1917-09-19

QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Under what Act of Parliament, Order in Council or other authority are French-English signs put up at a number of post offices outside of the province of Quebec?
2.	Under what authority are purely French signs put up on the post offices at Verner, Ont., Edam, Sask., and other places outside Quebec province?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Under instructions of the late Postmaster General the Hon. Mr. Casgrain, that English signs only should be used in exclusively English communities, French signs only in exclusively French communities, and both French and English signs in mixed communities.
2.	Answered by number one. In Edam instructions were that both French and English signs be used, and English and French signs were issued. As to Verner the inspector's report was that it was located in a purely French community.


MAXIMUM OR FIXED PRICE OF WHEAT.
*Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Is $2.21 a bushel for No. 1 hard wheat a maximum or a fixed price to growers?
2.	What commission is the elevator or commission agent allowed to charge?
3.	Is commission charged to Canadian dealers the same as to export purchasers?
4.	How many commission profits can he added from purchasers and consumer, or from miller to baker?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I may say, in answer to question No. 1, that the fixed price per bushel for No. 1 hard wheat is $2.21. The answer to No. 2 is that such commissions and fees as are allowable to elevators that come under the Act, and are usual in exchanges to members of exchanges, have not been interfered with. The answer to. No. 3 is that Canadian dealers and export purchasers are on the same footing. It is impossible to answer No. 4, as it would all depend upon the transmigrations of the wheat from the Dominion following the seller until it reached the purchaser, but a farmer can cart his wheat to the loading platform, put it on the car, send it to Fort William, and pay no fees or commisions of any kind. If he uses the elevators he will pay the elevator fee, an I if he uses middlemen, he will pay them their commission.
OFFICERS OF NAVAL SERVICE AT .	HALIFAX.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond) moved:: For a return giving the names, rank, pay, nature and date of employment and previous service of (a) all officers employed in or connected with the Naval Service at Halifax, including patrol service; (b) all civilians appointed since November, 1911. Also giving a list of the number, names and rate of pay of returned soldiers or sailors included in (a).
He said: I beg to amend this notice of motion, in accordance with the understanding arrived at with the Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Hazen), by striking out all the words 'afteT the word "service" in the fourth line. I wish to strike out the part of the question which asks for the names of the men and returned soldiers. My hon. friend the Minister of Naval Affairs spoke of the difficulty in obtaining the names, which would make a very large list.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Is the amendment in accordance with the understanding arrived at between my hon. friend and the Minister of Naval Affairs?


George William Kyte: That is my understanding, but if there should be any misunderstanding, I do not ask that the return he brought [Mr. Doherty. 1
down. I merely wish to have the motion passed, so that if the minister or his officials find no objection to it the return may be brought down.
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN: I will let the motion pass with that understanding, although I would prefer that the hon. gentleman should do as I suggested the other day, have given me the form in which he proposed to have the motion submitted.


George William Kyte: That is the form.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but I asked the hon. gentleman to give it to me so that I might submit it to the deputy minister, who would know much more about it than I do, and I would have come hack with the information. But I am content to let it pass as amended.


George William Kyte: I entirely overlooked the
matter. I intended communicating it to the Prime Minister, but it escaped my mind.
Motion as amended agreed to.


OFFICERS OF NAVAL SERVICE AT SYDNEY, N.S.
George William Kyte: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) moved:: *
That the following Orders in Council, laid on the Table on the first day of February, 1917, foe approved:
Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between 1st January, 1916, and the 31st December, 1916, in accordance with the provisions of section 77 of "The Dominion Lands Act," chapter 20, 7-8 Edward VII.
Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between the 1st January, 1916, and the 31st December, 1916, in accordance with the provisions of "The Forest Reserves and Park Act," section 19, of chapter 10, 1-2 George V.

Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between the 1st January, 1916, and the 31st December, 1916, in accordance with the provisions of sections 6, and 2, chapter 45, 3-4 George V, 1913, entitled "The Railway Belt Water Act."
Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette and In the British Columbia Gazette between 1st January, 1916, and the 31st December, 1916, in accordance with provisions of subsection (d) of section 38 of the regulations for the survey, administration, disposal and management of Dominion Lands-within the 40-mile Railway Belt in the Province of British Columbia.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Will the hon. minister explain these Orders in Council to the House? We have forgotten what they were.


