe United States is not milled in bond; Canadian wheat, which we call milled

War Pensions-Mr. McGibbon
in bond, pays the 42 cent duty going into the United States, which duty is refunded after the wheat is exported.
The hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) stated that this proposal would disrupt the channel through Buffalo. That is not so. When we ship through Buffalo and the American seaports, once the wheat is found to be up to the grade the rebate is given, and it in no way affects the shipment of wheat through the American seaports.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has asked that I withdraw this resolution and present it as an amendment to the grain act when that act comes before the agriculture committee. Realizing that no one expected this resolution to come up at this time, and with the understanding that few members of the house were ready to discuss the matter, I will be only too glad to withdraw the resolution as it appears to-day and present it to the agriculture committee as an amendment to the grain act.
Motion withdrawn.



WAR PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. PETER MoGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, any- exsoldier who has served in any theatre oif war, who applies for a pension or an increase of pension and submits evidence or an opinion from any reputable physician or surgeon in Canada, stating that hie disability is directly or indirectly attributable to war service, the onus of disproof shall be upon the Board of Pension Commissioners and that unless the same be disproved a pension shall be granted to the said applicant in accordance with the schedule at present in force under the regulations of the Board of Pension Commissioners.
He said: Mr. Speaker, like other members I hardly expected this resolution to be reached to-day, but as it is a subject with which nearly everyone in parliament is quite familiar it might as well be approached now as at any other time. The problem of the returned soldier is most important, and for the past .eleven or twelve years we have devoted a large amount of time in. this house and in committee trying to solve it, but I am afraid conditions to-day are worse than at any time during that period. I was very pleased to note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), when speaking the other day, endorsed this resolution in substance by putting the whole force of the government in parliament behind what he termed "deferred disabilities." This resolution deals with that class of legis-

lation. It is true parliament has from time to time endeavoured to deal with those who incurred disabilities during the war but as we all know, and so often hear discussed, there is an ever-increasing number of such claims coming before the country and parliament for relief. This resolution endeavours to place the solution of those cases where it belongs, and the people of Canada ought to bear that responsibility. It is useless to say to the pensioner that he must find proof in his own case because that proof is not now in existence. Many a man was accepted in the army as physically fit, served during the whole time and was discharged physically fit, but to-day, through war disability, the stress of the trenches and battle to which he was exposed for three or four years, he finds himself not only disabled physically but sometimes -a m-uoh more sad case-deficient mentally. The proof of that cannot be in the records of the ex-soldier; it never was there and cannot be placed there to-day. Everyone in this country who has studied this problem will agree with the Prime Minister that these so-called deferred disabilities are due to war service. It is to that class this resolution is directed in order that parliament through the instrumentality of the government might find some solution for the present condition of the ex-service man. Not only should this matter be considered as to the physical condition, or the rights or merits o.f the case, but from the humane point of view as well This country is too rich, and I think too grateful, to allow any ex-soldier or his dependents to be in want when it is realized that not only are there hundreds of cases, but tens of thousands, all due to the fact that they left their homes and their all when they went to fight for this country.
Leaving out of consideration, sir, the matter of pensions, where do these men find themselves when they go to any employment bureau or industry in this country? Let two men of the same age and qualifications apply for employment, I can say without fear of contradiction, there is a prejudice against the ex-soldier. This is not because he was a soldier, but because there is the belief that the effect of the war has left him less fit. to undertake industrial duties. I am not one to claim that the captain of industry should sacrifice efficiency in their plants in order to give employment to the returned man; this country should make up his lack of efficiency. We should not handicap industry by asking employers to take into their service men only fifty, sixty or seventy per cent efficient, due to war service. In the past, I am glad to-

War Pensions-Mr. King (Kootenay)
say, all parties have got together and done what they could do to solve this problem, but it is not solved.
The United States of America have, in substance, practically endorsed this resolution. They have obliterated the onus of proof test to the ex-soldier, but this country has contented itself with a law whereby the soldier must prove that disability was attributable to war. In many cases that is impossible because there is nothing in the records. I have studied the report of Colonel Bruce made during the war, and he tells us that the records are very incomplete. Therefore we should not at this late date force the ex-soldier to base his claim upon that proof procured by himself. That is another reason, sir, why we have to be fairly lenient when passing judgment upon pensioners or applicants for pensions. This question involves the honour of this country because during the stress of war we pleaded for every young man who was capable to give his service. The young men responded to that appeal, sacrificing business and life at home for the defence of this country. Later under certain conditions we compelled them to go and those conditions having been complied with I contend it is up to this country, in the spirit of justice and in the name of humanity, both to look sympathetically upon the claims of returned men and to help them during these distressing times. This resolution, sir, simply removes the onus from the applicant and places it upon the country. What is more fair? I have stated time and time again when I had the pleasure of serving on soldier committees, that the cost and difficulty of preparing his case put a handicap upon the returned man. This country can well afford to create a board of experts, medical men and surgeons, to pass upon these claims, and in doing so it will be doing justice to these people who sacrificed so much during the war and who now find themselves handicapped as a result of their war service. In justice to these veterans this resolution should pass. As I have said, this matter has been practically cleaned up in the United States, and if the government would grant this request, which I think is in the spirit of the Prime Minister's words of the day before yesterday, I believe it would do more to solve this problem than anything else done heretofore.
If we form another committee we will be met with the same problems presented in the same way, and so long as you put upon the applicant the trouble and expense of proving his case, there is the possibility that he may fall down. His case may not be properly presented and the redress which is rightly
his will not be made. I think we have some 160,000 pensioners in this country, and 50,000 boys are lying in the hills of France wrapped in their field blankets. They sacrificed themselves for this country, for you and me and for our friends, for the good of Canada, for the good of industry and for the good of humanity. The least this parliament can do is to look after these pensioners and their dependents.
John Millar: Apparently the resolution proposes that the onus of proof will be placed upon the pension board, and I suppose it would be correct to assume that that board will be the judges in the matter as to whether or not they have been able to disprove the contention of the pensioner.


