[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, respecting the Hig-hwood Western Railway Company.-Mr. Coote.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Soldier Settlement Board for the year ended December 31, 1929.-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton).
Letters issued from February 1, 1929, to December 1, 1929, to facilitate the entry to Canada of immigrants authorized under paragraph 7 of P.C. 183.-Mr. Stewart (Edlmon^ ton).
Reports of the Board of Audit on the financial affairs of the Quebec harbour commission and Montreal harbour commission.-Mr. Damming.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) presented the first and second reports of 'the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems.
Mr. Power moved':
That the first report of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems presented this day be concurred in.
He said: The first- report covers only the printing of evidence and other matters of a minor character. The second report recommends to this house that a message be sent do the Senate, asking their honours to appoint a committee to act jointly with that of the House of Commons on returned soldiers' problems. I am moving concurrence at this time in the first report only.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Might I suggest to the hon.
gentleman who is the chairman of the committee that provision be -made -for printing a larger number of -copies of the evidence than usual, for there is a very considerable number of posts of the legion in various -parts of Canada and I have been receiving, as I fancy every other member has, communications asking if they can be supplied with copies of the evidence as the proceedings are carried forward by the committee from day to day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. POWER moved:: That the second report of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems presented this day be concurred in.


Mr. MANION:: This is really in accordance with the motion of the committee, supported by all the members of the committee from all sides of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Gavan Power: That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this house has appointed Messrs. Adshead, Arthurs, Black (Yukon), Clark, Fiset (Sir Eugene), Gershaw, Hepburn, Ilsley, McGibbon, McIntosh, MacLaren, McPherson, McLean (Melfort), Manion, Power, Ross (Kingston), Sanderson, Speakman, and Thorson, a committee to consider and, during the present session, to report upon matters referred to them relating to Pensions and Returned Soldiers' problems, and requesting the Senate to appoint a committee to act jointly with that already chosen by this house.


Robert James Manion: That has also been accepted by all the members of the committee, from all parties, and was a unanimous suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) presented the first and second reports of the special committee appointed to consider amendments to the Dominion Elections Act and Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act.
Mr. Power moved that the first and second reports be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. E. J. Young (Weyhurn) he substituted for that of Mr. A. MacGillivray Young (Saskatoon) on the committee on banking and commerce.	.
He said: This is to correct a clerical error.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What are the qualifications necessary for appointment to position of inspector of railroad operation, under Board of Railway Commissioners?
2.	When was Mr. ,J. L. Bourgault appointed to the position of inspector of railroad operation, under Board of Railway Commissioners?
3.	What were his qualifications for the position?

Questions
4.	What position did he previously hold?
5.	Who was responsible for the appointment?
6.	Did the Minister of Labour know of, and concur in this appointment?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Education equivalent to high school graduation; three years of experience in the operating department of a railroad with some actual service in the operation of trains; working knowledge of railroad operating rules and regulations; ability to investigate and report on complaints as to station traffic; good penmanship, quickness of perception, good judgment, tact; though no definite age limit was fixed, the advertisement stated that age might be a determining factor in making a selection.
2.	July 28, 1928.
3.	He had been employed for sixteen years with the railway commission, the last seven years being spent in the operating department. This work brought him in close touch with the various phases of railroad operation work including the handling of train orders, time tables, general train and interlocking rules; the board's general orders, regulations, standards, etc., the R,aihvay Act; duties of station agents, location of stations, closing stations, passenger train reduction,. handling of accidents of all types, collisions, boiler explosions, and methods of reporting and investigating the same. This experience in the opinion of the chief of the operating department of the Board of Railway Commissioners, was of equivalent value to actual service on a railroad.
Mr. Bourgault was rated in a written examination, on general questions; he was rated on education and experience and also given an oral examination. The average resulting from all these tests was 87-9 per cent. Mr. Bourgault was also a returned soldier and entitled to the preference under the act. Only returned soldiers were examined as it was evident that enough qualified candidates would be available from those entitled to the returned soldier preference.
4.	Clerk, grade 3, Board of Railway Commissioners, Ottawa.
5.	On requisition from the Board of Railway Commissioners the position was advertised in accordance with the usual practice, and as a result of the competition a certificate of appointment was issued by the Civil Service Commission.
6.	No.


MR. L. A. GIROUX
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Is L. A. Giroux, Liberal member of the legislature of Alberta, now in the employ of
the Dominion government as legal officer in connection with the revision of the game ordinances of Yukon territory or in any capacity ?
2.	If so, in what capacity and at what rate of pay?
3.	If not, when did said Giroux cease to be in the employ of the Dominion government?
4.	Referring to the question as to the cost of the trip of L. A. Giroux, Liberal member of the legislature of Alberta, to Yukon in 1929, the same to show amounts of remuneration, travelling expenses, cost of airplanes, respectively, and the reply of the Minister of the Interior on March 10, 1930: (a) $3,791; (b) $3,150; (c) $641, how is the item $641 made up and what does it mean?
5.	What amount was paid out by the government for airplane transportation on said expedition ?
6.	What amount was so paid for the airplane transportation of said Giroux?
7.	Between what points was said Giroux transported by airplanes, at government
expense ?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Mr. Giroux was retained in the usual manner to supply the Director of the Northwest territories and Yukon branch of this department with any legal advice he might require while visting the Northwest territories and the Yukon territory, and to assist in the revision of the Northwest territories ordinances. His retainer calls for pay only for days employed on this business which is not finally concluded. Remuneration is at the rate of S50.C0 per day.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	See returns already tabled. (Votes and Proceedings No. 19) Part of item (1350.00) is advance to be accounted for.
5.
Western Canada Airways	$2,500 00
Treadwell Yukon Company.. ..	682 00

6.	Mr. Giroux was carried as passenger without extra cost.
7.	Aklavik to Dawson, Dawson to Mayo, Mayo to Carcross.-No expense.


WOOL AND WOOLLEN YARN IMPORTATIONS
Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: 1.	What amount of raw wool, in ponuds, was imported into Canada from Australia, during the calendar years 1927, 1928 and 1929?
2.	What amount from New Zealand during the same period?
3.	What was the amount, in pounds, of raw wool retained in Canada, both domestic and imported, during years 1927, 1928 and 1929?
4.	What was the value of woollen yarns imported into Canada during the calendar years 1927, 1928 and 1929?
Questions

5.	What portion of these imports came from Great Britain and what portion direct from mid-European countries?
6.	What amount of shipments of woollen yarns imported into Canada from England originated in mid-European countries?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1. Canada's imports of raw wool from Australia, in pounds, calendar years 1927, 1928 and 1929, were:
Years
1927..
1928..
1929..
Pounds
510,461
215,832
460,728
2.	Canada's imports of raw wool from New Zealand, in pounds, calendar years 1927, 1928 and 1929, were:
Years	Pounds
1927		 3,809,544
1928		 2,567,014
1929		 2,951,902
3.	Amount, in pounds, raw wool retained in Canada, 'both domestic and imported, during years 1927, 1928 and 1929, was:
Domestic Imported Years	pounds	pounds1927	
7,315,966	14,035,1681928	
11,260,630	14,214,9021929	
15,144,200	12,040,5404.	The value of woollen and worsted yarns imported into Canada in the calendar years 1927, 1928 and 1929, was:
Years
1927.
1928.
1929.

4.108,837
5,534,932
5,884,858
5.	Canada's portion of these imports from the United Kingdom and mid-European countries was:
From	From
Years	United mid-European
Kingdom countries
1927	$ 5,845.999	$ 228,2471928	
5,342,062	189,7671929	
5,705,815	155,517


IMPORTATIONS-VALUE PERCENTAGES BY COUNTRIES
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	What percentage in value of the imports into Canada came from:	(a) the British
Empire; (b) the United States; (c) the rest of the world, in each of the years 1900, 1905, 1910, 1915, 1920, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1. Canada's percentage in value of imports from (a) the British Empire, (b) the United States and (c) the rest of the world in each of the years 1900, 1905, 1910, 1915, 1920, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929 was:
(a)	Ob)	(c)Fiscal	British	United	Rest ofYears	Empire	States	the world%	%	%1900.. ..	27.7	59.2	13.11905.. ..	28.8	60.6	10.61910.. ..	30.2	58.9	10.91915.. ..	25.3	65.2	9.51920.. ..	16.4	75.3	8.31925.. ..	24.4	64.0	11.61926.. ..	22.5	65.6	11.91927.. ..	20.7	66.6	12.71928,. ..	22.5	64.9	12.61929.. ..	20.3	68.6	11.1



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	Does the Postmaster General make recommendations to the Department of Public Works as to where and when post offices should be built?
2.	What amount of revenue is required to entitle a locality to a new post office, and is the amount of revenue taken into account in each case, or what is the deciding factor in granting new post offices?
3.	In what places has the Postmaster General, during the years 1927, 1928, and 1929, asked the Department of Public Works to construct post offices ?
4.	Where and on what grounds was such request refused?
6.	No definite information available. In the fiscal year 1929, however, Canada's imports of woollen and worsted yarns from the United Kingdom, under the general and treaty tariffs, were valued at $7,595. Also during the calendar year 1928 the exports of foreign woollen and worsted yarns from the United Kingdom to the British Empire (including Canada) were valued at only $13,690. These statistics seem to indicate that the imports of woollen and worsted yarns from the United Kingdom of mid-European origins are small.


CALAMITY POINT, VANCOUVER, DREDGING
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	In connection with the contract for dredging at Calamity Point, First Narrows, Vancouver, British Columbia, awarded to the Northwestern Dredging Company Limited, who are the principals in the Northwestern Dredging Company Limited, what was the price for this dredging and for the dredging of Barnaby shoal, and did the said price include the disposal or dumping of the material?
2.	Did the contract contain provision that ' the material should be dumped where designated by the harbour commission?

Business of the House
3.	Was this work done under the Dominion .Public Works department?
4.	Did the board of harbour commissioners of Vancouver purchase this material from the dredging company for filling purposes for the new pier? If so, at what price per cubic yard?
5.	Does it receive all its capital funds by a deposit of its bonds with the Dominion government and the advancement by the Dominion government of moneys required?
6.	Does the harbour board secure the approval of the Marine department before proceeding with the expenditure of its funds? If so, what price did the Marine department approve of for the dumping of this material?
7.	Were the dredges used on this work by the private companies registered in Canada prior to the calling of tenders for the said contract?
8.	Was dredge No. 131038-Puget Sound Bridge and Dredging Company dredge-No. 1-No. 76/1912. Vancouver, British Columbia, and No. 133864-Puget No. 11, No. 50/1913, Vancouver. British Columbia, used in this work?
9.	Were these dredges not at the time of the tender the property of the Puget Sound Bridge and Dredging Company, with the principal office at 811 Central Building, Seattle, W ashington ?
10.	Was the said Puget Sound Bridge and Dredging Company incorporated in the state of
Nevada ?
11.	Were the said dredges transferred to the British Columbia Bridge and Dredging Company Limited?
12.	Is Mr. Ian Mackenzie, M.L.A., Liberal provincial member for the city of North Vancouver, British Columbia, principal shareholder of the British Columbia Bridge and Dredging Company Limited?
13.	Is the said Mr. Ian Mackenzie the same as the Mr. Ian Mackenzie who is the soldiers' representative at Vancouver, British Columbia?
14.	If so, what salary is paid the said Ian Mackenzie for his services as soldiers' representative ?
15.	Did the Public Works department do the dredging in the First Narrows, British Columbia, prior to this contract?
16.	In the disposal of the material was it not the practice to supply the material so dredged to all public bodies free of charge?
17.	Did the Marine department permit the harbour commission to pay 24 cents per cubic yard in this instance?
18.	If the answer to question 9 is in the
affirmative, why did not the government use one of its own dredges on this work instead of permitting the Puget Sound Bridge and Dredging Company to send its dredges into Canada ?	,
19.	How many American workmen, if any, were brought in to work on this project with these dredges?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on and after Monday, March 24 next, and all subsequent Mondays and Wednesdays
till the end of the session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for the production of papers and private bills on Monday.
May I say that the house has now been in session for a month, and of that time the government has had only two days during which it has had any opportunity whatever of dealing with its own business; all the rest of the time has been taken up with discussions upon motions by private members. The circumstance that the debate on the address was so brief had the effect, not of curtailing private members in the various matters which they wished to bring up, but rather of extending their opportunities. The time which has been allowed this session to private members, I explained the other day, has been exactly what it has averaged within the last three or four sessions of parliament. The records of earlier parliaments will show, I believe that private members were not granted anything like the number of days to which of recent years they have become accustomed.
May I point out that it is quite as much in the interests of hon. members generally, as it is in the interests of the government, that the government should be permitted to get on with the business of the country as set out in its legislative program. Were we to continue at the rate at which we have been proceeding, it is perfectly obvious that we will be here until the time of the imperial conferences when we would have to ask for an adjournment to enable ministers to attend the conferences, and then in order to complete the work of the present session, reassemble later. I do not think any hon. members wish to have their time consumed in that way. The government has no desire to curtail discussion on important questions, but I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have already spent enough time on private members motions, and that hon. members should be agreeable to allow the government from now on to proceed with its business.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: We in this corner of the house regret very much this motion. We have on the order paper two or three very important resolutions which we believe it would be in the interests of Canada and this house to discuss. I think probably some of these resolutions are just as important as some of the government business which is awaiting our consideration. I should like to point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the first instance that one Thursday was taken on the opening of this session, leaving only three Thursdays accord-
Easter Adjournment

ing to the rules of the house. That, of course, is more or less usual. Last Monday was taken by our friends to your immediate left, and that deprived private members of another day. I think it is becoming apparent to those who have been in this house for any length of time that the private member is to all intents and purposes a nonentity. We take strong objection to that idea. We believe that it is in the best interests of Canada as of this house that private members should have a greater opportunity of discussing important questions which they believe should be discussed. In the event of this motion carrying, Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say on behalf of my colleagues in this corner of the house that we will have to take other means of bringing important resolutions before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house, it might be a convenient moment to announce the intentions of the government with respect to the Easter recess. The government has felt that it would wish the house to take at least a week at Easter as a recess, but having had some interviews with hon. gentlemen directly opposite and with my friends diagonally opposite, I gather that it would better suit their convenience if the time was made either less than or longer than a week, so as either to keep every one here or to enable those who are as far distant a3 British Columbia to reach their homes and return after a brief vacation. Considering the representations that have been made, it has seemed that the convenience of the house generally would be best met if the recess were to be made for twelve days instead of the time originally suggested of a week, and I would therefore move:
That when the house adjourns on Friday the 11th of April, it stand adjourned until Thursday the 24th of April.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the right hou. Prime Minister has certainly put the case for some of our members very concisely. Parliament was a little late in meeting this year, it did not meet until the 20th of February, and many of the members who sit to your left are anxious to conclude their duties as rapidly as possible having regard to their responsibilities as representatives. Their view is that we should sit with a short interval at Easter; that is, adjourn Thursday until the succeeding Tuesday. But, as the Prime Minister has also 
said, if we are to adjourn for a week, then that is worse still for at least a dozen members on our side of the house. The suggestion that we should meet on Thursday the 24th April means, of course, that many members will not arrive until the succeeding Monday in any event. Of course, we are anxious to afford every facility possible for the proper transaction of public business. But I cannot, for instance, forget that last year the recess afforded an opportunity for my very delightful friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) to be photographed on the steps of the White House. Far be it from me to deny him the opportunity to be again photographed this year; and doubtless some of his colleagues would like to avail themselves of a similar opportunity lest he monopolize the centre of the stage. But that is the lighter side of the motion for adjournment.
As we all realize, it is difficult to deal with a matter of this kind on a basis that will be fair to all concerned. Especially is that so when you have four or five days intervening before some otf our members can possibly reach their homes from Ottawa, and then after a stay of two days they will have to leave home to come back again. Personally I feel it is the duty of this house to proceed with the public business, and adjourn on Thursday until the succeeding Tuesday. But, as I said, I realize that after all, the government not having its legislation ready on the 20th of February, and ipossibly having two budgets prepared, depending on what another country may do, may find it somewhat difficult to determine exactly what is to be done. Of course, the great cry is, Give us time. "Night or Blueher," was said to have been the cry of Wellington.


Mr. DUNNING:: But he won the battle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, my hon. friend is quite right. That is the reason why in this instance we are asking which it is, "Night" or "Blueher". Is it the "Night" of defeat or is "Blueher" the nation to the south of the international boundary? We are not quite certain, but at any rate we do feel sure that history will repeat itself but without "Blueher" there will ibe no victory for the government.
I think the Prime Minister has fairly stated that it is a question of a short adjournment or a moderately long one, a.nd I can only say that the majority of those who sit with me would prefer to have a short adjournment and dispose of the country's business. Others feel that if there is to be an adjournment for a week it should foe at least somewhat longer to enable them to go home. Now that we have

Technical Services
given a second reading to the liquor export bill and thus have the assurance of peaceful relations with our great friends to the south; now that we know their battle squadrons will be in Hampton roads, their army corps disbanded and the submarine no longer a menace to our integrity, perhaps a longer adjournment may be made without grave danger to the body politic.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the city of Calgary requesting me to ask the government if it is the intention of the Minister of Customs to re-create Calgary a customs air port of entry.


Mr. SPEAKER:: That question should be put on the order paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have already written to the Minister of National Revenue and received a reply.



I'M ALONE ARBITRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) what progress has been made, or what the present position is in connection with the proceedings in the arbitration of the I'm Alone case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The case is in the hands of counsel. I would like to give my hon. friend an answer that would be somewhat more deliberate than I am in a position to give at the present moment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), acting for the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar), when we may expect the report of the Canadian National Railways for the year ending 31st December, and when the special committee will be set up.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): In the absence of the minister, I can only say that I know he is pressing for the completion of the report which, of course, always precedes the setting up of the special committee. I know that the minister is
anxious to bring it down as soon as possible, and my hon. friend's inquiry will be helpful in that regard.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FERRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Is it a fact that the building of the car ferry for Prince Edward Island has been let to the province of Quebec? I have a protest from Halifax stating that the wages in Quebec are much lower than in Halifax.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Speaking for the Minister of Railways, I can only say that the contract for the Prince Edward Island ferry was let to the lowest tenderer. My recollection is that it is the Davie Shipbuilding Company of Levis, Quebec, and, of course, the contract will contain the usual protective clauses with respect to labour.



TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I would like to ask if it is the intention of the government to submit to a committee of this house, for consideration, the report of the royal commission on technical services, a report that is usually referred to as the Beatty report.


Charles Avery Dunning: The report was tabled some time ago.


Milton Neil Campbell: The minister misunderstands my question. Is it the intention of the government to submit that report to a special committee of this house for consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned, I think, some days ago, that there would be an opportunity to discuss all phases of the report when we are taking up the estimates relating to the civil service. The government itself, will wish to consider the report very carefully and *will give to the house its reasons with respect to the action that it takes upon it. There will be ample opportunity afforded to everyone to discuss the matter and to make any desired representations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which must be financial.



