Explain.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Mr. Speaker, I do not

think the Senate amendments would fail of being carried if the Minister of Justice spoke in favour of them.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

The Senate has made

quite a number of amendments to the bill. Although I do not agree with most of them, I think the best way is to concur and move their adoption. The amendments are as follows:

Section 4, imposing a penalty in respect of advertising, printing, posting or selling intelligence on horse races, is struck out.

Section 7, carnally knowing any girl between fourteen and sixteen, is struck out.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

What is the effect of

that? .

Mr. LAPOINTE:

We* struck out the

words " of previously chaste character " which appear in subsection 2 of section 301. The Senate has reinstated them.

Section 8, making it an indictable offence for an agent to make false returns on the sale of goods, is struck out.

'Section 11 is struck out. This imposed a penalty for the use of the word " royal " without authority. I think many members of this House will thank the Senate, for they strongly opposed it in committee.

Another section restored to the attorney general the right of appeal in criminal matters on points of law, and the Senate has declined to accept this amendment, which I thought was a perfectly proper amendment.

Mr. CALDWELL:

What is the effect of

the non-acceptance of the amendment?

Mr. LAPOINTE:

It leaves the code as it

has been since an amendment was enacted three years ago instituting the right of appeal

Pension Act

in criminal matters in favour of the accused. Previously the crown had the right of appeal on a stated case, but the prisoner had no such right; now the prisoner has the right and the crown has not. That looks really ludicrous. I thought it had been an oversight two years ago, but the Senate still insists on withholding this right from the crown.

There was a clause which I had given notice of when the bill was first considered in committee here, with regard to cruelty to animals. Apparently when the bill was read the third time the clause had not been inserted. The Senate has inserted it, and properly so.

The Senate has also inserted two minor amendments to the clause dealing with agricultural fairs. They have amended subsection 6 of section 5 by adding the following as paragraph (f):

(f) the distribution by lot of premiums given as rewards to promote thrift by punctuality in making periodical deposits of weekly savings in any chartered savings bank.

I do not see any crime in it myself, and I am quite willing to accept this amendment. The following is also added as paragraph (g):

(g) bends, debentures, debenture stock or other securities, recallable by drawing of lots and redeemable with interest and providing for payment of premiums upon redemption or otherwise.

It appears that the partial redemption of bonds is provided for before the due date either by means of a redemption fund or in some other manner, and it is stipulated that a draw shall be made and the trustee will pay to the holders of the bond whose numbers have been so drawn. There is nothing wrong about it, and I am quite in agreement with the Senate amendment in this respect. I therefore move concurrence.

Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. BELAND:

It is not a regular money

bill. A body constituted by parliament has the exclusive power of awarding pensions, and payment can be made by parliament only after such award is made. The Senate have decided not to insist upon two of the three amendments to which I have referred, but to insist upon the amendment they made to the clause regarding appeal. I read in the Montreal Gazette of this morning a report which unwittingly ill-describes the situation. It is represented in that report that the Senate agreed to insist only upon the amendment which it had made to the pension bill prohibiting the granting of pensions in cases where disability was to be traced to misconduct. That is not the situation as it exists. We have never attempted to prohibit payment of pension to men whose disability was to be traced to misconduct. What we attempted to do was to provide an appeal for all those men who on that ground were refused a pension. A decision on the part of the Board of Pension Commissioners not to grant pension on the ground that the disability was due to misconduct is tantamount to saying that the disability was not attributable to war service, and in all other cases where the decision is that the disability was not attributable to war service there is the right of appeal. The Justice department has given the opinion that where the Board of Pension Commissioners decide that the disability was due to misconduct and that therefore no pension can be awarded, there is no appeal, and we had provided in the bill for such an appeal. The Senate has chosen to insist on its amendment. I do not propose to move for a conference at this late hour; I do not think that any useful purpose can be served by it. The Senate acted in full cognizance of the whole situation and circumstances. I can only express regret that at least for a few months more the men who have been turned down on this ground and who feel that they have been unfairly dealt with will be precluded from entering an appeal.

Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, in the Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, June 25, there is the following under "Notices of Motions and Questions":

The Acting Minister of Finance-on Saturday next: - bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924".

Superannuation Act

If I may have a unanimous consent, I should like to have this bill put on the order paper and if possible put through. I will explain the reason.

Mr. SPEAKER:

By leave of the House,

and its unanimous consent, Mr. Robb moves, seconded by Mr. Graham, for leave to introduce Bill No. 239 to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. ROBB moved the second reading of the bill.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I do not know anything about the bill, and I want it understood that its second reading in no way binds me. I would also point out 'that this bill was not mentioned in the list of items of legislation to be brought down, and it comes as a surprise.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It was too

small for that.

Mr. ROBB:

This bill has been requested by representatives of the civil service. Under the Superannuation Act of last year they were given until the 19th of July of this year to elect whether or not they would come under that act. They now ask that the time be extended for another year, and all we are doing is to substitute "two years" for "one year". The bill is introduced to meet their wishes. I am not pressing it* if there is any objection.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That is not a very illuminating attitude-

Mr. SPEAKER:

Perhaps the discussion

had better take place when we go into committee.