Mr. McGIBBON:: The onus of disproof
will be upon the pension board of such other board as the government of the day may see fit to create.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, I have
no desire to limit the discussion on this important resolution, but it is well known that this act has been built up during a period of years from 1915. From time to time amendments have been made and commissions have been appointed in order that parliament might be able to deal with this important matter in the best possible way. The most important social question with which the Canadian people have to deal is this one concerning the veteran. .
The principle laid down for the granting of pensions is that a pension be paid for disability due to war service or for aggravation from that service. That is the primary principle, and under the administration of this act the records of the veterans come up for consideration, the evidence is discussed and examined by specialists engaged by the department, and the pension is awarded.


Mr. CLARK:: It would be interesting to
know how many cases per month come before the Board of Pension Commissioners for their consideration and decision.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I could not give
that information offhand, but I have been recently informed that they are well up with their work. They have dealt with many cases which have arisen out of the legislation of 1928, many files have been examined and many adjustments have been made.


John Arthur Clark: Is it a fact that from fifteen hundred to two thousand files are examined monthly?
War Pensions-Mr. Guthrie


John Warwick King: Many files are
examined from month to month. Due to the amendment of 1928, many new applications have come in, have been considered and acted upon. As far as the soldier problem is concerned, I do not think it will be possible for this parliament or any parliament so to amend the Pension Act as to take care of the soldier situation unless we depart entirely from the principle that a pension is to be paid for aggravation or disability growing out of war service. The committee of 1928 requested that the department make an investigation and decide if something could not be done for the type of man who would not come under the Pension Act but who had suffered disabilities deserving of compensation. In speaking the other day, the Prime Minister intimated that it was the intention of the government to bring down a bill which would be referred to a special committee of this house. Heretofore such special committees have been made up largely of men who served overseas, front line men who knew the soldier problem, and I would suggest that this resolution be referred to that special committee. The committee will be appointed just as soon as it can be arranged for among the different parties, and it will consider certain other amendments which have been suggested by soldier organizations throughout Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that
during the session of 1928 my hon. friend the leader of the opposition moved in this house-


John Warwick King: It was in 1927.


Hugh Guthrie: In 1927 my hon. friend
the leader of the apposition moved a motion, which I had the honour to second, which was very similar in terms to the resolution which has been moved by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon), and my recollection is that that motion was voted down. Since that time I have been actively engaged on behalf of two widows of returned soldiers who have been endeavouring to secure pensions, but they have been refused upon the ground that they were not able to establish that the illness or decease of the husbands was attributable to war service because, in the opinion of the pension board, the medical certificates which were produced did not cover the whole period since the discharge. There is another complaint which I think we can all make, and in which the Board of Pension Commissioners will join, that the act as at present drawn permits them little or no dis-

cretion. They feel bound by the letter of the law, and I think in some instances they are applying the letter of the law to the very last extremity. They indicate to me that in doing this they are advised by the Department of Justice.
Let me mention one case which I have in mind and which I had intended to bring up before the house this session. A returned soldier is discharged medically fit in 1919. In 1922 he suffers from an attack which is diagnosed by his own physician as bronchitis. The attack is a little persistent and he makes application for a pension. He is examined in the usual way and his application for pension is refused. In the autumn of 1922 he marries. He is back at work; to all appearances he is hale and hearty, but some doctor during the course of his application diagnosed a tubercular condition, though the sputum was reported as negative. The wife knows nothing of this. The man was working every day and continued to work until 1924 when his condition became serious. I renewed his application and pension was then granted on the basis of 100 per cent. He had married a woman who was entirely ignorant of his condition. He had been refused pension at the time of his marriage. Subsequently he died and the widow has been refused a pension upon the ground that under the act as now drawn, he was chronically ill-those are the two words usedi-at the time of the marriage. I must say I think I had the sympathy of the members of the Board of Pension Commissioners, but they felt bound, by some ruling of the Department of Justice, to find that this man was chronically ill, although their view was that he was in a chronic condition. He was not laid off from his work. A man may have chronic bronchitis and at the same time perform all his ordinary duties. One of the commissioners said that he himself was troubled with varicose veins and was chronically ill, but he said: "I call mine a chronic condition; I am doing all my work." This unfortunate soldier was doing the same thing, working eight or ten hours a diay as a carpenter. The woman who married him was ignorant of his condition. Now she is told, after the man dies, that at the time of the marriage he was chronically ill, though the Board of Pension Commissioners had refused him a pension in the first instance, just before his marriage. That is hewing to the line and the letter of the law and the board should be vested with some discretion in cases of that kind.	.
Let me cite another case that comes more nearly within the resolution. A man is discharged,' medically fit, in 1919. He has some