EXPORT ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has just

Export Act
reminded me of his inquiry a day or two ago with regard to appointments to be made to the Senate. Perhaps I might read the question, which was put in my absence, because I am not sure whether it was as much intended to elicit information with regard to the Senate as it was to afford my hon. friend an opportunity to repeat something which he had previously said with regard-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Something the hon.
gentleman had said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I was supposed to have said, in regard to an alleged menace

I think these were his words-from the country to the south with respect to possible happenings consequent upon the smuggling of liquor into the United States. My hon. friend's question is:
In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister as to the grave danger that at any moment may arise on the international frontier, by reason of the granting of clearances to the United States of vessels laden in whole or in part with intoxicating liquors, is it the intention of the government before the measure now before this house prohibiting such clearances is proceeded with in the second chamber of parliament, to fill the five vacancies that now exist in the membership of the Senate?
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might be permitted, before I answer the last part of the question, to answer the implication in the first part. My hon. friend did, I think, in his remarks the other day, endeavour to convey the impression that I had intimated that we were fearful because of some action threatened by the country to the south if a certain procedure with respect to transportation of liquor were to be continued. I had spoken of Lord Curzon's representations at the imperial conference, and in that connection my hon. friend rather lead the house to believe that Lord Curzon had referred to threats which were made by the United States toward Britain. I think the remarks of Lord Curzon were very clear, and do not admit of any doubtful interpretation. They were to the effect that a delicate and difficult situation might arise if a certain procedure were continued. Lord Curzon did not say that anything was threatening. He said that something might at some time arise which would be most embarrassing, and it was advisable to avoid anything of the kind. I paralleled that point of view with respect to conditions in Canada, I did not say that the United States was in any way threatening action with respect to Canada if the present practices were continued. What, to all intents and -purposes, I did say was that a delicate and difficult situation might arise at any time if the practice which is in vogue to-day were to continue, namely the procedure whereby
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
liquor to be smuggled into the United States is released from distilleries at the instance of government officials, and its transportation to the border facilitated under permits given by government officials, and its deliverence into the hands of rum runners effected by clearances granted by government officials, all such officials knowing that the liquor thus released and transported is destined for the United States, and that its importation into that country is prohibited by law, and that it can only get into that country by the operations of persons who violate the laws of the United States. That was the representation I made, and what I had reference to was the embarrassing position in which this country would find itself in the event of an international incident arising out of attempted smuggling in which it would be made quite apparent that but for the action of officials of the government of Canada facilitating its release, transportation and clearance, the liquor in question could not have come into the possession of rum runners to be smuggled into the United States.
With regard to my hon. friend's question as to appointments to the Senate, I am sure that he will be pleased to know that one appointment was made to-day, and that a former Minister of Labour in the present administration, the Hon. James Murdock, has been appointed a member of the Senate. Other appointments to the Senate will be announced in due course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, I propose to answer the question as to whether in the observations I made I attached any improper meaning to the words of the right hon. gentleman by quoting, at page 612 of Hansard, the following remarks:
As Secretary of State for External Affairs it is my duty to advise my colleagues, and to advise parliament, with respect to any situation of an international character which I have reason to believe because of the seriousness should be brought to the attention of the cabinet and of parliament. It is my duty, further, to direct the attention of the government and of parliament to any dangers that I see in any existing situation. May I say this that I think the dangers which Lord Curzon foresaw-the danger of possible delicate and difficult situations arising between Britain and the United States over rum running incidents on the Atlantic-are as nothing compared to the delicate and difficult situations that at any moment may arise on our international frontier if this linking of distilleries and rum running ' through the agencies of government is permitted to continue. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that so perilous do I believe the situation to be that I would not longer assume responsibility in the matter of external affairs were I not assured of the support in this parliament of a policy which I believe to be necessary to

Allowances to War Veterans
the avoidance of a condition which might any day prove perilous to this country; or failing the support of this parliament in a matter as grave as this is, the support of the people oi Canada. I say, Mr. Speaker, that I regard tliis matter as one of grave concern to the people of Canada as a whole. I have stated the position to parliament as I see it. It is now for parliament to express its view in regard to the legislation that has been placed before it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I stand by
every word my hon. friend has just read. May I direct his attention and the attention of the house to the circumstance that the language read contains the words "possibly,' may, "might any day" and so on, but in n*o instance are they capable of the interpretation which my hon. friend sought to place upon them, namely that threats were being made by the country to the south or that at the present time we were being menaced in any particular.



UNITED STATES PROHIBITION AGENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: I
should like to ask the government when I may expeot an answer to my question which was passed as an order for return, with regard to the seizure of Canadian vessels by United States prohibition agents, and other similar matters.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I will look into the matter and give my hon. friend a reply shortly.



ALLOWANCES TO WAR VETERANS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, respecting war veterans' allowances.
Mr. T. H. LENNOX (North York):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house for any great length of time with the remarks I desire to make on this bill.
During the war Sir Arthur Currie, as we all know, performed excellent service for the people of not only this country but for all countries who were on the side of the allies. He distinguished himself as a very great military man and received praise and commendation from all the people of Canada. Not only did he do a wonderful service for his country during the period of the war; he has done perhaps almost as great a service for the returned soldiers during the last three or four months. In November of last year he wrote a letter to the Canadian Legion expressing his dissatisfaction with the existing Pension Act, stating that in his opinion it
should be entirely re-written in order to make further provision for the welfare of the veterans.
A very short time after that letter was written-I think within a week-the Prime Minister dealt with this question at a public meeting called on his behalf in the city of London. I cannot help but express my doubt as to whether any action would have been taken by the Prime Minister if Sir Arthur Currie had not written this letter. I am not sure whether the announcement made at London by the Prime Minister resulted from the publication of that letter or whether the Prime Minister took that action from a sense of duty to the veterans throughout Canada. If that course were forced upon the Prime Minister by the action of Sir Arthur Currie, I am afraid 'the veterans could hardly expeot that sympathetic treatment they otherwise would get if the Prime Minister had acted voluntarily.
If the Prime Minister took this step through a sense of duty, and if he feels it to be his duty to-day to take this action, surely it was Ids duty to have done it years ago. The position of the veterans to-day is perhaps no worse than it has been during the last few years. Their condition has been known not only to the Prime Minister but to every person in Canada, yet no steps were taken to remedy this condition until this action was forced upon the government by public opinion which was created through the publication of the letter written by Sir Arthur Currie. I sincerely hope that the bill which has been introduced has been brought in because the government believe they have a duty to perform to the returned veterans.
Canadian soldiers were engaged in action during the whole period of the war, during which there were about 215,000 casualties. During the year and a half the United States were engaged in the war their casualties amounted to 213,000, and of that number no less than 187,000 receive pensions. From the total of 215,000 casualties for Canadians must be deducted 65,000 who were killed or have since died, leaving 150.000, of which only
61.000	are pensioned. It is remarkable that notwithstanding the fact that the United States were engaged in the war for only one-third of the time as compared with Canada, they are paying pensions to three times the number of veterans. It is perhaps unknown to many of the hon. members that congress passed last year a bill appropriating for its war disabled for a period of one year only nearly twice as much money as has been paid to the Canadian veterans since the expiration of the war. That will convey some idea of

Allowances to War Veterans
the generous treatment the American war veteran is receiving from his government as compared with the treatment given to the Canadian veteran.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the hon. member
mean to infer that the pension committees of 1925 and 1928 did not give, as far as they could, full justice to the war veteran?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I do not think they did,
in fact if they had given full justice then we would not have had this present, bill before us and we would not have had the legion and other associations connected with and looking after the interests of the war veteran raising such a row with respect to the manner in which they have been treated.
During the course of the war there were over 400,000 Canadians who actually crossed over from England into France, Belgium and other theatres of war, and of that number only 61,000 are receiving .pensions, although
150.000	were disabled, some of whom very seriously, during the course of the war. Over
90.000	of those who were admitted' to be casualties have never received one copper as compensation or as pension for the disabilities from which they suffered. In addition to that we have 250,000, the difference between
150.000	and 400,000, who were not declared to be casualties, and out of that number not more than one per cent are receiving considers^ tion at the hands of the pension board. Although these men did not actually receive any injury, there is no doubt but that they suffered as a result of their experience, yet they have received no consideration.
In addition to the pensions board we have an appeal board, appointed to consider the claims which are refused by the pension board. According to the report of the Department of Pensions and National Health, I find the annual cost of this appeal board to be:
Salaries-members of the board. $ 31.000	00
Salaries-staff	
58.746	55Salaries-soldiers' advisers.	.	.	.	32.974	65General expense of board.	.	.	.	31,031	84General expense of soldiers' advisers	
11,897	18Total	$165,650 22
The awards at present in force as a result of the judgments of this board number 247, and although the expenses of the board amount to over 8165,000, the total awards amount to only 8143,000, or $23,000 less than the expense of operating the board. This board was constituted for the purpose of looking into these claims, and having exipended $166,000, naturally one would expect that a great many appeals would have 'been brought

to their notice, but we find with all the appeals dealt with by the board the expense of operation cost the country nearly S25.000 more than the amount awarded to the veterans who appealed to them for justice.
Let me refer briefly to the bill itself, and in the preamble thereof, without reading the whole of it, I find the following:
-and it is desirable to provide assistance, nr additional assistance, for these veterans in recognition of their service:
Let me say to my hon. friends opposite that the veterans of this country are not looking for assistance nor are they asking for charity; they are asking that they be indemnified for the loss which they sustained by reason of going to the front to protect this country. In my opinion it is an insult to the veterans that a bill should be introduced into this house or into any other house suggesting that the men who fought and suffered in the theatres of war for four or five years should be regarded as suppliants before the people of the Dominion of Canada. I believe that every veteran of Canada will resent, as he has a right to resent, the reflection cast upon him by the wording of the preamble of this bill, if the veteran is not entitled to indemnification by reason of his war sen-ice during which he suffered casualty, then he docs not want it. But if he is entitled to it, he wants it, and because the people of this country promised that when he took up arms and went to the front he would be looked after, his family would be taken care of and at all events his mind might be at ease with respect to any injury that might occur to him or anything that might be required for the protection of his family.
May I ask you, sir, to follow me just a little further with respect to the bill itself? Clause 2 defines the theatre of war. Under the old definition, a man who was injured in England, for instance, either through air raids or through training in those camps which were very injurious during the time of training, was entitled to some consideration, but I see that that man, unless to-day he is receiving a pension, does not come within the wording of the bill. Let me read it in part:
"Veteran" means:
. . . . any member of' the Canadian expeditionary force who having seen service in Canada or England only-
If it had stopped there-and that was the wording of the previous act-it would have been quite satisfactory; but let me point out that that is qualified and qualified to the financial injury of the Canadian veteran. It reads as follows:
Any member of the Canadian expeditionary force who having seen service in Canada or

Allowances to War Veterans
England only, and is in receipt of a pension for an injury or disease incurred or aggravated during service, or who accepted a final payment for a disability between 5 per cent anil 14 per cent under the provisions of the Pension Act.
Therefore the situation to-day is entirely changed, and if this bill passes, the only veteran who did not leave England who will be entitled to consideration is the one who has already been dealt with and who is receiving a pension of from 5 to 14 per cent after having been dealt with by the pension board. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite:	Is
it the intention that a man, though he may not have received from the pension board a pension, should not be permitted to receive the benefits to be derived from the present legislation? I thought one of the objects of the bill was to overcome the very difficulties that we were confronted with under the old act; that it was to be wider in its scope and that every man would have an opportunity of presenting his case before the committee, or commission, or board, or whatever you wish to call it, and have his case disposed of. But if this definition is correct, and if the bill passes in its present form, no veteran who received a casualty or was injured or disabled in England, and whose claim was turned down by the board, can hope to seek relief under the present measure.
My submission is that with respect to this bill we should not consider anything that has been done by the old pension board. This new bill was, I understood, to be a fresh start. We were to give an opportunity to every veteran to come under the provisions of this new measure for the purpose of placing his case before the pension board; but thousands and thousands of veterans who, through no fault of their own, were unable to leave England, who suffered in England and whose claims were not admitted by the pension board, are in no better position to-day than they were under the old act. Therefore, I submit that the words limiting the class of veteran who is entitled to relief though he did not leave England, should be eliminated from the bill and it should be left to the new board to say whether such veterans are entitled to compensation or not.
There is another feature of the bill to which I wish to direct attention and which is perhaps one of the worst elements it contains.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Has the new committee
not power to do exactly as my hon. friend asks to be done?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: This bill says not. I am
just reading from the bill.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The new committee has
power to alter the bill or to recommend any alterations.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I sincerely trust it has the power because this is a most unfair proposition. In view of what the hon. member has said, may I say, whether the committee has the power or not-and I hope it has-the intention of the government when the bill was drafted was what it at present contains?
Let me read another clause in the bill. With reference to the income which shall not be included, clause 10 reads:
For the purpose of this act income shall not include.
Then it goes on to define what income shall not include; but listen to this:
A transfer of property made less than five years before the date of application for allowance shall be deemed to have been made for the purpose of qualifying for such allowance.
In other words, any veteran who was in possession of real estate and disposed of it five years before having made any application for pension, shall be deemed under this bill to have got rid of his property for the purpose of getting an allowance. There are no doubt known to hon. members many cases of men who were in possession of real estate, who probably had it free from encumbrance when they went to the theatre of war and when they came back, who by reason of the treatment which they received at the hands of the government, were forced to dispose of their property in order to make a living for their families. They did not do this voluntarily or for the purpose of receiving an allowance.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: They did not
know anything about it.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: As my hon. friend reminds me, at that time they did not know anything about it. But how many men were there and are there amongst the veterans who disposed of their property for the purpose of coming in under this measure? I would be sorry to think anyone would do such a thing and I cannot understand what must have passed through the mind of whoever drafted the bill -and the minister must take the responsibility for it-when he added the clause which I have just read. I cannot imagine what could have suggested it to him, because if we take the most charitable view of it, it means that the veterans were perpetrating a fraud upon the people of this country; that they were conveying their property, getting rid of it, so that they could come to the pension board and say:	I have nothing with
7S2
Allowances to War Veterans

which to support myself; I have no income; I am unable to work and consequently I am entitled to some redress.
I think the worst feature of the clause is that it does not even give the veteran an opportunity of showing why he disposed of his property. Not only that, but the bill says:	You did get rid of your property for
the one and express purpose of being able to come in under this act. I wonder if hon. gentlemen think that is a fair charge to make against any veteran in this country? It is a positive charge of fraud. It does not even say that the veteran, who five years before he made application for an allowance had disposed of his property, will be given the opportunity to explain the circumstances under which the disposition took place. No, the government does not even do that. They take it in their own hands and say:	The
veteran disposed of his property for that one purpose only, and we will not give him the opportunity to come before the committee for the purpose of explaining why he did it. I have no doubt that there were hundreds of poor fellows, suffering as they did after they came home, and still are, who, being unable to meet the expenses of their household were forced, perhaps at a very great sacrifice, to dispose of their property, and now because of that further sacrifice which they were compelled to make are not entitled to come in under this act.
Let me go a little further and point out another clause or two in this act. Under the old act the pension board was responsible for its actions, and when you went before them, although they were not very sympathetic on all occasions no matter how many doctor's certificates you produced, if they were against you they would tell you that it was because you did not come under the act, and consequently they could do nothing for you. The government placed the responsibility upon the pension board, and the pension board met the applicant with the statement:	We are
here merely as trustees, and we regret that we cannot do anything to help you.
Let me point out the position a veteran is in to-day if this bill goes through in its present form. I refer hon. gentlemen to clause 15, which says:
The governor in council may, from time to time, on the recommendation of the minister, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, with regard to allowances herein provided for. and without limiting the generality of the foregoing provisions, may provide by regulation-
May provide by regulation for what ? Let me read from the bill to show the tremendous power that is retained in the hands of the
minister. The bill provides that the minister, among other things, may make regulations as to:
(a)	the time at which applications for allowances may be made;
(b)	the time at which after application therefor the payment of allowances shall commence;
(c)	the definition of residence and of the intervals of absence from Canada by which residence therein shall not be deemed to have been interrupted;
(d)	the evidence to be required or accepted by the committee in support of an application for allowance;
In other words, no matter what the evidence before the committee is, it still rests with the minister to say whether that evidence is sufficient upon which to grant a pension to the applicant. It is taken completely out of the hands of the committee, if the minister wishes to do so, because the evidence to be required or accepted by the committee in support of an application for an allowance may from time to time be regulated by the governor in council. The next clause provides that regulations may be made at the request or direction of the minister as to the manner in which the income of a veteran is to be determined for the purpose of this act.
I point out these things to show hon. gentlemen that notwithstanding that we have a new act and a new board, notwithstanding that this act is supposed to be for the greater benefit of the veteran, yet, after all, under the provisions of section 15, everything is retained in the hands of the minister and is under his control, and whatever he says goes, as to when the allowance shall be made, and as to what evidence shall be sufficient to justify an allowance, if he wishes to interfere. He holds in his hand a most powerful weapon, a weapon that should not be held by any hon. minister in this house. If a commission is appointed, one would think that the government would have sufficient confidence in it to leave it in its hands to decide who should receive an allowance and who should not. My submission is that the minister has no right to interfere, whatever the result may be after a case has been dealt with by the commission.
I do not propose to take up the time of the house any longer. I sincerely hope that this bill may result in giving greater relief to the men who fought for this country. The onus of proof, of course, was one of the great obstacles that the last pension board had to deal with. I think the only question for the board to deal with, when a man who is really disabled and who has got doctors' certificates certifying to his disability appears before them, is not whether the man can prove that his disability is due to the war; the question for

Allowances to War Veterans
the board to ask themselves is this: Would this man be suffering from his present disability if he had not gone to the war? That,
I think, is the question that ought always to be before the minds of the board, and if they deal with the veteran with that idea in mind,
I think that a great deal of the dissatisfaction which has permeated this country for the last four or five years will be got rid of.


Mr. R. H. JENKINS (Queens):: I intended to say a few words on this bill the other day, but did not have the opportunity. With some of the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Lennox) I agree. I am not too favourably impressed by some clauses of this bill, and I think the different clauses should be considered very carefully when the bill goes to the committee.
I cannot let this opportunity'pass without saying a word on behalf of the returned men, not only of my province but of the Dominion at large. Many applications for relief which have come under my observation are pathetic because under the act as it now stands it is practically impossible for them to be considered. This is not the fault of the pension board but is due to the act under which the board works. No party or group in this house has a monopoly of all the patriotism and loyalty to be found in the country. We are all united in the same cause, of endeavouring to better the conditions of our returned men. Possibly the most distressing cases are those of men who were gassed and signed off as physically fit. The passing of time has revealed the effects of gas and war shock and many of these men are now suffering from tubercular trouble. As I understand it, the act does not make provision for this type of case and it seems to me that some amendment to cover such cases will commend itself to the majority of our right thinking people. In my province men are especially affected in this way on account of the dampness of our climate. I would think that we have possibly more cases per capita suffering from this particular ailment than in any other portion of Canada.
I desire to add, Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, that it has been my privilege to come into contact with the officials of the Canadian Legion in my province and I have found their advice most helpful. The local officials are men with good judgment and most reasonable in every way. I am one hundred per cent with the returned men of Canada in their endeavour to have legislation enacted which will give adequate compensation to worthy cases.
As I said at the opening of my remarks, I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing my desire that this bill shall be very
carefully considered by the committee, because I realize that it is not just what the returned men want; they think the proposal has too many strings attached to it. For that reason I hope the bill will be very carefully considered when it reaches the committee.


