Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, a certificate of the election and return of Ernest Lapointe, Esquire, for the electoral district of Quebec East.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Mr. .Ernest Lapointe, member-elect for the electoral district of Quebec East, who has taken the oath, signed the roll and now desires to take his seat.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let the hon. member take his seat.



COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.


Hon. JAMES CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved:: That the report of the Special Committee appointed on the 18th day of September last, to which was referred Bill No. 10, to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act and the Orders in Council relative to the work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment which were laid on the table of the House on the 16th day of September for the consideration thereof, and of all matters pertaining thereto, which was presented to the House on the 31st day of October last, be received, and that the expenditure recommended therein, or which would be required for carrying out the recommendations therein, be commended to the consideration of the Government.
For full text of the report of the Special Committee see House of Commons Journals Addendum to Votes and Proceedings, No. 43, of date Friday, October 31, 1919.
He said: The report which was tabled last Friday is a somewhat lengthy one, probably an unusually lengthy one for a document of this kind. I am sure, however, that all the members of the House recognize that the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 10, had a very difficult and complex problem to deal with. In any event, after the committee had completed its work, it came to the decision that, owing to the nature of the problem and the widespread interest that is taken in it, it would be advisable for the committee to set forth its views and find-

ings at length in order that the members of the House as well as those in the country who are interested in the problem, might be able to get a fairly comprehensive grasp of the subject under consideration. I think the House will agree that in that, respect the committee took the proper course.
At the outset of my remarks, I desire to clear up a certain misapprehension that exists, not in this House but outside of it. The view was represented to us in the committee on several occasions that this matter would not come before Parliament; that the committee would itself decide the problem that was under consideration. The returned men who are interested in this question which the House must consider, are not acquainted with Parliamentary procedure, and they had an idea that because this problem had been referred to a committee, the finding of that committee would be final and decisive, and binding upon Parliament. For the information not of the House, but of those outside of the House who are interested in this question, I wish merely to state what every hon. member knows, namely, that the report or the committee is not binding in any sense upon Parliament. The committee was simply appointed to inquire into the question that was referred to us by Parliament for a report to Parliament. That we have done. We have come to our conclusions; the findings and recommendations of the committee are contained in the report, and it is now for Parliament itself to decide whether or not the recommendations which we make shall be approved.
Those who approached us on behalf of the men were very desirous that this question should be threshed out in Parliament, and that an opportunity should be given for every member of the House to express his views. That, of course, is being done by this motion which I have moved, which will give every hon. member the right to express his views on this question; and if such be deemed necessary 'by any member of Parliament, the resolution itself may be voted upon, suggestions may be made as to amending our report, the report itself may be rejected and should it be deemed [DOT] advisable, the House may recommit the report to the committee in order that it may consider any other phase of this question or any decision that has been reached, in any way that Parliament thinks fit.
As regards the committee itself, there was no inclination upon the part of any member to shirk his responsibility. All the
members of the committee approached the problem which we had under consideration,
I think I may say, earnestly, sincerely and fearlessly. They had but one end in view, and that was to get at the facts as far as it was humanly possible to do so; to place their views before Parliament; to give to Parliament the results of all their deliberations and considerations, and to leave to Parliament itself the ultimate decision as to what should be done in connection with the various suggestions that came to us regarding the problem of the re-establishment of the returned soldier in civil life.
The Government itself is not without re sponsibility; it has in connection with this certain responsibilities which it must assume, and it cannot shirk those responsibilities. Before we are through with this discussion, the Government, as a government, must state to Parliament very distinctly and clearly what its position is in reference to the matters of policy which will1, be under consideration. The Government must do that, and it must take the responsibility for any decision which it may reach.
As regards what may be considered as the main finding of the committee, that is that there should be no further general distribution of grants or gratuities, the Government has come to a very definite conclusion, and that is: that it does not agree to any proposal that there should be a further general distribution of grants or gratuities. If the majority of the members of this House think otherwise, if it is the view of this Parliament that there should be a further general distribution of grants or gratuities to all of the ex-members of the forces, then there i3 but one thing for Parliament to do, and that is to say so very clearly and plainly. And if Parliament comes to that conclusion, then there is only one course, and that is that some other administration must carry on.
I am not saying that as a threat; I am not saying it to influence any member in this House or to affect his vote in the slightest degree. This is an important question of policy upon which the Government has had to come to a conclusion. If the majority of the members of the House think that that position is not right, there is but one course to follow and that is to have placed in power an Administration that will carry out the will of Parliament in that regard. I wish to make that perfectly clear in order that there shall be no misund e rstanding.
In speaking to the motion I shall endeavour to speak clearly and plainly. I do-

not wish to sidestep in any way or to camouflage the issue. As chairman of the committee, I consider it my duty to place the problem fairly and squarely before Parliament in order that Parliament may be in a position to reach whatever decision is in its judgment the proper one in connection with the problems, we have under consideration. Although I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, I am afraid that on account of the character and complexity of the problem and the mass of evidence we took my statement will be a somewhat lengthy one, and I must therefore ask the House to be indulgent while I explain the situation as concisely as possible.
With regard to the reference to the committee, only a word need be said. It will be found on page 3 of the report. One of the first things the committee had to decide was whether the reference was wide enough to enable us to consider any and all suggestions that came to us with regard to the problem of re-establishment. Finally, the committee came to the conclusion that the reference was sufficiently wide for that purpose, and as a result we stood ready and prepared at all times to receive any suggestions from any quarter that would enable us to deal intelligently with the problem of the re-establishment of the soldier in civil life. Regardless of the actual wording of the' reference, I am certain the House will agree that the committee came to the proper conclusion in that regard. If there had been any attempt at blocking evidence or shutting out suggestions of any kind, I think it would have been most unfortunate. I am certain that Parliament will agree that we did the proper thing in widening the inquiry in order that any returned man, any association or organization throughout the country, and any member of Parliament could appear before the committee and place before it any suggestions they desired to make in connection with the problem under consideration.	[DOT]
Just a word with regard to the work of the committee. It was anticipated that Parliament would have prorogued some two or three weeks ago. Consequently we felt it was our duty to have the inquiry completed in good time without, however, shutting out any evidence or suggestions from any quarter, in order that Parliament would have ample time to discuss the report. For that reason, in the early stages of the inquiry the committee sat practically continuously, morning, afternoon and night. We had in all something like fifty sessions and we even were obliged to sit on the Sabbath 1  *
once or twice in order to get our work completed. About seventy witnesses were called, and the printed evidence comprises something like a thousand pages. We had a stream of telegrams, petitions, resolutions and letters from all over the country, all of which had to be considered and dealt with by the committee. From what I have been told, I doubt very much if there has been any Parliamentary committee in recent years that has had such a volume of work thrown upon it in such a short time. I mention this mainly for the purpose of thanking, as chairman, the members of the committee who attended so regularly and gave their very best attention to the work. All the members of the committee were in constant attendance, and I think all who followed our proceedings will agree that ou-work was carried on harmoniously and without any friction.
As to the report itself, it was deemed advisable to arrange it in convenient form for Parliament. It will be found to contain eleven parts, and an appendix containing four parts. These various parts have their headings and subheadings, and the paragraphs have been numbered for easy reference. The first ten parts of the report set out in detail the problems that confront the committee. They indicate the scope and character of the inquiry, and include the facts upon which the findings of the committee were based. All of our recommendations and the findings will be found in Part XI. As to the appendix, the first part sets out just as it was presented to the committee the general plan of re-establishment submitted to us by a committee representing the Great War Veterans' Association. The second part contains the financial statements submitted to the committee by the Deputy Minister of Finance and Mr. Breadner, Chief Commissioner of Taxation of the Finance Department. The third part contains two very interesting documents. We finally found it necessary to write officially to the Minister of Finance asking him to place before us definitely and clearly the financial commitments of the Government for the present year and the probable commitments for the next financial year. That will be found in Part III of the appendix. It was also deemed advisable by the committee to include in the appendix the evidence in toto given by Sir Thomas White, who acted as Minister of Finance during the entire war period.
I must ask the indulgence of the House while I run briefly through the first ten parts of the report. I do this because I take it for granted that all th; members of

the House have not probably read the report as closely as they may later, because it has only been available for a day or so and we have been very busy in this IJouse during the last twenty-four hours. Part I which contains the reference to the committee, I need not dwell upon. Part II, which gives a list of the witnesses called, and the various soldiers and organizations that appeared before us, and so forth, tells its own story.
The members of the House will find Part III exceedingly interesting because it endeavours to set forth briefly and concisely the work of re-establishment carried on in the past by the various departments of the Government.
I venture to s.ay that members of Parliament have very little conception of the work that has been done in the line of civil re-establishment during the past two or three years and of the cost of that work. At any tate, it was a revelation to many of the members of the committee. As I say, this part describes somewhat in detail the character and volume of that work, and I would commend to every member of the House this section of the report in order that he may make himself familiar with what has already been done and what is to be done.
Part IV describes at length the proposed post-war work of the Patriotic Fund, which was an organization created during the earlier stages of the war. It collected in various ways from the people of Canada sums of money aggregating in the neighbourhood of $48,000,000, and when the armistice came it had on hand somewhere about seven and a half million dollars. It will be remembered that at the last session of Parliament a Bill was introduced to amend the Patriotic Fund Act, in order that it might carry on certain classes of p>ost-war work, and in this section of the report will be found a description of the work proposed to be carried on by that body. That work is confined to assisting the families of the returned men; not-the soldiers themselves but their dependents. I shall not take up the time of the House now in any attempt to describe it, because it. is fully set out in this part of the report. The nature of the work to be carried on is indicated, as are also the various classes to be assisted, the conditions under which such assistance is to be given, and the amount, of assistance in each case.
Part V of the report is also very interesting, as it sums up all the suggestions that reached the committee in reference to
improvements in or extensions of work now being carried on by various departments of the Government. These suggestions have reference to the vocational work carried on by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, such as the treatment of men who have been discharged and who are in hospitals or other institutions under the care of that department, There were certain suggestions as to modifications or ^extensions in the provisions made in the past in regard to certain gratuities. Suggestions were made as to pay allowances by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the question of giving free clothing to certain patients, and other details of that character.
Part VI will be found to contain another series of suggestions that reached the committee with reference to new benefits which the ex-soldiers do not now receive-new classes of work to be undertaken, such as making provision whereby returned men may receive loans or grants for housing, apart from the general provision that was made for housing last session by which loans were made to the provinces. There were also suggestions as regards life insurance, loans for one-man businesses, grants to university students, and in regard to new schemes that are not being undertaken by any of the departments at the present time.
Now we come to part VII, which is a very important section of the report. It will be found to contain three general schemes for re-establishment that reached the eommi'tr tee. Throughout our whole inquiry those who represented the, soldiers' organizations before us maintained that any policy adopted for re-establishment should he of such a character as to reach every member of the forces. I think I am stating the situation squarely and fairly. I am speaking now of the three general plans for re-establishment- that reached our committee, and I repeat that throughout our whole inquiry it was held that any plan that would not practically reach every one of the men would not be satisfactory.


Major ANDREWS:: May I ask my hon. friend if the plans submitted by the Great War Veterans did not, in addition to that, state very clearly, "in case of need, or actual need?"


James Alexander Calder: What the hon, gentleman says is perfectly true.


Mr. McMASTER:: We could not hear the hon. member's question. Will the minister be kind enough to repeat it?
iTsa


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman's
point is that the Great War Veterans' representatives pointed out to the committee that their plan applied only to those who actually needed assistance. That is quite true. But during our examination we had the greatest difficulty in ascertaining what was meant by actual need, and when the matter was traced down to its finality, as it had to be traced, I think I am right in saying that practically every member of the committee agreed that actual need would not be very difficult to establish. Consequently the propositions as they came to us and as they were viewed by the committee were of such a character as to imply that any general proposals adopted by Parliament that would not reach practically every returned man would not be satisfactory to the men themselves. This was the view that was expressed. It was intimated that not a few but all of the men had suffered loss or hardship, either mental, physical, or financial, and that all should be reached if any attempt was to be made to re-establish the men in civil life. It was not a question of aiding the few. We received suggestions, for example, regarding university students, and it was also suggested that the mortgages which some men had on their places were a considerable burden which they should be assisted in lifting. We received suggestions to the effect that certain of the men had contracted debts which were also in the nature of a burden, and that assistance should be lent in this respect. Suggestions were made that pensions should be increased, and so on all along the line-various suggestions as to the form that re-establishment might take. But, I repeat, it was not represented to our committee that this, that, or the other suggestion should be carried out, but that they should all be adopted in order that the men might be properly re-established in civil life. It was held that the distribution of gratuities already provided for, which we ascertain now will total some $153,000,000, does not meet the requirements and that further grants or gratuities for all these various purposes are necessary and should be voted. It comes to this, Mr. Speaker, that those who represent the Soldiers' organizations in Canada, Mr. Waistell, who represented the G.W.V.A., Mr. Flynn who claimed to represent the large body of soldiers throughout Canada, both worked along practically the same lines although differing materially in detail. They endeavoured to devise plans whereby the State would approve of an arrangement for general cash grants or gratuities to all returned men. Their schemes varied, and they varied very radi-

cally in detail, but nevertheless they reached the same goal.
In so far as the G.W.V.A. proposal is concerned, the cost represents something in the neighbourhood of $400,000,000 while that of Mr. Flynn represents $1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars). Both are based upon the plan of a general distribution to all with the proviso that in the case of the G.W.V.A plan, actual need had to be established.
What was Mr. Flynn's proposal? He suggested that the state should raise the money and set aside sufficient to pay every man who had seen service in France $2,000; every man who had gone no farther than England $1,500 and every man whose service was in Canada, regardless of the length o,f that service, $1,000. Under this suggestion, if a man came into the force a day, or two days, or a month, before the armistice he was entitled to $1,000 while men who had seen service in Canada for two, three, or four years, would be entitled to the same amount, $1,000. Under Mr. Flynn's plan no regard was to be paid to the length of the service but only to the place of service. A man who went to France in 1914 and returned the same year, and a man who went to France in 1915 and returned the same year would be entitled to $2,000; whereas, if a man went there in ,1914 and stayed until the end of the war, he would also be entitled to only $2,000 and so on. I need not go over the details; the members of the House followed the proposal made and generally understand the details of it.
Mr. Flynn, in his evidence, admitted, I think, fairly and frankly, that if his scheme were carried out it would contain many discrepancies and inequalities. About the only reply he could give was that the men had considered the whole thing, that they had discussed all these details, that they had realized that these inequalities existed but that they wanted this plan adopted and that therefore it should be adopted regardless of any inequalities or discrepancies in that connection.
According to Mr. Flynn's evidence, the cost of carrying out his proposal would be between $500,000,000 and $600,000,000. Mr. Cox, one of the officials of the Department of Militia and Defence who has had a great deal to do with the payment of existing gratuities was called on to give evidence and he estimated that if Mr. Flynn's proposal was carried out it would cost the country over $1,000,000,000 and that the

annual interest charge thereon would be somewhere in the neighbourhood oi $55,000,000.
Under his proposal Mr. Flynn suggested that the men should be handed the money; that they should be permitted to do as they pleased with it and that there should be no attempt at control in any way. He further suggested that all classes of work now being carried on by the Government should be abandoned, that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, which has been responsible for taking care of the disabled soldiers, should cease its operations. He also suggested that the Soldiers' Settlement Board should stop its work. He took the ground that in order to deal with all the men on an equality in so far as these matters were concerned the best and the most equitable way was on a basis of a cash grant, on' the understanding that that settled it and that the country should wash its hands of any further responsibility.
I think I have stated his views generally, correctly to the House.
In reference to the G. W. V. A. plan, in many important details it differed from that proposed by Mr. Flynn. In the first place, they would not disturb the work that is now being carried on. They would improve it; they would extend it; they criticise certain features of it but they would not abolish it. In the second place, they suggest that after it is ascertained what amount each man is entitled to, he should not be permitted to get more than $500 in cash. They claim that he should be paid $500 now if he is entitled to it, because of actual need and on account of present necessities. They take the ground that in so far as the balance is concerned, the Government should create a board with branches in the various provinces to see that the balance would go for some form of re-establishment, by which they meant some housing scheme or' some business the man wanted to go into, to care for any mortgage that is on his place, to buy tools and equipment, to look after life insurance, or any of the other forms of assistance that would be desirable, including any payment that he might want to make upon any lands secured from the Soldiers' Settlement Board. * In that respect their plan differs very materially from that presented by Mr. Flynn. The basis of the plan submitted by the representatives of the G. W. V. A. is this: They take the ground that * the basis for any grant or financial assistance to which any man should be entitled should he his place of service and^ the time
of enlistment, and that there should be taken into consideration as well the fact as to whether he was a combatant or not.


Mr. BURNHAM:: At page 56 of the report in regard to the G. W. V. A. proposal it is stated:
Your Committee feels that while these proposals were conceived with the very best ot intentions the practical working out of the same would result in many grave discrepancies and inequalities that would give rise sooner or later to further demands to remedy same.
If the Government were guaranted by the G. W. V. A. against further demands to remedy the same would the Government consider that .the G. W. V. A. proposal to which this paragraph refers would be acceptable?


