Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That standing order 63 of the House of Commons, relating to the appointment of select standing committees of the house be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session a select standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government to which will be referred the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the present session, for consideration and report to the house; provided however, that nothing in the resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply, and that said committee consist of: Messrs. Beaubien, Beaubier, Bell (St. Antoine), Bothwell, Cantley, Chaplin, Duff, Euler, Fiset, Fraser (Cariboo), Geary, Gray, Gobeil, Hanbury, Heaps, Kennedy (Peace River), McGibbon, MacMillan (Saskatoon), Manion, Power, Price, and Stewart (Lethbridge).
I beg to say that this is in the same form as the motions previously moved in this respect.


Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: Before the motion is put to the house; in view of the guarantee of the credit of the Canadian Pacific Railway given by the government, and particularly in view of the statement issued in connection with the request for similar guarantees by the government of British Columbia, I wish to move this amendment:
That the first paragraph of the motion before the house be amended to read as follows:
That standing order 63 of the House of Commons relating to the appointment of the select standing committees of the house be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session, a select standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, or whose borrowings have been guaranteed by the government, to which will be referred the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the present session, together with the accounts and estimates of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and their subsidiary companies, for consideration and report to the house.
In speaking before the annual meeting of shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Montreal during the present week, Mr. Beatty, the president of that company, stressed the seriousness of the railway situ-

Railways and Shipping
ation, we will assume with particular reference to his own company. He spoke of the necessity for a greater degree of unification of services and operation. He has indeed painted a very dark picture of the future outlook for the railways of Canada.
Therefore I believe that the affairs of the Canadian Pacific Railway should be investigated by this house, based on our guarantee of their securities. In support of that view I wish to quote what this government have said to the province of British Columbia- quite properly I think-that if the government of the province of British Columbia are to come to this government and ask for financial relief, this government should have the opportunity of reviewing their estimates. In order that the members of this house may get the full picture I consider it advisable to read the whole letter addressed by the Prime Minister of Canada to Mr. Pattullo, the premier of British Columbia, although perhaps it is not all germane to the point under discussion:
Ottawa, May 2, 1934.
Dear Mr. Pattullo,
Your request for financial assistance has been given the most careful consideration by council, and in reviewing your position we have had before us the letter of the Hon. John Hart, addressed to the Minister of Finance on February 26, which we have considered in the light of the letter addressed to Mr. Hart by the Minister of Finance on March 29, as well as the telegrams which have been exchanged between us on the same subject.
Notwithstanding our own financial problems, which are onerous and difficult, it is the desire of the government to assist you to the best of our ability, but we cannot in justice to the taxpayers of the dominion accept the statement of your requirements as outlined in Mr. Hart's letter of March 26 as representing a complete effort on your part to deal with your financial position.
We must, therefore, ask you to submit a revised program which will substantially reduce your contemplated deficit of $2,120,330.66 on ordinary account for the current year, which you anticipate notwithstanding your abandonment of sinking fund requirements which amounted to $2,421,620 last year.
As the preparation of this statement cannot be made until Mr. Hart returns to Victoria, and you appear to be in pressing need of immediate funds, we are prepared to advance such sums as may be necessary to meet your immediate and pressing requirements on the understanding that your revised program is to be submitted sometime within the next four or five weeks at the outside.
It would be desirable to ask you to submit a statement which would show something appoaching a balance on current account; however, realizing your difficulties and with the desire to be helpful, we will not go so far as to ask that this should be done, but we must expect the contemplated deficit to be reduced to something in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000 at the outside.
When we receive such a revised program, we will give it favourable consideration and you will be advised promptly as to whether we are prepared to make advances from time to time in conformity with your revised program up to the end of the current fiscal year.
Apart altogether from the justice of this request as affecting your province, may I point out that it has been our endeavour to deal with absolute fairness with the requests from each of the four western provinces and it would be most unfair if greater consideration should be shown to British Columbia than to any other province.
In all of these circumstances, I trust you will recognize the fairness of this proposal, and m accepting it recognize the fact that it is the best we can make.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that my object in referring to this communication is not to bring the problems of British Columbia before this house but to substantiate the statement I made that the Prime Minister and the government of Canada are requiring-and I think rightly so-from the government of British Columbia the right to review their accounts. We have guaranteed the borrowings of the Canadian Pacific Railway up to $60,000,000, and in the amendment which I am submitting to the house I say we have the right to that information from the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, let me raise the point of order in the first place. I submit that the amendment is out of order and is not properly an amendment to the motion at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


Hugh Guthrie: I am going to explain why, if hon. gentlemen will be patient. The motion deals exclusively with one subject, absolutely under the jurisdiction of this parliament, having regard to a railway undertaking owned and controlled by the government or the people of Canada. For the last three or four years it has been customary to introduce similar motions, dealing exclusively with the Canadian National Railways and its undertakings. The object of the amendment is to permit the house to go on with that inquiry into the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, but in addition it endeavours to bring in an entirely different enterprise that has nothing to do with the Canadian National Railways. I submit that if the motion is proper it is a substantive motion and should be brought before the house as such, with notice given in the ordinary way.
Therefore I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the amendment is out of order at this time.

Railways and Shipping


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Could the house have the benefit of hearing the original motion read again?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion is that standing order 63 of the House of Commons relating to the appointment of select standing committees of the house be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session a select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government to which will be referred the accounts and estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the present session for consideration and report to the house provided, however, that nothing in the resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply, and that said committee consist of Messrs. Beaubien and so on.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, although this amendment undoubtedly refers to the committee the accounts of another institution I submit that this is quite in line with the work that has been carried on by that committee in the past, and which it is proposed shall be done by the committee this year. Last year the Prime Minister told us very distinctly that the Canadian National was not owned by the people of Canada but by the bondholders and that it was being carried forward for the sake of the bondholders. Yet we feel ourselves quite competent to conduct an investigation into the affairs of this company, nominally owned by the people of Canada but in reality owned by the bondholders.
I take it that the Canadian Pacific is in a very different position this year than has been the case in the past. Though it is a privately owned road it has come to this government to have its bonds guaranteed, with no opportunity for this house to examine the books of the company in order to ascertain whether or not that guarantee is needed ,or whether or not in the future a similar guarantee may be applied for. Surely parliament has the right to investigate anything of this nature; I think no one will deny that, and there could be no more appropriate committee than that which is investigating the affairs of the other corporation. I hope this amendment will not be ruled out of order on a mere technicality. It seems to me that it would be very far fetched to say we could not include a second railway in this motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not speaking at all to the
FMr Guthrie.1
merits or demerits of the amendment but rather to the point of order which has been raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). As I interpret the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) it only adds to the motion of the Minister of Justice the words, "or whose borrowings have been guaranteed by the government." I do suggest very strongly indeed that it is a very proper amendment to the motion which has been moved. The minister moved the customary motion to set up this committee, and the amendment of the hon. member is to add the words, "or whose borrowings have been guaranteed by the government." Apart altogether from the merits of the matter surely that is a proper amendment, since it merely suggests an extension of the investigation to be carried on by the proposed committee. I submit that this is a very proper and timely amendment to the motion which has been moved by the Minister of Justice.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: If the views expressed by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) should prevail it would be impossible to move an amendment to any motion of this nature. This amendment is not contrary to what is proposed by the motion of the Minister of Justice; it simply adds something to that motion and it is germane to the principle of the resolution, namely that this committee on railways and shipping shall investigate not only the railways owned, operated and controlled by the government but also those whose borrowings have been guaranteed by the government. Surely there is nothing out of order in this amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: It names another incorporation, the Canadian Pacific Railway. If that matter can be dragged in by a motion of this kind we might just as well say that we can investigate the finances of the province of British Columbia under the same motion. I am not discussing the propriety of such an inquiry; the point of order I raised had reference only to the question of whether that could be done by an amendment to this motion. An inquiry may be quite proper, and there wifi be opportunity every day this house meets to bring in such a motion if it is desirable, but it cannot be launched as an amendment to a specific motion such as the one I moved. We have had no notice of it, either.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister has spoken twice on the point of order, so perhaps I may be allowed to reply.

Railways and Shipping
This is a committee to deal peculiarly with the question of railways, and this guarantee of $60,000,000 was given specifically to one particular railway corporation. By this resolution we are not entitled to investigate all guarantees given by the government, but we are entitled to investigate the guarantee given to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am of the opinion that the amendment is a substantive motion. An amendment to the motion before the house could be drawn, but not I take it, in this form. It does not strike out those portions of the motion before the house which are not included in the proposed amendment, which should be done if the intent of the amendment is to be carried out. I hold that this is a substantive motion, that it is not a proper amendment and is not in order.


Mr. Hi ANBURY:: I very much regret, Mr. Speaker, that I must ask the house to divide on your ruling. I must appeal from your decision.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Before the pairs
announced-


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Before the pairs are announced I should like to say-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am addressing the house. Mr. MacLean asked that his vote be cancelled. I am afraid that cannot be done.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Inadvertently I did not notice the absence of the Prime Minister with whom I am paired. I should like to have my vote struck out.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With the consent of the house the votes of Mr. MacLean and the right hon. leader of the oppostion will be cancelled.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that some hon. members opposite came in when the vote was being counted. I do not know if they are paired, but I think their action was against the rules of the house. They should not come in when a vote is being taken. I am making these observations before the decision is announced, because on one occasion some people were told that if they had any observations to make they should have been made before the result of the vote was announced.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is correct.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: May I say that I was advised of the slip the right hon. leader of the opposition made, and in consequence I did not vote.


Mr. PERRAS:: I wish to mention that the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) came in during the vote, and voted.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that all this discussion is out of order, because
fMr. Hanbury.]
parliament is not required to observe pairs, nor under the rules are they recognized in any way.


Mr. M ANION:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chewier). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. YOUNG:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BARBER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto North East (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BROWN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. LUCAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Picket). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted against your decision, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). Had I voted, with regret I would have voted against your ruling.

Marketing Act


Mr. HOWDEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). Had I voted I would have v-oted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I was paired with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Wilfred Hanbury: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. THAUVETTE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Larue). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.
Mr.	RAYMOND	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.
Mr.	FONTAINE	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.
Mr.	BRADETTE	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Du-maine). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Fer-land). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.
Main motion agreed to.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 73 for the relief of Aziz Koudsy, otherwise known as Eddie Coudsy.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 74 for the relief of Marjorie Seymour Hammond Zavitz.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 75 for the relief of Lucille Margaret Turbin Kelly.-Mr. Duff (for Mr. Vallance).
Bill No. 76 for the relief of Esther Liverman Kazenel.-Mr. Lawson.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance what is the policy in general of the federal government in regard to permitting any of the provincial governments to enter the British financial market for refunding purposes?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) will realize, I am sure, that the question of what issues should be placed on the British market is one for the British authorities. As far as I am aware there have been no representations made on the subject to the Canadian government, but I shall be happy to direct the attention of my right hon. leader who is Minister of External Affairs to the question for any further answer, which may be given on Monday.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank
you.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith-Mr. Weir (Mel-fort)-Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. MOORE (Ontario):: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose last, you will recall that I was discussing a monopoly of food products in Holland. Perhaps some explanation is necessary again as to why I went so far afield.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) brought down the budget the other day, and I thought he made a very creditable showing under the circumstances. You will recall, sir, that he spoke of the increase in commodity prices. It is unnecessary to repeat what he then said as to the increase that had taken place in the price of wheat, in the price of cattle and in the price of bacon hogs. He also gave us some very interesting statistics as to the increase of our export trade. If I remember correctly he said that we had had
Marketing Act

an average increase of around twenty per cent, and I felt that the minister was an apostle of cheer. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture assured us that we ought to follow the world's trend. The Minister of Trade and Commerce assured us that we were in a new era, that all the world had commenced to regulate marketing by compulsory pools such as are contemplated by this bill. This morning I received, as did most hon. members, a monthly summary of the League of Nations, and on page 45 I find this question asked:
Whether there are any signs of recovery in world trade?
To this the answer is:
The total value of world trade has not diminished as much in 1933 as in previous years. Nevertheless it has continued to diminish by comparison with the corresponding figures of 1932, with the exception of a single month in which an improvement was shown in 1933 as compared with the previous year.
The other day the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) rapped me somewhat gently by stating that I had said that certain failures had occurred in connection with certain acts of a similar nature which had been passed in other countries. That was not my intention. I intended to give a general survey or summary of the legislation of this nature which had been passed throughout the world. The minister has better facilities than I to obtain this information. I advise the minister quite frankly to state now that the illustrations I gave were not always comparable to this legislation. I admit that very frankly. The minister knows just as I do that it is very difficult to distinguish among all these schemes. As he has very properly said, there are different conditions in the different countries. It is also necessary to distinguish among the crops of the various countries, whether they be deficiency or surplus crops. When the committee rose I was speaking of conditions in Holland and I should like to continue where I left off.
I was referring to the compulsory reduction in the hog population of that country. It will be recalled that the compulsory pool began with a population of 2,735,000; it was reduced to 2,000,000 and then finally to 1,800,000. Just how that was done furnishes an interesting side light on how these marketing bills work out. When a litter of pigs is born in Holland it is necessary for the farmer to buy a litter of tags. That was the best way discovered by the Dutch government of regulating production and conducting a hog marketing compulsory pool. The minister has stated that one of the objects of this bill

is the elimination of waste and the reduction of costs between production and consumption. These compulsory' pools bring about an increase in waste and cost. In order to administer the act in Holland it has been found necessary to have inspectors in every district, men who will keep in touch with production and prices. I regret to say that it is also' necessary to have an army of informers to report violations of the act.
The same condition applies to another pool in Holland known as the Dairy Crisis Central, which was established in June, 1932. I should like to have some information from the minister in connection with that pool. Its object was the usual one, that of raising prices to correspond with the cost of production. But what was the result? Naturally, the first result was an increase in prices and I assume the producers were very happy. But the next result was a decrease in the consumption of dairy products. The poor people had to live and probably without thinking they followed the law of necessity and turned to the consumption of other edible fats. What did the government do then? It taxed other edible fats. The government then insisted that milk fats should be mixed with oleomargarine. They had to provide for the consumption of milk. Thus it goes from one step to another. I should like the minister to tell me if I am right. I observe from the press, I think the London Economist, that they have recently passed a law prohibiting people from growing fruits and vegetables in their own gardens. From one step to another in order to make a monopoly successful.
I should like to draw the attention of the minister to conditions in Roumania. An agricultural marketing act was passed in 1931 which gave a syndicate control over the whole grain marketing system. Those who are interested in this bill might obtain some very significant information from what happened in that country. That act was abolished within a month because a new government came into office. The new government decided upon an entirely different system but it was still a marketing monopoly. They made provision for a national agricultural trading company, a union of cereal exporters, a millers' central office and a millers' syndicate. The provisions worked out in the usual way. A tax was placed on bread but the bakers felt that they could not absorb that tax. The mayors of the municipalities, rather than have the people starve, passed laws that the price of bread should not be increased. There was then a strike of the bakers and the government finally was forced