Mr. FRANKLIN SMOKE (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to express my approval of the principle of doing everything possible for the relief of our returned soldiers. As for the Board of Pension Commissioners I am sure I can say the same as every other member of this house, that in my dealings with them 1 have received every courtesy; but they are bound by cast iron rules under the present legislation. As the last two speakers have said, there will no doubt have to be some alteration in the terms of the bill when it reaches the committee; it is most desirable that there should be, because in its present form the bill does not meet cases to which I shall refer. I have in my mind the case of a poor widow whose husband died not more than two months ago as the result she thinks, and as everybody who knew him thinks, of war disability; but he was not able to connect his disability with the war, having been discharged apparently A-l. The case is now before the federal appeal board and we are hoping for a favourable decision. I do think there ought to be some discretion left to the authority that ultimately is to determine what pensions are allowable to deal with this and similar cases. I have a number of other cases before me which have not received the treatment that we think they should have received, simply, as I said before, because the present legislation does not cover such cases.
I am sure the returned soldiers in my riding-and in proportion to population there are as great a number there as in any other riding in the Dominion-I am sure those men are not satisfied with the present law, nor do I think they will be satisfied with this bill as drafted. Therefore I appeal to the hon. minister to pay heed to the views of returned soldiers in this house, for they know the needs of our returned men, and to see that everything possible is done to afford much-needed relief to our veterans.


Mr. W. S. MURPHY (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my riding contains many war veterans whose cases have been turned down by the Board of Pension Commissioners on several occasions, and who to-day are very much dissatisfied with the Pension Act, I desire to deal briefly with this bill. To my mind the bill will not clear away the dissatisfaction that has been expressed by the returned men. It seems to me that it
Allowances to War Veterans

has been conceived as an act of charity, and, as I take it, our returned men to-day are not asking for charity or sympathy, they are asking for a square deal from this country, and they insist upon being treated from that standpoint. I feel that we should give to them that square deal. We should regard our treatment of our war veterans as a matter of meritorious reward, not of sympathy or charity.
I have before me an expression of opinion from some of the veterans in our post at home, and I should like to put a portion of it on record as showing what they think of this bill:
Doctor, yon asked for our opinion, you have it, as far as we are able to express it in writing. We are not asking for any sympathy or favours, just a square deal.
We are convinced this new scheme is just about as much use to a returned man as if they presented him with a bouquet of flowers for his funeral.
That is pretty harsh comment, but it is characteristic of the attitude of our veterans towards this proposed legislation.
Let me refer to clause 5, subsection C:
An allowance may be paid to every veteran who, at the date of the proposed commencement of the allowance,
(c) has resided in Canada continuously for three years preceding his application for allowance.
Undoubtedly there are veterans who served overseas and who during the last three, five or ten years have transferred their residence to some other country. Are those men to-day any leas veterans than they were before they left our shores? Did they serve our country any less valiantly because to-day they happen to reside in some foreign clime? Those men were forced to leave Canada to gain a livelihood, and in my opinion the application of this clause is antagonistic to the interests of a good number of our returned men.
I desire to place myself on record, Mr. Speaker, as not being satisfied with this bill. What our veterans want is an amendment to the Pension Act whereby through proper and lenient administration of its provisions they will be entitled to the meritorious rewards which they so richly deserve.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this tardy measure does undoubtedly afford some relief to a few of those returned men who from time to time have been presenting their cases to the Board of Pension Commissioners. I am sure the experience of nearly every member of this house who has had occasion to deal with these cases before that board has been that the main difficulty arose in connection with the proof to be adduced in 
support of the claims presented. There was no doubt whatever as to the unfortunate condition of the applicant, there was no doubt that he was in need of relief, and there was no doubt in his own mind that his condition was due to war service. There was, undoubtedly, a measure or a certain amount of proof in support of his contention. But the provisions of the Pension Act were so inelastic that the board took the position that the applicant had not met the onus of proof which rested upon him. The real problem presented in these cases was one of proof, and I am sure it has been felt by many that what has been really needed was some amendment of the Pension Act, some declaration to be embodied in that act, that would have made the way a little easier for proof in these cases. That position has not been recognized or dealt with in this bill.
I submit that the elaborate machinery that has been set up by parliament in the Board of Pension Commissioners, and board of appeal therefrom, is ample and sufficient to enable the department to deal with all these cases without setting up additional machinery under the control of the minister and his department. The hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox) has, I am sure, presented this case very ably indeed, and has left very little for any of us to say to supplement the argument that he has presented. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is a surprise to know that this board of appeal has actually cost the Dominion government more to administer and operate than it has afforded in relief to those returned veterans, and, notwithstanding that, this bill proposes to set up another organization which undoubtedly will add to the expenditure that must necessarily be made in connection with these plans.
I would suggest that the minister seriously consider the situation, as presented with respect to this board of appeal, and the cost of it, and that he hesitate before he deliberately embarks upon the setting up of another organization to do the work which the existing organizations ought to be competent to undertake and to discharge, and which they ought to be able to discharge in the spirit of the Pension Act, and in keeping with the existing regulations. The Board of Pension Commissioners, I' think, would weicome some amendment that would enable them to do justice to the large number of cases that have been presented to them, and which they, unfortunately, have felt bound to reject. And I have not yet heard from the minister, or from any other source, any good reason why this additional machinery should be set up, why these few or many, as the case may be,

Allowances to War Veterans
returned veterans are taken out of the general class of their comrades, and placed in a separate class, and dealt with rather on a basis of charity than one of pension for the services which they have rendered.
There are certain defects in this plan which, to me, are very serious indeed. The measure does not take into consideration, or makes no provision, for, as the Pension Act does, the dependents of those who come under its provisions; and, in case of death, there is no provision for the dependents. It makes no provision for the support or maintenance of the children of the class of veterans who come under it. For all these reasons, while it will undoubtedly afford a measure of relief in some cases, I submit it does not meet the large body of cases that have been before the pension board, that have been dealt with by the appeal board, and that are yet in an unsatisfactory state, and that are leaving in the minds of many of our returned soldiers a feeling that they have not been properly dealt with, and that this measure is only one of partial relief.
I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Board of Pension Commissioners should 'be given instructions, and authority, to accept and to presume in the case of a returned veteran, where any case really would justify an assumption, that his disability is due to war service. We have in our courts, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, cases disposed of on circumstantial evidence. We have presumptions, and we have inferences drawn every day by our courts from certain proven facts. The pension board, unfortunately, appear to be under the impression that they cannot invoke these provisions, that they cannot adopt these practices of the regular courts in matters of proof, and that it is, therefore, better to say to the veteran: You prove your case beyond doubt, beyond question; we can make no presumptions, we can make no inferences, we cannot act upon circumstantial evidence, therefore, we cannot help you.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that all this legislation, whether in this form or in any other form, should be embodied in and made a part of the Pension Act, that all these soldiers should be treated in the same spirit, in the same way, and through the process of the machinery-the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Board of Appeal-that we have already set up and established for the purpose of dealing with this class of case. It does appear to me that no minister should welcome the setting up of an organization of this kind, and, without in any way seeking to reflect upon him, or upon any other minister who may occupy the position from time 2419-50
to time, he wili find that he is creating a great deal of difficulty for himself, that he is duplicating machinery, that he is setting up an organization that is altogether unnecessary, that he is bound and restricted by regulations and limitations, which, after all, will be found to be an imperfect, inadequate and imcomplete answer to the reasonably fair and proper demands of 'that large number of our returned soldiers. I know of many cases where the door has been closed to them, and that they have not been given that measure of relief to which their services entitled them.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Sneaker, I am not going to speak upon the bill itself, but the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox) seemed to be under the impression that the pension committee had not the power to deal with this bill. He said he hoped that they had, and1 would use their power properly. If we have noit the power to deal with the bill, and to make suggestions, what in the world is the use of referring it to us, and if we have the power, as I believe we have, then surely we can be trusted to deal with it, because the personnel of the returned soldiers committee is constituted of gentlemen who are in full sympathy with the returned soldiers, and they will do all that they can to make amends for the wrongs they have suffered.


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the house on the principle of this bill, I wish to state clearly and definitely that I am not opposing that principle. I am in favour of the returned soldiers being given the benefit and the preference under the old age pension scheme. I wish to say also that I am in favour of giving them the benefit of an old age pension even before the age of sixty-five if the soldiers or their dependents are at any time in very straitened circumstances. I have no objection whatever to this, and I am not in any way criticizing the bill except in regard to two points.
The first objection to the bill is that it is placed in the hands of a committee headed by the Minister of Pensions and National Health; thus it is brought directly into politics. When the Prime Minister addressed the house on this question he said he hoped it was not a partisan matter and that no partisan discussion would take place. Now, the bill having been introduced, I believe the Prime Minister has not acted consistently in throwing the whole question into politics through the committee. I believe that is an objection which the returned soldiers will have to the bill when they thoroughly understand the whole situation.



Allowances to War Veterans
My second objection is in connection with the returned soldier himself; I feel that under the provisions of this bill a very deserving class of returned men will not receive justice. I believe the very class for whom the present legislation is being enacted, those we call the deferred disability cases or what the returned soldiers describe as the burned-out men and their dependents will not receive justice under this act. I desire to show, if I can, my reasons for making that statement. These deferred disability cases are a direct, result of the great war, which produced a certain type of disability not previously known, and as a matter of fact these deferred types of disability have been recognized only recently. As a matter of fact I do not think they are as yet fully understood by the medical branch of the Board of Pension Commissioners or possibly by medical men generally throughout the country. However, doctors are beginning to realize that there is more to these cases than we have formerly understood. As we know, Canada never had much war experience, and certainly we had no experience in any such stupendous conflict as that which was waged between 1914 and 1918. To visualize the conditions under which our soldiers fought in that war is beyond the imagination of the average man, but still we should make an effort to understand some of the experiences they went through, which caused these remote disability cases which are being recognized now.
The engines of destruction used in the great war were more powerful and devastating in their action than any previously known in the history of the world. One type of case which has come to our attention as a result of the war has been the case caused by the waves of suffocating gases which sent our soldiers reeling and gasping before them. Many soldiers who were fortunate enough to survive these gas attacks have been suffering^ and are still suffering from the poison which entered their system. The acute cases were very easily recognized by the medical men who attended them, and they were treated quite efficiently, but now we have to deal with a more obscure case, the case of the man suffering from the remote effects of chronic gas poisoning.
The trouble in these cases occurs because the regulations under the aot compel the medical officer who examines these men to say that he has a certain disability as a result of which the medical man can demonstrate a pathological change in the system of the patient. In the chronic case nearly always there is definite evidence of a certain amount of chronic bronchitis, which a medical man

can discern very definitely. He gives a certificate to that effect, and as a result the pension of the soldier is based on his disability due to the chronic bronchitis alone. We know now, however, and have known for some time that in addition to the bronchitis there is another disability which troubles the soldier to an even greater extent, but the medical man cannot place his finger on a pathological change. The point is that suffocating gases, such as chlorine and mustard, cause a severe irritation and damage to the mucous lining of the bronchia, right down to the alveolar tissue of the lung. Because of the damage caused in this way the air breathed does not come in direct contact with the blood stream passing through the lung, thus preventing the proper elimination of the waste carried in the blood stream, which should be oxidized and burned off by the breathing process. The consequence is that the soldier is suffering from a certain amount of self poisoning in addition to his chronic bronchitis. Sometimes this condition is easily defined; the average returned soldier giving a very clear picture of the situation when he says, "I suffer from giddiness, shortness of breath, attacks of fast action of the heart, pain in the chest and great lassitude which sometimes prevents me from attending to my work for days at a time." The pension board will give such a man 20 per cent or 30 per cent disability for the chronic bronchitis, but they will not give him any consideration for the other symptoms which have resulted from the gas. The consequence is, Mr. Speaker, that a certain amount of injustice is being done this type of returned soldier.
The other type of case of remote disability is that of the shell shocked soldier. Shell shock was not new in the last war; it was known for many years before that time. Wellington knew of it; he called it cowardice and he very effectually cured his soldiers of that disease by standing them up before a firing squad. Some of our doctors in, the late war accused these shell shocked men of being cowards, not understanding the underlying conditions which made them act as they did. The acute case of shell shock was recognized very quickly, and some of these men were given the proper treatment, but it is easy to see the difficulty and the ignorance under which the medical profession laboured during the war through the number of names which they gave to this condition. Some doctors called it emotional insanity; some called it hysteria, some neuresthenia, some exhaustion syndrome and others psychoneurosis; (these different names simply demonstrate the great density of the ignorance shown by the medical

Allowances to War Veterans
profession when considering the condition which actually exists in regard to this type of returned soldier. The great war was the cause of some of these conditions due to the fact that the concussion produced by the explosion of shells left a definite damage to the finer fabric of the body. Men were found upon the battlefields in a comatose, semi-comatose or completely unconscious condition and no evidence could be found of any wound. They were taken into the base hospitals and never regained consciousness and finally died. Autopsies revealed that there was a definite and a serious hemorrhage in the brain substance or in the nerve centres without any evidence of laceration of (the tissues. That condition resulted in the death of a number of soldiers, and any hon. member of this house will realize that if such concussions were powerful enough to cause death they might easily have resulted in a certain amount of damage which could not be repaired, and which has resulted in these cases of deferred disability. These cases are very difficult to understand as they are very obscure in their character.
I claim that the Minister of Pensions and National Health is not doing justice with the present 'bill to such cases. The bill provides that when these men reach the age of sixty-five, or at any time when they are old enough to be considered by the examining doctor as of that age, then they shall come under this Old Age Pensions Act. They are being left entirely outside of the soldiers' Pension Act and their dependents will be unable to receive any benefits under that act, and I am afraid that there will be considerable injustice done to these men.
As I say, these repeated concussions and detonations from exploding shells fired by powerful artillery continually pounding at these men caused a certain amount of damage to the delicate tissues of the brain, to the nerve centres, to the cell system, and to the glandular system of the men's bodies. One shell after another coming continuously day after day evidently registered a definite damage to the system. It damaged these men in the very fountain of their life, in the well spring of their existence; that damage due to their services in the war will never be repaired. I do not think there are a great number of these cases, but they should not be denied the benefits of the Pension Act. These men are very clearly designated by the name given by the returned soldiers themselves; they say they are burnt out. The condition is similar to that of a piece of copper wire which has been used too long in the carrying of electric current or over which too high a 24X9-501
current has been passed. The copper wire loses a certain amount of its virtue, it has lost its resiliency, its pliability, it becomes brittle, it will not function properly and will not conduct the current as it did before-it is burnt out. That is the condition of these men. Their cell system has been damaged, which system is responsible for the replenishment of the blood stream and the repair of the body. The glandular system controls and eliminates waste, but it has become laggard in its duties and the soldier becomes a victim of chronic self-poisoning. The cells of his brain have been damaged as well as the cells of the central nervous system: his brain does not function as it did before because something has gone out of it although no doctor can put his finger upon the exact cause. Something has gone out of that man, he has lost his vitality, he has lost his initiative, he has lost his stick-to-itiveness, he has lost his strength and he cannot go out in the manual labour market and compete with the average healthy man. His pension is based upon his ability to earn his living in the labour market, it is based upon his ability to earn his living by the sweat of his brow. He cannot earn that living, he becomes discouraged and he finally quits and becomes a derelict on the stream of time. These men cannot help their condition and they should be considered, and that is the reason why I take objection to the present bill. .
I am not criticizing this bill in toto because there any many men in this country who will receive a benefit therefrom, and I commend it to that extent but to that extent only. I feel that it will not meet the situation which exists to-day with regard to the returned soldier.
I consider that the present Pension Act, which was passed in 1919 is basically sound. There is nothing wrong with the act and I believe it is wide enough and broad enough to include these men if the medical men belonging to the medical branch of the Board of Pension Commissioners were properly educated as to the consideration which should be given to the condition of these men. It may be that they are bound down by certain regulations, but those regulations have been made upon the interpretation of the act by the Board of Pension Commissioners themselves. I cannot say what those regulations are as apparently they are somewhat secret, but I think that such interpretation and such regulations based thereon should be formulated by an independent committee and not by the Board of Pension Commissioners. I am not blaming that board because they are bound to assess pensions upon the disability guaranteed by the medical branch,

Allowances to War Veterans
and the doctor cannot be eliminated when we come to consider soldiers' pensions. If that were done the whole thing would be thrown into chancery and chaos would be created; no one but a doctor could understand the condition of these men and no one but a doctor could give an estimate of their disabilities. If the Pension Act is not broad enough to include them a new spirit should 'be written into it in order that the will of parliament may be registered in the verdicts given by the pension board, which up to the present time I do not think has been done. Verdicts have been given in many of these cases which were not expected to be given by the members of parliament who passed the act. Those members were just as anxious as the members of this parliament that everything should be done for the returned soldier, and the act as passed would have been sufficient if the disabilities resulting from this war had been anything like the disabilities which resulted from previous wars. But that was not known in 1919 when the act was passed, consequently the regulations should be changed in order to bring these men within the provisions of the act.
I aim directing these remarks to the minister himself in order that he may look a little further into the question with regard to these burnt-out men and see whether he cannot devise a way whereby they may be brought under the Pension, Act where they properly belong.


Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Out.):: Mr. Speaker, the question of soldiers' pensions has been thoroughly debated by members of the house on the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGib-bon) and also on the resolution preceding this bill. From all corners of the house there has been a well defined attitude that justice should be done to the returned men. There has been ample evidence in the citation of individual cases that there are in Canada many instances of returned men having been unfairly treated through lack of positive evidence to link the disability with war service. Let us not adopt any measure that will fail to do full justice to the men in accordance with the terms in which the house has expressed itself during the present debate.
The -men who np to the present time have been deprived of consideration should now be placed in a position where they will receive ample justice. I have in mind the case of a man who for many years has been deprived' of a pension or consideration of any kind, although it seems to me that the evidence quite justifies the view that he is a subject for and should be entitled to pension

not only from now on but in respect of the years during which he has been deprived of one. The facts 'are shortly stated in a letter from his physician who has had him under observation for some three or four years, and I am going to give the house 'his summing up of (the case. The letter, which is dated at Havelock, August 9, 1928, reads:
Dear Sir:
Our mutual friend H. J. Bush of this place is having some difficulty in getting the commissioners of the Pension Board at Ottawa, to admit that the disabilities he is labouring under -extremely low blood pressure, and intense headaches, great physical weakness, at times quite incapacitating him for w'ork, and an obstinate form of	constipation-are due
entirely to the results or effects of the wound in the right side received during active service. They insist that these results are of "post-discharge" origin and therefore do not entitle to pension. The truth, which so far they have refused to see, is that these above disabilities are entirely due to and caused by the wound above referred to; and that Mr. Bush suffered from all these symptoms while in the hospital before his wound healed and before he was discharged from the army; also that these symptoms were all ascribed to his wound and its effects, and that his blood pressure was never taken while in the hospital and the authorities have not a shred of evidence by which the above may be disputed or disproved. I have had Mr. Bush under observation for the last three or four years and am positive that the wound is the original cause of all liis present disabilities; further that these disabilities are almost certain to increase with time and Mr. Bush will have to take for the rest of his life special remedies to ameliorate these distressing symptoms and this remedy is expensive and should be provided by the Canadian government.
A. S. Thompson.
The reply which the board made to bis application for ,pension was as follows:
I beg to inform you that the conditions are considered to have developed post-discharge.
You are not entitled to pension for these conditions.
I purpose showing before I am through that under the present measure that man will still be deprived of any consideration. Let us examine the bill carefully and see whether it adopts the principle and the basis as advocated by various members who have spoken on the resolution of the hon. member for Muskoka. There should be a clear pronouncement by the minister as to whether the bill contains all the government intend to do for the returned men, or whether they purpose making some amendments to the Pension Act in accordance with the resolutions passed at the conference of the legion in Regina, where amendments to some ten sections of the present act were asked for. These men were not critical in making their contract for service overseas;

Allowances to War Veterans
they offered their services freely and for a principle. Let us approach this problem in the same way and give them their rights, not a compassionate allowance. All they ask is to be dealt with rightly, justly and fairly; let us fulfil our terms of the contract in that spirit. In my opinion the bill does not go far enough. The principle of the bill will have to be accepted if we cannot get anything more for these men, but it is objectionable on the following grounds:
1.	The allowance in the case where men have been deprived of it up to the present time is in many instances inadequate.
2.	It does not give the dependents any rights. A soldier who has been unjustly refused a pension, will be deprived of it from now on, and should he die within a short period his dependents will have no further rights under this legislation:
3.	It leaves the soldier entirely open to political jugglery.
4.	The real joker in the bill, in my opinion, is clause 5, which provides for an allowance where a man has reached the age of sixty-five years or where, by reason of physical or mental disability, he is permanently unemployable. There is in the legislation no interpretation of the term "permanently unemployable." In the case of Mr. Bush, he would not be termed permanently unemployable because he is able to work for two or three weeks or a couple of months at a time, and then he is out of work again for a month or two. He can do and has been doing occasional work to try to maintain himself and his family since he came back from overseas. Under these words he would still be deprived of any consideration provided by the bill until he reaches the age of sixty-five. Surely after the expression of opinion from all corners of the house, that is entirely unfair.
This measure is brought forward because a large class is debarred under the present act on the ground that there is not sufficient evidence to connect their disability with war service. Are we not back to just the same thing under clause 5 of this bill wherein occur the words "permanetly unemployable"? Where a man is able to do occasional or part time work he is excluded, just as he is excluded under the Pension Act by reason of his not being able to connect up the disability with war service. In this case they would say to him:	You cannot come under the class of
"permanently unemployable" because you are able to do occasional or part time work and you will have to stand aside until you are sixty-five years of age. That is surely unfair and is not doing justice to our returned men.
Let us try to mete out justice fairly and squarely to this large body of returned men who are not receiving consideration. Let us take the jokers out of the present legislation, set up a non-partisan tribunal to administer the act and divorce it entirely from politics. The act at the present time is susceptible to political considerations and political jugglery so far as the returned men are concerned. That is the last thing they want. They want justice pure and simple and nothing else. They are not asking for any compassionate allowance, but they want what they are justly entitled to and what they were promised before they left our shores to go overseas and fight the battles of the empire.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this bill affects the lives, the happiness and the rights of many thousands of our most worthy citizens. A large number of them reside in British Columbia and particularly in my constituency; therefore I deem it my duty to make some observations on the proposal which has been placed before the house.
The principle of the bill is one of relief to a number of our veterans. I do not think that any hon. member would have objection to any principle for aiding materially in the relief of our returned men, but I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that the nature of this particular relief does not come under the principles of the Pension Act, and the rights which are claimed by the dependents who seek relief are rights which relate to service overseas and should properly be covered by the Pension Act itself. To grant the relief afforded by this bill is to grant a relief which in many respects is similar to that granted under the Old Age Pension Act. In my judgment, the relief which should be granted is relief involving amendments to the Pension Act for the benefits of those who in fact suffered disabilities from services overseas, but who have not been able by conclusive evidence to establish that fact to the satisfaction of the pension board.
I am sure that hon. members and the country at large can still hear the echoes of the clarion call that summoned to the great war the flower of the youth of our land. Our memories should not be too short, our consciences and our sense of responsibility should be as fully alive to-day towards these men as in the past. During that great conflict we read with great pride of their glorious attainments. We witnessed the tragedy of the loss of life, the destruction of property, the agony and desolation brought to Canadian homes by the many deaths that occurred in that con-
Allowances to War Veterans

flict; and finally we participated in the welcome home to our heroes who brought glory and fame to Canada and helped so vitally to save this country. I ask hon. members to recall the feelings in their hearts when these men returned. It was a moment of maximum impulse of generosity towards these men who had borne the burden and heat of the day in that great conflict. All throughout Canada it was the intention and desire of the people that the most generous contributions should be made for the benefit of those who had in that conflict suffered in the cause of Canada, and particularly for the wives, the widows and the children of our gallant men.
In gathering a few notes for my remarks this afternoon I came across some words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) which express a sentiment that is in the hearts of every Canadian, that must be in the hearts of every member of this house, and should particularly be entertained by the government at this time. I refer to that because of the legislation which should have been brought down now by the Minister of Pensions for amendment to the Pension Act. That is the one in which the returned men throughout this country are interested; that is the act under which they feel they are sntitled to relief. Speaking at Cobalt on November 20, 1921, the Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, then leader of the Liberal party, now the Prime Minister, is reported as follows by a Canadian Press Staff correspondent:
"Our duty to the returned men, their dependents, and the dependents of those who have not come back is clear," Mr. King stated. "It is a demand that we treat their requests with geuerosity, which is more than mere justice. To the men who sacrificed their all in that fight for freedom we owe all the freedom we have to-day; though we default the interest on the national debt (which would mean national bankruptcy), we cannot afford to let one of our returned men or their dependents suffer."
That statement of the Prime Minister merely reflected the prevailing sentiment and the great impulse of generosity and sense of duty which at that time animated the Canadian people. That was in the year 1921. We thought we had then, in the Pension Act a principle which is called the insurance principle. It ensured a pension to every disabled man who enlisted A-l, As the act was interpreted by the pension board, it was found that instead of giving relief to those men who had not conclusive proof that their disabilities were due to war service, they were excluded from a pension. In. June, 1923, after representations had been made by various soldier organizations throughout this country,

I took it upon myself, when the Pension Act was under consideration in committee of the whole house, to move the following resolution in order to cover that very point, which has been a grave source of dissatisfaction and the cause of that sense of unjust treatment which is prevailing to-day among a great number of the returned men. I moved, as section 3A of Bill No. 205, the following amendment

Hansard, 1923, page 3850:
3A. For the purpose of The Pensions Act and amendments thereto and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the provisions of the said act and amendments thereto, or any other act, where a member of the force who has left the naval, military or air force service is, or at any time after the date of his leaving that service, has been found to be suffering from tuberculosis, neurasthenia, cancer or any other disease or incapacity which could reasonably be attributed to war service, such member shall be deemed to be suffering from a disease attributable to, or aggravated by, naval, military or air force service, as the ease may be, unless or until it is shown that the tuberculosis, or neurasthenia, or cancer, or other disease or incapacity was neither attributable to, nor aggravated by. such service; and for the purpose of this provision, acceptance for such service shall be conclusive that at the time of joining such service the officer or man was not suffering from any such disease or incapacity.
After some discussion the government refused to accept that amendment, as they did in subsequent years. Later, other hon. members proposed amendments introducing the same principle, but it always failed to carry.
The point I want chiefly ito bring bo the attention of the Minister of Pensions (Mr. King, Kootenay) is this: There are mein, as the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) pointed out in his able remarks a few moments ago, who are suffering from disabilities which, if the facts could be demonstrated, would be seen to be definitely attributable to their war service, but they cannot establish that fact, as would be required in a court of law, and the attitude of mind of the pension board does not assist them in establishing it. These cases must sooner or later be attended to. I am sure that all hon. members like myself have received communications on this subject. Large files in my office contain a great number of just such cases, some of them so pitiful that they would enlist the sympathy of any red-blooded' citizen of this country; but because the Pension Act is framed the way it is, throwing the onus of proof upon the soldier, a pension is refused. So I want to draw the attention of the minister and of the government (to the fact that an amendment to the Pension Act is necessary to deal with that very question of the onus of proof.

Allowances to War Veterans
The bill which the minister has introduced is a bill for relief fashioned to a large extent upon the principles of the Old Age Pension Act. It is a commendable move, because it is a step in the right direction towards the relief of what the soldiers call the burnt-out oases. But that does not touch nor does it affect those cases which are justly and properly entitled to pensions under the Pension Act according ito the scale provided thereunder.
At the moment I have not any comments to make on the different clauses of the bill; I propose to reserve them until the bill is before the committee. But I should like to emphasize one point which I mentioned the other day to the minister, that this bill should give some consideration to the women and children dependents of returned men and to the widows and children of those who paid the supreme sacrifice. Clause 9, for example, provides that:
Payment of allowance shall be suspended,
(c) during the period of treatment where a recipient is admitted to hospital for treatment of injury or disease related to service.
While the man was in hospital his dependents would have no relief whatever. I think the minister should consider that phase. Simply because this bill embodies to a great extent the principles of the old age pensions legislation, no unnecessary injustice should be done to the women and children; and after all they are the ones who in the last analysis suffer the most when proper relief is not given. The same defect will be found in other provisions of the bill. It is not a large sum-$40 a month for a married man.- but if he goes to hospital for treatment under this clause no allowance is made to him, neither the allowance of $20 to himself nor the further $20 to which he is entitled for hds dependents, his wife and children.
There are a number of other clauses which should also be amended, but as the bill is being referred to a special committee I shall not delay the house longer in that respect, beyond making a final appeal to the minister and the government. If they will examine the course of legislation relative to pensions since the amendments of 1920 and 1921, they will find outstanding and staring them in the eyes in every report, in every complaint, in every discussion, the facit that there should ibe an insurance principle, that they should be given the benefit of the doubt, that they should not have to shoulder the onus of proof, and that relief be granted according to the true intent and desire of the Canadian people. That has not yet been done, although nine years have gone by. Now I make this
appeal to the minister and the government, that they do not allow even nine weeks to go by before they bring in legislation, either through the committee or on their own initiative, to remedy that patent defect, which almost every hon. member I think will agree with me requires consideration and adjustment.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in common, I suppose, with most members of this house, bheTe are many items in the proposed bill to which I might take exception; but I shall not discuss the bill for the moment, for one reason which appears to me, at least, to be good and sufficient. In relation to this bill and in relation also to the Pension Act and to a number of other acts which affect the welfare of our returned men, we expect in a few days to be sitting in committee. We anticipate at that time that the provisions both of this bill and of the Pension Act and the whole problem of our returned men will be dealt with in detail. Because of that fact, and because I with others will have the opportunity of presenting my views there in a much more effective manner than is possible at present, I shall refrain from trespassing further upon the time of the house.


Mr. A. M. EDWARDS (South Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, at this late stage of ithe debate I desire to say only a few words in regard to the bill. I realize that the bill is an effort to assist in adjusting those cases of so-called burnt-out men and those men who have not been able to prove continuity of treatment from the time of the war up to the present time. To the extent that it does that I shall voice my approval of the bill. I realize, of course, that there is a danger, as has been pointed out by many speakers, of political interference, but I hope there will be none.
To my mind there is abjection to this bill in that it does not take care of the dependents of those who have been able to prove a good case but have not been able to prove continuity of treatment. When the bill was brought down I took the opportunity of writing to the different posts of the legion in the constituency that I have the honour to represent-and I might say right here that in that constituency we have many returned men- and invariably in their replies the posts commended ithe bill to a certain extent, but said they felt the effort should rather be put forth towards amending the Pension Act to take care of those cases that they were not able to get before the board through the objection either that they were post-discharge cases, or that the disabilities complained of had occurred before the war. We have all had oases of that sort. Some of them we have
Allowances to War Veterans

been able partly to adjust, but most of them we have not been able to get through. I have no criticism to make of the Board of Pension Commissioners, I feel that they are hedged about, unnecessarily so, by restrictions and by rules which they must follow; but I do submit that the resolution moved the other day by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. M'oGibbon) was in the right direction, that is, the onus of proof should not be entirely on the men. I have in mind particularly two cases. One is a man who was an iron moulder by trade before enlistment, and- obviously he was not a nervous wreck at that time or he could not have followed his occupation. This man enlisted in 1914; he was *heIl-shocked in 1916 and invalided out of the army on part pension. He came back to the city of Galt a nervous wreck. After treatment there for a year his doctor recommended an entire change of scene and he went bo Vancouver. I knew nothing about, him until about a month ago, after the house opened, when he wrote me stating that he had been suffering from neurasthenia, but had been unable to get any pension on that account and he asked me to take his case up with the pension board. I went over to the board and was kindly given the file. I found that in 1916 neurasthenia was given as one of the causes for which he was invalided from the army, but during all that time he had not received any compensation for that trouble. I must say in fairness to the board that they immediately adjusted the pension and made it retroactive to 1919, When the application was made.
I have another case that I should like to put before the house of a man who has not been able to get a pension. He has been suffering since 1917 and has produced certificates from four medical men certifying that they had treated him. Unfortunately the doctor who treated him in 1917 did not keep a correct record of his case; the man was paying his way and the doctor simply made an entry in his books that he had treated the man, but did not state the trouble. This man has cystitis and pyelitis, and I have no doubt that the medical members of this house will agree that that trouble could have been induced by exposure. This man claims that cystitis was brought on from exposure while on service in England. He did not get to France. He was invalided out of the army on account of eye trouble, and he has not been able to connect up his disability with his war service, for the simple reason that the physician in 1917 and 1918 did not keep a record of his case. I have every hope of that case succeeding before the appeal board. I have it before 
the board now. I know this man very well, and I know that when he left, he was in first class shape, physically fit, but up to the present time he has not been able to get a pension.
I commend the act, up to a certain point, as being an effort to adjust cases of this kind, but I do submit that an amendment should be made to the pension act whereby the onus of proof is not placed entirely upon the returned man. I trust that I shall have an opportunity, when the bill goes to committee, not only to make suggestions but to assist other members who are interested in putting this matter before the board. It is my view also that this bill should be so amended as to take care of the dependents of veterans who come within the scope of this proposed legislation.


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, having resided for many years in a district in British Columbia which shares with the district represented by my good friend the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), the proud honour of having sent to the front a greater number of men per capita than any other part of Canada, or of America, for that matter, exceptional opportunities have been afforded me of studying the effects of war on those who went and those who returned. I have watched these boys grow to manhood's estate; I saw them go and I saw them return, and I have observed their effort to succeed on the land, or in other endeavours, since their return. I quite agree with the very learned remarks made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson). I have seen those men come back feeling fit in every way, but have seen them gradually become weary, becoming old men long before their time, and I have had instance after instance of those men trying to bring their case before the pension board, but always the reply was that they could not trace their disabilities to war service.
It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that an amendment, or amendments to the Pension Act would accomplish all that this bill is seeking to accomplish, and would be very much less unwieldy. By a few amendments to the Pension Act, and by the sotting up of proper machinery, they would be able to go into districts such as mine, where they could meet the people interested, getting the benefit of their local knowledge and the ideas of the physicians. I feel sure that a committee could be appointed to go into those districts, and in a few weeks' time would be able to decide who should receive compensation and who should not.
When those men came back from the war the government, seeking to do what was best

Allowances to War Veterans
for them, settled them on land. It was a well meant effort, but it was doomed to failure from the start because of the physical and other conditions. These men, coming back from the muck and tumult of war, desired nothing more than a piece of land, anything to get away from the din of battle, and the soil appealed to them. The sight, the sounds, the fragrance of field and forest was to them Elysium. They fought hard to make things go. They cleared land in many cases, but eventually they had to give up the job. I know of many men who, while doing their very best to get along, are able to work only a few hours a day, men who have families dependent on them, in many cases families who were accustomed to luxury before the husband and father went to war. Those are the people that we want to help by setting up the proper machinery, and I think that could very well be done by appointing to go through that country a committee composed of men who know the conditions in the country. It is not at all necessary, Mr. Speaker, to trace from a pathological point of view the connection of their disability with war service; we all know it, we have seen so many of them. It does not require the opinion of a physician. Those are the people to whom we want to afford relief. We do not want to bring those men under an act which resembles the old age pension act as does this one. I have seen men 45 and 50 years of age much older looking than I am at three score and ten, all due to the war. These men are not able to enter into competition with other labour in the district, and it could easily be proved to the satisfaction of a committee that these men should receive relief under the Pension Act. This country wants to deal rightly by those people. I have every respect and regard for the hon. minister who has introduced this bill, but, as I say, having had exceptional opportunities of observing these men who will come under this bill, I do not think it is quite the proper mode of procedure for dealing with them. As I say, I have seen them strive and unable to compete with others in the race for life. Very many have left British Columbia and have gone to California, but when they get there they are just about on the same plane as at home in British Columbia. They are not on the same plane as the virile young man. Their cases are very piteous, sir, and I believe this committee, which would come face to face with these men and with people who live alongside of them, in large measure could protect the government from demands which might be made by those who are able to work and earn a living. This could be accomplished by a small committee; I could name one or two men on Vancouver island who would be glad to do this work in order to help the returned soldiers.
I have gone to these men and suggested that they be reboarded, but they have said, "What is the use; we have been boarded before. When we go up before the board, which is like a court, we are diffident and timid; we cannot put our cases as we could put them to you, and the result is that we get no relief." I have seen these men refuse for this reason to make application for a rehearing of their cases. If some such procedure as I have outlined could be instituted for the benefit at least of the people in that part of the country from which I come, I believe it would not cost the country anything like it will cost under the provisions of this well-meant act.


Mr. WILLIAM SPANKIE (Frontenac-Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
refer to this bill for just a few moments. In common with other members of the house I have received many letters from returned soldiers, to one or two of which I desire to refer in particular. Before doing so, however,
I wish to direct the attention of the minister to section 5 of the bill, which seems to contain either a mistake or misprint. It reads:
An allowance may be paid to every veteran who, at the date of the proposed commencement of the allowance,
(a) has attained the age of sixty-five years, or, not having attained the age of sixty years ii. in the opinion of the committee, by reason of physical or mental disability, permanently unemployable;


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: That is a mistake which will have to be corrected.