War Pensions-Mr. Clark
trouble in. 1923. He visits a physician, and unfortunately the physician -cannot now be found. He marries. He goes to live in the state of Michigan and in 1926 he has a recurrence of his trouble. In the meantime he has worked for four years. Four physicians have treated him. He died 'last spring in Harper hospital, Detroit, and four physicians have certified that his death, in their opinion, was due -to war service. He had been shellshocked, it is alleged, yet we have nothing to show for t-he intervening years. There are no medical certificates because they cannot be obtained and the board holds that that case has not been proved and the widow shall be deprived of her pension. That case comes very nearly within the resolution moved by my hon. friend this afternoon.
I think in every case the benefit of the dou-bt, where there is a reasonable one, should be given to the applicant for pension, and I would like this resolution to be passed -by the house in order that, when the committee meets, it may be in the nature of an order of the house, and that some clause of this kind may be included in the amendment which is contemplated to the Pension Act this session.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Speaker, the resolution that is now before the house presents perhaps the greatest difficulty that is experienced by a soldier in securing justice from the country. Generally speaking, when a man needs help he is more or less in a down-and-out condition and if the Board of Pension 'Commissioners has rejected his application he has no one to turn to, unless some doctor is prepared to be charitable enough to go into his case minutely-without, by the way, the records at hand. Therefore the man is subject to a handicap that he should not be confronted with. I think I can safely say that the spirit of every pension committee of which I have been a member, and indeed of all committees of the house that have dealt with this question, has been as defined in this resolution. Where the spirit is lacking is in the house. It is not a committee we wish to convince of the necessity of the spirit of this resolution; it is the house. That was clearly demonstrated in 1927 after a committee had sat year after year and had been actuated by this spirit; a motion somewhat similar to this was made in the house and was defeated.
Some provision along this line should be made. Everyone knows that the soldiers' records are deficient; and I will give an instance of how and why they are deficient. Take, for example, the offensive of 1918. I recall very distinctly that in July of that year
there was a call for certain trained non-commissioned officers to come to Canada. I remember one man in my own battalion who was recommended to come back to Canada as an instructor, the reason being that he was in failing health and was no longer fit for his duties in the lme. Unfortunately the thing was cancelled and we had no way of getting rid of the man except by evacuating him. He was game enough to stick it; he stuck it and he became a senior non-commissioned officer. He has, however, suffered from a disability ever since the war, but there is nothing on his medical history sheet to show that. The man was fit when he enlisted. To-day he is suffering from a serious disability, and it is only very recently, ten years after, that the pension board has admitted that disability. There is no medical evidence, but I think because of the evidence of his company commander who remembers the circumstances, some justice may be done to that man. But why should it be necessary to wait ten, eleven, twelve years after the event in order to do justice?
Another very serious difficulty, as I see it, in arriving at a really effective investigation into these cases is in the department of the Minister of Pensions. As I understand the matter, the pension board has from 1,500 to 2,000 files before it a month. That means cases to deal with. Is there in existence any court of justice consisting of three persons that can deal effectively with 1,500 cases or even 250 cases in a month? The fact is that justice cannot be done.
I am going to give an illustration as to a case where justice could have been done. I do not believe it has been due to any malicious act on the part of the Board of Pension Commissioners, but certainly in this case there has been a most serious oversight in the matter of doing justice. This happened to be one of my own men also who was very severely wounded in the thigh. Practically every year since the war that man has had a major operation on his thigh. He has spent anywhere from two to five months a year in hospital. He was awarded a 15 per cent pension, which was afterwards reduced to 10 per cent, and afterwards it was put back to 15 per cent. I have in my possession a letter from that man's employers saying that they have done their best, that the man is a good man, that it is not his fault, but that they will be obliged to let him go altogether unless some better arrangement can be made, as he is out of the office now from two to five months of the year. Perhaps if that man were getting a proper pension he might be able to continue in his position.
War Pensions-Mr. Lang

My understanding of the pension situation is this: Pensions are awarded on the basis of a man's (disability in the labour market, not as to whether he is able to carry on clerical work in an office. The whole test is whether the man is fit to go into the labour market and do a day's manual labour. If he is not, his disability is rated accordingly. It represents the percentage of ability that he lacks to do day labour. Now the man with that thigh case whose foon-e has been scraped time after time, and who has had a major operation year after year-there is a record of at least six operations-surely he is entitled to more than a 10 or 15 per cent pension. This is where the thing is all wrong. No board of pension commissioners can deal with one or two thousand cases in a month, and see all the cases of this nature, and do justice to them.
There is this anomaly in the Pension Act and in the organization of the pensions board and of the federal appeal board: The pension commissioners (take the evidence, and they sit in Ottaw-a. The federal appeal board can take no evidence, and they tour the country. Now whoever heard in law of the appeal court doing the travelling, and of the trial court sitting in a central place to which all litigants had to come? The thing is all wrong. The practice should be reversed. There ought to be at least five, perhaps six, members of the Board of Pension Commissioners, and a quorum of this board should go to western Canada, a quorum to central Canada, a quorum to eastern Canada, and make personal investigation into these cases. Let the men come before them. Encourage the board to get independent medical opinions, and let them take the evidence down. The appeal board should sit in Ottawa or some other central place, and have the soldiers' advocates appear before them. I assure the government that that would save tens of thousands of dollars annually. As it is now, the Federal Appeal Board travels about the country, and if a new opinion is offered to the appeal board they cannot take it down as evidence; they are debarred by law. The thing is ridiculous.
The Board of Pension Commissioners ought to go to Vancouver, for instance, and hear any new evidence, pass judgment upon it, and then the file when completed should go before the Federal Appeal Board for review if necessary. The organization at present is all wrong, and I trust that the government will take that matter into consideration in drafting amendments to the Pension Act.
I submit that a new act should be drafted

by the government and submitted to the pensions committee for consideration. The responsibility is the government's. The government cannot expect a committee of men who are not really experts in drafting legislation to re-draft the act. The act ought to be re-drafted for them, and then the committee could consider it section by section, just as a bill is considered in committee of the whole house.
I have one other suggestion to make in this connection, and thalt is that the pensions committee should' be a joint committee of the two houses of parliament, if it is possible to arrange that. We have had enough experience now to know that a great many of the difficulties that have arisen over amendments to the Pension Act have arisen through the other house not hearing the evidence as the committee of -this house has -heard it; and largely due to a misunderstanding of the situation amendments have been -refused by the other house which, properly understood, they would have accepted. If a joint committee of tlie two houses could be arranged it would save a lot of duplication of effort, and we would be able to come to a common decision in a matter which in my opinion is a very, very urgent one indeed.


Mr. MALCOLM LANG (South Timiska-ming):: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that this
resolution has oo-me before the house at this time. The resolution is deserving of our most serious attention. I am sure that the people of Canada generally wish to see the overseas men who are suffering from any disability properly taken care of. Putting the onus on the overseas man to prove that his disability was due to war service has worked a hardship in many, many cases ever since the war. There is not a doubt in my mind that there are to-day many overseas men in Canada who are deserving of a pension which they have not as yet been able to get.
I am not sure that the wording of the resolution entirely meets the needs of the day. I think sometimes -that we perhaps bother a little bit too much about doctors' diagnoses in the cases that have to be considered. The resolution before the house states that if the soldier submits evidence or an opinion from any reputable physician that his disability was directly or indirectly attributable to war .service, the onus of disproof shall be upon the Board of Pension Commissioners. I am not so sure but that a local committee in the se-c-tion where the man has resided since the war might not be able to give very good evidence on a case that they were familiar

