IMMIGRATION-CRIMINAL CODE REPORT OF SPECIAL, COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) presented the third report of the Special Committee to which was referred Bill No. 16, to amend the Immigration Act and Bill No. 17, to amend the Criminal Code, and moved concurrence therein. He said:
In moving for concurrence in this report, I wish to make a brief statement. The report is to be found at page 353 of the Votes and Proceedings, of the 16th instant. It reads:
Your Committee recommend that a general revision of the Immigration Act is desirable, and in making such revision the sections relating to deportation should be so amended as to provide:-
1.	That the provisions of section forty-one (41) as enacted by section one (1) of chapter twenty-six (26) of the Statutes of 1919 (First session) should not apply to any person who is a Canadian citizen.
2.	That subsection two (2) of section forty-one (41) of the foreging Act be repealed.
3.	That the following words "or is suspected of belonging to" in the fourteenth (14th) line of subsection one (1) of section forty-one (41) of the said Act be deleted.
4.	That pending such general revision Bill No. 16 should not now be proceeded with.
As hon. members will see, this is a final report on Bill No. 16, regarding the Immigration Act,4 and the final report on Bill No. 17 will probably be presented to the House to-morrow or Friday. Section 1 of Bill No. 16 reads as follows:
1.	Subsection one of section two of chapter twenty-five of the statutes of 1919, being "An Act to amend The Immigration Act," is amended by repealing all such subsection from the proviso in subparagraph (i) to the end of the said subsection.
The purpose of the section was to repeal subsection 1, of section II, of chapter 25, of 1919 regarding immigration. The effect of the first section of the Bill would not only repeal the legislation which was passed in 1919 regarding undersirable classes of citizens coming to this country and their deportation, but would also have the effect of repealing sections of the original Act of 1910. Section 2 of the Bill reads:
2.	The said Act is further amended by repealing paragraphs (n), (o) and (p) of subsection six of said section two.
The purpose of this section was to exempt from the operation of the act persons who are advocating acts of violence against organized government, members of societies opposed to organized government,'and who

advocate unlawful assault and killing, and also enemy aliens, or persons who have been alien enemies, or who were or who may be interned on or after the 11th November, 1918, in any part of His Majesty's Dominion, or by any of His Majesty's allies. Section 3 refers to the abrogation of the procedure for deportation.
The purpose of section 4 was to repeal the whole of chapter 26 of our Immigration Act, which gave the definition of undesirable citizens.
Your committee had numerous sittings at which all these sections and the original sections of the Immigration Act to which they referred were thoroughly examined and discussed, and your committee has come to the conclusion that the whole of the Immigration Act should be revised. We also heard the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) in reference to that Bill before the Committee, and, after having discussed it, we came to that conclusion. During discussion many important points arose which convinced your committee that a revision was necessary. First and foremost in importance, in my opinion and in the opinion of the committee, was the one regarding Canadian citizenship Section 41 of the act gives the definition of undesirable citizens who could be deported by an officer of the Immigration Department, with an appeal, of course, to the minister if the decision is not satisfactory, which applied to practically every citizen, except any person who is a British subject either by reason of birth in Canada, or by reason of naturalization in Canada. This proviso did not cover, for instance, the British subject who was not a British subject by reason of birth or naturalization in Canada. Hon. members will see that that, therefore it excluded many British subjects. Our suggestion is that this proviso hould be abrogated and replaced by the following:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any Canadian citizen.
I may say that many discussions took place on this matter before. In 1920, Senator Robertson moved a similar amendment in the Senate; there was a very long discussion, and his bill was defeated. In 1921, the hon. member for Quebec East, the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), introduced a similar bill. This bill went to its second reading; the Minister of Immigration of that day, Hon. Mr. Calder, asked the hon. member for Quebec East to withdraw his bill on

Immigration-Criminal Code
the promise that he would enact the same legislation in his own Immigration Bill that he was presenting to this House. This was done; the bill passed all the various stages of the procedure of this House, went to the Senate, and again in the Senate it was defeated. Although this provision has been defeated in the Senate twice, I believe it is most desirable that a Canadian citizen should not come under this legislation; that a Canadian citizen could not be brought before an officer of the Immigration Department and deported without trial before the courts. This is the first suggestion of your committee. The second suggestion is, as hon. members will see;
That subsection (2) of section 41 of the foregoing act be repealed
Subsection (2) reads:
Proof that any person belonged to or was within the description of any of the prohibited or undesirable classes within the meaning of this section at any time since the 4th day of May, 1910, shall for all the purposes of this act be deemed to establish prima facia that he still belongs to such prohibited or undesirable class or classes.
Your committee is of opinion that this section should be abrogated. I believe it is contrary to the British principle of justice, which says that a man is not supposed to be guilty until it is proved that he is guilty; and proof prima facie that he is guilty seems to me to be against the principle of British and Canadian justice. I may add that I was a member on the Committee on Sedition when this first legislation was passed, and some other hon. members and myself protested vigorously against this legislation; but we were overruled.
The third suggestion made by your committee is that certain words contained in section 41, namely-
Or is suspected of belonging to.
-be deleted from this section. As I have said before, section 41 deals with the persons who are considered to be of the undesirable class, persoifs who could be brought before an officer and subjected to deportation. Although the section enumerates those persons, namely those who "seek to overthrow by force or violence the government of or constituted law and authority in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of Canada"-And so forth, we find the following words in this section:
Or is suspected of belonging to any secret
society or organization.
Your committee is of opinion that the mere fact of a person being suspected of belonging to one of these societies or classes is not sufficient to permit the application of this legislation.
In conclusion, your committee is of opinion that, although this legislation, passed during a time of unrest which has now abated, should still be retained in part on our statutes for the safeguard of our institutions, some of the sections should be amended in the manner to which I have referred, and therefore, we submit that the whole Immigration Act should be revised, and that the present Bill, No. 16, should not be proceeded with at this session.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, I take it that this
report of the committee really has the effect of side-tracking the bill, and that no action wilt be taken along this line at this session. I am not sufficiently familiar with the procedure of this House to know whether a recommendation of this charac-tre would even bind the Government to introduce legislation along this line at the next session. I noticed that it was stated in committee, I think by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) that even if this bill were passed in this House, it 'would be rejected by the Senate, because of the one who introduced it. It seems to me that is rather a serious reflection upon the Senate, for I take it that any bill ought to be discussed and decided upon on its merits, and not because of the particular individual who brings it before the House. Further than that, it would seem to be a very strange thing if this House should be dissuaded from presenting a piece of legislation for fear the Senate would reject it. I take it that it is our duty to bring before this House these measures which we consider in the general welfare and to treat them on their merits.
There are several things to which, it seems to me, attention ought to be called. After all the various meetings of the committee only three minor recommendations are brought in. I would call attention to the fact that the bill provided for certain revisions with regard to two different parts of the Immigration Act. The amendment to the act was passed in 1919. And an amendment to that amendment passed



Immigration-Criminal Code
a few days later. The report does not deal at all with the original amendment; but refers merely to the amendment to the amendment, leaving the original amendment, which is absolutely vicious in character, altogether untouched. We are told in the recommendation of the committee, that these words should be repealed.
Or is suspected, of belonging to.
I agree with that; it is good as far as it goes. But that would still leave the amendment untouched. The committee recommends that we should take out the retroactive sections. That, too, is good as far as it goes. There is further recommendation that these clauses should not apply to Canadian citizens. They do not apply today, and that is the very point of the bill. It is barely possible that relief may be given to one particular class, the British citizen who has been naturalized in Canada, although, so far as my study of the bill goes, I think there is just a possibility that it might not apply to him. As the bill stands it means that any one born outside of Canada, whether alien or British-born, is liable to deportation. The essential part of this legislation lies in this. Section 41 in the amendment, which is not touched, and which as well as the amendment to the amendment, provides that certain classes shall be incapable of becoming Canadian citizens since they are not able to establish domicile. The section reads:
Provided that the time spent by a person while confined in or an immate of any penitentiary, gaol, reformatory, prison or asylum for the insane in Canada shall not be counted in the period of residence in Canada wh.ch is necessary in order to acquire Canadian domicile, and provided further that no person who belongs to the prohbited or undesirable classes within the meaning of section forty-one of this act shall 1 be capable of acquiring Canadian domicile.
Now turn to section 41-not the section 41 to which the Chairman of the committee made referecne, but section 41 of the original amendment-which reads:
Whenever any person.... shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government; such person for the purposes of this act shall be considered as belonging to the prohibited or undesirable classes, and shall be liable to deportation.
That is to say, whether a man has been in this country one year or twenty years,

whether he has been naturalized or not, if he is deemed undesirable according to this classification he is incapable of obtaining Canadian domicile and in that case is liable to deportation. Let me say in passing that while the committee recommends that the section in Chap. 26 should be amended by striking out the word "suspected", that word still stands in this section of Chap. 25.
Any person suspected of an offence under this section may forthwith be arrested and detained without warrant by any officer foi examination and deportation.
Now, the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) has been advocating a particular immigration policy during the past few weeks. Some members on this side have opposed that policy. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has (been rigorously opposing that policy in so far as it relates to juvenile immigrants. Well, suppose his opposition becomes obnoxious to the Minister of Immigration. He thereby becomes undesirable; he may be classed as an agitator, and I presume there would be some presumptive evidence to substantiate that classification in the fact that he comes from Ireland. Under the circumstances there is nothing whatever in this act to prohibit the Minister of Immigration from declaring my hon. friend undesirable and deporting him to Ireland without trial. It is that sort of thing we want to put beyond the range of possibility. We want to see to it that the hon. member for Bow River-this is purely a supposititious case, of course,-if he is regarded by the minister as undesirable, shall be tried before a jury, and that the matter shall not be disposed of by a minister of the Crown. I shall move, seconded by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) :
That the second report of the Special Committee on Bill No. 16 be not concurred in but that the same be sent back to the Special Committee to amend the bill by providing that no one shall be deported for any political offence committed in Canada without being granted a trial by jury.
It may be that there were some clauses in my bill as introduced which did not exactly meet the situation. I quite conceded that at the time, and when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested that the matter be referred to a special committee I very gladly accepted the suggestion, because it seemed to me only reasonable that in the committee the whole question could be better threshed out and what was faulty in the wording of the bill could be improved so that the result aimed

Immigration-Criminal Code
at might be achieved. I fully agree with the finding of the committee that it is highly desirable that the whole Immigration Act should be redrafted. It has been amended and reamended until it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain exactly what its purport is. But I should like to see the provision which I propose incorporated in the act at this session of Parliament. It has been admitted that this legislation was placed on the statute books during a time of hysteria, just after the war, and hon. members on both sides of the House are agreed that it is no longer necessary. Indeed, Sir, I can hardly conceive of a Liberal government, headed by a Prime Minister who is the grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie, refusing to grant us legislation of this character. My amendment provides that no one shall be deported for any political offence committed in Canada without being granted a trial by jury. This legislation which I seek to amend is not intended primarily to keep people out of the country; its purpose is to deal with people already in Canada. I am not referring to the question of political offences committed in the Old Country by prospective immigrants, my proposal has reference to any offences that may be alleged to have been committed by people in this country. Nor am I speaking of that class of immigrants who may be physically or mentally defective, who may become paupers, or who may have committed some crime other than political. I am speaking purely of political offences, because it is in this respect that our objection applies. I am not condoning political offences, but I do say that, when such an offence is alleged to have been committed, the whole question should not be decided in camera by a minister of the Crown but rather that the people of the country, through a jury, should give their decision as to whether or not the offence has been committed and hence that accused deserves deportation. When introducing this bill I made an appeal to French speaking Canadians to join with English speaking Canadians in giving this measure of relief to the British-'born in this country. Personally, I have no particular concern in the matter as I happen to be Canadian born; yet as a Canadian it does materially affect me, for I feel ashamed that our statute books should contain legislation that deprives my British-born friends and comrades of their right to trial by jury. And I would speak not merely of the British-born but also of the foreign-born in this country. We are 2103
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to attract immigrants, and certainly it ought to be the proud iboast of Canadians that any man who comes here to make this country his home will at least get a fair chance. In North Winnipeg members of the Canadian Club have erected a flag pole from which they sometimes fly the Union Jack, hoping in this way to make good Canadian citizens of the foreigners who are living in that section of the city. I would suggest that you may fly the flag for a long time, but you are not going to make the foreign-born good Canadian citizens as long as there is gross injustice existing under that flag.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, it is "question." I am not going to detain hon. members much longer, but this is an important question I submit, Mr. Speaker, which I was asked to bring before this House by my constituents and iby labour locals throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. If we can take a long time, as we did last night, in deciding whether or not we should tax substitutes for milk at a time when many of our people have not the wherewithal to buy milk, it seems to me we can at least afford a few minutes to discuss whether or not we shall maintain rights that the British people have enjoyed since the time of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights. Therefore I move my resolution to amend the bill by providing that: -no one shall be deported tor any political offence committed in Canaida without being granted a trial by jury.
I trust that I shall have the support of members generally for what seems to be a reasonable request.


Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the special committee which considered the matter under discussion. The committee after considering the bill for a short time came to the conclusion that it was impossible to recommend its passage in the form presented, for it had the effect of doing many things which its promoters evidently did not intend, and of doing many other things with which the committee could not agree. As a result we asked the House for permission to make a special report, and the chairman of the committee has just presented it to the House.
That special report has been made in this form because we found that the deportation clauses of the Immigration Act were in such a confused condition that we

Immigration-Criminal Code
could not, within any reasonable time, propose to the House any amendments which would meet all the considerations the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) wished to have brought forward or that the members of the committee themselves thought should be dealt with. We have therefore made this report, bringing to the attention of the House three matters which we all agreed ought to be corrected.	We did not intend in any way
to limit the scope of the revision of the act; we left that open for the House, or for the body which the House might appoint, to deal with in the future. We had no desire to limit in any way any proposal which the hon member for Centre Winnipeg might wish to put forward when a new bill in a form which could reasonably be considered should be brought before the House.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) :: It seems to me that the House should accept the report of the committee. I have ,no particular objection to the amendment suggested by my friend from Centre Winnipeg, except that I have discovered that when you suddenly interject amendments into an act without due consideration you do not know how far they may extend. Clearly, it may be a good thing to say that a British subject should not be deported without trial by jury; but to say that any one who happens to get into Canada-and many people enter without the knowledge of the immigration officials-should not be deported without trial by jury for what might be construed to be a political offence does not seem to me reasonable, because the term "political offence" covers a very wide field, if my hon. friend will allow me to say so, and we would meet with innumerable difficulties in deporting undesirables who ought to be deported almost immediately. Therefore I ask the House to accept the report of the committee and await a revision of the act.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon.
member for Centre Winnipeg has submitted an amendment which I must put to the House. The motion by Mr. Archam-bault, seconded by Mr. Hudson, is:
That the House concur in the reiport.
Mr. Woodsworth moves an amendment, seconded by Mr. Irvine:
That the third report of the special committee ot. Bill No. 16 be not concurred in, but that the

same be sent back to the special committee to amend the bill by providing that no one shall be deported for any political offence committed in Canada without being granted a trial by jury.


Arthur Meighen: I had not heard the amendment until you read it now, Mr. Speaker. If I caught its words aright, there would seem to me to be some question as to its being in order. A committee has not power to amend a bill; it has power only to amend its own report. The wording of the amendment would appear to ask the committee to amend the bill. If so, whether in order or not, it obviously demands a negative because of the impossibility of conceding what it requests.	.
I turn now to a discussion of the mam motion. If I caught the report correctly as described by the chairman of the committee, it is to the effect that the criminal law be not now altered, but that the Immigration Act be altered; that is to say, that new legislation be introduced as soon as possible looking-


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: We did not
touch the criminal code; we dealt only with the Immigration Act.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I was saying.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did not the committee receive special power from this House to amend the bill? If I understood aright, it was given power to make a special report on the bill.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the chairman of the committee to say that it received power to make a special report beyond the specific purview of the two bills committed to it. But, of course, that committee never received any power to amend the bill. Anyway, its report recommends an amendment to the Immigration Act, and that alone, the amendment leaving the act in the shape in which it would have been left if the bill introduced in 1920 in the Senate by Senator Robertson, then Minister of Labour, had carried through both Houses, or if the bill introduced last session in this House had passed the Senate. In substance that is the report of the committee. I concur in the report.
The amendment to the Immigration Act to which Bill No. 16 specifically refers, and which it seeks to repeal, was passed in the spring of 1919. It had the effect of placing immigrants of a certain class, though they may have come from Great Britain

Immigration-Criminal Code
in the category as to power of deportation that immigrants of a similar class or other undesirable classes had already been in who came from another country. Much of what has been urged by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), and, from his point of view, consistently, because he believes in changing the whole law-not only in wiping out the amendment of 1919, but in altering the whole basis of the deportation law; everything, indeed-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the Opposition on what basis he founds that statement?


Arthur Meighen: I found it on the basis of the amendment moved just now by the hon. member. If I understand his motion aright it instructs the committee to amend the bill-we will put it in order, and say to amend the report-and to make it read that all guilty of what he describes as political offences, no matter from what country they have come, shall be deportable only after conviction by a jury. Well, I say that virtually all he has urged in favour of the striking out of the original Immigration Act amendment of 1919 is an argument in favour of changing the whole basis of the deportation law in that regard and placing upon the authorities the burden of conviction as a necessary precedent to the deportation of a man even coming- say from Poland. From his own point of view that is consistent, but do we want to alter the whole immigration law in that regard? What I am trying to emphasize is this: it has been the law as long as I can remember that anyone but a British subject coming to this country is deportable without the necessity of an indictment and going through the whole procedure of a criminal prosecution-that is, deportable if in the judgment of immigration officials, concurred in by the minister, he is of a certain undesirable class. And among the undesirable classes is the class known as anarchists, whose professed principles are against government of every kind. We have not, as far as I can remember, ever had a law making it necessary to get a conviction through process of law and the decision of a jury before such a man could be deported if he came from an outside country.


Mr. IRVINE:: Is the hon. leader of the Opposition correct when he states that this law places the British immigrant and the immigrant from other countries on the
same basis? As I understand the present law, it means this: that if a man from, say, Russia who has been naturalized here commits a crime after he receives his citizenship, he cannot be deported, but if a British subject commits such a crime after living in this country as long, say, as the Russian, he can be deported. Is that so, or is it not so?


Arthur Meighen: I see there might be
a difference in a case of that sort. After the Russian is naturalized he does not, of course, come in under the regular law, and a British subject would consequently be in a different position under the amendment. But what has always been the law is this: a Russian, a Pole, or any one else coming from another country to Canada, was, if he belonged to that class, deportable under the regular machinery of the Immigration Act. Now, in the spring of 1919 it was felt desirable-and, I think, universally felt desirable; it was not a party measure in the least-that that be altered and that the same restraints and powers that had obtained in relation to immigrants from another country obtain in relation to immigrants from Great Britain. The reasons for that, of course, were to be found in the events, the temper and the very atmosphere of the time. There is nothing easier now, in the light of calmer and more peaceful years, when the psychology of the people is changing, and naturally so, as we recede from the war-nothing easier than to look back on those days and to be wise and say: "Oh, all this was just the same as now, though we did not know it; we were deceived by events; we were really ourselves the instigators of the riotous times through which we lived." Well, sometimes it is only an affected wisdom that comes with the years. At the time, the action taken was believed to be the part of wisdom. I am not one of those who feel that immigrants to Canada from the Mother Land should, under normal conditions, be treated the same as immigrants from other countries. I think we must have regard to the unity of this Empire; we must have some regard to citizenship within this Empire in the determination of all our laws. Of that I am convinced, and it has relation to immigration, perhaps, more than anything else. But this law was framed for the circumstances of the time, because we were then having very considerable difficulty with just that class of immigrants, and we felt we had to take some summary and effective method of dealing

Immigration-Criminal Code
with the difficulty if the Government was to do its duty and cope with the situation that confronted it. The amendment passed, and I am not sure that the law was ever acted upon, but I do believe it did good while it was there. I have recollection of one case, but I know it never was acted on arbitrarily. If the minister did concur in deportation under it, he took the precaution first to have an independent investigation held; in the case I have referred to I am pretty sure it was a judge of one /f the courts of Winnipeg who was called in under the Immigration Act and made a party to the investigation, and his report was acted upon. Anyway, the next year the Government, through the then Minister of Labour, introduced a bill to repeal that amendment. It failed to pass the Senate. In the Senate there was no party division; I do not know what the proportions were, but a very considerable number from both parties in the Senate-a very large majority, I think

opposed the repeal. Last year the Government took the same attitude. It felt that the time for the operation of this provision had passed; that it was no longer necessary. Accordingly, the Government introduced into this House a bill-or, rather, took over a bill introduced by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and passed it through this House; but again, under similar circumstances, it failed to pass the Senate. The committee recommends that the course pursued, but not carried to successful termination because of the negative action of the Senate in 1920 and 1921, be pursued again. I am of the same view that I was then; therefore I concur in the report of the committee.
Amendment (Mr. Woodsworth) negatived.
Motion (Mr. Archambault) agreed to and report concurred in.



SOLDIERS' RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
tOOMSIDER ATIO X OF SPECIAL, COMMITTEE'S FINAL, REPOET
Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Law-rence-St. George) moved:: That the second and final report of the Special Committee on Pensions, Soldiers' Insurance and Civil Re-Establishment be consideredthat the recommendations contained therein be commended to the consideration of the Government, and that the recommendation contained in the concluding paragraph in respect of printing be concurred in.
[Mr. Meighen.l


Hewitt Bostock: The custom and the rule is that every member should speak from his seat, but I think in view of the accoustics of the Chamber and the importance of the question, the hon. member, who is chairman of the Pensions Committee, should be allowed to speak from one of the front seats.


Herbert Meredith Marler: House, the report, as brought down by that committee, should also be representative of the opinion of the House itself. In the prosecution of the work of the committee, very many matters from very many bodies were placed before it. Some of these questions are discussed in the report. Others are brought in by way of recommendation. Others will be discussed in the course of my remarks. Some, I admit, are not discussed at all, because it was thought that no good object would be gained by discussing them. But I should like to make abundantly clear to every member in the House the fact that, whether these questions are discussed in the report or not, whether recommendations are brought down in the report or not, or whether they are discussed by me in the course of these remarks or not, the committee was actuated by one motive, imbued with one idea, and one only, and that was that the returned soldiers, and the dependents of those who died, and those who come back sick or disabled, should be given an absolutely square deal, in all respects, compatible with the resources of the country and the welfare of the nation. There was no other idea in the minds of the committee at any time. I admit, Sir, that it is quite true that some will say that something should have been done for certain who are not disabled, that pensions should have been given, perhaps, to some who are indirectly, or not at all, suffering from any war disability, and that treatment should be given to certain others when sick. Some of these matters are not brought down, in the report, I admit, but, I think, Sir, from the figures which I have given to the House so far, and the figures Which I expect to give later on, we can fairly admit, at least, that the country has been reasonably generous. I do not say that generosity is not right. I say that generosity is correct, and that generosity is proper in every respect. We are not giving this generosity to our returned soldiers as a gift, but as our duty, and we are glad to give that generosity to the returned soldiers, as a duty, and to their dependents, the sick and the disabled. But let us look further than that. Should we extend so-called generosity further? It is right, I admit, and proper, I admit, in every way, that the state should take under its paternal care, to the fullest extent, all those who are suffering from war disabilities, all the dependents of those who have died, and all those who are injured, or are

suffering from a war injury. But should that state paternalism extend further than that? I do not think it should. State paternalism, as I see it, when unavoidable, is necessary. Where it is avoidable, it should not take place. If extended where it should not be extended, the result can be, and can only be one thing, and that one thing will be this: that the nation will lose self reliance; instead of relying on ourselves, and remaining a strong nation, as we are to-day, it will take that self reliance away and turn us into a weak nation. Sir, let me qualify the statements that I have made regarding paternalism in all sincerity. Our soldiers have earned our gratitude. They have earned that gratitude, I venture to say-in fact do say-to an extent that we cannot repay to an extent even which we do not pretend to be able to repay. There is no pretence on our part of any attempt to estimate in dollars and cents what has been done. But, although these soldiers have served us, we ask the soldiers to go further. We ask them to remember, Sir, that they are also citizens of this country, and, although we are indebted to them in very many ways, we ask them to make us their debtors still further. We ask them to realize that they, also, although they have our gratitude, should carry on as citizens of this country the same an any other citizen, where it is possible to do so. I admit, Sir, that the great majority of soldiers who were overseas have taken up the duties of citizenship, without the slightest question. They have cheerfully taken up those duties, have gone back to their jobs, and have said nothing whatsoever about their being overseas. But, perhaps, there may be a few who do not realize the duties of citizenship and who ask the state to continue, as I say, its paternal care indefinitely. I think those few should realize the efforts which the state has made, realize the efforts which everybody interested in this great question has attempted to make, and is still attempting to make, and, also, realize that they, on their part, must take up their duties as citizens also. I quite admit, Sir, in reference to my last few words, that such utterance is far from popular. It does not breed popularity in any man who makes such an utterance, perhaps, anywhere in this broad Dominion. But, Sir, notwithstanding that, is it not much better to be sincere and not to deceive. Any influence I may have had, whatever that

Pensions Committee
small influence has been, since this committee met, in the prosecutions of this work, has had one object, and one object only, and that has been to tell returned soldiers, and those representing returned soldiers, what we thought the state should do, and what we thought the state could do, and not to make empty promises When we thought the state should not or could not carry out those promises. No other man on the floor of this House-and I speak from my personal viewpoint at the present time-realizes with greater gratitude than I do how much this country is indebted to the returned soldier. I think any man who had not the privilege of going overseas should realize that, perhaps, more than those who did go overseas; hut personally I decline absolutely to attempt to deceive the returned soldier by making rash promises which, I know, cannot and will not be carried out. It is on that basis, in view of these preliminary remarks, that this report was prepared.
Coming directly to the report, let me say that the first chapter takes up the question of re-establishment. By re-estab-lisment is meant the placing of the exsoldier in a position to earn his livelihood, by means of remedying damages which have been caused by the war. For that purpose, the State comes forward and says: "First of all we will endeavour to cure you through hospital treatment." In the second place it says: "If you require artificial limbs or anything of that description, we will furnish you with such articles." In the third place it says: "We will give you training in order to fit you for a trade, and during this period of hospital treatment, during this period of training, we will pay you pay and allowances." This the state has done. The state has not stated, nor has the state ever attempted to say to any returned soldier that it will attempt to repair damages caused by a man's financial losses, or his losses in social standing. All it attempts to do, all that re-establishment tries to do-and I think re-establishment has made a very fair attempt-is to repair the damage done to the returned soldier on account of war service. That, I think, should be made perfectly clear.
Let me again detail to the House a few of the figures which the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment have taken up. Prior to the 31st of December last, admissions to hospitals numbered over 12,000; clinical treatments accorded
numbered over 945,000; dental treatments numbered over 28,000; the number of those who commenced training was 51,000; orthopedic and surgical appliances supplied numbered over 127,000; positions found numbered over 175,000, and dependants returned from overseas numbered 49,000. All these are large figures.
The next item in the report which, I think, perhaps, I might call to the attention of the House is the knowledge which the returned soldier has of the various advantages which he may receive and the various acts and departments which attempt to assist him. Evidence came before the committee which led the committee to believe that, although a great deal of propaganda had been made, there might be a few returned soldiers in some parts of the country who had not the knowledge of what they could do and how they were to go about that. The recommendation, therefore, contained in the report that a booklet shall be prepared and issued to all returned soldiers, is for the purpose of giving all these returned soldiers ample notice of all that the state is ready and willing to do for them.
Hon. members will note the heading "Constitution of further Medical Advisory Board." Your committee considered that question with the utmost care. The facts were these. A soldier goes to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and is there examined by the unit medical director. The unit medical director says to the soldier: "We are very sorry that we cannot give you treatment." Under the law as it stands at present, that soldier has a right to go to his own medical adviser and to obtain from such medical adviser a certificate stating that the injury, for which he asks treatment, is the result of war disability, and that certificate is then sent in to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Our suggestion to the House in that respect is this, that where a soldier goes to his medical adviser and obtains a certificate from a practitioner of standing showing that the initial decision of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is at fault, submitting therewith reasonable evidence substantiating the facts set out in such certificate, then and in that case he goes before the so-called Medical Advisory Board, which consists, as shown in this section of the report, of certain independent medical men. In that way, the soldier will have the benefit of two boards to sit on his case and
Pensions Covvmittee

decide whether treatment shall or shall not be rendered and thus is set aside, in so far as it can be set aside, any question whatsoever whether the soldier is or is not capable of having treatment at the hands of that department.
I do not think I need take up in any great detail other matters contained under the heading "re-establishment", excepting possibly the question of the canteen funds. As hon. members possibly know, the Canteen Funds' Disposal Committee was appointed during or after the last session of Parliament. Ballots were sent out to a very great extent, but no conclusive results were obtained from the ballots sent out. As a matter of fact, the ideas sent in by those who received ballots were too numerous; in fact, it would be impossible in any way to act on the report of that particular committee. Your committee in taking up this subject have analysed the statement and the report of the Canteen Funds' Disposal Committee and have segregated those items which appear to be the actual items that most votes were cast for under that reference, and they are bringing in their reference in this report based on the report of the Canteen Funds' Disposal Committee and suggesting to the House that that they concur in the recommendation that a board of administration be appointed, as set out in the report, for the purpose of administering these funds, indicating to that board that the funds, which all members of the committee understand and believe are soldiers' funds shall, in the first place, be used for promoting sheltered employment, and in the second place, for the purpose of promoting education of soldier's children who could not get education otherwise.
On the subject of unemployment, your committee expended a great deal of thought and energy. I myself, I may say, thought over the subject day after day. It was recommended to the committee that a National Economic Congress be appointed, and that it sit in various parts of the Dominion. We did not think that the appointment of such a congress would have any active or immediate results. Other points came up as regards unemployment; all were dissected ; all were considered; all were placed on one side. On several occasions we asked that concrete proposals as to what could be done for unemployment be placed before us. I, personally, as Chairman of the Committee, asked this question on many occasions; but after all this was done, none

was offered. There is nothing we can suggest which will cure the prevailing unemployment condition. We realize the difficulties of the situation, with which we are most sympathetic, and we should gladly have seized on anything that would have tended to improve matters. We did think, however, that the winter should not be allowed to approach without some kind of help being available for the returned soldiers, and we felt that if it was possible for the Government to give them work in the meanwhile so that they might be paid for doing something instead of being given money by way of gifts, as has been done in the past, it would be infinitely preferable. I am free to admit to hon. gentlemen on the floor of this House that although every attempt has been made, both on my part and on the part of every member of the committee, to solve the great difficulty, it appears that the only hope for a satisfactory solution lies in a return to normal conditions.
The next part of the report deals with pensions. I do not intend to say a great deal on this subject, but I think there should be clearly placed before the House at least the elements that enter into the question of awarding pensions. There has been considerable criticism on the subject of pensions. Many hon. members wonder why certain people are not granted pensions, and they cannot fathom the reason. Now, the elements of the principle on which pensions are granted are simple, but the application of the principle itself is exceedingly difficult. Similarly, the principles of war are simple, but the application of those principles present considerable difficulty. However, I want to put before the House a few simple principles that are adopted in the awarding of pensions. In the first place, the Pensions Boai'd is regulated by an act. That board is a judicial body, quite separate, and properly so, from any governmental agency. It is a judicial body and functions as such under the Pensions Act.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Will the hon member define the distinction between applications for pension and the application that has been made for a bonus? Did such an application come up?