Marketing Act
to have the military bake-shops take over the making of bread. There were abuses by the producers who were to secure these export benefits. Rye was mixed with wheat and other abuses occurred. The government finally ran out of money and the monopoly was abolished on April 22, 1932.
The minister could secure some very valuable information from Italy. That country has gone in for producers monopolies. I do not intend to run over the whole list but I would point out to the minister the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the rice monopoly. In that case there were the usual results, increased prices at first, then decreased consumption and finally the necessity of decreasing the acreage. The Italian government is faced with the problem of how to bring about that reduction, whether it shall be a flat reduction in acreage or the putting of the least fertile lands out of commission and preventing the least competent farmers from growing rice. That is a very live issue in Italy to-day. The same conditions exist in Spain. In November, 1927, the government formed a syndicate or cooperative group of producers of rice. That group had very much the same powers contemplated by this bill. At first the legislation applied only to the growers of rice within certain provinces. In
1929	it was found necessary to make it compulsory on all rice growers and on March 6,
1930	it was abolished. The minister will remember that I am simply trying to cover a vast territory as quickly as possible and therefore I can give very little detail. I would have him bear in mind the position of Switzerland. There was a wheat marketing monopoly in Switzerland, beginning in 1915- a long while ago, practically at the outset of the war. It ran along until 1929. There were objections from both producers and consumers alike. Now, the Minister of Justice knows that Switzerland is a very democratic country, in some respects the most democratic in the world. They had a system of referendum and they took one as to whether their marketing monopoly should continue or not, and on March 3, 1929 the people of Switzerland voted upon the subject and decided upon the repeal of that marketing monopoly.
Let me now take the minister to Hungary, where there is a cooperative society called the Futura. It is supposed to deal with all agricultural products, and it dealt particularly with wheat. It has had a chequered career, and, so far as I know, it is still in existence; but the last word that I can find of it is that the money collected for the purpose of being
given to the producers had to be used to buy food for people who were starving.
It seems a long way from the wheat fields of the Saskatchewan to the cotton fields of the Nile, but in both places there are people who seem to think that there is magic. The Egyptians are noted for their magic. They tried to repeal the law of supply and demand some time ago-in 1921-because they believed it was a shibboleth. What happened? They began to sustain the cotton market, buying cotton, and the price went down and down so that in 1931 the condition became so bad that the international federation of cotton spinners and manufacturers went to the government. I should like to have the evidence of what took place at that interview. Presumably the buyers of cotton said, "The price is going down because of the supplies you are holding over the market; you have a market monopoly." But whatever took place, in 1931 the Egyptian government gave up the idea of destroying supply and demand by legislative magic and announced that it was out of the market. It had had enough of marketing legislation. There is still a problem, because in May, 1932, the government held 387,000 bales of cotton and was afraid to sell it.
In Jugoslavia there was partial control of wheat and rye from May, 1930, but that was not satisfactory. In June, 1931, provision was made for a monopoly. In March, 1932, after only a few months' experience, the idea of monopoly control was abandoned.
I wonder whether it is necessary to go on. It seems to me I have fairly well outlined the field which the minister ought to investigate before this legislation is passed, the field which he ought to investigate before we are asked to help to turn this bill into a workable act. If the principle is wrong then it seems to me idle for us to attempt to amend it in this respect or in that respect. I should like however to give just a little explanation, entirely gratuitous, of the vote so far as one section of this house is concerned. I have an idea that my friends, and some of them are my very good friends, who sit at my left, are quietly chuckling. They know that once the government has passed this legislation it must go on.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


William Henry Moore: I am glad they agree with the position I take.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is, if it is to succeed.


William Henry Moore: In Uruguay they had marketing monopoly legislation, and that
Marketing Act

in that it promotes organized buying on a similar scale or what is equally effective in the buyers' interest, taking their supplies from spot stocks weekly, semi-weekly or even daily, and at the prevailing market price at the time, or if a low price opportunity offers, rapidly picking up a huge block of butter and subsequently remaining out of the buying market for a period. The price may rise temporarily as a result of purchases of this kind, but the inactivity of some of the big buyers over a period of a few weeks invariably results in a downward swing of prices.
Could anything be plainer? We have to look ahead. I know the minister has investigated this matter, but it seems to me he ought to have his investigations printed for us so that we might follow his arguments. With the information I have at present I must say the thing is incomprehensible.
While I have Mr. Stevens' publication before me I want to refer to another matter. We are rather well thought of in Great Britain because we have not had these marketing monopolies. I am going to prove that statement from Mr. Stevens' publication. The same writer, Mr. Wilson, in the same article but speaking of cheese, has this to say:
The freedom of trading that has obtained in connection with Canadian products, in contrast to that which has developed with most of the other exporting countries, is a factor that is appreciated in the United Kingdom, and assists very materially in maintaining and developing goodwill.
I mentioned that subject when I spoke on the principle of the bill, and I think it was the hon. member for Dauphin who said he could not follow me. I am sorry, because I like the hon. member for Dauphin and I would like to follow him in that matter, but surely both of us can follow the report of our own commissioner, who is a trained man on the ground and who reports on these matters, and when we follow him we ought to follow his advice.
Now I want to return to Mr. Amery and his publication, and this is something that has a wider bearing. He comes now to discuss the principles of socialism; the report says:
During the lifetime of the socialist government there was considerable discussion of bulk purchase by import boards. Though there was at no time any very clear definition of the manner in which the policy would be carried out. obviously it visualies that the whole supplies of certain commodities would be purchased either by a department of state or by some statutory corporation created for the purpose.

Marketing Act

I presume the same argument that follows applies to selling as well as to buying. The report continues:
We see obvious objections to bulk purchase by the state or by some statutory body created for the purpose by the state. Under such a system every purchase might raise a diplomatic issue and, accordingly, give rise to controversy with foreign and even with empire governments. The subsequent distribution of the commodities bought in bulk might easily lead to serious internal political difficulties and there might be grave financial risks to the state arising out of the popular pressure for goods to be sold at a rate below the proper economic price.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to stop to remind the committee that this report is published by the Empire Economic Union; it is not a statement by the hon. member for Weyburn or by myself. The report continues:
In addition bulk purchase might have a serious effect on world prices.
Now see the implication, as far as it affects this bill. The report goes on:
The establishment of the federal farm board in the United States of America and the existence of the wheat pool in Canada both appear to have had this effect. The knowledge that these two bodies were holding great quantities of wheat made all dealers in wheat nervous, as they could never be certain when heavy unloading would take place. The view is widely held that when large stocks in the hands of a few are hanging over the market, there must inevitably be a depressing effect on prices.
I know these matters are controversial, but after all this should not be a time for speculation; we ought to know. We ought to have the evidence, and we should not go on until we do know. There is another feature with which the report of the union deals, and I am glad it does so. It has to do with a matter to which I have given very serious study, and that is what happens when a mistake is made in big business, when one man, be he the head of a marketing board or the head of a great industrial concern, makes a mistake. That is what you will have to consider when you have centralized marketing. The report goes on to deal with that very question:
There is a general objection to unified purchase of any commodity by the government or any publicly controlled body.
Again I repeat that the argument applies to sale as well as to purchase.
It demonstrated itself very clearly during the war, when this method was employed for wheat, sugar and many other commodities. The objection arises through the fallibility of human judgment. Members of purchasing boards have to make up their minds from time to time as to the market position of any commodity, and have to come to their conclusions; however ably

they may be composed, their number is obviously limited, and their judgment, however intelligently informed, may be mistaken. For instance, if a board makes up its mind that wheat is going to rise in price and purchases the entire requirements of a country on this basis while events prove that world markets instead of rising, fall, the error of judgment is transferred on a huge scale and involves enormous sums. With the present practice, there are many individual buyers-
Or sellers, I may add.
-some will take one view and some the opposite, and which ever is right or wrong some kind of average result which is not so far from the actual truth will be arrived at, and therefore the amount of error in either direction will never become of an extravagant nature.
Had I time I think I could show that this is one of the reasons why we have the depth of our agricultural depression to-day. We have had these monopoly boards, these producers' boards, with compulsory cooperation in marketing, so generally throughout the world that the world now lags behind us in recovery, because we better preserved our competitive spirit.
There is another fallacy to which I should like to refer. I have heard it said that now the producers are to have control of their own produce. Well, could there be any greater fallacy than that? The dominion marketing board will not produce; it is the farmer who produces, and he is to lose control and to be deprived of the right to exercise his business judgment. I am not saying this measure deprives him; as I am aware, this is an enabling measure, but it will enable some producers-the majority if you like-to deprive him of the exercise of his business judgment. He is to become the ward of the state. What is left to him? If he cannot sell the product of his toil? What has he left? Of course he may have his land and his debts, but he has lost his credit. By this measure you are taking his credit from him. That has followed legislation of this kind which has been enacted in Europe.
I see some hon. gentlemen-and I believe they are all sitting opposite-who I fancy have money to loan. Oh, I see one on this side, too. Would any one of you loan money to a man who could not dispose of his product? I have no desire to enter into a credit controversy. We have had several of them lately. But I must ask: Who would lend money over a period of time to a man who, you knew, might not be able to dispose of his product? He could not borrow on his business judgment, because that is taken out of his hands. He has his land, and he works.

Marketing Act
The other day one of my friends to my left said that the wheat farmers in the west were becoming peasants. Well, I do not wish to exaggerate, but I must say that in this legislation I can see nothing but serfdom. We had it years ago, and we are going back not to the nineteenth century but back to the days of monopolies, to the days which men rightly or wrongly called the Dark Ages. This bill is not without support from the big interests. They have their monopolies, and we have on our statute books legislation against monopolies. I should like to ask the minister if he will keep that legislation on the statute books once we pass this bill. Can you put one set of men in prison because they are operating a monopoly and another set in prison because of competition? Surely we should do more than simply discuss the details of this bill clause by clause. We should consider all its implications. I can think of the support which this bill will receive from some of my friends who are engaged in monopolies, and I am reminded of the invitation the spider gave to the fly, particularly when in the bill we have a provision in regard to shutting out competition from foreign lands.
I have gone on longer than I had intended, but I wish to say simply this, that although I should have liked to help in framing this bill, I have no heart for the job. I am opposed to the principle. I have an idea that the bill cannot be properly framed either by Conservatives or by Liberals. It is a socialist bill, and I would turn it over to the socialists. I have no heart for lighting a crucible, moulding men, and destroying individuality. I have no heart for that sort of thing in an economic way any more than in a national way. I plead with the government to hesitate, to consider and to ask themselves in view of the fact that we are pulling out of the depression if it is necessary to sacrifice the economic and social life of this country.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: We have all followed with keen interest the remarks of the hon. member for Ontario, and although he has spoken at such length the nature of his observations was so interesting that we did not feel he had spoken so long. He has taken us over a great territory, speaking geographically, and over a long time and many different conditions. He has given us clear evidence of the intensive study he has made of the many different marketing acts and marketing monopolies throughout the great proportion of the countries of the world, including Holland, Bulgaria, a side trip to 74726-178J
Egypt, Queensland, Australia, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the cotton and wheat fields of the United States. My objection is however that although he has given so much study to the marketing legislation of those countries he has not paid us the compliment of giving the same study to this bill.
There is nothing in this legislation to indicate-certainly that is not its chief aim-that the producer shall have a monopoly of the production of any commodity. One point I have attempted to make clear on each occasion I have spoken, is my attitude towards cooperative marketing as distinguished from a monopoly. When speaking in Toronto in November last before a committee representative of all the great cooperatives throughout Canada, I made it clear that I thought there should be no monopoly, but that we required what have been called private interests. Of course many so-called private interests could almost be called public interests, because the identity of private individuals and enterprises has been merged with that of large combinations and monoplies. But talcing the term private interests as it is used, may I say that I believe we will require the competition of private interests with the cooperative enterprise, the one to be the standard and measuring stick of the other.


William Henry Moore: I hesitate to interrupt the minister who was so kind to me, but I should like to have the matter straight. Does not this bill imply compulsory cooperation? I am opposed to its compulsory features. If you say that there is no compulsion, that it is purely voluntary, then naturally I withdraw my objections. I am for cooperation.


Robert Weir: The fundamental
principle of the bill is to enable producers to organize to any extent they see fit, for the regulation of the buying and selling and flow of their products going on the market. They are free to form a cooperative unit to market through any channel of trade, and in this bill we are taking power to make certain that that channel of trade will be free from any artificial interference or mechanical obstacle that depresses prices. For instance, as things now are, prices will be depressed until commodities flow on to the market in very large quantities, and then by artificial means there will be a rise in prices so that those who have made no contribution to the production will receive remuneration altogether out of
Marketing Act

proportion to what they should receive. That is one feature of the bill which I think has been entirely overlooked.


Edward James Young: The minister did not answer the question of my hon. friend from Ontario.


Robert Weir: It depends probably on the intelligence of the hon. member for Ontario rather than on the intelligence of the hon. member for Weyburn as to whether or not I gave a satisfactory answer.


William Henry Moore: If it is a matter of intelligence, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I did not understand the minister's answer. I must go into the box with the hon. member for Weyburn.


Robert Weir: My statement, Mr. Chairman, was this, that if the hon. member for Ontario did not consider that I answered his question he is the only member in the house I think who could make that statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles A. Stewart: We must all be dense, then.


Edward James Young: Nobody understood it.


Robert Weir: Then I am afraid
all the members are a little dense.


William Henry Moore: May I put it
plainly, Mr. Chairman? I asked the minister through you if this bill involves compulsory cooperative marketing.


Robert Weir: We will go back to where we were. My statement was this, that the only member of this committee who can tell whether or not I answered the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario is the hon. member for Ontario. I think that is a fair statement. If there are hon. members opposite like the hon. member for West Edmonton who by his interruption evidently feels that he is better qualified or just as well qualified to answer the question to which the hon. member for Ontario has received a satisfactory answer-


Charles A. Stewart: I resent that remark, Mr. Chairman. I never intended any such thing as the minister implies. I merely stated that I did not understand the answer which the minister gave to the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario.