James Alexander Calder: I doubt very much if the G.W.V.A. could give any guarantee of that kind. The point is this: You and I have served; you have served under certain conditions for a certain length of time and in a certain place; under the scheme proposed you get a certain grant, certain gratuity, certain financial assistance; I do not get the same; my service, from my point of view, may have been just as valuable as yours; any decision that you, or those associated with you, may come to in so far as my case is concerned will never be satisfactory to me, and I am going to continue the demand that I be treated fairly, properly and justly in comparison with all others. I am sure the hon. gentleman gets my point. Their plan-I am speaking of the plan of the G.W.V.A.-differs from Mr . Flynn's plan in this<-that it would not provide any financial assistance for any man who has served in Canada for a period less than six months. Now, as an illustration of the working out of this plan, I would like to direct the attention of-the House to page 57, paragraphs (c) and (d), of the committee's report, and I think it would be just as well to read these paragraphs in full, because it illustrates the point raised by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burnham). These are the paragraphs:
(c) As an illustration of the working out of the proposed plan and as an indication of one of the principles upon which it is based, provision is made whereby all men who saw service in France in any particular year-
Not length of service, be it noted-
-would be entitled to the same financial assistance or grant regardless of the length of their subsequent service or the date upon which they returned to Canada. To put the proposal concretely : three men joined the forces in 1914; one is retained in Canada during the whole period of the war on necessary military duty;-

We had to carry on at home as well as overseas. A certain establishment was required here. It has been represented to me, for example, that at Halifax some hundreds of men were retained on necessary military duty, forced to go down there, probably against their will. They simply had to stay there and do whatever duty was cast upon their shoulders. To come back now to the quotation:
-the two others proceed to England in 1914; one of these reaches France in 1914; the other in 1915; the one sent to France in 1914 returns to Canada in 1915 and is discharged ; the other who went to Prance remains there to. the end -of the war.
That is, during the years 1915, 1916, 1917 ' and 1918:
Under the proposal made, the man who remained in Canada on service during the whole period of the war would he entitled to $375 ; the man who saw service in France, returned to Canada and was discharged in 1915, would he entitled to $2,500, and the man who reached France in 1915 and saw service to the end of the war would be entitled to $2,300.
The claim is put forward that because a man saw service in France in the year 1914 he should get $2,500, if he only served during that year-that he needs it, he actually needs it for re-establishment work-whereas the other man who went to France in 1915 and remained during the whole balance of the war and came back in 1919 should only be entitled to $2,300. Or, take the case of a man in Canada-a man who may have enlisted, we v.ill say, somewhere in Western Canada-who was brought into the force under military control, and had to go away- he was ordered to go, we will say, to Halifax -away from his home, away from his family, and stayed there during the whole period of the war. That man would only be entitled to $375. Well, I say again, that while the Great War Veterans' Association, or the officers of the Great "War Veterans' Association might be prepared to make a statement to the effect that if their plan were carried out they would guarantee that there would be no further demand, I am quits sure the House will see that every man who considers he is unjustly or unfairly treated in a matter of this kind is not going to let the question rest notwithstanding the guarantee that might be given by any body. Just so long as he considers he has been unfairly, inequitably and unjustly dealt with, in comparison with his companion, he is going to continue to demand from the Government fair treatment-just as good treatment as any other man has received.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: Might I ask if the plan the minister is now criticising wasrilr. Colder.]
turned down for the reason mentioned, or was it because of any other reason?


James Alexander Calder: The fact that these inequalities existed and that this discrimination appeared is only an incident. I will come to the question which the hon. gentleman raises just in a moment. Now the estimated cost of the plan submitted to us by the committee representing the Great War Veterans' Association will be found on page 74:
Summary of Costs-(Estimate)
I will not read it all. Hon. gentlemen will notice that the actual gross amount of cost is placed at $397,800,000, and then there are three foot-notes:
1.	From the above, it is reasonable to as sume that a percentage will be unclaimed, or the need of re-estaiblishment be not proven, amounting to 25 per cent.
That is, they assume to take off $100,000,000 from their estimates of cost. They say it is reasonable to assume that a certain percentage will not be claimed, and that in other cases the need of re-establishment will not be proven. Well, our commitee was very careful to endeavour to trace that down, to endeavour to follow' it out right to its ultimate end, and I am sure that the members of the committee, at any rate, will agree with me when I say that those who were on the committee representing the Great War Veterans' Association did not convince us that there would be any material saving on this account because of not being able to establish need. Then a further amount is deducted in the second note:
2.	Also, that Government Departments, such as Land Settlement, Insurance, and Victory Bonds, will absorb the financial aid amounting to a further 25 per cent.
Apparently an endeavour is made to lead us to believe that the amount required would be the balance, namely, $200,000,000. Well, any money that is to be raised and given by way of financial assistance for the purpose ot enabling the men to make payments under the Soldiers' Settlement Board, does not relieve the situation in the slightest degree.
On the other hand, if bonds instead of cash were handed over to the men, with the right on their part to dispose .of them, even with the Government's approval, that also would not relieve the situation in the slightest degree. Consequently, after the whole ground had been gone over very fully and very carefully it was generally conceded that the amount that would be required to carry out the proposals submitted to us by the

committee representing the Great War Veterans' Association would be approximately $400,000,000, to say nothing of a discrepancy in the evidence with reference to the number of men who saw service in France, in connection with which a further expenditure of some forty or fifty millions might be entailed.
In one respect the proposal submitted to us by the G.W.V.A. goes further than Mr. Flynn's plan. For example, Mr. Flynn proposed that a man who saw service in France at any time should not receive more than $2,000, whereas under the plan submitted to us by the G.W.V.A. the proposal is that a man who saw service in France in 1914 should receive $2,500 over and above the gratuity which he has already received. In other words, if he had received $600 by way of gratuity'under the plan now in force, the total amount that he would be entitled to would be $2,500 plus the $600 already received. If a man enlisted in 1914 and went to England in 1915 he would be entitled to $500 for his service in Canada and $800 for having reached England in that year, and if he saw service in France the same year he would be entitled to a further $800, a total of $2,100 as against the $2,000 proposed by Mr. Flynn.
I do not think it is necessary for me to go further into the proposals made by the committee representing the G.W.V.A. Those proposals are contained in full in the appendix, just as they were presented to us, and if all members of the House have not read them I suggest that they should do so, because it is important that we should clearly understand the proposals as they actually reached the committee from the men themselves.
Then, a third general scheme was submitted to us by Mr. Margeson, not as representing any body, but simply as his own suggestion. He is one of the Pension Commissioners, and he has given a good deal of time, thought and consideration- to this subject. In brief, the suggestion which he made to the committee was that every man who saw .service should be given a per diem allowance for his service. If he reached France the allowance for his total services should be seventy cents a day. If he reached only England, he should get forty cents for every day that he was in the army, and if he did not leave Canada, twenty cents a day. There was this proviso, however: no man should be entitled to more than $1,500, including the gratuities already granted. Mr. Margeson's plan
would entail an expenditure of some

Now, I have run over Part VII of the report, which contains these three plans, and have indicated generally to the House what the schemes were.


Mr. FRIPP:: Why did the committee not recommend the Margeson plan? Was the reason for its rejection the same as that which applied to the other plans?


James Alexander Calder: We shall oome to the
findings very shortly and then I shall have a statement to make with regard to that.
Part VIII of the' report contains simply three suggestions that reached us. I need not take up the time of the House in referring to them at length.
As regards Part IX of the report, I ask that members turn to pages 34 and 35, as I think that we should get a clear view of what has been done in the way of expenditures in connection with the work of reestablishment. Paragraph 1 says:
The following is a summary taken from the evidence or from statements submitted -by the departments concerned of the expenditures made or to be made in connection with re-establishment work now carried on to the end of the present fiscal year.
First, there is the item of pensions paid on account of the European War. The evidence showed that up to the 31st of March last there had been expended $27,499,463.79, and that from that day down to the end of July of this year there had been expended a further sum of $6,537,034.95. It is estimated that there will he expended during the remainder of this fiscal year 4 p.m. $19,500,000. In other words, our total expenditures for -pensions on account of the European War from the beginning down to the end of the present-fiscal year will -be $53,536,498.74, and it is estimated that hereafter the annual expenditure for pensions will approximate $30,000,000. How long we shall have to make that annual expenditure we cannot say, but likely it will be for a very long tame.
As regards gratuities already provided for, to the end of the last fiscal year there had been paid, in round figures, twenty and one-half millions, and up to the end of August of this year, $83,000,000. It is estimated that a further sum of $50,000,000 will be required to take care of gratuities already provided for, making a total of $153,600,000 in round figures.


Mr. CURRIE:: Does that figure of $83,000,000 include the $20,500,000 above it? The

statement is not perfectly clear in that regard.


James Alexander Calder: No, it does not include the figure printed above it. The second line of the statement is not very clear; it means that from the beginning of the present fiscal year down to the end of August, 383,000,000, in round figures, was paid. That explanation applies to the other tables as well.
It was estimated when these gratuities were first provided for that it would take in the neighbourhood of 3125,000,000 to cover them. That estimate has now grown to 3153,000,000, and from the evidence submitted to the committee the House may take it for granted that it will not be less than 3150,000,000 and that it may be two or three millions in excess of the 3153,000,000 estimated here.


Mr. MURPHY:: How is it that there is such a marked increase between March and August?


James Alexander Calder: I do not understand the question.


Charles Murphy: The payment down to the end of March is $20,500,000 and to the end of August, $83,000,000.


James Alexander Calder: The gratuity was, if I remember rightly, provided for some time in December. It took a little time to get the machinery in motion, and the applications did not come in for a while so that one or two or maybe three months would elapse before there would be a volume of business, and consequently the large expenditure comes in the period from the first of April to the end of August.


Charles Murphy: The expenditure increases proportionately.


Mr. NESBITT:: More men would be discharged.


James Alexander Calder: Yes, demobilization was proceeding, and men were not entitled to gratuities until after they were demobilized.
We come now to the third class of work carried on, that is, the return of dependents. I need not go over the details of the expenditure, but it is estimated that the total amount required to the end of the fiscal year to return the dependents of soldiers, that is, their wives and children who are in Great Britain or on the continent of Europe, without provision being made for those who returned prior to the armistice, provision only being made for those who returned after the armistice, is approximately $1,900,000.

Then we come to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, a department that was created mainly for the purpose of looking after disabled soldiers. We find that the expenditure of that department down to the end of the last fiscal year, including the operations of the old Military Hospitals Commission, totalled approximately $24,600,000; that the expenditures to the end of July of this fiscal year totalled $8,700,000, and that there will be expended during the balance of this fiscal year $23,000,000, or a total expenditure for that department from the beginning down to he end of the present fiscal year of approximately $57,000,000.


John Allister Currie: Does that figure include the military pay of the men who are in those hospitals? If they were not in the hospitals belonging to the commission and they were in military hospitals and were not discharged, they would be entitled to military pay. They are turned over to this commission, and their military pay goes on. Is that military pay included in the figure? Is that what swells it?


James Alexander Calder: I would not think so. If there are in the forces any men not discharged who are in any way taken care of by the Department of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, I would think that their pay and allowances would come from the Militia Department and not from this department.
As regards the work of the Soldiers' Settlement Board, the expenditures to date will be found at the bottom of page 35. The figures for the first two years are not separated; the expenditure for this work from the beginning down to August 31 of this year amounts to $15,136,000, and it is estimated that there will be required to carry on this work for the balance of the present fiscal year a further $33,000,000, making a total expenditure from the beginning down to the end of the present fiscal year of $48,228,000.


John Allister Currie: Is not most of that expenditure an asset?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


John Allister Currie: Then why make it a
charge?


James Alexander Calder: I will deal with that a little later on; I am not going to overlook that point.
A certain amount of work is carried on by the Labour Department, and the total expenditure in carrying on these Dominion-Provincial Bureaus will be $388,311.31 to the

end ol the present fiscal year. During the course of the inquiry we obtained evidence as to the number of returned men who were thus placed in employment, and it was found that they represented 40 per cent of the total. As a consequence, we have charged up here for re-establishment work only 40 per cent of the expenditure of the Labour Department in connection with securing employment.
It will be noted that a summary appears in the report of all these various classes of expenditure, the total being placed at over $314,000,000 to the end of the present fiscal year.
Your committee then endeavoured to get an estimate of what the cost would be to carry on the work as now undertaken to completion. There are certain kinds of work being carried on to which the ,country and Parliament are committed, and we endeavoured to ascertain what it would cost to complete that work. That will be found at the bottom of page 36. We have not carried out into the column the annual amount for pensions because that is a continuing amount that must he paid every year. As regards past gratuities, the estimate previously given is regarded as being sufficient to cover the cost in that regard, and the same is true of the transportation expenses of dependents.


John Allister Currie: How much is estimated for gratuities?


James Alexander Calder: The total is $153,000,000, and it is estimated that that amount will cover whatever expenditures are necessary in regard to those gratuities. In reference to soldiers' settlement, as members of the House can readily understand, we had difficulty in arriving at any accurate estimate. All we know is that the work is being carried on in a large way; that the amounts of money required are growing by. leaps and bounds, and from the evidence submitted by the officers of the department, while the total expenditure that it is estimated will be necessary to the end of the present fiscal year is $48,000,000, it is estimated that after this fiscal year it will take in round figures another $101,000,000 to carry on to completion the work that is now being done for ex-members of the Canadian forces.
In addition to that, Parliament is committed to providing assistance of a somewhat similar character for ex-members of the Imperial forces. Provision for that has been made in the Bill; regulations have been passed; already an organization is being established in the Old Country, and
before very long we may expect to have members of the Imperial forces, British citizens, coming to Canada for settlement purposes. We have estimated for that work some $25,000,000.
As regards the future work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, I think the estimate given in the report is a moderate, conservative one, namely, $50,000,000; that is, in future years, to take care of the disabled men and men who are in institutions at the present time, many of whom will continue in institutions for years to come; to take care of another class of cases, that is, casek which are being taken care of now, such as the problem case, the neurological case, the mentally subnormal case. I regret to believe that there will be large expenditures in that connection. It is estimated that the Labour Department will have a further expenditure not exceeding $200,000.
Summing up future expenditures, that is, expenditures beyond this fiscal year, we find that the amount is placed at $176,971,896.88; or a grand total for all the work done in the past and the work that must be done in the future as far as present commitments are concerned, of $491,540,623.50.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Not including
pensions?


James Alexander Calder: Not including future pensions. Now I come to the question raised by piy hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie). That $491,000,000 includes what has already been expended on pensions, or will be expended to the end of this year-some $53,000,000. It also includes the estimated expenditure for land settlement. If these two items are deducted-the amount for land settlement is only a loan and in course of time the money will come back- it will be found that the total amount expended on re-establishment work is in the neighbourhood of $263,000,000.


George Green Foster: Where do you get the $263,000,000?


James Alexander Calder: If you deduct from $491,000,000 the amount provided for land settlement, $175,000,000, and the $53,000,000 provided for pensions you get a balance of $263,000,000, roughly speaking.
Now I come to the really important part of our report, our findings or recommendations, which after all is what the House and the people of this country, and the returned men more particularly, are interested in. I need scarcely say this was not a very easy task. On the contrary, it was a

most difficult task. We had hours upon hours of almost interminable discussion. There were naturally differences of opinion* as to details, as there will be in this House, but as regards the broad principles underlying our findings there was practically unanimity, and so far as the main finding is concerned; that in view of the financial condition of the country no further provision should be made by Parliament for a general distribution of cash gratuities, the committee was unanimous.
Our findings will be found beginning on page 38 under the heading " A.-General." The findings are grouped for convenience according to the nature of the problem under consideration, under headings from A to J.
The first relates to the general problem of re-establishment as it faced the country after the war had been going on for some time, and when our men were beginning to come back. As every hon. member knows, this problem was an entirely new one for this country. We had little in the way of precedent to guide us, and no trained experts. Those who took charge of this work had to gain their knowledge very largely through experience. The problem undoubtedly was a difficult one, but it had to be tackled, and I believe the best has been done under the circumstances. Let me give an illustration. Canada was absolutely unprepared to deal with the problem of vocational training, for instance. It is quite true we had some technical schools throughout the country for children and young men, but when the disabled soldiers, .grown-up men, began to come back by the hundreds and the thousands they had to be re-trained, and the necessary machinery for carrying on that work had to be established. It was not an easy task, and in my opinion it ,is marvellous that the department has done so well as it has. I go further and say that I do not think any other belligerent country in the world has tackled the problem as effectively and got as good results as Canada has. As pointed out in the report, and as everybody knows, mistakes have been made, and there have been weaknesses and defects, but these have been remedied as far as possible from time to time. I think I can say truthfully, and I am sure every member of the committee will bear me out, that our examination of what is being done in the way of vocational training was -very satisfactory. The condition of affairs we found was a revelation to some of us, and a revelation, I think, to the people of this country who TMr. Calder ]
followed the evidence. I think it was a revelation to many of the returned men themselves, who did not know or clearly understand the character of some of the work that is being carried on.
The second section of this part of our findings relates to the attitude of our people generally and of Parliament and the Government towards the question of reestablishment. I need not dwell upon that. I think the facts and figures I have already given to the House are an indication of what the spirit of our people and of Parliament has been. We have provided pensions that are higher than those provided by any other belligerent country in the world, so far as we are able to ascertain.


John Allister Currie: Is it not a fact that the British pensions are very close to ours, the only difference being that we have a different classification and camouflage the soldier so that he thinks he is getting a higher pension?


James Alexander Calder: That may be a debatable point from the hon. gentleman's standpoint. So far as the evidence that came before the committee is concerned, we are convinced that the pensions provided by Canada are higher than those provided by any other belligeient country. As to gratuities, I do not think it will be disputed by anybody, that in so far as that feature of our work of re-establishment is concerned, and it is a part of our reestablishment work, Canada has gone further than any other belligerent country in the world, and very much further in some cases. As regards the provision we have made for soldier settlement, I think I am safe in saying from all the reading I have done and all the inquiries I have made, that we are miles in advance of anything being done by any of the other countries that took part in the war.
We are actually placing the men on the land and are getting results. It may be that in other countries they have lots of paper provisions, indulge in much talk, and intimate that they are prepared to do things. But as a matter of fact, in this country we have had for months now an organization that is actually ge'tting the men on the land, and that organization at the present time is being worked to the limit right through Canada, from ocean to ocean.
I need not refer again to the work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. I believe that every member of Parliament and the people of the

country generally recognize that everything should be done that can reasonably be done on behalf of the disabled men who are unfitted for their former occupations. That work has been undertaken by this department, and as has already been intimated, the country has provided, for that class of work to the end of this year, an expenditure in the neighbourhood of $57,000,000. I am sure Parliament will be prepared to vote the further sum required, about $50,000,000, in order that that work may be carried on.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Before the minister leaves that department, may I ask him if he is aware that the recommendation contained in suggestion 2 is a violation of the contract made by the Government?


An hon. MEMBER:: On what page does it appear?


Peter McGibbon: Page 49.