War Pensions-Mr. Manion
with. People who knew the man well would probably have a better idea of what would fit the case than the board could get from the diagnosis of some doctor. I am firmly convinced that the people of Canada wish every overseas man or woman who finds himself or herself in a condition of failing health to-day, whether or not his or her disability is directly attributable to overseas service, to receive consideration under the Pension Act.
I am convinced that there must be amendments to the act to meet the conditions that exist to-day, and no matter what amendments we might make to the Pension Act, there will still be overseas men left out in the cold if the not is to be strictly and literally interpreted. Probably we have all noted-I have at least-that in the past few months since the meeting of the Canadian Legion in Regina, following the statement made by the Prime Minister that he wished the officers of the pension board to give as liberal an interpretation of the act as they possibly could, we have been able to get relief for many men whom we could not help previously. Undoubtedly a more liberal interpretation of the Pension Act and a more sympathetic administration on the part of the pension commissioners would very often mean a great deal more to the men interested than an amendment to the act itself.
I firmly believe that during this session we must find ways to improve the act and to insure a mare sympathetic interpretation of its provisions. Only in this way can we help the poor fellow who is diown and out and has no friends to fight his case for him, and who probably is not only in poor condition physically but also mentally. He comes home so depressed that very often he is left alone and nothing is done for him. Even if someone, does take up his case it is very, very difficult to help a man so much depressed and discouraged. As has been said by other speakers this afternoon, in many such cases there is nothing on the medical Sheet to show any disability, and the men accepted their discharge from the army as being physically fit and in A-l condition. But we know that the after effects of the severe strains to which they were subjected during their war service do not become apparent until several years after discharge, and we have not been able to care for these men as we should.
I think it is a very good thing indeed that this resolution has 'been brought to the attention of the house, and I am sure it will do good. I hope it will make every hon. member give the matter careful conjideraition, and that before the close of the session it will
be so amended that any overseas men who are in need of assistance, whether their disability can be attributed directly to their service overseas or not, will be looked after as the people of Canada, I feel sure, would wish that they Should be.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who have described this as a veiy important resolution; in fact I consider it a resolution of much greater importance than many of the resolutions which come before the house, and I shall heartily support it.
I agree with my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lang) that many men's records are either lost or misplaced so that the pension commission cannot trace them, and continually it is found that men who really deserve a pension cannot prove any connection between their illness to-day and some illness which they suffered in the army. This is due partly to lost records and partly to the fact that many of our men after the war was over were so anxious to get out of the army and its hardships that they were willing to be certified as A-l with practically mo medical examination at all, although they themselves knew that if they had disclosed their actual condition to the medical board at the time there would have been no question of securing a pension. Years later when their disability becomes more apparent they find it very difficult to prove its direct connection with their war service. In fact I have seen many men endeavouring to get doctors' certificates, but they were very doubtful pension cases. Generally speaking I believe that a reputable physician will not give a certificate unless he feels the man deserves it; the resolution is solid on that ground, I think.
To-day at the conference on unemployment from the Great lakes to the coast a gentleman representing the soldiers of the west told of many very pitiable oases of returned men who aire unable to get pensions. I do not say that all of those cases deserve attention, but I do say it is far better for this country, in view of the promises which were made to the men when they were asked to go to the front, to pay ten pensions which are undeserved than to fail to pay one pension which is deserved and thus make a soldier suffer an undeserved hardship. I agree it is time to cease hewing to the line, and that there should be an attitude of very great generosity towards these men. Suppose it does Cost a few more million dollars peT annum, and it will, this country can afford to look after its heroes in a fair and proper manner. Right in this parliament building is a man who, three or four years
War Pensions-Mr. Manion

ago, working in this building as an ordinary helper, was a strong, healthy yoiung man; today he is almost a physical wreck. He has been ooiminig to see me at different times and has found it very difficult to get a certificate from any doctor in this city linking up his illness with has war service. I sincerely believe he is honest, that his illness is associated with his overseas service, and that he Should have a pension; but he is not getting one. Continually I have men writting me from all over the oountry who served in my batal-ion at the front, of which I was medical officer, asking for my certificate that I attended them at some time during my service. When it is remembered that a medical officer often sees anywhere from twenty to sixty oases in a day, it is very difficult for him to recall the details of any individual case. Within the last two weeks I have had a letter from a man in the city of Kingston who wishes to secure a certificate from me pointing out that I haid attended him a number of times in the line for a certain condition which is troubling him to-day. Fortunately I did remember attending him. He needed that certificate to link his condition up with his service illness. In many cases it is very difficult, at least without stretching one's imagination, to remember the treatment of these men. I admit frankly that at times I am willing to stretch mjr imagination in order that these men may get justice, even if the hon.. member for Lalbelle (Mr. Bourassa) finds it a rather funny incident.


Mr. HOUR ASS  A@: No, I was not even hearing my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member laughed out loud when I made the statement.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is very Cheap for the hon. gentleman to say that.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member laughed out loud when I said that. I am sorry if I attributed to him something Which he did not intend.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken. I was laughing at an exchange of thought with another member which had no relation whatever to what the hon. gentleman was saying.


Robert James Manion: So far as I am concerned I am sorry for attributing my hon. friend's laugh to something else, and I hope he will be gentleman enough to say that he is sorry for remarking that my statement was cheap.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It was cheap, the way
you made it.


Robert James Manion: It was not cheap; it was
not half so cheap as the statement made by the hon. gentleman in this house yesterday in regard to returned' soldiers, so far as that goes.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker-and I did not intend to take very long-I wish to say that I heartily support this resolution, and am strongly in favour of the idea that we should loosen the strings as far as we can in order to look after these men in every possible way. This country is sufficiently rich and powerful to look after these returned men and their dependents and I think it is the desire, certainly of most members of this house, that we should do so.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, as yet we have not caught up to the requirements which pension legislation is designed to cover. In the early part of the post-war period it was a very simple matter; there were wounds which were exposed to sight; there were illnesses which were strictly attributable to war sendee and there was not a great deal of difficulty in drafting, as we thought then, legislation to meet all pensionable oases which might be expected to occur by reason of the war. I believe the people of this country think this parliament has kept up with a very good will the work of fulfilling the promises which not only the government but all the people of this country gave to the men when they went away, either of their own free will o-r under conscription to serve in the war. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) spoke yesterday of men having been taken to the war by persuasion, by threats or by conscription; when he spoke of these as -men who should be provided for, I do not believe he meant to exclude those who had gone of their own accord and because they felt there was nothing else for them to do.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so.