Robert Weir: I was referring to the hon. member for Ontario's understanding of my answer. He has asked this question: Does not this bill imply compulsory cooperative marketing?


William Henry Moore: Enable compulsory
cooperative marketing.
IMr. R. Weir.]


Robert Weir: I understood my hon. friend to use the word imply.


William Henry Moore: Enable. If I used the word imply I will substitute the word enable, if I may-enable compulsory cooperative marketing.


Mr. POWER:: It says so clearly.


Robert Weir: In what respect does it say so clearly? Read the clause. I have no desire to evade answering any question that is asked, but surely I can answer only one question at a time.


Edward James Young: We should be very glad if the minister would answer one at a time.


Robert Weir: If the hon. member would really be glad to have the questions answered one at a time he should not put other questions to prevent one being answered. My hon. friend from Weyburn seems to be very well versed in the matter. Will he state what was the question that was asked?
The fundamental principle of this bill, Mr. Chairman, is to give the producer assistance and the power, when his desire is expressed through an organization of producers, to control the rate of flow at which his products will go on the market, and the channel through which they shall go, and the manner in which they shall be marketed. It is entirely up to the producers themselves, so far as that part of the bill is concerned.
There is no use building up hypothetical schemes because we do not know what the suggestions of the producers will be, or what plans they may put forward. But what this bill does is to offer cooperation on the part of the government, either the provincial government if the scheme is submitted to the provincial government, or on the part of the federal government, in assisting a representative body of producers to carry out the scheme which they themselves submit believing that it is in the interests of the marketing of their products. I feel that there is no person who is better qualified to do that than the producers themselves. We advocate individualism for our producers, but they are not living in a world of individual competition. They are not living in the same world that existed when very many of the marketing acts to which my hon. friend from Ontario has referred were in operation, and they are not applicable to the present circumstances. For instance, the hon. member has stated that a system such as this will destroy the credit of the farmer, that it will make it more difficult for him to borrow. I take the other

Marketing Act
stand, that the bankers and the mortgage companies being business men, as we believe them to be, measure the credit that they can give to any producer according to the possibility of his being able to obtain a stable price over a period for the article that he produces. I have in mind a number of instances, but I shall give only one. It is that of a farmer who homesteaded his farm and whose bank statement four years ago was in the neighbourhood of ninety to a hundred thousand dollars. He had engaged in no business so far as I know but farming. He was an individual producing and marketing his own products, and I know that he could not borrow money enough from the bank to buy a carload of cattle in the fall to feed through the winter for marketing in the spring, although he had lived within a short distance of this bank for years, and was known by everyone as a successful farmer and a successful live stock man. I do not see how any system of cooperation among farmers for the regulating of the flow of their products to market could in any way make matters worse than that, but I believe that this same bank, if the farmers were organized to control the flow of their products to market so that there would be a more reasonable expectation of a stabilized price, would be prepared to advance money more freely than under present conditions. Therefore, I feel that there is no sound reason in that argument to apply the principle in general. Numerous examples could be given of similar conditions existing. The hon. member read at some length from the report of Mr. W. A. Wilson. I have not read that report but I gather from what he said that it was the organized marketing which had been undertaken in Great Britain which gave assurance to the speculators or purchasers that a steady flow of products would come on the market and thereby there was a tendency to depress prices because there was no worry on the part of purchasers that this flow of products would go forward.


William Henry Moore: I suggest that the minister read the report.


Robert Weir: I shall do so. I am quite certain that the impression the hon. member wished to give was that it was because there was no worry on the part of these people that products would come forward as a result of the organized marketing system in the United Kingdom-


William Henry Moore: And elsewhere.


Robert Weir: And elsewhere.
They were not on the market to purchase
the live stock coming on the market. That is the opinion of one gentleman, Mr. Wilson. On the other hand, we have the opinion of an eminent member of the British House, Major Elliott, Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. That gentleman is perhaps the strongest advocate we have of organized producer control and marketing. I feel that I am within the bounds of fair estimate when I say that Major Elliott's opinion is worth as much as the opinion of Mr. Wilson.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I doubt it very
much.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) doubts that very much. Hogs were referred to in the statement which was made. I doubt if there is a producer of hogs in the United Kingdom or anyone who has given much consideration to this particular problem who will not admit that the steps which were taken to have more orderly marketing and shut out over supply has increased the price of hogs, not only in the United Kingdom but in this country. This is not because there is freedom for all hogs to go on the market as there was in the past but because there is control of the number of hogs permitted to be sold. I know the hon. member for Ontario will admit that he believes that the final or ultimate result of this will be a still lower price for hogs than the price obtained before control.


William Henry Moore: The minister says that I will probably admit the statement he has made just now but I ask him to recall that after the act was passed in Great Britain there was such an alternate condition of shortages and gluts in bacon hogs, that is between hog meat and bacon hogs, that the government had to go to the relief of the curers.


Robert Weir: There was some
disturbance of trade in the United Kingdom immediately after the passing of the act. This was to be expected as it took some months after the quota system was in force before any results were obtained. One reason for this is the fact that the countries exporting into the United Kingdom anticipated that their goods would be shut out on a certain day and they threw more of their products on the market than they otherwise would have done. I have only a few minutes before I shall ask the committee to rise and I should like to put on record a statement as a reply to that made by the hon. member for Ontario. The hon. member made many references to the different marketing acts. He dealt at some length with the results of
Marketing Act

the application of this thing in Queensland. I think he will agree with me that conditions in Queensland are perhaps more similar to conditions in Canada than the conditions in any other country to which reference was made.


William Henry Moore: I referred to New South Wales. I made very scant reference to conditions in Queensland as they are quite different from conditions here. For instance, their wheat is under balance and under equilibrium; most of the things regulated in Queensland are consumed there, with the exception possibly of sugar.


Robert Weir: Evidently that was the reason the hon. member omitted to deal with Queensland. As I stated before, he was attempting to build up his own argument.


William Henry Moore: I must object to that. I referred to Queensland when I spoke on the principle of the bill but the second time I spoke I said I would not refer to Queensland because I had taken it up on the first occasion.


Robert Weir: Queensland was perhaps the pioneer state in this system of cooperative marketing and I think it only fair that I should put on record the report of the director of marketing of Queensland for the year ended June 30, 1932. It reads:
In accordance with the provisions of "The Primary Producers' Organization and Marketing Acts, 1926 to 1930," I have the honour to submit herewith a report of the operations of the pools that have been constituted in relation to the various commodities under the acts.
I am putting this on record because Queensland has had sufficient time in which to try out various methods of marketing and to discover some of the weaknesses which may arise. The report continues:
The last annual report indicated fourteen products that had been declared commodities and had been brought under the system of controlled marketing. The pools constituted in respect to these commodities still continue to function, the pools now operating being as under:	.
Arrowroot, constituted in 1922 without any opposition;
Atherton maize, constituted in 1923 without any opposition;
Barley, constituted in 1930 by an 81 per cent majority;
Broom millet, constituted in 1926 without any opposition; renewed in 1929 without any opposition, and again without opposition in 1931;
Butter, constituted in 1925 by a 75 per cent majority; renewed in 1928 without any opposition; renewed in 1931 without any opposition;
Canary seed, constituted in 1926 by a 75 per cent majority; renewed in 1930 without any opposition;
(Mr. R. Weir.]
Cheese, constituted in 1923 by a 91 per cent majority; renewed in 1925 without any opposition; renewed in 1927 without any opposition; renewed in 1930 without any opposition;
Cotton, constituted in 1926 without any opposition; renewed in 1931 without any opposition;
Eggs, constituted	in	1923	by	a	87	per	centmajority;	renewed	in	1925	by	a	73	per	centmajority;	renewed	in	1926	by	a 66|	per	centmajority;	renerved	in	1929	by	a	70	per	cent
majority;
Fruit, committee of direction of fruit marketing, constituted under special legislation in 1923 for a period of three years. The act provided for a bollot being taken at the end of the three-year period in the event of 500 growers demanding such ballot, but until 1929 no such petition was received. The continuance of the committee of direction of fruit marketing for a further period of five years was affirmed by the growers in December, 1929, by an 87 per cent majority;
Honey, constituted in 1929 without any opposition;
Northern pigs, constituted in 1923 without any opposition; renewed in 1926 without any opposition; renewed in 1931 by a 56 per cent majority;
Peanuts, constituted in 1924 without any opposition; renewed in 1925 without any opposition; renewed in 1926 by a 90 per cent majority; renewed in 1930 by an 85 per cent majority;
Wheat (under the wheat pool acts), established in 1921 by a 97J per cent majority; ex? tended in 1924 by an 89 per cent majority; extended in 1928 without any opposition.
This is the pioneer district in cooperative marketing. There is no doubt that in regard to some of these commodities the position is pretty much the same as in Queensland, while in others that may not be the case. But the suggestion that these cooperative methods have failed and been discarded for new methods is certainly refuted by experience and by the evidence given here.


William Henry Moore: I dislike interrupting, but I dislike more being misrepresented. I did not say that any of them had been discontinued in Queensland.


Robert Weir: I did not say that.


William Henry Moore: Everyone knows that they have been a success in Queensland to the thinking of the people there, because production there is in balance. Referring to New South Wales, I said they had not been entirely successful but had been rejected four times-the wheat pool. The minister takes up Queensland. I am grateful for that information, but I should like the minister to give us similar information-and it is readily procurable-in regard to New South Wales.


Robert Weir: I regret that the hon. member understood me to say that he had said the pools in Queensland had been dispensed with. I did not intend to give that

Marketing Act
impression, but rather to point out that the marketing plans that had been set up and tried out

I had reference to Queensland-[DOT] had not been discarded. And in this case,
I feel that conditions are more like conditions in this country than are many that have been quoted by the hon. member. They have proved so successful to the intelligent producers in Queensland that the result is as indicated. I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. MARCIL:: Before the motion is put I wish to say a few words. The government having refused to refer the bill to a special committee, before whom the views of leading business men might be obtained, and inasmuch as quotations have been given from a large number of countries, perhaps we might hear something from a leading commercial body in Canada, the Montreal board of trade, who say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Marcil: Well, it is one of the leading commercial bodies in Canada. It represents large interests, and points out that there are two principles in this bill which should be carefully considered. The first is coercion and the second compulsion. I quote from a communication which has been received by hon. members:
It seems to the council that there are two main principles applied in Bill No. 51. First, the granting to a "reasonable number" of those interested in a particular commodity in a special district, the right to coerce the remainder of those so interested. The rights of individuals to control and dispose of their own property and the rights of minorities, have always been jealously guarded under our political and legal systems. The Agricultural Marketing Act of Great Britain, which is said to have served as a model for Bill No. 51, recognizes and respects these two classes of rights. The British act requires not only that the minister of the department satisfy himself as to the reasonableness of any "development" scheme put forward by an interested group, but the whole scheme, together with the evidence upon which the minister has based his judgment, must be laid before both houses of parliament. The most complete publicity is also provided for with regard to these schemes, and in certain cases a system of arbitration is provided for those aggrieved by the acts of the development boards. It is respectfully urged by the council of the board of trade that the rights of minorities and of individuals be accorded the same protection under Bill No. 51 as they receive in the British Agricultural Marketing Act.
The second principle underlying Bill No. 51 is the securing of compensation to those who suffer loss by any action of the proposed marketing boards. This compensation, in the
opinion of the council, should be a charge upon all those engaged in the particular trade in which the compensation is awarded. Under no circumstances should the funds of the dominion be used to provide compensation to special interests, or to meet the expenses involved in the operation of the act other than those of administration and the necessary expenses of the dominion marketing board. Each trade, this council believes, should stand on its own feet in the matter of costs involved and in the assistance extended to it.
I will not read much more from this memorandum, addressed to the Prime Minister and to members of both houses, but there is another paragraph which I think is well worth noting:
The council of the board of trade recognizes that the methods of grading and packing of natural products both for home and overseas and foreign markets, are legitimate subjects for legislation, but at the same time, the council wishes to point out that this field of legislative activity is already adequately covered in so far as many products are concerned, and the gaps could be filled in easily by supplementary legislation.
It seems to me that the opinion of that body is worth considering, and that is, that the chief error the government is committing is in not referring the bill to a committee where leading business men could give us the information which we lack at the present time.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Carried.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know whether I am in order-


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The motion has been carried.


William Richard Motherwell: If the government do not want friendly suggestions, let them go ahead. I simply want this bill to get a show.


Hugh Guthrie: There was a motion that the committee rise and report progress, and that is not debatable. It is made in this instance at the request of the minister who has an appointment which he must keep and -therefore desires to leave.


William Richard Motherwell: A motion that the committtee rise defeats the bill.


Hugh Guthrie: And report progress.


William Richard Motherwell: 

CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 55, to provide for the deduction from compensation in the public service-Mr. Rhodes-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 3, subsection 2-Apportionment of deduction.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did not the minister propose an amendment to this subsection?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not to subsection 2. Perhaps my right hon. friend has in mind an amendment which was dealt with last night. I have no objection to reopening the matter if that is his desire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought the suggestion was a very good one. The amendment he proposes meets what I think is desirable, that there should be some amount put in the bill which will control the expenditure at least as far as this parliament is concerned. If the minister is prepared to insert that amount I would like to see it done.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my right hon. friend will look at last night's proceedings-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have looked.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A situation developed last night which made it perhaps not desirable to
proceed at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no doubt there is a different situation this afternoon. If the minister will move his amendment it will probably carry at once.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it is the desire of the committee I have no objection. My position is the same now as it was last night. I do not propose to take time to repeat the arguments I used on that occasion, but if it is the sense of the committee that subsection 1 be so amended, I am quite in agreement. I therefore move:
That subsection 1 of section 3 be now reconsidered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That the second proviso to subsection one of section three be struck out and the following substituted:-
Provided further that such deduction shall not apply to any member of the public service of Canada whose compensation during such

fiscal year is not more than one thousand dollars, and there may be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund such sums, not to exceed in the aggregate one million dollars, as are not otherwise provided for and are necessary to give effect to the provisions of this subsection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank the minister for his accommodation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 54 to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister if there is any change in this bill from the bill of previous sessions other than what is necessary on account of the change of dates?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, Mr. Chairman, the bill is precisely the same except the changes in the dates.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 37, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 1-Non-juridical days.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister if there is anything new in this section other than the substitution of Remembrance day for Armistice day and the provision for the closing of banks on civic holidays?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My right hon. friend is quite right; the only two alterations in the existing statute are first the substitution of Remembrance day for Armistice day in conformity with the statute which has been passed already, and second the provision that when by resolution any city, town, municipality or other organized district may appoint a local civic holiday, the banks remain closed

Supply-M iscellaneous
in that area. I do not know that I can give any better explanation than is contained in the explanatory notes. I am sure there can be very little objection to these amendments if our experience to-day is the same as it has been on numerous occasions in times past.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that not more or less the present practice?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, otherwise the banks would have to remain open.