James Alexander Calder: I have a note on the point raised by the hon. member, ^ and I will come to it shortly. In referring" to the attitude of Parliament and our people generally towards this work, I should like to read the finding of the committee, which will be found on page 39 near the top of the page:
Summing up the whole situation, your committee are convinced that as regards the problem of re-establishment generally, the Canadian people and their representatives in Parliament as well as the Government, have always shown an earnest desire to meet any real need that has arisen or may exist. Parliament heretofore has not been parsimonious in voting money whenever and wherever the expenditures were shown to be necessary. Frequently, however, the opinion was expressed in Parliament that the greatest care should be taken to avoid any action that would tend to deprive the soldier of his self-reliance and self-respect. It was thought to be against the best interests of the soldiers themselves that they should rely unduly upon the State in the period following their discharge. Your committee concur in these views. After hearing all the evidence, they agree that the best policy towards the soldier is to surround him with conditions that will tend to strengthen his self-confidence and self-reliance.
Coming now to section B of the findings: Under this heading, Mr.- Speaker, the committee have endeavoured to place before Parliament a concise statement of the financial position of the country in relation to this question of 4'e-establishment. The task was by no means an easy one, but we have endeavoured to set out in the report sufficient details to enable the House to have something substantial upon which to base its judgment.
The committee have not attempted in any way to conceal anything from the House nor to exaggerate the situation. As regards our work, we endeavoured to get at the facts, and we had considerable difficulty in doing so, because, to arrive at the facts in connection with the exact financial situation of such a business concern as Canada is, is not by any means an easy matter. However, we have obtained certain figures which have been put into shape so that they can be presented to the House in order that it may get a proper view of the situation generally. On page 40 of the report the committee, in paragraph 3, take this view:
The question of the ability of Canada to rais; huge sums of money immediately-
Because, after all, that is what these propositions amount to;
-or during the next twelve or eighteen months, depends, in the opinion of your committtee, m two prime considerations.
The first of these considerations, under (a), is the possibility of getting the money itself; and the second you will find on page 42 near the top of the page; that is, the ability of the country to raise the necessary taxes to pay the interest on this sum should it be secured. In reference to the first consideration, I must ask the House to bear with me while I read the opinion of the committee, because it probably sets forth the situation much more clearly than I could state it myself. This is the finding of the committee:
From its study of the general financial situation of the country your committee have inevitably been forced to the conclusion that the vast sums of money suggested for re-establishment purposes cannot possibly be raised. The reasons for this must be apparent. The expenditures to which the country is already committed and for which estimates have been voted by Parliament for the present fiscal year, together with the expenditures which must be provided by Parliament for the next fiscal year, will necessitate the borrowing of money on the credit of Canada of as large an amount as the loaning resources of the country will permit, to say nothing of the effect on our credit generally of increasing our national debt, which now stands at approximately $1,900,000,000, by some hundreds of millions beyond sums required to take care of existing obligations.
I should like the House to follow me while I go through the table which is submitted, because it is very largely the crux of the wh'ole situation. We are told that there should be no difficulty in raising $400,000,000. It is said: "You have done it before, and can do it again, and there should be no difficulty about it." During our inquiry we had to ascertain the amounts for which the

country was already committed and that had to be provided, and those amounts are set out in this table at the bottom of page 40. The first part of this table, from No. 1 to No. 15, represents sums of money that were actually voted by Parliament last session, and a very large part of which has already been expended, with a possibility that very little of that money can be saved. That is to say, it must be expended within the course of the next few months. The first item is Public Buildings, $3,000,000. That does not include the estimates that were made for large buildings in places like Toronto, Hamilton, London, Calgary, etc. It includes only expenditures on the Parliament buildings at Ottawa, and, I think, $100,000 for another building here.
These are expenditures which are going on, they are expenditures which will be made, that every member of the House expects to be made and is anxious should be made in order that we may get into proper quarters for the discharge of the public business. The second item is:
Welland, Trent and other canals. .$4,550,000
These are estimates that have been passed and the expenditures have very largely been made. I doubt very much if any material saving could be made now in that item even if we wished to make it. The appropriations made for the Welland canal have practically been exhausted. I dare say the same is true of all the other items included in this estimate.
Harbour and river improvement.. $3,201,800
Improvement of St. Lawrence
channel	 623,167
Shipbuilding	4Q,000,000
There may be differences of opinion as to whether or not the expenditure of that $40,000,000 is advisable. There may be marked differences of opinion in this House as to whether or not Canada should provide money for building ships. Nevertheless the contracts have been made, the work is under way, millions have been expended and millions further will be expended.
Let me digress for a moment. My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and myself heard a deputation the other night as to requirements for shipping in the St. Lawrence channel at the present time in order that certain agricultural products might go 'out that way. It was represented to us that the ships coming up that channel are charging, we will say, from one-third to one-half more than ships sailing from certain ports on the American seaboard and that they
I Mr. Calder.l
cannot get ships to take produce from this country and carry it by way of the St. Lawrence route. Are we to drop the idea of providing the necessary shipping to enable the products of the industries of this country to be exported? That is a question for Parliament to decide.
Intercolonial Railway-Construction
and betterments	$11,121,681
Most of that has been, or will be, expended.
Quebec, Saguenay railway-Betterment and construction	$	550,000
That is all expended or will be.
Branches - Intercolonial railway
-Purchase price	$	292,000
A small item perhaps but the House will remember that provision was made for acquiring certain branch lines in the Maritime Provinces.
Edmonton and Dunvegan railway-
Subsidy	  [DOT][DOT]$	258,797
Transcontinental-Purchase, right of
	 125,000
That is, right of way which had been got, the tracks laid down upon it but not paid for and it must be paid for.
Hudson Bay railway-Construction 400,000
Perhaps the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell) thinks that is not large enough and that instead of $400,000 there should be a larger expenditure made.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: That is not being used for construction.


James Alexander Calder: None of it at all?


John Archibald Campbell: Not for construction.


James Alexander Calder: Then we come to some large items:
Rolling stock, equipment, supplies and matrials for National and other railways	$35,000,000
I understand that a large part of that is being expended and necessarily expended.


John Allister Currie: Is not that an operating charge?


James Alexander Calder: No, it is not an operating charge.


John Allister Currie: It should be.


James Alexander Calder: Then we have item No. 13:
Canadian Northern railway-Construction, betterments, maturities, interest and other charges.. ..$35,000,000
Every dollar of which is or will be needed this year, and possibly some more.

Soldiers' Land Settlement	$ 45,000,000
Demobilization appropriation-War activities, demobilization, transport of troops, promotion of trade and other expenditures in consequence of war, including gratuities, etc	350,000,000
Every dollar of that will be required for the purpose for which it has been voted. These estimates were actually voted at the last session of Parliament. The expenditures are being made and as far a0 the evidence shows there is very little indication that there can be very much saving on the total estimated expenditure of $529,122,445. Every dollar of that must be borrowed from the people of Canada through loan. There should be added to these figures which are not included in the estimates an estimate of $15,000,000 to take care of deficits on the Grand Trunk Pacific:
Grand Trunk Pacific Receivership-
Interests and deficits in operations	$15,000,000
It is estimated that for credits to Great Britain and Allied countries $125,000,000 will be required.


John Allister Currie: That is an asset.


James Alexander Calder: That will be an asset.


John Allister Currie: Except what we give to Roumania?


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Why does the minister confine himself altogether to the Grand Trunk Pacific? Does he assume that there will be no deficit on any other of the Government railways?


James Alexander Calder: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) will look at item 13 he will find:
Canadian Northern Railway-Construction, betterments, maturities, interest and other charges. .$35,000,000


Mr. VIEN:: Including deficits?


James Alexander Calder: Including interest and
other charges.


Thomas Vien: There is nothing provided for the deficit on the Grand Trunk this year.


James Alexander Calder: I have been referring to the estimates that were passed by the House at the last session.


John Howard Sinclair: To the estimates passed at last session the minister adds certain other figures. I understand these other figures will be for future expenditure. My question was: Have we no estimate of the deficits on the other railways in connection with future expenditure?


James Alexander Calder: I am simply citing the evidence that came before the committee. We went into the matter carefully and as fully as we could. These figures were submitted by the Finance Department. Mr. Boville, the deputy minister, discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance before he left for the West, and these were the figures that were given to us by the Finance Department.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: These are estimates for the future and they include what we call the supplementary estimates.


James Alexander Calder: Do not be mistaken. These are the estimates for this fiscal year to which must be added these further estimates for the present fiscal year-not for the future but for this fiscal year. They include an item of $15,000,000 on account of the Grand Trunk Pacific, $125,000,000 for credits to Great Britain and Allied countries, $5,000,000 for Halifax relief, and $25 000,000 for housing-loans to provinces- making a total in round numbers of $700,000,000. That represents the commitments of the country at the present time during this fiscal year-$700,000,000. As the report says the above statement shows the class of expenditures that must be provided for during the present fiscal year, and while it is certain that the full amount shown for each item will not be expended it would be safe in the opinion of the committee to estimate a total expenditure under all these heads of not less than $600,000,000. If that is true it would mean that the country and Parliament have before them an expenditure during this fiscal year of $600,000,000. And if this $400,000,000, which has been suggested as being urgently and immediately required for re-establishment purposes is granted it means that the money must he got for this purpose and that we must go out to the people of Canada during this fiscal year and raise in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000,000 in cash. Your committee has come to the conclusion that it is impossible.


Mr. FIELDING:: In addition to the present Victory Loan.


James Alexander Calder: No, that would be including the Victory Loan.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman
says these are sums which must be borrowed. My question is, is that in addition to the Victory Loan, or is the sum total of these amounts covered by the Victory Loan?


James Alexander Calder: Some of it is covered by the Victory Loan; but I am trying to de-



scribe what the financial situation is in so far as the present fiscal year is concerned. I repeat again, that in so far as we are able to judge from the evidence that has come to us, there is every indication that the country is already committed to expenditures aggregating $700,000,000 during the present fiscal year, for which $600,000,000 must be raised from our people. Now we come to the following year, because you have got to take that into account as well, and in that connection the committee say:
In so far as capital expenditure for the year 1920-21 is concerned no authoritative figures could be obtained by your committee as they are only ascertainable when submitted to and approved by Parliament.
That is, we cannoit forecast, except in a general way, what Parliament, or what the Government, will do so far as Estimates for the next fiscal year are concerned. There are, however, certain items of expenditure that will simply have to be met, and we have endeavoured to estimate them. In the first place, we were told by the Deputy Minister of Finance, on the best information he had available, that the Militia Department in order to clean up the work of demobilization would require at least another $50,000,000. Now the vote of $350,000,000 which we took this year was not all for demobilization. That $350,000,000 demobilization appropriation takes care of gratuities. It also takes care to some extent of advances to foreign countries in the shape of credits, and that sort of thing; but the estimate that reached us was that next year it will take a least $50,000,000 to clean up the work of demobilization, and I am inclined to think that estimate is reasonable. Then, so far as Soldiers' Settlement is concerned, our total estimate to carry on that work to completion was $150,000,000, and in the statement I have here we are only providing $45,000,000 for this year. We find it will take at least $50,000,000 for next year, and that would only make a total of $95,000,000, as against a total estimate of $150,000,000.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: How many men will this $150,000,000 place on farms?


James Alexander Calder: I cannot give that figure offhand. The amount of each loan has been averaging in the neighbourhood of $3,500 and if the hon. gentleman uses his pencil he will get at the number himself. The committee, as I say, have made an estimate and personally I am inclined to think it is a very conservative one; I think probably the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. H.

Sinclair) will agree with that. That is to say we have placed an estimate in the report for capital expenditures that will probably have to be voted by Parliament at its next session, for public buildings, canals, railways, 'Shipbuilding, harbours, and so on.


John Howard Sinclair: I would strike out the item for shipbuilding.


James Alexander Calder: We have indicated the
possible class of expenditures that may have to be provided for and we have put a total estimate there of $60,000,000, and then credits to Great Britain, France, etc., amounting to $50,000,000.


Charles Murphy: Does that "etc." cover Roumania?


James Alexander Calder: It may cover everything that, may be found necessary.


John Howard Sinclair: Since the minister referred to me personally, if he will accept my suggestion he will omit the item for shipbuilding.


James Alexander Calder: There may be some difference ot opinion as to whether shipbuilding is necessary or not.


John Allister Currie: With respect to the money that was advanced to Great Britain and other countries, is it not money that was handed to our farmers to pay for foodstuffs that were sent to those countries, and is it not money that is going from one pocket into another?


George Green Foster: They are credits.


James Alexander Calder: The money is used for that purpose. I do not know what the situation will be next year, but in so far as regards this class of expenditure at the present time, it is briefly this: On account of the financial conditions existing in certain countries of Europe, we find it absolutely necessary to provide credits if certain classes of our products in this country are to secure a market. We find that is necessary this year. What the conditions will be next year, I do not know but in the case of Great Britain it is conceivable she will not be able to supply the funds necessary for this purpose. It may be true, in the case of France, Italy, and other countries with whom we wish to do business, that if we wish to carry out that intention it may be absolutely necessary for the people of this country to raise money in Canada to provide that' credit in order that we may pay our own people for the products they raise before these products can be sent overseas.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Is it not an actual fact
that the hulk of this $125,'000,000 voted last session has been paid out for merchandise -the products of manufactories, textiles, and so forth-and that very small proportion of the money has been paid out for farm products?


James Alexander Calder: I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on that phase of the subject. As a matter of fact, what the hon. gentleman states is not true:	The great
bulk of this money is being used to pay for agricultural products and foodstuffs and not for manufactured goods. In the case of Great Britain I think I can say the credit has been entirely used for the payment of products such as cereals, meats, cheese, fish, and articles of that kind, and not manufactured products at all. But the matter has been discussed in the House time and again when these credits were up for discussion, and I would prefer not to enter upon any debate of that subject at the present time.
Now, the figures that I have submitted indicate that for the present fiscal year, and for the following year, the country is committed-or will be committed so far as I can see-to expenditures totalling in the neighbourhood of $909,000,000. I say that so far as we can see at the present time, and viewing the matter conservatively, it looks as though Canada would be committed to expenditures totalling no less than $909,000,000 during these two years, to say nothing of the $50,000,000 recommended in our report as expenditures in connection with this work of re-establishment, which would swell the total to $959,000,000. The finding of the committee on this phase of the question will be found on page 41 of the report:
Summing up this group of figures your committee are of the view that including the present Victory Loan, Canada within the next twelve or eighteen months will he compelled to raise, by borrowing, surfis of money aggregating from $7(00,000,000 to $850,000,000 to provide for expenditures to which the country is or will be committed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read the next clause.


James Alexander Calder: The next clause reads:
In reference to these expenditures it is only proper to point out that while they must be provided for by borrowing from the people of Canada the nation in the case of certain of these items will have corresponding assets. This is true of loans to Great Britain and Allied countries, loans for land settlement, construction of railways, shipbuilding, housing, etc.
I intend to refer to that a little later.
I have been speaking of the possibility of going out among our people and securing the large sums of money to which I have mi
referred-the $700,000,000 to $850,000,000 which, apparently, must be borrowed, and on top of that, the $400,000,000 suggested for re-establishment purposes.
Now, let us turn to the other side of the question, that is, how shall we take care of this money if we borrow it? It will have to be paid back, and interest will have to be paid on it each year. Each year there will have to be levied upon the people of Canada the necessary taxes in order to raise the interest payable upon this borrowed sum. Let us examine for a moment this aspect of the matter.
Under Mr. Margeson's plan it is suggested that $200,000,000 be raised and distributed; under the G.W.V.A. plan, $400,000,000; under Mr. Flynn's plan, $1,000,000,000. The annual interest charge on these three items respectively would be $11,000,000, $22,000,000, $55,000,000. If any one of these proposals were adopted, one of these interest sums would have to be raised every year-$11,000,000, $22,000,000 or $55,-000,000-to say nothing of the principal. As a matter of fact, a sinking fund should be provided in order that at some future date this huge war debt would be wiped out.
The conclusion of the committee in reference to this question of interest will be found on page 42, paragraph (b), the last sentence of which is as follows:
Tour committee are of the opinion that sufficient difficulty will be experienced by Parliament in devising ways and means to meet the annual interest charges payable on the public debt already created or which must be created to meet existing commitments.
In this connection I wish to direct the attention of the House to what is set forth under the head " Present Forms of Taxation " on page 43. You will find there this statement: that prior to the war the ordinary current expenditures of the country, the amount expended for carrying on the ordinary public services, was $127,000,000 in round figures. That had grown last year to $232,000,000, and our estimate for this fiscal year is $270,000,000-not capital expenditure.; simply current expenditure. In other words, there has been an increase during the war period of $142,000,000 a year on this account. Well then, as I see it, the situation is simply this: for every dollar that is borrowed from now on for any purpose whatever we must increase the annual amount raised by way of taxation. It makes no difference for what purpose the money is borrowed; to the extent to which you increase your interest charge you increase also the amount that must be raised by

taxation in some form or other from our people.	*
The interest on the public debt prior to the war was 312,893,000; this year it is estimated at $102,767,000, and next year it will be at leasit $120,000,000. Now, how is the increase in our ordinary current expenditure made up? In other words, why did it jump from $127,000,000 prior to the war to $270,000,000 last year? What accounts for the additional expenditure? It is made up in this way: the interest on the debt alone was $90,000,000; then there are the items of $25,000,000 for pensions and $30,000,000 for the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment which is caring for our disabled soldiers, a total of $145,000,000; the increase on current account is $142,000,000. Let us look ahead two or three years and see what may happen financially.
We have an estimated expenditure this year on current account of $270,000,000.


Mr. McKENZIE:: How much would the amount be including capital expenditure?


James Alexander Calder: I am developing an argument on this point; I will come to that phase of it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not asking the minister to deal with capital expenditure to which we are not committed, but anything we are committed to we might as well know.