Herbert Meredith Marler: That question did not come up; it is an entirely separate and distinct thing. My understanding is that the application for bonus is made to the Department of Militia and Defence, while

Pensions Committee
the application for pension is made to the Pensions Board. But I am giving that answer to my hon. friend, not having any great knowledge of the question in regard to bonus.


William Findlay Maclean: Was a direct application made to the committee by the returned men for a bonus?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I misunderstood the hon. member. As I understand his question now it is this: Was any application made for a bonus to be granted to returned men in addition to the ordinary pension? Is that the question?


William Findlay Maclean: Was that matter brought to the attention of the committee? Was there a direct application of that nature before the committee?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, it was. That question was considered and is mentioned in the report. Now, as regards the question of pensions. Pensions are awarded on account of death or by reason of war disability. Before any pension can be awarded there must first of all be the prerequisite of a disability caused by the war. Pensions are not awarded because soldiers went overseas and underwent bodily sufferings, or because they have lost social status, or because their businesses did not prosper while they were away. Pensions are not awarded for any of these causes, but simply and solely for war disability or on account of death. This being the case, pensions had to be reduced to a common denominator. In other words, one man could not be awarded a pension because he held a certain status in life, and another man another pension because he held a lesser or a higher position. One common denominator was chosen, and that was unskilled labourer 100 per cent efficient. It follows therefore that if a man is 10 per cent deficient he gets a 10 per cent pension on that basis; if he is 100 per cent deficient he gets 100 per cent pension based on that deficiency.


William Irvine: .Does this common rate apply to officers as well? Is there any distinction between one class and another?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Pensions are given according to rank. Prior to the late war pensions were granted only on account of disability due to war service. On the outbreak of the war we granted for a time, until September, 1920, pensions to soldiers no matter what happened to them during the course of the war. But after the first of September, 1920, the old principle was
reverted to, under which a soldier was pensioned only because of disability attributable to military service as such. It does not mean that a soldier has necessarily to apply for his pension on discharge. The soldiers were discharged either on the short form or on the long form. If they claimed to be fit they were discharged on the short form; if they were not well, or if they were suffering from any disability at the time, they were discharged on the long form. The long form gave a pen picture of every man in the condition in which he was at the time of his discharge. Hon. members will see from this that certain difficulties must arise in connection with the granting of pensions. When a man has been discharged on the long form the particulars of his case are taken at the time. But a man might say he was fit and would accordingly be discharged on the short form. And a man discharged on the short form is not thereby precluded from getting a pension if he discovers that any disability that has appeared afterwards is attributable to war services. In other words, the evidence in existence at the time of his discharge is not conclusive at all. The history of every man is gone into and every attempt is made to give the soldier the benefit of the doubt, no matter how long after his discharge it may be before he applies for his pension.
The question as to the rates of pension will no doubt be of interest to hon. members. We have heard that our Canadian pensions are higher than those in other countries. Here are the rates:
Canada	United States	United Kingdom	New Zealands	5	$ c.	$ c.For a pensioner only.. For a pensioner and	900	1,200	506 13	506 13wife	
For a pensioner and wife and three child-	1,200	1,200	632 66	759 20ren	1,644	1,200	879 42	1,138 80


Mr. McMASTER:: That is for total disability.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am speaking in total disability terms at the present time.
The next question taken up in the report is one which I have alluded to before -the question of an appeal board. When a man applies for a pension the necessary information is first of all given to the unit medical officer of the D.S.C.R., who sends it forward to the Pension Board for
Pensions Committee

examination by the physicians of that board. Naturally pensions are based on two particular points: first, on the point of law, that is, whether the pensioner comes under the Pension Act or not; second, on the facts. The facts are largely medical. It therefore follows that the medical officers may disagree. What your committee had to consider was this: The unit medical officer would say to the applicant, "I think you should receive a 50 per cent disability pension." When that application with the requisite papers reached the head office the physicians there would say, " No, we think the unit medical officer is wrong. We think you should receive only a 40 per cent disability pension." In other words, there is a difference between the medical unit officer and the medical directors of the head office. In another case where a disability pension was subject to revision, the unit medical officer might say, "Your pension should be reduced so much." But on the papers being transmitted to the head office the medical directors there would disagree with that opinion. Therefore your committee recommends that where such a disagreement arises the case shall be submitted to what we call a Medical Advisory Board. This would give the soldier affected two boards, consistently against or in his favour, to determine which decision is right.
Various other matters are dealt with in the report which, however, do not call for particular comment. The report, in so far as pensions are concerned, is very full, and each section has been drawn in such a way that I hope it is perfectly clear. There are only one or two other points in connection with pensions on which I need comment. One of these points-and I must say that I approach it with a geed deal of hesitation-deals with pensions to widowed mothers. I think all hon. members will recall the resolution which this House passed on the 1st May last:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to amend the act to provide pensions to or in respect of members of the Canadian Naval and Military Air Forces, 1919, so as to provide that the pension of a widowed mother of a member of the forces wbo has died on active service shall not be reduced on account of her income; and further that pension shall be granted her of right whether or not there are other living children.
I have stated, Mr. Speaker, that I approach this question with a good deal of hestitation. I have a high opinion of the

mover of that resolution, and I am quite sure that by reason of his magnificent war record he realized the situation and acted in the best possible spirit. Hon. members will recall that during the course of the debate which took place on that resolution a question arose as to whether or not the resolution, if accepted by the House, would be submitted to the committee which was sitting at that time. The resolution carried. Your committee were authorized under the general reference to take up the question embodied in that resolution.
A pension of of $720 a year is awarded to a widowed mother when a soldier does not leave a wridow and children or orphans. Of course when the soldier leaves the other dependents referred to the widowed mother does not receive as much. The particular section of the act dealing with this class of pensions states in effect that where a soldier leaves a widow and also a widowed mother that his widow shall be preferred as the recipient of the pension. In addition to the pension to the widow the widowed mother is also allowed a certain sum. It is also provided that the pension to the widowed mother shall not be reduced on account of her own earnings, but if she has a g'reater income than $240 per annum, anything over and above that sum shall be deducted from the pension.


Arthur Meighen: That is, income which she does not earn herself.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes; she can earn as much as she likes. The effort of the state,, it seems to me, has been to place all widowed mothers in precisely the same position. In other words, the widowed mother in one case is told: If you need this pension it shall be granted you. But in another case she is told: If you have an income from other sources there is no reason why the state should support you. If you have children who can support you, then the money that they give you will be deducted from the pension. That, according to my reading of the law, was the intention of the state in framing the legislation as regards widowed mothers' pensions. Let us look at what the resolution asks for. The resolution that I am discussing at the present moment, that is to say, the resolution passed by this House on the first of May last, asks that the widowed mother of a soldier who died on active service shall receive a pension of $720 per annum, whether or not the soldier left a widow and whether or not he left depen-

Pensions Committee
dent children, and that a pension so granted to the widowed mother shall not be reduced for any cause, no matter how much income of her own she may have. If an amendment of this description were placed in the law it seems to me it would strike at the whole question of dependency, because pension for dependents other than the soldier's widow is always based on the extent to which the persons in question are actually dependent. In other words, the question to be determined is whether the dependents of the soldier need the money to live on, or do not. The effect of the law can be reduced into dollars-and I am not referring to the question from this point of view for the purpose of influencing the decision of any hon. member. If a thing is right, it should be done, but before asking that a thing be done we should certainly count the cost. If every widowedi mother who at present is in receipt of pension is granted additional pension in accordance with this resolution, it will mean a known increase in our pension bill of $2,200,000 per annum. It is impossible to say, of course, what the ultimate effect of the adoption of the resolution would be, because it is a fact that many widowed mothers have applied for pension and many of these applications have been refused because the applicants were not considered dependent. But so far as can be ascertained, the change would result in an increased expenditure of $2,200,000.
Another question dealt with in the report has reference to certain charges made against the Pensions Board.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly.


William Garland McQuarrie: Will he be good
enough to explain what he means by "dependents"? Take the case where a mother has a number of sons, one of whom was killed in the war. She has certain sons with her now who should be expected to support her, but who do not do so, and she is really in destitute circumstances. In a case where these facts can be shown beyond question, will the widowed mother be entitled to pension?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Did the soldier leave a widow also?


William Garland McQuarrie: No.


Herbert Meredith Marler: He left only a widowed mother; he did not leave any children?


William Garland McQuarrie: No.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The widowed mother
under those conditions would be entitled to pension only if she was dependent. Now, the hon. member asks what is the meaning of "dependency."


William Garland McQuarrie: That is the question, please.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I will answer it, with pleasure. Dependency is a sufficiency for maintenance and is recognized by the statute to the extent of $60 a month in the case of one parent and $75 in the case of two. In the ease mentioned by the hon. member, if the widow asking for the pension has $60 a month of her own, the law would not consider that she was dependent.


William Garland McQuarrie: But if she has no income whatever and has other sons who might be expected to support her or to contribute to her support, but do not do so, what then?


Herbert Meredith Marler: These sons would have to contribute to her support, and any pension she might be entitled to under the act would be subject to reduction to the extent that the Pension Board considered those sons should support her.


William Garland McQuarrie: As the law stands now, and according to rulings of the Pension Commissioners, she is not entitled to anything because she has these other sons who should be expected to support her, but do not do it. That is the case I am referring to.


Herbert Meredith Marler: If there are other sons who should support the widowed mother, she will not get a pension. The law in effect, is based on the principle .that children should support their parents and that the country cannot be expected to support a widowed mother if there are children capable of supporting her to such and such an extent.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: Is any change being made in the practice of reducing the pension to widowed mothers? Several cases have come up in my constituency in which the amount originally awarded has been reduced.


Herbert Meredith Marler: As far as I know, no change has been made.


Charles Marcil: That is, these pensions may still be reduced? I received a letter only this morning in which it is stated that the pension awarded to a widowed mother has actually been reduced.
Pensions Committee


Herbert Meredith Marler: There is probably some reason for that.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Is that provision invariable, that a mother having capable but unfilial children shall be obliged to account for their lapses in the deduction of her pension?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, she would. I think I had better finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the pensions. I was about to deal with the question of certain accusations which had been made against the Pensions Board. Charges have recently been made in the press, and the matter has been brought up on the floor of the House. I do not desire to pose asja defender of the board, or anything of that kind; I would simply like to say that the question was carefully considered by the committee and that the committee has recommended that a commission be appointed to inquire into the facts. I hesitate, in view of that, to discuss the matter at any greater length; probably it will be just as well to leave it to the commission to consider the facts as they are brought before it.
The next question dealt with in the report is that of insurance. The only comment I desire to make in that respect is with regard to section 5, which has reference to the refusal of the minister to enter into an insurance contract. Under section 13 of the Insurance Act the minister has the right to frame regulations, and under section 15 he has the right to require medical examination where that is thought proper. The present regulations were placed before the committee and the committee found them to be eminently fair in all respects.
The noKt question which comes up under the report is that of land settlement. I shall be exceedingly brief on this question. I shall give only the outline of the general law on the subject and the general effect, and indicate the payments which the soldier settlers are now required to meet under the various acts, and the payments which it is proposed shall be made under amendments to the acts which this House will be asked to concur in.
There were two Land Settlement acts. The first was the Land Settlement Act of 1917. It provided in the first place for loans of $2,500, which amount was subsequently extended under Order in Council to $3,000. Then the act of 1919 was passed, and amendments were made to that act in 1920. The provisions of these acts are very largely the same. They all give the returned soldier, and in certain cases the

widow of a soldier, the right to become settlers, but hon. members should realize that every returned soldier was not entitled to become a settler under the terms of these acts. Whether he was capable of being a successful soldier settler or not was first of all carefully inquired into by the board. Other inquiries had to be made as to whether the soldier was sufficiently fit, whether he had had practical farming experience, as to his sincerity of purpose and his ability to pay 10 per cent of the cost of the farm and to keep his family from want. The man on being declared eligible to become a soldier farmer selects his farm, subject to the approval of the board. In the selection of the farm the board takes all the necessary facts into consideration, and after it has been finally decided that the soldier settler is suitable to become a farmer, and that the farm is a suitable one on which to settle, he is granted a loan.
At present there are three classes of loans. There is the loan to the settler who purchases land; there is the loan to the settler who settles on Dominion free land; and there is the loan to the settler who owns his own land. All these loans have various qualifications: various questions arise as to repayment and whether the loan is made on improved or unimproved land. It follows from this that we have settlers at the present time under many conditions. We have settlers under the act of 1917, and settlers under the act of 1919, who have loans on land, loans for improvements, loans for stock and implements. We have also settlers under the act of 1920, with loans on unimproved land, loans for improvements on improved land, loans for improvements on unimproved land, and so on. In other words, in many cases the settler has several accounts which have to be kept, and the keeping of these accounts is cumbersome to a very great degree. In examining into the question of soldier settlers, there has been a certain amount of criticism of the acts. I do not see it in that light. I think the effect of soldier settlement so far has been remarkably good.


William Findlay Maclean: Roughly, how many soldier settlers are there?


Herbert Meredith Marler: There are 21,394.


Arthur Meighen: That would be without taking into account the homesteading soldier settlers. With those included, the number would be between 27,000 and 28,000.

Pensions Committee


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, the figure I gave
was of settlers under the Soldier Settlement Acts. These soldier settlers have opened up 600,000 acres of new land, and they have under cultivation over 5,000,000 acres of land. Take, for example, the amounts they are worth to the railroads. If we take as a basis $740 of freight for each soldier settler, that means a very large amount in freight to the railroads. It does seem to me that the soldier settlers under the circumstances that have existed in agriculture in the past few years have done remarkably well. But I do think this, and the committee also thought, that the loans as made under the acts, were not sufficiently extended as regards repayments.
In other words, they did not 5 p.m. give the soldier first of all the opportunity of getting his farm in order before being called upon to make heavy payments. We must look at this question from two viewpoints. We should look at it from the viewpoint of the great advisability of keeping the soldiers on the land, because, as I have said, they have done remarkably well so far, and, in the second place, we must also look at it from the standpoint that the nation has a very large amount of money locked up in this undertaking. It is therefore advisable that we should encourage the soldier settlers tc stay on the land and to cultivate it, as-' sisting them in every way possible to repay the loans which have been made to them.
As I have indicated previously, the pay-' ments under the present acts are far too heavy. The soldier settlers cannot meet these payments as they now exist. Consequently, what your committee suggests is this, that all amounts advanced to every soldier settler, the arrears, loans for improvements, loans for stock and implements, and loans on land, be all consolidated into or.e account, as of the 1st of April, 1922, and that interest be added to the consolidated account so arrived at, at the rate of 5 per cent per annum to the next interest date, which in Manitoba is the 1st of October, and that on the 1st of October next the soldier will pay one twenty-fifth of that amount less interest exemption, which I shall explain in a moment or two.


Arthur Meighen: Did the committee take into account when making that recommendation the mortality of personal property security? Land is eternal, but implements very soon pass away, and twenty-five years seems a long time to expect them to remain
as security; and it seems longer still in the case of stock. I am just asking if the committee took into account that there is a very great difference between the length of time you can afford to give in the case of land, and in the case of stock and implements.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The question is an absolutely proper one in every way. I thought of the very same situation myself, and I agree that to give twenty-five years to pay for stock and implements and also for goods which can pass away is a very long time indeed, but under the present law, the payments on stock and implements are, unfortunately, very heavy, and the committee thought that although the country would be taking a certain risk in extending the period for the repayment of loans on stock and implements, the increment on the farm itself would more than offset the loss in security which they might suffer by depreciation of the implements. In other words, you get depreciation in one case, and appreciation in the other.


Mr. LOVETT:: How many farms have
been abandoned by the soldiers and have come back into the hands of the Government?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am sorry I cannot
give that information at the moment, but I shall make a note of it and let my hon. friend know.
I mentioned certain interest exemptions. Your committee are suggesting interest exemptions as follows: For 1919 settlers, up until the 1st of October, 1926, or in other words, four years from next October; for
1920	settlers, up to the 1st of October, 1925, or three years from next October; for 1921 settlers, up to the 1st of October, 1924, or two years from next October. The question naturally arises, why this difference? Why are some settlers given a longer period within which to pay this interest than others? The reason is that the exemption in 1919 is made for four years because the committee thought that implements, stock, etc. at that time, had been bought at higher figures, and, possibly, the soldier settler at that particular period paid more for his land, and also very likely, almost certainly, paid more for his stock. He was given a preference in that respect; so the settlers in 1920 and
1921	were given lesser preferences for similar reasons. The situation does not affect a man who has paid up his debt, because interest is added up till the 1st of April
Pensions Com7nittee

this year, and the whole amount is consolidated. The man owing less simply has to pay less interest in the future. These payments, I admit, are all exceedingly complicated and very very hard to follow. Consequently, I have reduced to the simplest possible calculation, for the benefit of hon. members, the method in which an average loan of $5,000 would be paid under the old plan, and how it will now be payable under the new plan. The average of loan of $5,000 divided into:
Land purchases	 $3,000
Permanent improvements	 500
Stock and equipment	 1,500
This is a hypothetical case, to distinguish how payments have been made in the past, and how they will be made in the future. Under the old plan, as at present in existence, that loan of $5,000 would be payable in this way, leaving out the cents:-
1st October 1920	 $254
1st October 1921		667
1st Ootober 1922	 667
Or, in other words, on the 1st October 1922 the settler of 1919 would have had to pay $1,589.53. But some have paid and some have not paid. The payments have (been made fairly regularly, but I am simply quoting this example in order to show that, in the opinion of your committee, the initial payments were too heavy. What is suggested under the proposed amendment to the act is that, on this same loan of $5,000, on the 1st of next October the amount due will be $232.40, and that amount of $232.40 will continue for some years) and then there will be nineteen payments of $372,97. In other words, the earlier payments are less and the later payments a little heavier. Take an example of a settler established 1st April, 1920. He would have had to pay, under the old plan, on the 1st October, 1922, $922.04. It is suggested, in the consolidated plan, that this be converted into a payment of $219,35 on the 1st October, and the later payments of $359.27, instead of the method under the old plan, when his later payments were $254.55. In the case of a settler established 1st April, 1921, the payment due 1st October, 1921, under the old plan, would be $557.47, and, under the new plan, it would be $210. This means that all these loans, which are now placed in very many accounts, will all be on exactly the same basis, and all payable in 25 years. I am informed that the saving in cost of admin-
istration alone will be very considerable- the amount which has been mentioned to me is around $250,000 per annum. The treasury, it goes without saying, will lose a certain amount of interest. That amount of interest which the treasury will lose under the exemption for interest, as it stands now, will be $11,700,000.


Arthur Meighen: In connection with the virtual rebate on non-payment of interest, has the committee considered the possibility, indeed the ;certainty, of discrimination? One man has paid a third or half his loan, and another has paid nothing, perhaps, not even his interest. If the debt of each was consolidated, and each was given freedom from interest for four or three or two years, as the case may be, the man who has been delinquent gets a far greater advantage than the man who has been industrious and prompt. In a word, is it not open to the objection that the plan really puts a premium upon procrastination?


Herbert Meredith Marler: My right hon. friend is, in part, right in his criticism. It is true, the man who has paid up the greater part of his loan is not getting exactly the same as the man who has not paid up his loan, but none of the past interest is waived in any way. I trust I have made that quite clear. It is consolidated up to a certain date. But where a man has paid off his loan entirely, he is, to some extent, discriminated against.


William Findlay Maclean: Does it not mean that the successful settler takes up the loss of the unsuccessful settler?
IVJr. MARLER: In that regard, the question of interest exemption arose out of the desire for a revaluation, which was utterly impossible to arrive at. We could not have a revaluation. Then the committee had to consider the two main points: first the advisability of keeping the soldier settler on the land-that is what we had in mind the whole time-and, second, to save as much as we possibly could, and, in fact, increase our security by keeping him on the land, so that we would minimize, or eliminate entirely, our loss on acount of the large amount involved. But the criticisms of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and the hon member for South York (Mr. Maclean) are well founded, I must admit, in part. But I do not see how it could be gotten over, although I must admit, I tried to get over it. I took that question up,

Pensions Committee
and I may say there are very very few who will be discriminated against in that respect.


Arthur Meighen: If that is the case, the objection is not strong, but is it really the case? The hon. member seems to think that only those who have paid in full will be discriminated against. There are not very many of these-I am told only about five hundred. But is there not discrimination as between all of them, the man who has paid two-thirds, the man who has paid a half, and the man who has paid one-third or the man who has paid one-tenth? All those are discriminated against, in favour of the man who has paid nothing at all, because, when the outstanding indebtedness is all consolidated, then the amount of interest due now is waived, just in proportion to the debt.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not precisely. I do not think that is quite right.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I misunderstood it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The interest is not
waived. If a man has paid one-third of his debt, he is saved that much interest. If a man is in arrears, his interest is added up to the 1st of April of this year. Nothing is waived up to the first of April.


Arthur Meighen: I know that.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Let us take this example. If a man has paid one-third of his debt, he will have so much less interest to pay. A man who has paid none of his debt will have the whole of his debt capitalized with interest. A man who has paid one-third of his debt, will have two-thirds of his debt capitalized with interest. It is as regards the future that the privilege exists. There is no waiving at all up to the date of consolidation.


Arthur Meighen: I am aware of that. Supposing six men started out, each with a debt of $5,000. One has paid nothing; another has paid $1,000; another, $2,(300; another, $3,000; another, $4,000, and another, the whole thing. As regards the man who has paid nothing at all, his remission is the interest for four years on $5,000, presuming that he has been paying interest; that is to say, it would be, at 5 per cent, $1,000. The man who has paid $1,000, gets out on $4,000, which would mean $800 remitted. And so on down; the man who has paid all except $1,000, gets only $200 remission, and the man who has
paid everything gets nothing. There is discrimination everywhere, and I would fear that this would be the birth of a long, long series of claims for readjustment.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I admit that there is something in what my right hon. friend states. That was gone into very carefully by the committee at the time, and it is difficult to see how we can get out of it.
That is the report of the committee. I do not think any further comment on my part is necessary, nor is it necessary, so far as I can see to detain the House further. I should like to say, however, that during the course of the prosecution of the work of the committee, the attitude which all hon. members of that committee have taken in an attempt to solve these difficulties which have been placed before us has been exceedingly pleasant. As I have stated previously in the opening remarks of this address, the one effort which we have had before us has been to alleviate, in every possible manner, the lot of the returned soldier, to make the returned soldier feel that we have taken into consideration everything which we reasonably could have been expected to take into consideration, and I believe the report, as now brought down, is an equitable report in every way.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I second the motion for concurrence in this report. It has been a pleasure to me to have been associated to some slight extent in this work. I think all the members of that committee felt as I do; as a matter of fact, the committee itself was a rather unique one, in that every member of that committee was placed there at his express desire, because he was interested in the work the committee had in hand, and was anxious to assist as far as possible in bringing justice to the returned men in our country. The work has been very pleasant because, as our chairman has said, it has been a committee where men from all parts of this House met on an absolutely equal footing, where politics or party considerations were forgotten and where we each gave the best that was in us to bring about a successful consummation of our labours. That, perhaps, was the most important feature in the committee, and, further, it was absolutely right and just that such should have been the case. This is no party question; this is no question of

Pensions Committee

political gain or party advantage; this is absolutely a national question affecting every one on all sides of this House and the country as a whole. I would say further that, as regards any man who would inject politics into work of that kind, who would endeavour to use work of that kind for any political advantage, no matter where he resided or what part of the country he represented, the place of that man would be outside of the doors of the committee altogether; and I believe, further, the place of that man would be outside of Parliament. But, very fortunately, very happily, such considerations never arose. Unanimity of purpose was found on that committee, not always unanimity of ideas, because that was not to be expected, and I do not think it would be altogether desirable if there had been unanimity of ideas. We brought various ideas into the common melting-pot, and from that common melting-pot we have brought in a report which, we hope, will be of advantage to returned men and will improve the acts which we have attempted to amend. I may say further that I very much appreciate the assistance which we have had from our chairman and every member of the committee. I think the chairman of the sub-committees appreciate that particularly, because, they have found the chairman of the committee to be most helpful, most assiduous in giving what assistance he could. As one of the subchairmen, I can speak of that from personal experience.
I shall now, however, confine my remarks to my particular subject, that is, the subject of land settlement, because, to a large extent that subject was left in the hands of the sub-committee. The greater part of the evidence was taken before the main committee. But the subcommittee took that evidence, sifted it out, took further evidence, considered and discussed it, and arrived at a decision, drew up its sub-committee report and presented it to the main committee where it was discussed, criticized and finally adopted. Therefore, to some extent, if in the report there are failings and weaknesses, as have been pointed out by some hon. members, I am, perhaps, more responsible for that than the chairman of the committee, and in that I think I can associate all the other members of the subcommittee, as our report was absolutely unanimous.
Before going into the work of that subcommittee, I want to say a few brief words

on the motives that actuated us. There were two. One was this, to remedy any injustices which might unhappily have been done to returned men through no fault in the act. The second was to look at the matter as a business proposition, as a colonization scheme. In that way the work of this sub-committee stands apart, the work of this particular department stands apart from that of other departments of re-establishment. This is not even under the heading of re-establishment; it is a department of its own under the heading of the Department of the Interior, because, in its essence, it is not a measure of re-establishment; it is not a measure particularly of special assistance given to returned men; in its essence, it is a colonization method of assisted farming, which is applied only to those men who, by reason of their services abroad, were particularly entitled to that assistance. .
I am not going to criticize in the least the law as it exists. I have studied that law fairly carefully during the last few months; I believe that law was sound in its inception; that it was just according to conditions which prevailed at the time it was passed. It is natural that when any law is passed, as time goes on and as the effects of the law become more apparent, weaknesses will be found. Those weaknesses we have sought to remedy. The main trouble which we encountered was this-and it is not any fault of the act or of any member of the Government in operating the act, but results from a complete change in the economic conditions of agriculture itself; that is what we sought to meet and, so far as possible, to alleviate. When the act first came into force and during the years when the bulk of the men came on the land, agriculture was, on the whole, in an exceedingly flourishing condition. Markets were good; the demand for products was good; prices were high, and the men who went on the land, those who knew something about farming, had every expectation, and rightfully so, of succeeding in their operations and becoming selfsupporting citizens of this country. Unfortunately, by reason of the conditions prevailing at that time, these men had to purchase at high prices; because, naturally, if they could sell their produce at high prices they had to pay high prices for whatever they required themselves. If there was a good market for the man who

Pensions Committee
had stock to sell, it meant that the man who was commencing farming had to pay a good deal for the necessary stock to start with. That was inevitable. Land was affected to some extent also. Land that produced wheat worth $2 or $2.50 a bushel was obviously worth more than land producing wheat that fetched $1 a bushel.
Now, on the contrary, the'condition that the committee was confronted with was one of general economic depression in agriculture as a whole, and that condition bore peculiarly upon the men who had been placed on the land under this scheme, not because of the fact that they were returned men but simply because they owed for everything they possessed. They were in debt to that extent, they had no reserve piled up during the good years, and in the majority of cases had no property of their own to fall back upon. They were in debt to the full extent of the property they held, and having these interest payments to meet they felt the economic depression to a greater degree than did those who owned their own property. For that reason, and because we recognized that this country owes a debt to these men, to see that as far as possible they shall be given a fair opportunity to re-establish themselves successfully and become self-supporting, self-respecting citizens, we decided to go to their assistance to that extent. Now, it has been suggested that any assistance given in that way is a form of special privilege extended to a small number of men and withheld from others. That is hardly just. These men were not given a great or any special consideration in the way of bonus when they were placed on the land. They paid the full price for everything they got, borrowing from the country the money with which to buy their properties, on which money they had to pay interest. It cannot therefore be argued that any special privilege was given them in that respect. The loan was made to these men at that time to enable them to go into agriculture because of the great cry that was being raised for increased production on the land. The attempt was made to put men on the land who would be an asset to the nation, just as the attempt is now being made, in any immigration policy that may be adopted, to secure immigrants for the same purpose. There is no question of discrimination; there was a necessity for people on the land because the country needed farmers. That was the object in giving this particular assistance to these men, and in any debate of interest,
211i
or any special consideration in regard to payment, that may be conceded, that fact must be taken into consideration. These men are not being given a bonus now; they are relieved as far as possible of conditions which have made it impossible for them to succeed personally, or to become that asset to the country which they should be.
Moreover, it is quite self-evident that if these men fail because of conditions over which they have no control, or because the payments they have to make are unduly burdensome, the country will be the loser. Those men who fail, it is true, will lose all that they had. They will lose the ten per cent which they were called upon to pay, and they will lose the result of one, two, or three years of work. But the country would also lose, and in two ways. It would lose the difference between the amount of the loan it made and the value of the property, if sold at a resale. And more than that, it would lose the men themselves, who undoubtedly are an asset to the country because they produce revenue for the railways. The country would lose these men and in their stead we should have men, women and children out of employment whom it would have to support. That is the reason we give special consideration to this class; and that is why, in my opinion, they cannot be justly considered as receiving any special privilege as compared with others. At all events, it is not our intention to give any special privilege and we do not look at the matter in that way.
Now, I am not going to go into the actual working of our recommendations; our chairman has touched on that question very ably. I have been farming in my part of the country for over thirty years, and there are more returned men on the land in that vicinity than in any other part of Canada. In my own constituency of Red Deer there are at least 1,200 returned men placed on the land by the board, and that is more than in any other constituency of Canada. I can therefore say that I know personally the conditions under which these men work. I have worked side by side with them during the last few years and under the same conditions, with this advantage over them that enabled me to pull through where they could not, namely, that I owned my property, free from debt, prior to the time of depression. So that I can speak with knowledge of the actual conditions of the men on the land at the present time. In bringing our recommendations forward, I at least have largely had
Pensions Committee

in view those conditions. I am not a lawyer. Sometimes I am glad of the fact, and sometimes I am sorry. I can see where a knowledge of law is a tremendous asset to a man; I can see also where a knowledge of law sometimes limits a man's outlook and usefulness, and there are subjects on which a man who is actually conversant with working conditions-I am not speaking in any spirit of egotism at all-is a better authority than any lawyer, however skilful he may be, whose actual knowledge is only theoretical. In bringing forward these recommendations, for which I, as a member of the committee, am jointly responsible, I may say that we looked at the matter from the point of view of practical farmers as to what was necessary, in our opinion, to enable men to succeed under these conditions as farmers. Now, in doing so we may have infringed some of the ethics of law. I do not know whether we have, and I do not particularly care. Our object was not to frame a law that would read well or sound well, or that was even particularly consistent, our object was to bring about conditions of re-payment on the land which would enable these men to succeed on a return to normal agricultural prosperity. And I want to emphasize that point. We found it impossible to make any recommendation based on abnormal conditions, because in considering the term of payments for twenty-five years we have had in view normal periods of average prosperity on these farms during that time. If we had considered only the present year we would simply have said: "Well, we might as well wipe out the whole thing because it is absolutely worthless; seeing that in the present year the farmers that own their properties cannot meet expenditures, it would be of course futile to expect that any assistance would enable these men to succeed." But we are optimistic enough-at least I am-to believe that better times are coming, that our greatest period of depression is passing, and that we can expect some return to normal conditions, especially if these men are assisted by the wisdom of a parliament such as this. Let me say that in considering the conditions of these returned men, most of whom are on the prairies, we had in mind that this Parliament would probably see to it that they should not be crushed out of existence by excessive freight rates and other unnecessary burdens. That was our point of view. We approached the consideration of the whole subject from the angle of the actual conditions.
Sir. Speakman.]
The question as to the actual conditions of repayment now and what they will be henceforth has been touched on largely by the Chairman; but I might also refer to it, as I have made a particular study of it. As has been said, at the present time there are three or four different terms of years, and under present conditions the heavy payments come now and the lighter payments later. We believe that, under present circumstances, that system should be reversed; the light payments should come in the first years, when the men are struggling to obtain a footing, and the heavier payments-if heavier payments there must be-afterwards, when they are firmly established on the land and have had an opportunity of creating to some extent a reserve. What was the position under the old system? There was a land payment which ran twenty or twenty-five years, and a stock and equipment loan which was given on the basis of two years' exemption for interest, and for payment a term of four years. The exemption for interest was granted simply because Parliament recognized at that time that it was impossible for the men to make any payments until they were firmly established on the land. That time of exemption is over and those men are now called upon to meet those interest payments during the next four years, with the result that this year and the three years following the payments falling due are absolutely impossible for any of them to meet. When you consider in the cold light of reason what a man has to pay under these conditions everyone will admit that it is beyond his financial ability. Take the average payment of $667 that he has to meet. In addition he has to pay taxes- and I can assure hon. members that municipal and school taxes are not to be sneezed at these days, they amount to a small rent in themselves;-then he has to pay all the expenses of running his farm, and also to maintain his wife and family. Moreover,-and this is something which we have taken into consideration, although it has not been mentioned-in a great many cases during the last few years these men, being unable to provide money to carry on their operations, have received advances from the board for seed and feed, and in some cases for their own subsistence during the year. The advance is not a very large sum taken by itself-between $200 and $300 in some cases-but it is a mortgage on this year's crop and therefore has to be added to this already large total which must be met this fall under conditions