Charles Marcil: In addition to these the provinces have the right to establish other holidays?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, the act has not been changed in that respect; that can be done by proclamation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-to compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received whilst in the performance of duty, $12,000.
Hugh Guthrie: I was under the impression that this item was passed last March when the main item was under consideration, but my attention was called to the fact that in the records of the house it does not appear as having been passed. I think last year between 87,000 and $8,000 was paid out of this vote, which is the annual grant for injuries received by members of the force from time to time, but the amount has always stood at 812,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Legislation
Senate:	salaries and contingent expenses,
Joseph Georges Bouchard: Could the minister tell us the reason for this very welcome reduction?


Hugh Guthrie: We have pared the
estimates to the bone; that is the way we have accomplished it.


Edward James Young: Cutting down the indemnities?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
House of Commons
Salaries, $206,100.
Expenses of committees, etc., $15,000.
Clerical assistance, etc., $107,203.50.
Contingencies, $45,499.
Publishing debates, including salaries of amanuenses, etc., $63,000.
Estimates of the sergeant-at-arms, $188,271.25 -Total, $625,073.75.
Joseph Georges Bouchard: May I ask the minister if this amount covers the cost of publishing the debates?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, that is included.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I should like to direct the attention of the committee to a matter that has been brought up already lby the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). In the last few years it has been customary to supply the members with one copy of the debates. This copy is in either French or English but you will realize, Mr. Chairman, that the French speaking members need a copy for their private library, and, since in the main the debates are carried on in English, we also need a copy of the English edition in order to be able to follow the debates properly and in order to make quotations and so on. I do not think the added expense would be very great, and the debates of the house would be facilitated. Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to look into this matter.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a committee of the house known as the internal economy commission which deals with all matters of this kind, and I think any representations on the subject should be made to that commission. In the item now before this committee we are simply following the practice of years past. There may 'be some force in what my hon. firend says, and I think he should bring the matter to the attention of the internal economy commission during the present session.


Edward James Young: Does this item of $63,000
cover all the expenses connected with publishing the debates?
M!r. GUTHRIE:	It says, " publishing
debates, including salaries," so I fancy it covers all the expense.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and' Canals-salaries, $166,644; contingencies, $25,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item includes salaries for the department?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent canal: construction and betterments, $39,500.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the reason for the increase?
Supply-Miscellaneous


Robert James Manion: This vote is for some construction work on the Trent canal. Because of age a weir is wearing out, and has to be replaced, so as to protect the department or the government from liability in the event of damage caused by such wearing away.


John Campbell Elliott: Is the work done under contract?


Robert James Manion: Nothing will be done until the item passes the house.


John Campbell Elliott: Will it be done by tender?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, including D. W. McLachlan, at $1,350 and G. W. Yates at $1,080, $20,599.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of the action of the United States government with respect to the St. Lawrence ship canal has the minister any statement to make on this item?


Robert James Manion: All I can say is that the item is provided because, irrespective of what the United States cong-ess may have decided, a certain amount of investigations are found necessary from year to year. This work has been going on for many years; but in recent years we have reduced the amount. It is true that the United States congress has refused to ratify the treaty. At the same time a certain amount of survey and investigation work will have to be done, and I may say to the committee that any sums which we find need not necessarily be spent will be held up. I should not like to have the item delayed, due to that fact. At least some of the work will have to go on.
It will be noted by the committee that included in the item are two special votes, one of SI,350 for W. D. McLachlan and the other of $1,080 for G. W. Yates. These are men whose salaries were fixed a number of years ago. In fact, I believe in both cases the raises in salary were given by the government of my right hon. friend about the years 1924 or 1925. These are valuable men, and men doing a special type of work. Their salaries, really, should be in one complete figure, and for the information of the committee I should say that Mr. Yates, who is assistant deputy minister, about six or eight months ago took over the duties of secretary. Mr. Pugsley, who for many years was secretary, retired because of age, and we decided that Mr. Yates could carry on that work without any increase

in salary, with the exception of the continuance of this vote. The suggestion was that the vote should be put into one item. The matter has been put up to the civil service commission, but so far we have not had their consent. They did take the attitude a short time ago-although I believe the matter has been referred back to them-that the position of secretary of the Department of Railways and Canals might be abolished. We considered that Mr. Yates, as assistant deputy minister and secretary could carry on this work due to the fact that because of railway conditions in recent years the work has not been so heavy. We decided to make a considerable saving by not making a reappointment. The matter is still under discussion between the civil service commission and ourselves and up to the present we have not received a definite reply from them. Unless we did get the consent of the civil service commission to put this man's salary under one item, which we would not be able to do in these estimates, we would have to carry him on as he is at the present time.
Mr. D. W. McLachlan was considered by the late government and ourselves to be a very valuable man in the Churchill work, the Welland ship canal work and the St. Lawrence work. I think he is the best informed man on the St. Lawrence matter in the dominion-that may be a fairly large order, but I believe I am not exaggerating. We feel that for this year at least his salary should be continued as it is. I can assure my right hon. friend and the committee that so far as this work is concerned I can say that any part which does not have to be done will not be done. It will be noticed that the vote has been cut almost to half of what it was last year. It is not the desire to spend money but certain parts of the work have still to be carried on.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: I do not take exception to the item, because I believe it is all right. I thought however that the minister might like to make a statement.


Robert James Manion: There is not much to say now, is there?


Mr. BRADETTE:: This item includes St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, and I would understand that those surveys would include the drainage system of Chicago. Would the minister tell us what has been done on that score.


Robert James Manion: Although in the past few months I have been looking up information in this connection, I am afraid I cannot give

Supply-Miscellaneous
a definite statement at the present time as to the position of the Chicago drainage canal. I should not like to guess at it, but I can assure my hon. friend that if at some other time he would ask me a question or draw the matter to my personal attention I will outline the situation. However, I should not like to put on Hansard opinions or statements which may not be actually correct in connection with an international matter of that kind. The Chicago Sanitary District, whose officials are in charge of the work, have to a large extent consistently hesitated because of their financial position to carry out the work which they were instructed to do in regard to sewage disposal, but I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member exact information at the moment.


Charles A. Stewart: I should be glad if the minister would get that information because there have been various reports published in the press that the provisions of the court order have almost ceased to be carried out, and the court order is of great importance to Canada.


Robert James Manion: I suggest to my hon. friend that as this is really an international matter, and not dealing so much with the St. Lawrence waterway question, it might be brought up when the Prime Minister has his estimates for External Affairs before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are all through.


Robert James Manion: There will be some other opportunity. I will look into the matter and make a statement. I do not care to make a guess on it at the present time.


Mr. MUNN:: Are the salaries mentioned in these votes retainers?


Robert James Manion: No, they are salaries for regular employees.


Albert Edward Munn: Are there any engineers outside the department being paid a fee in connection with the St. Lawrence waterway? If so, how many, and what are they being paid?


Robert James Manion: There are no engineers outside the department. The work is being carried on under Mr. McLachlan and under the chief engineer, Colonel Dubuc, but at times outside men have been engaged upon certain investigation. No one is being paid any retainers of any kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-to provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for salaries, reclassification and increases, $50,000.
Mr. SANDERSON:: Would the minister
explain the increase of 810,000 in this item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I have not
my book here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think these are the customary adjustments.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. I think they largely arise by reason of changes through the establishment of the office of comptroller of the treasury. I should like to have my book here if details are wanted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is
the customary readjustment of salaries because of reclassification and promotions made during the course of the year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is a regular item and
has been in the estimates for years.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: When I draw my indemnity I have to take oath as to how many days I have been away from the house. I do not think any member should have to take an oath on a matter of that kind. Such a thing is not asked by any large corporation in this country, and I cannot see why it should be asked of a member of parliament. I have heard judges' deploring that the oath is used so extensively in this country as to become almost farcical, that people hardly take it seriously. When I was elected I pointed out to my constituents that I would have to answer to them, not to the accountant's office of the House of Commons. I think this provision should be removed from our statutes if it is a statutory provision. I sincerely believe that it is not fair to members of parliament and to parliament as a whole that a member when he gets his indemnity cheque should have to take an oath. When I was elected I was receiving an indemnity of 84,000; it is $3,600 now. I seldom miss any sittings of the house, and yet I am sincere in my protest. I do not think that the full oath should be taken when members draw their indemnities to which they are absolutely entitled. No financial institution of any kind insists upon it, and if there is one office that should accept the word of members of the house it is the accountant's office of the House of Commons.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member must
know that every month as he draws his indemnity cheque he takes an oath before he gets it. It is really a statutory declaration, not an oath, but under the law it has the
Supply-Miscellaneous

same force and effect as an oath. If any change is to be made in the law it will have to be made by an amendment to the House of Commons Act which provides that this statutory declaration shall be taken. While my hon. friend says that when he was first elected he got an indemnity of $4,000, when I was elected I got an indemnity of $1,000 a year, but I distinctly remember that I had to make the statutory declaration just the same, and I think that has been the law since confederation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What circumstances would necessitate an increase of $10,000 in this item? I would assume that the amount required for reclassification and increases would be pretty much the same each year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I cannot give the information at the moment as I have not my book here.
Item stands.
Grant to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $16,200.


Wilfred Hanbury: I do not want to delay the proceedings but I should like to ask that greater efforts be made to assist the blind people of Canada. This is something which we should all assist in every way we can.


Charles A. Stewart: As I said on a former occasion when we were discussing this matter, I regret the reduction which has been made in this vote. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury), that this is a very worthy cause. When the government is submitting supplementary estimates I think it would do well to consider some further assistance to the institution for the blind and for education of the blind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Canadian Tuberculosis Association, $20,250.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What is the reason for the decrease?


Hugh Guthrie: There is no decrease, it is ten per cent off.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to assist the Canadian branch of the St. John Ambulance Association, $4,050.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does this vote cover the cost of the titles recently conferred upon this order?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: They have been earned by services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: These are all the items we have to submit at the moment. We announced last evening that the estimates of the Department of Immigration would be taken up this evening but I am sorry to say that the minister of that department is confined to his home with illness. If the committee is agreeable we will take up Pensions and National Health after the hour for private bills, or confine it to National Health alone.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to be sure that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) will be here when pensions are taken up.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If he is not we will hold the item.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Archibald Bruce Elliott Smart.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Lilac Violet Grumbcll Reid.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill 61, for the relief of Lily Archer Watson. -Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Annie Isabel Tinning Mel drum.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Lois Theresa Malcolm.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Lucy Doris Cannon.

Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Helen Isabelle Smith Maybee.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Sybil Eileen Dyson Richardson.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Bertha Alice Maude Maher Burke.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of William James Thistle.-Mr. Heaps.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
European war-naval, militia and air forces after the war, $42,000,000.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am rather diffident about discussing again the question which I

Supply-Pensions-European War
am going to bring to the attention of the minister, but I do so because I believe it to be my duty and on account of the justice of my cause. I refer to a very sad case which I have mentioned on several previous occasions -Mr. Joseph Hussin of Drinkwater Pit, Ontario. It should not be necessary for me to call the attention of the minister to this matter again, because if the department had been fully acquainted with all the circumstances I fancy that better treatment would have been meted out to this man. If the minister will give me an assurance that the case will be reopened I am ready to make the same promise I made last year, namely, that should the department find it impossible to defray the travelling expenses of this exsoldier I shall gladly pay them myself in order to have his case reopened and have him heard.
Towards the close of last session the matter was referred to some of the officials of the pension commission and I was asked, on the eve of my departure for my own section of the country, whether I could take it up with them. Unfortunately I had to leave in rather a hurry for Cochrane but I received a letter to the effect that the case would not be reopened. Two years ago I quoted from some fairly strong editorials appearing in the newspapers, some of them of Conservative and independent tendencies, and I called attention particularly to an editorial in the Porcupine Advance, which had been fighting for this man for several years. In my riding there is a large body of returned soldiers and only three or four at most have failed to receive the attention they deserve.
The minister is always willing to listen to the returned man's plea, and I am sure that if he knew all the facts he would grant this man a new hearing immediately. Not only the House of Commons but the whole country welcomed the statement made by the Prime Minister almost at the beginning of the session with reference to certain cases brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Those cases I believe were dealt with immediately. I wish that I could present Mr. Hussin's case as forcefully as the hon. members I refer to presented the cases in which they were interested, because I believe that the matter would have received attention at once from the minister and the department.
If I understand the act rightly it gives sufficient leeway to allow this case to be reopened. It is my duty now, unless I get a promise from the minister that it will be reopened, to put once more on the record of parliament exactly what has taken place with regard to this man. This is one matter in connection with which there has been a good deal of criticism not only of the pension commission but indirectly of the minister. This gentleman has been suffering for a number of years from injustice and before I proceed I wish to put a direct question to the minister. If he answers in the affirmative I will go no further but will give him all the information I have. Will it be possible to have this case reopened and Mr. Hussin reexamined?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Extended reference to this case was made by the hon. gentleman last year and I then said that I would see that it was again thoroughly investigated. The man was brought from his home in the northern section of Ontario to Christie street hospital in Toronto and special arrangements were made so that his case should be fully looked into. He was examined by two nerve specialists, one belonging to the department and the other a specialist in nervous disorders who had no relation with the department. The case was completely reviewed and the man thoroughly examined, and the report of the two specialists was that it was a case of malingery. I can understand my hon. friend holding the view that the case has not been fairly dealt with. That frequently occurs in cases such as hysteria and malingery; there is always a doubt, especially on the part of those connected or associated with the man. As I say, the report of those two specialists was that it was a case of malingery. It is also stated that there was repeated evidence that he worked as a labourer between the years 1919 and 1931. The result was that it was not considered a genuine case and he was not awarded a pension. I made every effort to have this man examined in an impartial way and by men specially trained and qualified in diseases of the kind, and that was the result. I had hopes that my friend who has now again brought this case forward might feel that the examination was a fair one, and that the result was arrived at by men well qualified to reach a right conclusion.
There is no limit to reexaminations, even if it seems not very necessary,-because this man has been examined again and again. My friend asks whether I will arrange for a further examination. I say that notwithstanding all
2824	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
that has been done and the very special efforts made to arrive at a convincing finding, I shall be pleased to ask that this man have a further examination.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I appreciate what the
minister has said and has done, and that appreciation will be shared by the veterans generally. However, I am going to challenge one statement made by the minister, even if it is based on the report of a specialist; I say that man is incapable of malingering. I have made the statement outside of the house and I make it here. And I say it was impossible for him to work as a labourer from 1919 to 1932. The only way that statement could have come to be made was that the man was on a farm settlement in the Porcupine district. He is crippled, he has no use of one arm, and it does not take an expert to realize that. If I see a man with only one eye it is easy to know that he has the use of only one eye.
The Pension Act has been well administered throughout Canada and there are very few cases of this nature. In fact the opinion is almost unanimous that successive governments have kept faith with the returned men, and this is one of the very rare cases in my section that has not received the attention that it deserves.
There is only one other case that I wish to bring to the attention of the minister, that is the case of H. C. Joanisse of Cochrane, regimental number 1102199, of battalion 257 D, unit C.A.V.C. He is suffering from faulty eyesight. I think he made application once two years ago, but whether or not he was examined I do not know. He wrote to me a few days ago asking for another examination.
These are the two outstanding cases in our section of the country. I hope in relation to the one I have just cited that the minister will give me the same answ'er as he gave in the previous case, namely that he will allow the matter to be reopened.
Mr. MaoLAREN:	I am quite unable to
identify the case. All I can say is that the man's number will appear on Hansard and I shall make inquiry and see what should be done. In reference to the other case, if possible I shall endeavour to have two nerve specialists deal with this man who have not previously examined him. Also I think it is fair to ask that the hon. member who is so much interested in this case should, in order to satisfy himself, read the files and the evidence; they will be at his disposal.