James Alexander Calder: I see my hon. friend's point; I will come to it in a moment.
Our ordinary current expenditure for this year, $270,000,000, includes the items which I have mentioned: interest on public debt, estimated for this year at $102,000,000; pensions, $25,000,000; Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, $30,000,000. These three items total $157,000,000, and if you subtract that amount from the
5 p.m. amount of the ordinary current expenditure, $270,000,000, you get $112,300,000, in round figures, to carry on the other ordinary public services of the country. I repeat that in 1913-14, $127,000,000 was expended on ordinary current account, and included in that amount was some $13,000,000 for interest on debt, leaving $114,000,000 for all the other ordinary services of the country.
I doubt very much if, as regards that annual expenditure of $270,000,000, there can be any material saving. You cannot cut down your estimate for interest on public debt; you cannot cut down your pensions. After the next two or three years the expenditures in connection with the Department of Sol-
[M)r. Oalder.l
diers' Civil Re-establishment will begin to be cut down very "materially, but until then there does not appear to be any reasonable hope of cutting that estimate down materially. I have said it outside of the House publicly, and I say it in the House, as the ex-Min is ter of Finance (Sir Thomas White) said the other day when speaking on some other question: The problem in this country during the next few years is going to be retrenchment wherever it is possible to retrench; there must be retrenchment.


Mr. ROBB:: When is the Government going to start?


James Alexander Calder: It started some time ago, and retrenchment is in operation right now and it must continue. The knife must be put in, and the same is true of practically every belligerent country which is in the same position as we are because of expenditures growing out of the war.


Charles Murphy: The minister is, I have no doubt, quite honest in the statement he makes; but when the Estimates are before the House, I will show that his statement is not correct.


James Alexander Calder: That is a matter of opinion.


Charles Murphy: Not when you provide for two separate moving picture outfits in two departments of the Government.


James Alexander Calder: It may be a matter of opinion as to what is a necessary and wise expenditure. When the time comes, we shall probably be quite able to debate the matter with the hon. gentleman.


Charles Murphy: There cannot be any two opinions about that.


James Alexander Calder: Coming back to the statement made by the leader of the Opposition, I have indicated the probable financial commitments during these two'years. If they amount to $700,000,000, what is the interest on that amount? If we borrow at the same rate as before, approximately 5J per cent, we shall have added to our interest charges every year no less than $38,500,000, which must go on top of the $270,000,000 to which I have referred. That is, if we find it necessary during these two years to raise, by borrowing, $700,000,000 for commitments already made, then we must provide annually the interest to take charge of that, and the amount of the interest will be in the neighbourhood of $38,500,000 per annum. In addition to that, it is estimated that our pension list is going to run up to $30,000,000. At the present time it is in the neighbourhood of $25,000,000 or $26,000,000,

so that we shall have to look forward to providing annually for years to come $5,000.000 for pensions more than we are at present paying. Taking our estimated expenditure as $270,000,000, if we add to that the interest that must be raised annually if we borrow $700,000,000 for commitments to which I have referred, and another $5,000,000 annually for pensions, we shall have to raise for many years to come a sum of $313,500,000 annually by taxation from the people of this country. If we put on top of that the suggestion that has come to us that we should raise $400,000,000 now for re-establishment purposes, that would entail a further interest charge of $22,000,000 per annum, which, added to the $313,500,000, would make a total amount to be raised by taxation in this country of $335,500,000 per annum. I do not know whether the House has followed me in my statement, but I have endeavoured to make it quite clear. Probably when hon. members read it afterwards they will be able to follow it, because it is pretty hard to follow figures, especially when one is dealing with large amounts.
I come now to the point raised by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Currie). What he has said is true, namely, that some of these borrowings represent assets that will pay interest. If the total amount that we shall have to raise is $335,500,000 annually, if all that is suggested to us is carried out, there will be something on the other side of the sheet. Assuming that eventually our loans to Great Britain and the Allies total $200,000,000; assuming that our Soldier Settlement work, both for our own boys and for the Imperials, costs $175,000,000 that we have to raise and lend; assuming that the housing scheme already provided for of $25,000,000 is carried to completion, and going further and assuming that we spend $100,000,000 on railways for which amounts we get a return as the interest on our borrowings actually comes back into the treasury-assuming that for argument-


John Allister Currie: Just a moment; I observe an item here of rolling stock, equipment, supplies and materials for national and other railways. Under the ordinary rule that obtains in getting stock of that kind, bonds such as equipment bonds are issued against it, and the interest charges for rolling stock wipe themselves out annually. Would not that be a capital charge, which is returnable, because otherwise the people of this country axe going to be staggered at the enormous expenditure in connection
with those railways, and we shall be very sorry that we have public ownership?


James Alexander Calder: The hon. member is quite right, and that is why I am trying to get a view of what our financial position will be for the next three or four years. I have put in an asset of $100,000,000 for railways, for equipment and so on, and I am assuming that they will pay their interest charges, etc. If we take the four items I have mentioned, namely, our loans to Great Britain and the Allies, our soldier settlement work, the [DOT] housing scheme and the amount for railway equipment and so on, and assuming that we get back the interest on those amounts, the total is $500,000,000, and if we take the interest at 5J per cent, we shall get $27,500,000 on that account. That would still leave us with an amount of $308,000,000 to be raised annually by way of taxation. I have probably said enough under the heading of the financial situation in order at least to show this House that we have a problem on our hands without assuming further very large burdens.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That financial statement should have been read yesterday.


James Alexander Calder: If the House will refer to sections 4, 5, and 6 of the report which constitute the final findings of the committee, they will find that a reference is made there to three suggestions that came to us. I am not going to take time to read them to the House; but the first was this: that if the war had continued, Canada would have raised another four or five hundred million dollars, and the question was asked: Why not do it now? That suggestion came to us from many quarters during our inquiry. People said: If the war had gone on, you would have done that any way; why not do it now? The answer to that is this: That as regards expenditures, this year is virtually a war year; that we cannot have both war expenditures and re-establishment expenditures at the same time. If we find it necessary to provide for, say $400,000,000 of war expenditures in this year, can we put on top of that, during the same year, $400,000,000 for re-establishment? Do hon. members see the point? Some people lose sight of the fact that, as regards expenses, this year is virtually a war year; that enormous sums of money must be raised to clear up the war situation.
A second suggestion was that these moneys should be charged against the German indemnity. That matter is dealt with in the second paragraph. I should like to s-jv this:

During our deliberations, and in our endeavour to arrive at a report, many drafts were prepared, and in some way,or another, as the House is aware, one of those drafts got out and appeared in the newspapers. In that draft was a statement to the effect that the German indemnity when it came would be used in paying for ships that were lost and property that had been destroyed, and that sort of thing. That was merely a suggestion thrown out by one member of the committee. It was embodied in a draft which was never accepted by the committee at all. What is going to become of the German indemnity, we do not know. Nor do we know whether we shall ever get an indemnity from Germany. The findings of the committee in that respect will be found in paragrph 5, page 42.


John Allister Currie: About what will Canada's claim amount to?


James Alexander Calder: I cannot say.


John Allister Currie: Can anybody be found
in Canada or elsewhere who can give us an idea of that?


James Alexander Calder: I think if inquiries were
made in the proper quarters you could get that information. Then there was a suggestion that if the money itself could not be raised, bonds should be issued to the soldiers. The finding of the committee on that question will be found in paragraph 6, page 43.
I do not intend to refer at any length to the sections dealing with taxation. As every member of the House will realize, there are great differences of opinion as to what forms of taxation should be adopted in order to raise the revenue. Certain suggestions came to us from various quarters as to the possibility of providing for the money required if certain methods of taxation were adopted. In order to place the mattej before the House, the committee felt it incumbent upon them to make some reference to the various forms of taxation suggested to the committee.
As regards further gratuities that matter was considered very carefully and very fully by the committee, and its finding will be found on page 48, under the letter " C."


John Allister Currie: Before dealing with that, I should like the minister to discuss some of the suggested forms of taxation.


James Alexander Calder: I have already occupied the time of the House very much longer than I should have. ,


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is not inclined to dodge the issue?


James Alexander Calder: I am not inclined to dodge the issue. I have not been dodging anything, and I think it is exceedingly unfair for the hon. gentleman even to throw out a hint that I am trying to dodge anything.


John Allister Currie: I understood the minister was going to discuss the forms of taxation suggested, just as he discussed other suggestions, and I asked him if he was not going to do so.


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman went farther than that. He said I was attempting to dodge the issue.


John Allister Currie: If the hon. gentleman is not going to discuss that matter, we will have to form our own conclusions.


Mr. MORPHY:: Take that back.


James Alexander Calder: I have already occupied over two hours and I think it is about time I got through and let somebody else tackle some phases of this problem. That is the only reason I did not discuss the various forms of taxation suggested in the report. Coming back to the question of a further general distribution of gratuities, the finding of the committee will be found on page 48, as follows:
In reference to the question of making further provision for cash grants, gratuities or other financial assistance to be distributed generally on any basis to all ex-members of the C.E.P. your committee desire there should be no misunderstanding as to their views.
Your Committee having fully discussed and considered the financial position of Canada including the further large sums of money that must be borrowed to carry out the work to which the country Is committed cannot see their way clear to recommend to Parliament any proposal that would provide for a further general distribution of grants or gratuities either in cash or credits.
The House may not agree with that view, but that was the finding of the committee after days and weeks of deliberation during which we gave our best thought and judgment to this question. If Parliament holds a different view, it is for Parliament to say so. If Parliament is of opinion that some further grant to the members of the forces should be made, either by way of loan or cash, it is for Parliament to say so; it is for every individual member of this House to say so, because as individual members we cannot escape our responsibility on a question of this kind.
The next section under the letter "D" refers to 'the particular suggestions that were made to us, some of which were

adopted. I am going to run over these very hurriedly and will not take them in the exact order in which they appear in the report. The first suggestion was that Canadians who joined the Imperial forces either by direct enlistment or by transfer from the Canadian forces should be put on the same basis as far as gratuities are concerned as members of the Canadian forces. That would apply not only to born Canadians and those who became Canadians in any other way, but to Imperial reservists as well. The matter was thrashed out fully, and we finally came to the conclusion that these men were entitled to be put on the same basis as members of the Canadian forces. The estimated cost of that expenditure is in the neighbourhood of $9,000,000.


Peter McGibbon: Does that also apply to Canadian nurses who joined the Imperial forces?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I presume the committee had in mind the provision that is being made for these men by the Imperial Government. I understand that men from Canada who joined the Imperial forces are receiving some consideration from the Imperial Government.


James Alexander Calder: That has been taken into consideration. If they have received a gratuity from the Imperial authorities it will be deducted from the Canadian gratuity, and only the balance will be paid.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Did the committee consider the case of naturalized Canadian citizens who were French reservists and joined the army of France on the outbreak of the war, and whose scale of pension is very much lower than our own?


James Alexander Calder: The committee had that under consideration for some time. The French reservists, the Belgian reservists, the Greek reservists, and the Italian reservists who went from Canada are all in the same position. We did not consider it advisable to recommend to the House that the reservists of these nations should be put on the same basis as the British reservist. Of course, the British reservist who was previously domiciled in Canada is practically a Canadian. We recommend that this gratuity shall be paid only to the man who was bona fide domiciled in Canada at the outbreak of the war, and that before he shall be entitled to it he must have returned to Canada and taken up his residence and must be in every respect bona fide domiciled in this country.
Now, there is a second recommendation to the effect that the transportation expenses of soldiers' dependents who returned to Canada prior to the armistice should be paid. I shall not take up the time of the House discussing that point. A third suggestion has reference to pay and allowances of patients in hospitals under the control of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. I may say that since coming to our findings there has come to light in connection with that problem an element which, so far as I am aware, never reached us in the committee. In our findings we recommend, in regard to patients who have been discharged, from the army and have been taken over by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and are undergoing treatment in hospital, that all these men, be they officers or privates, should receive the same pay and allowance. But I have ascertained since that those men had the right if they wished to remain in military hospitals, and if they had done so they would have been entitled to the pay and allowance of their rank. At least, that is what I am told. There was an understanding when these men consented to take their discharge in order that they might go over to the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment hospitals, that they would be entitled to the pay and allowances of their rank. That factor did not come before the committee, so far as I am aware, either in evidence or during the discussions, and consequently a good many representations are being received in Ottawa to the effect that if the Government carried out this suggestion it would be violating the understanding it had with the men.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: From whom did the suggestion come?


James Alexander Calder: I think the suggestion
came from some of the representatives of the soldiers' organization that came before us.


Mr. PARDEE:: Then this finding will
amount to nothing.


James Alexander Calder: These are only recommendations to the Government.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If such an agreement took place, there must be a record of it.


James Alexander Calder: I should think so.


Peter McGibbon: The substance of that agreement is to be found on page 9 of the report.


James Alexander Calder: I have stated the point
and I do not think I need dwell further

on it. Another recommendation of the committee will be found on page 49. In my judgment, it is exceedingly important and should receive attention without delay. It relates to functional or neurological cases, as they are called,-men who are subnormal to a slight degree or considerably so, and who should be treated with as little delay as possible. Many of these cases are not being cared for to-day as they should be. All our committee could do was simply to recommend that the necessary experts be at once put on that problem and that everything that might be necessary in order to take care of that class of men properly and reasonably should be done with promptitude. I must take the time of the House in referring particularly to the suggestions on page 53, because in a sense the crux of the whole problem lies right there. These suggestions were that financial assistance in the form of loans, grants or pay and allowances should be provided by Parliament for the following classes of ex-members of the forces:
(a) To those who desire to take vocational, commercial or industrial training regardless ol age or disability-
The suggestions came to us that in the case of any returned man who desired vocational, professional or technical education, Parliament should provide the means for him to obtain it regardless of his age or disability. Then there is an alternative:
Or in the alternative all those who desire to take such training who enlisted at the age of 21 or under.
(to) Those whose university, professional or technical education was interrupted by enlistment regardless of age, or in the alternative, all in this class who enlisted at the age of 21 or under-including students in arts, science, engineering, medicine, law, agriculture, etc.


John Howard Sinclair: Who will decide as to the courses different men may take?


James Alexander Calder: The necessary machinery will have to be established. These are merely suggestions. The next suggestion is that medical practitioners who graduated shortly before enlistment and who desire to take a post-graduate course to fit them for their important work should be given grants, loans or financial assistance. Assistance is asked also for:
(d) Those desirous of establishing themselves in one-man businesses such as blacksmiths, fishermen, grocerymen, druggists, architects, etc., regardles of age or disability.
(f) Those who are in need of assistance to take care of existing liabilities-such as debts contracted during the war. mortgages, etc.
[iMr. Calder.]
To these suggestions was appended the
following proviso:
To all of these suggestions was added a proviso to the effect that in the case of every application for assistance, actual need should be taken into consideration as well as the fitness or qualifications of the applicant for such assistance.
In my judgment this series of suggestions constitutes, as I have said, the very crux of the whole problem of re-establishment. For example, we are told: "Here are men who are homeless; the State should step in and help them to get homes, lending them money for that- purpose". Some one else says: "Here is a soldier who does not want a home; he wants to establish himself in business; the State, by means of a grant or .a loan, should enable him to set himself up in business". Then there is the case of the young student whose course was interrupted, and we are asked:	"For
goodness' sake, can't the State come to the assistance of this man and enable him to complete his education?" From another quarter comes the complaint that a mortgage weighs heavily on some man who cannot re-establish himself because it is in the way, and the suggestion is made that the State should give him a grant or loan of J1.500 or 32,000 to remove that mortgage. These suggestions come in with regard to all these various forms of re-establishment that constitutes the crux of the whole problem, that has been placed before us. We discussed it and discussed it from every angle. Some members of the Committee would be inclined to say: "There is a man who wants to build a home; he should be helped". Another man has been married in England and he comes across with a wife and two kiddies, no home and no furniture -he should be helped to get a home. Another man down by the sea went away; he lost his boat and his fishing tackle; our sympathies were naturally all with him and we wanted to give him back his fishing boat and tackle in order that he might get started again. Take the University student; a young fellow who had just passed his matriculation and was commencing his university course went over and lost three or four of the best years of his life. That man applies to us and says:	"I have not
got anything, I have been away from the University for three or four years, I have come back and I want to complete my university course." Every member of the Committee asks:	"Can we not help him
comnlete his university course?"
The sum total of all these suggestions that reached us from various quarters

constitutes the whole problem of reestablishment and the question that this parliament must decide is: what are we going to do with all these claims, many of them legitimate, many of them claims that we all recognize to be of value, and can parliament provide the money necessary to carry on this work?
In order that the House may know what the views of the 'Committee are I am going to ask honourable members to bear with me while I read the recommendations, because they sum up the situation as your Committee saw it. The question is: "Do you see it in the same light as we saw it? If you do not say so and, when the time comes, act so. We gave the best thought, judgment and consideration to the problem and we endeavoured to view the matter fairly, honestly and equitably in reaching the conclusion we have come to. As I say, I must ask you to bear with me while I read this portion of the report:
Recommendations-Tour committee submit that the .problems raised by these suggestions are such as to demand the fullest consideration by Parliament before any decision is reached.
Tour committee after full discussion and consideration have reached the conclusion that the very large expenditures involved in carrying out all these proposals would be such as to render their approval by Parliament prohibitive.
Prom the evidence submitted your committee experienced difficulty in making an accurate estimate of the cost of putting into effect these proposals. If vocational training were thrown open as suggested,
And the suggestion came to us very clearly, very distinctly, that any man who requires vocational training in order to fit him for an occupation should be given it by the State and that the State should bear the cost.
-the expenditure would probably run from $20,000,000 to $30,000,000. For university students alone estimates were submitted of a cost for loans and grants of over $7,000,000.
As regards the cost of establishing men in one-man businesses, who can say what the cost would be? We simply say so many millions. If a man wants to start a drug store, a grocery business or a fishing business, is he entitled to a loan, and if so, what is the end to it? What is your estimate for 500,000 men? I think that at the very least it will be a very large amount. There were also suggestions that provision should be made for debts, mortgages, tools and equipment, housing and furnishing. Then the report proceeds:	.
Tour committee are further of the view that the sum total of these and other similar suggestions for re-establishment constitutes the very basis of the proposals put forward in the general schemes for re-establishment submitted by the G.W.V.A. committee, Mr. Margeson and Mr. Flynn. It may, therefore, be estimated that if approved and carried into effect sums of money ranging from $200,000,000 to over $1,000, 000,000, according to their suggestions, would have to be raised in Canada for these purposes in the very near future.
Regarding their proposals generally, apart from the financial considerations involved, your committee cannot see their way clear to recommend any form of financial assistance for any particular class or group of ex-members of the forces who were not disabled.
You see the point?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Clearly.