William Spankie: That was directed to my attention in a letter which I received from a man who is just over sixty years of age. His application for pension has been refused, and he did not know what to do.
Another point in connection with the bill is the fact that it does not come into operation until September 1 of this year, which means that five months must elapse before any benefits will be received under it. During that time many soldiers and their families will suffer, perhaps severely. I have here a letter from a soldier's wife, the soldier himself being unable to write. She asks why they have not heard from the Board of Pension Commissioners, after having waited for months. Some time ago I wrote the board, laying the matter before them, and received a reply a few days ago which I forwarded to this woman, but in

Allowances to War Veterans
the meantime she wrote the letter which I intend to read. In the letter she said:
I would like to hear from you at as early a date as possible concerning his case. It has been over eight months since he has been able to do a tap of anything and he is getting worse every day.
That soldier has a wife and four children; he draws $7.50 per month for himself and $7.50 for his family, on which he has had to live and on which he will have to live for the next five or six months until this new act comes into operation. Why should there be such a long delay? Is it absolutely necessary?
There is one other case to which I should like to direct the attention of the house. It is the case of a young man who enlisted at an early age and who saw service overseas in a theatre of war. I have here the report of his officer, giving the history of his case. On December 23, 1915, this private enlisted in the 146th battalion, proceeding overseas on September 26, 1916. He disembarked in France on October 6, 1916, and was sent directly to the front line trenches. After being there for six months he was severely wounded and was admitted to hospital on April 24, 1917. From that time on he was treated first at one hospital and then at another and eventually, after having been discharged as unfit for further service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, he was returned to Canada.
This case is very sad. During the absence of this man overseas his two children were drowned and his wife ran away with another man, with whom she is living at present in Virginia. His home has been completely broken up. While in the trenches this soldier was hit in the face by shrapnel and now he is unable to open his mouth more than one inch and cannot eat ordinary diet. He has lost a considerable portion of his lower jaw on the right side and is fitted with a denture. He also has a large scar on the right side of his face and defective vision of the right eye. At the time this letter was written this soldier was only twenty-five years of age. He is disfigured for life; he did his duty and returned to Canada after serving his king for twenty-seven months, without a mark on either of his conduct sheets.


Mr. BRADY:: Has he a pension?


William Spankie: This man is suffering at
present and is living with friends who are supporting him; he has no pension. He was given a gratuity of $100 in 1919, and has not received one cent since that time, during which period he has been supported by his friends. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the special 
committee dealing with this matter will take ample time to consider all these cases and I hope the bill will be brought into operation at the earliest possible date.
We should not be too strict in requiring proof that disability is due entirely to war service. The very fact that a soldier who served his country is now suffering should be sufficient for us. When a man has seen service in a theatre of war he should be entitled to our sympathetic consideration, whether or not it is possible to prove that his disability is directly due to that service. I do not see how the soldier can prove that in many cases, nor do I see how the board can prove the contrary, but in any case the onus should be on the board and sympathetic treatment should be given the soldier. To my mind, when a man has given service to his country we owe him everlasting gratitude. I hope this bill will give satisfaction to the soldier, and I know it will meet with the approval of the majority of our people if it treats them sympathetically and does not require	too much	proof which	it
is impossible for most men to furnish. The case to which I referred a moment ago, that of a man who had a pension of $15 all told, $7.50 for himself and $7A0 for his family, was communicated with last week by the board-that communication came to me and I forwarded it to the man-which stated that his disability was actual but as a period of ten years has elapsed they could not connect it with his war experience.
When these young men returned from the war they were not thinking about pensions, they were thinking about getting home. At that time their ailments seemed to be slight because youth was strong and buoyant and they had the strength of early manhood, but as the years rolled by these weaknesses developed.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the soldier be allowed to apply for this pension at the age of sixty years. Anyone may apply for pension at the age of seventy years, and I think the soldier should be given a preference of at least ten years. I hope that this question may be worked out satisfactorily.


Mr. R. H. McGREGOR (South York):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent a riding which is known as the soldiers' riding, that of South York. I do not intend to take up the time of the house in bringing up individual cases or in discussing this new proposed legislation, because I think it has been discussed thoroughly by members on this side of the house, but I do want to say that all that the returned soldiers in my riding are looking

Allowances to War Veterans
for is a fair deal. They believe that this old age pension annex is a good thing as far as it goes, but they do not think it goes far enough. The soldiers in my riding feel that unless the government intends to add something to this act, it is an insult to them. I have talked with a good many of the boys in my riding and they agree that the resolution proposed by the hon. member on this side of the house (Mr. McGibbon) is what they have been attempting to get for some years, and I know that nothing less than that will satisfy the soldiers in my riding. They have asked me to see if it would not be possible to have a draft of any proposed new legislation sent out to the different posts before it becomes law, so that they may have a chance to approve or disapprove of it..
It is only a matter of probably ten or twenty years before the boys who are now with us will have passed along, so let us all get together and do what we can to help those who have done so much for us.


Mr. A. MacGILLIVRAY YOUNG (Saskatoon) :: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take up the time of the house for a few moments only, not because the subject under discussion is not of importance but because we have had the assurance of the Minister of Pensions (Mr. King, Kootenay) and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that this bill will be referred to the committee as well as the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon), and any suggestions made by any hon. member will be considered by that committee. That seems to me to be the best place to discuss these questions which concern many of the people whom we have the honour to represent.
I do not propose to take up any time in dealing with individual cases. I have had many cases before the pension board and [DOT]I have found the board to be always sympathetic. In some cases they seemed to have great difficulty in coming within the act; on many occasions my judgment differed with theirs but whether they were right or I was right is a matter which should not be left to themselves or .to myself to decide. Whenever there is any reasonable doubt I say that that doubt should be given always to the returned soldier, but I am inclined to think that in some cases that has not been done. Since we are to have the opportunity of discussing fully before the committee all the cases which have come within our notice, I am satisfied .to say no more, but I do hope that when the bill comes back to this house there may be a recommendation that the Pension Act be amended so that all cases
which have not heretofore been brought within the scope of that act will receive a full and fair measure of justice.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member who has last spoken (Mr. Young, Saskatoon) is under some misapprehension. As far as I have been able to hear, there has been no definite undertaking by the Minister of Pensions (Mr. King, Kootenay) or by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the Pension Act itself will be amended during the present session. We have not had that assurance, and my fear is that intensive and thorough as may be the deliberations of the special committee, the result of those deliberations will come down so kite that we will find, as was the case in 1927, that there can be no legislation prepared to implement the findings of the committee.
I think we may assume that the genesis of this legislation is in .the letter of Sir Arthur Currie written during the last summer to the general convention of the legion. The preamble of .the bill reads:
-and whereas it is found that many pensioners and non-pensioners are, in fact, unemployable by reason of intangible results of their war service apart from any consideration of pensionable disability; and it is desirable to provide assistance, or additional assistance, for these veterans in recognition of their service:
I am thoroughly in accord with that principle. I do not intend to concern myself ait the moment with the details of the bill, as they will be taken up by the committee, but I think the minister should take advantage of the somewhat devastating criticism which has been made of the provisions he has inserted in the bill. If the Prime Minister thinks he is fulfilling the pledge made by him shortly after Sir Arthur Currie's letter was written by introducing this legislation, then I cannot agree with him. Only one branch has been covered, and that imperfectly in many respects.
The committee will have this bill under consideration, as well as the motion of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) and certain resolutions of the legion or of the service committee, and I would like to have from the government the definite assurance, which as yet we have not been able to obtain, that any favourable recommendations of the committee will be implemented at this session by means of legislation.
This bill has provoked a great deal of discussion amongst the returned men. Some like it, others do not, but I think it is satisfactory to those cases to which it properly applies.
Allowances to War Veterans

The feeling amongst the men, however is that if this is the government's last word or the only solution of the problem to which they claim to have set themselves long before. this session began, then it is unsatisfactory in the extreme. It cannot be accepted as the final word and as the disposition of these claims which men through the legion and otherwise have been making. I do not know that the functions of the committee go far enough to enable it to suggest or recommend amendments to the Pension Act, but I take this position now: if any objection is raised at a later stage to implementing the Pension Act by just such resolutions as are adopted by the committee, we should press in the house for such amendments to the Pension Act as will carry out those recommendations.
With the principle of the bill as affording some measure of relief, subject to discussion of the details, I think we may be all in accord; but as a final implementing of the Prime Minister's pledge spread further in the speech from the throne, it is not at all satisfactory. I take it that the soldiers will not accept this as being adequate and complete satisfaction of what the speech from the throne promised in the way of pension legislation.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. D. .1. COWAN (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay):	Mr. Speaker, the bill now 'before the
house has been too long delayed. I think it would have been in the interests of the war veterans themselves and of the public generally if this legislation had' been introduced some years ago. It would have come with a much better grace if it had come spontaneously from the hearts of the Canadian people as expressed here, rather than being forced through the agency of the legion from a most reluctant government.
In common with other members who have spoken this afternoon, I adhere to the principle of support or aid or recompense for the returned soldiers of this country. They left our Shores with loud hurrahs ringing in their ears and with the implied promise that upon their return they would be reestablished in civil life, or if they did not return that their dependents would be adequately oared for. This proposed legislation does not meet the full requirements of the legion in my community with which I have the honour to be connected in an honorary capacity, in that

it is deficient in providing for the relief of our returned men, for various reasons, of which I will state a few.
First, in the definition clause the word "veteran" is not sufficiently inclusive. I know that this and other deficiencies will be .considered in the special committee to which this bill will be referred, and I sincerely hope the government will give earnest consideration to these deficiencies so that when itihe bill is reported they will be remedied. The word "veteran," as I say, is not sufficiently inclusive, for it does not cover those veterans who served in Canada and in England. The definition should be so widened as to include those veterans. In the second place, no benefit is provided for dependents. I think the proper course would be to amend the Pension Act so that the dependents of these men could be properly provided for. In the third' place, the clause in regard to disallowance is too strict. If a war veteran has conveyed his property within five years of the time of his application, the conveyance is deemed to have been made for the purpose of getting the allowance under this bill. I submit that a great many of these men have had to dispose of their property during that period, that they have been forced to do so iby the pansimony of this government in looking after them, and that it is most unfair and unjust that a man who by reason of those circumstances has had to dispose of his property should be debarred from the benefits of this bill.


John Warwick King: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt the hon. gentleman for a moment?
I am afraid my hon. friend has not read very carefully the provisions of the bill. The disallowance applies if the man sells his property after the coming into force of this proposed legislation,


Mr. COWAN:: Even so it seems to me [DOT]
unwise that any one coming within the terms of this bill should be debarred by reason of having disposed of his property in the subsequent five years.


John Warwick King: That is quite true.


Donald James Cowan: He should be entitled to
the benefits of this bill even if he has to dispose of his property within the next five years. Then the age limit is too high. A great number of our men who went overseas would not be entitled to the benefits of this legislation until forty years had elapsed from the beginning of hostilities. That in itself is an unwise position for the government to take, because I think that on the average our men enlisted at twenty-five years of age, and I sub-

Allowances to War Veterans
mit they should not have to wait until they are sixty-five until they come under the benefits of this legislation; it is too long a time altogether for them to have to wait.
I was amazed this afternoon to learn of the expense of administering the Pension Act. When you find that the cost of its administration so far as appeals are concerned was greater than the benefits which have been awarded to our returned men, I think the uselessness and futility of setting up another commission to administer this proposed legislation is apparent.


John Warwick King: Mr. Speaker, I
must take exception to that statement. A similar statement was made earlier this afternoon, but it is not borne out by the facts. I hope to speak on that in the course of the evening.


Donald James Cowan: For the moment I accept
the correction of the minister. I am relying on the statement to that effect, made, I think, by the member for North York (Mr. Lennox).


John Warwick King: He is in error.


Donald James Cowan: But undoubtedly the expenses of administration are out of all proportion to the benefits received. If the commission which will administer this proposed legislation is going to follow along the same lines, then I submit that one of two things will happen: either the cost of administration will be altogether too high, or the benefits awarded will be entirely lacking in generosity. I take this further objection that the allowance granted to a man is suspended while he is undergoing hospital treatment. May I point out that that is the very time when his allowance should go on, because many of our returned men have not saved up anything for the proverbial rainy day. It seems to me that as necessarily their wages cease while they are receiving hospital treatment, they should be afforded an opportunity of obtaining the benefits of this legislation during that time.
I subscribe to the principle that aid should be given to our veterans. Of course, it is better, as in this case, to get half a loaf than none. The bill is good as far as it goes, but the allowance is too small, and I think the condition of the ex^soldier has not been properly or sympathetically treated in this bill. For these reasons, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the government will reconsider its attitude and show greater generosity to the men who did so much for us in the days that are past. [DOT]


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister introduced the bill 1 understood him to say that it was all the legislation which he intended bringing down this session in connection with pension matters. That statement, to me, was most amazing and disappointing. I think that further amendments to the Pension Act are due, in fact now considerably overdue-


John Warwick King: And are being
considered now by a committee.


Thomas Cantley: At any rate be that as
it may be, in my opinion this bill does not go far enough. The executive representatives of the Canadian Legion in my county have to-day, I am advised, forty-one cases before the pension board. Some of them have been before the board for a very considerable time; some that I know of and am personally interested in have been before the board for well on three years. I have in mind at the moment a case Which is well known to my hon. friend from Yukon (Mr. Black). It is that of a man who served under him in France, and has been repeatedly before the board. The man has been down at the military hospital in Halifax, and the doctors there who examined him stated that a certain condition as suggested by his own physician could not be present. Subsequently the man underwent an abdominal operation which disclosed that the very condition suggested by his own physician actually existed. Notwithstanding that, nothing has yet been done in regard to the case, although representations have been made, and repeatedly made, both by the member for Yukon and myself in regard to the matter.


John Warwick King: Made to whom?


Thomas Cantley: Made first to one doctor and then to another of the pension board. We as yet have obtained no redress. There is the case of a man who is not a malingerer. I I have known him intimately since he returned from the war. His wife is putting up a splendid fight to maintain a home and nurse her husband; fortunately for him she is a trained nurse. The man is not able to work. He has attempted to do so again and again, but after two or three days' work he breaks down and has to go back to the hospital. He has been nursed by a devoted wife over a period of half a dozen years. Conditions of that kind arouse resentment in all the friends of the soldiers who know the circumstances, as I know them in this particular case. But that is not the only one. I have in mind the case of a man named Mackay from Thorburn, also in my county, in which the circumstances are much the same. Now we are told that he can

Allowances to War Veterans
have a board some time in the near future, but we cannot get any definite information as to when he will go before the board. I have another case which is worse than either of those referred to, the case of Private Ernest Cameron, regimental No. 716171. He is suffering from a head wound. To-day he is a pauper patient in the harmless insane asylum in my home county. That man has a family, a wife and three children, now dependent entirely on charity. Why are cases of that kind not dealt with? It is not sufficient for the minister to say that this is all the legislation he proposes this year.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend is hardly fair. The matter was made very plain the other night. I then said that this was the legislation the government presented to parliament at this time, a veterans' allowance act, that other returned soldier matters would be referred to a special committee of this house, and that suggested legislation would undoubtedly grow out of that committee and be again before the house.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But none is to
be brought down by the government?


John Warwick King: It will be brought down by the government-it must be: it cannot be brought down otherwise. So there is no use labouring the point.


Thomas Cantley: All I can say is and I
assert that the explanation of the minister is not in accordance with my understanding of what he distinctly stated. When he was asked from this side of the house if this was all the legislation he proposed to bring down, he said yes. Is not that correct?


John Warwick King: You misunderstood entirely.


Thomas Cantley: We are all liable to be misunderstood. But I want to tell the minister that my understanding of what he said and his understanding of it are quite different and the record, which I cannot at the moment put my hand on, will support my position. Further, as I said a few moments ago, if the minister has any such idea it certainly will not meet the case. That is not my view alone, it is the view of thousands of others in this country.
I have no intention further to discuss the matter except again to emphasize the fact that I have in my county a great number of cases relief for whom is long overdue and which demand more sympathetic consideration by a pension board with less restrictive regulations. As I stated on a former occasion when dealing with this matter, I have no 
quarrel with the pension board, from whom I have on many occasions received every courtesy in connection with cases that I have brought to their notice. The difficulty is they are hedged about with restrictions which do not permit them, in their judgment, to do what I consider simple elementary justice to many cases of the type that I have referred to to-night. Such restrictions must be swept away and replaced by a more humane and just enlargement'of the present Pension Act, now long overdue.


Finlay MacDonald: I should like t.o read one section of a letter that I received this afternoon. It is dated March 18, and reads as follows:
In further reference to the McGibbon resolution and Bill No. 19 I may say that I had occasion to attend the Glace Bay branch of the Canadian Legion on the occasion of their regular meeting last Sunday when this matter was discussed. Considerable indignation was expressed concerning Bill No. 19 and the meeting seemed to be in hearty accord with the resolution. At all events the branch decided to express their approval of the resolution and their disapproval of the bill and to submit the question to the provincial command from whence it will undoubtedly be forwarded for final decision to the Dominion command. The general impression is that the findings and submissions of the Regina convention this year are rather compatible with the resolution than with Bill No. 19. I agree with you that both bill and resolution might well be adopted for reasons stated in your letter of the 15th instant. In my opinion the Dominion command will support the resolution and find that it might be supplemented by Bill No. 19, but I feel quite confident that the bill alone will be unacceptable.
I may say that these ibwo councils are composed of clergymen, .miners, lawyers, labourers, doctors and men of all classes, and I think they compare in point of intelligence with any .council of the legion in any .part of the country. It is 'because they have conveyed to me in such distinct terms their disapproval of this bill that I feel it necessary at this stage to record my protest against it.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr.Speaker, I think the bill before the house should commend itself to us in a great many ways, and even if it does not go quite as far as we might wish, still I think it will bring relief to a certain number of men and will help meet the difficulty which now exists and with which we are all familiar.
Different speakers have referred to the present Pension Act, and it has been suggested that no amendment will be brought in this session. I am sure the comimitte which will consider soldier .problems will inquire into the different aspects of the question, and I feel sure .that i;f they bring in a strong recommendation to this house asking for amendments which can be accepted by the house, those recommendations will receive consideration and the necesary amendments will be brought in. At present we are considering Bill No. 19, which is entitled "An Aot Respecting War Veterans' Allowances," under which we intend to relieve a certain number of cases. In my opinion the cases at present which are the most difficult to deal with are those in which the present disability is due to over-

seas service, but in which the connection cannot be traced. In my experience in dealing with these cases I find that in the greater number, lung trouble, throat trouble, bronchial troulble or heart trouble has developed since the soldier was discharged, but that there is no way of proving that the disability is due to overseas service. If I understand this measure correctly, if these men are not able to carry on gainful employment they will receive an allowance. In addition there is the man who is at present in receipt of a small pension o<f from 5 .per cent to 14 .per cent. His case also will be considered and if he is not in a position to earn a livelihood he will come under the provisions of this act and receive some compensation.
However, there are certain people who will not receive any assistance under this act; I refer to the dependents of returned men. Under the present Pension Act a great many dependents do not receive any assistance. If I remember rightly, the dependents of a man who has been in receipt of a 75 per cent to 80 per cent pension receive consideration should that man die, but if the man is in receipt of a pension lower than that percentage no assistance will be given his dependents.
We hear a great deal, and often read in the newspapers, that the pension board should give compassionate consideration to these cases. I think that is hardly fair to the board, Mr. Speaker, because I believe no such thing as a compassionate consideration is possible. If the pension board can bring a case within the four comers of the Pension Act, I think it is agreed that usually they have done so and granted a pension, but they cannot consider a case from a compassionate point of view. Under the present act, they cannot go outside the strict limitations imposed upon them.