Mr. MacLEAN:: In connection with veterans' allowances, I understand there is a ruling of

the department that a Canadian soldier entitled to veteran's allowance, if taking treatment in a hospital in the United States or living in that or some other country, cannot draw such allowance. I should like to know if that is a correct statement, and if temporary absence of that kind disqualifies him. I have in mind a man suffering from tuberculosis. His home is in Nova Scotia-not in my riding -and he has taken treatment in a hospital in the United States. The doctors are of the opinion that it is an advanced case of tuberculosis, but although his case is before the pension board they have not yet come to a conclusion. As his wife and children are in need we are making an effort to get veteran's allowance for him.


Murray MacLaren: If my hon. friend has
in mind the war veterans' allowance, the regulation is that such allowance is not payable outside of Canada. That is, no man receives war veterans' allowance unless among other conditions he is a resident of Canada. On the other hand the hon. member may be referring to pay and allowances; that is on a different basis. Pay and allowances to Canadian pensioners while undergoing treatment in the United States are allowed.


Mr. VENIOT:: In a case where the dependents live in Canada and the husband lives in some other country would not the dependents receive their share of the veterans' allowances?


Murray MacLaren: No, in the case of a man in the United States whose family lived in Canada, the war veterans' allowances would [DOT]not be payable.


Peter John Veniot: Not even to the dependents?
Mr. MaoLAREN: No.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I wish to thank the minister for the information he has given me; I was speaking with regard to the veterans' allowances, but possibly something can be done in the other way to which the minister referred, and I shall be glad to take up the matter with the department. Then I should like to know from the minister if a ruling has been made recently in cases where pensions are granted which should be dated back to the date of the application on which the pension was eventually given.
Mr. MaoLAREN: There are pensions payable back to a certain date; they are termed retroactive pensions, and they are frequently awarded.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: There has been no recent ruling in that regard?

Supply-Pensions-European War


Murray MacLaren: There has been no change made.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Would it be possible under ithe pension act for a returned man to go back to the land and borrow money from the department for farming purposes?


Murray MacLaren: No, he cannot borrow money on his pension, and his pension cannot be interfered with by anyone.
I have some interesting facts, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the payment of pensions which I think I should make known, as the information is rather important. I wish to place it on Hansard so that hon. gentlemen may have an opportunity of studying the figures with greater ease. The reason I do so is that frequently the criticism is heard that pensions are being reduced. I am not surprised that this view is held by many, and there may be a certain diminution in the amount of pension paid, but that diminution is not large. There are two principal reasons for this misapprehension, but before I make my statement I should like to describe how the representative of the treasury board keeps his record of pension payments, so that hon. gentlemen will be a little better able to follow the short explanation I have to make.
The representative of the treasury board, who is the bookkeeper and paymaster, as it were, has three columns in his records with regard to the payment of pensions. There are three classifications under which pensions are placed, and the three added together show the total payments. First is the column showing the regular monthly payments; this is an amount that is more or less the same subject to minor changes. As I say, this figure is fairly constant, though not necessarily so because pensions are subject to change. Many people say, "My pension was so much a year ago and now it is so much less." Pensions are subject to change in accordance with the amount of disability. Naturally if a man has lost an eye or both eyes that is a permanent disability and his pension does not change. If a man has an amputation that is a permanent disability and there is no change
in his pension. There are innumerable other conditions, however, such as bronchitis, rheumatism, myalgia and all that sort of thing, which vary from time to time, and the pen-: sion varies with the amount of disability.
The second column refers to retroactive adjustments, which I mentioned to my hon. friend from Prince. This amount varies also. In one year it was almost $4,000,000; in another year it fell, and according to the last statement I have, pensions of this class totalled $1,145,000. In other words in one year a large number of cases concerning retroactive pensions may come before the pension commission while the following year there may be a much smaller number, so this amount varies also.
The third classification is the restored final payments, and in this classification we find the greatest variation of all, because it was only in 1930 that legislation was introduced concerning what are called the restored final payments. For the first two years a very large number of retroactive payments were made, and have been made as time has gone on. To give an example, in the year 1931 the item for restored final payments amounted to $3,941,991.56, nearly $4,000,000. Last year, 1933, it was down to $190,168.87.


Charles Gavan Power: Would the minister give the figure for 1932?


Murray MacLaren: The amount was $832,851.23. In order to get a fair idea as to whether pensions are diminishing or increasing one must view it over a fairly long period of time. I noticed during the present session a question on the order paper asking for the figures over a three year period. At that time the matter was carefully investigated and it was shown that a three year period was not a satisfactory basis on which to judge. I have before me a table showing the figures for six years, and with the permission of the committee I shall have it placed upon Hansard. I have an extra copy for the hon. member for Quebec South; perhaps he may wish to show it to other hon. members on that side of the house. The figures are as follows:
Amount of Pension Payments
Calendar year-
1928		
1929		
1930		
1931		
1932		
1933		
Regular monthly payments $36,088,974 47 37,143,239 72 37.856,525 20 40.199,310 74 41,238,465 31 40,633,738 04
Retroactive adjustments $3,917,752 75 2,081,342 46 2,822,580 50 3,318,176 65 1,750,914 30 1,145,489 04
Restored
final
payments

Total

2826	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not think I made myself clear when I spoke earlier in the evening. Every week I receive letters from veterans in my constituency who would like to go on the land, and they want to know whether or not through the pensions legislation it would be possible for them to borrow money to start in this line of work.


Murray MacLaren: The matter to which the hon. member refers comes under another department over which I have no jurisdiction and about which I should not like to speak.
I believe it is the desire of the committee to know the exact conditions, and to be informed of the good as well as the bad points. A number of questions on the order paper
have asked, "What was the total decrease in payment"-in this or that. But on no occasion has a question been submitted asking, "What have been the decreases and what have been the increases?" One who wishes to know the exact situation must realize that the information on one side is as important as that on the other. Because the increase in pensions is considerably greater than generally understood, I shall place on Hansard figures showing disability pension activities. Before giving the complete table may I indicate that in the year 1933-34 the decreases numbered 3,617, and the increases 2,631. The number of increases may be smaller, but is still a very substantial number. With the permission of the committee I shall put the following figures on Hansard:
Disability Pension	Activities, by Fiscal Years 1929	to 1934	Decrease Discontinued	Discontinued	Increaseof	no	wi th	Total	ofFiscal year-	pension	disability	gratuity	decreases	pension1929-30. . .	
745	80	10	835	3.7231930-31.. .	
449	90	47	586	4.2771931-32.. .	
791	102	73	1,026	4.0231932-33.. .	
2.129	271	156	2,556	2,8651933-34.. .	
2,510	399	708	3,617	2,631First Pension Awards	Fiscal year-	Pension	Gratuities1929-30.. .	1 774	31 q1930-31.. .	2722	3171931-32.. .	3.091	4571932-33.. .	1 919	40fi1933-34.. .	1,058	246
Before taking my seat I should like to indicate one other point, namely that the average amount of pensions paid is considerably lower. The explanation is one which should be known to all hon. members. As I pointed out when speaking about the restoration of pensions, under the amendment to the act made in 1930 the small pensioners were restored-and by that I mean the pensioners between five per cent and fourteen per cent. As a result hundreds and hundreds have been restored, thereby increasing very substantially the total number of pensioners. But the increase in the number of pensioners is largely caused by the number who are drawing small pensions between five per cent and fourteen per cent, and for that reason-I give this information for what it is worth-the average amount of pension paid to-day is less than it was.


Frederick William Gershaw: I understand that a quorum of the pension commission travels around the country and holds hearings at certain points. My difficulty is that it is very
[Mr. MacLaren.l
hard to find out when the quorum will sit at a certain place. I should like to ask if the department has any regular schedule; or does the quorum sit when enough cases have accumulated? Is the soldiers' adviser notified when sittings are to be held?


Murray MacLaren: As a matter of fact the information can be obtained with great ease. A schedule is drawn up several weeks ahead and can always be obtained. If any hon. member of the committee wishes such information I shall see that he receives it at once. The regular procedure is to write the pension commission and inquire when they will sit at a certain place. The chief pensions adviser always has that information. There is a schedule somewhat like a time table, but perhaps a little more variable, which is always ready for weeks ahead. If the hon. member would write the pension commission he would get the information.


Frederick William Gershaw: I have not been able to get it by writing. The soldiers' adviser will

Supply-Pensions-European War
say that there may be a session at such and such a place next spring, but he does not know. I had real difficulty in finding out when they would reach a certain point.


Murray MacLaren: I think the hon. member will find that that information is known several weeks ahead.


John Power Howden: I understood the minister to say that the pensions were progressively becoming smaller. I would ask if it is the policy of the department progressively to diminish pensions, and if so, upon what authority they are making this change. I have in mind several types of cases that certainly occur from time to time, and just how it is possible for the department progressively to reduce pensions consistently with the act I do not understand.


Murray MacLaren: So far as I am aware
there is no policy of reducing pensions, and further the department could not properly have any such policy because the amount of pension granted is according to the degree of disability. The disability is assessed, not by the department, but by the pension commission, which is practically an independent body. The department has nothing whatever to do with any reduction of pension, and so far as I am aware there has been no move in that direction.


Peter John Veniot: What about the reduction
in the pensions of dependents, which are not awarded according to the degree of disability? I know cases where dependents have had their pensions reduced, and I am not referring to cases, for instance, where there is a reduction because of a child coming of age. I have in mind a dependent's pension to a widow, and that pension was certainly reduced. How does that operate?


Murray MacLaren: If my hon. friend from Gloucester would give me specific cases I should be pleased to have them looked into and give him a proper answer. So far as I am aware these cases do not arise. Of course, there may be a case like this, where a widow who has been receiving a pension for some years remarries.


Peter John Veniot: It is not that kind of a
case at all.


Murray MacLaren: Outside of that the
pensions that are awarded to dependent fathers and mothers depend upon their financial position, and if a dependent father or mother gets into better circumstances I can understand the pension being reduced. But I shall be glad to look into any case of which my hon. friend from Gloucester will give me the particulars.


Peter John Veniot: Here is a case in point. A widowed mother was receiving a pension on account of her son who was killed at the front. After enjoying that pension for several years she was suddenly notified that the pension was being reduced from forty to twenty dollars a month, and her condition at the time she received that notice was just as bad as it was when she was receiving a pension of forty dollars a month. The pension board or the department must have some way of looking into the matter and making a report on such cases. I do not know who reported on this case, but whoever did make the report made a false report because I am personally acquainted with these people; I know their conditions and everything connected with them. I took the matter up and reported the case as T knew it, and as the clergyman of the district knew it, and as a result the pension board added to the reduced pension something like ten dollars. Now, I do not want any pension board to add to a reduced pension on my recommendation. I do not make recommendations. I want every case treated on its merits, and the reason I am bringing this question up to-night is for the guidance of the pension board in the future. In all cases the pension board should see that a proper investigation is held; they should not depend on their agents getting reports from Tom, Dick and Harry, without going to the spot and seeing the actual conditions for themselves.
To prove my contention I would remind the minister that some seven or eight years ago it was the practice to send lady inspectors around to see the condition of the pensioners and see if the pensions, especially of dependents, should be continued on the scale first granted. One of these lady inspectors called at my home on a Sunday afternoon, showed me a list of names of people she was to visit in my county, and asked me where they were located. I gave her all the addresses and told her how to reach these places. One of the cases was about a mile and a quarter from my home, and she asked' me if I would give her the particulars in connection with that dependent family because she wanted to make her report and send it out the next day. She did not visit that family and make her own report. She made a report on the word of Tom, Dick and Harry, and that widowed pensioner had her pension reduced after losing a son in the flying corps at the front. That was the practice some years ago. Lately I have not heard much about it except in the one case I now mention.

2828	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
The other day I received a letter from a pensioner in my county, sending me a notice that his pension had been cut from twenty-five dollars to ten dollars. He is a returned soldier trying to make a living on the farm. On whose report was his pension cut? I have made inquiries and I tried to find out as much as possible when I returned home at Easter. It was reported in the neighborhood that this man's pension had been reduced because it was found that he had a couple of horses and a cow. What right have they to reduce his pension as a returned soldier because he happens to have a couple of horses and a cow? If he was entitled to a pension of twenty-five dollars a month they had no right to cut it down because he was trying to make a living on his little farm where he has been able to raise two horses and a cow; but the pension was cut down from twenty-five to ten dollars a month, and he had to go on the relief list and get relief for himself and his cattle to keep them from starving. It was robbing Peter to pay Paul.
These are two cases. I do not wish to give the names before this committee, but I shall be glad to give them to the minister any time he wants them.