Pensions Committee
which make it absolutely impossible for the debt to be discharged. That has worked a further hardship. Those men, having what you might call that special indebtedness on this year's crop, are unable to go to any store and buy goods on credit because they have nothing on which to base credit; the crop which they will harvest belongs under the terms of the mortgage to the board, and the board's indebtedness must be met first.
By our method of re-amortization we shall take all indebtedness which has been piling up, including the accumulated back interest, and, commencing with the 1st October this year, and spread it over a term of twenty-five years in one straight loan, relieving him of the bad results of the last two years' depression-not enabling him to succeed if conditions never return to normal, but relieving him of the tremendous load which has been piled on his back in the last two or three years. Further, we are cancelling interest. The chairman admitted that the committee had not considered a re-valuation, but I can assure this House that we considered it very carefully in our sub-committee. As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, I was one of the first in this House to advocate that measure of relief, for I thought it was just, right, and essential, and I still believe so. But, finding it impossible to carry it out as a re-valuation, we reached the same end to some extent by cancelling interest. That is why we did it. We found that we could not arrive at a fair basis of estimating depreciation in land, when re-sales in some five hundred-odd cases showed a slight appreciation in value. We could not, in the face of that testimony, justly say that land had depreciated. Even after subtracting the 10 per cent paid by the soldier and lost, those re-sales still showed a very slight appreciation in value. The committee as a whole, however, felt that it could not take that as definite evidence. In the first place, only 25 per cent of the holdings had been re-sold, and it might be that those were the most desirable, and that others were not sold because the board could not realize the price which has been paid for them. We also took into account this broad, logical truth, that whatever the market value, the final value of land is the value of the stuff you can produce on it. And no one can tell me that as a business proposition, land which is producing commodities at fifty per cent of what they were worth two or three years ago is worth
much to-day as it was when commodities prices were higher. On stock the depreciation was very heavy, about thirty-five per cent taking all the year into account; on equipment it was very slight, due, I may say, to the careful manner in which the board brought that equipment under the very beneficial arrangement which they were able to make with the machinery companies. They were able to buy equipment at wholesale prices, less five per cent, which meant that they did not pay the peak retail prices which civilian farmers had to pay. There was marked depreciation in the value of live stock. We could not go out and re-value the live stock because the same stock was not in existence. So, we took the broad ground and cut off enough interest to meet that depreciation in value. That is why we divided the cases into classes, 1919, 1920 and 1921, partly because depreciation was greater the longer the time you went back, as a whole, depreciation being greatest in the first year; and partly because the accumulated indebtedness of those soldiers working through those hard years was greater and therefore they required more relief. Consequently, we recommend a cut of interest which will amount to re-valuation on the articles which have depreciated in value.
I think the point raised 'by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that that recommendation constitutes a discrimination in favour of those men who have not paid anything at all should be dealt with. While I will admit it does constitute discrimination, we just looked at the matter from two points. Certain men had been able to pay. That would probably mean that they would be lin less need of this assistance to get over these hard times. It meant they were better business men, in which case they were paying it themselves or they were under better conditions. Because you can readily understand that the value of a binder is the same all the country over, and a Ford car is essentially the same value wherever you find it, but the value of a piece of land varies according to locality, and even pieces of land in the same locality vary in value -I mean productive value-as do different districts. Some men may have been more fortunate in the land they secured1 or in the district they went into. Therefore we simply take the ground that we are not basing the recommendation on the desirability of granting a bonus to the men, but
Pensions Committee

on the absolute necessity of keeping them on the land. There is no doubt there is discrimination in the sense stated by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, that is, the more a man owe's the greater amount of interest will be taken off for four years. But we could not work out any other solution, and while we admit that it is open to criticism, we consider the recommendation should be accepted, unless something better is brought forward.
The right hon. gentleman brought up another point, which ;is absolutely sound and should be touched upon to some extent; that is, the danger of spreading the loan on equipment over twenty-five years, because the security disappears by the end of that time. But the first essential thing about the scheme is that it shall be workable, that is, it must take into account such payments as the men can meet and remain r.n the land and succeed. We may transgress the rules of logic, but the main purpose is that those men shall succeed. It must not be forgotten that qs the years go on every payment made increases the board's equity in the property, and in a very short time a few payments wipe out the value of the equipment, still leaving the whole of the land as security for the lesser amount that is owing to the board. By the time four or five years' payments have been made they will account for the disappearance of the equipment, but the board will still own the whole of the land as security for the loan. So the board's equity in the land will be, comparatively speaking, greater as time goes toy. We are taking that into consideration also.
As jI said when I rose, I did not intend to speak at any great length, and I hope I have not done so. I shall be very glad indeed to answer any questions on points that I have not covered. I simply wish to add that I concur in what our chairman has said. We have worked on this purely and simply from the point of view of helping the returned men to become self-supporting citizens standing on their own feet -an i asset and credit to the country. It may be of interest, in speaking of the asset which has thus resulted to the country, to examine what has already been done in that respect. I shall not read the long list of details which I have here, but I will say this: in 1921 the soldier settlers produced about $13,000,000 worth of goods on the farms, which went into the ordinary channels of trade and were to that extent an asset to the country. In 1920, an ac-

curate calculation was made of the amount of freight paid by these men on the stuff they sold-not on the stuff they bought, which should really be included-which was found to amount to $3,000,000 in one year. When you consider these things you can readily see that we can afford to lose interest to the extent of $11,000,000-even, if necessary, $15,000,000-in order to retain these men on the land. From that point of view alone it is a sound and a just policy. A.s the chairman of the committee has just said, it is estimated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, who are generally considered, in this House and out of it, to be about as efficient as any authority in computing the value of population as related to the railways, that every settler on the land is worth $740 a year to the railways. On that basis the settlers now on the land under the Soldier Settlement Act, are worth about $13,360,000 a year to the railways. That sounds like a large sum, does it not? If I were speaking on transportation now I would compare the amount they were worth in freight to the amount they received for their produce, but for the present I let that go; I may have occasion to refer to it later. But to keep the men on the land, with all that is involved, is no charity, is not doing something from which we get no return; it is a sound business proposition, and it is sound from the point of view of the Minister of Finance as well.
I want to make just one further remark. We expected our report to be criticized on two grounds; first, that we had gone too far, and second, that we had not gone far enough. We expect that criticism, but I assure the House that we have laboured most diligently; we have gone into these matters with the idea of giving the soldier everything we could give him, having regard to the money available to give to anyone. We have come unanimously to the conclusion that we have gone as far as we can soundly, honestly and justly go. If we went further, it would be practically impossible to meet the bill; if we did not go as far as this, we should hardly be doing justice. In this year of grace we believe this report is a good one. We ask hon. members of the House to adopt it, and first, if necessary, to criticize it-but in the same non-partisan, friendly spirit -which characterized the meetings of the committee itself.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like

Pensions Committee
first to offer a word of congratulation to my hon. friend the chairman of the committee (Mr. Marler) for his very full explanation of the legislation which he is proposing to the House in the form of the report of the committee. I do not rise to criticise the report adversely; the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Speak-man) is, perhaps, wrong in thinking that any hon. members will have severe criticism to offer of the work of a committee which has laboured as hard as this committee has laboured, on this occasion and such other committees in previous sessions. Some constructive criticism will probably be offered, and I believe that is the only type of criticism that any one should1 offer on a subject of this kind. I realize as well as any one does that no more difficult task confronts any committee of the House than that of dealing with the subjects coming within the scope of this committee.
I have noticed in glancing over the report that it contains some sixteen sections. There are three main points in it that appeal particularly to me. In the first place there is the recommendation for the appointment of a pension appeal board. That appeals to me, because as a member of this House and as a medical man I know there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction- rightly or wrongly; in many cases, I think, wrongly, but in some cases, rightly-with regard to the decisions that have been made respecting pensions to the returned men and their dependents. I therefore believe that those men who have served overseas and who feel that they have pensions which should not be taken away or that they are not getting pensions which they should get, will be much more satisfied to have some board to which they can appeal for a reconsideration of their case. I compliment the committee very strongly upon its suggestion that such an appeal board should be established.
The second point to which I desire to refer has to do with a matter which, I believe, required a great deal of consideration, but the committee has attempted to settle as fairly as it can, namely, the question of soldier land settlement. My right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) has pointed out one or two flaws in the recommendations which the committee has made. At the same time, I know that the committee has attempted to bring forward something of value, and any suggestion which has for its object the assisting of the men who settle upon the land is, at any rate, a
worthy attempt. I believe that is the spirit which has animated the committee, and it is the spirit, I know, in which the House will receive the suggestion. In working out the details, same of the suggestions of my right bon. friend may be submitted when the legislation is brought before the House.
The third suggestion which appealed to me was the recommendation that a year's pension be given to children who lost their father, who was receiving a pension and whose death was due to some cause other than injury or illness resulting from the war. I have great sympathy for little children who have lost parents under any circumstances. I have always felt that it is a blot on the civilization of any country that little children left without parents are thrown upon what is sometimes the rather cold charity of the world. But I particularly feel that sympathy for little children whose father endangered his life to serve his country and to fight for that liberty which we all love and which we all wish to retain. The method1 proposed may be of great benefit in helping such children, and I suggest that upon further consideration-not at present, but later-this suggestion may be extended and, perhaps, more done than the giving of a year's pension to the children of any man who endangered his life for the good of the country and who left those children without a protector.
These, to my mind are the three most important sections in the report. They do not involve the expenditure of very much money; in fact, none of the suggestions made involves, so far as I can see, any very large expenditure. It proves, as was stated by the chairman of the committee at the beginning of his remarks, that the past government-and I am not saying this in a political sense-the past government and the people of Canada have endeavoured to treat the returned soldiers and their dependents fairly since the war has passed. When one considers the vast amount of money that was spent on gratuities, pensions, re-establishment, land settlement and various other things, amounting in all to $445,000,000 up to about a year ago, one realizes that the country did endeavour to treat the returned soldiers fairly. And when one realizes also that that $445,000,000 is about one and one-half times the amount of the whole national debt of Canada before the war, one still further realizes the effort that was made by the government and the
Pensions Committee

people of Canada to be fair to the soldiers who served overseas, and their dependents. Canada, I submit-and I have said this from various platforms at various times -has treated her returned soldiers better than any other country in the world in this or any other war, and I am only quoting in saying that the statement made by Lady Astor very recently in the Russell theatre. I had made the statement myself long before, and I believe it is absolutely true. At the same time, I do not wish to be understood as suggesting that we have carried out complete re-establishment of the soldier. There are many changes which it will be necessary to make as time goes on, and the committee has recommended some of them, to meet the conditions of the returned soldiers and their dependents. Therefore, I do not wish to be understood as suggesting that everything has been done. I simply repeat that the country has endeavoured to do its duty fully by the returned men.
Two or three other suggestions and I shall have finished. In the first place, at various times I have made the suggestion in this House that some scheme of housing should be worked out for the returned men. In my remarks on the Address this year I even took that up, and I remember that various other members have done likewise. The committee has dealt with that subject and found no way of working it out, but it seems to me the method by which the late government helped to encourage the building of homes in this country by loaning money to the provinces, which handled it through the municipalities for the encouragement of home building, might be extended in some for or other to returned soldiers, so that they would get greater benefit from housing loans than they have obtained in the past. I believe that the Government might well consider a further extension of those provisions so as to help returned soldiers who desire to build homes for themselves. Up to recently those loans have not been taken advantage of to the extent they might have been for the reason that building costs were very high, but costs have now come down to a certain extent, and will come down still more, and I think that some plan should be worked out to give the soldiers greater assistance in that direction than they have received in the past.
There is one other matter that I think will require further consideration by the Government, and that is the question of

extending the powers of the Royal Commission that has been recommended to inquire into charges made by Mr. MacNeil and Mr. Maxwell, or at all events, made in their names. I have worked in this House for some years now in rather close association with Mr. Maxwell and Mr. MacNeil, and have found them from the first two very high-minded gentlemen who have always had at the bottom of their hearts the desire to do good, and only good, for the returned soldiers; so I believe that when they make these charges they at least believe them to be true. I should like to suggest that this Royal Commission which has been recommended, and will probably be appointed, should be given wider powers than are suggested in the committee's report, for the purpose of looking more thoroughly into various complaints by soldiers throughout the country. A committee such as we have in this House has not time to go into all these cases as thoroughly as they should be gone into, and I think that this commission might well be organized and remain in force for a long time with the purpose in view of settling whatever dissatisfaction exists in the minds of the returned men of this country. Therefore, for that purpose, I would suggest that the Royal Commission should be given wider powers than are recommended in the committee's report.
There is one other suggestion in regard to the taking care of tubercular cases, those injured or maimed at the front, old age cases, and problem cases. I believe that every effort should be made by the Government to carry out the committee's recommendations in this respect to the fullest extent possible.
I have one other suggestion to make in regard to unemployment. I think we all agree that it is the duty of the Government, as far as possible, to assist the returned soldiers with work rather than with doles, so to speak. I do not believe that it is conducive to good citizenship to be handing out money to keep men from starvation. I think the Government might well consider doing more, particularly in the winter months, in the direction of supplying employment for returned soldiers, rather than be handing out charitable doles. I believe, indeed I know, it is the desire of all members of this House and of the people of this country to be fair and just to the men who have risked their lives and limbs in serving our country

Pensions Committee
at the front. I do not believe that any well man has a right to consider that he has a living coming to him from this country simply because he served overseas, but I do not consider that any ill man whose illness was due to the service he gave overseas should be dependent on charity in this country; and that is my closing submission to the Government.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. T. SHAW (West Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I join in the congratulations which have been tendered to the chairman of this committee upon his being able, at last, to make a report to this House. I am sure that one and all agree with him and his associates that, regardless of what may be our attitude on other questions, this question is primarily one which is above politics, and partisanship, and I am sure, therefore, that I but voice the sentiments of every member of this honourable House when I say that we are one in the desire to discuss the after-war problems on a basis far above that which usually follows the discussion of political problems.
I regret, in connection with tihis most important matter, that the committee did not, from the outset, furnish to the members of the House the evidence taken from day to day, in order that we might be able to follow the evidence given and determine what weight, in our judgment, at least, might be given to the recommendations of the committee. But, in any event, I think that this is perfectly clear; regardless of whatever other obligations we may have, now that the tide of war has receded, it is our solemn duty and obligation to see that the human wreckage, the resultant of that war, should be given every possible consideration by the Parliament of Canada. I rather regret that the chairman of the committee and the seconder of the resolution did not see fit to express their appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. MacNeil, who represented the veteran organizations of this Dominion. I presume that that was entirely an oversight, but I am frank to say-and I join with the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) in that regard-that I am confident, although not a member of the committee, that much valuable and unprejudiced information came from Mr. MacNeil, which undoubtedly must have assisted the committee in coming to its conclusion.
May I say, too, that I rather deprecate the suggestion of paternalism, as applied to this particular question? The returned soldiers, I venture to say, are not asking for paternalistic legislation. We have much paternalistic legislation in this House, because every measure of protection is, after all, a paternalistic measure. But I say that the returned soldiers of Canada are not asking for anything other than they deem to be justice, and to be fair and right to every part of this country.
I do not propose to go into detail in connection with this report. I take it that the report is not a final one, that from time to time, to use the words of the exPrime Minister of this country (Mr. Meighen), the door must be kept continually open, in order that any injustice which may appear may be remedied, and in order that full and complete satisfaction, as far as possible, may be given to those who are entitled to it. There are one or two phases in connection with this report to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. The recommendations of the committee followed largely the recommendations of former parliamentary committees in this matter and, I think, I am not saying anything unfair when I say that they have not travelled very much further, perhaps, than former parliamentary committees.
Let me take up very shortly the question of pensions. There are new difficulties here which are continually pressing upon us, and I venture to say that many of the difficulties which arise are due to the unfortunate fact that at the time of the medical examination for discharge or demobilization purposes, complete steps were not taken to insure that the exact condition of every man in the service was ascertained. It is quite true that many men went before the medical officers in England and, in their desire and anxiety to get back to Canada, and to be demobilized, stated to the medical officers that there was absolutely nothing wrong with them; they were, consequently, certified as medically fit, and, therefore, not entitled to further consideration, except, perhaps, in the way of gratuity. I do not blame the ex-service men for that particularly, because when one knows the facts, one must realize that these men had been kept for a period of, approximately, six months in the war area, anxious to get home and back to their
Pensions Committee

farming operations, and anxious, amongst other things, to get out of the army. The result was that many of them did themselves very serious injustice by stating to the medical officers, on the occasion I have mentioned, that they were medically fit. It has been suggested that, despite that fact, these men may still come forward and claim pensionability, but the fact is that, when these men present themselves for consideration in the matter of pensions, they are confronted with a medical certificate, which says "You were fit at the time of your demobilization, and, therefore"- not always, but generally-"consideration cannot be given your claim."
In addition to that fact, there are, of course, many difficulties in the matter of securing pensions. The ordinary man is unfamiliar with the proper method to pursue, in order to secure his just rights. I am not blaming that at all on the departmental officials; I think, generally speaking, they conduct the affairs of the department efficiently and well; but it is a difficulty in the way of the man who is making application for a pension. I am glad to note that the chairman of the committee states that these regulations will be embodied in printed form in order that the soldier may read them for himself.
May I also say that I compliment the committee on granting an appeal? I am not so sure that I would have limited the appeal in the manner in which it is limited in the report, that is to the case in which a disagreement exists between the medical officer of the local board and the medical officials of the Pension Board. I think these claims should be thoroughly, fully and impartially investigated; and if possible, if any mistake is to be made, then by all means make the mistake in the interest of the returned soldier.
May I also mention the matter of the Insurance Act? I find at the time of the introduction of that particular act, Mr. Cronyn, in his report stated:
This insurance will he granted without medical examination and will, therefore be available to all no matter what may be their condition of health.
I understand that, acting under a particular section, representatives of the Pension Board exercise a discretion in the matter, and that latterly many applications have been refused. If that be so-and I am not speaking of my own knowledge- that condition should be remedied, because I am sure that act was passed with the intention that the returned soldier, regard-

less of his physical condition from a medical point of view, was to be put in a position where he could secure insurance.
I have read with a great deal of interest the report of the committee found on page 369 of the Votes and Proceedings, dealing with cases of sheltered employment and the after care of tuberculous patients. I am sure that we are unanimous in our desire that these problem cases and tuberculous cases should receive the best possible consideration. In reading the report, I fail to see that the committee has added very much to reports of former years. May I say that just this evening I received this telegram from one R. H. Macdonald, London, Ontario:
Your urgent support is solicited by 200 inmates of Byron Sanatorium In procuring more liberal consideration of proposals submitted by Tuberculous Veterans' Association, especially extension of time limit for veterans who served in theatre of war and now tuberculous.
Every possible consideration should be given to these men scattered throughout the length and breadth of Canada in various sanitoria; not only that, but the matter of the after care of these tuberculous patients should be thoroughly and completely investigated, in order that they may receive, during the few years remaining to them, the greatest possible consideration, and, perhaps, by that means the health of some of them will be renewed. The treatment of all these problem cases is, I am sure, a matter which must have engaged the serious attention of the committee for a considerable length of time; but I regret, ir that matter too, no very definite recommendation is made.
In view of these circumstances, and the few illustrations I have given-and I could give more-I think the Royal Commission which is proposed, should have its powers enlarged, as suggested by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River in order that it may investigate these particular cases and, if possible, make recommendations in connection therewith.
There are one or two other matters to which I want to refer, and I shall do so very briefly. The housing problem is an important one which should be seriously considered by this Parliament at a very early date. Such consideration will, I think, do much to assist the returned soldier in securing housing accommodation, I make these criticisms in the most friendly way and in the desire to assist us all to get a proper viewpoint of this matter.
I regret very much that the committee has not been able to make any definite or

Pensions Committee
concrete proposal in connection with the unemployment problem. That problem is of special significance to the returned soldier, and hon. members will appreciate that fact when I state that from 60 to 75 per cent of the unemployed are returned soldiers. These men are in a most unfortunate position. They lost their positions by reason of their enlistment for service in the war. They came back and many of them secured temporary positions. In view oi the depressed conditions which existed, they were the first to lose their positions, and, as a result, the figures that I have given represent to-day the proportion of returned soldiers in the unemployed class.


Mr. LADNER:: As this is a matter of
very considerable importance to many people, would the hon. gentleman inform the House as to the sources from which he secured these figures? I am not doubting them at all.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: During the last election
campaign and for some time subsequently thereto, I made some little investigation myself-I do not suggest that it was accurate-in the city of Calgary. I have consulted some of the officials of the veterans' organizations, and they concur in the figures which I have given, that from 60 to 75 per cent of the unemployed are returned soldiers.


William Findlay Maclean: Was the hon.
gentleman at the front? I believe he was.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: Will he give
his own experience as regards unemployment that has developed in the regiment with which he was associated?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Of course, I need not tell
the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) that there was not any unemployment at the front.


William Findlay Maclean: I mean unemployment that my hon. friend has come into contact with in connection with the regiment with which he was identified.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I regret very much that
I am unable to give that information, because the battalion with which I was associated was not a battalion which centered at the city of Calgary. It did, as a matter of fact, have its centre at the city of Regina and consequently I regret I am not familiar with conditions in that city.
I realize the difficulties that the committee necessarily would have in dealing with
the problem of unemployment. I do not know whether Mr. MacNeil, on behalf of the veterans' organizations, was able to give to the committee any concrete or definite plan; but in any event, I know the matter of unemployment was before this Parliament on another occasion. I know that perhaps next winter and during the next year or two, the greatest possible difficulties will again exist in connection with that problem, and returned soldiers in common with others will necessarily suffer by reason of that condition.
While therefore I do not blame the committee for not coming to a conclusion in the matter, I do think that the Parliament of Canada should if possible have some definite concrete proposal to put forward to solve this difficulty during the coming year.
I desire now to refer for a moment to the Soldier Settlement Board. The matter of the revaluation of loans made by the board is not a new one. I think it was voiced from practically every platform in the province of Alberta during the last political campaign. It did not become a political question for the reason, I think, that Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives and every one else agreed that if anything could be done in the way of revaluation it should be done in order to ensure that the soldier settlement scheme might be carried out for the benefit of those for whom it was intended. It is useless to continue this scheme if under its operations the beneficiaries find it impossible to carry on satisfactorily. I am not a farmer and I cannot say whether or not the measure of relief proposed by the committee, as indicated by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), will achieve the end desired. However, if I were to venture an opinion, despite the fact that I am not a farmer, I rather doubt the full measure of success which soma may attribute to this relief from interest. I am hopeful that it will be successful. Indeed, I am sure we all hope that the proposal will prove abundantly worth while and that it will enable this particular scheme to be continued to the benefit of the people for whom it was intended. Having stated these various criticisms, if such they might be termed, I shall now suggest what I hope will be satisfactory to the mover of the motion. I submit the following amendment for his consideration:
Pensions Committee

That the said report be not now commended, but that it be referred back to the Special Committee on Pensions, Insurance and Civil Re-establishment with instructions that it have power to add to the supplementary part thereof, relating to the appointment of a royal commission the following words:
And further, that such commission shall have power to consider and report upon the following matters, namely:
1.	To oonsider and mako suggestions in respect of the procedure by whim disabled exmembers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force are enabled to make application for pensions and medical treatment, or submit an appeal in respect of decisions thereon.
2.	To recommend means for ensuring that suitable provision is made for those ex-members of the forces and dependents who are under serious handicaps by reason oi' war services, in conformity with the recommendations now made, and for whom definite legislative provision has not yet been made.
For the above purposes the commission shall:
1.	Survey existing re-establishment needs among Canadian ex-service men and dependents.
2.	Investigate available data in respect of phases of the Parliamentary Inquiry as yet incomplete.
3.	Obtain information as regards suitable provision for those classes of ex-service men described in section 7, Chap. 2, of the foregoing report.
4.	Investigate the question of exchange and canteen funds.
This amendment is offered in a friendly spirit, with the desire that the commission Which is to be appointed for the investigation of some alleged charges may be enabled to investigate certain other fields of activity and make recommendations in connection therewith. With regard to the question of canteen funds, which I am asking to have investigated, the committee, in my humble judgment, seems to have been under a misapprehension. That canteen fund belongs to the ex-service men of Canada. It does not at all belong to the Parliament of Canada to dispose of as it sees fit. It is money that must be used for the benefit of the men, and is subject to their disposal. But I notice that the committee, disregarding that fact, suggests that certain things be done with the fund.


William Findlay Maclean: What page?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Page 375. The report provides for the appointment of a board and in that I heartily concur. Then there are the following provisions:
(a)	In the allocation of such amount as may be necessary for the purpose of the promotion of workshops where sheltered employment under suitable conditions can be provided where not already in existence or, in the opinion of the board, are not sufficiently pro viced for; and
(b)	To provide further educational facilities to children of ex-members of the forces, such

education to be both primary and secondary, and to apply to such children of ax-members of the forces who would otherwise In the opinion of the board be unable to procure such educational facilities.
Now, I contend that these two objects represent an obligation either of the Parliament of Canada or of the provincial governments, and this special fund should not be used for such purposes. This obligation on the part of the Dominion of Canada or of the provinces-wherever the responsibility lies-should be carried out by the people who obligated themselves to perform them, and I say that you cannot properly without the consent of the veterans of Canada, who are entitled to the fund, allocate it for these particular purposes mentioned.
I know that some attempt was made to secure a vote of the veterans of Canada to indicate what they wanted done with the fund. But the report itself, at page 372 states:
It was considered by the Committee after the Report of the Canteen Disposal Funds Committee, appointed under the said Order in Council, had been reviewed, and also after having heard the evidence, that the plebiscite as so taken did not yield conclusive results.
I say, therefore, that it would be unfair to take this fund and allocate it to these purposes. By way of enforcing what I have said in connection with this matter, I might point out that shortly before coming here I received a telegram from the secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association in Calgary protesting against the proposed disposal of the canteen fund, believing as he does that the education of children, and that the furnishing of sheltered employment, are government responsibilities. He urges that the fund be placed at the disposal of the men who contributed to it. Under these circumstances I am sure that the committee would not desire to use the fund for purposes for which, in my judgment at any rate, it cannot properly be used. May I say in conclusion-


Mr. BELAND:: Before my hon. friend
leaves that point, can he suggest to the House any mode by which the wish of the veterans in Canada could be ascertained with regard to the disposal of the canteen fund?


William Findlay Maclean: What is the amount?


Henri Sévérin Béland: In round figures, $2,000,-
000.

Pensions Committee


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The request of the hon.
minister is indeed a very large order. The veterans of course are scattered all over this country, but nevertheless the difficulty of securing their judgment on a particular matter does not justify this or any other government in allocating this fund, which are held in trust for them, to these specified purposes without their consent. I have no doubt that the allied veterans' organizations could probably suggest to the minister some satisfactory means for the disposition of the fund. I have no special views myself on the matter, except that I do not think it would be right or just to allocate the fund to these particular purposes in view of the results obtained by this most unsatisfactory and incomplete plebiscite, in which only about 22,000 men out of a total membership of 250,000 indicated their choice.
I trust that the hon. gentleman who has moved the adoption of this report will see his way clear to incorporate in it the amendment which I have proposed. I am sure we are at one in our desire to do what is right and fair and to ensure that the veterans receive from this Parliament the fullest possible justice.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) :: Mr. Speaker, I would not have had anything to say upon this question but for the fact that about 60,000 men went to the front from Toronto, where many of the difficulties in the administration of the Pension Act have arisen, and where there is a great deal of suffering among the returned men through technical enforcement of acts of Parliament; therefore at their request I take part in this debate.
I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) on the report he has presented, although it does not go as far as I had hoped it would. However, I think the hon. gentleman's heart is in the right place for the returned men, and I believe [DOT]that he wishes to eliminate many of the technicalities which have hampered the administration of the present act and have worked to the disadvantage of the veterans.
This is about the only opportunity the House has had to consider the whole question of soldiers' civil re-establishment which up to date has involved an expenditure of $475,000,000 or about one and a half times the total debt of Canada before the war. The report deals with four
important points: re-establishment; pensions; insurance; land settlement, and a very elaborate survey is made of these problems. Certain recommendations are made, but I am sorry these do not go as far as the circumstances necessitate.
The recommendations made by the committee of which the former member for London, Mr. Hume Cronyn, was chairman, added about $623,000 to the pensions granted for disability plus special cases. The report now before us has this to say about the inquiry-


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think my hon. friend
will find that figure is not correct. If he refers to section 1 of chapter 2 he will find the correct figures to which he refers.


Thomas Langton Church: Perhaps I had better
read what the report says. I find the following in the first part of section 1, chapter 2 to which my hon. friend from St. Lawrence and St. George (Mr. Marler) refers, but my total is corect, $623,000:
This committee is satisfied that every effort possible to be made has been made in effecting the recommendations and suggestions of the 1921 committee referred to in this section.
It may be noted as regards the recommendations of the 1921 committee that they resulted in the following increased liability to the state,
namely:
Increased liability to pay to pensioners resident outside of Canada the same bonus as that paid to pensioners resident in	Canada	 $400,000
Increase to widowed mothers by reason of lessened deduction of income
from children	 10,500
Increase to pensoners for deaths or disability prior to August 1914 not
receiving C.E.F. rates	 7,500
Additional death claims not provided
for	 10,000
Total Supplementary Estimates for
pension	 $428,000
Employers' liability	compensation.. 100,000
G.T.R. employees	 60,000
Calydor Sanatorium addition	 35,000
Total Supplementary Estimates.. ..	$623,000
The report now before us at page 25 has this to say about the inquiry:
"The committee has heard and considered much evidence with regard to increasing pensions or bonus, as the case may be, applicable to pensioners in general, or to pensioners suffering from particular disabilities and/or to dependents under certain circumstances. All these representations and the evidence a dduced with regard thereto have been very carefully and separately considered by the committee."
This is what the committee recommends as to increases in pensions:
Pensions Committee

Except where otherwise indicated in this report, the committee is not disposed to recommend increases in pension and/or bonus as requested, but does recommend that'the rates and extent ot pension and bonus as now provided for under The Pension Act be continued-
That is, the present scale be continued except as specified.
-and remain in effect until the 1st September, 1924.
I contend very strongly that the time have not yet arrived when there should be any curtailment in the very limited scale of pensions granted. Rent and coal are the two main items in the cost of living, and they take about 65 per cent of all that a soldier gets, leaving him a very small balance to meet the other items which go to make up his total cost of living, and we all know that everything is still very, very expensive. Therefore I consider that the time has not yet come to mark down the scale of pensions.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Is the hon. member arguing that we have recommended reducing the scale of pensions? The bonus provided last year expires this coming September, and the committee recommends that it be continued for another two years.