Mr. CAHAN:: Why not amend the act?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That is what I am saying. In my opinion we should seek to bring in some amendment at this session whereby cases with which the pension board cannot deal under the present act will be taken care of if they are not provided for in the bill now before the house.
I think everyone is quite willing to give all the assistance possible in an endeavour of this kind. I do not think we should make political capital out of this matter; I think we should unite our efforts to make some improvements to the act in order to get the best results from legislation of this kind. We know that- in a number of cases the men are asked to produce medical certificates, and those certificates must date back to 1920 or 192? in order to be effective. Ir a great

Allowances to War Veterans
many cases men are not able to produce such medical certificates. A man may have received treatment before that time, but it may be that the doctor who attended him is not now alive. That man cannot produce a certificate, and under the act as it stands now he is deprived of pension.
It has been suggested that the onus of proof should be on the board. That is a debatable question. We have been told that the cost of administering the act at present is very high, and if the board had to go all over the country to get evidence of this kind it might be a very costly experiment. It might be far better so to amend the act-that cases such as we have referred to can be brought under the regulations. I sincerely hope that when the act is before the committee, every phase of these questions will be considered, together with the individual cases which have been referred to from time to time by different members of this house. I do not think it is quite fair to the pension board for us to get up in this house and cite certain cases which we think have not received proper consideration. There may be facts contained in the man's file of which we have no knowledge, so that when we discuss these matters, we may not have all the information. I feel that the pension board has given very careful consideration to the cases which have been brought before it, and I know that in every case where they can give any relief, they do so. However, in many instances it is impossible for them to do anything, and it is up to us to remedy that situation.
I am fully in accord with the principles of this bill, and if we can improve it when it goes to committee, well and good. If not, at least we are getting something for the returned men, and when the committee sits we should bend our efforts to securing further improvement if it is possible to do so.


Mr. W. E. TUMMON (South Hastings):: 'Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to observe the unanimity of opinion which seems to prevail in this house that the fullest measure of justice should be done to the returned man, and I think that is the feeling of the people at large of this Dominion. I have made several trips to the department and I must say that I have always met with very kind and courteous treatment from those who are in charge of the Pension Act, but I suppose that every hon. member of this house has gone to the board only to find that because of the difficulty in connecting a soldier's present disability with his services overseas no assistance could be obtained.
I have in mind the case of a young man who was too young to enlist when the war 2419-51
broke out. When he reached the required age he enlisted, went overseas, was seventeen months in the trenches, was wounded, had a severe attack of "flu " and other minor illnesses and was discharged in 1919. Before enlisting that man was perhaps the outstanding athlete in the community but upon his return he showed clearly the effect of the services which he had rendered to his country. He seemed to pick up a little but finally he took ill, gradually grew worse, and to-day that young man of only thirty-one years of age is in a pitiable condition. There is no possibility of his being any better and in all probability he will gradually grow worse, but due to an inability to connect up that man's present disabilities with his services overseas, no assistance can be obtained under the act as it now stands. It seems to me that such treatment is not the wish of the people of Canada. It may be said that this case will be taken care of under the bill which is being considered. But will it? Under the Pension Act we are met with the difficulty of connecting up his present disabilities with his services overseas, and I agree with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson) that similar difficulties will be met with under this bill unless we have a clear understanding of the term "permanently unemployable." Section 5 of the proposed bill reads:
(1) An allowance may be paid to every veteran who, at the date of the proposed commencement of the allowance,
(a) has attained the age of sixty-five years, or, not having attained the age of sixty years is, in the opinion of the committee, by reason of physical or mental disability, permanently unemployable;
I would like to know what "permanently unemployable" means. Will a man be considered ineligible who through disabilities is able to work, say one fifth of his time only? If that be so, then the case I have described, and similar cases, would be barred both under the Pension Act and under the provisions of this proposed bill. Before this bill receives its second reading I think we should have from the minister a clear definition of what is intended by that term.
There are other points in connection with this bill which I might mention, but they have been very well covered by other hon. members. I agree with the hon. members who have said they would prefer to see the Pension Act amended, and that wherever a doubt exists the benefit of that doubt should be given to the soldier. I would rather err on the side of leniency in the altering of the Pension Act and in the carrying out of the regulations than err in being too strict. Feeling



Allowances to War Veterans
as I do, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to go the limit in seeing that the fullest measure of justice is afforded to those men who answered the call of their country at a time when their services were so badly needed.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I am in earnest sympathy with any phase of this bill which will provide relief to the ex-service man, but I would like to deal with the committee which is to administer this bill. We all know that the country was aroused by a letter written by General Currie which was read at the Regina convention of the legion. Following that letter, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had the following to say:
So long as there is a sense of injustice among ex-service men it is the duty of the government to get rid of it.
He was reinforced by the remarks of the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) who said:
The duty of the people of Canada is not complete so long as there is one per cent of ex-service men to whom justice has not been done.
Then a later despatch from Ottawa quotes the Prime Minister as follows:
The Board of Pension Commissioners should regard itself as trustees of the rights and benefits extended to ex-service men and their dependents and not so much as trustees of the public funds.
The other day the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) asked the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King) if he would not suggest to the Board of Pension Commissioners that they give a little more generous interpretation to the act but he was informed that that could not be done.
There can be no justice given to the Canadian soldier so long as the government seeks to take political advantage of his disability and distress, and the government cannot do its duty to the returned man by putting the administration of this bill in the hands of the committee. Who will constitute that committee? It will consist of the Deputy Minister of Pensions, his assistant, and three to five other employees or officers of the department; and naturally the minister himself, being the head of the department. Who will say that the present Minister of Pensions and National Health is not weak enough to take political advantage of any benefits which might accrue from the provisions of this bill. We have in clause 5 for instance, the proposal that an allowance may be given to a veteran who is mentally and physically unable to obtain per-
manent employment. It does not say that it "shall", but that it "may". While the age limit of sixty-five is stated, discretion is left with the committee to say that a man under sixty years of age shall come within the benefits of the allowance. This discretion, as I say, is wholly with the committee or with the minister, which is precisely the same thing. No minister, on whichever side of politics he may be, should be clothed with such discretion and authority.
I should like to emphasize my reference to the present Minister of Pensions. He is my neighbour. The keenest interest he has is to defeat me, and I say with all frankness that my zeal is just as earnest to defeat him. I want to cite one or two little instances which, although they may be somewhat remote, indicate that a minister, and particularly the present one, should not be entrusted with such extensive discretion as is contained within this measure. The -minister was out in Vancouver last year and while addressing the Liberal Association he went on to say
That he wished to impress upon the people of V ancouver-
Not upon the Liberal Association 'but upon the -people of Vancouver.

that they had not acted politically in a fashion . which would influence government policies in their favour in the matter of trade.
In other words, he told the people of Vancouver that they had not returned enough government supporters.
To go back a little further, the minister and I happened ito be in the same campaign some ten years ago when the Mother's Pension Act was brought into force in British Columbia. He was a member of the administration and the bringing -into force of that act was somewhat delayed in order that the government might derive a little advantage from it by the distribution of cheques to the mothers just two -or -three weeks before the election. Those mothers' pension cheques, both in East Kootenay and in- West Kootenay, which is my constituency, were distributed by -the score. Who could expect any poor -woman to go out and hurrah for the Conservative party when the Liberal workers there were 'taking around the mothers' pension cheques?
I have another little instance in connection with the Vancouver Sun, which is certainly the most aggressive and pronounced Liberal organ in British Columbia. In August last the Vancouver Sun apparently recoignized the patronage tendencies of the Minister of Pensions, and it said that Liberal principles and policies have been used to keep Doctor King in office and his -friends in control of patron-

Allowances to War Veterans
age. Just think of placing in the hands of any single minister such responsibility as this bill involves. I do not wonder that the minister wants it, 'because it might help in a political way on the eve of an election. At the same time, no minister, regardless of party, should have such authority. An act like this should be administered by an independent commission or committee wholly divorced from political and departmental influence.	. .
Let me cite another instance. The Minister of Pensions came to Nelson, which is in my district, last September, I think it was, and he decried the fact that British Columbia was too much inclined to Conservatism. In other words he said: You are not sending enough Liberals to Ottawa. He said: "I am the only Liberal from British Columbia and I need help." Of course we all know he needs help-he will not need any after the next election. The point is that he emphasized that fact. He had a trifling meeting of, I think, about sixty people in Trail with a population of around 8,000. In fact he thanked me for having attended his meeting.
I told him I was going to follow him to Nelson to see whether he would change his tone and hoped he would do no more harm there than he did in Trail. What do you suppose he told them in Nelson? This remember is the man to whom we are going to entrust the administration of this great soldiers' allowance act. He said: "I am the minister from British Columbia, and nothing can be done without my recommendation." What is the result? The result is that any returned man under sixty years of age of the right political complexion if he secures the recommendation of the Minister of Pensions, might get this allowance; or we might put it in this way: perhaps the Liberal Association might suggest to the minister that he use his influence or, rather, give his consent that the allowance be given, and of course in that case the soldier would get it. I do not blame the minister for needing help; it is clear enough that he needs it. But what the returned man wants is his just due under the Pension Act.
No man can complain very much about the Board of Pension Commissioners; I have received every courtesy from them, but the trouble is that they are compelled to work under hard and fast rules and regulations. The government would have done much better and gone much further had it brought down, as it should have, amendments to the present Pension Act. There has been no specific statement either from the Prime Minister or from the Minister of Pensions that the Pension 2419-Sli
Act would be amended at this session. The other night the Minister of Pensions was asked specifically whether there would be any other legislation in connection with pensions, and he stated no. That statement appears specifically in Hansard.
There is another little incident which might be of interest. This is from the Prime Minister himself as far back as December 20. It is plain that at that time the intention of the government was to bring down amendments to the Pension Act, because the Prime Minister said under date of December 20:
Amendments to the Pension Act, with the object of giving more liberal treatment to ex-service men, will be introduced at the coming session of parliament.
That is a plain statement, but we have not seen any amendments yet.
Just what will be the nature of the amendments, the Prime Minister declined to indicate.
But he went on to say that they would be introduced into the house and would then be referred to a special committee. The returned men, and the people of Canada on behalf of the returned men, are looking for such amendments to the Pension Act as will do justice to the claims of those who served overseas, and I do hope that before this session ends such amendments will be brought down.


Mr. E. A. PECK (Peterborough):: I feel
that this measure will not by any means give adequate relief to a very deserving class of people. It is intended to serve a very large class. There are many belonging to that class in the city and county from which I come who are suffering from disabilities presumably due to their war service, men still young or middleaged but who are showing all the symptoms of old age, and who being unable to find employment are now in destitute circumstances. For over ten years many of them have been suffering from disabilities, and now at this late date the government undertakes to grant them this very slight measure of relief, which is entirely inadequate for the purpose and does not do justice to a class so deserving.
The difficulty of the government is in recognizing that these disabilities are the result of war conditions. The Board of Pension Commissioners has interpreted the Pension Act in the case of these men in a very narrow way, and the proper tiling, I think, would be to amend the Pension Act so as to grant this particular class adequate relief. Instead of that, the government has seen fit to introduce a different measure entirely, which will by no means afford the relief to which this class is entitled. They are just



S04 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Allowances to War Veterans
as deserving as those who are now in receipt of Pensions under the Pension Act. They have given equal service; they have made the same sacrifice for the country's good; they are destitute, and I can see no reason why they should not receive from this country the same pension that is granted to pensioners under the schedules attached to the Pension Act. The government recognizes that they are suffering from disabilities caused by the war. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, addressing the house a few days ago, said:
While there are many men to-day who are broken down as a result of strain during the period of war, they are unable to show that that impairment of their health is attributable to any specific cause connected with the war itself.
Again, he says:
The Pension Act does not meet the eases of those men who are breaking down to-day from causes undoubtedly due to service in a theatre of war-*
Note those words of the Prime Minister- "as a result of strain during the period of war," and "from causes undoubtedly due to service in a theatre of war." Why should not these men be put on the same footing as those who are receiving pensions under the Pension Act? Look at the measure of relief which they are to receive under this legislation? First, they must be of the age of sixty-five years. Many men who are suffering from disabilities now will not attain the age of sixty-five for twenty or twenty-five years, and until they reach that age they are to be without the small compensation offered by this leglislation unless they can satisfy the tribunal to be appointed by the government that they are permanently unemployable. I do not know just what those words mean. I thought that perhaps the bill would define them, but it does not do so. That has still to be defined, and unless a man can satisfy the tribunal that he is permanently unemployable he gets no compensation under this legislation until he reaches the age of sixty-five.
If he is eligible under this legislation, what does he receive? A pensioner under the Pension Act suffering from a permanent disability is entitled, if he is manned, to S125 a month. Under this legislation a married man receives only $40 a month, or $480 a year, and a single man only $20 a month or $240 a year. That is the most they can draw, and then only if their income is not more than $730 a year in the case of the married man, and $365 a year in the case of the single man. There is no reason why these men should be discriminated against in this way. They

should receive the same amount of compensation as the ordinary pensioner.
I take another exception to this bill, and that is as to the tribunal which is to investigate the claims. Pensions are dealt with by an independent board. Why should there be any difference made in this case? Why should the board be composed of officials of the department, entirely under the control of the minister? That is not a fair way to administer this legislation.
There is also going to be difficulty in satisfying that tribunal that a man is permanently unemployable. The result will be that applications will be turned down just as they were under the Pension Act. There is no assurance that the class for whom tins legislation is intended will get the compensation provided under this legislation.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, because of the inadequacy of the compensation, because of the difficulty in interpreting the measure, because of the fact that it is to be administered, not by an independent tribunal, but by a body under the minister's control, I contend that it will not satisfy the class of persons for whom it is intended, and therefore should not be accepted by the house as satisfactory.
James Charles Brady: This debate
has been most interesting. I feel that it is well that every member should contribute his opinion before this bill is sent to the committee, and that is why I am on my feet at the present moment. This is a very important bill, and if we reserve our criticism now we would not be giving to the members of the committee the assistance which they certainly are seeking.
I was delighted with the address of the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox) on this bill this afternoon. Himself a returned soldier, he spoke as a man familiar with the life and point of view of the soldier as only one who knows them intimately can. I thought when I heard the hon. member for North \ ork analyse this bill that the remarks made by the Minister of Pensions (Mr. King, Kootenay) on March 4th last deserved more consideration than I gave them at the time, In introducing the bill on that day the minister stated that there was an outstanding need in the lives of our veterans not provided foi under present legislation. I could not help but note the contrast between the words of the minister and the diatribes-shall I call them?-that we have heard against this bill to-night.
The object of the Board of Pension Commissioners, says the Minister of Pensions, is

Allowances to War Veterans
to take care of the veterans whose disabilities are attributable to war service, and the present bill, he says, is to provide for aged and unemployable veterans whose physical condition may not be attributable to war service. I should like the house to note exactly what is the object of this bill. It is for the relief of veterans who are aged and unemployable. The minister called that a major problem. He said:
This is the major problem that confronts the returned soldier.
In order to prove to the house that he was sincere, in order to show that this was a major measure for the benefit of the returned soldiers, he told us of the steps that he took in order to bring down a bill that would meet with the unanimous support of the house. ^ He told us that he had appointed a committee from his department and an officer of the soldier settlement board, who devoted their whole time to a study of this question.
I would also like the house to note the method whereby this bill proposes to ameliorate the condition of the returned soldiers. The minister says that he took special pains to ascertain the feeling of the returned soldiers of Canada, and that he is now presenting this bill as representing the united desire of every post of the legion throughout Canada. Surely in view of the number of letters t-hat have been received from every part of Canada, from even the paost remote! districts, by every member of the house during the last seven days, the minister cannot say that this bill represents the wishes of the great body of returned soldiers.
The minister also said that he had come to the conclusion that the situation he found was one to *be dealt with entirely apart from pension legislation. In what respect should it be dealt with apart from pension legislation? The minister cannot seriously state that this bill is a response to the demand of the soldiers who are seeking relief under the Pension Act. The minister dwells upon the aged and permanently unemployable, but what about the great number of returned soldiers who entered t'he theatre of war between 18 and 25, and 35 and 45 years, who are neither aged nor permanently unemployable, and who are not benefiting under the Pension Act? I contend that the time is long past when relief should have been brought down for those gallant boys who fought for us overseas.
I was very much impressed by the figures presented to the house to-day by the hon. member for North York. The Minister of Pensions, before concluding his remarks upon
this bill the other evening, referring to this wonderful measure which was going to be such a panacea for all the troubles of the returned soldiers, uttered these words:
If this bill is passed Canada will be a pioneer in enacting legislation of this character.
God forbid! I say God forbid that the genius of our country should be so blind or purblind as not to see the responsibility placed upon it. The hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox), referring to the United States, mentioned that in eighteen months 213,000 casualties were suffered of which 187,000 received pensions. What does that mean to anyone who knows something about figures?
It means this, Mr. Speaker, that 88 per cent of those casualties are pensioned to-day. Canada prides herself upon the steps taken to ameliorate the conditions of her returned men, but what do we find? In four years the casualties among Canadian soldiers were 215,000. One hundred and fifty thousand Canadian soldiers returned to Canada; 61,000 died in foreign fields, and of the 150,000 casualties that were not fatal 28 per cent are receiving pensions. Is that something to be proud of? No, Mr. Speaker. We are all here pledged to give our best help towards putting into force some measure that will enable the great body of veterans to secure relief from their present condition. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) quoted the Minister of Pensions and National Health , as saying that this was the only legislation to be brought before the house this year, the only form of relief which we were extending to returned soldiers-a relief which is only partial because it deals with but a small section of returned soldiers, namely the aged and unemployed, and the minister replied that it was not so. But I have in Hansard, under my hand, the very questions propounded on March 4 relative to that, the reason for the inquiries being that members on this side of the house are anxious that legislation be put in force this year to meet the requirements of returned soldiers who are not benefiting under the act. This is what I find:
Mr. Clark:	Is this the major matter to be
brought before that committee?
Mr. King (Kootenay):	I should say it was.
Mr. Clark: What other matters are to come before the committee?
Mr. King (Kootenay):	All matters which
have been before the house and matters which the legion and other soldier bodies may bring forward.
Mr. Clark: Is there any other specific matter to be referred to this special committee?
Mr. King (Kootenay):	You mean a government bill?
Mr. Clark:	Yes.
Mr. King (Kootenay):	No.