William James Roche: I am afraid that will take a long time. There are several dozens of them. The Orders in Council were laid upon the table of the House, in accordance with the provisions of the statute during the first fortnight of the session, and, as a irulte, it is a formal matter to have Parliament approve of them.
If I were to enter into an explanation of every Order in Council passed, I am afraid that we should not have much time for any other work.	*


Wilfrid Laurier: I have heard long discussions upon some of these Orders in Council in times past. I am quite prepared to believe that they are all right, but I should like to know what they refer to. For instance, the following Orders in Council are referred to in my hon. friend's motion:
Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between 1st January, 1916, and the 31st December, 1916, in accordance with the provisions of section 77 of "The Dominion Lands Act," chapter 20, 7-8 Edward VII.
I am sure that no member of the House except the minister himself knows what these Orders in Council are about. If my hon. friend will tell us in a general way what they are, we shall be satisfied.


William James Roche: I agree that unless members of the House had looked up the Orders in Council as they were laid upon the Table, they would not be acquainted with them. I shall give an explanation of some of them.
P.C. 3093. Order in Council, 6th January, 1916. This order applies to Dominion lands within the railway belt mainland, in the province of British Columbia. Provision has been made by previous orders of the 17th of October, 1914, and the 19th of June, 1915, for reckoning as residence spent on a homestead the time of an entrant on active
military service, who made entry prior to enlistment, and for the issue of patent to such homesteader if disabled, or to his legal representative in the event of death.
This order provides that in case of an entry made after enlistment, or date of recall to the colours, that such entry may be protected during the continuance of military service, and for three months after discharge.
Similar provisions to the above have been passed under the authority of the Dominion Lands Act. The Dominion Lands Act does not apply to the railway belt in the province of British Columbia, which is governed by regulations passed by the Governor in Council, under authority of chapter 56, R.S.C.
P.C. 217. Order in Council, 4th February, 1916. This order applies to Dominion lands within the railway belt mainland, in the province of British Columbia. This order may be divided into two parts.
1.	It extends to Dominion lands in the railway belt, British Columbia, the provisions of Order in Council of the 26'th August, 1908, which provides that homestead entries taken up under the Dominion lands Act may be made by proxy.
2.	It provides that proxy entries made for Dominion lands in the railway belt, by any person serving with the forces of Great Britain or any of her Allies, is to have the same standing as if it had bean made in person.


Wilfrid Laurier: What about
the Orders in Council with respect to the Forest Reserves and Park Act?


William James Roche: This Order in Council covers a number of amendments in the details of the forest reserve regulations which were found to be necessary after they had been in operation for a little over two years. The amendments make better provision for dealing with fire, provide for making more clear certain portions of the provisions of the regulations in regard to timber permits, for extending for not more than one year the time of a timber sale where it is considered in the public interest, to make clearer some of the provisions in regard to grazing, and to provide specially for cases where cattle graze for part of a season on the forest reserve and for the remainder of the season on lands outside, for slight amendments to the hay permit regulations so as to prevent confusion with the regulations on Dominion lands outside of the forest reserves, and for -extending the right to a permit for a period not to exceed five

years where improvement of the meadow is made by the permittee by drainage or otherwise; for altering the regulations in regard to fishing so as to make them more fully in agreement with the general fishery regulations.
Some regulations are also made by Order in Council in regard to Dominion lands adjacent to waterfalls on the Winnipeg river. Some time ago we changed the Dominion Lands Act so that in the future lands adjacent to water-powers should be leased, not sold. This Order in Council refers to ' mines and minerals under sudh lands adjacent to water-powers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: I wish to call the attention of the Government to the following letter which has been circulated in connection with the Military Service Act. The letter is in French; I shall lead the English translation:
(Translation.)
Ottawa, September 11th, 1917.
Dear sir:-
I htve the pleasure to inform you that the regulations made under the Military Law exempt the farmers, their families and industrials in good faith.
I have at last succeeded to win my point, and it is only justice.
You can without any fear, whatever, present jour unm ivied sons to the Tribunals. Instructions are given according to what I now tell jou.
I hope the farmers will do their utmost for the largest production of all that is necessary to feed the populations.
With my best wishes, believe me,
Yours truly,
J. H. Rainville.
This letter has been sent by the Deputy Speaker of the House to a large number of farmers in Quebec province, especially in the county of Chambly-Vercheres. I wish to know from the Government whether the statements contained in this letter are true, whether regulations have been made along the line indicated therein and whether the Deputy Speaker of the House has been authorized to make known these regulations before they have been communicated to Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not follow very carefully the reading of the letter as my hon. friend gave it. My impression is that the regulations have not yet been 
fully completed. Doubtless the hon. gentleman who wrote the letter is giving his impression of what the regulations may be. However, I shall look at the letter as it appears in Hansard and, if necessary, speak again on the subject.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it the intention of the Government to pass regulations exempting any particular classes of British subjects from military service?