George Reginald Geary: However that may be, Mr. Speaker, they went with the promises of the people individually and of the government of this country ringing in their ears, that they should not suffer in their capacity for taking care of themselves and their families by reason of the fact that they were going overseas. But as time has gone on there have been cases uncovered which were not dreamed of at the time. Some instances have been brought forward this afternoon. Those who were in the line know of cases where men have gone out at night and come back perhaps not wounded but after having swallowed a bit of gas or something of that sort and

War Pensions-Mr. Geary
thinking very little of it. Later on, when the battalion moved back, they may have been still sick but not sick enough to go to a field ambulance or a casualty clearing station, which would mean that the records would not show the fact that they had been gassed, although that fact was well known to the men themselves and to their comrades.
In such cases the result was often apparent very shortly afterwards, but in my experience I have found many cases in which the result did not show up for ten or twelve years after the first infection. Then there are cases such as that of a man of whom I kept track after the war. He was working in an abattoir and complained of his shoulder; because of the fact that in his work he went from extremes of heat to extremes of cold it was thought he had contracted rheumatic trouble. The pain became so bad that he found it necessary to secure medical advice, and it was found that a piece of shrapnel the size of his thumb was in his shoulder; he had been carrying it there for ten or eleven years. He had been discharged as A-l and had been suffering all that time, losing day after day from work during the whole period. That piece of shrapnel was removed and a cure made; the man got his back pension so that everything was all right, but it goes to show that there are cases which are cropping up now which were not thought of when we passed the original legislation and the later amendments.
Unfortunately matters have come to a head in one particular type of disability, and that is the type which has resulted from some trouble which cannot be traced directly to the war. Such cases are multiplying, and I think it was last year that General Sir Arthur Currie, emphasizing a general complaint, brought to the notice of the Canadian legion the plea that some effort should be made to have the procedure amended so that these cases could be covered, since in many instances the result could not be traced directly back to the cause. We all know that when the men started the return from France the only thought in every mind was to get home. Each man was boarded, of course, before he toft England; if the man was not lucky and could not get by the medical officer he was sent to a camp and had to see his comrades go home some three or four months before he could get away himself. It was a cause of great dissatisfaction at that time to be sent to a camp; the overwhelming desire of every man was to get home, and he did not mind falsifying, or at all events minimizing, his difficulty so that he could get an A-l certificate and get on the
boat with the rest of the men. That should not be held against him to-day; the A-l certificate of discharge does not necessarily mean what it says, and it should not be an estoppel or a bar in any way to a claim resulting from something which happened before that discharge certificate was given.
Again, there are the cases of men who have had successive operations. It runs in my mind that in one case a man had thirty-one or thirty-two operations, but in my own experience I have known men to undergo six, seven or eight operations, and perhaps even more.
I do not want to disparage the work of the surgical profession in any way; however, it is not every surgical operation which is a success so far as the patient is concerned. The man undergoes his operation; then in a short time he is sent back to the hospital and has to go through the same thing again. Later on he returns again and in time has perhaps four or five or six operations, so when it gets to the seventh time and the poor fellow is not better, he gets fed up with it. He believes no longer in surgical operations, but when he goes for his pension he is told that he must have still another operation. He says "I will do no such thing," and then the record goes back endorsed "Unreasonably refuses to submit to operation," and his pension is cut down say fifty per cent.
The Board of Pension Commissioners must work according to their rules-I do not know what they are; but if I were to say anything about the members of the board I should say that they are gentlemen of sincerity, honesty and ability in the carrying on of their functions. But I am rather afraid they stand so straight that they lean over backwards. Possibly this is brought about through their desire to follow strictly what they conceive to be their statutory duty and not to allow their natural sympathy for the man whose case is under review to influence their decision. If that is the case; if the members of these boards feel themselves restricted by certain definite regulations from which they cannot get away, I think it is the business of this house to see that they are left more free.
When my hon. friend the leader of the opposition introduced a resolution in 1927 to the effect that where a reasonable doubt existed the doubt should be decided in favour of the applicant for a pension, the solicitor general, not from any ill-will or desire to do the soldier any harm, found himself bound to advise this house that it was unnecessary legislation. He took the position that the legislation as to pensions is remedial in character and must be interpreted in a gener-
War Pensions-Mr. Geary

ous way and that the judge interpreting that legislation has every right to decide a reasonable doubt in favour of the applicant. The Solicitor General went on to say that the proper course in his view was not to change the law but to change the judge if he did not give that interpretation. I do not think, with all respect, that is the way to get at it. There may be a deduction from the language of the statute to the effect that like the prisoner in a criminal case the applicant in a pension case should be given the benefit of the doubt, but it would be much better if that were clearly set out in the statute. We might be changing judges or pension boards week in and week out until we got a man who would suit everyone and it seems to me we would be embarking upon a very difficult course to undertake to remedy the situation in that way. So, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this resolution of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) is along the line that I believe this house wishes to be taken. My friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) spoke of the word "disproof" in the resolution which means, I take it, that in such cases as are set out in the resolution there shall be a presumption that the disability arose from sendee and is directly or indirectly attributable to service. That is not unfair. It is quite true, as my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) said a moment ago, the evidence may be lost. I have one case in mind at the moment; I remember the man because I took him on as m}- batman and carried him along in the company for some time since I felt he could get on a little better there than by taking his ordinary duty in the line. I have a very clear recollection of how ill that man was at times, until we finally got into Germany, from where we sent him home. He wrote me a little while ago and I sent him what I was able to remember very, clearly. I have no doubt whatever that the bronchial or pulmonary affection from which he suffers now had its start in his system during the war. That letter got him nowhere; the pension board said it was not proved, that there were gaps of some months or years intervening between this and that time and they felt bound to say "You have not proved your case." I think it should be presumed, Mr. Speaker, if it can be arranged by legislation, that he proved his case and that the burden of proof should be upon those who examine him and do not believe that his disability is attributable to war service but began in another way. At all events, this man who perhaps has not had proper advice from one