Thomas Langton Church: I understand that and have already read that the bonus is to go to 1924, but I have here a large number of telegrams from many organizations, urging increases. Organizations in the city of Toronto protest strongly against any curtailment in the present rate of pensions. Last year the House increased the amount paid out in pensions to the extent of $623,000. I contend that there should be a 10 to 121 per cent further increase in pensions over the amount paid in 1921, particularly in special, urgent and important cases. The extra expenditure involved would only be about half a million dollars. I have an outline of the suggested increases for 1922 here, but I will not read it to-night.
I would like to refer to some points dealt with in the report, some of which have been referred to by others who have spoken in the debate and some have not. I wish to mention first the case of the blind, not yet referred to in this debate. A deputation representing the organizations of Canada which are working in the interests of the blind waited on the committee, and were more than kindly received by the chairman. Consider what it means to a man to be blind-what he suffers; what his family suffers; the attention he needs. It is difficult enough for . persons who
CMr. Church.]
their sight to move about the streets of our large cities under modern conditions of traffic without being knocked down. A bond man in a large city or town needs a guide or attendant. The blind men ask that their pensions be increased from $600 to $900-the present rate is $600 plus a special bonus of $300. They are asking for a straight pension of $900, to enable .them to take care of their living expenses and engage the services of a guide, etc. It is true that the blind men have a home, Pearson Hall, but the money they can earn separately is a mere trifle, not sufficient to keep body and soul together. It has been said that a few of them earn their living in various ways, but few of them make enough, as I have said, to keep body and soul together, let alone save anything. We have an institution in our city which is looking after the interests of the blind, and they have continually to ask for money; once or twice a year they have to have a charitable tag day in order to help to maintain this magnificent institution. But many men who have lost their sight are men of great knowledge and ability who to-day would be earning salaries of $25,000 to $30,000 a year were they not blind. I myself know a young engineer, one of the most brilliant graduates of Queen's University, who was permanently blinded at fhe battle of St. Eloi, and who gets a pittance of a pension. Another has a family but he is quite unable to do anything, and all he receives is a pension of $600 plus a $300 bonus. I hope that the chairman of the committee, who has taken a great deal of interest in the blind, will consider the advisability of increasing the pension to the blind as I have suggested.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the blind have been getting $900 and will be getting it for the next two years?


Thomas Langton Church: Yes, but not as a pension. They only get $600 pension plus $300 bonus as I said, and not $900 as the hon. gentleman says. I was not a member of the committee, and I may say here that I think the Toronto city and county district which sent 75,000 men overseas should have had a representative on that committee. A large number of the cases that came before the committee were from Toronto district, and though there are fourteen or fifteen members in this House representing that district-they constitute one-third of the members on the Opposition benches-we

Pensions Committee
had no representative on that committee, and, therefore, no voice in determining questions with regard to the blind, and ether soldier matters. Now, the committee recommend that the 'blind should have free transportation on the steam railways occasionally; that is as far as they go. It is not necessary to make such a provision for the Toronto blind men, because the city is carrying them free in the street cars, and I believe that many patriotic companies in Canada are doing the same thing. I db urge on the committee the necessity of dealing with this question at once. Only a small number of men have lost their sight, and the best the country can do is none too good for them. If we doubled the pensions of these men we would not be discharging one-fifth of the debt the people of Canada owe to them. They have suffered for humanity and Canada as no other class of soldiers suffered, and deserve every consideration instead of the miserable pittance afforded after a lot of trouble.
The question of unemployment is also dealt with in the report. Unemployment, which is acute at the present time, will be worse next winter in the large centres. The tendency seems to be to give the returned man all the pick and shovel jobs, so to speak, but when it comes to the large appointments, such as appointments to the Bench, the antiquated Senate and so on, they go to others who are civilians. Take the case of secretaries and assistant secretaries to the present ministers. I venture to say that if a proper return was brought down it would be found that there are not two returned soldiers among the considerable number of private secretaries and assistant secretaries who have been appointed since this Government came into office. I doubt if -more than from three to five among them would be found to be returned men. Some of the ministers are filling positions by appointing women when the work could be done by returned men. The returned men are entitled to something more than a pick and shovel job. They are entitled to senatorships, judg-ships, appointments to the Bench and other larger positions. Many of these men have been in the banking business and engaged in other enterprises, yet they are walking the streets to-day. I know two or three men who were in banking and financial business before they enlisted, but who cannot now get a position; some of them are working with a pick and shovel for the transportation commission in the city I come
from-and no city in Canada does more for the returned soldier than Toronto does in every way possible. This is a deplorable state of affairs. The other day a question was asked in the House with respect to an appointment of a customs officer in the constituency represented by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryek-man). The salary was $960 a year, and although there were over 200 men on the list, many of them returned soldiers, the man who was appointed was a civilian, No. 241 on the Civil Service Commission's list-a Mr. Ritchie, who had left the Civil Service three months before. I suppose the Government have not yet had an opportunity to look over the service, but there is one isolated instance of the treatment accorded to returned soldiers. Has the policy of giving returned men the preference been rescinded? The House and the country should know.
I would like to see this Pension Act broadened out. I think there should be a proper court of inquiry to cover not only pension cases, but everything pertaining to the returned men-civil re-establishment, pensions and everything else that concerns their health, prosperity and comfort. We have an act which is construed literally by some men who have not shown any too much zeal on behalf of or sympathy for the soldiers. We should have a proper pension and civil re-establishment court established that would travel all over Canada. A civilian who institutes a civil action involving damages of $500 or $1,000 may take his case to one of three, four or five civil courts in the land and in most cases he can take an appeal, if he so desires, right across to the Privy Council, but a returned man who has done his duty by King and country, who has given up his business and lost everything, has no such facility afforded to him and no appeal from a technical decision by a pension board often wrong in both law and fact. I am glad that the committee has recommended an appeal board; if civilians have the right to appeal to the Privy Council, there should be an adequate, proper and up-to-date appeal board for the soldiers as well, especially when the matters in question relate to the health, condition, comfort, prosperity and welfare of the men who fought Canada's battles and of their dependents as well.
I am glad to see a step taken in that direction by the committee, and I hope the Government will bring down the necessary
Pensions Committee

legislation and see that an efficient and proper court of appeal is established. I would go even further than the report of the committee. I would! have a proper court established, get good men and bigger men, and pay them good salaries. If a Royal Commission is appointed I think it should investigate the present board, its findings, administration and so forth, and travel all over Canada inquiring into the whole administration of the board as well as investigating the charges made by reputable returned men in the city of Ottawa, who are very conservative and moderate in what they say. We should sooner or later have a new board of pension commissioners, and the sooner the present lot are let out the better if these charges are substantiated.
I would like to see the Royal Commission given wider powers than is at present proposed by the committee. They should be able to investigate all charges brought by returned men. There are many phases of the problem of re-establishment that could very properly be investigated by this proposed Royal Commission, and they should have their report ready for presentation at the next session of Parliament. I think it is very desirable in the public interest that all vexatious technicalities-quibbles, failures and delays and the many problems that surround the re-establishment of exservice men should be cleaned up now and for all time. I believe that this commission should not only investigate the present administration of the board, but go further and deal with the whole problem of the returned man from coast to coast, and not only with the problems of members of the military forces but members of Canada's naval and air forces as well. Members of the naval forces were treated in a very shabby way on demobilization this month in my opinion. This commission should have power to inquire into the problems affecting the naval and air forces because they are all returned men, after all is said and done, whether they served on land or sea or in the air. The commission should also have power to investigate the question of the pensions paid to those Canadians of all ranks who in their great desire to get to the front quickly, took a ship overseas on the outbreak of the war, and paid their own passage across the ocean, and enlisted with the British expeditionary forces. I know one such veteran, Colonel Young of Kingston a splendid soldier who served in the Northwest Rebellion, the Fenian Raid, the South African war, and the last Great War

and who is now getting a pension of only $17 a month from the British government because he would not wait in Canada to get over. This commission should go over the list of all these special case men and deal with their cases. Many of them are receiving a mere pittance to-day from the British government. I believe that the government of Canada should make up the difference between what these men are receiving in pensions from the British government and what they would have received if they had served and suffered the same disability in the Canadian forces.
The parliamentary committee did very good work, and I want to congratulate the chairman especially. He worked night and day to get at the root of the trouble, and had his heart in the work, but it is impossible for any parliamentary committee to go into all these soldier problems equitably or thoroughly. I would therefore suggest that the powers of the proposed Royal Commission be broadened out and extended so that they can inquire into the entire soldier problem in all its phases and into any dissatisfaction that now exists; with a view to providing a permanent remedy.
Much dissatisfaction undoubtedly does exist at the present time owing to the technicalities which are raised by the Board of Pension Commissioners at Ottawa and their failure .to carry out the intention of Parliament. They give judicial decisions which are not right, and from which there is no appeal. For several years parliamentary committees have been dealing with the returned soldiers' problems. Now let us have an adequate Royal Commission and not a lot of whitewash-a commission who will travel from one end of Canada to the other, and get at the root of the trouble once and for all.	[DOT]
One very emphatic claim being urged by ex-service men is for certain members of His Majesty's forces who do not get anything at all under any existing legislation. There are a number of these men throughout Canada who served in different blanches of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, but who do not get anything under existing legislation. These are more or less special cases, and they should be taken up and dealt with by this Royal Commission, because in my opinion they cannot be properly dealt with by a parliamentary committee. It is further contended that in these special cases I have mentioned, there are serious handicaps other than physical which are not given recognition. It is in the public interest, I think, that these claims

Pensions Committee
should be fully investigated by a judicial body in order that Parliament may be furnished with accurate information and that no opportunity may be given for exaggerated statements as to the distress among these men. There are many of these special cases throughout the coun-trdy, but owing to technicalities in the present law, the men and their dependents now get nothing at all and there is much suffering as a result and much real dissatisfaction.
Another special class of cases that I wish to refer to are the tubercular cases. We have many of these in the various institutions and hospitals throughout Canada, and it is a very pitiful sight to go through one of these hospitals. If you go to the top floor of the Christie street hospital (an institution with about 1,200 different cases) you will find there many of these men suffering from tubercular glands. There are several institutions in Ontario and ' throughout the country looking after these cases many of which are incurable, and these patients and their families are suffering from lack of proper 9 p.m. pensions in a way I cannot describe here to-night because I have not the time. I am sorry the committee has not made recommendations for dealing more generously with these special cases and allowing more latitude. I advocate here and now that when this Royal Commission is appointed it shall have power to investigate these special cases and any others overlooked in this report.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the hon. member say that some cases were not investigated by the committee that should have been?


Thomas Langton Church: Yes, many. I am referring to a great many special cases, those who were in the B.E.F., also disability cases, blind cases, tubercular cases, and some where the men and their dependents do not now get anything at all under existing legislation, and others I have mentioned, and I am advocating a policy that would broaden out the act and givte the Pension Board power to deal with them as a matter of right and justice.


William F. Carroll: Were these cases not considered by the committee?


Thomas Langton Church: A great many cases were, and a great many were not. This Parliamentary committee holds its sittings in Ottawa, and there are hundreds of special cases all over Canada and the
men cannot afford the time and the money to come here personally and present their cases. That is the reason why I advocate that the royal commission or the new Pension Board should have power to travel all over Canada, be a sort of roving commission like the Board of Railway Commissioners, to investigate these special and all other cases and phases.
Referring to the question of soldiers' insurance, there have been a great many complaints from returned men about the administration of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. I just wish to read one short sentence from a memorandum prepared by the Secretary of the G.W.V.A., Toronto District. He says:
It has been submitted that wholesale discrimination has been made against the ex-service men whom the act was intended to benefit, in the issuance of Insurance Policies under the Soldiers' Insurance Act in direct violation of the Act as now in force, and that you consider the proposed amendments clause by clause, as you will find that many amendments, innocent in appearance, when applied wil; effect great hardships on large numbers of the ex-service men in a manner not contemplated by even the majority of the members of the Parliamentary Committee.
Mr. Cronyn, the former member for London who was chairman of the Pensions Committee last year, when introducing the Returned Soldiers Insurance Bill stated as one of the chief features of the bill:
This Insurance will be granted without medical examination and w.il, therefore, be available to all no matter what may be their condition of health.
Notwithstanding that that was the intention of Parliament, the Pension Board of their own volition and ignorance have changed all that on their own initiative, and have prepared secret regulations under which they have assumed power to reject applications for insurance policies for medical reasons. If this is so, and I believe it is, the present Pension Boards' usefulness is gone now and forever. In this proposed new statute based on this present committee's report, the law should make it clear that the Pension Board should have no power to vary the manifest intention of Parliament, to give relief in these insurance cases, without medical examination. This whole soldier question should not be approached from a party standpoint. I am glad to hear the moderate tone of this debate to-day, and to observe that all parties in the House, as the chairman stated, are eager, anxious and willing to do what they can for the returned men. I hope that this view of the problem on the
rpivised edition
Pensions Committee

part of hon. members will always continue in Canada, which should do everything it can for its returned men and see that they are well provided for.
With reference to the housing proposition, which has been dealt with by my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), I do not think the report of the committee goes far enough. No class of the community is suffering from lack of houses more than the returned men. In* stead of giving doles of money, as has been done for the past three or four winters to help unemployment, by the Dominion, the provinces, and the municipalities combined in the larger centres of population, it would be far better to start a housing policy for the relief of the soldiers, and, if it proves a success, extend it to civilians as well. About $750,000 was doled out in the winter of 1920 for unemployment in Toronto. The city of Toronto contributed $250,000 and the province and the Dominion each contributed the same amount, bringing the total to $750,000. That is 5 per cent on $15,000,000. Instead of the waste of money in doles a housing policy would be a much better way to solve the problem, because the soldiers want work, not charity. They want to get permanent work. If the Dominion, the provinces and the municipalities inaugurated an up to date housing policy, and built probably three or four thousand houses in Toronto and Montreal, and a lesser number in other cities, of say, a cheaper class of construction, it would provide work for the soldiers as well as the civilians who are out of work and solve the unemployment situation, and the housing problem as well, very materially. Not many of these returned soldiers have 100 per cent efficiency after having gone through the horrors of war for four years. I admit the high cost of land, labour, money and materials, but a housing policy would be an economy over the dole policy and would create work, as well as help to solve the housing problem.
Looking over the report, I am surprised at some of the recommendations. In some districts in Canada, when a returned soldier dies, he cannot have a military funeral. It is a most difficult matter in Toronto to arrange a proper military funeral. There is no military band and no gun carriage in that city. Some of the officers there, of course, are doing their best. I think the committee have made a recommendation dealing with that problem, but it does not go far enough. The officer commanding of

each military district should be in charge of these military funerals, and should see that each soldier gets a decent burial, because in some cases they cannot get a decent burial. I think the country should, at least, pay for the decent burial of a veteran of the war, and give him adequate and proper medical care and also take care of those who many months or years after discharge break down in health because of their war service. The time limit of his taking sick is immaterial.
With reference to the request for a more ejcient labour bureau, I may say that here have been many requests for such a bureau. The province has a labour bureau, and the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment has a bureau. If these two were co-ordinated, an economy would be effected. 1 believe that the Government should bring down some good building programme to include the improved plants of various post offices and secure a more modern plant in some places that pay, in order to give a better service, and this applies also to improved custom house plants. Some of these services in Canadian cities would take care of the fixed charges, contingent on the new proposed outlay. It would be better to improve these public offices, and spend a little money, which would mean employment for these men, instead of giving them doles, as was done last year. In the main cities in Canada, a new post office and the customs house plant would pay their way, if the buildings were enlarged and increased accommodation provided.
I think the powers of the board should be enlarged to hold all inquiries to help returned men. There should be a further investigation in such a case as the late Captain Hueston, who was murdered in the Rainy River district, and the civil authorities did nothing in the matter for weeks and months. It is a public scandal. I suggest to the chairman that the powers of the committee should be broadened, and I submit their powers should be made broad enpugh to deal with an isolated case like that, and any others, and they should be given power to ascertain how that soldier came to his death. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction, not only in Toronto and Rainy River, but in other districts in Ontario, in regard to the investigation into this soldier's death. Technicalities have been raised by the civil authorities and the authorities in Toronto will not find out how he came to his death, and they have whitewashed everybody. The Militia De-

Pensions Committee
partment and the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment should hold an inquiry and give his family a pension.:
I should like to see the board given power to deal with many other features of the returned soldier problem. There should be added to the proposed legislation, which is to be based on this report, a residuary clause giving the new board, in addition to all other powers conferred, the power to go into all questions relating to the returned soldier problem in all its phases and forms, to deal with all the cases I have suggested, and many other problems affecting the health, comfort, peace, and prosperity of the returned soldier. I should like to see a survey made of the returned men who are in custody. The judges are too hard on them in many cases. I should like to see the board confer with the Justice Department, and a wider exercise of executive clemency in these trivial cases, in these days of stress and strain. War service should be considered and allowance made for it, as'many are in only for trivial offences. A young man stole $1.20 from a postal letter and was sent to gaol for three year. I think he should be released in a much less time. Many of these men have good war records, and I believe that if the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Department looked into every case and made a national survey of them we would have, in many cases, a sympathetic consideration by the Government of executive clemency for many returned men ow in custody. Some judges are more severe on soldiers than they are on civilians. The House should deal with them. I should like to see the report make some references to the seventy-five or one hundred cases of old soldiers who are still alive, veterans of the Fenian Raid, the Crimean war, the Northwest Rebellion and the South African war, who bore the heat of the day and who are still suffering, and are getting no pension from Canada at all,
I know that the late Sergeant Michael Brophy, a Crimean war veteran, was for a long time selling shoe laces in front of Eaton's store in Toronto to try and make a living. The number of these cases is very small, and it would not cost very much, and it would be an act of mercy and gratitude to these good old veterans of the war in their evening of life to give them a pension.
In many cases the report is a good one, but does not go far enough, and does not give the powers which should be given. I desire to read one or two paragraphs from
212J
a statement by a widow of a soldier who was present when the army of "Generals" Macdonald and Riley left Toronto. I do not agree with what all these men said or did. I believe they did a lot of good in educating public opinion to do what is right with the soldiers and that all that they proposed to do was to start a campaign of education on these questions, and get better pension results in a more direct way. I know, however, that there were some very sad cases among them needing relief, and many cases of hardship. I will read one or two paragraphs from this statement to show that the act is not broad enough. This widow's pension was ruled out on a technicality, and I think the scope of the act should be widened so as to include such cases. The statement reads as follows:
Mrs. Jeannie Bain, a war widow who is In service in Toronto, was a speaker at the unemployed soldiers' meeting held in Queen's Park last night.
"My husband was wounded by shrapnel at Hill 70," she said. "He had a fractured skull. He was deaf and dumb for four days. He was in hospital in England and Francr for a long time, and eventually returned to Canada as a stretcher ease.
"When he died he had a pension of J27.50 so I applied for my widow's pension. I was told that I was not entitled to a fuii pension but only to 50 per cent because my husband only suffered from a deaf ear. The only deaf ears are the ones at the pension board. They are deaf because they do not want to hear, especially if it is a widow's case The autopsy showed "T.B." and heart trouble and they tried to make out that he suffered from these before he joined up. If he did have "TB.' it was the result of marching through mud and snow and if he had it before he enlisted they had no right to take him.
Words of Warning
"I would give you men a word of warning. If you are married and go on the march and anything happens to you the authorities will say that it is the result of the hike and your widow and children will be left in poverty.
These poor widows and orphans, where the report of the officers of the department show that they are penniless, should be given some relief. There is a Provincial Soldiers' Aid Commission home on Jarvis street, Toronto, for orphan soldier children, and it is too bad that more assistance is not given to these orphan children, although they are happy. It is recommended in the report that, in some of these cases, one year's allowance should be given after the death of the father. I do not believe that goes far enough, and I think the children should be dealt with more liberally. This would be in the public interest, because these soldiers'
Pensions Committee

children should not be a charge on charity, when their fathers served their country in the way they did. The other day there was mentioned by the hon. member for Port William in this House the case of two Soldiers' Aid Commission children who went out to a farm as foster children in the country and were brutally treated. I hope something will be done by the new board in regard to giving these orphan children better treatment and more aid and pensions, and that it will co-operate with the various provincial soldiers' aid commissions throughout Canada that have the care of orphaned children of soldiers. While the municipalities are helping and the soldiers' aid commissions are educating the children, little or nothing is being done for the future of these children- they should be well educated and not made to suffer for their father's death. There are many of these cases of need and help if inquired into, in addition to the one referred to the other day by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). I believe in cases where the father has gone wrong, the Pension Board have cut the wife and children right off. Returned soldiers cannot be all 100 per cent efficient-a few less than half of one per cent of them have gone wrong, and in these cases the Pension Board and the new commission should go very slow before they put a wife and children out on the street, as has been done in the past, for the lapse of the husband. The country has a duty to the wife and children nevertheless. I hope the Government will accept some amendments to this report and that we shall have an act that will stand for all time. I hope, when this royal commission is appointed it will proceed to go throughout Canada and investigate these cases and that Canada's soldier problem will be cleaned up once and for all, so that the country will at last be a fit and proper place for soldiers of the King to live and die in, and a country fit for heroes to work in.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, the problem of the returned soldier has been with us now for some years, and I think we may presume that it will be with us for some years to come. I appreciate very deeply the non-partisan attitude that has been taken in both the committee and the sub-committees which have been dealing with this question, and in the discussion so far as it has gone in this House. There

is nothing that we, as representatives of the people of Canada, can do that can pay for the services of those Canadians who went overseas and did their duty for Canada, for the Empire and for the world. It may be, perhaps, a little unfortunate that, in the early days of recruiting or, more particularly, in the more strenuous days of recruiting in this country, promises were made to men who would join up that, when they returned to Canada, nothing that a government or this country could do would be too much to be done for the returned soldier. They came back as a class more or less dissatisfied; and if I can measure aright, if I can feel the pulse of the returned soldiers of this country fairly accurately, I will say that the discontent, instead of being moderated and coming down to a minimum, is to-day more acute than it has been at any time since 1918. I consider that if we, in this Parliament, are in a position, if not in stentorian tones, then in a voice moderate and calm, to assure the returned soldiers of this country that they have, may I say, the assistance and the goodwill of the representatives of the people of Canada, we shall have done much to suggest to the returned soldiers of this country that the representatives of the people are not against them.
I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Civil Re-establishment because of the many tedious hours, outside of committee hours, that he has given to this work. I do not know of any chairman of any committee in this House during the present session or during previous sessions when I have been a member of this Parliament, who has been more assiduous in his duties or who has been more painstaking in his endeavours to gain an accurate knowledge of the things that come within his purview than the chairman of the committee who has made this report to the House to-day. We have had our differences of opinion. I myself have frequently differed with the chairman of the committee on questions of detail; but, in my calm and moderate moments, I usually came to the conclusion that he had a grasp of questions within the purview of our committee, that he had given the matter a study that very few if any of the committee had given to it.
I am free, however, to say that, notwithstanding that fact and notwithstanding the fact that, I think, every member of the committee did his or her duty as each conceived it, some things may have been left undone. We, for example, discussed the



J922

[Stage Direction]
Pensions Committee
question of pensions. I happened to be chairman of the sub-committee on pensions, and I want to say to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), who, I know, is deeply interested in this problem of the returned soldier, that, as regards our subcommittee, there was not a case that was presented that did not receive absolutely fair consideration on the part of the members of the committee. As an instance, we were supposed to cover ten cases in a night, that is, a night lasting from half past eight until eleven o'clock. When I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that last night we did not cover the details of one particular case that came before us, you will understand that that committee had its difficulties. May I assure my hon. friend for North Toronto that any case in which we have not finished our work, any case which comes before that committee, whether it is deserving of consideration or not, will be given consideration, the details will be gone into, the files will be consulted and the whole circumstances of the case will be placed before the members of the committee. I believe that any recommendation which that committee may make in regard to any individual case will be fair, if not final. Now, on various other questions that came before the Committee on Reestablishment I have had some private opinions of my own. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) and I took very strong grounds-and sometimes we expressed ourselves vigorously-that if the medical doctors of this country, appointed by the Government, passed men as medically fit for overseas service in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, such men, ipso facto, should be considered to have been medically fit, for the purposes of pension or of re-establishment. But certain facts were submitted by witnesses before the committee that would make it absolutely impossible to act on such a principle, and I cannot refrain from saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is a tragedy which the people of this country will long remember, that medical officers in the employ of the government, and paid out of the public treasury, should have passed for overseas service men who they should have known on a half inspection were not fit for such service. The hon. member for Nelson, the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), and myself, in our investigation into this subject, discovered that men were taken on the strength of the overseas forces as medically fit who in some cases had but one live leg, the
other being cork or wood; while others, as we learned from the departmental officers, were blind of one eye. And the question arose whether or not it was a fair proposition that men who must have been palpably unfit medically when they were examined, but who nevertheless were carelessly passed for overseas service on a doctor's certificate of medical soundness, should now become a charge upon the country. Personally, notwithstanding the evidence submitted to the general committee as well as to the subcommittee on pensions, I still feel that the government of this country has some responsibility in the matter and should carefully investigate the merits of the proposition which has been put forward and which was argued before the various committees that have studied the soldier's problems. If medical doctors, appointed by the government of this country to examine and pass men for overseas service, were derelict in that duty, and passed men who were obviously unfit-and I am not now casting any aspersions on any one-I think that the government must shoulder some de-gres of responsibility for the action of these men.
Mr. ANDERSON:: Is not the hon. member aware that men who went overseas were classified in different grades-Grade A, Grade B, etc.? Grade B was not necessarily altogether fit.


William F. Carroll: I know something
about the matter, and I can assure my hon. friend that men who were passed for overseas service in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces w^e not classified in such a way. If they were passed as fit for the Expeditionary Forces, they were fit for any service, except of course for signalling parties and that sort of thing.


Robert King Anderson: But later on, when large numbers of men were desired, there were certain classes of men who were accepted although they did not pass as Al. They had certain defects .which might not entitle them to full pension.


William F. Carroll: That does not detract from my argument. My hon. friend may be right or wrong, but if men were placed in that category I suppose they would be on a different basis, in the matter of pension, from men classed as Al. The unfortunate thing is that in the years 191516 colonels of battalions, with noble aspi-
Pensions Committee

rations, let me say, were so anxious to fill their ranks with all haste that they urged upon their medical officers to accept allcomers. That is the tragedy of the thing. Perhaps this may be somewhat beyond the scope of the report, but the matter is so serious that it requires the earnest consideration of the House. I absolutely agree with my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) in the amendment which he has offered.


Thomas Langton Church: In order to secure a more just, equitable and efficient administration of the Pensions Act, would it not be better to shift the burden of proof in disability soldier cases from the soldier to the statae, as is done in France?


William F. Carroll: If my hon. friend had heard me speaking to a motion the other day, introduced by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe), he would know my position on that question. I believe it is always unwise law to place the burden of proof upon a criminal; and where the interests of ex-soldiers are at stake, it is, in my opinion, equally unwise and undesirable to place an undue burden of proof upon them. I do not have to develop that phase because tens of thousands of our soldiers who were discharged from the expeditionary .force were so proud and happy to get back to their friends that if they had been afflicted with all the ills that flesh is heir ,to they would not have divulged their condition to the officers who granted their discharge. That fact has on many occasions been brought to the notice of various committees of this House. While the hon. member from North Toronto is sympathetic with regard to the treatment that should be meted out to the returned soldier, may ' I say that I am perhaps sentimentally sympathetic-for treasons which I shall not disclose.
I was dealing with the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), and I do not know that such an amendment could come from a better source, for the hon. gentleman has a war record that is perhaps unequalled by any other hon. member. Therefore when he proposes an amendment to the very sane and reasonable report [which has been brought down by the chairman of our committee, I take it more seriously than if it came from some other quarter. If there is anything to investigate,-and apparently there is, because this committee in their wisdom saw fit to recommend an investiga

tion by a royal commission-then I say, let us refer to that commission everything that needs investigation.
It must be apparent to hon. members that there are many phases of the problem which a parliamentary committee is not in a position to investigate at length. If I suggest the requisite of time I may be told that we were paid to give our time and attention to this particular problem. But unfortunately the members of the committee outside of the chairman and myself, who gave every moment of his time to the work, had other duties to look after, and certain subjects may have been overlooked. Therefore I submit that if those subjects are to be gone into, the recommendation of our committee should be given effect to and a royal commission appointed. If we are to go to the expense of appointing such a commission to investigate the very serious charges made by Mr. MacNeil against the Board of Pension Commissioners and others, then any other subjects which might with advantage to the returned soldiers be inquired into should also be referred to that commission. Such action on our part would assure them that the representatives of the people have some respect for them for what they have done for their country, and any amendment moved in this House would be accepted and acted upon by the proposed royal commission.
I agree with my hon. friend the chairman of the committee that this is neither the time nor the place to say anything about the charges which Mr. MacNeil has preferred against the Board of Pension Commissioners. Although Mr. MacNeil is practically a native of my constituency, I never met him until a few weeks ago, but I feel that I am voicing the sentiments not only of our returned soldiers who are affiliated with the G. W. V. A.-as I am,-but of the great bulk of those outside that organization that he is doing for returned men generally work that no other person could probably do as well and certainly could not do better. He has brought to the attention of the various parliamentary committees which have been appointed from time to time questions some of which he says have been considered and others overlooked. Undoubtedly he is doing a splendid work for the organization with which he is connected and also for other organizations of returned men. When a man who has been placed at the head of such an important organization as the

Pensions Committee
G. W. V. A. makes these serious accusations I think our committee took the right course in recommending that they be investigated by a royal commission.
It may be said perhaps that this committee should have investigated those charges, but I am not of that opinion. The majority of the committee took the ground that we should not 'investigate charges which to a certain extent concerned our own honour, for it was considered that a reflection was cast upon the committee as being more or less mixed up with the conspiracy which Mr. MacNeil suggested exists. However, having had a discussion with the national secretary of the G. W. V. A., and having put a question to him in committee, I am free to say that I think the national executive of the G. W. V. A. had no intention of connecting the committee with those charges. But I still think that the report, so far as that is concerned, should be adopted by the House.
There is a question that may, perhaps, be involved in the charge made in this telegraphic communication. What I am about to say may or may not be true; I have to verify it. I have sent to the library seven or eight times to-day to get the statutes of 1920 containing the legislation dealing with soldiers' insurance, but apparently every volume of the statutes for that year has been taken from the library, and I am not in a position to say whether, in the ground I now take, I am right or not. Bu^ I am instructed, and I think by competent authority, that it was provided by and was the intent of Chapter 54 of the statutes of 1920, the act dealing with soldiers' insurance, that the medical condition of a returned soldier should not be taken into consideration when he made application for insurance. If there is any member of the House who holds another view and has lately made sure that he is right, I would like him to say so. But the board dealing with soldiers' insurance are interpreting that statute differently; they are taking into consideration to-day the medical condition of applicants for soldiers insurance. I understand they are taking it under section 13 of the act, which gives the minister the right to say whether under certain conditions insurance shall or shall not be granted. But if I am right in my interpretation of the act, then I say that notwithstanding section 13, which gives the minister the power to which I have referred, the medical condition of the applicant is not a question which can properly
come under the purview of or be revised by the Minister of Finance. I take it that that is a substantive point of law. I am told on good authority that for some time past the Department of Finance has been informed by its advisers that certain persons are not medically fit to be insured, and that on that ground their applications are thrown aside. If I interpret the law correctly, I do not think the Minister of Finance is well advised in accepting the instructions given in this respect by the departmental officers.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: May I ask who are the officers of the department who so advised the Minister of Finance?