Murray MacLaren: If the hon. member for Gloucester will be good enough to give me the names in confidence I shall have the cases looked into.


Peter John Veniot: I will do that.


Murray MacLaren: There is a little more to say about it. It is suggested that the man had his pension reduced because he had two horses and a cow. I know nothing about the case; I do not remember having heard of it, but I cannot believe that the pension was reduced for that reason. If he had a hundred cows and fifty horses his pension would be just the same. There must be some other reason, and I hope the hon. member for Gloucester will give me a chance to look into the matter. These cases are investigated, but it might be exacting a higher standard than is found in other positions in life to expect that those investigating always do their duty. I should like to be satisfied as to whether the case the hon. member mentioned has been actually investigated; the records will show. Both cases will be thoroughly looked into.


Mr. RALSTON:: With all due deference to the minister I question whether his explanation as to the reduction in pensions gives us a true picture. Every hon. member knows from the correspondence he has received, as does everyone who is interested in returned

soldier matters that outside of the reinstatement of pensions which had been settled by a final payment there has been quite a substantial cut in pensions. I am not saying that in some cases that cut has not been justified, but I do say that the minister is not correct when he says that the reason the average is reduced is the fact that some small pensioners who had received final payments have now been restored to monthly pensions. Letter after letter is received by hon. members of this house, by the legion and by others interested in ex-service men's problems, to the effect that pensions have been reduced. As I say, some reductions may be justified, but do not let us fool ourselves about it. I understand that for some reason the auditor general has gone down to the pension commissioners or to the minister's department and started an investigation as to the legality of the amounts awarded for pensions.


Murray MacLaren: With the pension commission.


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister say that the auditor general did not institute an investigation?


Murray MacLaren: It is the routine examination he makes in all departments. He does not come into the department to investigate as to the propriety of awarding pensions.


James Layton Ralston: He does not?


Murray MacLaren: So far as I know it is limited to the pension commission.


James Layton Ralston: I think the minister and I understand each other perfectly well; the department does not award pensions, it is the board of pension commissioners. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the auditor general or his representative has gone over the files to find out whether or not he considers a pensioner entitled to a pension. Will the minister tell me whether that is right?


Murray MacLaren: I think that is correct.


James Layton Ralston: I submit-I am speaking in the presence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie)-that that is an absolutely incorrect function of the auditor general. I submit that he has no more right to overrule a decision of the board of pension commissioners than he has to overrule the exchequer court if it decides that the crown is liable for the payment of a certain sum of money. The commission has the statutory authority, and it seems to me the auditor general has no jurisdiction whatever. This is one case

Supply-Pensions-European War
of reduction of pensions which has been referred to. I understand that the auditor general has gone over the files and stated that such and such a man received his disability before service, and suggesting that his disability was only an aggravation of a prewar disability and that, therefore, he was not entitled to the full amount, notwithstanding the fact that the statute awards such a man the full amount if he served overseas in a theatre of war. I submit that is one of the reasons why pensions have been cut.
I understand that some 70,000 files have been reviewed by the board of pension commissioners. The other night we had a statement to the effect that the records show that reductions had occurred in something like two or three thousand cases. In the face of that I do not see how the minister can say that pensions have not been reduced, even in view of the fact that there are more pensioners now through the restoration of a number of small pensioners.


Murray MacLaren: I did not say that.


James Layton Ralston: That is the impression
that was left on my mind. I am glad I spoke and have had that impression removed. There is no doubt that pensions have been reduced considerably in a great number of cases. I have had experiences similar to those of the hon. member for Gloucester. Just to-night I received a letter indicating that a parents' pension of two old people in my constituency had been reduced from $30 to $10. In another case two old people, not in my constituency, were receiving the munificent sum of $10 a month. The two boys of this father and mother are dead in France, so there is no question as to the connection between service and disability. They are now sleeping in Flanders fields, and these two old people are receiving $10 a month. I saw the file in this case. Someone had suggested that the award be $20 a month in respect of the death of the two sons, both of whom had assigned pay, but someone else had put a red ink line through the "twenty" and put down "ten." The case was finally re-examined the other day and they are now receiving $20. That is the kind of case the hon. member for Gloucester is complaining about, the case in regard to which it takes months to get recognition by the investigators. Many of these people are probably in a worse position and deserve more from the country than some men who are partially disabled. These particular two old people have lost their two sons and it seems to me that the country ought not to be ungrateful and should see that they and others similarly situated should 74726-1795
be provided with sufficient for their maintenance. I think the minister should look into the administration of dependents' pensions. As I understand it there is no appeal in the case of a dependent's pension unless it is on the question as to whether or not death was due to service. The question of the financial position of the applicant cannot be considered by the court of appeal; the question whether or not the son or sons would have supported the parents had they lived cannot be referred to the court of appeal; the question whether these parents have sufficient income to provide the necessaries of life cannot be referred to the court. I submit that these cases should be within the jurisdiction of the court of appeal because many of them constitute the most distressing cases with which we have to deal.
There is another matter which the minister and I have discussed before, the matter of the married cases. He will remember the other night when we were discussing this matter I intimated along with other members that I thought many of these cases could not be dealt with simply by reference to the Department of Justice. I intimated that there are cases in connection with which legislation would have to be passed, and I should like to know the position of the minister in connection with this matter. I understand that generally one does not forecast legislation, but it seems to me that the committee is entitled to know what the minister has in mind.


Hugh Guthrie: I should like to make a
statement with reference to the cases referred to by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth (Mr. Ralston). Up to April 28 there had been submitted to the Department of Justice, 163 married cases. My understanding is that there are some 570 in all to be submitted. Yesterday my deputy minister received a letter from the chairman of the pension commission stating:
The commission have forwarded to you quite a number of files with regard to the material status of pensioners. I am writing accordingly to let you know that the review of these cases will not be completed even by the end of the year. You may expect to receive each week about the same number you have been receiving in the past. It is quite probable that with regard to the out of Canada pensioners the review will not be completed until another year.
We have made a pretty careful review of the cases we have already received and they seem to resolve themselves into about four different categories, or perhaps five. After having examined them with some care, the question is, what are we going to do about
2830	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
them? Out of the 163 cases there are about thirty-three in which the parties have not shown good faith with respect to alleged marriages; that is the opinion of the law officers of the department. There are about sixteen that could be remedied for the future by the pensioner and his alleged wife going through a form of marriage, provided the Pension Act were amended to permit such marriage. There are about forty-three cases in which the onus of proof may lie with the pension commission, all parties having submitted evidence of a prima facie valid marriage; and in addition there are twenty-five cases which might possibly be considered in this class, making a total of sixty-eight.
Just what the ultimate action will be in regard to these cases I do not know. There are several suggestions, made by the law officers of the Department of Justice, which have not been fully considered and I have not had an opportunity of bringing them to the attention of the minister of the department and of my other colleagues in the government. I merely mention what I have to show the progress that has been made so far.


James Layton Ralston: I added together the numbers the minister gave, and I took the report to include 117 cases out of 163.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not desire to go into the various groups because we may have to change the wording somewhat. In group 1 there are twenty-five definite cases.


James Layton Ralston: Is the minister reversing the order? Twenty-five happened to be the last figure he mentioned a moment ago.


Hugh Guthrie: In subclause 1 of group 1 there are twenty-five; in subclause 2 there are nineteen; in subclause 3 there are three. There is some distinction between them all. In group 2 they have placed definitely sixty-three; in group 3, eighteen; and in group 3 (a) there are nine cases. In group 4 there are nine cases which may be increased to thirty-two in all. I think they have dealt now with the whole 163 and divided them into four groups, some of which have had to be subdivided owing to particular circumstances that have arisen.


James Layton Ralston: Accepting the minister's
reservation, that the wording may be changed, it appears that there are sixteen out of 163 in which a new form of marriage, provided the statute were amended, would meet the situation. In forty-three the onus is on the commission, from which I take it at this stage that the marriages are presumed to be valid. There are twenty-five more that might
[Mr. Guthrie.l
be in that class. That makes, out of 163, eighty-four altogether in which it would appear that the parties have merits. I understood the minister to say that in thirty-three cases a want of good faith was shown.


Hugh Guthrie: There are thirty-one in which the parties have not shown good faith with respect to the alleged marriages, in the opinion of the officers who examined the files.


James Layton Ralston: I have taken the position, to which I adhere, that the cases I am particularly interested in, whether I know the persons or not, are cases in which the parties have lived together believing they were man and wife, and where the community recognized them as such; they have discharged the duties and responsibilities of married life, taking care of the children and the man supporting the woman; and the money which the country has paid has been devoted to the purpose for which it was intended. If there are cases in which good faith does not appear then I should say that at any rate they are the last cases to be looked after. I hope however that the Minister of Justice can go further-I quite understand the work involved -and give us some idea as to what might be proposed. I realize that he went some distance the other night in intimating his opinion, which he was careful to say was not the opinion of the government, that legislation would have to be provided and that these cases of good faith ought to be looked after. I want to urge not only upon the Minister of Justice but upon the Minister of Pensions and the government as well the opinion that it is absolutely necessary, in decency and propriety, for this country to look after these cases. I do not believe we can afford to have the board of pension commissioners bastardize children or call people adulterers who have lived together in circumstances in which the community is recognizing them as man and wife. It is an unfortunate situation that has arisen, and we in this house should do all we can to correct it as soon as possible. That is all I say at the moment.
There is something else however which I want to say to the Minister of Pensions with regard to the way in which the undertaking given by the Prime Minister has been carried out, at least in some instances. I brought this to the minister's attention and I do not think he will want me to put it on record. The Prime Minister made a statement in this house, and I have every reason to accept his words absolutely at their face value because I believe he meant them. He said that those

Supply-Pensions-European War
pensions would be restored where they had been taken away without notice-in all cases. That will be found at page 538.


Hugh Guthrie: Did he say in all cases?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, he made no exceptions.


Hugh Guthrie: I understood that an arbitrary date was fixed-all cases arising since the 1st of February, 1933.


James Layton Ralston: I think the Minister of Justice is quite right in saying that there was such an understanding. I do not think it is mentioned in the Prime Minister's statement, but everyone understood that that was what he was referring to. I have therefore no objection to that reservation being made. But we were dealing particularly with marriage cases in which there was alleged invalidity of marriage, and other cases were included in which the pension had been reduced in cases where there should have been a hearing.


Mr. YENIOT:: I asked him if those were included and I understood they were.


James Layton Ralston: I believe the ex-Postmaster General asked the Prime Minister that and he received that answer. The other day I came across a case which made the hair stand up on the back of my neck a little. I found the board of pension commissioners writing back to a man who had had his pension cut off in order to repay alleged overpayments, and what they wrote him was that the Prime Minister's statement referred only to cases where there had been a marriage, "and in your case," they said, "there was not a marriage." I understood the Prime Minister's statement to refer to any case in which the cancellation or withholding of the pension was 'due to the question having been raised as to the validity of the marriage or as to the legality of the state in which husband and wife were living. Yet this officer of the board of pension commissioners writes back to say, "Well, the Prime Minister's statement referred only to marriages and did not have reference to your case, because there was no marriage." The point about the board of pension commissioners' objection to paying the pension was that the marriage was not valid; in other words, that there was no marriage. And they were saying, "In your case there was no ceremony and therefore the Prime Minister's statement does not apply." I brought the matter to the attention of the minister. I shall not give the name, but the minister has it. We found that he, an old man
living in Toronto, had sent in to the board of pension commissioners in 1917 a form setting forth the name and date of birth of the child, and1 that that had been acknowledged under date of October 18, 1917, by the board. On June 27, 1918, the board sent him this letter:
I have the honour, by direction, to return herewith your certificate of marriage, the same having been perused is no longer required by this commission.
They continued to pay him pension until 1932 or 1933, when they discovered that his wife had been married before. They asked for a statement as to the death of the previous husband, and, being unable to get it, cut off his pension and charged him with a lot of back pension. A reference to the file will show that what the man did was to send to them, in good faith and aboveboard, as he says, a statement of the facts: he told them he had not gone through a church marriage, but he had cuttings from a newspaper, "Answers to Correspondents" saying that under certain circumstances where parties constantly live together as husband and wife-called marriages of habit and repute-that is a good marriage. He had that from a newspaper, I think the Glasgow Herald. He also had a statement from the newspaper that promise of marriage followed by consummation on the faith of the promise was sufficient. He said that under these circumstances they considered themselves married. They had sent to Glasgow the report of the birth of their daughter in 1917, and enclosed a clipping showing the birth. He sent in the certificate he had previously forwarded to the board, which turned out to be the certificate which they had acknowledged in the letter I have just read and which apparently had been signed by the two of them, believing that that was sufficient to constitute a marriage. This was the paper acknowledged by the board as a certificate of marriage in 1918. They had accepted it; and if the Minister of National Defence were in his place I think he would appreciate this, because he brought up a case the other night of the board of pension commissioners having accepted proof of marriage for years and years and then repudiating it. They had accepted this, had gone on paying him, and then suddenly stopped his pension and claimed over payments. He wrote me a letter in which he said:
You will note wTe were married by consent and licence only.
And he said that they had been entirely aboveboard in connection with the whole
2832	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
matter, and had advised the board of pension commissioners that they did not go through a clerical ceremony. The board of pension commissioners, notwithstanding the undertaking of the Prime Minister, deliberately wrote to that man and told him in effect that the Prime Minister's undertaking did not apply to him. This is the letter, dated April 10, 1934:
Reference is made to your communication of April 2, referring to a statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister to the effect that all additional pension should be restored in cases where the validity of a marriage is in question. This refers only to persons who have actually contracted marriage.
According to the records of this commission you have at no time contracted marriage with the person with whom you are now residing and under such circumstances the commissioners have no authority under the act to award additional pension.
And this notwithstanding the fact that the board in 1918 had seen and acknowledged the certificate of marriage that he sent in at that time, and had been paying him ever since. My information from those who know this man in Toronto is that the community regard these people as man and wife; there has never been a breath of suspicion as to that, yet the board of pension commissioners not only refuse to recognize the marriage but even refuse to recognize the undertaking of the Prime Minister. It is annoying and irritating, when the Prime Minister has attempted to give this country and the ex-service men the assurance which he was honestly giving and which I know he fully intends to carry out, to have the board of pension commissioners writing chiseling letters of that kind to detract from the undertaking.