James Alexander Calder: We came to the conclusion that we could not recommend to Parliament grants or loans for any particular classes among all the returned men with one exception:
'* Tour committee are convinced that the great majority of the men themselves would be the first to resent any distinction."
Letters and protests began to come in. Before we had completed our work telegrams and letters reached the committee from men outside stating that they had heard that we were going to provide for university students and they said:	"You cannot
provide for university students unless you provide for us; it (will not be fair or equitable."
The one exception made in favour of placing soldiers on the land stands by itself in that the assistance given is regarded as being primarily in the national interest as a settlement scheme. Tour committee, therefore, hold the view that if further financial assistance in any form is to be provided for men who were not disabled it should be open to all regardless of age, occupation, or class, provided such assistance is to be used for any re-establishment purpose.
I need not read the rest of it. At the end of that part of the report you will find two recommendations -that the Committee deemed it advisable to make in reference to certain classes of disabled men. As regards the other suggestions, such as life insurance, housing, unemployment etc., the [DOT]report speaks for itself.
We also attempted to make an estimate of what the cost of these various recommendations of ours would be. I had intended to speak at some length in reference to the proposals that reached us from Mr. Flynn, G.W.V.A. and Mr. Margeson but I think that what I have already said covers the arguments which I had intended to use and therefore I doubt very much if it will be necessary for me to delay the House any further in that regard.


Mr. GEORGE WILLIAM ANDREWS (Winnipeg Centre):: Mr. Speaker, while I was not a member of the committee whose report we have under consideration, it was my privilege to attend almost every session at which evidence was taken, those sessions being open to the public. I de-

197/805,478
269,819.833
549,284,268
43,692,708
(including war material $2>60,000,000).
There are also the following facts: Canada has the only two coal regions on the seacoasts of North America. The bituminous coal of Nova Scotia is estimated to last 700 years; that of Vancouver Island has been successfully operated since 1860.
Alberta coal is estimated to form 15 per cent of the world's supply. Of the actual re-

serve, calculated toy measurement, more than 3 billion tons are semi-anthracite or high-cartoon bituminous. An economic process of briquetting now within sight, will open the market to the vast mass of lignite.
We have heard the gloomy story of what we are confronted with, and I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is- true. But there is another side to our situation, and if we desire to win out we must be optimistic. I have quoted you figures in contrast with those presented by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) and his collector of income tax. After carefully studying the whole matter, I realized at once that we must face our financial condition as it really is. 1 studied every scheme of taxation and canvassed the whole situation, hut the fact remains that while Canada has made money out of the war the country is in debt. Who got the money I do not know; but it is certain that the soldier and his dependents did not get it. Nor did the big class who work on salary get it, because without exception they were on the verge of strike nearly all the time. The money has been made nevertheless, and it has been made, Mr. Speaker, by the producers of the country, and I desire to say-I may be misunderstood and (I do not -mind if I am, because I believe it is the living truth-that next to the men who served in the trenches in France the men who performed the greatest work in the war were those who manufactured and produced at a profit in this country. They have put some of their money into loans, which was no doubt a good1 thing, as it helped to carry on the war. But many of them, I am sorry to say, spent it in riotous living. My hon. friend from Neepawa (Mr. Davis) illustrated that rather aptly, I think. He asked, what are you going to do about it, and said that the matter was something like a dog collaring a beefsteak and running off with it. You cannot get that money back because it has gone into automobiles and luxuries of one sort and another. Well, that is true, and in my mind I picture that dog sitting conscious of the fact that he had done wrong. He sits with his tail between his legs, and when he finds that I do not kick him he starts to lick his chops. That is my mental picture of the dog to which my hon. friend referred, and I make up my mind that he will not repeat his trick-
I will put the steak out of his reach next time. My solution of the present situation is a system of taxation so biting hard that these people wall be prevented from spending all this money in luxuries, and so will be forced to save. No matter where you get

bankruptcy, it is bankruptcy all the same, and no matter how much money this country makes, unless we change our habits of life, we will be bankrupt anyway.
I agree with every word the chairman of the committee has said. There is nothing for it that I can see except work and save, and I have been deep into this thing for a month, night and day. But at the same time this money has been made, it is owned by somebody. When the men come back they see coats in the shop windows priced at $150 and boots at $20 a pair, and they ask: "Who has the price to buy them?" They see automobiles by the thousands that were not here before the war. They say: "Where did you get the money?" At the football match last week I saw enough automobiles parked to settle the housing problem in Ottawa if the money had been put into houses that has been invested in automobiles. I was told by a student who had come up to see *what he could do that two weeks ago last Sunday 46,000 gallons of gasoline were sold in a certain city to be used for joy riding.
Any mass of figures that the Government can bring down will only show the more plainly that there is something wrong. Something wrong has occurred in our system of loans. We are told by Mr. Breadner that we cannot have any more income taxes. I quite agree with him. You cannot have it at both ends; you cannot tax a man down to the last cent and ask him to subscribe to loans. You cannot get $20,000 subscriptions from firms if they are taxed down to the last cent. You find in the western districts, where they have had the worst crops in years, that their bank balances have never been as large. What is the reason? They have not produced anything. It is our system that is wrong-loans, loans, and more loans; artificial prices and artificial life. We have to cut that out.
Speaking-for the soldier, you will find that he will live on fifty cents a day or twenty-five cents a day and go into a dugout if necessary. He has put up with these things for three or four years, but he is back now- and before he does it again he is "from Missouri." You need never be afraid of the soldier; he is determined to get down to the facts.
In conclusion I am going to move an amendment. I had the temerity to rise so early in the debate because I purpose to move this amendment. After the terrible words uttered by the mover of the report I should like a word of explanation before reading the amendment. I made a note of what he said at the time, I do not

know whether I am correct- hut, as I understood the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, he said: No general gratuity or the Government resigns? Did I understand that correctly?


James Alexander Calder: In reply to the hon. gentleman's question I may say that in so far as the Government is concerned it has come to the conclusion that it cannot, or should not, provide for a further general scheme for the distribution of grants to all the members of the forces. I stated that if Parliament thought otherwise, if Parliament thought it advisable to provide for gratuities or grants generally, then some other Administration would have to carry it out.


George William Andrews: I am sorry that it
should have been necessary to make a statement of that kind before the representatives of the people had debated this subject.


James Alexander Calder: I stated in my remarks this afternoon that the Government must be responsible under our system for the large question of policy. The Government must either accept or reject the proposal. If it rejects it there is only one thing to do. If Parliament intimates quite clearly that this is its wish, and the Government does not uphold it, there is only one thing for the Government to do under our system and that- is to make way for an Administration that is prepared to carry out that policy. I think the hon. gentleman sees the point. As I said this afternoon we are not saying that in the nature of a threat at all. Every man will be absolutely free to vote as he pleases.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


George William Andrews: I am glad to have that explanation because it worried me considerably. My amendment is not a rejection of the report; it is an amendment of the report. It accepts everything the committee have done for the soldier but it sends it back to the committee for further consideration. I wanted hon. members to know whether, if they voted for an amendment of that kind, the Government were going to resign, or otherwise. I am glad that I was misinformed. I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie):
That all the words after the word "therein" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"is not sufficient for the purpose of adequately re-establishing all former members of the

forces in Canada in a comprehensive and equitable manner; and that the said report be referred back to the said committee with instructions that they have power to amend same by striking therefrom the recommendations contained under section d, subsection 2 (Pensions Board), section d, subsection 7, (proposals as to new benefits), paragraph 1 (Vocational training, education, etc.), paragraph 2 (Insurance IAfe>, and section "I," substituting therefor the principles of the plan of re-establishment as set out in Appendix 1 in the said report, and further that for this purpose it is recommended that the expenditure contained in section e thereof be suitably increased."


Henry Arthur Mackie: Mr. Speaker, I have read the report that is before the House. It is comprehensive, sweeping in its conclusions, and convincing. The salient points, however, in the report are these: First, the men have been treated better than in any other country. Second, there is no financial means in the Dominion to enable us to do better than we have done. Third, there is a minority report which says: "We are sorry that we cannot do better for the soldiers than the Government intends to do in this respect, because of the extravagance and the commitments which the Government has made." There is a distinct cleavage between the demands of the returned soldier and the findings of the committee in the report as submitted to us. In that report the committee finds that all the Government can do, basing its conclusions upon the premises which I have enunciated, is to supply the money for actually needy or for disabled cases; whereas the demands of the soldiers have been based upon the fact that one hundred per cent should receive consideration.
I am bound to say, Mr. Speaker, that I accept the report before the House as it stands, as being a decided improvement upon that which the Government had intended to do for the returned soldier prior to the sittings of the committee during which ithe latter listened to the grievances which were laid before it. In so far as the committee has dealt with the grievances which were laid before it, I am satisfied. I may be pardoned, however, if I offer some criticisms in relation to a few clauses of the report because I assume that we are at liberty to differ as to details, although we may concur in the general tenor of the report. For instance, I find that in the report the payment of gratuities is dealt with and are to be by monthly instalments and an affidavit is required before payment is made. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the requirements of that affidavit in such cases does not form part of the functions

of this House. The requirements of the affidavit from a man, and in some cases from a woman, before the gratuity is given are such as to inquire into the morality and the conduct of the individual; and if the sins of the individual, both as regards the man and the woman, are to be inquired into before the gratuity is handed out, it is an improper way of dealing with the returned soldier. I suggest that if this matter goes back to the committee-and even if it does not go back-this provision should be amended in such a way that the gratuity will be given to the individual who seeks it upon his showing proper cause, and that a certain amount will be granted to him having regard to the circumstances under which he is labouring and not for him to assume the role of a pauper or put him in the position of making a public confession as to his sins when he is in need of a ten-dollar bill.
Another point on which I differ as to the details of the report is the matter of the soldier's civil re-establishment dealt with at page 52. A clause is to be found there which says that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment shall appoint its staff without reference to the Civil Service Act and amendments thereto. I attribute a great deal of the difficulty that we have to encounter at the present .time in the country to the fact that the membership of this Parliament is not in the position to create an organization for itself as it used to do under the patronage system, which I am glad has been done away with in almost its entirety.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: To what part of the report is the hon. gentleman making reference?


Henry Arthur Mackie: To the suggestion to be found on page 52 that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment shall appoint all its employees.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what somebody suggested.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I understand this suggestion is subject to adoption by the House.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Oh, no, it was an outside suggestion.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Not a recommendation of the committee? Very good; I accept the correction which has been made. Inasmuch as there is a difference between a suggestion to the committee and a recommendation by it, and that this House is
only dealing with recommendations and not suggestions, my remarks in this respect are not apropos. If perchance anything shall happen in that direction, I wish to give warning to the House that I personally protest against the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment or any other department of this Government being administered except in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman is
partly right. There was a suggestion made to us that the whole of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment- staff should be appointed by the Department and not by the Civil Service Commission. We have made a recommendation to the effect that the technical and special officers required by that department should be appointed upon the recommendation of the minister and not by the Civil Service Commission.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I am satisfied with the explanation given me by the chairman of the committee, but you will admit, Mr. Speaker, that from the wording of the report there is the possibility of a misunderstanding in that regard.
The next criticism of the report that 1 desire to offer has reference to the remarks of the committee on page 55 dealing with the housing problem. The clause reads:
Tour committee are of the opinion that the provisions made at the last session of Parliament when $25,000,000 were appropriated for " Housing " to he administered by the provinces, should assist in relieving the general housing situation. For financial reasons clearly set out elsewhere in this report, your committee agrees that Parliament would not be justified in providing further huge sums for housing purposes.
Now, Sir, at the last session of Parliament, I had occasion to ask the Ministry on two or three different occasions how the province of Alberta was to be benefited by the provision that was made under the Act in question. On each individual occasion the answer came from the minister who had the Bill in charge that the province of Alberta had refused to accept the generosity of the Dominion Government in this respect. Now the general statement made on page 55 of the report may be true as regards the provinces with which the Dominion Government has entered into negotiations, it is not true as regards the province of Alberta. It is not true that the provision made by the Government last session deals correctly and adequately with the housing problem in the province from which I come. I suggest to the chairman of the committee,



therefore, that they reconsider this matter, and that if Alberta has not taken advantage of the offer made by the Dominion Government under the provisions of the $25,000,000 advance voted last session for housing purposes, the Dominion Government take steps to see that a certain proportion of the money which is advanced by the Government to the provinces shall be allocated to Alberta to meet the demands of the Great War Veterans in this regard as presented to the special committee which has now reported.
I have one more criticism to offer of the report, before I speak to the amendment offered by the member for'Winnipeg Centre (Mr. Andrews). It is that the report deals entirely with cases of men who are in need or men who are disabled. A reference to pages 28 and 29 of the report will prove that the provisions of the report are intended to cover only needy cases. It is true that the part of the report which is to be found on pages 28 and 29 consists merely of suggestions, but the recommendations also state, and the chairman of the committee made that very clear this afternoon, that only necessitous cases were to be dealt with. It naturally follows that not one hundred per cent of the men will receive the benefit of recommendations made by the committee. Therefore, whether I speak of suggestions or of recommendations in the report is quite immaterial; the fact remains that the report deals only with necessitous cases. At page 54 the report deals with the very thing to which the chairman o( the committee referred this afternoon, a case where it is said: "I cannot do anything for law students or medical students because I would have to deal with the mechanic and the tradesman and others -who are alike affected; I must neglect the one case because I must neglect all." But why not say: Instead of neglecting one and therefore neglecting all, I will provide for all?
Under the heading of "Vocational Training, Education, etc," on page 54 of the report, I find the following:
(a)	That the Department of Soldiers' Ci/il Re-establishment at its discretion be authorized to advance by way of loan to those disabled men who have been retrained and who are In need of same, a sum not exceeding $500 for the purchase of the tools and equipment necessary to establish them in their new occupation, such loans to be repayable within five years from date of issue without interest;
(b)	That the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment at its discretion be authorized to advance by way of loan to those men who were disabled and who are in need of same, a sum not exceeding $500 to enable them to pursue any course of training or education that was substantially interrupted by war service,
[Mr. Maclde.l
providing in all cases that the disability was of such a nature as to make such assistance necessary, and provided further that such men are not entitled to or have not taken training under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment ; all such loans to be repayable in live years without interest.
I read these two paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, for the direct purpose of showing, as, inindeed, was admitted this afternoon in this House, that the report deals only with disabled cases or eases that are classified under the heading of necessitous cases. I have said, and I repeat, that the cleavage between the Great War Veterans and the Dominion Government lies principally in the fact that the report deals with these special cases and not with ihe whole general body of soldiers.
Adverting always to the report in its financial aspects, one can come to no other conclusion than that which the report embodies. But I believe it would be interesting to the House to know what Lt.-Colonel Alfred T. Hunter, a witness before the committee, has said with regard to the matter of soldiers who have suffered. As I say, the report deals with disabled men and necessitous cases. The implication, therefore, is that returned men sound in body and mind have an equal opportunity with everybody else in Canada and must make good with their limbs and their
9 p.m. minds. If you wish me to treat this matter as an abstract proposition I am prepared to say that the man who has served his country, whether voluntarily or compulsorily, has performed a duty which he owed to himself and to his country and, in an abstract way; is not entitled to demand any remuneration whatsoever. Take the case of the Tommy who received a mere pittance for his services. Our Canadian men on the contrary were paid a great deal more than perhaps any other soldiers on the battlefields of France. The French call these remittances " pour-boires "-" for drinks." These are not moneys paid for services, in the strict sense; a man is supposed to perform that duty of military service for himself and his country and his fellowmen without pay. But here is where the soldier has a right to complain under the present system: The chairman of the committee said this afternoon very properly-(although not approving of the sentiments himself, but laying them before the House for the consideration of hon. members)-that the soldiers claimed that while they were facing the enemy in the trenches and were not afraid to die in order to save their country and the Empire

and their families and your families and mine; while they were rendering this service at $1.10 a day, the selective draft and the War-time Elections Act were preventing others from fighting or even from doing national work in this country. These latter, the soldiers claim, have a duty to perform to those who fought; so as to bring about equality of service, equality of pay or equality of suffering. They claim that they enlisted voluntarily, and while others were being enlisted by conscription, the slogan throughout the country was:	" We will
keep the fires burning"; "there shall be equality of sacrifice." They say:	What
are you doing for me now?-I enlisted voluntarily; what are you doing for me under those circumstances? Whether their claim is justifiable or not in an abstract way, they have at least brought the Government to this conclusion:	That they had a concrete
claim in so far as a certain percentage of men affected have received redress-the report is clear in that regard.
Lest there be any misunderstanding an to whether the man who is fit in mind and body should receive any compensation from the Government, let me read a portion of the evidence given by Lt.-Colonel Hunter before the committee. He says in one portion of the report:
We understood from Colonel Currie that you had certain representations you desired to make to the committee?-A. Yes, we drew it up in the form of a report to the Originals Cluh in Toronto. X may say the object is this: That we have no difficulty in explaining to the military man that the soldier is under a financial handicap, but apparently the non-military-that is those who have had no military experience- do not understand that. The average well-to-do citizen, the man with the expansive fatuous waistband,-
He was not referring to me either.
-if he is speaking of the soldier or the soldier class says. "These returned men do not get on as well as their fellows in the same walks of life. They seem to be shiftless and improvident, and sometimes dissipated, but when the same man is speaking of himself, if you ask him why his firm is not prospering as well as some other firm "Those fellows have more capital than I have, I am handicapped." But you cannot get the ordinary non-military man to inquire into the financial handicaps that the soldier has been labouring under and is still labouring under. Apparently starting with the Premier of Canada, the impression was that the public had dealt generously with the soldier. The contrary is the fact. The soldier has got back scarcely any of his own, and it is with a view to put that in the form of a calculation that we got up this report and with your permission X will read the report. It reads as follows:
I purpose skipping pages 929, 930 and 931 of the report because in those pages
the witness goes into a lengthy discussion of the facts and figures from which he arrives at a conclusion, and on page 932 he gives the following deduction from the figures which he has given and which have not been challenged by the committee or any member of the committee:
We therefore report that from the best information at our disposal we have come to the conclusion that the average returned soldier has suffered a financial loss in excess of $22 a week for every week he was overseas.
The following resolution was passed by the Originals Club of Toronto this 26th day of September, 1919 :
That we adopt and concur in the report of the committee not by way of asking the country for a specific amount or for any amount, but as a method of forming a rough estimate of the financial handicap under which every returned man is labouring and we authorize Brother Hunter to transmit the report to Brother Colonel Currie, M.P., with a request to place the same before the Parliamentary Committee with a view to having the honourable gentlemen composing that body investigate and make their own calculations from the materials which they can obtain from evidence submitted and from data in the possession of Government departments.
We do not want you to take our calculations; we want you to make them yourselves. It is like the boy who was working on the fourth proposition of Euclid. He said he did not believe it, and the master said, "I do not want you to believe it; I want you to prove it."
By the Chairman:-Q. Boiled down, colonel, your plan suggests the payment of a cash gratuity, or the payment of money?-A. Well, I did not put it in the form of a proposition ; I was rather building a concrete base on which you could build any proposition that appealed to the committee. I know a committee starts out with the idea perhaps that they won't have to give much, or do much, but a fair-minded committee often finds itself in the position of recommending a good deal more than it was intended to recommend. Then they go back and meet people in their own part of the country who will say, "You are giving these soldiers too much." The answer is, "We are not giving them anything; we are just letting them have a little bit of their own back." That is the object.
Q. The object is rather to show a condition that must be met? A. A condition that in all fairness should be met to some extent any way, and it is not eleemosynary. You can do but something in the interests of a fair career for the man who has come back.
By* Mr. McLean :-Q. As I understand it, you have reduced in this report our indebtedness to them in dollars and cents? A. Approximately.
By the Chairman:-Q. Did you ever consider this phase of it when discussing your report that within a year after war broke out, during the whole period, right down, I think we can say, to the present time, there is scarcely a branch of labour that did not put up the plea that the wage it was receiving was a less wage, so far as the value of the dollar is concerned, than they received prior to the war?-A. Yes, I am aware of that; I am also aware that the average working man or working woman is

living on a scale of extravagance for the last three years, such as the well-to-do people would have been afraid to show ten years ago.
Q. Would it be fair to put it this way from your standpoint:	that when our organized
labour bodies throughout Canada under these conditions are agitating for higher pay and higher wages there is no foundation for their claim?