$06 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Allowances to War Veterans
That, Mr. Speaker, convinces us that this bill as it now stands is not meeting the requirements of those who seek relief. I do not wish at this time to take up the time of the house with the large number of letters which we receive from returned soldiers all over the country, but I have a letter here from New Brunswick, sent to me the day after I spoke in the house on the returned soldier question, and I have another from British Columbia which I do think indicates that the time has come when an independent commission divorced from politics and departmental influence must look after the returned soldier situation. As long as we have such a grave question tinged with a political aspect we cannot hope to solve the problem over which we have been quibbling for the last three or four years. We must have an independent commission. Here is a letter from a returned soldier that should enlighten every member in this house as to the importance of deciding now and once and for all the question: Are we capable, or are we not, of dealing with the problem of the returned soldier? Before I read it Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my tribute to the pension board. I have found them ever courteous, ever obliging, ever anxious to explain why this or that man is not getting the pension which in our heart of hearts we know he is entitled to. I shall read only part of this letter. He writes to the department in Ottawa:
Replying to your letter of February 21st, I would like to point out to you once more that your attitude in regard to my disability does not seem fair. I would refer you to my record of pension. When I received my pension of $2.50 in 1918 I had a 20 per cent disability and I received 5 per cent of that.
I would like to know on what grounds a man receiving a disability of 20 per cent was only given 5 per cent of it. It would be interesting to know how that was arrived at. The letter continues:
Furthermore, in 1919 I was reboarded by Dr. Wrench of Hazelton, and he found no pensionable disability.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the doctor said "You have no pensionable disability," and the pension was cut off. Then the man continues :
I was reboarded about five years ago and was found to have a 50 per cent disability for which I receive 5 per cent, or $7.50 and my wife $2.50 making a total of $10 per month.
Then he said to the board:
I will againt remind you, I enlisted in 1915, and until I went overseas in 1917 I had only been on sick parade once. I was given the same examination as the other men and passed A-l for overseas duty. When our regiment landed IMr. Brady.]
in England from the hot boat and train we were put in tents with only the one blanket we had with us, and as the weather was very cold and frosty, it is a wonder any of us came back. I was boarded again in England and was sent from the work battalion at Perfleet to the infantry at Seaford. So taking it all into consideration it don't seem I am getting a square deal.
His trouble has been bronchitis and asthma, and 'he has had other troubles which prevent him from earning his living. In other words, last November that man was stricken down with a complex trouble, which included asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia, and to-day is not able to do the work Which he would have been able to do had he not been so stricken down.
Why should we not show ourselves a little more constructive in dealing with this major problem? Great memories, sir, demand great responses, and I do think we are not doing all that we should do for these men. We remember the days of the war when every bell in every steeple clashed and clanged when our men went overseas; we remember that our cities were illuminated for every victory recorded by the sons of Canada; we remember that in every temple and every church throughout the country, congregations knelt in silent prayer for the return of those men. So I wonder to-day, Mr. Speaker, why such a bill as the one before us now should be presented to this house and why we should be told it is solving the problem of the returned soldier, when thousands of men will not benefit by it. We want to see something done this session for the returned soldiers; we demand that something be done. These men gave everything they possessed; they gave all that man could give. Why, then, should a bill such as this be placed before us? I know, Mr. Speaker, that many men throughout Canada to-day would receive full compensation under our pension board if they did not have to appeal to that tribunal through the medium of some Liberal doctor. I know that and have proof of it.
John Warwick King: That is most unfair. The doctors throughout the country are Liberal and Conservative. I think my hon. friend is very unfair to make that statement.


James Charles Brady: I can assure the minister that I meant just what I said. I felt that I should speak on this subject before the bill went to committee, because there are certain sections of the bill which are nothing less than childish, Tell me, Mr. Speaker, must a soldier wait until he is permanently disabled and not able to work in order to get this little old age pension of $20 per month? There are many soldiers

Allowances to War Veterans
throughout Canada who are crippled but who are working get a few dollars in order to keep the pot boiling. Must they wait until they are permanently disabled before they get any assistance? And then think of this wonderful gift that we are giving these soldiers; when a poor returned man is laid up and sent to the hospital, under this bill the little pension will cease.


John Warwick King: No, no; let me correct my hon. friend, because that statement has been made before. It has been said that a pensioner going to a hospital would have his allowance under this bill cut off. The moment a pensioner goes to hospital he is put on pay and allowances, and if he is a .man with a wife and three children he will receive $125 per month. Let us be fair and not get confused.


Robert James Manion: Just to clear up the matter I should like to ask a question, with my hon. friends permission. The minister says a man with a wife and three children would get $125 per month, but the bill distinctly states that this allowance will be cut off. The other day the minister said that this is not part of the Pension Act, so how under those circumstances can the man receive pay and allowances?


John Warwick King: I think that is a proper question, and I will try to explain. My hon. friend across the way (Mr. Brady) said that a pensioner going to the hospital would under this measure have his pension discontinued. This is not a pension; this is an allowance.


Robert James Manion: He used the wrong word; he meant "beneficiary".


John Warwick King: This bill has
nothing to do with what we consider as a pension for war disability.


Robert James Manion: Therefore he would not get pay and allowances under this act?


John Warwick King: No, he would not.


Robert James Manion: Then my hon. friend was correct.


John Warwick King: No he was not; he did not use the right words.


James Charles Brady: So to-day, Mr. Speaker, we are placing the returned soldier outside the realm of equity; we are classing him with men who become decrepit through old age and the ordinary disabilities of life. I say that equity demands that the returned soldier be placed not under a bill such as this but under the Pension Act, to the benefits of which he is justly entitled. That is where I
think this bill does not meet the difficulty which now exists. Why did the minister segregate these veterans away from the pension act; why not extend the scope of that act to these men? They are entitled to a pension larger than the amount they will receive under this act by way of allowance.
A grave error was committed, Mr. Speaker, in not allying and associating the widow and children with the returned soldier. That is a matter of vast importance. There are many women to-day struggling against the most terrific odds to hold body and soul together, and they are ignored by the provisions of this bill. Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to do anything which would interfere with legislation to help the soldier body, but after listening to this debate and conscientiously endeavouring to understand the bill, I say that it does not meet the requirements of the soldier despite the fact that the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King) has stated that he took a soldier and appointed a commission, and then presents this bill as representing the wishes of the returned soldiers.
Many dark clouds are overshadowing the evening of the returned soldier's day; many are waiting who cannot express what they feel regarding their diseases and nervous disorders which were the inevitable result of going to war. Since the returned soldier in the backwoods of British Columbia has no means of speaking his mind, since he holds in his heart the troubles of himself and his dependents caused by the limitations of the pension board, since he is not here to try to interpret his wishes, then it is my duty to plead his cause to the members of this house. I hope that this bill will emerge from the committee so perfect an instrument for the well being of the soldiers that no soldier will ever fear hereafter that justice will not be done unto him.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take up but a few minutes of the time of the house. I did not intend to speak to-night, but the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) has said that every member should express his thoughts. I had intended to speak the other evening in support of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) as amended by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), but I cannot afford myself that opportunity to-night.
I am not going to criticize the government, but desire only to make a few remarks in the hope that something may come out of them. Many splendid speeches have been delivered in this house in connection with soldier problems, particularly in the debate upon the

Allowances to War Veterans

present bill and upon the resolution proposed the other night. Practically everyone who has spoken has demanded a wider interpretation of the Pension Act and I believe that that is the feeling of Canada as a whole. The government need have no fear from a generous treatment of the soldier. Governments do make mistakes, and I am satisfied that this government has made one in not accepting the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Muskoka. Had it accepted that resolution everything would have been satisfactory and much of the time of the house would have been saved. We have spent three or four days discussing this question; I do not say that that time has been wasted, but we would have accomplished as much had we accepted the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Muskoka.
I believe that this bill should be supported, with one exception, and that is with respect to the personnel of the committee which is to administer the act. I think both the bill and the proposed resolution should be sent to the committee with instructions to give the returned soldier a fair deal.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is before the committee.


David Spence: It is supposed to be. The hon. member is always butting in out of turn. The ministers are in the house to correct me if I am wrong; it is not his place to do that. He belongs over there, anyhow.
I think the country would be satisfied, and I think the returned soldiers would be satisfied with this bill, with that one exception-the personnel of the committee. My advice 10 the house is that that be eliminated.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, may I have a moment or two in which to close the debate?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. minister may speak now if he so desires, but if he does so he will close the debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, during the present debate the principles of this measure are under consideration, and as I see it there are two principles involved; one is aid to be given to veterans, and the other is the method by which that aid is to be dispensed. Those who are to receive aid are men of the age of sixty-five; if they are not sixty-five years of age

they may receive aid but only upon the decision of a committee which is political in its character.


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be political because the members of the committee are employees of the government.


John Warwick King: The government represents the people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course the government represents the people, but it is political, and I am using the word "political" in its proper sense. The lessening of that age sixty-five will depend entirely on the attitude of the committee, which committee, as the minister very properly said the other day, is really under the control of the government. There is an appeal to him, and he represents a political party which in the very nature of things must be so. I protest. There should be some other tribunal which woidd be independent and free from political bias or prejudice, a tribunal incapable of being influenced by circumstances or, shall we say, by the influence of those who control or are interested in the control of votes. I make that statement to the minister quite frankly and I trust the government will see to it that the tribunal which will ultimately determine whether a man under the age of sixty-five is to receive the benefits of this measure is one free from politics and political control or supervision.
It necessarily follows that the man of sixty-five years of age, to receive the benefits of this measure, must have been fifty years of age when he went to the war, as it is something less than fifteen years since the most of these men -left for the war. Obviously the men in that category would be very limited in number, but the power that is given to this committee, responsible to the government, is to deal with the greatest number of cases, namely, those who were under fifty years when they went to the war. That means practically all or at least 90 per cent as a minimum. The minister thinks it is less than 90 per cent. Well, if it is less than 90 per cent, my observation is that the number who went to the war at fifty years of age or thereabouts, would not be more than 10 or 12 per cent of the total. Originally they were not allowed to enlist at fifty, as my hon. friend observes, but some of them managed to enlist by understating their age on account of a desire to serve their country and sometimes because they were in battalions in which they were permitted to serve even though their

Allowances to War Veterans

age was in excess of the age usually given as a maximum for enlistment. 1 hat principle of the measure is one that, I think, when the bill goes to committee, should be a matter that the government will see is remedied. I have no right to make any suggestion as to the character of the tribunal that should make this determination, but essentially I think it calls for the exercise of the veiy highest qualities of a judge. Upon this tribunal we confer the power of investigation under the Inquiries Act. It therefore contemplates the right to acquire knowledge and proof of the facts and to exercise judgment. I submit that that judgment should be a judicial determination of a question, on the evidence submitted. When a case has been made out that comes within the principle laid down by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) this afternoon, where a man under sixty-five, for instance, forty-five or forty or less, has, by reason of the circumstances to which attention has been directed, so suffered from physical deterioration that he is in the same condition as though he had reached the age of sixty-five, a decision should be given on the evidence as a judicial act and not otherwise. That 'being so, it does not appear that a tribunal of the kind provided by the bill can render that impartial judgment which is so essential in a matter of this nature if we are to expect to secure the support of an enlightened public opinion.
The second principle of the measure, that is the question as to the amount to be paid, and the principles under which the amount is to be received, is a matter of detail that can well be considered by the committee, and with respoct to Which I am not at the moment concerned, beyond saying this:	That principle of the measure involves the acceptance of a view to which, as I explained the other day on the first reading of the resolution, I am not prepared to agree. I am not going to repeat What I said on that occasion, except to say that the measure of benefit and the terms under which the benefit is to be conferred involve the acceptance of a condition which the applicant should not be compelled to put forward before he is the recipient of the benefit. That is, no man who has become a wreck on account of service for his country should be compelled to put forward his impoverished condition financially as a reason for receiving a benefit from the state. If we put forward his physical condition as the basis of his claim for benefits, then he is entitled to a pension and if he receives a pension, his dependents would, in the event of his death, also be entitled to
benefits. Under those circumstances I think the measure cannot be said to meet the difficulties to which attention has so often been directed I desire only to point out that the twe principles upon which the measure rests are in my judgment, principles that are not consonant with the exercise of a sound judgment and a fair attitude of mind on the part ol the country towards those who are no longer fit to discharge the ordinary duties of life because of the service they rendered their country in the war. I will not say more than that because the committee, if the government so desire, they having control, may be able to make it perfectly clear that that principle is one that is unsound, and that a committee set up by a government department shall not be the determining factor as to whether or not an applicant is entitled to the benefits under the measure.


James Horace King: Mr. Speaker, I propose to take only a few moments in dealing with the discussion which has taken place this afternoon. On the introduction of the bill the other day I briefly set forth the principles contained in the legislation. It was, I think, explained that the legislation proposed by this bill was not intended to be considered in the same manner as ordinary pension legislation that had been heretofore brought before parliament. I explained1 at the time that our pension legislation was -built upon certain principles which were well defined and well known. As a parliament we know-and I think the government have been confirmed in their position'-that if [those principles are to be disturbed-and from time to time proposals have been made that they should be- the matter should be referred to a special committee of file house where the proposals might be considered and analyzed >as to what, the results might be and the house might be so advised through the knowledge obtained by the committee.
There have been many committees of parliament which have considered pension matters. In 1923 there was a special committee which dealt with the recommendations of a royal' commission, and amendtoients were made to the Pension Act. The federal appeal board, was brought into being. The federal appeal board was criticized this afternoon by the hon. member for No-rth York (Mr. Lennox), but. I do not 'think he had the data before him. His statement, at least, did not cover the full activities of the appeal board. In the annual report there will be found a statement made by the federal appeal board indicating the.

Allowances to War Veterans
work that was done, the number of appeals that have 'been under review and1 the number that have 'been ruled upon by them. This is all set out on page 65 of the report. I am not going to delay in making reply, but I would ask hon. members-because my hon. friend's statement has again been referred to this evening-to check that statement and ascertain the facts as to the results and what the federal appeal board has been doing.
Since the war, various official soldier bodies in Canada have been representing to the people and to our parliamentary committees their desires and wishes and what they thought was due to the soldiers. First we had the Great War Veterans' Association, a large organization that sprang up all over Canada, a new organization. Then we had the older organization of the Army and Navy Veterans which is still in existence. Then under the leadership of Earl Haig we had an empire organization of which the Canadian soldiers became a part, it being now known as the Canadian Legion. To-day reference was made to General Currie and his letter. General Currie was appointed president of the legion in June, 1928, in St. John, after a special committee of the house had dealt with the Pension Act of that year. General Currie remained president of that organization until November of last year. Unfortunately during the period of his presidency he was not able, on account of illn&ss, to give that attention which he would otherwise have given to the affairs of the legion and the soldiers o'f Canada. It is true that in November of last year he wrote a letter to the legion suggesting that he thought that further legislation should be brought diown, and that the returned men should not be left without consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that the Pension Act should be revised.


John Warwick King: And that the Pension A at should be revised. It was suggested this afternoon that the Prime Minister's statement in London was a follow-up of General Currie's letter. Well, I do not know. I was in Vancouver before the meeting of the legion and 'before the publication of General Currie's letter in November, and I heard the Prime Minister make practically the same statement in Vancouver that he made in London a few weeks ago. Why did the Prime Minister deal with the subject at that time?


Robert James Manion: An election was coming on.


John Warwick King: Not at all.


Mr. STEVENS:: Certainly.
I Mr. J. H. King.]


John Warwick King: Not at all. Just be reasonable, and we will find out. As I said a few moments ago, under the leadership of Earl Haig, the empire soldier body was formed, and the Canadian legion came into being. They held their first meeting, I believe, in Port Anthur or Fort William in 1927, and passed many resolutions; I think 135 of them were presented to me as minister in January and February of that year. I met the officers of the legion and said to them frankly, "There are many matters here of great importance to you and to the country. This is a new parliament, and you come in the midst of the session and expect us to deal with all these matters. I would suggest to you that you leave them with us, and I will circularize every member of parliament, sending a copy of your resolutions to them, and in the interval these matters that you have in mind may be considered and canvassed by the members of parliament in their own districts." That course was followed. I promised, in addition, that the government would appoint a special committee in 1928 before which these matters could be brought and there be fully discussed. The legion accepted that proposal, and we had our committee of 1928.
Then we had the legion's second meeting in St. John in June, 1928, just at the close of the session, after .the committee had reported to parliament, and we know what were the results of that meeting of the legion. The matters that were dealt with and passed by the committee were considered by the legion, and were well received. This year the legion met in Regina in November. I was invited to attend, and would like to have attended. Other members of this house, some of them returned soldiers and others who were not, were also invited to attend. For what purpose? In order that there might be a further review of the soldier field, and that the legion might through their officers and membership again present to parliament and to the people what they thought would be a further advance in returned soldier legislation. It was understood, I think, by all members of this parliament, at least it was understood in government circles, that in all probability there would come out of the meeting of the legion this year recommendations which would of necessity have to be referred to a special committee of this house.
In addition, as I stated the other day, there was the resolution passed by the parliamentary committee of 1928, setting forth that certain conditions among the returned soldiers were

Allowances to War Veterans
not being taken care of under the pension legislation, and that other means should be em-ployed to take care of the burnt-out or prematurely old men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister any figures to show what proportion of the entire number of returned soldiers belong to the legion? I have not myself, but I thought perhaps the minister would have.


John Warwick King: My information from legion headquarters is that between seventy-five and eighty thousand returned men are members of that organization.
Knowing the problem as we know it from day to day, there is no doubt that the care of our soldiery is one of the most difficult departments to administer. In the matter of admission to our hospitals, and in their management, a certain latitude has been allowed to the department by the legislation which has built it up. The governor in council has been given, by legislation, certain liberties and certain opportunities to serve in the care of our soldiers, but we have had on our doorstep men who had served, and served well, but had no apparent pensionable disability, and who were becoming old and finding it difficult to get employment. They were requiring some form of assistance.
The idea of a pension to the aged soldier is not new in this house. It is being criticised now by our friends opposite, but I remember very well that in 1926 when I introduced the Old Age Pension Act there were suggestions then from our friends opposite that we should insert in that act a clause that would make its provisions applicable to the soldier at the age of sixty-five. We took exception to that because we were dealing with a civilian matter, and a matter that was new to the people of Canada. From our experience and our investigation of this problem we know that this year, next year, the year after, and so on, there will be soldiers reaching the age of sixty-five, and we can estimate very fairly what the cost to this country will be as regards those men. The uncertain quantity is the men who have not reached the age of sixty-five but who from illness or other causes are to-day found to be unemployable on account of disability. We have concluded that there is no body of men in Canada who can so well judge and make an accurate survey of that situation as the officers of the Department of Pensions and National Health. We have some 1,800 employees engaged in this work from day to day. We are dealing with some 3,500 soldiers who are going in and out of our hospitals from day to day. We are dealing
in the winter season with from 3,000 to 3,200 people who are receiving relief from day to day. I can understand my hon. friends taking exception to the minister having the final say in these matters, but, Mr. Speaker, is it not better for the people of this country, is it not better for the opposition in this parliament to have the minister take the responsibility, meet parliament each year, give an account of his administration and face the consequences, than to get behind a commission, which has been the policy hitherto followed in dealing with soldier matters? I think myself that our troubles are largely due to the fact that both parties in parliament have not been prepared to face the issue and bring down legislation, legislation which the soldiers probably should have had, and should have at this time. Instead we have sheltered ourselves behind commissions, and it is probably due to that that we have not had the best results. After all, the minister each year is subject to the criticism of the opposition and of those who are opposing the government, and the ministry must in the end, as I have done in the last few days, as far as this house and the country are concerned, accept the responsibility of the presumably independent board which will deal with these matters.


Mr. CLARK:: Does the minister think it would be better to have a departmental committee administering pensions rather than the pension commissioners?