Hugh Guthrie: While one cannot say
definitely what was in the mind of the Prime Minister, from the language I heard him use my own judgment is that the case my hon. friend refers to is one of those which he intended should be included in the statement he made. But whether in his mind he would exclude a case of that kind I cannot say.


James Layton Ralston: The Prime Minister said on page 538 of Hansard:
Might I say to the hon. gentleman that the government has already determined, as I indicated in part this afternoon, that in all those cases where men's pensions were taken from them without notice, they should be restored. That has been decided. The method by which it is to be done, whether by legislation or otherwise, is a matter on which I ventured to ask the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) about to-day. I believe under the provisions of the Relief Act we may be able to accomplish it. It is proposed to be done if it can.

In most of the cases I know about, except these few, that has been done; the Prime Minister has found a way to do it. I need hardly say it is not the Prime Minister I am blaming. What I do complain of is this disposition to irritate people and be as niggardly as possible in connection with a matter as to which I think we should be fairly generous.


Murray MacLaren: May I clear up a few
of these points? First there is a difference of opinion about the date, February 1, 1933.


James Layton Ralston: Back to what date does the minister say the Prime Minister's undertaking applies?


Murray MacLaren: I am not submitting my view. I have said that these matters were referred to the Department of Justice.. I have drawn attention to the statements made by the Prime Minister in the house, and the Minister of Justice, so that an interpretation and decision may be given on that point. I have views about it, but I am not making the decision.
As to what is to be done, I believe that these marriage cases will finally-it is evidently going to take some time-be disposed of in a fairly satisfactory way. I have not said by legislation or by what means, but my present view is that this matter will be satisfactorily dealt with.
Meanwhile it seems to me that we are overlooking the condition at the present time. With only one or two exceptions that I know of, these cases are now receiving their pay and allowances. They are not suffering during the interval because their pensions have been restored and the arrears restored. So that while it is desirable to have the matter settled as soon as possible, in the meantime their pensions are being paid the same as they ever were.


Mr. NEILL:: If ultimately the decision is
against them, would they not have to repay the money?


Hugh Guthrie: That is an open question.


Murray MacLaren: I did not hear the
question.


Alan Webster Neill: Suppose when their cases are heard again the decision goes against them, will they be asked to repay the money they have received since their pensions were restored?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course they will.

* Supply-Pensions-European War


Murray MacLaren: That will have to be
determined later. I presume many of them would not be able to repay it in any case. But I am pointing out that the pensions are going on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In all
cases?


Murray MacLaren: With the exception of,
I think, one case, or two. Therefore do not let us overdo the grievance part, because the pensions are being continued until the matter is properly settled.
I want to refer to one or two other matters. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth was under the impression that I said that the reduction of pensions was due to the small pensioners being readmitted. I wish to correct that,, because I did not say it. What I said was that the average amount of pensions is reduced largely through the admission of those. I do not think the figures are of any great value, as I said before, but I am trying to meet the objections that are made by returned men and in the press. They frequently say the average is reduced, and I quite agree, but I say that in large measure, though not wholly, the explanation lies in the small pensions that have been granted in very large numbers, which naturally reduce the average amount. I believe if the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth will look into the figures he will agree with me.
There are many other factors, of course. The pensions may be reduced by the pension commission, though that is not a great factor in regard to the average. Another reason is that the very severe cases are dying off more rapidly, and some of the very large pensions are not being paid. The hon. member for Gloucester referred to the dependent whose pension was increased, and in whose behalf he had communicated with the board. I must be fair, and I must say that I do not think the pension commission are respecters of persons, so I do not believe the increase was due to the representations of the hon. member for Gloucester as such. He knew these people, as he said to-night, and I have no doubt he represented to the commission that he had personal knowledge. Is that not the sort of thing to which the commission should listen? I think it is.
There is only one other point, and that is in reference to assessments. There is no appeal in reference to assessments; they lie wholly with the pension commission. There are differences of opinion in that regard and I might as well tell you what my opinion is. I think it would be impossible for the administration of pensions to go on if there were appeals from assessments. There is enough difficulty now, and it would be increased I do not know how greatly if an appeal was permitted from each individual assessment.


James Layton Ralston: I only spoke of dependents' cases, which would be only a small portion.


Murray MacLaren: While there is no appeal -and I hope the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth will listen to me on this point- from assessments, whether with regard to dependents or returned men, there is substantially an appeal that is constantly made. That is by means of making further representations to the pension commission, whether by way of new evidence or new material of any kind, and assessments are increased when good cases are made out.


Charles Gavan Power: In beginning his remarks the minister made some reference to clearing up this question of the marriage cases. Without wishing in any way to be disagreeable I should like to point out to the committee that the minister has not cleared up the issue in any way. He started by saying there was some disagreement as to the date at which we should begin to review these marriage cases, but surely the minister would not wish to pin down the Prime Minister to any definite date. I would imagine, as I think every hon. member knows who listened to the Prime Minister, that the right hon. gentleman wished to go into all these cases where there was some discussion as to the validity of a marriage. I cannot conceive it to have been the intention of the Prime Minister that because some such case arose on January 25, 1933, it could not be taken into consideration but that another case that arose on February 1 could be considered. To my mind the minister does not do himself justice when he tells the committee that there is some difference of opinion as to when we should begin. Surely there is no room for difference of opinion if it is the policy of the government to review these cases and to examine into the bona fides of each case. I think perhaps the minister did not give sufficient consideration to that point when he referred to that difference of opinion.


Murray MacLaren: Yes, I said there was a difference of opinion.


Charles Gavan Power: And it was so serious that the minister in charge of the department, the man who is administering this department, would not express an opinion. I know his goodness of heart and I am quite sure that
2834	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
personally he would be of the opinion, that all these cases should be looked into, whether they occurred on January 1 or February 1, as from the date this review started and the board of pension commissioners took it into their heads to examine into the civil status and the morals of those who were in receipt of pensions.
I wish to appeal to the minister, to the committee and to the government, because probably this is the last occasion this session when this matter can come up, to pass legislation dealing with these cases. In this attempt to clear up the matter the minister says these people have no complaint, that they are drawing their pensions. There is no security in the world that- they will continue to draw their pensions. I do not know yet under what authority they are being paid now. It was suggested that they might be paid under the relief act, but I do not know under what authority they are being paid. In any case it is only a temporary expedient and cannot last beyond this session unless a special order in council is passed under the relief act. Even that will not give security to these pensioners; as my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni has pointed out, they are only getting deeper in the hole. You are paying their pensions now, but one, two or three months hence it may be decided by someone -I do not know by whom, because apparently there is no legislation to cover the case-that they are not entitled to these pensions, and they will only have to give back the money. The minister points out that these cases may take a year to review, and that those in foreign countries may take two years.


Hugh Guthrie: No; the pension board say they may not be able to send them over for a year.


Charles Gavan Power: That is worse still. The pension board say they may not get the cases to the Department of Justice for a year, but as one of my hon. friends points out, they must know a great deal about those cases. The pensions were cut off, and I have not the slightest doubt that they must have received a very large number of letters protesting against this arbitrary treatment. It seems to me there must be a certain amount of deliberate delay on the part of the commission. Anyone who will endeavour to split hairs-as the pension commissioners did in the letter just read by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, in which they say that because these people did not enter into a con-

tract of marriage their case does not come within the number mentioned by the Prime Minister-anyone who will take a step of that kind and write such an evasive letter will take a year or two years or five years, I have no doubt.


Hugh Guthrie: But they are being paid in the meantime.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, but what security have these people that they are going to continue to be paid? How do they know that if there should be a change of government and someone less big hearted than the Prime Minister came into power, they would be paid?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are begging the question.


Charles Gavan Power: Another prime minister
might say, "I am not bound by the decisions of a former prime minister"-because there are a great many of his decisions which I am sure would not bind hon. members on this side of the house. These pensioners have absolutely no security. They are not sure of getting the pension next month, the month after or the month after that. It seems to me that the only logical thing for us to do is to straighten out the whole matter by passing legislation at this session. I do not want legislation which will admit to pension people who are acting in bad faith. I have spent enough time on pensions in this House of Commons during the last sixteen or seventeen years, and so far as I know I have never endeavoured to bring within our pension legislation anyone who was not entitled to it.
Before taking my seat I should like to ask the minister whether or not any action was taken with respect to the Ouellette case. He will remember that last year the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth and myself drew his attention to a category of cases-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Disputed cases.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, seven disputed cases. One was that Skitch case, which has since been decided by the appeal court. Another was the Ouellette case, and I do not remember the others. I do know that we had a lengthy discussion in the house with regard to these cases, and the minister gave us the assurance that they would be taken up and something would be done about them. So far as I know the Skitch case was the only one which has been decided. I shall not take the time of the house to read the decision of the court of appeal, but in their observations and in their judgment their remarks respecting the

Supply-Pensions-European War
board of pension commissioners were far from complimentary. They said that these were cases which should never have been allowed to drag so long. The Skitch case began in 1923, and from that time dragged on through the courts. It ran between the federal appeal board, the board of pension commissioners, the tribunal, and the appeal court, year after year. Finally the man who was entitled to pension died, and his widow obtained the pension. The Ouellette case is somewhat similar. It was a case in which the board of pension commissioners challenged the jurisdiction of the federal appeal board. When the federal appeal board was challenged these cases were left in the air. Some went to the exchequer court, and that court sent them back to the pension appeal court. So far as I know nothing has been done with them and for ten years they have been hanging fire. I would suggest that the minister should get some information to give the committee on that point.
I wish also to support the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth in his observations with respect to the proceedings of the auditor general. I find in a report of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers problems which sat in 1930 that the members of the committee, of which the minister was one and the Minister of Railways and Canals was another, protested vigorously against any assumption by t'he auditor general that he could act as a kind of appeal court from the board of pension commissioners. At that time it was brought to the notice of the committee by the returned soldiers' organizations, by Lieutenant Colonel Lafleche and others that the auditor general had been going into the department and to all intents and purposes had been reviewing cases. The reference is to be found at page 179 of the report. At that time the intervention had not gone very far, but considerable indignation 'had been expressed by members of the committee. I regret to learn that the auditor general has taken it upon himself again to intervene in matters of pensions. It was pointed out before this committee, as has been pointed out to-night in committee of the whole house, that the auditor general does not interfere with decisions of the exchequer court or of the supreme court, and he has no more right to interfere with decisions made by the board of pension commissioners. The board of pension commissioners were appointed to act independently of parliament in rendering decisions. They were to act independently of the minister, and were supposed to have the widest possible powers to deal with matters of pensions. I protest against the auditor general trying to arrogate to himself the power to overrule decisions of what, after all, is the competent court to deal with such matters.


Murray MacLaren: I must confess that I
am not familiar with the Ouellette case, but shall make inquiries.


Charles Gavan Power: There are six other cases
in the same category.


Murray MacLaren: I know that the Skitch -case has been disposed of.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It has
not yet 'been disposed of.


Murray MacLaren: The hon. member for
Quebec South has said that I should give an opinion. I do not think I should. I have been doing just what the 'hon. member for Quebec South would have done if he had been acting under similar circumstances. What is the position? All these marriage cases are being referred to the Department of Justice and to the minister of that department for the purpose of obtaining an opinion. From that department an opinion will come. But can one suppose that the minister of the Department of Pensions should give an opinion of his own, in the meantime?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, certainly.


Charles Gavan Power: Certainly.


Murray MacLaren: Not at all.


Charles Gavan Power: Absolutely.


Murray MacLaren: It is impossible. The
matter has been referred to the Department of Justice, because the question as to legality or otherwise is one which should be decided by that department.


James Layton Ralston: The minister said not.


Murray MacLaren: It has been referred for that purpose, and in the meantime it is clearly my duty to wait until we have heard from the Department of Justice.


Charles Gavan Power: I will just say one word
in reply to the minister. He has asked me what I would have done. I would say to him that I would never have allowed this matter to come before the house. The very minute I heard that the board of pension commissioners were interpreting the Pensions Act in such way as to deprive people entitled to pensions of their just rights-people in situations such as have been described by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-and when I found that the board of pension commissioners were bastardizing people through-
2836	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War
out this country and stating that people who had been living together for years were living in adultery, I would have taken steps to meet the situation and to have legislation passed. That is what any other minister would have done; every time a ease came before him and he found he had no authority to act, when clearly the interests of justice demanded that the case should be dealt with, he came before the committee of the house, explained the case to the members, and in every instance the thing was passed unanimously. It is not the business of the Department of Justice; it is the business of the Department of Pensions and National Health, and the business of the minister of that department. If this act is being badly administered by the board of pension commissioners; if the board find that they have not the power to do thus and so, or if the act does not permit them to do thus and so, when it is brought to the attention of the minister, if it is a clear case of injustice such as this, it is his duty to come to parliament and get remedial legislation.


James Layton Ralston: Let me read what the Minister of Justice himself said:
I fully realize the difficulty which has been so well stated by my hoc. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), and at the present time I cannot see what advantage is going to result from a reference to the Department of Justice in regard to these cases.
The Minister of Justice realizes fully what the situation is. Let me press on the minister what is the remedy and what should be done.


Murray MacLaren: Which minister?


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of Pensions. He says that he is referring these cases to the Department of Justice. Let me suggest that he stop referring them to the Department of Justice and ask the Minister of Justice to do what he has done to-night, give him a cross-section of the cases already there. I think 160 cases will represent a fair sample of all the cases there are, and in those cases the Minister of Pensions will I think find type cases of every difficulty which has arisen. Then let the Minister of Pensions bring down legislation to cover the good faith cases, and he will not have to refer any more of these cases to the Department of Justice. He will get that legislation through parliament in a day or less than a day, for I know members on both sides will support it. That is the way, I submit to my hon. friend, to administer the department. I quite understand that he is not deciding for the board, but if the board say they want legislation, and if the

minister feels he is helpless and is simply referring these cases to the Department of Justice, let him take the board at its word and say: You want legislation; here it is. And it will be passed unanimously by the house. I say that the minister has all the information now, or can get all the information he wants in regard to these cases from the Minister of Justice. The minister nods his head.


Murray MacLaren: Not all of them.