A. Only if you want every one in the country to be a sort of an aristocrat. If these people had lived on " mulligan " and things like that, which our fellows lived on, they would not have had much complaint about the wages and they would have saved lots of money. Let us take a concrete case., Take the man living on a wage of 45 cents an hour. We had examples of that; these men actually come forward, their organizations come forward, and they say that the wage of 45 cents an hour that we have been getting and are getting now is not a living wage, that the money we get now will not go as far as the same amount of money went before the war. That is the contention, and has been during the whole war period. There is considerable truth in it, and while we are at it, while the representatives of the Government are complaining that it would be difficult to get the money for such a thing as we are suggesting in the way of relief, there is a very large body of business assets that iS being neglected, and it has a great deal to do with the high cost of living. Put it in the form of a parable: " If two men take off their coats to fight and the crowd gathers around, and one of these light-fingered gentlemen goes through not only the pockets of the men who have taken off their coats, tout the pockets of the crowd as well, and you catch that light-fingered man, you do not tax the wage he has made, you confiscate it, but, of course, if he should be an incorporated company and do it on a large scale, taking advantage of the necessities of the country, he is merely a profiteer, he is not a " dip." Now you have the statistics all ready, you know this, you send this roving, wandering investigation that is going through the country, and yet you have in the statistical branch of one of your departments you have the statistics of the profiteer, you have the power between the provinces and the Dominion; if the Dominion has power to confiscate, and as they have expressed their willingness to do anything to compensate the soldier, if the Government has taken advantage of that asset then we will consider anything you say about the difficulty, but * until that is done we have every reason to differ with you on the question of having no funds. But if you had taken up this question of raising prices, and divorcing bacon from eggs, there would not be any difficulty and a man could lire on 45 cents an hour.
Q. You have raised another question, a very important question, that has been brought to our attention before. But coming back to the original question your argument is based on the difference in pay which the soldier got and the wages that we pay to the various classes of people during the period of the war?-A. Yes.
Q. Our difficulty at home during the war, has been that all the working people generally, have considerable difficulty all the time to get a wage that would be equivalent, I mean in purchasing power, to that which they had prior to the war. I think I am stating it fairly?- A. Yes, that is so but for the purposes of comparison I have taken into account the average of 75 cents a day for the food of our men, their board, for their living expenses, they didn't pay

much for rent, nor would the workmen here have paid much for rent if they had slept in the places that our men had to sleep in and they could have lived on 7(5 cents a day then as well as our men did, and perhaps better, because they would have had time to look around and select tasty things. But war-time was a time of sacrifice, there was no reason why men here should not live as hard as the men at the Front lived; they were not working the same hours every day, or working under such a strain. I do not say I do not want the working men to have a maximum degree of comfort in the future, but during wartime every man should have sacrificed something.
Q. There is only one way to wage war and that is for the State to use the services of every one whether in the front line or at home. During war every one should make equal sacrifice, as far as it is possible to arrange it, but they have not done it in the past. I think if we should get into another war like this we sjiould take some steps in that direction?-A. Yes, to ration those at home as well as the soldiers.
I have read enough to show the viewpoint of one man, a colonel who is also a barrister, and the distinction he draws between the man who fought and the man who stayed at home. The report before us does not deal with the man who made the sacrifices and is still physically fit and mentally capable, but only with the disabled and necessitous cases. That brings me to my position in this matter. Notwithstanding any appearances of threats, or whatever interpretation may be given to the remarks made in this House by anybody, I am satisfied to let this Government go to an election any time they like. My position is the one I have taken before the Great War Veterans' Association in the city of Edmonton, in my own constituency. I shall not change from that position in this House, no matter what may be the consequences. I am not seeking favour, nor have I any fear. I told the committee of the Great War Veterans' Association that came to interview me with respect to this matter that I would not stand for giving any further gratuities out of the ordinary revenue of the country. The report before the House shows conclusively that no further gratuities can be granted out of the ordinary revenues of the country, and I think the soldiers accept that as a fact. What Colonel Hunter says is that there has been profiteering, and reference has been made by the chairman of the committee to profiteering. We have had Flavelles and pork barons and a number of other gentlemen who have prospered during the war, while the soldiers were sacrificing themselves to protect these gentlemen's families and their industries. The soldiers take the ground that these men should contribute something towards their re-establish-

ment, and that is not an unreasonable view when you go into the psychology of the matter. Here is a man who has been overseas for three or four years, with no care and no responsibilities, a boy once more, capable of playing, and facing death if necessary. He comes back to Canada and finds himself suddenly face to face with responsibilities and with duties to perform both for himself and his family. He asks himself, when he sees that some of those who remained at home have made fortunes while he was sacrificing himself at the front, where is the joy I had only recently? Ils it not natural for the soldier to turn round and say: These men who have made money in my absence and who keep on enjoying themselves to-day should contribute out of their earnings to the re-establishment of the soldier, no matter how the Government may get the money?
The only reason I speak to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) is not that I take exception to the finding of the committee that no further gratuities can be paid to the soldiers out of the ordinary revenue of the country, but because there is a method of raising the* money for these men if they are entitled to further gratuities at all. Whether or not they are entitled to them is a matter for this House to decide. If the House decides that only necessitous cases can be considered as a matter of justice and right, I am prepared to submit to the superior judgment of others and abide by the consensus of opinion of the House; but if every soldier has a right to receive some compensation for the sacrifices he made on the battlefield for you and me, this report should be referred to the committee again for further consideration as to how the money can be raised.
In 1914 we had a population of 3,700,000 males under 54 years of age, and only 595,441 were called for service. If none of the methods of raising the revenue that were suggested to the committee are acceptable to this House-and I must say that some of the suggestions were treated flippantly- there is one' method that was not considered by the committee, although I suggested it to some of the members, and that is that all men who have become 21 years of age since 1914 and who did not serve their country in the war shall bear a special tax for the 'special raising of funds to defray the cost of the gratuities which are claimed by the soldiers. We have also a foreign population of 360,000 in this country. I do not know what the exact proportion of males is. Last year I put a
question on the Order Paper asking for the information, but I received no reply from the Government, These men were prevented from fighting, and even doing national service in this country. Why should they not be called on to pay a supertax for the raising of revenue either for these gratuities or for the country at large? None of them wish to avoid their duty so far as paying is concerned. One objection that may be made to this proposal is: Some men of military age have already paid a lot of money and would you call on them to pay more? I say that every man who has paid anything has got something for it. The .man who buys $20,000,000 of Victory bonds has a paying proposition. He is not performing a patriotic aot but simply making a good investment. Another objection that may be made to this scheme is that some men imay have contributed handsomely to war funds, but I say that these men have also received handsomely of the goods and gifts that are not distributed universally to all men in Canada, and were in a position to make handsome contributions. It may also be objected that the man should not be taxed who was declared medically unfit. That question has been put to me and I say, yes, he should be taxed, because he has been receiving the benefits that accrued to those who did not have to serve although they may have had a desire to do so. It may also be objected that to avoid these taxes some of these people will go to the United States. Well, if there is any large proportion of these men who did not serve in the army who, to avoid paying the small sum they ought to pay to help the returned soldier re-establish himself, would go to the United States we will be well rid of them and Uncle Sam will not receive them with open arms if he knows the reason why they are crossing the line.
We are making far too much of the fear that this man may cross the. line or leave the country because a few dollars may be exacted from him. I am not affirming that the suggestion I make in regard to this form of taxation is one that is commendable, for I have not formulated any concrete plan. But I think that it is one that ought to be considered in all its details by a committee.
There is another method of raising revenue which, so far as I know, has not been taken into consideration, and that is a documentary tax on bills of sale, transfers, chattel mortgages, lien notes, etc. The objection may be raised to this proposal that:

I am encroaching on constitutional matters, and that as the method of taxation here suggested has reference to civil rights its adoption by Dominion authority would constitute an interference with provincial jurisdiction. I do not see that there could be any objection to the provinces coming to an agreement with the Dominion as to what ought to be done in the way of taxing documents. I suggest this matter for the consideration of the House. If hon. members are of opinion that the soldier is not entitled to any more than he is getting, then I have nothing more to say. But if the House thinks that the soldiers have suffered an injury for which they should be compensated in some degree, then I desire it to take into consideration the suggestions I submit, and to consider whether it is not possible to raise the necessary moneys for the purpose of providing the gratuity which is demanded. In his agitation to-day, the mental condition of the soldier precludes any consideration of technical rules and regulations such as govern this House, and some of the soldiers before the committee were astounded at the restrictions they encountered in the way of decorum. For instance, they could not understand that this motion, for the reason that it involves a certain money expenditure, could not originate with a private member. The soldier does not care for these fine technicalities. His mind is obsessed with one thought. He feels that as there has been money for this, that and the other undertaking there ought to be money for him.
Now, if the Government had said that the soldiers had got all they were entitled to and would get no more I might have taken issue with them on that stand. At all . events, the matter wouid have been clear cut. But that is not what the report siys It says in effect:	We have dealt with a
certain number of cases, and are prepared to accept certain suggestions and make certain recommendations, calling for an expenditure of $40,000,000 or $o0,000,000. But that is as far as we can go, because we have no money to go further. Now, the soldier says to himself that the Canadian people have paid to the railways in the form of cash bonuses, loans, mileage actually constructed, and so on a total of $274,067,049.87, of which amount the Dominion contributed $218,714,318.37, the provinces $37,437,895.16 and the municipalities $17,914,836.40. In the form of land grants the railways have received 44,096,989 acres. Of this the Dominion gave 31,864,074 and the provinces 12,232,915. In the province of Quebec the fMr. Mackie.]
railways were allowed in many cases to convert their land grants into cash at the rate of 52} cents per acre, which resulted in $4,557,728 being paid in cash for land thus converted. For all practical purposes, this amount might very well be added to the cash subsidies given by the provinces. It is not practicable to indicate the money value of the various grants, but in the case of the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Northern and one or two other roads, the amount yielded has been very large. For the year 1918 the Canadian Pacific had land sales amounting to $15,375,996 representing an average of $16.22 per acre for lands not irrigated. The amount realized during preceding years by this company cannot be stated; but it has not been less than $100,000,000. Taken as a whole, it would be a conservative estimate to place the value of all land grants to railways at $275,000,000. Indirect aid in the form of bond guarantees has been given by the Dominion and provincial government to the amount of $358,488,395. We have proceeded far enough in experience to realize that practically all ?^ese guarantees might be properly regarded as representing cash aid. It is even more serious than this; for the guarantors are obliged to pay both principal and interest. Having regard to the fact that nearly all the guarantees are for a period of fifty years, the full sum which will in the end have to be paid out of the public treasury will not fall below $800,000,000. Adding together aJll these various forms of aid to railways we have a total in round figures of $1,359,000,000. The soldier says to himself that the Dominion has given to private corporations large sums of money to enrich their directors and shareholders, and yet when they-the soldiers-demand assistance they are told that there is no money. Yesterday the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Lafor-tune), during the space of two hours, recited the litany of the wants of his constituency, and to each count he said the reply was "No money." I, too, might have recited the wants of my constituency and could have said the reply was "No money." But for private corporations, and to help the railways, there has always been plenty of money, and we have supplied in cash aid a total of $1,359,000,000.


Mr. EDWARDS:: And there are plenty of demands, too.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Yes, but if you tax the non-combatants for a period of twenty-five years, or from 21 to 45, you will get enough money out of them to pay the soldiers, and

more than the Government gave the railways. Now, in the broad plan of nationalization, under which the Dominion Government is now proceeding, we must dearly recognize the serious fact that further very large drafts will have to be made upon the public treasury. The operating deficit of the Canadian Northern for the past year has been announced as being $5,500,000. To this must be added something like $15,000,000 on account of fixed charges, making a shortage of more than $20,000,000 for the year. This, however', is not all. Very large capital expenditures will be necessary in order to bring up this road to a proper standard of efficiency, the amount having been estimated at from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000.
The Minister of Railways has told us in the House within the last ten days how much money it is going to take to put the Canadian Northern or the Canadian National where it should be. The deficit for the past year on the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Intercolonial and the other parts of the Government system is not yet known, but it is safe to assume that it will not be less than $10,000,000. The money must be found. To a certain extent I am arguing the case of the chairman of the committee and of the committee itself, but I am also arguing the case of the soldiers. There is money for these things, but there is no money for the soldiers. In a certain sense I am refuting the report which has been made by the Opposition because these extravagances, the giving of public money for the aggrandizement of private corporations and individuals, has been the weakness of all governments, it has been carried on for a long time by the Opposition, by Liberal Governments and Conservative Governments and even by this Government. If the Grand Trunk is taken over by the Government, allowance must be made for further responsibility by the Dominion treasury. We have been told that the road is in a state of bankruptcy, and the liabilities to be assumed by the Government are "substantial in character." Without fixing the balance as between net earnings and total charges it is altogether clear that some calls will be made upon the resources of the Dominion.
The situation, taken as a whole, shows a tremendous responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Dominion. But that is not all. In considering the question of what has been done to aid general transportation interests in the Dominion account must be taken of the cost of public harbours, dredging, and the aids to navigation provided by the Department of Marine. It would seem that exact figures are not available. The account runs back beyond Confederation and is nowhere to be found in such form that a precise aggregate can be stated. From reliable sources, however, it has been ascertained that the outlay on account of harbours and dredging is not less than $110,000,000. The system of lighthouses, buoys, etc., on the coastal and inland waters of the Dominion, together with annual charges for maintenance, has at least exceeded $60,000,000. We have found the money for this.
We must next consider the canal system of the Dominion. It represents a capital cost to date of $125,000,000, to which a very large sum must be added for annual maintenance. All canals are now entirely free, and have been for fifteen years past. The cost of maintenance last year was $1,700,000.
Stepping away from the matter of transportation, it must be remembered that the Dominion Government and the various provincial governments have expended an immense sum of money for the encouragement and promotion of agriculture. The farmers who are about to take their seats in this House had better take notice of some of the things that Dominion and provincial governments have done for them. The system of experimental farms is an example of what has been done by the Dominion Government. The capital outlay on that account has reached the large total of $9,000,000. The cost of maintenance is also large. Last year it amounted to a net sum of $885,000.
The development of our mineral resources has entailed a very large public expenditure. The old Geological Survey was some years ago incorporated with the new Department of Mines, and it might be said with propriety that the entire expenditure by this "department represents a public contribution towards the mineral interests of the country. The cost of this department last year was $760,000. These are aids to private individuals and corporations. The soldier tells himself that these millions of dollars have been paid by Dominion and provincial governments to aid millionaires and magnates and yet when he comes and asks that he be given assistance for the purpose of re-establishing himself, to which assistance he feels he is entitled, he is told there is no way of raising the money.
In conclusion, if the suggestion I have made in support of the motion that this matter be referred back to the committee for consideration is feasible at all, that a

tax should be levied on all men between the ages of 21 and 45, including those who may come to this country, for the purpose of raising the necessary moneys, I would ask for the favourable consideration of the House. If, on the other hand, the House is generally of the opinion that this is a case that should not be considered, that the soldier is not entitled to any further grant, except as provided for and recommended in the report, I have nothing further to do than to submit to the general opinion of the House. I submit, however, on behalf of the delegates representing the returned soldiers that they are entitled to go home feeling, whether they are or are not granted greater concessions than are fixed in the report, that every possible consideration has been given to the question of how the money can be raised for the purpose of meeting their demand.
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE (North Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to discuss the report of the committee, I wish to make a few observations relative to the position of the committee itself.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the hon. gentleman begins his speech, I think there is an understanding that we are to get off at ten o'clock and I would like the hon. member to regulate his conduct accordingly. He cannot finish but. he can make a fair start.


John Allister Currie: It will take me at least an hour and a half, and if it is the wish of the House I will call it off until to-morrow.


George Green Foster: I think if my hon. friend would put pep in his speech he might, get through at ten o'clock. However, he had better give us the introduction.