Robert Laird Borden: The proposed
regulations will come to us from the Military Service Council, with the approval of the Central Appeal Judge. They have not yet been presented to the Government; therefore I do not know whether any such regulation as my right hon. friend suggests is to be submitted to us.


QUEBEC ELECTORAL LISTS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE (Montreal, St. James):: I desire to ask the Secretary of State (Hon. Arthur Meighen) if it is the intention of the Government to have electoral lists printed according to law? I quote section 15 of the Dominion Elections Act:
It shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, immediately upon receipt by him of any such certiflil copy of a list of voters, to cause it to he printed by the King's Printer, and he shall thereafter retain such certified copy of record in his office.
The electoral list for the city of Montreal, which was revised in January, lias been sent by the registrar of the city of Montreal to the clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The list, which is to be the basis of the list that would be used according to the new Act is in force and should have been printed-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I will explain.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is not in order in proceeding to make any argument. If he chooses to ask a question, that is permissible. I feel like allowing more latitude now, because there is a possibility that this session may terminate some day; otherwise I would insist upon this and similar questions going on the Order Paper.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I want to make my point very clear. In view of section 16 which says:
Immediately after printing such list, the King's Printer shall send by registered mail twenty copies thereof to the sitting member for

the electoral district to which the list belongs, and twenty copies to the defeated candidate at the last Dominion election therein.
Is the Government going to provide-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member can put a simple question which will embrace the whole matter


Louis Audet Lapointe: I am going to
ask a question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member can
ask: Does the Government intend to follow the provisions of the electoral law?


Louis Audet Lapointe: I said I wanted to emphasize my question. There are different ways in which one can


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. Unless the hon-rnember puts ihis question, I shall ask him to resume his segit.
Mr. I,. A. LAPOINTE : Is it the intention [DOT] of the Government to send out to the candidate, or to the defeated candidate, or to the members for the different constituencies of the city of Montreal the list which they have a right to be put in possession of according to the law? That is my question.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Secretary of State):: I need scarcely say that, whatever the law is, it will be fully complied with, but the hon. member should observe that the section which he read, and which he stated to be section 16 of the Act, is included in part I of the Act, and, under the War-time Elections Act, part I is suspended for this election. Consequently what he reads is not the law in so far as it appertains to the coming election. The lists, however, for the province of Quebec are to be used subject to well defined modifications and the lists for that province, that is the provincial lists, I understand, can be obtained, from the custodians on payment of a small fee. Those, however, are not the lists that will be used in the Dominion election. The modifications referred to have first to take place, but the War-time Elections Act provides that the list finally to be used shall be supplied to the different candidates at the dates mentioned in the Elections Act, both when completed by the 'enumerators and when revised.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Another question. I want to find out from the Secretary of State if the War-time Elections Act has any retroactive effect.


Arthur Meighen: No; it has no retroactive effect.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Then we have a right to have our lists.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


COUNTY COURT JUDGE, DISTRICT NO. 6, NOVA SCOTIA.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: Has any decision been reached by the Government regarding the appointment of a county court judge for district No. 6, Nova Scotia?


Robert Laird Borden: The recommendation was sent to His Excellency some days ago. I presume it has been approved, but I am not quite sure. The Minister of Justice does not happen to be in his place at present. I am. now informed that the recommendation has been approved. The gentleman recommended for the appointment is Mr. Daniel McNeil, Kb., of Inverness.