James Layton Ralston: With deference I am not going to take that from the minister. He has thirty-one cases in which there is no good faith. He has sixteen cases in which a new marriage would cure the difficulty; forty-three cases in which the onus is on the commission, and twenty-five cases to practically the same effect. He has divided them into Group 1, Group 1A, Group 2 and Group 2A, with most meticulous care. He has an excellent cross-section now, samples of all the cases that can be submitted. Why not then have legislation? Why go through this pitiful procedure of filtering these cases through to the Department of Justice, and have the board make a laughing stock of us all by writing us letters to the effect: "We are sending you a few more cases to-day, and it will be the end of the year before we shall be finished, and after that we have to look after the cases which are outside the country." That is simply delaying the thing and making everybody look ridiculous. This is a case that demands attention. The Minister of Pensions and the Minister of Justice are right in saying that these men are receiving pensions at the present time except in the cases I have mentioned. The board can send out a notice to-morrow for these men to come up for review, and the minute they come up for review they can charge up to them the extra pension they have been paying them in the last few weeks since the Prime Minister's undertaking has been made good. The position in which these ex-service men are now is not the position in which the Prime Minister and the government want to place them. Why not deal with the situation man-fashion, and get it cleaned up? That is the reason we are asking the minister to give us some assurance now in regard to legislation because, as has already been mentioned, this is probably the last opportunity that we shall have of discussing pension matters unless a special occasion is made for the purpose, and we all want to expedite a matter of this kind in every possible way.

Supply-Pensions-European War


Mr. STANLEY:: I wish to refer to the
matter of the auditor general insinuating himself into the question of entitlement. What is the relation of the auditor general to the board in connection with entitlement? Has he the power to inject himself as a judge, an intermediate judge, as it were, into these cases, or has the board of pension commissioners requested him to come into the picture? I have had several of these cases brought to my attention, and in not a single case could I see where the auditor general could have any capacity to determine whether the claimant was entitled to the pension he was receiving. One particular case which is in my mind very distinctly is that of a soldier who returned disabled from overseas in 1918. He was granted pension immediately upon his arrival and received pension continuously ever since till early in 1934, for sixteen years or thereabouts after his return, when he was cut off because the auditor general stepped in and said he did not consider the man was entitled. When I mention the nature of the disability the minister himself will understand the difficulty in determining entitlement under those conditions. It is a case of double hernia, one of the most difficult and embarrassing cases which come before workmen's compensation boards in the provinces for determination.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit me? A disability of that kind is not in the table of disabilities, is it?


George Douglass Stanley: No.


James Layton Ralston: And it has to be assessed by a doctor's opinion?


George Douglass Stanley: Yes, and it was so assessed, but the auditor general, according to the communcation which was passed on to me, injected himself or some of his officials into the case and replaced the medical man, setting himself up as an authority on questions of this kind. As I said, it is one of the most embarrassing and difficult questions which experts and referees for workmen's compensation boards have to determine. Yet the auditor general decided promptly to cut the man off and he has received no pension since. Personally I think it was a piece of arrogant insolence or insolent arrogance for the auditor general to inject himself into a case of that kind in that way, and I would like to hear the minister say that so far as he knows the department had nothing to do with it. Certainly the board of pension commissioners should make certain that in respect to the question of entitlement at least, the auditor general should not replace the medical experts of the department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want to emphasize one point, and thait is that those of us on this side of the house would like to have the assurance from the minister to-night that the government will during the present session take definite action to ensure a permanent solution of this problem. Personally I appreciate, and I think everyone does, the action that was taken by the Prime Minister as indicated in his declaration of the thirteenth day of February, and I assure the minister that that action is appreciated by all the ex-service men throughout the dominion. But speaking for myself I do not so strongly appreciate the attitude taken by the Minister of Pensions. The Minister of Justice has been very candid in delineating the various cases coming before the Department of Justice, and I submit to the Minister of Pensions that he has now sufficient information in his possession upon which to base legislation for an immediate and permanent solution of this problem. I am not prepared now or at any other time to permit this item to go through until we have a declaration from the Minister of Pensions that it is the intention of the government to effect a solution of this problem by legislation, if necessary, during the present session. That is a fair statement of the situation. I think the minister can this evening get up and indicate to this committee that before this session is terminated the government will deal in a permanent way, by legislation if necessary, or otherwise with this very important problem.


Murray MacLaren: If a solution is not arrived at within a reasonable time, legislation will be introduced this session.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister give the committee an assurance that if a solution of a permanent nature is not reached during the present session, an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the matter even though this item is allowed to pass this evening? I do not wish to be deprived of the opportunity of raising the question and I want the assurance of the minister that we will have an opportunity some time before the session is terminated to discuss it in its entirety.


Murray MacLaren: I promise the committee that an opportunity will be given if it is found necessary again to raise the question.
2838	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-European War


Hugh Guthrie: We have reason to hope that a solution will be found in the very near future, but, as I intimated some weeks ago, it may be that we will have to resort to legislation. If that becomes necessary, we certainly shall do so.


Alfred Speakman: I am glad to hear the statements of the Minister of Pensions and National Health and the Minister of Justice. They obviate the necessity of my saying some things which I had intended to say. In common with other members of the committee, particularly with those who have worked on the pension committees from year to year during the last twelve to fourteen years, I have had many cases of this type drawn to my attention. As I read the statements of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister made some weeks ago-unfortunately I was not present in the house-I realize the difficulties referred to by the Minister of Justice. It may be that if the law is strictly interpreted, and the Department of Justice must do that, in many cases the decision will be against the pensioner, that is, that the marriages were not actually legal. I agree with the Minister of Justice that there are many cases where the marriages were not valid when considered according to the strict letter of the law, but in common decency and in common equity these cases should be treated [DOT] as though the marriages were valid. In many cases the parties thought they were married; they married in good faith. Sometimes a death was assumed or a divorce had been granted in another country which was not valid here. Legislation of some sort may be necessary in order to cover these points. I had intended bringing a few cases before the committee but I shall not do so in view of the promise made by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Pensions and National Health.
While I am on my feet I should like to add my word to what has been said as to the jurisdiction assumed by the auditor general. As has been stated, the committee of 1930 understood that it was the duty and responsibility of the auditor general to examine pension payments to make certain that the amounts paid conformed to the decisions rendered. But we found that the auditor general had constituted himself as a sort of appeal court to decide questions of entitlement, of diagnosis, as to whether a pension should have been granted or as to whether a disability was attributable. The committee resented this very keenly and I think the pension commissioners did also. It was our

understanding that in view of the strong expression of unanimous opinion, that practice would come to an end. I regret extremely that the practice still remains. As a matter of fact, I have had evidence that it still continues. I know of cases where pensions have been discontinued because such decisions have been made.
There is one other point with which I should like to deal, the policy of reductions in pensions. I wholly accept the minister's statement that it is not the policy of the government or of the department to reduce pensions. However, there is a firm conviction in the minds of a great many returned men, a conviction which I share after having perused many of the files and discussed many of the cases, that in many instances this is the policy of the pension commission. Two or three years ago whenever a pensioner appealed to me stating that his disability was increasing and his pension had become inadequate, I always made an effort to have a reboarding. I felt that as a result of a reboarding his pension would be increased, but during the past two or three years I have been very reluctant to advise a reboarding, no matter how obvious the case appeared to me. My experience and that of others has been that in many cases the reboarding ended in a reduction of pension no matter what was the condition of the man. Barring the weaknesses in relation to disputed marriages, I believe we have as good a pension act as there is in any country. I doubt whether it needs to be amended, but I do think a little more sympathetic consideration and wider interpretation should be given in many cases. As the result of the general feeling in parliament and the almost unanimous expression of opinion by the convention of returned men held here not very long ago, I hope some changes will be made along these lines.


James Layton Ralston: 
Murray MacLaren: Before the discussion
on this item concludes, and in order that there may be no misapprehension, I should like to say a word as to the auditor general. The auditor general was not invited to come to the department or to the pension commission and take part in arriving at decisions as regards disability and assessments. But it must be remembered that he has a duty in connection with the department and the commission, as he has with all departments. He goes beyond that, however; 'he is going beyond it, and personally I cannot concur in that action where I think he exceeds the functions we should consider sufficient and all that is justifiable. That is something I have recognized and I propose, so far as I am able, that the matter shall be taken up in responsible quarters to see what can be done.


Alfred Speakman: Can the minister tell
me how many public sittings have been held by a quorum of the new Canadian pension commission since the last amendment came into effect, and after the tribunal was dissolved? I ask that question because at the time that amendment was passed there was a difference of opinion as to the possibility of a commission of that size dealing adequately with public hearings. When the tribunals were in active service, four and five quorums were sitting at all times in different parts of the country, and it was doubted whether the commission would be able to deal with the situation. That is why I ask the minister whether he can give me the full number of public hearings held by quorums of the commission since the new act came into force.


Murray MacLaren: I have not the figures.
I think that question was on the order paper not long ago and the figures can be found. If not I know that they are obtainable and will let the hon. member have them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment relief, $2,100,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister leave one item open in his department?


Murray MacLaren: I am willing to leave
any item open if the hon. member will indicate one.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that you leave
unemployment relief, item 185, which is a large item.


Murray MacLaren: Very well.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the
understanding that we may discuss any item under it.
Item stands.
War veterans' allowances, $1,650,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: During
this session we have been criticizing several items in the department administered by the minister. I wish now to say a word of personal commendation with regard to the administration of the war veterans' allowance committee. Personally I can say that in a number of cases which I have brought to their attention I have received nothing but the greatest courtesy and consideration on behalf of those who thought they were qualified for entitlement under its administration. I wish to commend the committee heartily and especially its chairman for the wonderful work being done.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not quite sure that the sum devoted to it should not be increased. As I remember the discussions that took place in committee with respect to war veterans' allowances-and I know the minister must recall it-we were given the impression that for a number of years at least the amount expended on war veterans' allowances would increase. I got the impression at the time that there would be a rather steady increase until about 1945, as the returned soldiers reached the age of sixty and came within the purview of the act, but apparently it has not worked out that way-


Murray MacLaren: Yes, it has.


Charles Gavan Power: -and I should like to know what the explanation is.


Murray MacLaren: First of all may I say to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre
2840	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions-War Veterans
how pleasant it is to hear words of commendation with regard to an organization which I know is doing its work very well. The vote for last year and the present year as well may not indicate an increased expenditure, but the fact is that the expenditure has increased, and I shall be pleased to send the hon. member a statement showing the amount actually spent. I think he will see that there has been an increase. But there is something more than that, because I expect that I shall have to come to the house again for a supplementary estimate. I am advised by the committee that they expect me to put in a supplementary this year.


Charles Gavan Power: May I join with my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre in paying tribute to the manner in which the War Veterans' Allowance Act has been administered. I do so with perhaps greater pleasure in that personally I was one of those who, when this act was first introduced, did not believe it would work. I am pleased to admit that I had not a proper appreciation of how well a government board could function. The War Veterans' Allowance Act was introduced in 1930 by Doctor King, then Minister of Pensions and National Health, and I do not think any bill introduced during that session met such a storm of abuse and opposition. But strange as it may seem, it is perhaps the only piece of soldier legislation which has ever been put before this house during the past fifteen years that has been an unqualified success. The opposition of the day, and a great many on the government side, did not believe that the act could possibly operate properly. A good many of us did not believe in the principle of it. Before the committee objections were made against it. But, largely owing I think to the tact and ability it has shown and to the fact that it has been let severely alone, the board has received praise from all sides; I think there has hardly been a convention of the war veterans' associations or of the legion at which resolutions complimentary to this board have not been passed. I think we should say these things and give some credit to Doctor King on whose initiative the legislation was placed on our statutes. Doctor King was often severely criticized the same as the minister who is at present carrying on the affairs of the department; the opposition to his estimates was always very energetic, but I think it must be some consolation to him that he did put on the statute books one piece of legislation which is generally recognized as being sound.


Murray MacLaren: Perhaps when my distinguished predecessor was criticized it was

no more deserved than in the case of the present minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A home run.


Murray MacLaren: I am pleased to hear this said about my predecessor, because naturally I have seen a good many instances of the kindly and benevolent spirit in which he administered the department; it has been an example to me. Further let me say that this legislation I understand did not proceed from a committee. It is a valuable lesson to have that where one wants a great many things done well one should do them and not go to a committee. Then in reference to this allowance, there is a point which has not been mentioned but which comes under my observation: an advantage in connection with the war veterans' allowances is that it results in a decrease in the number of cases that go to hospital. It gives a comfort to them, and they prefer staying at home.


James Layton Ralston: I want to say a word regarding this act. I am expecting, and I think probably the minister is expecting, that it will not be long before the provisions of this act will have to be somewhat widened. The War Veteranss Allowance Act was designed to take the place of all the schemes and plans which had been put forward along the lines of soldiers' homes and care of soldiers and burnt out veterans, that is those suffering from something other than war disability, old soldiers whom the country did not want to see on the street. The principal provisions are, first, that any old soldier in need gets old age pension ten years earlier than other citizens; second, that a soldier who is permanently unemployable gets an allowance, and third, that one who is getting a small pension will have it supplemented. It is the provision as to "permanently unemployable" that seems to me may have to be extended before long. Whether a man is permanently unemployable depends of course on the judgment of medical men. But as they get older it seems to me the country will have to give much more attention to these men who have served overseas, who may not be suffering from war disability but whom the country wants to see taken care of. I would ask the minister and his officers to give consideration to the possibility of extending that provision, perhaps making it less rigorous as far as unemployability is concerned, with the idea of taking care of a greater number of men. It would be good business economically to do it; he will not have as many applying for hospital

Questions
care and meritorious or compassionate allowances if they are paid something from the treasury of the country and kept self-respecting.
I join with my hon. friends in what they have said in regard to the administration of the board. In my experience it has been uniformly good. That does not mean that all applications have been granted by any means, but that there has been sympathetic attitude and wisdom and soundness in the board's actions which has reflected credit on their administration and been most satisfactory to those interested in the problems of ex-service men.


Murray MacLaren: I may say to the committee that what the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth has just referred to in regard to the care of men with chronic disabilities, old soldiers, is being developed, and has been in course of development for the last few years. It is getting on slowly, not in the way of building soldiers' homes just now, but the men are encouraged to come into hospitals and make their homes there on a certain financial arrangement. When that becomes a little more recognized and developed I think it will mean that in the future there will be soldiers' homes for many of the men.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
Monday, May 7, 1934