or the other here or there, does the best, he can by himself, but I think he should enter that court just a little bit better situated than with a neutral attitude to meet, that with a certificate from a reputable physician that a disability has occurred attributable to or through war service, he should be in the position of being presumed to be entitled to consideration.
However this resolution may be dealt with, Mr. Speaker, I hope it will not share the fate of the resolution proposed in 1927 by the leader of the opposition. In that case it was a question of incorporating a paragraph in the legislation then before the house, and it was decided not to do so. I do not know whether or not my hon. friend from Muskoka will insist that this resolution be carried into legislation at this time; that will be in his hands, and I shall be glad to vote exactly as he wishes in this regard. At all events the question must be considered in its entirety and the principle should be adopted that those who, after a long space of years, go up for examination in respect of disabilities which have developed of late although direct proof of the cause cannot be had, should go into court with the chances a little in their favour rather than against them. We probably may be making ourselves liable for pensions here and there which are not justified; there are malingerers-lead-swingers, they used to be called-who will get away with their claim, but they will be very few. The great body of men who are now claiming pensions are honest fellows, not seeking to impose upon the country at all. They only want a fair deal; they want no special treatment; no man amongst those whom I have come across has any disposition to ask for anything to which he does not believe himself to be justly entitled. These men believe themselves entitled to something ; I believe they may be entitled to something; and if there is anything this house can do I think we should see to it that they get the consideration to which they are entitled.
Mr. 'CANNON: Will my hon. friend allow me a question? In the resolution as it reads the onus of disproof shall be upon the Board of Pension Commissioners. If the pension commissioners are those upon whom the onus of disproof is to lie and also those who are to decide as to the merits of the case, even though this resolution were adopted, would the lot of the returned soldier be improved?


George Reginald Geary: If I may be permitted to reply to the Solicitor General, I had that

War Pensions-Mr. Thorson
very thing in mind when referring to the remark of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I said that the resolution meant establishing a presumption, perhaps an irrebuttable presumption or at any rate a strong presumption in favour of the applicant.


Mr. CANNON:: I see the meaning of it but does the resolution really say what my hon. friend means?


George Reginald Geary: I admit it was not drawn as accurately as it might have been, but I am speaking of the general sense of it.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure there is general agreement among the members of this house that full justice should be done to the returned soldiers of this country and to their dependents and that the promise which Canada gave to its soldiers on enlistment and to their dependents should be implemented as fully as it lies within the power of parliament to do. That promise, as I understand it, briefly was this: the soldier himself should not suffer by reason of his participation in military service and his dependents should not suffer so far as it was possible for Canada to prevent such suffering.
It was my great privilege to serve on the special committee of two years ago dealing with pensions and returned soldiers' problems, and I remember the work of that committee with very great pleasure indeed. I do not think there has ever been any other committee of this house that worked with such a single-minded purpose as did that committee two years ago. I remember particularly the valuable services of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon), with his medical experience, and those of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) on that committee. We were all agreed that we should not bring into the discussion in any shape or form any partisan political feeling but that we should be actuated by one desire only, that of doing full justice to the returned soldiers of this country and to their dependents. We were not seeking in any sense to reward heroism; I do not believe the majority of the returned soldiers of this country regarded themselves as heroes then or so regard themselves to-day. The great majority of our men served the country of their birth or adoption from a simple sense of duty; that was the motive that actuated them and they did not regard themselves as heroes or consider that they were doing acts of heroism.
Parliament framed the Pension Act originally on a very simple basis; it decided that it would pay to the returned soldier a pension 2419-7
if he should be or become disabled, such pension to be based upon the extent of his disability, provided that such disability was the result of some injury or disease incurred in or attributable to military service. That has always been and still is the basic principle for the payment of pensions to our returned soldiers. The basis of the payment of pensions to the dependents of our returned soldiers is that they have lost the person upon whom they were dependent by reason of his participation in military service and that they should be recompensed for such loss in so far as it is within the power of Canada to do so.
In the administration of the Pension Act every applicant for pension is required to satisfy the onus of proof; in other words, the onus of proof of entitlement to pension is in every case upon the applicant. That has been the fundamental principle of the act since its inception and through all the changes and amendments that have been made. I remember that certain suggestions were made to the pensions committee that functioned two years ago regarding the principle of requiring the applicant to satisfy the onus of proof. One suggestion that was made was to create a presumption of dependency in certain cases. Another suggestion was very similar to that embodied in this resolution, namely, that in the case of certain insidious diseases such as tuberculosis and other slowly developing diseases, there should be a presumption of entitlement to pension if a certificate from a reputable physician or from the president of some health sanitarium were presented. Those suggestions were carefully discussed by the members of the committee and it was unanimously decided that the policy of requiring the applicant to satisfy the onus of proof that rested upon him should not be departed from, and that there should be no presumptions of entitlement to pension. I should like to remind the house that the pensions committee which considered all the problems presented to it by the various returned soldier organizations of this country was unanimous in its report, and that its report was unanimously adopted by this house without discussion or division.


Peter McGibbon: Will the hon. member agree that there was a great deal of give and take in that committee and that many people gave up ideas which they held in order to gain something?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Undoubtedly, and that was one of the very agreeable situations which existed throughout the sittings of that committee.



War Pensions-Mr. Thorson
I remember quite well that towards the end of the sittings of that special committee a special drafting committee was appointed to draft the proposed amendments to the Pension Act. As I recall it, that drafting committee consisted of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) and myself, and we drafted that part of the report which dealt with amendments or proposed amendments to the Pension Act.
When the special committee presented to the house its report not a single member of that committee thought for one moment that the last word -had been said with regard to pension legislation; no one imagined that for a moment. We realized that there were many problems affecting returned soldiers that would present themselves to parliament again whioh would require further consideration. We are now beginning to realize the extent and importance of some of the problems which now present themselves throughout the country. During the course of our discussion of two years ago, someone made the statement that the United States pensions bill in respect of the civil war had reached its maximum height in 1920. Is it to be thought for one moment that the people of Canada have reached the maximum of their responsibilities in connection with those who served in the Great war? I do not think so. We have a great deal more to do before we can finally and fully implement the promises which were made to our returned soldiers and to their dependents. It may well be, although we were unanimous in the committee of 1928 in deciding not to depart from the fundamental principles of the Pension Act, that we may feel this year the necessity of departing from those principles. I realize the difficulties that confront an applicant for pension. He has a very difficult onus to discharge, particularly so in the case of the burnt-out man. It is hard for such a man to prove that his premature senile condition is attributable to war service, and yet there is a moral certainty in a great number of instances that such is the case. The same would apply to a number of ailments of a slowly developing nature. It may be that a full consideration of this problem which presents itself to-day will require some departure from the fundamental principles of pension -policy whioh we have followed so far.
I would- like to say a few words in support of some of the suggestions that have been made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I agree with him that the existing machinery which is placed at the disposal of the returned soldier for proving his entitlement to pension is not adequate. Following