EXHIBITION OF WAR TROPHIES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: May I be permitted to draw the attention of members of the House to the extensive collection of trophies of the war which have been presented to the Government of Canada by the President of the French Republic and by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? It might be noted that the collection of trophies includes other smaller articles which have been in part acquired as gifts from individuals and in part acquired at trifling outlay. Part of this collection was exhibited last week in Ottawa for the benefit of the Canadian Red Cross Society and was visited by considerably over 20,000 persons. I have made arrangements that this exhibition, which is in Lansdowne park, shall be open to the members of this House and of the Senate during the remainder of the week, and I hope many of them will take advantage of the opportunity of seeing those interesting objects. I took occasion the other morning myself to go very early and spend fifteen or twenty minutes in looking at this collection, and I was very amply repaid and should have liked to be able to devote a much longer time to the purpose.
The collection includes an armed biplane which has been in service in France and which, I believe, has been twenty or thirty times across the German lines; two of the famous "seventy-five" French field guns; a large gun captured at Vimy Ridge. That gun is very interesting because it bears on

it the obvious marks of a direct hit during that action. The collection also includes several types of machine guns, trench mortars, anti-aircraft guns, a complete range of shells and thousands of other objects. I should not omit to allude to the collection of posters, proclamations and prints of all the belligerent nations, I think, which illustrate the appeals made to the people of the several nations of the Allies and enemy nations as well. One very interesting poster, which is to be found amongst those on exhibition is an original poster announcing the condemnation and death of Edith Cavell.
I should fail in my duty if I did not, on this occasion, express the very warm appreciation of the people of Canada and their Government for the generosity of the French republic in donating those articles' to Canada, and in assuming the heavy charges incidental to conveying them to this country. It should be added that only a portion of the collection has yet reached Canada. The larger trophies from the British naval, and military authorities have not yet arrived, but I am sure hon. gentlemen will find the collection most instructive, and I hope that arrangements may be made so that those trophies can >be seen by the people of all parts of the Dominion.


WAGES OF EMPLOYEES OF RAILWAY COMPANIES.
Robert Laird Borden: That the House do now proceed to Public Bills and Orders for the purpose of taking up Order No. 21, Third Reading of Bill No. 103.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: That Bill No. 103, concerning the payment of salaries or wages of employees of railway companies be read the third time.
He said:	I have still strong hope that
the Railway Bill, as passed by the House of Commons, will be passed by the Senate, although as I explained yesterday, some of the clauses are found to be very controversial there, and, in consequence, a great deal of delay has been entailed. I think it is desirable that this Bill should be read the third time and sent to the Senate with the amendments which were passed last evening. If the Senate should pass the Railway Bill, they need not concur in this Bill, because all those amendments are covered by the Railway Bill as it passed the House of Commons.

If, on tlie other hand, the Senate should fail to pass the Railway Bill, then I have strong hope that it will accept this Bill with the amendments which we have added to it, so that the provisions which are properly regarded as very important by the railway employees in this country may be brought into force.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Last night the. Minister of Customs, who was leading the House, told us that if we reported this Bill it could stand for third reading until we ascertained if the Railway Bill was going through the Senate. If the Railway Bill is going through the Senate, there is no reason why we should give this Bill a third reading. If the Senate would just leave the Franchise Act where it is, and devote their attention to the Railway Bill, we might get that measure through.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, .Bill read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. D. Stewart in the Chair.
Pensions payable to militiamen, and on active service, as follows:	Northwest Rebellion, 1885,
$14,000 ; general, $30,000-$44,000.
Mr. REID:: I have received from Mr. J. W. Borden, Paymaster-General, the following memorandum on this item, which stood for explanation:
Ottawa, 18th September, 1917. The Honourable J. D. Reid,
Minister of Customs,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:-
I am advised by Mr. Forsythe, Clerk of Estimates, that you require information in regard to an amount of $44,000 that was placed in the Main Estimates of 1917-18, to cover pensions payable to the militia men on active service, Northwest Rebellion, 1885, $14,000, and general, $30,000.
This may he explained by reference to pages P90 and P91 of the Auditor General's Report for the year 1915-16, from which it will bo seen for that year pensions for the Northwest Rebellion, 1885, were $13,581, and for miLitia pensions generally, $7,582.
The increased amount for the latter class of pensioners was estimated on account of the large number of militia men, who were on guard in Canada, and whose pensions would he payable out of this appropriation. There was no way to clearly estimate the amount, and it was thought that $30,000 would cover any possible pensions which might become payable.
Yours truly,
J. W. Borden,
A/A. & P.M.G.


