Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house the annual report of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada. It will be recalled that a few days ago I laid an unrevised report on the table. It has now been completely revised by the board of grain commissioners, and is submitted herewith.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a petition to the house. In connection with my presentation I adhere to the rules laid down in standing order 68 which require me to give information as follows, first, to state the parties from whom it comes. My reply is that it comes from citizens in the province of British Columbia. Then, secondly, the number of signatures attached. There are approximately 1,400, but I am advised several hundred have not yet

Soldiers' Pensions

been received. Then, thirdly, I am to state the material allegations contained therein. Those can be briefly stated as follows: In February, 1932, the Dominion government changed certain regulations under the Old Age Pensions Act. One of those changed regulations has enabled the provincial board in British Columbia, who administer old age pensions in that province, to claim that they have the right to refuse a pension to anyone who, under the provisions of the Parents Maintenance Act of British Columbia, has not sued his children. The petitioners claim that such a condition is undesirable for three reasons: First, it is unnatural ; secondly, it is utterly useless, because often the children are not able even to support themselves and, thirdly, there is no money [DOT]with which old age pension applicants can sue their children.

Then, the prayer of the petition is as follows:

Therefore your petitioners respectfully urge that the said amendment shall be repealed immediately.

In justice to these people I should add that the petition is an entirely spontaneous expression of their own. I had nothing to do with the instigation of it, although I heartily agree with it.

On Friday last the house agreed to refer Bill No. 78 to amend the Pension Act, to a special committee, with power to report from time to time. The personnel of that committee has been arranged by the whips, and I therefore now move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes):

That the committee be composed of Messrs. Arthurs, Beaubier, Gagnon, Geary, Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), Power, Ralston, Ross, Sanderson, Smith (Cumberland), Speakman and Stewart (Lethbridge), and that the committee be given power to report to this house from time to time.

Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):

My name appears on the list without authority. I now ask that it be not placed thereon.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I

was told that the list had been arranged between the whips. However we can substitute another name to-morrow, if the hon. member wishes.

Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask

the Minister of Finance if he has any announcement to make in regard to the provision in the budget address dealing with pensions?

Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I rose at the same time as the hon. member for the purpose of making the announcement to which he has referred. With respect to the announcement contained in the budget regarding pensioners, who are in the employ of the government, it will be recalled that on March 24, last I made a statement which reads, in part, as follows:

Perhaps in this connection, however, I might be permitted to say one word, as there would appear to be some considerable misapprehension with regard to what is in the mind of the government in respect to pensions. The last thing in the world that we had in mind was any interference with the sanctity of the contract concerning pensions. Whatever merit there may or may not be attached to the suggestions contained in the budget speech with respect to pensions, it was never intended to interfere with pensions as such.

This will be found at page 3354 of Hansard. I may add further that it was never at any time contemplated that there should be any discrimination shown towards the returned soldier, especially as contrasted with what may be termed the civilian employee. On the contrary the whole proposal emanated from a desire to afford, during this period of distress, an opportunity to the returned soldier who served his country faithfully, but who, at the moment, finds himself, through no fault of his own, without either pension or employment, as contrasted with some of his comrades who, at the moment, receive a pension, and at the same time are given employment with the full salary attached to the position. To this course objection has been taken by representatives of the several returned soldier organizations upon two main grounds: First, that it would in effect, result in a violation of agreement or contract; and, secondly, would be taken as an example by other employers with detrimental results.

The whole position has been the subject of careful review at two conferences, the first held on March 24, and the second on April 19. At these conferences, the following were present, representing their respective organizations:

Major John S. Roper, M.C., K.C., President, Canadian Legion, British Empire Service League; Mr. J. R. Bowler, Canadian Legion, British Empire Service League; Mr. Richard Hale, representing Tuberculous Reference Section, Canadian Legion; Colonel W. C. H. Wood, Captain C. P. Gilman, Doctor P. B. Mellon, representing Army and Navy Veterans in Canada; Mr. Frank G. J. McDonagh,

Private Bills

representing Canadian Pensioners' Association of the Great War; Captain (Reverend) Sydney E. Lambert, Dominion President of the Amputations Association of the Great War; Captain E. A. Baker, M.C., representing the Sir Arthur Pearson Club of Blinded Soldiers and Sailors; Mr. Richard Myers, representing Amputations Association of the Great War.

After full discussion it was agreed that there would, for the present, be no interference with the existing procedure, but it was agreed:

1. That any consideration of a general readjustment of the rate of pensions should be postponed until the next session of parliament.

2. That an amendment shall be made to the Income War Tax Act providing that pensions shall be subject to income tax.

3. That on and after May 1, 1933, there are to be no additions of dependents to the list of those who are eligible, or who may become eligible for pensions.

I desire further to announce that, as a result of extreme care in reviewing existing pensions, it is believed that while affording full protection to those who are justly entitled to pension, certain irregularities which have arisen through misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or otherwise, on the part of certain applicants will be remedied, and that this course will effect a substantial saving for the treasury.

In conclusion may I express on behalf of the government our appreciation for the generous cooperation we have received from the representatives of the above-named service organizations, and for the fair and reasonable manner in which they carried on their discussions and made their representations on behalf of the members of their several organizations.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Mr. Speaker, I see in the Montreal Gazette a statement that the unemployed who are being sent to Valcartier camp are being selected by my genial friends the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell), the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan), and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). I would like to ask my right hon. friend whether it is the policy of the government to give the privilege of selection to members of parliament, and whether it is exclusively given to members sitting on the other side of the house?

Mr. Speaker, I may say that the hon. gentleman may be quite sure we will select very good men in any case. But I am personally not able to answer his question. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) is not here to-day but I expect he will be to-morrow. '