Mr. POAATER:

I do not know that we can do any better than we have done. We have sent these cases to Doctor Penfield and to the Toronto psychiatry institute. I am not a medical man, as my hon. friend knows, but I do not think there ever has been a case where we have refused anything like a reasonable demand for treatment either in our hospitals by our own people or by experts outside. But I am sure my hon. friend knows of the very large number of people who just happen to have that mental slant, who are Derfectly normal in every other way but who have a fixed idea, a persecution complex, that they are not getting that to which they are entitled from the pension department, from the government, or from society. It is not only soldiers-

Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings):

Mr. PORTER:

That is what I expected the Prime Minister to say with reference to the Haggart case, but that is the reverse of what this parliament did. The facts as disclosed before parliament in that case did not constitute an offence in the first instance in the opinion of the House, and an investigation was refused. In this case however the facts do constitute an offence in the opinion of every hon. member of the House who has voted for the investigation.

Mr. PORTER:

What charges do you say I did not prove? I used the words "cash" and "legals" synonymously. There is no difference between the two. Cash is legal tender, and cash is legals; I used them synonymously, and in no other sense whatever, and I proved that $4,050 was taken out of the bank in cash.

Mr. PORTER:

Mr. Speaker, upon reflection I feel quite satisfied that the course suggested by you is well advised. The intention of my amendment was identical with what you have expressed, but perhaps it was not aptly worded to carry out that intention. I will ask another member to move an amendment in proper form so as to comply with the rules.