Mr. OLIVER:: I did not know that there were pensions payable in respect of the Northwest Rebellion except for disability.
Mr. REID [DOT] Our Pensions Act has reference only to soldiers who have enlisted for service overseas. There are men who have been wounded or injured on home guard duty, and any pensions that are granted to these men appear in this item, and not under the regular pensions vote.


Frank Oliver: I do not understand it at all. One part of the minister's explanation was that pensions to men who had served in the Northwest Rebellion and had suffered physical disability, not being covered by the regular pensions vote, required a special vote. That I can easily understand. But I do not recall that the amount of pensions in respect of physical disabilities incurred in connection with the Northwest Rebellion is nearly* so large an amount as this in the item. I do not understand my.hon. friend's reference to pensions payable because of home guard service. I do not object to the payment of pensions that we owe, but I should like to know what we are paying these pensions for.


John Dowsley Reid: There are two big pension items still to be discussed, and perhaps we could put this item through, and allow discussion on it to take place on either of the two other items, when the officials of the department will be here.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton that the House ought to know upon what terms these pensions are being paid. The essential basis of a claim to a pension in connection with the Northwest Rebellion or any other service is that physical disability should have been incurred. The minister speaks of a pension arrangement for the encouragement of men who have not volunteered for overseas service in the present war, hut have been employed on home service. The minister ought to tell us under what regulations these pensions are being paid. We have a Pensions Board, constituted after careful consideration by a committee of the House, which drafted the conditions, which were afterwards promulgated by an Order in Council, under which men who had gone overseas were entitled to a pension. If there is an Order in Council providing for the payment of pensions for home service, the House ought to know about it. I have not heard of it before.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, men on home service are paid under the Militia Act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Under the Militia
Act?


John Dowsley Reid: Under the Militia Act. This $20,000 was increased on account of so many more pensions that would be necessary because of the home guard. That was the explanation, as I supposed, but, as I stated a minute ago, we will probably 'be an hour or so on these pensions, and I will take the matter up with the officials, and be in a position to give full information in regard to it before we leave the subject.
Mr. (MACDONALD:	I would like the
minister to obtain from his officials a list of those who are now receiving pensions in connection with the Northwest Rebellion, and also a copy of the conditions under which those pensions are paid. I would also like to get a statement of those who are receiving pensions on account of disabilities sustained in home service. I see no reason why there should be any such large amount as $30,000 provided for pensions for men who are on home service, because they are not engaged in any enterprise involving danger to life and limb. Any disability they might sustain would prohalbly be the result of accident. I think we should have some further information on the subject.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not agree with the hon. member fox Pictou that pensions should not he paid to those on home service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not say that. I would simply like to know the conditions under which the minister is undertaking to pay them. I fancy there may be conditions under which, a man might get a pension, and I think those conditions should be before us so that the House and the country may know what they are. A man engaged in home service is not engaged in an enterprise that would endanger life or limb. It seems to me any pension granted to him would be as compensation, more or less, for accidental injury.


John Dowsley Reid: That is right. I will have the information for my hon. friend very shortly.
Pensions-European War, $8,000,000.


Mr. PROULX:: At the 'beginning of the session the Prime Minister told us that a Pensions Bill would he introduced. Has the Government abandoned its intention of doing this?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. We are not going to pass a Pensions Act this session. The Pen-

sions Act will remain over until the meeting of the new Parliament.	-


Edmond Proulx: Will the regulations be changed or enlarged? There are certain regulations now governing the Board of Pensions Comimiasioiners, amid there are cases which are not met by those regulations. 1 had an instance of this in my constituency last summer, the case of a foster-parent. I brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister early in the session, and he -said a Pensions Bill would be brought down, and that it would go before a special committee, and that I might lay the case before that committee. Does the minister know whether it is the intention of the Government to change the regulations?