the suggestion of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray), I would like to see provision made for service bureaus in the larger centres such as we have here in Ottawa under the auspices of the Canadian Legion. These bureaus could assist the official soldier advisers throughout the country. I agree also that greater facilities should be afforded to the applicant for pension in bringing his case to the attention of the Board of Pension Commissioners. It might be an excellent system to have the -board send out a quorum of its members to the various districts of Canada in order that they could discuss and determine the case of the applicant on the spot. There is another suggestion which should be presented to the special committee that is to be set up, for its consideration, namely, that the membership of the federal appeal board should be increased. The work of that board is becoming so congested as to create great disaffection among the returned soldiers of this country. We may also succeed this year in having the jurisdiction of the federal appeal -board very materially increased; we have in this house approved of such an increase several times but on each occasion ou-r proposal for such increase of appellate jurisdiction has been defeated in the upper house.
That brings me to what I think was the most important suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, a suggestion with which I entirely and completely agree, namely, that we should, if it is at all possible, arrange for a joint special committee of this house and of the Senate to consider the problems of the returned soldiers as they may be presented. These are some of the suggestions that occur to me and I would earnestly appeal to every hon. member of this house that he deal with the problems of the returned soldiers in the same spirit that has actuated members of parliament uniformly in the past, not from the point of view of any particular party, or any particular advantage, but only from the point of view of the returned soldiers themselves.
I would Strongly endorse the suggestion of the Minister of Pensions and National Health that the resolution be not now pressed, but that it be sent to -the special committee that is to deal with the problems of returned soldiers this session. I venture to express the hope now that I may be privileged to be a member of that special committee. If I am so honoured I -assure the hon. -members of this house that I will do my utmost to deal with such -problems in as sympathetic a manner as th-eir greatness deserves.

War Pensions-Mr. Bourassa


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I
entirely agree with 'the last words and suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson). Before my hon. friend the member for South Toronto (Mir. Geary) leaves, I would like to thank him for his broad, just and kind interpretation of my words. I have always found that real gentlemen, even if they differ on many things, can understand each other, because there is something common between them. That is all I have to say to my hon. friend. He perfectly understood my thought, and no straightforward thinking man could have interpreted my words otherwise. As regards the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), I would like to remain on good terms with him, because although we exchange hot words once in a while, there is enough in common between us not to quarrel for nothing. I will refer later to that burst of laughter which brought his Irish temper up.
Like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I largely agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). Although I differ totally and entirely from a large number of the members of the house in anything that relates to the war, I have always held and expressed the view in my province and elsewhere, that what moral obligations the country has undertaken towards the men who have gone into that war, whether rightly or wrongly, must be fulfilled by the people of Canada. That was my view during the war; it is my view to-day. Therefore everything that parliament or the government will decide to do to implement that promise, that moral obligation, will have my support, with the reservation of course of what I said previously, namely, that while thinking of the men who went to war, we should not forget the needs of the men who work in peace.
The suggestion of the minister is very timely, that the observations made this afternoon should be noted down and considered by the committee that will consider the legislation submitted by the government on this subject. The hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon), the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, the hon. member for Fort William, the hon. member for South Toronto, or any other member of the house who may be upon that committee or who may go to it, may offer useful suggestions in order to make the law operative and just. I think the minister's suggestion should rally the support of every member of the house.
What in the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard deserves most con-2419-74
sideration is precisely that which the hon. member for South Winnipeg has just supported, namely, to make the machinery more flexible and more accessible to the returned men or their families who think they have claims to put before the board. In spite of my attitude on the war, I have received the confidences of several returned soldiers who believe in my sincerity just as I believe in theirs. I have known of odd cases where, due partly to the difficulty of approaching the board or partly to that cause which the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and the hon. member for South Toronto have indicated, the natural feeling of the soldiers to get rid of the army and come back home as quickly as possible, inducing them to choose the quickest manner of being discharged, they have deprived themselves of some of their means of sustaining their claims. I would not go the length of saying that these men should not suffer some of the consequences of their mistakes and should be treated in the same manner as those soldiers who, in order to secure the future of their families, were patient enough to wait until they could be discharged with the proper certificates. After all, if justice is to be done, it should be done to the soldier who remained under the colours long enough to be discharged properly just as much as to one who obtained a certificate of perfect health in order to be liberated a few months in advance. There must be distributive justice, even as between soldiers; but I do not wish this afternoon to enter into the details of this matter.
I want to assert my utmost sympathy in regard to everything reasonable that may be done by the government and the house to implement the moral obligation undertaken by Canada towards the men who went to fight in that war. As far as that is concerned I want to be as clear and unequivocable as possible. On the other hand, whatever our views on the war may be, we should not forget the basic principles of law and evidence. Supposing soldiers were not concerned; supposing a resolution similar to this were submitted to the house in this language concerning, for example, retired civil servants, or concerning claimants upon the government for damages of some nature; would the house be ready to vote blindly for such a resolution? That the whole case will rest upon the testimony of an outsider chosen by the claimant, and that the board of adjudication, which is supposed to sit in judgment, will have to suspend its own judgment and accept the verdict of the professional man who has been hired by the claimant to put forward his