William F. Carroll: I never like to be personal. I do not want to mention their names.


Donald Sutherland: I do not ask for their names-I mean the official positions they hold.


William F. Carroll: I do not know; I am not in a position to say that. I presume, however, without having any accurate knowledge of the matter, that it would be the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment.


William Findlay Maclean: Is not the
Department of Insurance under the Minister of Finance?


William F. Carroll: I am not in a position to say. I made no statement who the officials were.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The Board of Pension Commissioners stands between the Minister of Finance and the applicant for insurance.


William Findlay Maclean: Could the Minister of Soldiers' Re-establishment say whether that review which seems to be assigned to the Minister of Finance is for the purpose of protecting the applicant from the insurance point of view, or of limiting the number of applications?


William F. Carroll: I do not think it is fair to be putting questions to the minister at this stage. Of course, if he wants to answer, it is all right.


William Findlay Maclean: I questioned
the minister because he rose a moment ago.


Henri Sévérin Béland: All applications under
this act must come from returned soldiers or certain classes of widows, and the Minister of Finance has the right of veto; he may refuse the application for insurance
Pensions Committee

for certain reasons that are not set out in the act. He has power to refuse an application when he thinks there is obvious or sufficient reason for doing so.


William F. Carroll: A friend of mine near by has suggested to me that that is very poor policy for any insurance company to follow. I certainly agree with him, but if a returned soldier is medically unfit, then the ordinary insurance companies will not accept him as a risk. But that is not my argument. My argument is that if the Parliament of this country saw fit to legislate to the effect that the medical condition of a returned soldier should not be taken into account when an application for insurance was under consideration, then whether that is good or bad policy from an insurance standpoint, if it is the law of this country, and I contend that it is, the act should be enforced as Parliament contemplated, or else it should be repealed. I can see reasons, Mr. Speaker, why a returned soldier should be on a different basis from an applicant for insurance in one of our large industrial concerns, and I believe that Parliament was right in making that provision. I believe that the returned soldiers are entitled to a little more consideration in the matter of insurance and everything else than the general bulk of the people of this country.


William Findlay Maclean: Did the committee come across many cases of what the hon. member would call unjust treatment under the present law regarding soldiers' insurance?


William F. Carroll: I happened to be chairman of the sub-committee on pensions, and was not so closely in touch with the main committee, but I am assured by gentlemen whom I think are responsible men, and I have read the statement made in the main committee, that the board are today taking into consideration the mental and physical condition of the soldier applicant for insurance.


Mr. FIELDING:: Is there not a clause which provides that the Minister of Finance may order a medical examination? If the condition of the soldier's health has nothing to do with it, what does that clause mean?


William F. Carroll: Does the minister refer to clause 13?


William Stevens Fielding: I forget the number.


William F. Carroll: I have discussed this matter-


William Stevens Fielding: I am not discussing it. I am simply drawing it to the hon. member's attention.


William F. Carroll: When a statute makes a clear-cut and, I think, fair proposition that the medical condition of an applicant for insurance under this act shall not be taken into consideration, and then further on gives the Minister of Finance discretion to investigate certain phases of that application, though I do not pose as a lawyer, I say that on the ordinary construction of statutes the medical condition of that applicant is not one of the things that the Minister of Finance or his advisers may investigate.


William Stevens Fielding: Then what is the medical examination for?


William F. Carroll: If the minister is referring to clause 13


William Stevens Fielding: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member. I am not taking any position in the matter.


William Findlay Maclean: I should like to hear from the Minister of Finance on that point.


William F. Carroll: I would like the Minister of Finance to be speaking rather than myself, but I felt I owed it to the sub-committee of which I was chairman to make some remarks. Unfortunately, I have not the statute before me. The minister may be right, but I said at the outset that I thought that I was giving the effect of the statute correctly. My point is this: If the statute says that the medical condition of an applicant for insurance shall not be taken into consideration, that being a substantive part of the law, the Minister of Finance or his advisers have no right to inquire into the medical condition of the applicant.


William Stevens Fielding: Then why the medical examination?


William F. Carroll: If the statute also provides for a medical examination, I say that it must have been very carelessly drawn, and the persons who drafted it were ill-advised in drawing it that way.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I might point out that section 15 of the act does give the Minister of Finance the right to have a medical examination if he thinks proper.


William Findlay Maclean: Is that to pass on the question whether it is a good risk or not?

Pensions Committee


William F. Carroll: I do not care whether the statute, after making the clear-cut provision that the medical examination shall not be taken into account, goes on to provide as my hon. friend states. We as a committee of this House, and as persons who are taking some interest in the matter of soldiers' civil re-establishment must give the statute some interpretation, and I appeal to any hon. member of this House who has given some attention to the interpretation of statutes or the practice of law whether a specific provision such as is in the Insurance Act must not be followed irrespective of what other qualifying clauses may provide. I think all the authorities on the interpretation of statutes will bear me out that you cannot go beyond the main provision.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette) :: Is my hon. friend aware that since a year or so ago, only 64 applications were refused by the Minister of Finance, and of these, 13 applicants have since died? Under such circumstances, does he contend that the soldiers are not receiving fair treatment?


William F. Carroll: If it were a matter of ordinary insurance, my hon. friend would be perfectly right.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it ordinary or extraordinary? That is the very point.


William F. Carroll: I say that this is extraordinary insurance. The statute makes it that.


William Findlay Maclean: Then read the statute.


William F. Carroll: I am giving what I think is the provision in the statute. I have not been able to obtain a copy, although there are sixteen volumes containing the statute in the Library, and I have tried repeatedly to get one for the last six hours. There must be some of them in this chamber. If any hon. member will gainsay the proposition I have made, that the statute provides that the physical and mental condition of the soldier applying for insurance must not be taken into consideration-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the hon. member not think he is out of order, and that it is almost contempt of court for a member of the Pension Committee to discuss a matter which has already been referred to a higher tribunal? This matter has been referred to a royal commission. I think, in an ordinary criminal or civil case, it would be considered a contempt of court.


William F. Carroll: I have taken fairly good care not to discuss anything that has been referred to the Royal Commission. I think I have taken the same ground as the chairman of this committee, (Mr. Mahler) who said he did not feel like discussing whether or not Mr. MacNeil was right in making the charges which he did against the Board of Pension Commissioners, or whosoever he made charges against. In talking of the question of insurance, I was following up the matter which mr hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) mentioned in his amendment, and I was suggesting to the hon. member that, if the main resolution which was passed in that committee did not cover the question of insurance, we in Parliament should cover it, and I am taking the broad ground that, if this commission be appointed, it should be given power to investigate everything in connection with the returned soldiers, and with returned soldier problems and grievances, and that is why I am discussing the question of insurance. Section 15 of the act says-
No medical examination or other evidence of insurance shall be required in respect of any contract issued under this act, provided however, that the minister may, for the purpose of determining whether he shall refuse to enter into a contract of insurance in any case under the provisions of section 13 of tins act-
Section 13 says that he may refuse to enter into any insurance contract in any case where there are, in his opinion, sufficient grounds for a refusal.
Section 15 continues:
-require such medical examination or other evidence of the insurability of the .nsured as he may deem necessary.
I still say that, under the interpreta-, tion of the act, the question as to whether or not a person is in a proper medical condition, under the act, should not enter into the question whether his application should be approved or refused. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House in discussing this proposition.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend says,
" hear, hear." I have not taken up very much of the time of the House this session, and, in view of the fact that the hon. member said "hear, hear," I think I will go on a little longer. There is the question of the housing proposition in this country. The housing proposition, as proposed and as expounded by the government which made it effective, I think is wrong in principle. The government of
Pensions Committee

this country gives the money for the purpose of assisting the returned soldiers and others in establishing themselves in homes. I take the position that the government which contributes the money should have the responsibility of expending that money, and it should not pass to an inferior tribunal, or to any other tribunal, the responsibility for the expenditure of that money. What is the proposition to-day? I say the housing scheme, as expounded, was supposed to be in the interest of the returned soldier. To-day it is not especially in the interest of the returned soldier. There are a few things in connection with it, perhaps, which give more consideration to a returned soldier applicant than to other applicants, but I take this view of it-and I believe I am right-that the sentiment of 75 per cent of returned soldiers of this country is that this Canadian government, whether the present Government, the past government, or some future government, should take the whole responsibility of the expenditure of any public money, whether it be as a tribute to the returned soldier, or for any purpose. What is the position to-day? This government passes along the responsibility to the local government of our province, and the local government in turn passes along the responsibility to the municipalities, and the municipalities, in the first instance, as I understand the law, are responsible to the commissioners that undertake to accept tenders, and to let contracts for this housing proposition. I rather think that this Government should take the whole responsibility, and, if this scheme was conceived with the idea of [DOT]assisting the returned soldier, then I say that its conception has not borne very much fruit, because, so far as I have seen the act operate, there are very few returned soldiers in this country who are getting the desired result from the act.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is the hon. member speaking of his own district exclusively? Does he know there are other places, for instance, British Columbia, where the scheme has worked out very satisfactorily? They are asking for more money in connection with the same scheme.


William F. Carroll: Are they getting it?


William Garland McQuarrie: That is for this
House to decide.


William F. Carroll: I am not speaking
from a local standpoint. The last remark which I made may have given my hon.

friend the impression that I was, but I am taking the broad ground that, if this Government is expending money for any purpose whatsoever, it should take the direct responsibility for expending that money, and, in the vernacular, it should not pass the buck to the local government, and the local government, in turn, pass it along to the municipality.


William Garland McQuarrie: Explain what is
wrong with that?


William F. Carroll: I think this Parliament should be responsible for its own expenditures. I am giving my own opinion. I am not saying it is wrong. It may not be wrong; it may be absolutely right; but I say that, as regards our province-and this is the only local aspect that I will mention -notwithstanding the fact that, for the past three years, our various municipalities have been endeavouring to make this act effective alone in the city of Halifax, in the province of Nova Scotia, has it been made effective on account of obstructions placed in the way of our civic corporations. That is the only local aspect from which I view the matter.
When I started to make my brief remarks, I had intended to suggest to this House that it should not only adopt the amendment of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), but adopt amendments which would give this royal commission, if appointed, powers of investigating, from every aspect, from every point, from every angle, every legitimate grievance of the returned soldiers of this country. I personally have no brief to speak for the returned soldiers, excepting a brief as one who admires to the full what they have done for this country, this Empire and this world. But I think the time has come; it is now here; it has arrived, when this Government should take full responsibility for every matter in connection with the returned soldier problem of this country. While some people say that the Government are evading this responsibility by handing this matter over to a commission, I humbly suggest that this is the most desirable way, and it will prove to be the most effective way of thoroughly investigating every grievance which the returned soldier has or which he thinks he has. I am one of those who believe that the quicker we attempt, at least to make the returned soldiers of this country feel confident that every man who is a representative of the people of Canada is a fair man and is his friend under ordinary circustances,

Pensions Committee
the quicker we shall alleviate the grievances of the returned soldiers. First, we can never repay, either in money gratuities, or in insurance legislation, or by any other method, the debt that we owe to those men who have come back martyrs to the war; and, second, there is nothing in the world that the Canadian Parliament or the Canadian people can do which will repay the dependants of those who did not come back. I humbly suggest to this House that they should accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for West Calgary; and I further suggest that, if necessary, there should be incorporated in that amendment words which will give such a body absolute power to investigate anything and everything which may come before it as a grievance on the part of returned soldiers of this country. In doing that we shall be doing but a small part of our duty. In doing that we shall be, to a certain extent at least, showing the returned soldiers of this country that, notwithstanding the fact that the war is three years gone, we have still some idea that they did a work and performed a duty which is worthy of consideration by the Canadian people.
It would take me too long to go into the question of what is termed the attribut-ability clause. That is one of the features that may fairly and well be taken into serious consideration by this commission, if this Parliament undertakes to recommend the appointment of such a commission. There are phases in connection with attributability that might be remedied. I am making no charge against any officers who have the administration of any of those acts; but I still say, and the small experience which I have had on this committee leads me to believe that there are phases of this attributability which might fairly be a subject for a special parliamentary committee or for this special royal commission, if it is the desire of the House to appoint one. I am not going into details.
I concur in the whole report; I do not think there has been brought down to this House a report which has been more fair, equitable and just to the returned soldiers than this one; but if there is one aspect of this report which I consider to be more favourable to the returned soldier than any report which has been brought down to this House, it is the report on the question of appeals. The returned soldier feels, he has felt and, I presume, he will continue to feel that he has been wrongly dealt with by the Board of Pension Commissioners.
When I say that, I make no charge. If two doctors disagree as to whether or not an applicant for a pension should receive a pension because his ailment is attributable to war services, there is a doubt; that would raise doubt in my mind, and in those cases the board under the act is supposed to give the benefit of that doubt to the returned soldier and to grant him a pension. But members of the committee who are here will corroborate me when I say that many cases have come before our committee where even the medical advisers of the Board of Pension Commissioners have disagreed as to the attributability of a soldier's disease or trouble, and very many cases have shown in which the board have turned down applicants for pensions. There is another aspect. Civil medical doctors, who are in no way connected with the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment, have undertaken, by affidavit and otherwise, to prove to the Board of Pension Commissioners that such and such a situation was existent at the time of enlistment, and the Board of Pension Commisisoners and the medical advisers, perhaps rightly, I do not know, have said: "No; we have given our decision, and we are not going to disturb it." While I make no charge against the Board of Pension Commissioners, while I have found them reasonably fair and honourable, at the same time I suggest, with all due deference to their honour and fidelity to duty that, if, say last Thursday, I should turn down an applicant for a position, or a pension, or insurance, and he should come back and declare that I had done wrong, it is only the part of poor human nature-and the members of the Pension Board are human-that I should want to be consistent. I should not like to confess that last Thursday I was wrong. I think that the proposal made by the chairman of the committee is the very best that can be made under the circumstances. I endorse it from every standpoint and I think the House should adopt it. The report in this respect casts no reflection upon the Board of Pension Commissioners or upon any one else. If this recommendation goes through, it is my view that the man who is charged with this matter should take the full responsibility for the appointment of that appeal board. The recommendation is that this shall be with the concurrence of the minister. That report went through, I think, practically unanimously in the committee, but I do not think that when the appeal board is established and starts to function the minister should
Pensions Committee

take all the responsibility for the appointment of its members. If it were otherwise it might perhaps appear as though the Board of Pension Commissioners had been appointed before the court of appeal.
Before I conclude, may I again say that every one connected with the committee gave his time, his energy and his ability to the work in order that a fair and proper solution might be reached of the problems that were placed before that body. There may have been differences of opinion, but when the report was finally adopted, the members of the committee, if they were not unanimous, were at least of the opinion that every member of the general committee and every member of each of the various subcommittees had done his best to contribute to the solution of this very difficult question which will confront this country for some years to come. It is my opinion that the gratitude of this House is due to the officers of the Government for their zealous attendance at the various meetings of the committee. There was never a time wher they were asked to appear that they were not present; and whatever may be said as to any position they may have taken in regard to various questions, the charge cannot be substantiated that they did not do all that was expected of them. Those persons who represented the various soldier organizations in the country, I may also add, at all times presented their case and stated their grievances in a fair, manly and perfectly legitimate way. Whatever differences may have existed between themselves and the administrators of the various a it was always a pleasure to note that after their grievances had been discussed and disposed of they left the committee room in a fair frame of mind. From the point of view of the soldiers' representatives, and from the standpoint of those who represented the government, it is only just to say that every one did his duty fairly and well as he saw it, and gave to the various committees information which could not otherwise have been obtained. I feel that if the committee had an opportunity again it would tender to all these people its thanks and appropriation for the admirable way in which they have assisted this Parliament in the consideration of a cause we all espouse.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I believe I was on my feet as promptly as any of the other hon. gentlemen who desire to speak, but I am always willing to give way to a larger man

than myself. There are a few remarks which I desire to offer on this subject. Before I proceed to discuss the report, I want to emphasize what has been said with regard to the very efficient and able manner in which the chairman of the general committee and the chairmen of the sub-committees have discharged their duties. They spared neither time nor pains, nor effort to investigate every matter that was brought before the committee; and in this connection, while the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) has rather censured the committee for not going far enough, I want to say that every step taken by the committee this year has been one step further than any taken previously. Of course, new problems develop every year. The hon. member referred to the pensions allowed by the committee last year, which were increased by a bonus. That bonus expires in September next, I believe, although I am not sure as to the date. This committee has renewed the bonus for two years. With regard to the other recommendations, every step that has been taken by the committee this year is in advance of what was done by any previous committee. The committee worked very harmoniously. Every member of it, I think, did his best to solve the problems that were under consideration. It is possible we may have erred in judgment, but if we have I hope the next committee will have a greater grasp of matters than we have. A question was asked by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcile) when the chairman of the committee (Mr. Marler) was giving his report, whether any change had been made in regard to pensions to widowed mothers. There has been a change in regard to this class of pensions every year up to now. In 1919 the act provided that:
The pension of a widowed mother shall not be reduced on account of her earnings from personal employment.
That was practically the only reference to widowed mothers in 1919. In 1920 a further amendment was made to the act. It was found that deductions were being made from widowed mothers' pensions on account of income other than earnings, and this amendment was added to the Pension Act of 1919:
That the pension to a widowed mother shall not be reduced on account of her earnings from personal employment or on account of her having free lodgings or so long as she resides in Canada on account of her having an income from other sources which does not exceed $240 per annum.

Pensions Committee
In 1921 this clause was further amended as follows:
Such income being considered tc include the contributions from children residing with or away from her whether such contributions have actually been made or are deemed by the commissioners to have been made.
We found that deductions were being made from a widowed mother's pension if she owned her home, the amount of the rent being deducted. In 1920 another amendment was made to the act which I did not approve of quite as readily. This is the amendment :
When a parent or person in the place of a parent has unmarried children residing with him or her who should, in ;he opinion of the Commission, be earning an amount sufficient to permit them to contribute to the support of such parent or person, each such unmarried child shall be deemed to be contributing not less than ten dollars a month towards such support.
That meant that $10 a month was deducted from her pension for every child she had who should be contributing, whether actually doing so or not. So there has been a continual change in the law regarding pensions to widowed mothers. In 1921 an amendment was moved to the act of 1920 substituting the words "children and child respectively" for the words "sons and son," which meant that a widowed mother receiving a pension in 1921 would have her pension reduced because she might have several daughters.
I urged very strongly last year that this clause should be repealed. This year, I think about the 1st May, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) moved a resolution with regard to widowed mothers' pensions which I need not repeat. It provided that no deduction should be made on any account whatever. I could not follow the hon. gentleman that far, but the resolution was accepted by the House. I did think, however, and later called attention to the fact, that although this Parliament had accepted the resolution, I objected to its being referred to the committee on the ground that it was taken out of the purview of that committee because it had been accepted by the government. I think the government accepted that resolution without due consideration, and without realizing what it meant as fully as some of us who had been on this Pension Committee a number of years. But I did think that the clause penalizing a widowed mother because she had dhildren should be eliminated. I urged that very strongly in committee last year, and again this year. It
was defeated last year by a majority of only one, and was disallowed again this year -by the committee. Outside of that one item I am perfectly satisfied with the report, and I hope a future committee will attend to that particular item.
I do not think that a widowed mother should 'be penalized for raising a family, for that is what this clause amounts to. We speak of the need of increased population, and we spend large sums of money to attract immigrants, and yet in this respect we penalize the mother who raises a family-
I think the recommendation of the com-miteee in regard to land settlement are o.uite proper. It is possibly the only thing that will enable soldiers to remain on the land and pay for their farms and make good. I think it would be a national calamity if they are not able to make good, for if 50 per cent of these farms were abandoned and came back into the hands of the Government we would stand to lose three times the amount that will be remitfed in interest under this scheme.
A couple of years ago I placed on the Order Paper a resolution covering in part what is recommended by the committee. My resolution provided that the time for the repayment of the loan for stock and equipment to a returned soldier settler should be extended over a period of twenty years. I was not allowed to move the resolution because of the rule that a private member cannot bring forward a money resolution. I talked the matter over with the then Minister of the Interior, now the official leader of the Opposition, under whose department the act was being administered at that time. He admitted that something should be done and brought in a resolution extending the time to six years instead of four. Under the original act the soldier made no payment of interest on stock and equipment loans for the first two years, but he had to pay it all during the next four years. Under the amendment he commenced to pay interest from the date of the loan and did not get any extension of time to pay the balance but had to pay the loan in six years, which I think was a worse arrangement than that provided at first. I am pleased to see this recommendation made by the committee, and I hope it will be approved by the House and accepted by the Government.
This afternoon the official leader of the Opposition raised the same objection to extending the time for repayment of the loan for stock and equipment that he raised

Pensions Committee
two years ago, namely, that there would be no security. I pointed out at that time, as 1 do now, a feature which the chairman of the committee has not referred to. The chairman of the committee has pointed out that the equity in the whole property increases with every payment made. But this feature has not been emphasized, that a soldier settler or any other farmer cannot carry on operations without renewing his stock and equipment as it wears out, and this recommendation spreads the payments over a _ longer period, which means that being smaller each year he will be enabled to renew his stock and equipment from time to time as required.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) called attention to the fact that there was no one appointed to the Pension Committee from the city of Toronto. I think possibly that was rather unfortunate, for undoubtedly such an important centre should have been represented. However, I would point out to the hon. member that the Whip of each party is asked to name the members that his party want appointed on such committees, and if anyone is to blame I think the hon. gentleman will have to consult the Whip of his own party. I have no doubt that the hon. member for North Toronto would have made a valuable addition to that committee.
I also regret, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), who spoke so ably this evening on the report, was not appointed a member of that committee. It was certainly an oversight. Being a returned soldier with an excellent war record and knowing the needs of soldiers better possibly than most of us do I think it was unfortunate that he was not appointed.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would point out that at the time that the members of the committee were selected the hon. member for West Calgary had not been introduced to the House.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I believe that is right, Mr. Speaker. I would point out to the hon. member for West Calgary however that although he was not a member of that committee any hon. member, in fact any citizen, has a right to bring any matter before a committee of this House. They have a right to be heard and to adduce any evidence to support their claims. I think it is unfortunate that my hon. friend did not favour the committee with his presence and suggestions while it was in session. All these suggestions which have Wen

made to-night are good and I hope the chairman of the committee, who has moved the adoption of the report, will see fit to accept the amendment. I may say that I am speaking, possibly, without due knowledge of the amendment. I had not the privilege of reading it over, but I heard it read, and from what I gathered I should think it is all right. I think this commission should have the right to investigate anything that needs investigating in connection with soldier problems. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) that there be a roving commission, I would point out to him that there are at present travelling medical boards in every province. Further, the report of the committee recommends that a board of appeal be appointed to which soldiers may take their cases if they are not satisfied with the decisions of the Board of Pension Commissioners, and if there are grounds for such appeal. The ground for such appeal is that there shall be a difference of opinion between the Board of Pension Commissioners and the travelling medical board or any other medical man of sufficient standing to warrant his being recognized as an authority on these matters. The criticisms that have been made in the House to-night in respect to matters affecting pensions are, I think, fairly well taken care of by the recommendations of the committee-as well, indeed, as it is possible to take care of them.
As to the suggestion that this report be not now received but be referred back to the committee, I sincerely hope that an arrangement may be made between the mover of the amendment (Mr. Shaw) and the mover of the adoption of the report (Mr. Marler) under which such action will not be taken. It would be a very unfortunate thing if at this stage of the session this report should be referred back to the committee. I remember the time when the former member for Skeena moved that a like report be referred back to a committee of this House for reconsideration. Although the things he wanted to have considered were the very things I wanted done at that time, I opposed the reference back to the committee, for this reason: the committee had spent two or three months, as we have this session, in the consideration of these very matters; they had arrived at a decision and had made a report. Of course, the motion to refer back at that time was different from the proposed reference at this time; that was

Pensions Committee
with a view to the committee making a different report in respect to matters on which it had heard evidence and on which it had come to a conclusion. If this report were now referred back to the committee it might mean that the committee would not be able to make a final report to the House in time to enable the Government to take action on the recommendations this session-a thing that would he very unfortunate indeed. As several of the speaker? to-night have said, the door will not be closed when this report is accepted; there is nothing to prevent the Government of the day from adopting any new method they may think it wise to adopt, even though the committee may not have recommended it.
In view of the fact that the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate these matters has been recommended, I shall not go into these matters. I understand that the scope of the proposed commission is in no way limited by the recommendation of the committee; that the Government may refer to it any matter pertaining to soldiers' re-establishment.


William F. Carroll: Does the hon. member not think that the recommendation has reference to the appointment of a commission to investigate only the telegraphic communication of Mr. MacNeil of the G. W.V.A.?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not understand it that way. I understand that the Royal Commission is to be appointed to investigate not only the charges that have been made, but anything that may turn up during their investigation of the matter. I do not think the report of the committee seeks to restrict the investigation in any particular. The member for North Toronto commends the committee for recommending the appointment of a board of appeal. Well, I have been a member of the Pensions Committee of this House for three years, and I know that a board of appeal has never before been asked for. I think I am safe in saying that no situation has developed, not before the Pensions Committee, at any rate-that would lead the committee to believe that a Royal Commission should be appointed. It is just possible that when the investigation is completed, Parliament and the country generally will say that the appointment of this Royal Commission was a superfluity. I hope that will be the fact; I hope it will be found that the Pension Board and the other branches of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment are doing the fair and right thing for the returned soldier. Further than that I do not think it is in good taste to go. I do not think it is in order for a member of the Pensions Committee to discuss the charges made or to express an opinion on them one way or the other. As I have said before this evening, if it were a matter of a lower court referring a question to a higher court for investigation, it would be considered improper for members of that lower court to express an opinion on the subject after they had so referred it to the higher jurisdiction.


William F. Carroll: Does the hon. member know of any member discussing the question from the point of view of making comments on whether or not the accusations were correct?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Well, I do not wish to express an opinion on that. I did think the hon member who has just taken his seat was getting very near the danger line in this respect in the course of his remarks this evening.


Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, I shall not make any lengthy remarks on this subject. I was a member of the committee and had an opportunity of presenting my views during its sittings. However, there is one matter in particular to which I would like to refer this evening and which is mentioned in the report, namely, unemployment amongst returned soldiers. I hope the Government will give this matter consideration.
Before referring to some remarks that have been made by some hon. gentlemen with regard to various subjects touched on in the report, I would like to join with other members in saying a word in respect to the indefatigable labours of the chairman of the committee (Mr. Marler), and also to congratulate him upon the very able manner in which he placed the report before the House to-day. It was a great pleasure to me to serve on that committee. I was particularly struck with the enthusiasm of the members of it, and the earnest desire that was manifested by all to reach a solution of the various problems which confront the returned soldier. I was also struck by the non-partisan spirit which prevailed.
Some criticism has been made with respect to the regulations under the Insurance Act. I think it is only fair that some information in regard to the classes
Pensions Committee

of persons who can obtain insurance under that act should be placed on record; it is information which was placed before the members of the committee. Hon. members are prone to criticise, but I do not think they realize just how the matter stands. The beneficiaries under this act are:	wife, husband, parents, children,
brothers, and sisters. These include various other classes.
The dependents referred to below mean potential beneficiaries actually dependent upon the insured for support
Class 1-App-llcants who are not seriously ill.
(a)	An applicant with dependents, ill with a pensionable disability.
Application is at present accepted.
(b)	An applicant without dependents who is ill with a pensionable disability.
Application is at present accepted.
(c)	An applicant with dependents, ill with a disability that is not pensionable.
Application is at present accepted.
(Id) An applicant without dependents ill with a disability that is not pensionable.
Application is at present accepted.
Now we come to another class of applicants, those who are seriously ill, and there we find that in the case of an applicant with dependents, seriously ill with a pensionable disability, the application is at present accepted. In the case of an applicant with dependents, dangerously ill with a disability that is not pensionable, the application is at present refused. In other words, the applicant who is dangerously ill and in anticipation of death is refused insurance at that moment.


William F. Carroll: These regulations are just as I thought. What does my hon. friend think of section 15? Does he think that the Minister of Finance has the right to investigate cases from a medical standpoint?


John Arthur Clark: I do not understand just what section the hon. member refers to. AVill he read it? I have not the act before me.


William F. Carroll: I have not a copy here, but I have read it already.


John Arthur Clark: 
Henri Sévérin Béland: If this report is adopted by the House and a board appointed, is my hon. friend of the opinion that the Government, in the Order in Council appointing that board, should leave it to their discretion whether the money should be expended in any other way than that suggested in the recommendation?


John Arthur Clark: Yes. I made that very
observation myself before the committee, and these two paragraphs were amended at my suggestion. I am not quite clear that the paragraph will bear that interpretation strictly speaking but that is the interpretation I place upon it, and that was the understanding of the committee.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If the board appointed
decides to expend the money of the canteen funds in any other way than the two methods suggested here in the report, my hon. friend is of the opinion that the wishes of the board should be carried out?


John Arthur Clark: That is, certainly, my
opinion. I would like to see the board in
charge of the expenditure, because I think they would be in a better position to gather the opinion of returned soldiers generally than officials of the Government, because they would have more time to devote to it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend's idea
as to the appointment of this commission is perfectly correct.


John Arthur Clark: The question of housing
construction was fully dealt with. I do not propose to go into any details. The only thing I can think of, that might be added, is this: If the Government intend to consider a housing scheme, the only scheme that I regard as feasible is the one inaugurated by the late government because under that scheme the government does not incur financial responsibility inasmuch as the various provinces, as I understand the cheme, undertake to repay the money advanced.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is a loan.