John Dowsley Reid: The regulations have been enforced by the Pensions Board up to the present time. I could not say whether it would become necessary to change them between now and the meeting of the next Parliament. They will not be changed unless there are some cases which really must he disposed of. No doubt cases will arise, such as the hon. member far Prescott (Mr. Proulx) has stated, that cannot be dealt with by the Pensions Board. The present Pensions Board has Ml charge of the enforcement of the pension regulations, which regulations were prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Committee of the House last session. If there are oases which require the amending of the regulations, and .such change is recommended by the Board of Commissioners, of course the matter would be given every consideration.


Mr. NESBITT:: If I remember correctly, the Prime Minister stated a short time ago that he would not amend the Pensions Bill this year, but that the Government would pass an Order in Council increasing the pensions on a percentage basis. Will the minister tell us what the percentage was, and has the Order in Council been passed?


John Dowsley Reid: The Order in Council has not been passed as yet.


Frank Oliver: 
John Dowsley Reid: I agree that everything should be done that can be done .for those who have served at the front or who have been injured or' whose families have suffered from their being at the front. It was with that object in view that the joint committee took the question up last session. They came to certain conclusions which have been adopted and put in force. The pension list is going to be a very large item. It is increasing by leaps and bounds as the war proceeds and if this war is to last a long time the pension list will be very large. But the question is an important one and it should receive the fair consideration of this Housje. (The .conclusion wihich has been arrived at is that the matter should be left over until next session for final decision. In the meantime the Government will take the matter up and do what they think is right to put it in proper shape; and it will carry on the work until the House meets again. Not having had time to prepare a proper pension Bill or to go into the question this session, we are just asking for a vote such as we have put in the estimates in order to pay the pensions that it is now necessary to pay from day to day.


Mr. PARDEE:: There is a matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the Government and that is the system of paying sums of $100 or less to men injured and who are classed as under twenty per cent fit. Several cases have come to my notice in which this system has worked the very greatest hardship. Perhaps being under twenty per cent fit is not always a real disability but there are cases where men who have been adjudged under twenty per cent who are possibly not able to do a day's work and who will not be for a long time to come. A case was brought to my attention last week in which a man was adjudged to be under twenty per cent fit; he received $75 and that is all he will get. The man is practically disabled; he will never be capable of doing a day's woik again. That is one of the provisions of the Act that needs amending.
My own opinion is that any man. who cornea back here and who is found twenty per cent unfit, but permanently injured, and who is not as good a man as he was when he left, should not be given a maximum payment of $100, but he should be *awarded a pension by the State. I believe there are some hon. gentlemen on. the other side of the House who agree with me. Any
man who has served, and who comes back less fit than he was when he went away, is entitled to be taken care of by the State 60 long as he lives if he requires that care. It is a simple matter of justice and humanity on our part. I would like to present that view to the Government as strongly as I can,
I would also like to ask the Government whether or not there is any intention to adopt -an insurance scheme in connection with the pension system. I 4 p.m. understand in the United States they have a method of insurance which is carried on by a deduction from the allowance of the pensioner of a certain amount per month, the Government paying the difference between the amount deducted and the amount necessary to carry the premium. That was somewhat discussed when we had the commission of inquiry in the hospitals matter. No agreement or decision was arrived at because we did not seem, to have the necessary information to enable us to become fully seized of all the aspects of the matter. It would appear to me to be a very reasonable thing to do, and I hope that between now and the next session of Parliament the Government will take the matter up and see if some such scheme can be devised so that the men and their dependents will feel that they will be taken care of and that later on the families of soldiers will receive .an amount increased to the extent of the insurance. It would give the returned soldier a comfortable feeling to know that, while a certain small amount was taken from his pension and the balance of the premium was made up by the State, his dependents would later on reap the benefit.


George Green Foster: There is before the United States Congress at the present time a Bill, or Bills, dealing with the matter. The legislation which comes out of Congress will afford very valuable information for the consideration of the Government between now and the time of meeting of the next Parliament. I .have every sympathy with this system of insurance as one method at least by which that proper provision can be made for ou~ soldieis who *have gone overseas and that may be taken as one element or factor. I do not know whether there has been any extensive system of insurance adopted by any other country, but that matter will be looked into.