War Pensions-Mr. Bourassa
claim? I put it to every lawyer in this house, I put it to every man of sense, who is to be the judge of the qualifications of the physician, in the first place?
Mr. MoGIBBON:	Was not that same
principle involved tin the Ontario Liquor Act and in the Highways Act?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Precisely. Let us take
the Liquor Aot because that will permit me to reassure the sensitive loyalty of my friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion). What brought that burst of laughter was the observation-I do not know wheire it came from -that during the heyday of prohibition in Ontario, "reputable" physicians sold liquor prescriptions by the bushel until things came to such a. pass that the Ontario government was obliged to pass a law or an order in council limiting the number of liquor prescriptions that a physician could issue. I do not say that all "reputable" physicians did that; I am sure that my hon. friends from Muskoka or Fort William would not have done it. But it shows how dangerous it is to state in a law that every reputable physician will be the master of the money of this country and will override the board that has been appointed by this parliament to decide such issues, because that is the effect of the latter part of this resolution. Once a "reputable" physician-his reputation is vouched for by we know not whom-has given his opinion that the disability is directly or indirectly attributable to war services, the pension shall be granted.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: That is not what the
resolution says.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes. The resolution
says, "the onus of disproof shall 'be upon the Board of Pension Commissioners and that unless the same be disproved," which by implication means disproved by the board, "a pension shall be granted'." A pension "shall," not "may," be granted. The Board of Pension Commissioners may have known nothing of the man before, may knotw nothing of the circumstances under which he had served in the army or of the circumstances under which he became disabled; but upon the testimony of a single "reputable" physician hired by the claimant, it will be compelled, if it is not capable of disproving that physician's evidence or opinion, to grant a pension. Would any case be submitted to the exchequer court, for instance, under such conditions? Suppose 
a member of .parliament got u,p and asked that a law be passed to deprive the exchequer court from passing judgment upon certain claims brought before it by people complaining that they had sustained damage through the action of the government. Would this parliament sustain for one moment such a principle of law? No. I might remind the house of a case which I took up once with the Public Works department. It was the case of a splendid fellow, a navigator, who was charged with the duty of inspecting acetylene buoys near Kingston. An explosion occurred when no one was around except this man. He was killed, shattered to bits. They could hardly find the remnants of his body among the debris. The explosion devastated an area of many hundred square feet. His widow came to see me. I gathered all the evidence I could and brought the matter before the Minister of Public Works. He consulted the Department of Justice, which advised that the claim could not be sustained in law because there was no possibility of getting evidence that the explosion was or was not the fault of this man. It was only after a long struggle that I succeeded in securing the paltry sum of a few hundred dollars as a compassionate allowance for the widow. I do not say that the department was wrong. I thought it was a tragic case. I thought there was in fact an injustice done, but I could not get up in the house and blame the government for having maintained the application of a basic principle of law and of evidence, even though it prevented the widow of a friend of mine securing proper indemnity. We made up a sum for the widow out of my own pocket and out of the pockets of some of my friends.


George Reginald Geary: Does the hon. gentleman
mean to say that the treatment of soldiers applying for pension should depend for its result upon some rule of common law? No. We propose to make it a rule of statute law, that the thing itself speaks, that the man having been in service and now being disabled by something that might be attributable to service, the thing itself speaks. He is entitled to the presumption in his favour. That is all we ask.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I also want parliament
and the government to be generous; but I repeat, unless you suppress the Pension Act and the pension board, unless you say that as a matter of course every soldier and the widow of every soldier is entitled to a pension without looking into the merits of each case particularly-very well; that is a question to be considered; but if you admit that there must be a pensions board and a claim made

Natural Resources-Agreements Tabled
out before the board shall grant a pension, and that the board must be guided by certain rules, then, I say, preserve something of the principle-I do not say all-which lays upon the claimant against the government or against any private individual the task of making what we call in French legal phraseology un commencement de preuve.
I will give another instance. I have advised a few soldiers to bring forward their claims, although they were weak, legally speaking, especially for the reason mentioned by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). One young soldier told me quite frankly, "I was in such a hurry to get back home that though I knew I was ill, I said nothing about it." I said, "My poor fellow, you made a mistake, but anyhow we will see what we can do." I added, "I shall not present your claim, because that might endanger your chances; but try to find some long-faced Ottawa lawyer with plenty of lip loyalty, and he can go before the board and be able to help you much better than I can. I will simply give you good advice."
I had another case which I present for the benefit of my hon. friends' conscience. A young boy came to me, obviously broken down morally, mentally, and physically. He began by saying, "I answered to the call of patriotism. I was but a boy. I was told that I should go and die for England and France." I said, " Yes, this is very nice." Well, to make the story short, he finally confessed to me that his disablement did not come from his encounters with the Germans or from gas poisoning, but as a result of his struggles for the conquest of the realm of Venus, and that he had been touched more than once by the shafts of Cupid. To speak in plain language, he was rotten with venereal diseases contracted behind the trenches in France. I told him: " Well, I think it will be rather difficult to connect your case with service to the empire, to Canada or to your dear motherland, France." He said: "Yes sir, because had I not been tempted by the men who made speeches in favour of enlistment, I would have stayed at home and got married and would not now be in this state." To which I replied: " This is rather far fetched, my boy, and I do not advise you to claim a pension." Well, under the principle laid down by the leader of the opposition a few days ago, and laid down here now by some hon. members, if we went so far as to say that the Board of Pension Commissioners should interpret the law broadly and leave the whole thing in the hands of one " reputable " physician, I know more than one " reputable " physician who would have given that boy a certificate
that he is disabled because of extraordinary services rendered to the empire and to Canada. In all those cases, I repeat, discrimination should be exercised-not strict discrimination. I agree with almost every word uttered by the member for South Toronto. I have always found that true soldiers are broader on this question than many civilians who exploit the soldier and his valour in order to make cheap capital. I agree almost entirely with him. I simply appeal to his legal mind, to his sense of justice, not only to soldiers but to all, and especially his sense of law; because after all, Mr. Speaker, we are here to maintain the basic principles of law in favour of all. The application of the law at times may hurt this one or that one, but its maintenance is the first duty of parliament and the first guarantee of equity and justice to all, soldiers as well as civilians.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the country is sick and tired of listening to honeyed words about the returned soldier, and expects parliament to see that justice is done to him. In the city of Toronto we have what is called a "Poppy Day" fund, in connection with which advertisements appear in the newspapers calling for secondhand clothes for soldiers' children. This condition of affairs ought not to be allowed to continue.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, before adjournment may I ask the indulgence of the house to table the agreements consummated between the federal government and the government of the province of Alberta and the government of the province of Manitoba, so that these documents may be in the hands of members before I introduce the necessary bills.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. But I should like to know if the agreement with British Columbia will also be laid on the table.


Charles A. Stewart: It has just been signed. I will table it at the first opportunity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has appeared in the press.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It must have been by way of British Columbia.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order
Patent Act Amendment
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 27, 1930