John Warwick King: No, I have not said that. I do say that all along we have been most anxious to keep this matter out of politics and in attempting to do that we probably have not faced our responsibility as we should have. But in this matter-because after all we are dealing with only one phase, and it is not, and should not be considered, a phase of the present Pension Act-we are bringing in a new piece of legislation to deal with special conditions which have arisen during the years since the war. If we had not brought in this legislation, then I am satisfied we would have had to come before parliament and in our estimates ask for large sums of money this year in order that we might establish homes where the aged soldier might have care and treatment. That matter will be discussed no doubt in committee. The judgment of the departmental committee may be found wrong, but it is the experience of those engaged in social work to-day that it is better not to break up the home, but rather to try to maintain it by giving sufficient allowances so that the old man and his wife may continue to live together, and

Allowances to War Veterans
the man who happens to be single at the age of sixty-five may have the opportunity to live with his relatives or friends. We had the alternative of establishing homes or of increasing our relief to the veterans. I think, Mr. Speaker, when the committee have had an opportunity of calling before it those officers who have carefully studied this problem it will endorse this bill. So far as I am personally concerned, I am not anxious'about the administration. I know that the soldiers themselves do not wish this bill to be mixed up with pension matters, they do not wish it to be referred to and administered by the pension board or the appeal board. It may be better to build up another board, but I do not think it is necessary, and I think it will be shown in the committee that the departmental officers, who are situated not only in Ottawa but in every large centre throughout the Dominion, will be able to deal with this bill and its administration better than any body that can be set up in the way of a committee or a commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask the hon. minister a question?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought he said just now that we have a body of men in every part of Canada to deal with the matter.


John Warwick King: Yes, we have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that mean that the question whether men under sixty-five shall receive these benefits will be determined in each province by a committee in that province?


John Warwick King: No, it will be done just as a matter of administration day by day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the officials of the department in that province?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is absolutely ghastly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not in the bill.


John Warwick King: We will use the machinery that we have, just as that machinery to-day is being used under the chief medical officer, who admits patients to hospitals in Vancouver, Edmonton, Fort William and other centres.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly it is not in the bill. The bill contemplates only one committee. Now the minister says there will be a committee in each province.
TMr. J. H. King.]


John Warwick King: No, there is a
misunderstanding. We will have a departmental committee which will be composed as set out in the bill, but that committee will utilize the machinery available in every province. A few day's ago the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) suggested that we should utilize the machinery of the provincial old age pension boards. I should like to say so far as that is concerned that the machinery available to the Department of Pensions and National Health, is, I think, better organized and has greater facilities than the provincial old age pension boards that he spoke of.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: The minister said
that the men do not wish this legislation mixed up with the pension board. Did they give any reasons why they would prefer it this way rather than under the pension board?


John Warwick King: Yes. I might
say for the information of the house that in developing this legislation we have gone pretty far afield to inquire as to these and other proposals that I have suggested, and we have come in contact with the soldier organizations and outstanding men who have had the soldiers' interests at heart throughout the Dominion. We have also gone to the various provincial departments for information, and in our conversations they said they feared that this bill might be considered a pension matter, and they were of the opinion that it should be kept free and distinct from the ordinary pension matters and pension legislation in its administration. I think I may confirm that by reading what Colonel LaFleche said recently. This is quoted from the Ottawa Journal of March 5:
Complete approval of the principle of the war veterans' allowance bill was expressed by Colonel LaFleche.
"This bill must not deprive any war veteran of a disability pension," he stated. "I feel assured, however, that this will not be likely to occur, for the fact that the administration of the War Veterans' Allowance Act .... is to be by a committee specially appointed for the purpose."


Arthur Edward Ross: That is merely a
suggestion, not a reason. Was any reason given why the pension board should not administer this as a separate piece of legislation?


John Warwick King: The pension board themselves said they thought it would be a mistake to ask them to administer this bill as it was outside their jurisdiction and there should not be a conflict between the two. Reference has been made to my having

Companies Act Amendment
stated the other night that this was the measure the government had brought down- had initiated; that is what I meant. At that time it was understood there was to be a special committee and that the usual procedure would be followed, that resolutions moved by my hon. friends opposite would be referred to that committee just as this bill will be referred to it. We are hopeful that out of that committee-and it is a very excellent one-wiH come legislation which the government and parliament will endorse, legislation which will be for the benefit and advantage of the soldiers.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that I should delay the house at any greater length. We have given much thought and study to the measure. We think it will serve a very useful purpose in solving this great problem. If it is improved in committee, so much the better, but I think when the whole situation is canvassed this bill will be endorsed by the committee and will be returned to the house for endorsation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do I understand that this bill is intended primarily to take care of deferred disability cases?


John Warwick King: No, this bill will
not take care of any case which has the right to go to the Board of Pension Commissioners and get a pension, with the exception of the case that gets a small pension varying from 5 to 15 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fourteen per cent.


John Warwick King: Fourteen per cent, yes. In that case the bill would supplement the Pension Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Up to the maximum.


John Warwick King: Up to the maximum, yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems.



COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Companies Act.
He said: This bill, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a few unimportant changes and clerical corrections, is the bill which was presented last year in the Senate, examined by a special committee of that house, and passed on to the Commons too late for consideration before prorogation. As it is my intention if this bill secures second reading to refer it to a
special committee, perhaps I may be permitted to make a brief reference to the provisions of the bill.
The main purpose of the bill is to make such improvement in the existing company legislation that it may become a more efficient instrument for the advancement of Canadian enterprises and industries. Conditions in respect to company management are constantly changing, and it is necessary that our legislation also be changed from time to time, in order to adapt it to new conditions. For instance, I might mention that the amending act of 1917 introduced into our legislation what was then a modern method of providing for shares without nominal or par value. This class of security, however, was not at that time developed to the extent that it is to-day, and it is now found necessary to amend our act so that recent developments in that regard may be met. Such methods have been introduced widely in other countries as well as in Canada.
I might also mention that in the amalgamation of companies, quite a new thing is to have shares without par value. There is no provision by which the surpluses and unearned profits of the amalgamated companies may be carried forward by the new company as reserve and undivided profit. A recent change in the method financing has been the introduction of redeemable preference shares. It frequently happened that at the outset of the business insufficient profits were earned to pay the bond interest. Now the method is rather to issue common and preference shares with cumulative dividends, and that also requires some changes and modifications in the Companies Act.
In the amending act of 1924 provision was made for arrangement between Shareholders and creditors of companies. This provision had its advantages, but difficulties often arose in respect to the approval of the arrangement by the provincial courts. Moreover, in some cases the arrangements under this provision as presented to the department did not come within the terms of the act, and here again it is necessary to provide some new form of control.
Other companies have appeared in the Canadian field known as investment trust companies, and these will come up for consideration in this bill. The bill contains a provision under which returns may be called for by the Secretary of State for the purpose of ascertaining whether the company is living up to the limitations which are contained in the chapter. In this connection I may say that inasmuch as the investment trust companies have come in for considerable comment lately in the
Companies Act Amendment
[Stage Direction]
Canadian press, the sections concerning such companies should receive special consideration either from the house or from the committee to which the bill is to be submitted. May I also mention that at a recent conference of representatives of the various provinces held in Toronto, certain proposals were made to the federal authorities to amend the Companies Act and introduce a new bill in order to control the sale of shares and in other particulars concerning brokerage firms.
The bill is quite extensive, but many of its provisions have to do with matters of a technical or departmental nature. As it may create discussion, however, perhaps somewhat apart from its immediate provisions, I would suggest that the house agree bo the second reading, where the principle involved is merely the desirability of amending the act, and I will immediately have the bill referred to a special committee.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is there anything in this bill to provide that the charter granted by the federal government shall be subject to the approval of the public utilities commission of the province? A good many companies secure incorporation under Dominion charter in order to avoid coming undier provincial legislation in connection with the public utilities.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That point was raised in the interprovincial conference held in Ottawa some three or four years ago, and there was considerable difference of opinion as to the desirability of the very thing my bon. friend suggests, namely, to make our companies subordinate to provincial law. The matter has been referred to the Department of Justice for consideration, but as far as I can see it has not, at least recently, been submitted to parliament. This, however, is one of the questions that may well be examined by the Special committee to which the bill will be referred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there are some provisions in this bill to which I for one would hesitate to agree. Inasmuch as the proposal of the minister is that the second reading shall be proceeded with on the assumption that it merely approves of the principle of amending a statute, without in any sense prejudicing the right of members of the 'house to disagree with any report that may be made or to express approval or otherwise of the various sections of the bill, I agree to the course suggested by the minister.


Mr. KAISER:: May I ask the minister whether it will be possible to introduce amendments to sections of the act other than those referred to in the bill now before us?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I shall make the reference to the committee as wide as possible, and certainly it will be proper for any member of the committee to submit amendments other than those contained in the bill.


Mr. SPENCER:: Do I understand the minister to say this bill is to go to a special committee yet to be formed? Can he tell the house how large that committee will be, or when it will be appointed?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will be quite frank with my hon. friend on that point. The Liberal whip has been away for a few days; I am afraid he has not been in the very best of health, and that question has not as yet been decided, but if the house agrees to the appointment of a committee then it will be for the three groups in the house to decide among themselves as to the membership.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not refer it to the committee on banking and commerce?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was willing to let it go to any committee, but the bill is very extensive and it would take some time to consider it there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They might appoint a subcommittee to consider it, the subcommittee consisting perhaps largely of members interested in commercial matters, and then the whole committee could deal with it on a certain day. The banking and commerce committee is large, and would afford a greater opportunity for members who may desire to make suggestions as to amendments to other sections of the Companies Act. Perhaps in view of that it might be desirable to refer it to the banking and commerce committee.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I entirely agree with the observations of the leader of the opposition. I think the banking and commerce committee the proper place to send this bill, and I sincerely hope that when it comes up for consideration full attention will be given the question of dummy directorships, the formation of companies with the office boy, the stenographer and other individuals, sometimes including the janitor and elevator man, as directors. There 'have been some rather questionable cases of companies operating under an incorporation of that character. Perhaps this is not the time to go into details, but I hope that will be a part of the discussion in committee.

Timber Marking Act


Milton Neil Campbell: I trust the minister will see that a provision is included in this bill by which companies with a Dominion charter will be subject to provincial laws. I may say this is a very important question in Saskatchewan at present. The government of Saskatchewan has decided that, as far as they are able, they will not allow any further power companies to operate in that province, or the present companies to acquire further power plants. They have decided to make power a provincial monopoly as far as they can do so, but they are up against the difficulty that some of the companies now operating in that province have Dominion charters, and the provincial government finds itself balked at the outset by not being able to prevent these companies from extending their plants. Many of these companies have been able to secure plants at certain strategic points, and it has been made almost impossible to build up a proper provincial power unit. I think it most important that the minister should insert some provision in the act by which these companies will be subject to provincial laws.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I can see that a large number of members are interested in this bill, Mr. Speaker, .therefore I gladly accept the suggestion of the leader of the opposition. Rather than have the bill referred to a small special committee I will move that it be referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Timber Marking Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is a very simple bill; it contains only one clause. The object of the bill is ito correct an omission in the Timber Marking Act. Unlike other acts of that nature, which are administered by the commissioner of patents, it contains no provision for the cancellation or expunging of a mark once it has been entered in the register. By reason of this defect the situation has arisen whereby a person or a company engaged in the lumbering business, after adopting a timber mark, may make application for registration and find that such registration cannot be made because there is
already recorded an unused mark which has been long abandoned and the original user of which cannot be located. There is no provision in the act for the expunging of such a mark from the records.
I may perhaps add by way of explanation that the timber marks are not very numerous, and are very simple in character. They consist of a cross, dot, one letter or a combination of two letters, and the choice of such marks is limited. It has been suggested to the department that we might have in the Timber Marking Act a provision similar to that contained in the Trade Mark and Design Act, and that is the object of the bill. It is intended to place a section in the Timber Marking Act for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Exchequer court may rectify entries.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What do those words "without sufficient cause" mean?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is exactly the section in the Trade Mark and Design Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think something is left out there; it hardly makes good sense. The section reads:
The Exchequer Court of Canada may, on the information of the Attorney General, or at the suit of any person aggrieved by any omission, without sufficient cause, to make any entry in the register of timber marks ....
And so on. I think those are hardly the words of the Trade Mark and Design Act, although I speak wholly from memory. It does not make good sense.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I did not think I could improve on the existing legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the Trade Mark and Design Act reads that way.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would some of the legal gentlemen interpret the words?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is something left out.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not think I can add to the explanation I have just given, that if a mark has gone out of use the exchequer court has the authority to allow the use of it by new applicants. As to the legal wording of the section, I can only repeat what I said, that it is a reproduction of the section in the Trade Mark and Design Act.
Timber Marking Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think that could be so, because the language is not clear. The proposed section reads:
(1) The Exchequer Court of Canada may, on the information of the attorney general, or at the suit of any person aggrieved by any omission, without sufficient cause, to make any entry in the register of timber marks, or by any entry made or remaining without sufficient cause in any such register, make such order


Robert James Manion: The further you read, the worse it gets.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Section 45 of the Trade
Mark and Design Act reads:
The Exchequer Court of Canada may, on the information of the attorney general, or at the suit of any person aggrieved by any omission, without sufficient cause, to make any entry in the register of trade marks or in the register of industrial designs, or by any entry made without sufficient cause in any such register, make such order for making, expunging or varying any entry in any such register as the court thinks fit; or the court may refuse the application.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The words "to make any entry" following the words which proceed them are nothing less than meaningless. It is clearly a mistake in the wording.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: They meant that the
omission must be without sufficient cause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Look at the words "to
make any entry."


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think the Minister of
Justice has explained it; if the omission has been made by some person it must be without cause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The words "to make any entry " can hardly follow what precedes them and make sense.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: It is the omission to make an entry, that is the grievance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what it says.


John Campbell Elliott: It says "any person
aggrieved by any omission."


Ernest Lapointe: It would be clearer if
there were two subsections instead of one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not expressed very clearly.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I might say that the
amendment is quite satisfactory to the exchequer court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not usual to have
the antecedent judgment of the judicial branch of government before a case is submitted.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I humbly admit that
my legal attainments do not induce me to prefer my own judgment to that of the statute and the exchequer court; I have been led by their representations.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall I report the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Let the Prime Minister, who is not a lawyer (but who has had legal training, look at the section, and I ask the Minister of Justice to note the words "the Exchequer Court of Canada may"-


Ernest Lapointe: It is the grammar rather than the law which is reprehensible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite agree with the
minister. The section in the Trade Mark and Design Act reads:
The Exchequer Court of Canada may, on the information of the attorney general, or at the suit of any person aggrieved by any omission, without sufficient cause, to make any entry in the register of trade marks or in the register of industrial designs, or by any entry made without sufficient cause in any such register, make such order for making, expunging or varying any entry in any such register as the court thinks fit; or the court may refuse the application.
Difficulties have frequently arisen in the revising of statutes, and I am quite certain thiat if I took the time to turn up the original statute I would find this section expressed a little differently. I think the Prime Minister will agree with that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It seems to be rather badly mixed up.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will leave the 'bill in
committee for further consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is desirable.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I -move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



PATENT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 14, to amend the Patent Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Effect of application.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister had better give us some explanation for the substitution.

Patent Act Amendment


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This section is intended
to remove an anomaly in the Patent Act caused 'by a contradiction between section 7 and section 8 of the act. Section 7 reads:
Any person who has invented any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, not known or used by others before his invention thereof and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country more than two years prior to his application and not in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years prior to his application may, on a petition to that effect, presented to the commissioner, and on compliance with the other requirements of this act, obtain a patent^ granting to such person an exclusive property in such invention.
In plain language, the meaning of the section is that an application may be made within two years. Section 8 reads:
Any inventor who elects to obtain a patent for his invention in a foreign country before obtaining a patent for the same invention in Canada, may obtain a patent in Canada if the patent is applied for within one year from-[DOT]
In other words, the period for the obtaining of a patent is given as one year. That anomaly was pointed out by the exchequer count in the case of Edward A. Russell vs. the Commissioner of Patents. In that case an application for a patent had been made in the United States on May 1, 1922, and the application for a Canadian patent was made on December 11, 1924, which application had been refused by the commissioner, his judgment being based upon section 8. The case was brought before tlhe exchequer court and that count ruled that section 7 should apply, pointing out the contradiction between the two sections. Hon. members may wonder why this anomaly has not been adjusted before, and I have little to say in that regard except that it was understood that when other amendments to the Patent Act were moved that anomaly would be adjusted. The reason for the confusion appears to be this: according to the international agreement reached at the conference at the Hague the period for the priority that can be claimed by a foreign patent in Canada or -any other country was fixed at one year, and when the adjustment was made to the act to deal with that specific disposition, section 8 was framed and inadvertently the time set for the obtaining of a patent ou-tside of any priority claim was also fixed at one year while in section 7, which includes the general rule concerning patents in Canada, the limit is two years. I have under my band the full judgment of the court on that case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date of that?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: 1924 I do not -think it is necessary to place the whole judgment on Hansard, but the judge points out very clearly the contradiction between sections 7 and 8. As I have said, it may be argued that this adjustment should have been made some yea-rs ago. With that I quite agree and I will not discuss it. It was explained to me that as no amendments to the Patent Act had -been moved for some time, the Commissioner of Patents had rather awaited the occasion to suggest this one; in the meanwhile the interpretation of the court having become the rule in his office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Have there been abjections to these proposals?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No. If my hon. friends will look -at the clauses of the proposed bill they will see we are simply proposing to do away with the first paragraph of section 8, to reenact paragraphs 2 and 3 as they appeared previously, and to have a new paragraph 3 to protect any -patents which may have been granted on the strength of this interpretation but which might be disputed on account of their having been granted in the period prior to the amendment that I now propose. I am not sure that I have made myself clear, but if appears that this change should have been made some time ago. If I had any comment to add, it would be that there has been undue delay in adjusting that part of the act.


George Reginald Geary: Does the judgment of the
exchequer court go into the history of the section?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Not exactly. It deals
rather with a concrete case, but the judge refers very clearly to the proposed change. Perhaps I might read from the judgment as follows:
The application for a patent in the United States was made on the first May, 1922. The application for a Canadian patent was made on the 11th September, 1924, and refused by the Canadian Commissioner.
Under the provisions of section 7, set out above in full

That is in the judgment.
-"any person" who has invented anything as mentioned therein, has two years, within which to make his application for a patent under these circumstances and conditions as stated in the section.
By the first paragraph (1) of section 8- Which paragraph we now propose to repeal. -he is limited to one year, under the conditions mentioned in such paragraph, and the commissioner seems to have relied upon the same to refuse to entertain the application, because it was not presented within one year of the date of the American application.



Government Contracts

To put such a construction upon the first paragraph is erroneous; because this paragraph which deals with a case where a foreign patent has been taken out, does not apply to the present case where no foreign patent has been issued, but only when an application for the same has been made.
Indeed, that view is the only one that can be arrived at when we examine the natural and grammatical meaning of the wording of the section, which starts by saying:	"Any
inventor who elects to obtain a patent." That is to say any inventor who chooses to obtain a foreign patent before obtaining a Canadian patent.
Later on the judge says;
However, in the present case, sections 7 and 8 appear to be mutually repugnant. It cannot be denied that the phraseology used could be improved; but that is only to declare, as I have had already occasion to say in another case that it is another illustration of the want of care that besets the modern method of drawing our statutes.
I was rather forced to read that. I do not intend to endorse it except as it applies to the particular case.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 21, 1930