Mr. CURRIE:: As one interested in soldiers, I have made it my business to follow up eases where complaints were made in reference to pensions. With reference to the subject that was brought up about a man serving at home, I know of one case in which a man whilst training for the expeditionary force contracted appendicitis. He was operated on and died, His wife and children .should and are receiving a pension. I think the appropriation referred to in the first item called would be to provide pensions for cases of this kind. I know another case where a very strong healthy young soldier was on a march in Canada, and slipped on a stone in the road, sustaining injuries with the result that his foot had to be amputated just above the ankle. Cases of that kind occur constantly. The Pension Board's policy as far as I can see, is one for which I have nothing but commendation. We should look at the matter in a purely non-partisan manner. I know many cases which have been dealt with promptly. Colonel Labatt served at the front as an officer, and his sympathies are entirely with the wounded returned soldier. Considering the tremendous amount of work he has undertaken in organizing that department, and considering the great numbers of cases which have come before him, the work the board has done has been marvellous. If a case is a clear one, arid a pension is required, there is no delay whatever. In some cases, questions may arise as -to whether pensions should be granted or not on the amount. At first there was great difficulty in getting these matters threshed out, but now the Pension Board has officers in various localities, and if complaint is made at the Pension Board that the pensions are necessary or inadequate, or anything of that kind, an officer is immediately sent to investigate the matter, and if any irregularities are found relief is immediately given. It may take a long time to adjudicate upon some cases. The l>on. member for Prescott referred to certain cases, but as far as the Pensions Department is concerned, it is certainly not their fault if those who are suffering disability do not receive their pensions promptly. The hon. member for West Lambton has referred to cases where men are dismissed with small gratuity if their disability is under 20 per cent. I know of several cases where men were discharged without even pensions, and it subsequently developed that they were suffering from gas when they arrived here and when they were discharged. To my knowledge, a num-
ber of these soldiers subsequently developed tuberculosis as a result of gas, and every one of these soldiers, after reference had been made to the Pensions Board, was returned to service and pay, treated in military hospitals as if he had never been discharged, sent to Gravenhurst or other places to recover, and pension was granted. In addition to that, some of them died, and provision has been made for their widows and children, in spite of the fact that they were discharged and considered at one time to have no claim on the Government. I give these instances to show the sympathetic manner in which the Pensions Board deals with these matters.
With reference to the increasing of the pensions on account of the high cost of living, in numbers of cases it is difficult for the parties to get along with the pensions allowed them, and in each case where the pension was not sufficient if application was made by the men to the Govern-merft, the man or the woman, as the case may be, is provided with some form of employment, which supplements the pension, so that they need not want for daily bread. Whether it is wise to increase the pensions to a greater amount than at present allowed is a question. I quite agree that, if conditions remain as at present, it will be necessary to increase the pensions considerably. I think I am quite safe in saying that, because I know many oases where children and widows have not received sufficient pension to permit them to live in a respectable manner, but we must also remember that it is possible that some change may come over the scene, and, instead of food and living soaring to the top as it is now, prices may drop, in a few years, and the cost of living may be greatly reduced. So far as the administration of the Pensions Board is concerned, I do not think a single case has been brought before them, to my knowledge, in which they did not grant prompt relief. I can speak in the highest terms of the efficiency of that board, and T do so gladly because the officer who is the active member of the board is an old comrade-in-arms of mine, and I know his heart is right in regard to looking after the returned soldiers. There has not been one single case that I have brought to his attention that he has not dealt with promptly and justly. Numbers of cases have been called to my attention from all over the country, because a number of the soldiers seem to think they should send a letter to me, if they have a complaint, and the attention of the board has been promptly given, and justice done. In many cases