John Arthur Clark: British Columbia is the
only province I can speak for. The moneys so advanced were used exclusively to build houses for ex-service men, and I think the scheme worked very satisfactorily and that another loan of that nature would be accepted. I believe it would be advisable for the Government to consider the extension of that housing scheme, and to consult with the province and ascertain whether or not it would be acceptable to them to continue.
A suggestion has been made that there has been a curtailment of the pension. In a word, there has been no curtailment of the pension. The bonus has been extended for a period of two years, and any changes which have been made, I think, have been in the nature of extending the act, rather than narrowing it. It is quite true there are no radical changes in the act but at the same time, there is no curtailment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to what I consider the most important problem confronting the returned soldier to-day. Several speakers have said that we will have this problem with us for some time to come. I think we will have the problem with us for some time, unless we can solve the problem of unemployment. I do not think it matters whether times improve or not, I am afraid the problem of the unemployment among returned soldiers will be with us, unless we can adopt some scheme right away which will have the eifect of

Pensions Committee

finding employment, particularly for those men who are disabled, and those men who are of lowered efficiency, as a result of war service. So far as the fit men are concerned, I think I am safe in saying that, as regards 99 per cent of those who fought during the war, not only were they prepared to make the supreme sacrifice, but I believe, to-day, they are quite prepared to fight the battles of civil life, and that they are prepared to do that without paternal legislation. They did not fight for the money they were going to get, nor for the special favours that they expected to receive. I think I am safe in saying that all they are looking for is an even chance with the man who stayed at home. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree with me that it is rather galling for the returned soldier to have to remove his button when he makes application for employment. That actually takes place. I hear every day epithets applied to returned soldiers, such as "they will not work." It is quite true there are some who will not work. There is a bad element in every class, and, unfortunately, even among returned soldiers, there is the 1 per cent of exploiters, and the man who is prepared to work suffers. He has been reflected upon because of the conclusions that have been drawn that all returned soldiers come within this class. The question is, what are you going to do with these men? I will refer to a remark of the present Speaker of this House, made I think a year ago, when he used the words:
It seems to me that the enthusiasm, which prevailed when the soldiers left Canada to fight for a common cause, should not diminish as we get far away from the events of those days.
So far as unemployment is concerned, at any rate, I fear that the enthusiasm has diminished. Otherwise, why should we have one returned soldier, with his button removed, receiving employment, and another equally good, who wears it, refused employment. I hear the question asked very often, "Well, did we not give you a generous gratuity? Have we not made liberal provision for re-establishment? Have we not awarded generous pensions? Yes, I agree that has been done, but the fact still remains that there is a very large class of returned soldiers who are unemployed, and I would like to see some policy adopted which will insure employment for all returned soldiers who are willing to work, and we could find out those who are not willing to work, so that we could segregate the good from the bad.

I believe if this Government will continue the policy inaugurated by the late government as regards appointing returned soldiers to the Civil Service, they will be doing something that will, in a large measure, if not entirely, solve the problem. I should like to draw attention to the fact that prior to March 31, 1921, there had been appointed to the Civil Service 8,000 returned soldiers permanently and 29,000 temporarily. I hope next year the present Government may be able to bring down figures which will show a great improvement on that. I hope also that they will take some steps to confer with the various provincial governments of this country with a view to the adoption of the same policy by provincial governments; that they will also take steps to communicate with the various municipal and public bodies with a view to having them adopt the same policy. These public bodies could do a great deal in the matter of propaganda to encourage employers to take on returned soldiers, particularly disabled men, to take on even one, because the appointment of even one will do something towards solving this problem. As long as there are men of this class out of work, their mental attitude will be such that the problem will be difficult to solve. On the other hand, if we are patient with them and will take on as many as we can afford in our various businesses, we shall be doing much to solve the situation, because, after all, a great deal of the illness that is suffered by these disabled men is due to the fact that they feel that they are ignored, that employers will not give them the opportunity of acquiring positions; that only the 100 per cent efficient man is considered. I feel quite sure, if the Government will adopt a policy of the kind I have described and will co-operate with public bodies in this country, a great deal can be done towards encouraging employers to improve upon the situation that obtains now, and thus change the attitude from the expression I used a few minutes ago that "they won't work" to an expression of pleasure that "there is such a very large percentage Who will work, are working are doing well."
Many appeals have been made in this House for the cultivation of a national spirit. That national spirit can be cultivated by these very men. We are faced to-day with this situation that these men will pass on to the future generations

Pensions Committee
sentiments resulting from bitterness, or they will pass on the spirit which was prevalent during the time that they served on the battle field. The choice is between the two. I believe that the Government, by taking an energetic course in the matter, can do a great deal towards solving the problem, and I hope we shall see results in this respect at a very early date.


Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with those hon. members who have already spoken to congratulate the chairman and the members of the committee upon the very able manner in which they have presented this matter to the House. I heartily concur in the report. Many matters that I had in mind have already been placed before the House; but I wish to mention a few points.
The Medical Advisory Board is, I think, an excellent suggestion, independent as it will be of the Pension Board designed to consider appeals; that will do away with a certain amount of dissatisfaction. The second point to which I wish to draw attention is the question of providing burial expenses under the supervision of the Last Post Fund. It seems to me that the least we can do for those heroes who may die in poverty when their families or their friends may not have sufficient means to give them a military funeral, is to assist them in that regard. The matter has been brought to my attention on a few occasions, and I heartily support that recommendation.
The question of unemployment is naturally a very serious one. The recommendation made by the committee that the Government and the various departments should take means to plan out what work could be handled during the winter, should be acted upon at once, not only in this city but throughout the country. With my colleague, I have had some experience in connection with this question of unemployment, and it is one that is brought home to us very strongly. There is naturally the larger question of unemployment which has been referred to, and that must of necessity be taken care of by the Administration and by Parliament.
There is another phase of the unemployment question, namely, that of securing sheltered employment for wounded men. I should like to read an extract from a letter which I have received from Mr. D. F. Rowe, president of the Veterans' Re-establishment Association of Ottawa, which is a local returned men's association. The suggestion therein contained is quite worthy of
213J
consideration in this respect. This is part of the letter. He suggests:
"IHvide Canada into the following industrial areas: Vancouver, Toronto, Halifax, Winnipeg, Montreal, Ottawa. Establish in each of these centres, a manufacturing plant, conducted along the lines of the Vetoraft shops, in which the manufacture of toys and other light articles that do not require the labour of physically fit men, oan be undertaken under proper supervision ; the Government to subsidize each factory, according to the requirements of the industrial centre in which it is located. Employ no one but handicaipped ex-service men, who have been unable to obtain work of a permanent nature; each man to be paid a fair, standard rate of wage and to be employed by the hour.
I might say, in regard to employment of wounded or disabled men by the hour, that the great difficulty is that they are not able to work a full day. An arrangement that they should be paid for the length of time they are able to work would be of great assistance to them. The letter continues:
The Government is holding, in trust, for the ex-service men. of Canada the sum of approximately $2,000,000 of canteen funds and this money could be used to no better advantage than to make secure the future of many of these men, who through disabilities suffered in the defence of their country, now find themselves lunfilt to take their place in the open labour market.
I look upon that as a very good suggestion. The question of the disposal of the goods made by disabled men might be made the subject of patriotic endeavour by different societies, and in that way their output could be got rid of. Of course, as time goes on their work will reach a higher standard; but in the meantime if the public could be encouraged to purchase the things made by the returned men in this way, not only would the returned soldiers be advantaged, but in time it would pay the government, because it would obviate the necessity for paying out money in doles. I agree with what has been said, that the returned men would far rather earn their own wages than depend on charity.
I might refer to the question of housing". I am in sympathy with this scheme and I believe that in the future it should be taken up. The present high cost of construction is a deterring factor. There is no doubt that it would be a great benefit to the returned men if something could be done in this direction, but as at present materials are so high it is impracticable. I believe that the extension of the pension bonus is also a good recommendation. I am in favour of the permanency of that, but in the meantime it has been extended
Pensions Committee

two years, at the end of which time the matter can be taken up again. I favour strongly the appointment of a Royal Commission such as is proposed, provided it be an absolutely independent commission; and I believe in extending its powers, as the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) has proposed. I think we should be prepared to investigate every question that affects the returned soldiers, and see that the legislation which we pass shall be properly carried into effect. I believe that every hon. member of the House wants to see a 100 per cent re-establishment in return for the services which the soldiers rendered overseas; and there should also be 100 per cent re-establishment provided for the dependents of those who so nobly gave up their lives for humanity's sake.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Let me hearten the House by the assurance that I will take up only a few minutes. It is not my intention to criticize the valuable and exhaustive report that has been submitted to the House. It would be presumption for me to do so. The report evidences a strong desire to meet the soldier's problems in a fair and even liberal manner; but if there is any likelihood of the report going back to the committee, there are half a dozen things which I desire to bring to the attention of the House in order that they may be considered. It is possible that some of them are in the report. I have not had an opportunity of carefully studying the document, because, it has not been distributed yet. I presume, however, that the gist of it is in the Votes and Proceedings, and I do not see there any of these items to which I wish to refer.
In the first place, there is the question of dependents. A man drawing a pension gets a certain allowance for every child under the age, I think, of sixteen. When the child gains that age the allowance ceases, on the assumption, I take it, that he-or she-is capable thereafter of earning a living. There is no provision in the act for any exceptional cases, and the regulation as it stands at present works a hardship in the case of children over sixteen who are incapacitated either by ill-health or by mental defects. There are some cases of this nature in my own district. In one instance, the pension that has been received by a widow ceases because the child is over sixteen, although that child is incapable of work. In the

case of either ill-health or mental incapacity the pension should be continued. This is one of the things in connection with which the officials are blamed, whereas the fault lies not in a lack of sympathy in the officials, but in the law, which is not sympathetic.
Another thing I want to draw to the attention of the House, and I am surprised that it has not come up before, because it has figured on many platforms, and that is the question of equality of pensions. We should have an absolute equality of pensions as between officers and men. We talked that way on election platforms, and I would urge on hon. gentlemen that here is the place and now is the time to give voice to that conviction. I need not argue the question because its merits are well known.
I also want to take up the question alluded to by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) namely, the care of tubercular men. I have a telegram that reached me this afternoon from the president of the Tranquille branch of the Tuberculosis Veterans' Association. Tranquille is in British Columbia, and the tubercular home is situated there. It was carried on for many years by private funds but the Government has now taken it over. It is a very excellent institution and is in an ideal country. The telegram reads:
Proposal submitted by Tuberculosis Veterans' Association to parliamentary committee has not received just consideration. Impcriant request apparently overlooked. Our proposal based on expert medical opinion. Would appreciate your earnest endeavour on our behalf during defbate-No consideration given board of sanatorium consultant's report.
I do not know what report that was, but presumably it was some suggestion put forward for the purpose of handling tubercular cases, by the board of this Tranquille Asylum. I read this telegram for what it is worth.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That report is being considered.


Alan Webster Neill: I am glad to hear it. That settles that question. There is another item I wish to refer to, and that is the land settlement scheme. Let me say a well-deserved word of commendation for the Land Settlement Board, especially the man I have come in contact with most (Major Barnet), the Chairman. The Land Settlement Board had not the entperience of scores of years to lend it guidance. It was a new scheme, absolutely unheard of, formulated and put into operation in a period

Pensions Committee
of enormous inflation, when a perfect riot of expenditures, almost amounting to profligacy, and general high prices prevailed; and the fact that the board has done no worse is a high tribute to the man at its head. There has been no scandal or gross mismanagement in connection with its work, and that is a great tribute to the board. I have had occasion to go before its chairman with dozens of cases, and while officials are often too ready to regard those who intercede in matters of this kind as agitators who seek to upset their ruling -which is a thing they always object to- every case I have taken before the chairman of the board has always met with a sympathetic reception. The chairman has always met me in a spirit of the greatest sympathy towards the men. He has always been anxious to hear any facts that would enable him even to stretch the law if possible to give the men the best chance under the circumstances. In every way he has displayed the greatest anxiety to deal with each case on its merits and from a sympathetic point of view. I do not say that I always got what I wanted, because in some cases those for whom I pleaded were wrong, asking for something to which they were not entitled. But whenever he could not meet my wishes he has often shown that it was not a case of lack of sympathy but one in which the law was restricted. It is easy for us to frame laws here that prove incomplete to meet the conditions that afterwards develop, and then turn round and shelter ourselves behind the officials, declaring that they do not carry out the law properly. The Auditor General, on the other hand, would soon pull them up if they went a step beyond the limits of the law. We are too prone to slam officials both in the House and in the country. I have been guilty of the same thing myself. It is a cheap and easy way of getting a certain amount of credit, but it is only fair when we come across an official who gives of his best to utter a word of commendation, instead of piling his hearse with flowers when it is too late.
There are one or two things in connection with the operation of the Land Settlement Board to which I would call the attention of the House. Under the Land Settlement Act it is possible for a soldier to get a loan of $5,000, that is, if the board buys a farm for him, and all he has to pay i9 10 per cent. His total outlay amounts to $500, and the outlay of the Government on that risk is $4,500. In
addition, he can borrow for implements a sum not exceeding $2,500. In other words, he can get an advance of $7,500. But in the case of a man who has a farm of his own on which there is a mortgage, or perhaps it is a desirable farm which he has bought with a mortgage on it the act only allows the board to advance 50 per cent of the amount of the mortgage, and the total amount of his indebtedness is not to exceed $5,000, including the advance for stock and implements. So in the one case a farm which is bought for $5,000 costs the Government $4,500; but if the man buys that farm himself for $5,000 with a mortgage against it for $2,500, and he pays out his own money for the balance, the board will lend him only half the amount of purchase price. The result is apparent. Take a man buying a farm costing $4,500 with a $2,500 mortgage on it, he pays $2,000 of his own money and wants a loan from the Government of $2,500, but the place is only valued by the department at $4,300 and the board can not advance him more than half that amount. So in one case where the man has put in $2,000 of his own money he gets an advance of only half the assessed value of the farm, while in the other case the man who has put in only $500 of his own money gets a loan for the full amount, less 10 per cent. That is an unworkable and absurd situation. I have a case here where it worked out in actual practice. A man bought a farm with a mortgage on it and put in $2,000 of his own money, but the board turned down his request for a loan for the balance because they are only allowed to advance him half the value. They would be willing to buy the same place if unmortgaged for the full amount less 10 per cent.
Another point in the one case the man who has $2,000 of his own and gets the Department to pay off a mortgage, can only get a total loan from the board on land, implements and stock of $5,000; but in the other case if he has only $500 of his own he can get a total loan from the board of $7,500. I believe the act was originally drawn in that way with the idea that it would otherwise result prejudicially to loan companies which were charging 8, 9 and 10 per cent, as those interested would naturally prefer to take their money from the board at a much lower rate of interest. If that was the idea it was a very ignoble one and the sooner the act is altered the better. I think these men should be placed on the same basis.

Pensions Committee


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) :: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the time has gone by for indulging in rhetoric in regard to returned soldiers' affairs and for declarations by speakers in various capacities of their affection or concern for the veterans. I think also the time has gone by for boasting as to how many men Canada sent to the front, how many were killed, and how much money we spent. Machinery has been set up for handling returned soldiers' problems, and it has been working now for several years. As I see it, the duty of such a committee as this, is to inspect that machinery, see how it is working and how it can be improved, and ascertain how the officials employed for the purpose are discharging their duties; and, having done all this, to report their findings to this House. Then I think it is the duty of the House and the Government to act on that report to the end that the consideration of these problems may be furthered and that returned soldiers requiring help may be assisted and their dependents who have been deprived of their natural breadwinners properly cared for at the expense of the state.
In going into matters necessarily coming before such a committee as this, one cannot refrain from a feeling of admiration for the late government in regard to the amount of work done and the very thorough manner in which these problems have been dealt with, plans have been prepared, and machinery set up for dealing with returned soldier problems. To such an extent has that work been perfected that the incoming Government found that machinery ready to hand and have had little to do but to carry on, except to introduce from time to time such improvements as circumstances make apparent.
Like members of the committee who have preceded me I can assure the House that every member was actuated by a desire to be just towards returned men and to assist them and their dependents, and the report of the committee is that legislation be introduced that will without doubt implement existing regulations for the benefit of returned men.
Speaking for a moment in regard to some of the details referred to in that report and in the discussion to-night. As to the advisability of the proposal to extend the payments due on land over a period of twenty-five years, and the criticism that men who have met their payments are put at a disadvantage under this proposal, and that during such a lengthy period the chat-

tel property which is taken as security will of necessity disappear, I think that if the chattel property is taken as security, undoubtedly this property, in other words the equipment, will be renewed from time to time and in that way the security will not be impaired.
The sub-committee on land settlement has shown that the scheme is a good one for the country. But suppose it is not a profitable transaction for the country in general, as I take it the basic idea of the committee was not to make a profit but to relieve distress. The man who has been able to meet his payments as they become due and pay his way is not in distress, and if there were no delinquents there would be no necessity for extension of time, but it is the men, who in most cases through no fault of their own are now in default with their payments, that the committee wants to assist.
As to the question of canteen funds, the suggestion of the representatives of the various soldier institutions before the committee was:
The federal government to appoint a board of trustees, such board to include representatives of the Government and at least six representative ex-service men, nominated, by the Dominion Veterans' Alliance or succeeding amalgamated body, and to be empowered with the administration of the Canteen Funds and the interest thereof.
Further that similar boards be created in each province with the object of definitely ascertaining the opinion of ex-service men and women in all sections of the country as to the most equitable means of distributing the said canteen funds.
Now, though not exactly in accord with that recommendation, I think the committee's recommendation is peculiarly along the same lines and will work to the same end. I have heard it suggested, and I think the department might very well consider such a suggestion, that the amount of the funds be allocated pro rata to the various constituencies, and that the returned soldiers within each of these constituencies be left to deal as they see fit with the amount allocated to their respective districts, leaving the matter entirely to them.
As to the housing scheme, although the committee did not see fit to adopt the suggestions made by the allied soldiers' organizations as to an elaborate housing scheme to be financed by the federal Government, I do think the House would be well advised in continuing the present or former policy of making advances to provincial governments, the provincial governments in turn giving credit to municipalities, and they,

Pensions Committee
in turn, to the returned men. In a number of municipalities that plan has worked out very satisfactorily; it has enabled a number of returned soldiers to own their own homes and has indirectly had a beneficial elfect on the condition of unemployment.
In regard to the question of unemployment as referred to by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) to-night, I think every member of the House is just as desirous as the hon. member for Calgary is to solve that problem. Of necessity, when unemployment exists, our returned soldiers suffer along with the rest of the population, and until general prosperity again comes to Canada the returned soldiers will feel the effects of lack of employment, as ether people do. I regret that the hon. member for West Calgary, in making his criticism and offering his amendment, did not see fit to offer to the House, if he did not to the committee during its 'sessions, some solution of the problem of unemployment. It is easy to say that a problem should be solved, but who is going to do it?
There is one thing I feel I must comment on in regard to the reports of the proceedings of this committee. The general report is followed by a supplementary re. port, which was adapted at a meeting of the committee held on Friday, June 16. On that day there were two meetings of that committee, one of which took place in the morning, convening at 10.15, and, after a brief adjournment, lasting until nearly 3 o'clock in t'he afternoon. At that meeting amendments and resolutions were moved and proceedings had, but for some reason there is no printed report of that meeting or its proceedings. It has been omitted- skipped altogether, and without a report of the proceedings of that meeting on the morning of June 16 there is no reason why this supplementary report should be tacked on to the general rport.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The meeting in the morning to which my hon. friend refers was an executive meeting. The proceedings are taken only when witnesses are present and give evidence.


George Black: I cannot distinguish between the meeting of the morning of June 16th and the meeting of the evening of June 16th in that respect, or the meeting that immediately preceded it, or any other meeting for that matter. They were all general meetings of the committee; no one was more an executive meeting
than another. It was not a secret meeting; it was a regular meeting of the committee, and I submit that the proceedings of that committee should be published and presented as the other proceedings were.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I quite agree with my hon. friend; I would be delighted to have the proceedings of these meetings taken down. We attempted to do so from the commencement of the meetings of the committee, but we were not able to prevail upon the authorities to have that done. The rules of the House are that evidence shall be taken down only where witnesses are present, not in the case of executive meetings of committees or meetings which consist simply of discussions between members of the committee. In other words, such meetings are not entitled to an official record. The hon. member will find that in all our committee meetings it is the rule that only when witnesses are present is a report taken. I quite agree, though, with what he says in that respect.


George Black: I do not know where the hon. member gets his authority for making such a statement, but I do say this: that the reports which are published are supposed to be complete reports of the proceedings of the committee; if they are not, they are of no use to us. I say that at that meeting, the report of which is omitted, important resolutions were presented, some lost and some carried!; it was a very important meeting of the committee. Without that report I do not see what reason there is for tacking on the supplementary report to the general report of the committee, nor do I know what authority the chairman had for doing it. If we had had a report of what took place at the ether meeting, an explanation of it might be found-but I do not think so.
As to the suggestion that an appeal board be created to which appeals from the decisions of the Pensions Board may be taken, I am bound to admit that the Pensions Board occupies a very difficult and delicate position. In the main, I think, their findings and their proceedings are fair, but there are cases in which appeal should be allowed to some board. Take the case of our courts: their decisions are for the most part, fair; they are usually right, but they are not always right; therefore you provide a court of appeal, and I submit there should be some court, some board to which applicants not receiving satisfaction from the Pensions Board should have the right of appeal. Whether
Pensions Committee

that board should be just as suggested by the committee or whether it should be some other sort of tribunal is a matter which, I think, can better be discussed when the bill is before the House.
I do not know that I would have been so positive in my opinion as to the necessity for an appeal board had it not been for the fact that as late as last evening the sub-committee on pensions had before it two cases. One was the case of a Mrs. White, a widow, of this city; the other was the case of Mrs. Saunders, a widow, also of this city. Both these cases had been considered by the Pensions Board; decision had been given against the applicants; appeal had again been made to the Pensions Board and a second decision given against the applicants. The sub-committee on pensions heard the applicants, heard the evidence on their behalf and heard also the Pensions Board, and decided in both cases that the Pensions Board was wrong and that the applications should have been granted. Of course, that sub-committee has no power over the Pensions Board, but that shows the extent to which different tribunals or persons differ in respect to evidence coming before them.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask my hon. friend whether the representatives of the Board of Pension Commissioners admitted that they had made a mistake?


George Black: No, they did not.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There was a divergence of opinion, then, between the commissioners and the members of the committee?


George Black: So far the committee has had no reply from the Pensions Board as to what it will do in regard to the committee's recommendation. But the board had, both in the first instance and on appeal, turned down these two applications; and as I have said, having heard the applicants and their witnesses, and having heard the Pensions Board in reply, the committee came to the conclusion that the Pensions Board was wrong in both cases and that these widows should be pensioned. I trust that the minister will see that the recommendations of the committee are very seriously considered.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am willing to see to it, Mr. Speaker, but I may assure my hon. friend that my recommendations are treated by the Board of Pension Commissioners just as his own are.


George Black: That, I think, emphasizes my suggestion and the com-

mittee's suggestion that some tribunal should be established to Which there could be an appeal from the decisions of the Pensions Board.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That emphasizes ajso
the fact that the Board of Pension Commissioners act quite independently of the minister.


George Black: I quite understand that.
As to the appointment of a royal commission, which is recommended in this supplementary report of the committee, and as to its scope, personally I am not in favour of enlarging the scope beyond the powers recommended by the committee. The committee has been in session for several months, has devoted a great deal of time and has done a great deai of work examining into questions affecting soldier's civil re-establishment, including pensions, and that work has not yet come to an end. The work of a royal commission in that respect would never come to an end. Such work will not come to an end in this generation. It will be considered not only by this Parliament but by succeeding parliaments in other sessions of the House for many years to come. The situation will be continually changing and new problems will arise for consideration. I submit that we have a fully equipped and duly constituted department of government, the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, presided over by a minister who will give the matter of soldiers' civil re-establishment sympathetic attention. That department, I submit, is quite competent to deal with these questions, with the special assistance which is sought to be given to it at each session by a special committee of this House, and I see no reason why the whole matter should be turned over to any royal commission. The question as to the necessity of a royal commission arose out of certain publicly stated charges in a strongly worded communication made to the press by the secretary of the G.W.V.A., in which he openly charged the Pension Board with a contemptible and cold-blooded conspiracy to deprive ex- service men of their rights previously granted [DOT] by Parliament. It was evidently the desire of the Government, or at any rate with the consent of the Government, that the chairman of the committee introduced such a resolution, because he would never have presented it if he had not been quite sure that the Government would be satisfied with it.

Pensions Committee


Herbert Meredith Marler: May I correct my hon. friend? The suggestion was entirely my own, after several days consultation with these various officials, all of which I advised in the body of the committee.


George Black: I am very glad indeed that my hon. friend agrees with me. I did not for one moment suggest that what is contained in the resolution is not his own suggestion, but what I do say is that he must have felt confident that what is contained in the resolution would meet with the approval of the Government, or else he would never have introduced it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No more so than I felt
that any other part of the report would meet with the Government's approval.


George Black: That may be so, too. As to Mr. MacNeil, the secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association, I am sure the committee is under an obligation to that gentleman for the assistance he has rendered it in the marshalling of facts relating to the various problems before it. As to whether he was justified in using the language and making the statement he did with regard to the Pension Board, that was not a matter to be considered by the committee. I take it that it is not a matter to be considered by the House at this time. In the opinion of the committee, it is a matter for a royal commission, whose report will be presented in due time.
As to the question of an additional cash bonus to be paid by the Government to returned soldiers, that also was urged upon the committee by the representatives of returned soldiers' organizations, but the committee could not meet their views on that question. I think that by this time the Government of the day must be fairly well persuaded of the difficulties which its predecessors encountered in dealing with such questions, and I am inclined to think that perhaps it may regret that even as late as December last the dissatisfaction existing among returned men was fostered and increased by the promise of a cash bonus, which I doubt if hon. gentlemen opposite ever had the slightest idea of carrying out. The shoe is on the other foot to-day and the Government is experiencing the difficulties its pre-12 m. decessors had to meet with, and I think it must realize that its predecessors did everything that was humanly possible to deal fairly with these questions, as I believe the Government of the day is also doing.
As to other suggested amendments to the act, Hon. members will have an opportunity when the bill comes before the committee of offering appropriate amendments, and I do not think that they will be in any wise hampered or limited in their suggestions by what the committee may have recommended in its report. The report is simply to assist the House and the Government. It must of necessity have its limitations, because it could not possibly cover the whole subject.
As to the returned soldiers in my constituency, I am happy to say that neither in the past nor in the present has the Government been subjected to any annoyance or any extraordinary applications from them. I am happy to say that due to the very generous and very proper action of the Minister of Militia, quite a large number of returned soldiers who enlisted from the Yukon have now been enabled t >
return to that territory, where remunerative employment awaits them. They were interrupted in their journey home. They could have gone home at government expense immediately on discharge but for various reasons they were delayed, and now when an application was made on their behalf to the Department of Militia, authority was extended for them to complete their journey at Government expense, which is a very happy solution of the difficulty.
The efforts of the committee, of the House, and indeed of the whole country, on behalf of returned soldiers will by no means reach a finality at this session. The matter cannot be brought to a conclusion during this generation, and I do not think that hon. members of this House should send out to the public, and to the returned soldiers particularly, anything in the way of criticism that would lead them to suppose that their interests are not being properly served in so far as it is humanly possible for that to be done by the members of this House.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: There are at this moment two thoughts uppermost in my mind and at this late hour I shall endeavour to express them in as few words as possible, and at the same time with the utmost sincerity. I first desire to thank and congratulate the chairman of the special committee, and the hon. members who composed it, for the very careful attention which, they have given to the preparation of this very elaborate report.
Pensions Committee

The second thought in my mind is, that the sentiment that underlies this question and that permeates this whole discussion is the desire to re-establish the returned men and the dependents of those who failed to return.
This House sits as a jury with the imperative obligation cast upon it to do its duty loyally and fearlessly, and that duty is to place the returned men and the dependents of those who failed to return as nearly as possible in the position they were in before they went overseas to win an everlasting debt of gratitude from humanity. That duty we owe to them, and the thought that we should have in our minds at any time when we approach this question should be that these men have deserved well of their country.


Mr. D. W. WARNER (Strathcona) :: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few minutes to voice my approval of the report of this committee. I have given considerable thought to the problem of the returned man, and, especially, to the land settlement part of the scheme. Since I have heard the evidence, and have learned the conclusions of the committee, I have changed my mind somewhat. I had an idea that we needed a revaluation. I believe yet that we need it, but, after learning more of the difficulties than I knew before seeing the report of the committee, and talking with different members of that committee, I have made up my mind that their report, relinquishing the interest, will, perhaps, give better satisfaction, and less trouble, than if these properties were revalued, as I at first thought would require to be done. I have had considerable correspondence, and have discussed this matter, with the returned men personally, and I feel that they seriously need some sort of help and a relinquishment of their obligations. I have nothing to say in the way of criticism, particularly, of the scheme we have undertaken, but at the time that it was undertaken, with the experience I had had in farming, I was quite sure that many of the men could not come through and make good, with the obligations that were imposed on them at the time they received their loans. I am not complaining of the way the money was spent. I believe that all the care was given that it would have been possible to give to the re-establishment of those men, with that amount of money, at that time. Everything was at the peak of high prices, and I could see, as I thought, that difficulty was coming to the 
men who were loading up with that heavy obligation, and investing in property that must come down in price, especially the live stock that they bought, and I had warned many of them who talked to me regarding this matter, and told them of this difficulty. I felt that men who had had experience for years would hardly have undertaken to carry through such a scheme, financed altogether on borrowed money, and it looked to me, at the prices they were paying, that it was going to be almost impossible to succeed. At the same time, I approved personally of it, and I believe that it was a good idea to give all the men that were capable and willing to go on the land an opportunity of doing so. I believe, as the committee have reported, that those men placed on the land have have been an asset to the country and perhaps a better asset than if they had not been established on the land. At the same time those men have been considered by some people a liability, but I have not looked at it that way myself.
While there is no use attempting to enumerate the glorious achievements of these men in the field of battle, I feel that we cannot pay them in money for What they did for Canada. I do not think we will ever be able to discharge that obligation with money, but if we revalue their land by cutting off the interest, and make it possible for them to make good, we will prevent them becoming, perhaps, a liability, more or less, to the Dominion. The loss is already made through the shrinkage in value, and if these men could not make good after the deflation had taken place, then the government, or the people of Canada, would have to assume the property that these men have been given under this loan. That loan was made, and I approve of the idea of the committee in allowing these men to make good by cutting off the interest and will make good when given the opportunity of getting three years' use of the money, without paying interest.
If it is necessary, to enable these men to make good on their homes, and get them paid for in a reasonable length of time, I am in favour of going even further, when it becomes necessary to do so. I feel that if the country needs to go further in that direction, it is little enough for us to do, and, therefore, I approve of giving these men that opportunity. They would be discouraged, and they would, perhaps, join the other discouraged unemployed people

Pensions Committee
in this country, if we did not keep them on the land and give them the opportunity to make good. We have millions of acres of land yet in Canada that should be put into use by someone, and who should, if not our soldiers, get the right to take the land and receive all the encouragement, in a financial way or in any other way, that we can give them, to enable them to go ahead and establish their homes, after they have made their great fight for liberty and humanity. Then, I say, Mr. Speaker, it is up to the Canadian people to give these men an opportunity to have homes of their own, whether they went to the front or whether they stayed at home and did their duty. We all enjoy our homes, and I am quite sure that many will make good if they receive the kind of encouragement that the committee has held out to them.