John Allister Currie: At a meeting last Sunday in the city of Toronto I said that the members of the special committee to which this matter of gratuities had been referred had been fairly well pledged or selected before they came together to discuss this question. The Chief Whip of the Government yesterday took occasion to take me to task after which he read a long lecture as to the military records of the members of the committee. Anybody who looks over the membership of the committee will come to the conclusion that there are certain members of the committee who have war records which I do not hesitate to acknowledge. But I am sorry that in so far as I can *see by the result of its action the commit-

tee set out with the intention of bringing in a report to a large extent similar to the one which has been brought in. I entirely disagree with the committee in many cases although I must say also that it has gone very deeply into many of these questions and problems and in endeavouring to prove that the money could not be found it has placed .a great many useful facts before the House and the country.
What is the demand of the returned soldier? Very few people seem to realize exactly what he is asking for. I wish the House to bear in mind that the Great War Veterans, the United Veterans' League, the Comrades of the Great War and all those other organizations have asked for a gratuity. They have not asked for charity. They are asking for gratuity and gratuity means a grant in money or in kind which will compensate them for lost time during the war and enable them to carry on in civilian life in the future. One would be led to believe from the speeches and actions of some of the members of the committee that such a thing as a gratuity was unknown in this country. I am going to recall to the memory of the House previous gratuities granted to soldiers. Conditions in this House are generally governed by precedent and it is no new thing ta ask for a gratuity. I can understand members who are new in the House and some who are new in the country coming to the conclusion that such a thing as a gratuity was unknown in Canada and that it is a very absurd thing for soldiers who have served in this war to ask for a gratuity.
As to the granting of gratuities, for 2,000 fears the practice has been almost invariably to make such grants to victorious
OrmiOO	TViom	nn /viinr.ti'no	11. - 1
j. ncic 1.0	11 \j IJUCO UlUll auuui) Olid, b,
and if any army among the Allies can be considered a victorious army the Canadian army must be so considered. The Canadian soldiers have merely asked for the gratuity that is customary. Instead of giving a gratuity the committee has shown that it must grant them charity. Assuredly, our injured soldiers and those who are incapable of helping themselves should be granted money and we should look after them. But that should be in no sense a charity. The pension that an injured man gets is to my mind not a charity. It is a grant by the nation in recognition of his services and the losses that he has sustained on behalf of the state; and to give money of that kind and consider it charity seems to me futile. It is not charity, it is a gratuity and a thing he is certainly entitled to.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What is there in the report of the committee that indicates the soldier is being given anything that savours of charity?


John Allister Currie: If the hon. gentleman will read the report he will notice there is a suggestion that money should be granted to assist those that are in need during the winter, and when you speak of men as being in need you mean charity. That is all I have got to say about that feature of the report, beyond stating that that is largely the attitude of the committee in the matter.
Now, we will discuss briefly on what occasions this country has granted gratuities to soldiers. In a retrospect like this I do not need to go back to the war of 1812, although I understand grants of land were made to Canadian soldiers who served in that war. (In some of our counties are still to be found the descendants of those men who fought in the war of 1812 and who are holding lands in the province of Ontario that were given as a gratuity by the Crown for service in that war. But I will come to a later day and consider what was done in the case ol the Fenian Raid. The Fenian Raid was but a small war and not a very large number oi men were called out. I think that in the province of Ontario possibly ten or fifteen regiments were under arms altogether; I forget the exact number, but the late Minister of Militia, if he were here, could give us the exact number, 'but in any case it is immaterial so far as that goes. It was not until, I think, the session of 1912 or 1913 that this House granted a cash gratuity to all the men who had served in the Fenian raid. No question at all was raised as to how the veterans had served, or where they had served, or whether they served twenty-four hours or twenty-four months. If they served, they got that gratuity. In the province of Nova Scotia -and the leader of the Government and other hon. gentlemen who come from that province will bear me put in this statement -the Governor called out the whole population en mass, and every man so called out that was still alive when the grant was sanctioned got the gratuity without any question. Now this House made no complaint with respect to the Fenian Raid gratuity. The gratuity was freely granted and without any question, and it was a cash gratuity. We now come to the next war, and that was the Northwest Rebellion. After that war had terminated the soldiers who had served in it were given a gratuity in the shape of land-a land scrip. Now
so far as that land scrip is concerned-I think it is called "red-backed scrip"-it was worth five or six years ago three or four thousand dollars at the very least to those men. Some of this scrip in the Northwest that sold first for $100 or a pony was afterwards bought for $4,000 and $5,000; it has greatly appreciated in value until it is worth now, I understand in some cases, $6,000 or $7,000; I know of one case where $6,000 was paid for Northwest scrip. There was no grumbling whatever in the case of the Northwest grants either; the State gave the grant and was well satisfied to do so. The province of Ontario supplemented the grant to the Fenian Raid veterans by giving them one hundred and sixty acres of land up in the North country. In the case of one man who got such a grant, I understand it sold for something like $15,000 to $20,000, if not more. In this manner the State dealt with the veterans of the Fenian Raid with the veterans of the Northwest Rebellion. Now, we come to the South African War. When that war terminated and the question of recognition was raised, I was a member of this Hous'e. The South African War veterans were granted one hundred and sixty acres of Government land to be selected by them in the Northwest, plus another one hundred and sixty acres granted as an addition to their homestead, making a total grant of three hundred and twenty acres to each man. No objection was taken by this House to those gratuities. They were gratuities, and not charities at all-they were grants made to the soldiers for their services. So I say that when the soldiers who have fought in the recent great war are asking this Parliament for gratuities, they are not asking for anything new; it is no innovation but something they are justified in asking.
Now this committee has gone into the subject, and the answer it has given to the soldiers in most cases-and the only answer to the question at all-is: " We are quite willing to grant you a gratuity, but the finances of the country will not permit it." That is the point I am now coming to; I have no desire to enter upon any other point and to unduly prolong the debate on this matter. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization has discussed the whole subject very thoroughly to-day. He has shown what the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the Soldiers' Settle- ment Board, and all these other departments that are working for the returned soldier, have done. One of the things that

we must remember is that these bureaus were all prepared and goit ready for the returned soldier; but when he came back to Canada he found the " cushy " civilian, who had remained at home, sitting in a big fat job ready to receive him, and when the soldier comes looking for something to do there is really nothing available for him as far as these positions are concerned. Take the case of the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment in the city of Toronto; take the engineering staff of the building on College street that are dealing with the *soldiers in the province of Optario, and what do we find? There are something like six or seven men on that staff, and only one returned soldier. All of these men should be returned soldiers. I am informed that in all other parts of the country the same system obtains. The House can understand very readily that there is a good deal of grumbling on the part of the returned soldier as to what has been done as far as he is concerned. He considers he is altogether overlooked and he feels that he has a grievance against everything. He was led to believe, when he went over to the front, the promise was made to him, on the platform and elsewhere, that the State would always look after him. He comes home and instead of finding a warm welcome and a kind effort imade to assist him in every possible way, what does he find? He gets the cold shoulder and every member in this House attempting to sidestep the issue as to getting a gratuity for him.
I propose to show how that money shall be obtained. Before doing so, I want to refer to a statement made by the minister to the effect that if the House did not approve of this report the On vemmen t, would appeal to the country. It is the first time in my experience in the House of Commons-and I have been here a few years, and have been in touch more or less with the House for thirty years-that when a report is presented by the Government and they take the stand that if if was not swallowed by the House holus boius, they would resign and go to the country. I am sorry that that was done.


James Alexander Calder: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? I did not say any such thing. I did not say that if the report was not approved and adopted by the House the Government would resign and appeal to the country. I stated that so far as the main finding in the report was concerned- and there are a great many findings in the report-the question of the distribution of

another general grant to the soldiers, the Government could not accept the responsibility of undertaking the distribution of any such, grant.


John Allister Currie: It is better not to cross a bridge until you come to it. I do not think I have ever seen a Government which was not amenable to reason and to the reasoning of the House and prepared to meet the suggestion of the House as to legislation or on any question other than a vote of want of confidence. To refer this report back to the committee, therefore, with instructions to insert amendments would not, to my mind, be a vote of want of confidence. I think the rules of the House will bear out that view. But the hon. member has assumed that such action would be a vote of want of confidence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Allister Currie: All right, I will accept
that. No one in the House, then, need hesitate to vote to send this report back to the' committee with suggested amendments, and the Government will not look upon the vote to send the report back for that purpose as a vote of want of con-dence.
Now, it is ten o'clock-


George Green Foster: The hon. gentleman may go on.


John Allister Currie: Is it the wish of hon. members that I go on?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Hon. gentlemen opposite can always overrule us; we have nothing to say about it.


John Allister Currie: 
Mr. DAVIDSON:: They are quite as good as the Flynns.


John Allister Currie: I remind the hon. member, as well as several other gentlemen in the House, that without the votes of the supporters of the Flynns and other soldiers they would not have any place here to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: American citizens,
too.


John Allister Currie: Quite a number. It is a very poor thing to knock down the ladder that enabled us to climb up to seats in this House. The returned soldiers unanimously supported many members on this side of the House, members on the Government benches. I will warrant that one-third of the members on this side of the House were returned by the soldiers' votes. That is a fact; so far as I am personally concerned I can say


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Cameron Edwards: That is not a fact.


John Allister Currie: Then one-quarter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Allister Currie: There is no use in denying it; the soldiers' vote in Canada and abroad was used to elect members. I got a lot of returned soldiers' votes in my riding, a large number of them, and I think I will get them again. I got also quite a number of votes of soldiers overseas. I notice in looking over the list in the hand-book that nearly every member on this side of the House was blessed with three or four hundred votes from the fellows in the trenches.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. member will permit me to say right heTe, in all good humour, that there are not half a dozen members in this House, on both sides, who were not elected entirely independent of the soldier vote.


John Allister Currie: I have no desire to make any comparisons or to name any particular members; it is not a nice thing to do. But there are members sitting on this side, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, 10 p.m. whose presence here is due entirely to the soldier vote. We are all here, virtually, as their representatives, especially we on this side; and when the soldiers ask us to assist them in reestablishing themselves, it is very poor policy for us to start out with a report such
as that which is now before us. I was very much surprised, Sir, when I read the report.
Now, I want to take up one or two of the items that the minister referred to in connection with his argument that the expenditures during the coming year were going to be so great as to make it impossible to raise the money required for a grant or gratuity. Anybody who understands the flnancies of the country knows very well that the items referred to in the report as possible difficulties in the way of making any grant are not all real difficulties. One would think that the country was bankrupt and that it was going to be impossible for us ever to raise our heads above the water. The minister points out how many millions we have to give to railways and all that sort of thing in order to carry on the business of the country for another year. For my part, I think we could omit a great many of these items for our consideration of this matter.
For instance, there is the item of public buildings, $3,000,000. I do not see any public buildings going up around the country, outside of the public buildings in the larger cities which are not included in this item. But that expenditure is on capital account and it is fair to assume that it represents an asset.
The Welland canal could very well wait for a few years. I do not see any necessity for the Welland canal enlargement for the assistance of our good friends south of the line-because they would be the chief beneficiaries of that work. Their large ships would pass through to lake Ontario and the trade that now largely goes through our canals to Montreal in the smaller-sized ships would virtually be cut out. Anyway, that is my opinion of it.


James Alexander Calder: May I direct the hon. member's attention to the fact that this money was voted at the last session of Parliament, and, perhaps, with the exception of $500,000, has been spent. It is not, therefore, a question of waiting.


John Allister Currie: So I observe, but I hope there will not be any expenditure next year of a similar character.
Then, there is the item: "Harbour and River Improvements." Then there is the "Improvement of the St. Lawrence Ship Channel"; that is a necessity. "Shipbuilding, $40,000,000"-that is an absolute asset; the ships built in this country will be turned over to a company, and to my mind that company should be capitalized and

this amount treated as a capital expenditure. We cannot get along unless we build ships for ourselves, because every nation now is anxious to get hold of every ship it ean lay its hands on. In a fortunate- or perhaps unfortunate-moment we allowed the Imperial Munitions Board to fill our yards with ships; those ships are now over in the Old Country and are being operated by Old Country companies in the Argentine and United States trade, rather than being in this country engaged in Canadian trade. If we are to handle* our own products in their shipment to England we must have our own .ships. But that is a capital expenditure. These ships will all return tremendous profits if they are properly managed.
I am satisfied that if the Government wished to put those ships that they already own up for sale to-morrow, they would get at least 50 per cent more for them than they cost, so that they are a good investment. It is not like the railway companies, where you invest your money in them and then you have to invest more money in them to keep them going, and then pay all over * again to get them back. It is not a double investment; it is. only a single investment. The Intercolonial railway should be .included in the railway account. As regards the Quebec and Saguenay railway, that was a dead cat. As regards purchase price for branches of the Intercolonial, the branches are all pretty dead ones; indeed, they are only streaks of rust.
Mr. MoMASTER: The funeral expenses are heavy.


John Allister Currie: Very heavy. These are the items of the undertaker. We come to rolling stock equipment, supplies and materials for the National and other railways, $35,000,000, The accounts of the National railways are, as I understand the matter, under their own control entirely; that is, the Canadian Northern and the other roads are now controlled toy a company and their accounts are kept separate from the Dominion accounts altogether, and whilst those expenditures may be made, they are an investment that will return good interest on the money. After summing up the whole thing, the minister finally decided that the total net amount that would be expended this year and what we might call "wastage of war," would be $260,000,000.


James Alexander Calder: No.


John Allister Currie: I think I have the minister's note to that effect. After deducting [Mr Currie.]
these, sums, he acknowledged after all that only $260,000,000 could not be covered.


George Green Foster: The hon. member is too low in his figure.


James Alexander Calder: If the hon. gentleman will allow me just for a moment, the estimate made, not by the chairman but by the committee after the evidence had been submitted to us., was that the commitments for this year, including the amount voted by Parliament and sums that must be provided in addition to those voted by Parliament, approximated $600,000,000, on which there would be a small, but a comparatively small, saving, and not $200,000,000.


John Allister Currie: I think when the hon. gentleman reads Hansard to-morrow, he will find out that he made the statement. The hon. gentleman took out the items to which I already referred and said that they were capital expenses and not losses.
Mr. CALDE.R: There is one item of $350,000,000 under the Demobilization and Appropriation Act.


Mr. OURRIE:: The minister said that, but included in that is " trade expenses," which are not demobilization items, and surely that is not a loss.


James Alexander Calder: No, but there will be included in that $350,000,000 no less a sum than $153,000,000 for gratuities, less the amount that has been paid prior to the first of April.


Morley Currie: There are credits here of $125,000,000 for Great Britain and Allied countries. That surely is not a wasted asset; that will be returnable. Then there are credits for the Grand Trunk Pacific for deficits on operating expenses. Of course, that is cold loss. The housing scheme, $25,000,000 has not been carried through, so that will be a saving. The minister was checked by the leader of the House (Sir George Foster), who, I think, detected that there must have been a few stray figures there, but the minister said that $260,000,000 would be the net amount expended that would not return any interest on the investment as the others would.


George Green Foster: I am afraid the hon. member has a few stray figures on the wrong side.


John Allister Currie: ll do not think so. I do not get stray figures very often as a rule. Apart altogether from them, as those figures have nothing to do with the question of the soldier's gratuity, if the Government wishes



NOVEMBFK 5, 1919 17S9

[Stage Direction]
to spend $100,000,000, that is no reason why the soldiers should not receive consideration, nor why they should not receive a gratuity. The Government, it is true, can go to work and spend $1,500,000,000 a year; it can buy up railways; it can buy up electric light companies; it can start public ownership schemes that will involve millions every year and then hold this up and say: Oh, we cannot do anything for the returned soldier.
I want to refer to another item in the report, and that is the soldiers' land settlement scheme. The Land Settlement Board is a most excellently managed board. The members work hard; they have a very difficult task; but the problem put forward is this: They have to settle the soldier on the land. I cannot for the world see what increased production you can get out of changing the ownership of the land. The policy adopted throughout Canada is this. A soldier selects a piece of land that is occupied already by a farmer, possibly some old farmer who wants to leave and go to live in the town and talk " U. F. O." or some other kind of politics. This Government steps in and buys that land from the farmer, and the farmer goes and lives in a village or town, so that we have lost that man's production. We have not gained any more by the deal than we had before. We simply substitute one man for another. The manner in which the Government deals with these men is not as good as the Australian scheme. When a man takes up land under our Soldiers' Settlement Act, his wife can sell the eggs, but she cannot sell the chickens without the consent of the Government, and a man who owns a farm of that kind is a thousand times worse off than an Irish tenant. The manner in which that land should be given to the soldier is this. The land should be purchased, and it should be rented on a long-term lease to the soldier with the option on his part to purchase it at the end of the term. That is the system that is suggested in Australia, and it is a system that, I think, would appeal to every hon. member in this House. If the man does not succeed on the farm, and if he leaves it, the Government has the farm and can lease it to another soldier or sell it or do whatever it likes with it. As it is now, the man goes on to the land, and-he is tied up under sixteen hundred different regulations, so that he cannot sell his crop, or a chicken, or a cow, or anything else off that farm unless he gets the consent of the Government. If that is not paternalism gone mad, I do not know anything. That is the consideration the Government gives to the returned soldier, and it is no wonder that he growls.
The question was brought up in the House by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Mc-Gibbon) with reference to those men who are in hospital under the demobilization scheme, who have left the military hospitals and who have gone over to the hospitals under the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department. Those men went under the distinct promise that the pay of their rank would be given to them. And this committee goes to work, and simply on the suggestion of somebody they want' to cut the pay of the officers down to $60 a month.
The minister would not discuss with the House the various suggestions made as to how the money Could be raised, although the House, I think, would have liked to hear from the minister the suggested form of taxation discussed. The leader of the House is, I know, very deeply interested as a student of economics, and I hope he will follow the discussion along these lines.
George Green Foster: I will try.