Leon Johnson Ladner: (Vancouver
South) : At this late hour, I would not detain the House more than a few moments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I believe the atmospheric conditions of the Chamber seem charged with a lightning haste-for-home-spirit, and I do not propose to stand in the way of the lightning. There are two or three matters in connection with this question which have not been brought out in the House. My purpose in rising at this late hour is to say, Mr. Speaker, that these are matters which could be well considered when the Government faces the problem of bringing down both bills, and carrying out the provisions contained in this report. The report contains two divisions. It contains some matters which are specifically discussed, and the nature of the legislation is set out.	There are further
matters that are referred to generally and a sort of directory notice to the House and the Government to carry on their investigations. As regards the former, we shall be favoured, in a few days, I presume, with some bills. As regards the latter, I hope the proposed royal commission will have sufficient scope to inquire into them. I wish very strongly to stand behind the amendment of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) as regards the appointment of the royal commission. The problems of the returned soldiers are so complex that they cannot be undertaken and worked out by a parliamentary committee or by a government; but they can, perhaps, more effectively be worked out by some body which is empowered to investigate the matter and which can come to an intelligent conclusion. I wish to urge upon hon. members the wisdom of extending the scope of this commission to inquire, not only into questions in relation to the charges made by the Great War Veterans' Association and the secretary of that association in connection with the Pension Board, but into the wider field.
The question of unemployment is dealt with in this report. We have all been faced at one time or another by that question; but I would urge upon the Government, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the necessity and expediency of preparing at this moment for the unemployment question of next winter. We are going to have unemployment next winter; and if plans are not laid now, we are going to be faced with a very serious question when the fall and winter months come on.
Some time ago the matter was raised in the form of a question in this House about the payment of exchange on money coming from the Old Country to Canadian soldiers and Imperials in this country. The matter was referred to the committee, and the committee has made a report that this be extended until June of this year. I wish to submit to the House and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that, according to my information, accounts between Great Britain and Canada have never been balanced. In other words, a balance has never been struck as to which is the creditor and which the debtor, and under those circumstances, certainly payment has not been made. Prior to this date and for some time past the credits and debits have been worked out on a basis of a common denominator, 34.68% being used, so that accounts which were paid by the Canadian government in Great Britain would be paid by loans in sterling by the British government and the account of Canada over there would be credited. That is the information I have, and I think it is correct. The point I wish to make is this, that, until the balance is actually struck and paid, soldiers on this side of the water should be given their cheques and their payments at par, because if that is not done and whatever balance exists is carried on for a number of years, it is easily conceivable that exchange may by that time be righted, and the Government will find itself in possession of a profit out of the small exchange taken off soldiers' accounts. I know the Government does not want that. I may be mistaken; but I might tell the Minister <vf
Pensions Committee

ance that my information comes from a very reliable source. I make the suggestion that that portion of the report should be carried out with that thought in mind.
The report contains a reference to burials. This is really a matter for the committee, and I hesitate to refer to it in the House; but the committee has evidently seen fit to make provision for burials of ex-members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in cases of destitution. My suggestion to the House is that that provision should be extended to the widows and pensioned children of ex-members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force where destitute cases arise. That is not provided for in this report, and as I understand it has been considered, it cannot be said that the matter has been overlooked. I would like to urge that very strongly on the House. I think it is only fair, and I do not think there is in Canada a citizen who would hesitate for one moment over the slight additional expenditure which would be required. Sentiment so over-rides the question of expediency on account of economy or parsimony, that I am sure the Government would be commended rather than condemned for an extension of generosity in that respect.
Another point which has not been discussed is the case where the full gratuity is paid to a widow whose husband has returned, but who has died before receiving the gratuity. That is, an ex-soldier comes to Canada; before he gets his gratuity, he dies, and his widow is then able to claim and collect the full gratuity. On the contrary, the widow of a man who happens to die overseas in England receives, I understand, only one-third of the gratuity. This matter is not referred to in the report. I do not know why it is omitted; but my suggestion to the House and to the minister is that consideration be given to the fairness of paying the gratuity to the widow who happens to lose her husband on the other side of the water instead of on this side. Why that situation should exist, I do not know; but I am told on reliable authority that it does exist.
I wish to commend the committee for bringing in a favourable report as regards the Camp Lister and Courtenay soldier settlers in British Columbia. A confusion and an unfortunate experience exist there in which the Government will do right to come to the assistance of those soldiers. The recommendation contained in the report is that an official should be

appointed to go there, to look into this problem, with the idea of co-operation between provincial and Dominion officials in that connection. I might say, for the benefit of some hon. members who may not be informed on the subject, that these men took up community settlements on some kind of a tentative arrangement, that was not in writing, that they would pay, on a pro rata basis according to the value of the land taken up, the cost of clearing and developing those lands. It was found that there was extravagance; that the expenditure was altogether out of proportion to the value of the land. These men have spent their time and labour; they have stayed there with their wives and families in the hope of getting some solution of the question. They are faced with insurmountable obstacles and are in poverty. This is a matter which a competent official can well handle by going out there on behalf of the Government.
In conclusion, I would say a word on the question of insurance. The act of 1919 contained, necessarily, an insurance element. Since then modifications by statute have taken place; interpretation by regulation has been carried out, and the actual operation of the act is now entirely different from what it was in 1919. That, in my opinion, was due to some confusion which arose from the fact that we endeavoured to provide for the permanent force as distinct from the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and that the provision was all put into one section. This matter might be more effectively considered when the bill is brought down; but I should like to intimate to the minister that I have an amendment to propose in that respect when the bill is before the House. The purport of this amendment is, in a word, that men who enlist with an original disability and who have aggravation during service, will in case of disease, be entitled to claim pension, even though the aggravation be reduced to the original disability and even though the case be one after 1st September, 1920. The question of defining and drawing a line of demarcation between the original disability and the aggravation is fraught with so many obstacles as has been the experience of many hon. members on the Pension Committee, and my own experience, that I believe there should be some provision in the act giving greater power to the commission to render justice to some claimants who in my opinion have not received it. My last point, Mr. Speaker-

Pensions Committee


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Leon Johnson Ladner: An hon. gentleman
says "hear, hear". I presume he wants to speak, and I promise him that I will sit and listen to him when he gets up. My last point, which I submit is a very important one, is with reference to the question of appeal. I suggest to the Government that instead of the appeal being made to a special board of appeal it should be made to the courts of the land which already exist, so that any man may have the right to have his case properly decided, just as any civil case would be decided on appeal.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the hon. member realize the expense that would devolve upon the returned soldier? Under the present arrangement he has no expense.
Mr. L.4.DNER: Under the present arrangement he has no expense because he is denied all rights of appeal.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am referring to the present recommendation.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The recommendation of the committee has reference to a limited class of appeals, purely on medical questions where there is a difference between a local doctor and the medical board. But there may be other questions to be decided. I have known cases to come before the committee where, in my opinion, as a lawyer, I thought the board was entirely wrong in construeing statutes. There is only one effective way of reaching a sound conclusion in matters of appeal, and that is by having disputed questions settled by a judiciary of trained minds. The case in the first instance, is submitted for the plaintiff and for the defendant, the issues are stated clearly and fairly before the court, and the judge decides on the evidence before him. Under this system there is the least possibility of injustice.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I know my hon. friend is a learned and able lawyer, but does he seriously think that what he proposes is really feasible, that appeals should be permitted to the courts of the land in the matter of pensions? My hon. friend is surely aware that the Board of Pension Commissioners decide thousands of cases dhring the course of a year, and appeals would be extremely costly if they were taken to the courts; and in the case of an appeal being turned down by the court, who would pay the costs? Naturally, the soldier. Where all the circumstances have been carefully looked into by a body of
men such as the Board of Pension Commissioners, who have the benefit of expert medical advice, the presumption is that in most cases the decision is right. In most cases I have no doubt that if resort were had to the courts the appeal would be turned down, the soldiers would have to pay the cost, and they would come to the Government to be reimbursed.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Undoubtedly there are
objections. But it does not necessarily follow, because the Board of Pension Commissioners have a large number of cases to deal with, and they would all be taken before the courts. In any city there are hundreds of cases that are dealt with, but they are generally all sifted before the trial judge, just as these cases would be sifted before the Board of Pension Commissioners. But the right of appeal from the decision of the board would have a beneficial effect on their judgment, and they would be apt to exercise more care in arriving at decisions. The minister says that the process would be expensive to the * appellant. Well, I have no doubt that in matters of such great consequence to the soldiers as a body, some returned soldiers' organization would be only too willing to take one of these cases before the courts in order to obtain a proper and just decision. The Board of Pension Commissioners have no doubt had a wide experience, but they are only human, like the minister and myself; whereas our courts are constituted of men more learned in the law than either of us. I know of cases, such as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) has referred to, where a decision has been given by the ordinary trial judge, which, on being taken to another body of learned justices, has been entirely reversed; and on being referred to the Supreme Court of Canada the first decision has been upheld. This shows the extreme care that is exercised by the judiciary of the land. Whatever disadvantages in the way of expense may attach to appeals to the courts, I think that any man who desires to avail himself of the courts should have the right to do so. Why should he be denied that right? Why should a group of pension commissioners arrogate to themselves the final decision on the question? The principle is unsound. It does not further the interests of the board, nor does it render justice to the men. Our courts are used to weighing expert evidence on questions relating to every walk of life. They consider and weigh Etf;;! iestimony, testi-
Pensions Committee

mony with regard to mining and engineering, evidence in structural cases, and cases having to do with shipping and architecture, and other matters of this kind. All this evidence is submitted to the courts and is weighed and sifted by them. Now, with all deference to the Board of Pension Commissioners, I say that the medical men on the board are very apt to allow their technical views 'to interfere with their judgment, and attach more importance to evidence from their own point of view than to the essential facts that are submitted to them. Now, I promised that I would be brief, and I shall now conclude. I have discussed this matter with many hon. members and with people who understand it, and I say that any man who desires to avail himself of the courts of the land in this matter should have the right to do so.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar) :: Mr. Speaker, I realize that those of us who continue this debate at this late hour of the night run the risk of losing whatever reputation for good judgment we may possess. At the same time this is a subject on which I have felt that I would like to make a few remarks, but these remarks will necessarily be much more brief than I would have made them had the hour not been so late.
When I began my duties upon this special committee I felt somewhat handicapped by the fact that I knew very little of the various statutes under which the work of soldiers' civil re-establishment was being carried on. I only knew that I wanted this country to discharge as fully as possible its obligations to our returned soldiers. I have experienced a great deal of pleasure in the work of the committee, for the reason that the relationships there were very pleasant; there were no disposition on the part of anyone, so far as I saw, to do anything else than to carry out to the best of his ability the duty entrusted to him. I felt we were all animated by the one purpose of fulfilling our obligations. Indeed, it seemed to me the conditions were almost ideal in that none was seeking his own interest but all were seeking the welfare of others.
At the same time while I have had some pleasure in that work, I also feel a measure of regret-regret that perhaps we were not able to do all that might have been expected of us or all that we would like to have done. The immensity of the problems we had to consider were impressed upon me then as never before, and if any

person thinks that these problems can be finally settled by the appointment of a royal commission or by any other means within the next few years, he must have his mind disabused of the idea. These problems will be before us in some form or another for many years to come. Every one who is given to serious reflection must have felt the tremendous tragedy that we witnessed when about two hundred and fifty veterans marched from Toronto to Ottawa and assembled on the green outside the House. The spectacle impressed itself upon my mind as one of the tragedies of the war and one of the problems which to me seemed to be almost impossible of solution.
I shall not attempt to discuss at any length the various phases of the report. I had intended to say something upon the question of "attributability to service" which very early in the meetings of the committee was impressed upon me as one of the great problems that we have to consider. As the years go by an increasing number of men will be falling into ill-health, and the question of attributability to service will become more and more difficult of a solution. I will only say this, that I think we have taken the only possible step in regard to that question in recommending the means whereby an appeal may be made upon that question.
I was not upon the sub-committee that dealt with the soldiers' settlement question. That is the one question on which I had intended to make somewhat lengthy remarks; however, for the reason already stated, I shall be very brief. As one who knows what it is to work upon the land and the conditions by which those so engaged are surrounded, this is the one question I did feel competent to express an opinion upon. I felt very keenly, perhaps more keenly than many have done, that there was grave danger of the whole scheme being brought to naught because of the conditions into which we have fallen. Indeed, I expressed these views when, in my capacity as President of the United Farmers of Manitoba, at one of the annual conventions some years ago I stated that I thought the conditions that surrounded agriculture made it quite possible that the whole scheme of soldiers' land settlement would be brought to naught, and I still feel that we are faced with that possibility.
I believe that that scheme was entered upon in all good faith, and I would not think for a moment of casting any reflec-

Pensions Committee
tion upon those who initiated and carried the scheme into effect. I know that much of that work was done by men who are thoroughly sympathetic and honest in carrying out the duties entrusted to them. It was my privilege to be in close contact with the qualifications board which sat in Winnipeg. I know some of the men who sat upon that board were eminently qualified to perform their duties, and I believe they discharged those duties as well as any other men could possibly have done. At the same time, knowing the circumstances under which they worked, the difficulties they had to encounter, the way in which soldiers themselves were apt to look upon this scheme of farming as something that any person could take up successfully, I realized that mistakes had been made by that board.
I wish I could feel1 so sure that some of the work done in the inspection of land had been done as well as the work of the qualifications board. Undoubtedly some at 'east of the land upon which our returned men were allowed to settle should never have been taken up by any one at all. I do not want to speak of the inspections as a whole, for I would not wish to deal with anything that has not come within my personal knowledge. I considered it my duty to visit the country between the lakes, in Manitoba known as the Amaranth district, and although perhaps it would be too strong to say that none of the land should have been settled upon, there can be no doubt that much of what is occupied today by returned soldiers can never be brought into such a state of cultivation as will provide satisfactory homes for the men who are undertaking farming operations there. I felt very keenly therefore the necessity for some scheme of re-valuation, and I have urged that very strongly.
I wrote home to many of my constituents to get from them statements in regard to the deflation of land values. Invariably they tell me that land has depreciated 30, 40 and 50 per cent. My opinion has always been that land has been held too high, that even those who were not soldier settlers but buying on their own initiative were paying prices that were not warranted if we were to consider their investment in land from the same standpoint as an investment in any other line of business. I felt, and urged very strongly the need for revaluation as time went on. I was constantly in contact with the chairman of the sub-committee and I felt that perhaps the scheme they were advocating was the wisest possible under the circumstances.
We must look upon this scheme then not as an attempt to do something for the returned soldiers, but to consider it, as has been pointed out, as a colonization scheme. We must look at it only from that standpoint. How can we best protect the interests of the country, at the same time trying to do the best we can for the men who have taken land under that scheme?
I do not feel that any further discussion cf this matter is necessary at this time.
I hope so. I hope with all my heart that proposed, and while I admit the full force of the objections made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), I feel that what has been offered to us as a settlement of this problem is the best solution that can be offered at this time. It seems to me that the country is face to face with an inevitable loss; I am by no means satisfied that even under the arrangement that has been suggested we shall be able to avoid .a very great loss in the future, nor am I satisfied that even with the help that may be afforded by returned men under these proposals, many of them will not fall by the wayside. Perhaps I have been unduly pessimistic in regard to this scheme;
I hope not. I hope with all my heart that it may fulfil the objects had in view by those who brought it into being and that the suggestions that have been made will put us further on the way toward the solution of this and our other problems.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I crave the1 indulgence of the House while I discuss this subject for a short time, and I trust that what I have to say will be in the way of suggestion in regard to what has been done in the past as well as in regard to what may be done in the future in respect to this matter.
Re-establishment of returned soldiers is a very old question. We are treating it, perhaps, as a new question, but re-establishment has come down through the ages; ever since history has given us any account of war, nations have endeavoured to place their soldiers in such a position that they nay become useful and contented citizens. Many of England's colonies have been built up as a result of England's endeavour to provide for soldiers who had taken part in her wars. Canada also has done something along this line. I am sure we are all proud of the report that was brought [DOT] in to-day, a report which indicates that Canada is making a sincere effort to deal in a satisfactory way with this question.
Pensions Committee

Never before bad such large numbers of our men been in the field; never before had we had so many disabled men to provid'e for. As far as medical aid could restore these men, it was applied; new departments were created and administrative machinery set up to take care of the various classes of cases. There is no doubt that mistakes have been made; mistakes must be made in dealing with these matters. But a certain amount of criticism has been offered to-night in respect to the medical profession, and I wish for a few moments to refer to those criticisms.
Criticism has been offered in respect to the examination of the men. I do not think, however, that the blame should rest entirely on the shoulders of the medical profession. Practically all the medical men who had been trained in the needs and conditions and regulations of the service had gone to the front, and the medical men left behind had no acquaintance with these matters. It is the old story over again; if you are to have success, you must have training. Men who know nothing about military service and military regulations cannot with any success examine men for military service. Moreover, new conditions had arisen which we had never met before, and only those who had been at the front were familiar with those condition's and were in a position satisfactorily to examine men for service at the front. There were also varying conditions of enlistment; and I want to differ from those who Say that there were not different degrees of physical fitness involved. Take, for example, one unit which was largely recruited in British Columbia, the First Canadian Pioneers. These men were given to understand that they were going out for special service as carpenters, plumbers, and so on, at the front, but when they reached the front they found that as a unit they had to perform quite a different service from that for which they had been recruited. The result was that many of these men suffered greatly through the service and became disabled. In addition to that, men were recruited as bandsmen, but when they reached England they found that the bands were not to be used very much at the front, and they had to go into some other service, though they were not fit men. All these criticisms fall upon the medical profession, though, as you will see, they were not entirely responsible for the conditions to which I have referred. There were conditions of enlistment and

of service in respect to which the men at the back were not as well informed1 as the men at the front, and that was1 one cause of dissatisfaction. I think that if we could get to the bottom of the causes of dissatisfaction we might, perhaps, solve these problems more easily.
I wish to refer now to another cause of dissatisfaction along medical lines. There is no doubt that many medical men have been and are engaged' in the examination and treatment of men and in the disposition of their cases who know nothing about what the conditions were at the front. If you could get medical men to-day who, by their service with units at the front, are familiar with the effects of the different forms of gas-because they are not all treated alike-who are familiar with the effects of mustard gas, of chlorine gas, of combined gas, then you could solve many difficulties; you couldl alleviate many of the troubles from which the men are suffering to-day. I will give you an instance of the disadvantage resulting from a lack of knowledge of the unit service. I went into a hospital after I came back from the front, in which there was a ward occupied by men who were supposed to be cases of shell shock. I asked the medical officer in charge if he had ever found out from these men where they served or with what unit they served. Well, the very first man I questioned-and he was supposed' to be a case of shell shock- told me that he had been with the forestry corps. Now, you must not run away with the idea that all men in the forestry corps were not within the zones where shelling was carried on; a great many men in those units were men who had become unfits at the front and had been marked as "B" men and sent to the forestry corps. But this man had never been near France, and had the medical officer in charge of that ward been familiar with the service of the different units he would have been able to deal with the case more intelligently. If, therefore, you can distinguish between men who are really disabled or who are suffering as unfits; if you can separate the sham from the real thing, you will get rid of a good deal of dissatisfaction. The real man of service to-day is often ashamed to go into the hospital because he would have to associate with men ,who never gave much service. These different classes can be distinguished only by the medical officer who has had actual service at the front.

Pensions Committee
If you get that, you will get rid of a great deal of dissatisfaction. The man feels that he cannot get the sympathy of the medical officer. If he felt that he had the sympathy of the medical officer, that he was dealing with a man who was acquainted with the conditions under which he served, I think there would be a great deal more satisfaction. I have not had any great trouble in the cases that I have taken up personally. It was simply a case of getting a medical officer who understood the service the man had given, the conditions under which he had served at the front and the possibility of disability, then your case went on with sympathy between the disabled and the medical officer. In the same way, I find a great deal of dissatisfaction among the tubercular men. To me it is not a question of the duration of the disease. It is simply a question whether the man has been in touch with conditions which would produce or aggravate tuberculosis, and I do not think there is any great difficulty in determining that. You cannot get two men who will tell you that a certain case of tuberculosis began two months, six months or a year ago. The question is did that man serve under conditions which were likely to produce that condition? He should be given the benefit of the doubt in every case. I think all that is needed to give more satisfaction is first to get men who have had knowledge of conditions at the front, secondly, sympathetic treatment, and then you can settle any case.
Coming to the question of the appointment of a royal commission, to my mind this question is really a legal one. It could have been settled in twenty minutes or half an hour by reference to the Justice Department, and that was the stand I took in the committee. There is a judicial department here which would in a short time have given a decision as to whether the Pension Board was correct or not, but if this recommendation is accepted we will have a royal commission sitting for months and months, and as the hon. member who has just spoken has said, you will never get a settlement of this question. Why do I say that? The conditions of this war will produce conditions which you will meet with for years. The effect of high explosive shells, the smashing and destruction it has produced on the bone, will go on for years and years, and your surgical men will be operating on these cases and removing pieces of diseased bone for years and years to come. This country must 214
realize that it has this question on its hands. I have no hope that a few years will wipe out the conditions produced by the war. You will have more tubercular men, more heart disease cases, more kidney disease cases, as the result of the war in the next five or ten years than you have had altogether in the past, if my diagnosis of the conditions under which these men served is correct, and I was with these men for five years. Therefore, I have not been in any great sympathy with that part of the report which recommends that the military hospitals be done away with as speedily as possible, although I concur in the report for we cannot all come to the same conclusion. My reasons for not being in sympathy with that recommendation are these: These men can be treated in military hospitals in a way in which they cannot be treated in the general hospitals, because the general hospitals in this country have not the electrical equipment and the equipment for massage, and the masseurs and masseuses that the military hospitals have. Special treatment is given in these military hospitals for which the general hospitals are not at present equipped. The men in the military hospitals are living under healthier conditions to-day than at a general hospital. Furthermore, the general hospitals have not the accommodation that will be required in the future.
Therefore, I can see that this
1 a.m. department and these hospitals must continue in operation for some years to come if the soldiers of this country are to get the treatment and the justice they deserve.
I am not going to say anything further to-night. I have spoken of medical conditions only as I found them. The suggestions I have made with regard to using men who have had large experience at the front, I think will tend to offset a great deal of dissatisfaction that is met with at the present time.


William Irvine: Any hon. gentleman who addresses the House at this late hour should assure the House that he will not speak very long, so I give the assurance now. If it had not been that there are a few things which seem to me have not been emphasized sufficiently I do not think I would have inflicted myself upon the House as I have been afflicted by many this evening. It has been a very happy discussion on the whole. There has been a very marked unanimity of opinion on the question be-

Pensions Committee

fore us.' Almost every hon. member who has spoken has expressed himself as being favourable to doing the utmost possible to solve the returned soldiers' problems Some hon. members have even gone so far as to say it was well to keep this question out of polities. That statement was a strong indictment of our polities, but I should hope to see the day when we will discuss all questions as we have discussed this one, namely on their merits.
I have a few observations to make. 1 believe that the task before this committee was a very complicated one, very difficult indeed for a parliamentary committee to handle. I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) and I am in hopes that the Government will take it into consideration and possibly include it in the main motion. There is much dissatisfaction throughout Canada among the ranks of the returned soldiers, as has been evidenced by the agitation that has taken place in the past few years. No doubt the committee has been convinced of this from the evidence it has received.
I wish to emphasize very briefly a few cases that have not been provided for in the report of the committee but which 1 think are important. First of all I mention the neurotic cases, what might be called the sub-normal men who seem to be in perfect health on physical examination but who owing to certain neurotic conditions are unable to work except intermittently and are thereby really unfitted for work, because employers of labour do not wish to hire men of that type. Something should be done for this class.
Then there is the class of older men who went to the front and who came back perhaps fairly fit physically but who have lost a very great deal through their war service and who have been made practically unfit for work. They to-day are a clog on the labour market. Something should be done for them.
Then there are the tubercular cases, which have been emphasized by a number of speakers. I want to mention this class especially because I have a couple of telegrams here from soldiers' organizations with regard to tubercular cases. I believe there should be a definite system for giving after care and sheltered employment to the tubercular patients. I think such a policy would be good not only for the country but most excellent for the men themselves. I shall not take up the time

of the House to read these telegrams. The hon. member for West Calgary has read one, of which I received a copy; the other is from the Tuberculosis Veterans' Association of Ninette, Manitoba.
Then there should be something done with the men who have taken vocational training, so that they may be properly fitted to take their part in the work foi which they have been training; otherwise the time already spent shall have beer wasted. The failure of vocational training in this respect constitutes one of the grievances of returned men. The classifications seem to be so varied, the degrees of disability so different and the information so difficult to get, that it is a question for a royal commission, such as has been suggested by the amendment. Many of the difficulties that these returned soldiers are complaining of to-day are of such a character as to require judicial decisions that a parliamentary committee is not in a position to give. A royal commission, for instance, could visit many parts of the country and take evidence of varying kinds. That commission would be in a position to assemble its knowledge and its data gathered, and to form a basis for legislation to take effect later. For these reasons I favour referring all returned soldiers' questions to a royal commission.
I want to refer, briefly, to one or two points of more or less importance that were mentioned by the committee. First of all, I will refer to the canteen fund. I have a telegram here signed by Mr. Petley, of the Great War Veterans of Calgary. I believe the hon. member from West Calgary received a copy also and has already given it to the House. I will not repeat it, but merely mention it so as to show that the returned soldier organization is very much interested in this question. They are opposed to this committee, or this Parliament, having anything to do with the fund known as the canteen fund, which really belongs to the men. I hold the opinion that, in so far as spending this money on education is concerned, as the report advises, that would not be fair to the men. Education of the children of fallen soldiers is the business of the state, and is being undertaken to some extent by the provinces. This canteen fund should be spent in a manner satisfactory to the men themselves and should be decided by a committee, upon which committee the men should have representation.
I want very briefly to speak on unemployment, because that is, perhaps, the

Pensions Committee
most important question touched on by the committee. I want, first of all, to quote very briefly a few figures dealing with the number of soldiers in our western cities that were on the relief list last winter. The hon. member from West Calgary gave the House some figures showing the extent of unemployment among returned soldiers. I am speaking of those who were forced to accept relief from the relief committees of Winnipeg and Vancouver at certain dates last winter. I have not the figures for all the cities. I am quoting from the report given by the Manitoba government Department of Labour. This is dated February, 1921-
In Winnipeg at the present day there are approximately 1,400 families obtaining relief and 900 single men. Of these there an 270 married returned men and 220 of them returned soldiers who are single.
I have a report also from the city of Vancouver relief camp, which states that there were, in that city, 1,273 single men receiving relief last December. Of these 608 were returned soldiers. So that you see a considerable number of our returned soldier's were forced to accept the dole system in this country,-their home for which they fought in France. I have here the report which appeared in a Vancouver paper giving a very sad picture, indeed, of a Canadian returned soldier in New York, who is forced to beg to get a bite to eat. The heading is:	.
Canadian Soldier Homeless and Ill-Clad in New York, gassed and wounded Overseas unable to get employment.
I am not going to take up the time of the House to read this report but I will tell the House that this man was practically incapacitated for work, having been gassed. He tried every possible means of finding work in Canada, eventually hel went to New York, could not find work there, was, forced to be'g for a meal, and wais taken to the court. In the court, he was so ashamed of the fact that he had to beg that he broke down and cried. The judge refused to sentence the man, a collection was taken up and he received some money from the court. That is a very sad case indeed, only one case1, of course, in the United States, but you will see from the report of the figures I have given that when you come to Canada that is not an isolated case'. There were, indeed, very many of these easels during the last winter, and, so far as I can see, there will be more during the winter coming. I have a letter from a returned soldier, from which I will read an extract to show what hope he has
for the next winter, and, incidentally, I hope the' department under which this young man is working will take notice of his grievances, as he states them in this letter and if correct, I am sure the department willl take steps to give relief. He says that he is working as an unskilled labourer on a survey party, under the Dominion government and the wages have been cut from $93 per month to $45 per month which is practically a 50 per cent reduction. This letter iis written to Mr. Russell, President of the G.W.V.A. of Calgary, and was forwarded to me for purposes of investigation. This letter says further:
"The reduction has only been made on the unskilled men. As to the few inquiries I have made I find that the instrument men and cook are getting the same as last year, only that 50 Cents a iday has ibeen taken off and held back till' the end of the season's work, which they .call 'the bonus. I understand that less money was appropriated this year for the work, and it seams to me to save any reduction in their own wages they are making such a dig into ours. Of course, those 600 applications for positions on the survey parties aj stated in the daily papers gave them an idea we would accept anything, like kicking a man when he is down. What with the wear and tear of our clothes through the bush we will have very little to start the winter months with, so our only hope is that McKillop will have his hotel as usual during the coming winter months and there is every prosipect of us being his guests."
The MeKillop referred to here is the. man who is in charge of the relief work in Cailgary, and who keeps a shelter for those who have no means of support. That is a very sad outlook for this returned man as indeed it is for all other men who have to live by their work in these days of industrial depression. It has been said that it i's the duty of the state to take care that the returned men who served in the war receive justice. If this Parliament represents the state, as I presume it does, and if it is the duty of t'he state to make proper provision for its soldiers, then Par-, liament must hold itself responsible for the conditions from which the returned soldiers now suffer. The greatest problem before us to-day, both with regard to the returned soldier and with regard to the working men in general is that of unemployment. So far the Government does not seem to have tackled the problem seriously; nor has a great deal of attention been so far given by the Government to it; in fact it is optimistic according to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) as to the outlook for next winter. I hope his optimism is .well founded but from all evidence that can be gathered the next winter is going
Pensions Committee

to be perhaps worse than the one through which we have passed, and I hope the Government will see its way blear to give us pome real constructive remedy for the unemployment problem that is now facing this country. I do not suppose that unemployment problem can be solved), so far as the soldiers are concerned, without solving it, so far as everybody else is concerned. I think that is a fair view to take, but that shows all the metre need, perhaps, that the problem should be taken into consideration now.
I will mention one thing more. I understand that on the exchange our soldiers had to suffer a loss of something like $8,000,000, this was the difference between money values in France and Great Britain, and between Canada and Great Britain. This means that $8,000,000 was taken from the soldiers of Canada through the exchange system. I hope that when the royal commission is investigating, it will also investigate that matter, and tell us whether that $8,000,000 went into the pockets of the bankers; or did it remain in the treasury of the state? I do not think it is fair in any case that the soldiers should have had to bear that loss. I am not by any means through; but I am not going to take up any more of the time of the House. I want merely to express my sympathy with what has been attempted on behalf bf the returned soldiers, and to set forth that which has been advocated by returned soldiers in my constituency. I trust that this problem will be tackled with all seriousness; that the amendment will be accepted and passed by this House; that the royal commission will investigate every problem that is troubling returned soldiers at the present time; and more especially, the question of unemployment and suggest some constructive remedy therefor; I am sure we all hope sincerely that our returned soldiers will not have to be begging for bread nor find themselves in a position that they cannot support themselves in this country of democracy for which they fought and for which many of them gave up their lives.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to what hon. members have said in reference to the amendment which the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) has placed before the House. Of course, I and all the other members of the committee must realize that the report which I brought down to-day is

nothing more or less than recommendations, suggestions to the House of Commons to adopt or not, as it may think proper. If a majority of members in this House apparently want the scope of this commission extended, there is no reason, so far as I can see, why they should not have that scope extended as they suggest. I have heard members from all sides of the House speak along the same lines. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) recommended an extension before the amendment was moved. In the evening the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), the hon. member for South Cape Breton and Richmond (Mr. Carroll), the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Mc-Giverin), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) and the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) who has just spoken, in fact the majority of those who have spoken, are all apparently in favour of extending the scope of the royal commission to take in, as I understand the matter, all things that it is necessary to inquire into or that the Government would like to inquire into in regard to returned soldiers. That being the case, it does not seem to me to matter what my feelings on the subject may be. Whether I think the extension of the scope of a royal commission is proper or not, I should certainly accept the amendment that is placed before the House. But I would suggest to the hon. member for West Calgary, if he is willing to accede to my request, that he withdraw the amendment and support the main resolution, strictly on the understanding that the Government would include in the powers of the royal commission these suggestions in substance with additions, if necessary, which he has brought forward in the amendment. There is in the amendment only one question which I have been talking over. The question of exchange of has been brought up. That would mean investigating about 400,000 accounts; it would cost an enormous amount to do that, and I would suggest to the hon. member for West Calgary that these few words be taken out of his amendment but that the resolution be extended in such a manner that any matters that the Government thinks should be investigated in regard to the returned soldiers may be placed before the royal commission.