John Allister Currie: The first suggestion that came before the committee was that of State lotteries, and the suggestion was made by Mr. Flynn. The suggestion is now under consideration in England with reference to a premium bond. A premium bond is, of course, a lottery, and every nation in Europe, I think, with the single exception of Great Britain, has premium bonds and has sold premium bonds and part of its debt is carried by premium bonds. That is to say, you purchase the bonds which pay interest at three and-a-half or four per cent, but a certain sum, like added interest, is set apart every year and there is a drawing, and if you have a bond and your number is fortunate enough in that drawing, you may have $500 or $1,000 or $2,000 or $10,000 in cash as a prize, but you have your bond still and you may be lucky again next year. And in the end you get your money in full back.
That is one method of getting money, and it is a cheap and easy way. While the people of Great Britain have always considered it gambling, other countries, like France, for instance, have not, and have raised large sums of money by that scheme. Then there are the Sunday theatres and liquor sales. I do not expect that we will ever get anything more from the sale of liquors. We have lost $12,000,000 or $14,000,000 through the exercise of

bone-dry laws. The inheritance tax belongs to the provinces. The ex-Minis-ter of Finance in giving evidence before the committee discussed these various questions with great clearness and force. He pointed out in the first place that the backbone of all the revenue of the country was the customs duties, but nobody asked him Whether the customs duties could not be increased. Why the absolute silence? Was it because everybody in the room was a free trader? I belong to a party that would not be afraid to add to the customs duties if it was going to produce more revenue, that was necessary. The ex-Minister of Finance went on to say that the income tax in Canada was greater than in any other country in the world practically, at least of the Allies.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No.


John Allister Currie: That may be a mistake. The income tax in this country is certainly greater than in the United States. I think that is what he intended to say.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what he did say.


John Allister Currie: But one would have inferred what I said just now. Not only have we as great an income tax as the United States, but we have also a tax on business profits, so our taxes on income are much greater than in the United States. I can quite understand a gentleman who is steeped to the eyebrows in free trade, like the hon. member for Vancouver, talking about nothing else but income tax. We never knew an income tax in this country until a few years ago and always raised our revenue by customs duties. We always found it a good method. The war enabled the Government to force a direct tax on the people, but I say you cannot keep that direct tax on the people more than five or six years longer, because they are going to get tired of it. Do you wonder why the farmers revolted in the last election? I can tell you. You are getting after their income. That is the chief cause of the trouble. If we continue to have an income tax in this country greater than in the United States, how in the name of conscience can we expect anybody in the United States to invest their money in Canada? Do you expect factories in this country to be enlarged or new ones to be built if you take away all extra profits? Perhaps this country can get along without additional factories. That is a question that is staring us straight in the face. We are also confronted with the question of the rate of exchange between Germany

and this country. A member of this House told me not very long ago that he wished to purchase some machines for the company he was interested in, and found that the price in the United States was something like $2,500. A gentleman attached to the company in the United States, who was a German, said, " Let us see what we can get this machinery for from Germany." They got a price around $450 or $480 on account of the drop in the value of the mark and the difference in wages. If you are going to leave our walls down to the Germans and allow the Swiss and the Dutch and the Spanish, to ship German go ids in as their own, you will deprive the factories of this country of their labour. The workingman of this country has something to say. The people who live in the cities and towns constitute 60 per cent of our population. Jf you are going to pursue a burdensome policy and grind a man down with income taxation, our manufacturers will be driven to the United States. The manufacturer who has a few hundred thousand dollars to invest and considers putting it in a factory-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can understand that
a reference to taxation proposals is inseparable from this measure, but it does not follow that we should have a Budget debate.


John Allister Currie: tariff. But the people who are profiteering in trade in Canada are the Americans. They are the people who are sending in millions of dollars' worth of automobiles and other luxuries such as silk and diamonds. Now, most of these luxuries are free. Why should diamonds be free? Silks have a lower duty than almost anything else, and there is no reason why the luxurious articles should be almost free whilst there is a duty on woollens; it is a most absurd proposition. The customs revenue should be increased in some way, and I want to inform this House that the soldier is quite up-to-date ' and knows all about these matters. He knows very well that the country can raise additional revenue to provide the money for him. But with all your groanings about the income tax, all that can be raised in this direction is $12,000,000 or $14,000,000.


Mr. COOPEB:: The estimate is $30,000,000.


John Allister Currie: Well, they did not raise
that last year, and it is like all the rest of the estimates in connection with the income tax in this country. They always estimate that they are going to get twice as much as they get in reality. We have not in this country men with great incomes. The country is not old enough, and while there may be a few scattered individuals with large incomes from railway stocks, it is absurd to think that you can raise revenue in this country by a taxation of incomes. The revenue to provide the gratuity must be found by means of the tariff.
Now, hon. gentlemen may think that I am talking from the standpoint of a hardshell protectionist Tory, but it was [DOT] the Conservative party that went into the war boldly because it knew that the revenues of the country could stand the strain, and that the patriotism of the people would prove equal to the task. I am very sorry that that party is not in power to-day, because I am satisfied that it would have courage enough to apply a system of protection and a national policy that could easily raise the amount that it demanded by the soldiers. If the tariff were increased I would not be afraid to take the platform in any constituency in this country, especially if there are any factories in it-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Any what?


John Allister Currie: Factories-and hold up
the banner of a national policy, and although the hon. gentleman (Mr. McMae-ter) is a free trader, I am satisfied that if the soldiers' necessity were presented clearly and fairly, he himself would be quite

willing to endorse an addition to the tariff to see these deserving men through. Why, Sir, have we no responsibility to these men? Did we promise them nothing, and are they entitled to nothing but jeers and laughter from this House? I stood in the trenohes with them and I know their feelings, and I know what were their expectations. I recruited a great number of them, and they always, in the tightest corners in France, heard a soft whisper of gratitude which they would experience on their return to the country which they were in the battle line to defend.


William Cameron Edwards: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Allister Currie: I wish the hon. member would not interrupt me.


William Cameron Edwards: I have a right to interrupt you, and I desire to ask a question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has no right to ask a question without the consent of the member who has the floor.


William Cameron Edwards: I rise to a question of privilege.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member cannot rise to a question of privilege' while another member has the floor.


John Allister Currie: I can stand interruptions from any one who gave hostages to the country.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman is making a cowardly attack when he makes that statement in reference to myself.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. II must ask hon. members to bear in mind-


William Cameron Edwards: I sent my only son to the war and he stayed until the war was over.


John Allister Currie: I am quite willing to give the hon. gentleman credit for that, but the hon. gentleman belonged to a profession whose services were badly needed in the war and he could have served without trouble.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Cameron Edwards: Permit me to say that I offered my services and they were refused.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must ask hon. members to bear in mind that there is a specific resolution before the House, and it would be well to adhere to it.


John Allister Currie: You will bear me out, Mr. Speaker, that I did not occasion the interruption.


William Cameron Edwards: You made a cowardly attack.


Morley Currie: You are all the time at that game.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Cameron Edwards: I can take care of you-


John Allister Currie: That is all right.


William Cameron Edwards: -before this debate is through.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman can go ahefd and discuss anything he likes, but I have never interrupted him in my life in this House, and, indeed, I very seldom interrupt any hon. member unless I desire to get a point cleared up. That is a fact, and I wish it clearly understood. Now, Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that the ypung men who went and served in the war did so in the sanguine expectation that their country would stand behind them when the struggle was over.
They did not expect that they were going to come back here and see the very first request they placed before the House of Commons thrown down. All the time they were in France the one thing that sustained them constantly was the idea that their country was grateful for their service and that it appreciated what they were doing. There are fathers here who know, from letters from their sons, that that was the underlying principle of it all. These young men went over and offered themselves up as a sacrifice to their country. No man who has never been under fire for the benefit of his country can fully understand what that means, and God knows Canada did not go into this war to make any money out of it. We are not going to get hardly anything out of the Germans. We did not expect any territory. We went into the war purely for the sake of humanity, and these young men, for the sake of humanity, fought for the cause of liberty and freedom. We who stand here as the representatives of that liberty and freedom which has been handed down through the generations should be the last people to say that all sources of revenue are exhausted when there are many ways in which further money can be raised whereby some gratuity can be given to these soldiers. In deciding to pay a gratuity we are not instituting anything new. We are only carrying out the old established principle in this country that a man who goes to war and returns shall receive a gratuity. Never has any man gone to war from Canada who, on his return, has not received a gratuity. The gratuity has been given in Canada in lieu of what is known in England as half pay. It is only right that that should be. When these men were taken from thewar, on their way over and after they reached here, when they were receiving a gratuity, they were liable to be called upon again, every one of them. They were not released bcause they might be called upon at any time.


Richard Clive Cooper: They had all been discharged.


John Allister Currie: They were discharged afterwards, but they were liable to be called on at any time.


Richard Clive Cooper: That is not correct.


John Allister Currie: I know the regulations as well as the hon. gentleman does, and his statement is not correct. It was understood that they should ibe under control before they received their discharge.


Richard Clive Cooper: Not in all cases.


John Allister Currie: The question of discharge in so far as the country is concerned has been removed from the old idea altogether. In so far as England is concerned, when a man enlists he makes a contract with the King, just the same as if he were making a contract to dig a ditch, and that contract exists until such time as he is discharged. In this country we assume that every man must go to the front if necessary. It is not a question of contract at all. Under the Military Service Act everybody becomes in reality a conscript and he is liable now, at this moment, to be called again. There is no question about that. For these reasons I think the House will be very ill advised unless it gives further consideration to this matter. I am quite willing to support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) if it is wide enough to include all kinds of gratuities. Do I understand it to be so from the hon. gentleman?


George William Andrews: Men who served less than six months are not entitled to the gratuity.


John Allister Currie: At home?


George William Andrews: At home.


John Allister Currie: That is quite correct. I
am quite willing to support that motion and I desire to say to the House that lam willing to accept any reasonable proposition that may be put before us. I am quite willing to abide by my position in this



House. I shall therefore support the amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg.
On the motion of Mr. Edwards the debate was adjourned.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: In order that we may readily resume the discussion of the report which has been under consideration to-day I beg to move:
That the consideration of the fourth and final report of the special committee to which was referred Bill No. 10 an Act to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act, and the amendment of Mr. Andrews, shall be the first order of the day at the next sitting of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
1.	Notwithstanding any provision in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, or any amendment thereto, or in the Canada Shipping Act, or any amendment thereto, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada may grant permission to the following vessels to clear from any port in Canada on any voyage even though the master and mate of any such vessel, or either of them, do not hold valid certificates of competency or service, provided that the said Minister is satisfied that properly certificated men cannot be procured and that the acting master and mate are competent and have sufficient experience:
(a)	Canadian registered vessels other than vessels carrying passengers ;
(b)	Canadian registered vessels carrying passengers not exceeding one hundred registered tons, which ply exclusively within what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may deem to be sheltered waters within the inland waters or on the sea coasts of Canada;
2.	These provisions shall continue in operation for one year from the date of the passing of the Act to be based upon this resolution and no longer.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At the present time there is in operation an Order in Council passed under the War Measures Act which gives to the minister the powers that arfe set forth in this resolution and upon which it is proposed to found a Bill. It is the experience of the department that in Canada at the present time there is a great shortage of certificated masters and mates. That was always the case in recent years but the condition has been much accentuated by reason of the war. During that period it transpired that very few' young men presented themselves for examination for masters' and mates' certificates. The consequence is that to-dhy in maritime ports it is frequently impossible
fMr. Currie.]
for the owners of a ship to obtain certificated officers. The proposal in this resolution gives to the minister authority for one year to enable a ship to depart without a certificated pilot if satisfied that the person proposed to be put in Charge of such a ship by the owner is competent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think that when the [DOT]minister looks around and sees so few members of the committee present he will agTee with me that this is not the occasion for considering so important a subject as he suggests to the committee at the present time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My only purpose in asking the House to allow this resolution to pass is that the Bill may be printed. Every opportunity will be given for the discussion of the Bill when it is printed, but I desire' to have it on the Order Paper when we conclude the discussion on the report which is at present before the House.
_Mr. McKENZIE: I have only to say to my hon. friend that I could not at any stage agree to this resolution. It may not be so startling to a man who lives in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, or somewhere where they are not so acclimatized to this very thing as a man who lives on the coast like my6elf. It w'ould be just as reasonable for the hon. gentleman to say that if in the city of Winnipeg, for instance, there was a scarcity of doctors a particular member of the Cabinet should have authority to appoint any number of doctors to start out on surgical operations and everything that pertains to the profession of a duly-qualified medical man. The sea-captain takes charge of the ship. He has under his control a certain number of men, not necessarily passengers, that put their lives in his hands, and he sets out to sea with his thousands of dollars worth of property and precious lives. The property in his charge, and the lives of those men, depend upon his skill as a navigator and as a man who knows the theory and practice of navigation. I cannot possibly be a consenting party to putting the lives of those men and that property into the hands of a man who is not qualified under the Act. Everybody knows that the qualifications required under the Act are very simple. It is a simple thing to pass the examination and even if it is necessary to lower the standard of that examination that is another matter; but I cannot by any possibility agree to opening the door and giving such favour to .a minister who may

know nothing at all about the requirements of seamanship-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Who may be a paint manufacturer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Possibly a paint manufacturer; at any rate he is called upon to know whether a man is a qualified seaman. A man may be aloft on a ship and a person down below who is ignorant about seamanship may swing a yard or a boom in such a way as to throw the man aloft perhaps a hundred feet away from the vessel by not knowing how to pull the right rope-in fact not understanding his business. Our whole salvation in matters of this kind is that the law requires certain experience and certain training in seamanship before a man can take charge of a vessel. Now as far as I am concerned -although the legislation may be passed over my head-I wish the minister would distinctly understand this: That I would not put the lives of the men in these ships in the hands of a man who was not a competent navigator. Speaking personally I would not go to sea with a man that I knew had not the proper training and the proper qualifications for the trust that is reposed in him.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are two sides to the question involved in this resolution. The hon. gentleman has taken one side, but there is another aspect to be considered. It is not proposed that the minister should exercise the authority, if such power is granted him, of -putting a ship under the control of an incompetent man. The purpose of this legislation is primarily to enable sailing ships to depart from a port with out a certificated master or mate. I would like to tell my hon. friend that in the United States sailing ships up to 700 tons can sail anywhere the world over without certificated masters, or mates. In Great Britain where they have had a century of experience in such matters, they do not require masters and mates to be certificated in sailing ships in the coasting trade-


Andrew Ross McMaster: In all sailing ships?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: -and I do not think they require certificated masters and mates in ships of a certain size sailing coastwise in Great Britain. I was discussing this matter only yesterday with the officers of the Department of Marine and we were seriously contemplating bringing forward at this stage a Bill to enable Canadian sailing ships to sail anywhere without certificated masters and mates. No owner will
113i
allow his ship to depart from port in the hands of an inexperienced man. This, of course, does not relate to passenger boats. I think myself we might very well abandon the idea of requiring certificated masters and mates for sailing ships, particularly up to a certain tonnage. I really think we will have to do that, otherwise the sailing marine in this country will not be able to get the men. They have not been able to do so during the war fand frequently the department, in order that a ship could depart from a port, has been obliged to exercise the power given the minister under the War Measures Act, but which we wish to perpetuate for another year. Only to-day I was in receipt of a telegram from Halifax with respect to two sailing ships that were ready to depart but were unable to obtain certificated officers. They could not get them and they were advised that if the Customs officer at the port would certify that they had made diligent efforts to secure certificated officers, they would be permitted to depart upon furnishing an experienced man. I appreciate that there is something in the argument of my hon. friend. The only thing I ask of him is to permit the resolution to pass in order that the Bill may be printed, subject to the understanding that it will not in the slightest degree prejudice him in the matter of the right of discussion.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest to my hon. friend that if he is doing this with a view of hastening the passage of this legislation through the House, he is not wise. I realize the full force of what he has said as to the difficulty of obtaining certificated officers, and I can quite understand there may be circumstances in which it may be necessary to sanction these exceptional cases in order to carry on the trade and commerce of the country. But I think we ought to let the public know that this Bill is proposed, and possibly we would discover that there is not as much difficulty in some quarters in getting competent men as is alleged. It may be that there are many shipmasters who are willing to give their services, but possibly the conditions offered to them are not satisfactory. I am rather in sympathy with the objects of the Bill but I would strongly advise my hon. friend not to rush it through but to allow full opportunity for the discussion of the measure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not propose to rush the Bill through, I simply wanted to advance it a stage so that it can be

printed. We cannot reach it, in any event, for two days.


William Stevens Fielding: But two days is a very limited time to allow for a measure which affects so many people. I think the maritime population of our country ought to be made aware that there is such a Bill and if there are any certificated officers around who are unemployed, but who, for some reason or other, do-not seem to suit the owners, they should have an opportunity of making their position known. It is true that of late years there have been very few young men coming up for examination. Nevertheless there are a good many veteran shipmasters still around our coasts and before agreeing to the Bill-I do not object to the hon. gentleman's motion-I should like to be satisfied that all these people will have the opportunity of getting employment, and it is only in case such qualified men are not available that the provisions of the Bill will be carried out.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am sure the minister knows as well as I do that one of the proudest and most honoured professions in our province is that of shipmaster, and those who have reached a high position in that calling and take pride in their profession, are men to whom we look up. I cannot understand therefore why we are now proposing to cut that education down and say to the shipmaster, or to the man who wants to qualify himself, " Oh, your position is a picayune one. Anybody can sail a ship; what are you talking about? I am going to put this boy in charge of a vessel; he can take her to Newfoundland and across to Liverpool; it is all camouflage'to say that it is necessary to have a qualified man on this job." That may be said, but it is not the fact. It requires education, practice and skill to fulfil such duties, and to pass this Bill is to belittle the importance that we have hitherto attached to the profession of seamanship. I should be very much surprised to learn that the law in England is as my hon. friend says it is. The last Shipping Act passed in England, the Act of 1894, is also in force here. Our own Shipping Act is more or less supplementary to it, and when our Act conflicts with the English Act of 1894, in many cases the English Act prevails. I shall be surprised if my hon. friend can show me a provision in the Shipping Act of 1894 to the effect that shipmasters require no certificates. It has been the

boast of our men in Nova Scotia that they had to pass the British Board. A man might get a Canadian certificate, but he was not half as proud of that as he would be of a certificate received from the British Board of Trade, which is the creme de la creme of qualification as a seaman. Ilf that is all gone, I have not been aware of it.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean for the adjournment of the House:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose the report of the Special Committee on Soldiers' Re-establishment will be the first order to-morrow morning?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Thursday, November 6, 1919.