Donald Sutherland: In view of the statements which have been made by the hon.. member for South Cape Breton and

Pensions Committee
Richmond (Mr. Carroll) and some other hon. members, I would ask the chairman of the committee if he thinks it is fair to the other hon. members of thi's House to allow the impression to prevail, which apparently does prevail, that the committee were unanimous in the report which is now before the House?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I did not know that the impression prevailed that the committee was unanimous. I have not given that impression.


Donald Sutherland: As a matter of fact, it was not.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am perfectly well aware that the committee was not; but I have not given the impression that the committee was unanimous. Where did the hon. member get that impression? He did not get it from me.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In view of the suggestion of the mover of concurrence in this report and on the understanding contained in his last remarks, I withdraw the amendment us I feel satisfied that the purpose aimed at will be achieved by adopting that course.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River) :: Mr. Speaker, like the hon, member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), I would hesitate to take up very much of the time of this House on this subject to-night; but I owe it to my constituents to mention one or two matters that have not, perhaps, been dealt with as completely as they would have wished. I am glad that the committee has brought in the report that they have on the question of unemployment; but I am sorry that the committee was not able to go further in recommending some means of meeting that situation, I congratulate the committee on this paragraph:
In. the past, particularly the last two winters, relief has been, given to returned soldiers by means of grants in money and in kind. The committee calls the attention of the House to the fact that such relief will almost with certainty he required during next winter, and desires that the House be fully seized with the importance of taking the necessary immediate measures to assist the unemployed soldiers over what will likely toe another critical period next winter.
That is a very frank statement and a very true one. We all hope for the best; but hope as we may, present conditions do not point to very much alleviation of the unemployment Situation. I would suggest to the Government that they might take into consideration, in this connection, the introduction of some recommendation or some legislation at this session looking towards the holding of an industrial conference during this year, if at all possible. Again, I heartily concur in the committee's recommendations that if possible all unemployment relief be in the form of work and not in the form of doles. I would suggest that in order to prevent the possibility of unemployment recurring next winter, the Government might well make use of the Public Works Department during the season that is now ahead. Let them send a party of engineers scouring the country in search of public works that could be left over until the season of unemployment commences. In that way it would be possible to give more employment than if you use up all those works during the summer. As I said, I am sorry the recommendations of the committee have not been more definite in this matter. I sympathize with the committee; I realize that the immense quantity of material which they have had to handle has prevented the subject being thoroughly considered, and I hope the royal commission will go into this matter.
As regards land settlement, I am earnestly satisfied that the contentions iput forward by Major Barnett, I think it was, as to the impossibility or non-advisability of revaluation are not strong enough. I might point out to the House that he based his statement on the sales of 532 parcels of land and on offers received for a smaller number, about 300. In all, 2,352 parcels of land have been returned or abandoned. I have no doubt that the land resold was in the best districts. Therefore, the lands that have not been sold' are, say in the southern part of my constituency or in that of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner). I agree with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) in this respect, that an enormous quantity of land has been sold to settlers at prices at which that land could not possibly be sold to-day or anything like them. I venture to say that, in the southern part of my constituency, you could buy all the land you wanted for the price of the taxes, or for from $7 to $10 an acre. Many soldiers were settled under that scheme in these districts, and I frankly believe that before this question is solved, the committee in future sessions will come to agree with me that revaluation will have to take place. In the meantime I congratulate the committee on the alleviation which it proposes to meet
Pensions Committee

the situation by the removal altogether of interest for some years. That is an admirable step. In addition to that I would suggest that the regulations be enforced in a very elastic manner. Further loans will probably be necessary. I say this because I know that in my own constituency during the last two years men have not raised one bushel of grain for sale. And returned soldiers have been compelled to slaughter the stock they purchased from the board in order to feed themselves. I venture to say that a great many of these soldier farmers would not have been able to get over the winter had it not been for the relief given by the provincial government of Alberta. Some of these men went to the board in Calgary last fall and submitted their cases, but they were informed at that time that the board could do nothing for them. They had no credit at the banks and none in the stores, and everything they owned was mortgaged to the board. They were penniless, and on asking for some advance from the board they were informed that they could get none. That was the situation with which they were faced then, and it is the situation that will possibly confront them again. We hope not, but we must be prepared to meet it if it does recur; and I would suggest that some arrangement be made for further loans to men who find themselves in such a situation as I have cited. There should also be an "adjustment board" in connection with the Soldier Settlement Board for the purpose of investigating cases where land has been sold to the soldiers at more than its real value. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) mentioned some cases in this connection and I could cite a good many examples in my own constituency to show that the land is not worth the money that has been paid for it. At the present time, at any rate, it is not worth very much and I question if it ever will be, judging from the reports that are coming from the West to-day.
With regard to the question of tubercular patients, I would point out to my impatient friends to the left opposite that our tubercular soldiers when they reach the stage of convalescence are always anxious to go to work again. As soon as they get out of hospital their pension is reduced to the point that they must go to work, and if they work eight or ten hours a day, in a very short time they are troubled with a recurrence of the disease and have to go back to hospital. I should have liked to see further attention given this matter

in the report. The hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) suggested that the whole question of insurance of returned men should be left to the royal commission. He went further, indeed, and stated that all the troubles of the returned soldiers should be submitted to this body. I agree with the hon. gentleman, but I believe that so far as the investigation of the Land Settlement Board itself is concerned, you would require more than a purely judicial commission; you would want to have one or two practical farmers with an understanding of conditions in the West on that commission.
With regard to the canteen funds, I simply wish to have it understood that I reiterate the remarks made by the member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). I would suggest to the House that perhaps the committee had not had drawn to its attention, when they brought in the recommendation that the fund should be used for educational facilities for children of ex-service men, and so forth, that this has already been put into effect by the provincial government of Saskatchewan and, to some extent, in Manitoba as well. The provincial government recognizes that this is a state matter, and I do not think myself that the canteen fund should be used for the purpose proposed, but should continue to be at the disposal of the soldiers.
Now, I sincerely trust that the amendments to the Pensions Act which we skal have to consider in committee will not in any way narrow the scope of the act. I would rather have it left where it was, if it could not be extended. That matter, of course, can be discussed to greater advantage later on when in committee on the amendements. I am glad indeed to know that the chairman of the committee is willing to accept the amendment offered by the hon. member for West Calgary and I congratulate him on his decision to do so.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (East York):: I have read the report that has been submitted by the committee, and in my opinion there is room for a good deal of criticism, constructive and not destructive. What has been running through my mind-and it is constructive in its character-I shall endeavour briefly to state. When war was declared a large number of men rushed to the colours in this country and when the armistice was signed there was a similar rush of men to resume their ordinary avocations as quickly as possible. Some of the men who served in the theatre of war, as we all know, suffered only slight

Pensions Committee
injuries, while others were afflicted with diseases such as trench fever, contracted while in actual service. Most of these men invariably got back to their occupations and were known as discharged soldiers; and whether they were discharged on the short or on the long form is a matter of no consequence for the moment so far as my argument is concerned. Chapter 3, section 3 covers more or less in detail the proposals which the Government have in hand with regard to the discharged soldier. There are quite a number of discharged men who after having been engaged in their avocations for from three weeks to four months have suffered from a recurrence of the diseases that they contracted overseas. The result has been that they have been more or less of a hazard to themselves in their work. Some of them have met with serious accidents, and being discharged .soldiers they have no recourse to the Board of Pension Commissioners, who cannot take care of them. I respectfully submit that cases- of this nature should be given some favourable consideration. I have particularly in mind the case of a man who was discharged and who on resuming his ordinary occupation, which was rather of a dangerous character, had a recurrence of trench fever. He applied to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment for treatment and was receiving treatment as an out-patient of one of the hospitals while carrying on his occupation. During that time his nerves gave way and he unfortunately had an arm cut off. You will readily realize the extreme gravity of such a case as this, which is one that should, I think, be considered by the Government. In my opinion it would be well when the bill is brought down if cases of this kind are provided for instead of leaving them over in abeyance to be dealt with by the royal commission that will be established.


Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo) :: I had intended to speak at some length on this question, Mr. Speaker, but I have been informed by the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) that he is coming out to British Columbia, so I do not think I shall inflict upon the House at this hour of the morning the punishment of listening to what I have to say. I will reserve it until I meet tl__ minister at Kamloops.
, Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford): At this late hour I would hesitate to impose upon the House were it not for the fact that I have been four or five years a member of a committee similar to that whose report is now before Parliament. The work of the committee this year has naturally been somewhat of a review of what has taken place during previous sessions. I have not been able to attend the meetings of the committee as regularly as in past years owing to the fact that I have been a member of two other committees which invariably met on the same day and at the same hour. However, I was present on quite a number of occasions and was impressed with the earnest desire of the committee, and particularly of its chairman, to do everything possible to arrive at an understanding as to the best methods to pursue for the re-establishment of returned soldiers.
When I say that I have been a member of that committee during those years, let me also point out that shortly after the war began in August 1914 during the special war session of this Parliament I had the honour of moving the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to what my views have been from that time down to the present I should like to quote one paragraph from my speech on that occasion which will be found in Hansard of August 18, 1914, when I stated:
The war may he a long and bitter one ; the loss of life is sure to be enormous; suffering and want may came to many who are dependent on those who go to the front, or who may fall in battle. It is therefore the duty of the people of Canada and the government of Canada to make provision for the alleviation of such suffering and want. Would not the tribute we would be called upon to pay be most beggarly when compared with the sacrifice, the tribute of life-blood paid by our country's defenders. There is no sacrifice the occasion demands that the people of Canada are not prepared to make. Let our response to the needs of the Empire be immediate and sufficient.
The sacrifice, suffering and want have surely been even greater than anyone could have anticipated. The war was prolonged for many years, and today we are face to face with the consequences of that struggle. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), who had such a wonderful experience at the front in his capacity as Director of Medical Services overseas, and who had a wide experience also in the South African war. His remarks must be convincing evidence of' the fact that this problem will confront us for many years to come.

Pensions Committee
On the whole the report is a good one and much care has been exercised in its preparation, but there is an appendix to the report with which I do not agree. On the last page of the report you will find the following:
'Supplementary to the foregoing and to form tart thereof is the following:-
Now, my understanding is that this was not a part of the report at all. The committee met on the morning of Friday last and a prepared resolution was submitted. Reference has been made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) to what took place in the committee, and several other members of the committee have referred to the matter, but I would point out that the minutes disclose that the committee sat at 8 p.m. There were two previous meetings which are reported in the proceedings of that date. A report was adopted previously to the meeting which is referred to in this report. On Monday last it may be recalled that I drew the attention of the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment to an article which appeared in the press of that date, and which I contended was an incorrect report of what actually took place. I merely did so to disabuse the mind of anyone that the Great War Veterans' Association had been asking for the appointment of a royal commission to investigate these charges. Charges had been made, it is true, and the committee which was appointed to investigate charges of that kind are evidently running away from them rather than investigating them. The Secretary and President of the Great War Veterans' Association evidently intended and expected that the committee which was appointed to deal with such matters would deal with those charges. That is apparent on the face of the telegram sent broadcast throughout the country to the different branches of the association.


Thomas Langton Church: Why did not the committee deal with those charges?


Donald Sutherland: Perhaps I had better read the telegram which was sent out by Mr. MacNeil.
Following recent disclosures surrounding parliamentary inquiry we openly cnarge Pension Board with contemptible and1 co.d blooded conspiracy to deprive ex-service men of rights previously granted by Parliament.
Mark the words, "previously granted by Parliament."
There has been deliberate concealment, secret regulations pensions and insurance in direct

violation intention of Parliament and deliberate attempt to disguise facts before present parliamentary committee.
An attempt to conceal something from the Parliamentary Committee.
This is culmination unsympathetic policy of increasing severity during recent months.
This policy has set in during recent months so this telegram says.
Chairman committee has consented to re-open question-
What does that mean? It certainly means that the Great War Veterans' Association expected their charges to be investigated by the committee of the House to which these matters were referred. There can be no other interpretation taken from it.
This plot challenges basic rights ex-service men nullifies in principle established privileges and frustrates further re-establ'ishement efforts required.
That is a very plain statement and yet the hon. member for Cape Breton felt it was casting some reflection on the committee. I ask you to read carefully the words of the telegram which was sent out' where do you find in them anything reflect ing upon the committee? The only impres sion that can be gained from it in that respect is that an attempt was made by the Pensions Board to conceal from the committee something which Mr. MacNeil or the Great War Veterans' Association claimed had been done. Is that not true? That being the case, why the necessity for the appointment of a commission? The committee was called together hurriedly on the morning of Friday last. This matter was submitted to them and what was the next move? The next move was an amendment to have Mr. MacNeil brought before the committee and given an opportunity to prove his statement. Was that amendment accepted? You would have expected it to be accepted, but it was not; the resolution was voted down by the committee, though the members broke almost even in the vote. This goes to show that the report now before the House is not by any means a unanimous report; it represents the view of only a little more than half the membership of that committee.


Thomas Langton Church: Was a vote taken?


Donald Sutherland: Several votes were taken; yet there is an attempt to create the impression that this is the unanimous report of the committee. This motion having been voted down, the next move was to adopt the second and final report of the

Pensions Committee
committee, and the next move was to adopt a resolution recommending the appointment of a commission.


Herbert Meredith Marler: If my hon. friend will permit me to interrupt him, I would point out that the second and final report was adopted before the meeting to which he refers, but I do not think he was present at the time.


Donald Sutherland: Before the meeting on Friday?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Before the meeting on Friday the 16th. It was readopted or reconfirmed by the meeting of Friday.


Donald Sutherland: That makes it all the more objectionable. A report was adopted previous to the meeting on Friday last; the second and final report was adopted to be presented to Parliament; I believe the chairman was anxious to have it adopted so that he might place it before the House. But he did not do so, and on Friday the same excuse was offered, and after the report had been re-adopted it was not presented but held over until after Mr. MacNeil had appeared before the committee. What was the use of bringing Mr. MacNeil before the committee after it had adopted a resolution recommending the appointment of a royal commision? Is Mr. MacNeil accused of something? Is he the party against whom a charge has been preferred? Are you going to bring him up for examination for discovery? The Chairman knows that what I am saying is correct. I cannot understand why this-


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not know what my hon. friend is trying to get at. Would he inform us as to that?


Donald Sutherland: I am trying to
bring something before the House that apparently no one has been anxious to bring before it all the afternoon. It is nearly two o'clock in the morning; the Government is evidently determined that this thing shall go through before the House rises. I have been on my feet at least a dozen times in the hope of getting a word or two in, and if I am speaking at two o'clock in the morning it is not through any desire on my part to do so.
Now, what will be the result of the appointment of a commission to investigate this matter? Here is a very serious statement made regarding the men who have suffered in their country's cause. I contend, Sir, that we are not treating these men generously, as the Chairman intimated
in his opening remarks; we are simply attempting to do justice to them, that is all. We cannot do full justice to them; we connot recompense them for the sacrifices they have made. If this report is adopted in its present form, a commission will be appointed and will proceed to call witnesses in the same manner, I suppose, as witnesses were called before the committee. Witnesses have already been examined before the committee under oath, and1 the evidence submitted there is just the kind of evidence that a commission would take.
Now, a reflection has been cast upon the Government, upon the Minister of Finance, in respect to the holding up of applications for insurance. The head of the insurance branch of the department, who appeared before the committee the other night, stated that sixty-four applications for insurance had been held over during recent months. When asked when this rule went into effect, he stated that it was within the last ten weeks. Did that not substantiate the statement made by Mr. MacNeil in his letter-that recently those changes had taken place; that secret instructions had been sent out in regard to the reduction of pensions? It is well known to every member of this House that something has taken place in recent months, because of the number of complaints which we have been receiving from every quarter. That is quite apparent to everybody; yet we are asked to appoint a royal commision to do the very work that was delegated to us as a committee. The first thing the chairman does on that occasion is to come in with a report carefully prepared and ask for the recommending of a royal commission, saying, in effect, "We are going to run away from these charges." Why is that the case?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Why did not my hon. friend, if he is so anxious about the report, attend more meetings in order to help us make the report?


Donald Sutherland: When my hon. friend has attended as many meetings of a similar committee as I have, he will be a good deal older than he is now.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about this committee?


Donald Sutherland: And when he will have exhibited as much interest on behalf of the returned soldiers as I have on these committees, he will do a great deal mors work than he has done this session.
Pensions Committee


Herbert Meredith Marler: The attitude my hon. friend is taking now is not in favour of the returned soldiers at all.


Donald Sutherland: I took my stand in the committee, and I was voted down; 1 have not said anything further in regard to the matter. But I did point out that we were shirking our duties; that we were running away from the work which had been delegated to us.


Mr. CANNON:: I wish to call my hon. friend to order. No member of the House has the right to contend that members of a parliamentary committee, in 'bringing down a report, are shirking their duty or shirking their obligations.


Donald Sutherland: If the evidence before the committee had been published as it took place, there would be no necessity for my making that statement, because 1 made it in the committee.


Lucien Cannon: I would ask for your decision, Mr. Speaker, on the point which I have raised.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I think the point of order is well taken. The hon member has no right to charge any members of the committee-


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker,-


George Newcombe Gordon: -with breach of duty. That is not the motion before the House, and I feel that the hon. member is going beyond his rights.


Donald Sutherland: As a rule, Mr. Speaker, when a point of order is raised, the person to whom it applies has the right to speak to the point of order. This is the first time in my experience that 1 have seen the Speaker take the stand that nothing may be said on the point of order.


Mr. BOIVIN:: The Speaker did not take that stand.


Donald Sutherland: Most assuredly he did take that stand. I wish to point out that there has been a change in the policy in regard to insurance. I have here a summary of the activities of the Government in connection with the Pensions Committee during all these years, and the outstanding feature of the insurance scheme is that no medical examination will be required in order to obtain insurance.


Lucien Cannon: 
George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Lucien Cannon: The Chair has given a decision, and I suppose my hon. friend is subject to the decisions of the Chair the same as we all are.


George Newcombe Gordon: A decision has been given, which has not been received by the hon. member who has the floor.


Mr. BUREAU:: It should be.


Lucien Cannon: He should take it back.


Arthur Meighen: There was no decision on your part, Mr. Speaker, at least I earnestly hope not, that the language "shirking duty" was beyond the pale of parliamentary language. What I understood you to say, and I must admit that it went pretty far even then, was that the hon. member was not speaking to the point in referring to the performance of duties by members of the committee. It is most absurd to say that one is forbidden by the rules of Parliament to say that another member is shirking his duty.


Jacques Bureau: He is imputing motives when he uses that language. I think he is out of order.


Donald Sutherland: If I may be permitted to proceed, I should like to repeat what I have said, that the director of the Insurance branch came before the committee. Mr. MacNeil was also brought before the committee, when there was nothing to be gained by bringing him there, after the committee had decided upon the appointment of a commission, although I am credibly informed that he was not aware of the fact that the committee had decided to recommend the appointment of a royal commission before he appeared. He appeared before the committee and gave his evidence under oath, and my contention as a member of that committee is that the Great War Veterans' Association was justified to the very limit in the statement which was contained in that telegram. Yet in face of that we are asked to consent to the appointment of a royal commission which will delay matters for months. Parliament will not assemble in all probability inside of ten months at least, and consequently there will be no redress for these men during ali that time if the claims which they advance are correct. We do not even know when the report will be submitted. We have not the faintest idea how long it will take. Some hon. members have, in fact, suggested that this committee should probe all the work of the Pensions Board, and there are many

Pensions Committee
other things that it is suggested it should go into, which, of course, would mean not bringing in a report for a long time. For my part, I would much prefer to see the committee of which I was a member fulfill its duties and take this matter up and get to the bottom of it. We have had a whole week or more in order to do so, and while we had three meetings on one day, I presume we will go on to the end of the session now without another meeting of the committee. The second and final report of the committee is now before the House. If this is not a new innovation on the part of the Government to get away from
2 a.m. charges which reflect on members of the Government, then I do not know what to call it. I am sorry to think that the suspicion should go abroad throughout this country uncontradicted, that a change has taken place in the regulations during recent months. The evidence of that goes out in an official document which states that this new ruling went into effect about ten weeks ago.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does my hon. friend know the date of the new regulations?


Donald Sutherland: This question was asked of Major Topp:
Q. How long have these regulations been in effect?-A. These regulations were drawn up by the 'Board of Pension Commissioners about two months oir ten weeks ago, as a suggested procedure for ithe approval of the Minister of Finance.
It goes on to show that as a result of that ruling sixty-four applications for insurance have been held up, and in the meantime several of the applicants have died. My belief has always been that it is the intention of the framers of the law that is the deciding factor with a judge in interpreting a statute, and clearly the intention of Parliament was that the soldiers who were unable to get insurance with the old line companies by reason of their disability should, those of them who were not pensioners, be able to get it in this way. That was clearly the intention of Parliament, and it is clearly indicated because the act provides that no medical examination shall be required in the case of soldiers making application. This regulation has been changed during recent months, and I ask the Government for the sake of their own reputation, and in order to set at rest this suspicion which is now abroad throughout the country in the minds of returned men, to take immediate steps to see that this Pensions Committee is reassembled and carries on its wlork. I
would suggest to the chairman of the committee that this last supplementary report, which has been attached to the main report that was adopted by the committee one or two days before the supplementary report was brought in, be detached from the main report, and that the main report be adopted. So far as I am concerned I desire to place myself on record as being absolutely opposed to the appointment of any such commission as is recommended in this report.


Henri Sévérin Béland: At this late hour it is not my intention to detain the House at any length. I shall simply state the position of the Government in the face of the report which has been laid on the table of the House by the chairman of the committee on Pensions, Soldiers' Insurance and Re-establishment, and also in the face and in the presence of the different opinions which have been expressed throughout this debate. It is, I think, a matter of gratification that such a fine spirit should have pervaded this debate from beginning to end. As a matter of fact, I have not heard any hon. gentleman express complete dissent from the different recommendations which have been submitted in this report. It is true that immediately before it was my privilege to address you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) gave vent to some divergence of opinion as between himself and the majority of the committee, but his divergence was confined to that point which is reported on the last page, and which concerns only the matter of the appointment of a royal commission to investigate certain charges which have been levelled against the Board of Pension Commissioners. Before I proceed further, I may state that I am credibly informed that Mr. MacNeil, the secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association, is in sympathy with the appointment of a board of investigation to inquire into the charges which he has brought. I will go one step further, Mr. Speaker, and I will give you the opinion of the chairman of the Board of Pension Commissioners on this very subject of investigation. I think it was the day after the press of this country published the allegations which have been levelled at the Board of Pension Commissioners, the chairman of that board sent me a letter, as minister of the department in which he served. I will quote only a couple of paragraphs from the letter, which are self-explanatory. The letter reads:
Pensions Committee

The officials of the G. W. V. A. charge the Board of Pension Commissioners with contemptible and cold-blooded conspiracy to deprive exservice men of rights previously granted by Parliament.
The chairman continues:
There are other charges, also, which you will find in the clippings enclosed.
And he concludes the letter with the following words:
Those are very serious charges, and, writing on behalf of the board, I would ash that a Royal Commission be appointed to investigate them.
Yours very truly,
John Thompson (Chairman).


John Arthur Clark: What is the date of that letter?


Henri Sévérin Béland: June 16th. I think that is the date on which the committee held its last meeting. I have read the stenographic report of the meeting of the committee on the evening of June 16th. Mr. MacNeil was heard, and heard extensively, on the subject of the charges. On the other hand, the representatives of the Board of Pension Commissioners, the chairman himself, and the director of Medical Services, have also been examined on those charges, and, as far as I can make out, no decision could have been reached there and then, and when I found in the report that the recommendation was made to the House that a commission should be appointed by the Government to investigate those charges, I was of opinion that the position taken by the committee, under the circumstances, was entirely and absolutely commendable, but I have not had anything to do, need I say, with the proceedings, or the actions, or the recommendations of this committee. I do not think I have addressed one single member of the committee since they have begun their arduous work. On this very subject, Mr. Speaker, I may congratulate not only the chairman, but all the members of the committee on their work. I have read the reports as they came out day after day. It has been my privilege, in previous years, to sit on all those committees appointed by Parliament to study the problems of re-establishment. I know how long, tedious and arduous those duties of attending the sittings of that committee are, and I believe that the members who composed the committee this year have, perhaps, outdone their predecessors in this regard.
Many suggestions have been offered to the House, or to the Government, in the

carrying out of the recommendations contained in the report. I have listened, with a great deal of attention and interest, especially to the hon. member from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) and also the hon. member from Kingston (Mr. Ross), both of whom, with many other hon. members, have been very closely connected with the veterans on the other side. The suggestions on treatment, on re-establishment generally, on the care that should be given to the so-called problem cases, like tubercular cases, or the cases of the blind, and the cases of those who are called substandard, and whose disabilities due to war service are not so large as to entitle them to the pension that would be required for their maintenance, will receive the very careful attention and consideration of the Government, with a view to meeting them in a most generous spirit. The question, I think, of paramount importance amongst the questions discussed this evening is that of unemployment. We cannot overlook the fact that there is still a good deal of unemployment in Canada. It is less than it has been, as the figures that have been published since Januaray last will indicate. The number of unemployed in this country has been reduced from 300,000 to 43,000. This is a very satisfactory reduction. With respect to unemployment, however serious the situation may be in Canada, it is still much more serious and alarming in Great Britain. Would you think for one moment that a cry of joy comes out of every home in Great Britain, because the number of unemployed now has come below the figure of one million and a half? If you consider the population of this country, in relation to the population of the United Kingdom, you will find that it is about one to five, and if we had unemployment in Canada on the same scale as they have it in Great Britain, you would have in this country 200,000, at least, unemployed at the present time. What remedy has been applied! in the United Kingdom to alleviate the situation? Would you think that the government of Great Britain had resorted to some kind of government employment? Not at all. I may inform you Mr. Speaker that from November 1920 to this day, eighty five million pounds sterling have been paid out by the government of the United Kingdom in alleviating unemployment, and extending relief to the unemployed. Eighty five million pounds sterling would give you over three hundred million dollars and provision has been made now in the

Pensions Committee
United Kingdom for the expenditure, from now on till the Month of July 1923, of fifty one million pounds sterling, which reduced to dollars, would mean about two hundred and fifty million. But that is not to provide industrial reestablishment-not in the least. It is simply to assist those needy families of Great Britain who are suffering from unemployment-to give them some relief, some food, some shelter and some clothes. It is a / question of dollars and cents.


John Arthur Clark: Does the minister approve that policy?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I was coming to that. If statesmen of the ability of the present rulers of Great Britain found that it was, after all, the best way in which you could relieve unemployment, would we be justified in adopting any other policy? I do not say that I should remain idle; I do not say that the members of this Government and the members of the House of Commons should disinterest themselves entirely from the problem by saying: "We will' simply pay out the money." Far from that; but I make an allusion to conditions in Great Britain only to draw hon. members' attention to the fact that paying out money simply for relief of unemployment is not to be condemned and absolutely thrust aside with a wave of the hand. I do not say that we should remain idle. Far from that; I think we should endeavour to devise means by which this unemployment, however large or however small it may be, may be entirely disposed of in a satisfactory manner by some kind of employment. With that in view, I have already taken steps through the officials of the department over which I have the honour to preside, in order that conferences might be held with the Canadian Red Cross Society with a view of establishing some industrial establishments of Some kind, at least to find employment for those returned soldiers who are disabled or who are in such a physical condition as will preclude them from entering the open labour market. Some results have already been produced, not as regards employment, but as regards devising some plans; those plans will mature with a few weeks or a few months, and provision will be made in the supplementary estimates in that connection.
I know I should not at this hour delay the House any longer. My attitude towards the returned man is well known, land 1 need not say that I do and shall approach all these problems in a most sympathetic
spirit. Anything that can be done to relieve the suffering of the returned man has been done and it will be done in the future, that is anything that is compatible with the financial resources of the country.


Thomas Langton Church: Why was the evidence taken before this committee not published the same as the evidence taken before the Railway Rates Committee. The conclusions that have been reached now are very important; but why was the evidence not printed for the information of the members? If we do not have it, when this report is being discussed, we cannot very well discuss the conclusions.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand my hon. friend's objection. I have sat on this committee during the last three or four years. As was very well pointed out by the chairman of the committee (Mr. Marler), a committee has two absolutely different kinds of sittings. One kind is the sitting that is held for the purpose of taking evidence of witnesses who are called before the committee and who are subjected to interrogation by members of the committee. The other kind is the executive sessions which take place after all evidence has been taken, for the purpose of discussing the evidence that has been submitted and drafting a report. That has been the custom in the past for the parliamentary committee on pensions, and I think it has been the custom with every other committee. There is not that I know of the least desire on the part of any member of that committee to conceal anything that has taken place. Why should that exist, I wonder? If time permitted I could go over some of the subjects that have been approached very ably by hon. gentlemen this evening; but the hour is late, and all I can say in conclusion is that, if the House adopts the report of this committee as presented by the chairman, we shall try, as a Government, to carry those recommendations out to the best of our ability with a view of reconciling the public interest of Canada with the interest of the returned men.


Donald Sutherland: While this report which was adopted by the committee two days before the supplementary report was adopted, was held in abeyance, was the minister consulted in regard to the matter of holding it up and as to the advisability of making such a recommendation as is attached to the final report which was adopted and then afterwards had this recommendation attached to it?
Pensions Committee


Henri Sévérin Béland: My answer will be
very simple and direct. I was never consulted by the chairman or any member of that committee on any work at all that they were carrying on, and I never knew anything of the report until it was published.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is the attitude of the minister towards the amendment which I moved, and which I withdrew at the request of the mover of concurrence in the report (Mr. Marler), on the understanding that the suggestions contained in the amendment would be approved by the Government and made part of the report?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The answer is "yes."


Mr. GRAHAM:: All except the part referring to exchange, as, I believe, was understood.


Henri Sévérin Béland: All that was understood between the chairman of the com-siittee (Mr. Marler) and my hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) in the presence of the House this evening. Is that satisfactory?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: I have an amendment that I should like to move.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is out of order. He has already spoken and he cannot move an amendment.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to move
an amendment that the report be sent back to the committee with instructions to amend it by providing that in cases of total disability, the blind be paid a straight annual pension of $900 in addition to any bonus granted to them.


George Perry Graham: Of course, as the hon. gentleman, perhaps, is not aware, he could not himself, having spoken once, move that amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: I declare the amendment out of order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 177 (from the Senate), respecting a patent of Simon W. Farber.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 178 (from the Senate), respecting a patent of Daniel Herbert Schweyer. -Mr. Maclean (Halifax).

Bill No. 179 (from the Senate), respect' ing certain patents of the Holophane Glass Company.-Mr. McMaster.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (for the Minister of Finance): Moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution respecting the raising of special loans.
He said: The subject matter of this resolution having been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, he has been pleased to give his assent thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (for the Minister of Finance) : Moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution to amend the Pension Act, 1919.
He said: The subject matter of this resolution having been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, he has been pleased to give his assent thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia) moved that the House do tomorrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
He said: The subject matter of this resolution having been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, he has been pleased to give his assent thereto,
Thomas Langton Church: Many hon. members are away and it is not proper to railroad these resolutions through,. They are important.



RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution to repeal section 10 of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.
He said: The subject matter of this resolution having been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, he has been pleased to give his assent thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House do

Income War Tax Act
to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution to amend the Oleomargarine Act, 1919.
He said: The subject matter of this resolution having been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, he has been pleased to give his assent thereto.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 2.30 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, June 22, 1922.