justice has been done where possibly, if they had not looked upon the case in a sympathetic manner, they would not have granted any pension. The conditions which now obtain, are giving great satisfaction to the returned soldier, and the number of complaints made in recent months has been greatly reduced. There is a certain class of soldier who did not serve at all, but malingered, who claims a pension. I refer to those who suffer from imaginary rheumatism, and that sort of thing in England. I find, as a rule, some of these are inclined to be chronic grumblers. Fully 98 per cent of the men in receipt of pensions are men of established character and first-class men in every shape and form. There are always one or two in a thousand who give the public the impression that they do not deserve anything, and I trust the public will deal kindly with their cases, and not take their complaints seriously, realizing that the Pensions Board is doing everything possible to ameliorate the suffering of the wounded and sick soldier, looking after the widow, and seeing that the orphan is 'brought up by the state as it should be.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry that on this occasion I find it impossible to altogether agree with what my hon. friend has said. I notice in the newspaper to-day an item stating that the Ottawa Great War Veterans' Association had a meeting last evening and discussed the action of the Government in granting gratuities in lieu of pensions to returned soldiers. The matter was thoroughly discussed, and the 'action of the Government unanimously condemned. My opinion is entirely in line with the view expressed by the hon. member for West Lamb-ton, namely, that in many cases trifling gratuities have been granted where men have suffered a serious permanent disability. That is an abuse of the power of the Pensions Board. It is not the .fault of the pensions scale, nor of the Pensions Committee of last session, nor is it the fault of the Government that framed the Order in Council passed on the recommendation of that committee. It is the administration of the Pensions Board that is at fault. When they disregard the fact that a man is suffering from a disability that permanently decreases his earning power, and give him a gratuity of $25, or $75, or $100 and turn him loose, they are not treating him fairly, or, as the country desires he should be treated. I know of a man who received a permanent injury to one of his
380i
legs, so that he walks through life with a serious limp, and he was given a gratuity of $25.
I know many other cases in which men have suffered disability which did not entirely incapacitate them, but which seriously reduced their earning power or interfered with their possibilities in life. Yet the Pensions Board dealt with these men simply by the payment of a small gratuity. I do not .consider that that is in line with the spirit of the country; I do not think it is in line with the intention of the Government. I know that it is not in line with the views of the committee that had .to do with the drafting of the scale of pensions.
'Mr. REID:	The regulations concerning
pensions were made in accordance with the recommendations of a committee of this House. The Board of Pension Commissioners	have forms to	be	filled
in by persons disabled.	Upon these
rorms, which may be filled in by a clergyman or a doctor, a certificate is .made as to the condition of the man, whether he has any other visible means of support, and so on. Upon this report the Board of Pension Commissioners act. In a case that occurred in my county, the person who filled in the blanks stated that the man in question had other means of support, and on that report the Board of Pension Commissioners could not do otherwise than act as they did. If representations are made to the Board, however, that full justice has not been done in any given case, the hoard will take the matter up again, reconsider it, and see that justice is done. Pension and gratuity claims are coming in iin large numbers, and they must be dealt with according to the best evidence available in order that settlement may he arrived at as soon as possible. Every case is subject to revision by the Pensions Board; the facts may be re-examined and the conditions again looked into. The Board have special officers to deal with such cases. If any member of -the House or, indeed, any ,person outside of the House hears of a case where injustice was done, I aim satisfied that the Board of Pension Commissioners, upon the matter being brought to their attention, will take steps to see that justice is done. There may be oases where persons would be probably ignorant of the law or, for other reasons, would	not he able
to take -up their own cases; it is only fait and right that we should interest ourselves in	such	matters.

Members of the House and private citizens generally should take every step to see that justice is done to those who are entitled to consideration under this Act. I desire only to emphasize my impression that the Pensions Board are anxious to see that justice is done to all; I know that justice will be done if all these matters are brought to -their attention.


Mr. MORPHY:: The difficulty as I see it is that we are not now discussing principles that should govern. I should like to have an expression from the Government on the point whether men who have sustained 20 per cent disability as a result of the war and who have been paid $25, $50, $75 or $100, are absolutely shut out from any further claim. The estimate that a man has 20 per cent disability to-day may be quite correct, but the seeds of weakness in his constitution may at no distant date grow into a 40 per cent disability. It is unfortunate if a man who is in need of money, taking advantage of what he understands to be the law, should submit himself to an examination, receive $50 or $75, and bo absolutely shut out from any further claim in the future. The minister speaks very nicely, but I think that there should be something more than the nice words. I believe that public opinion will not stand for injustice to any returned soldier through settlement being made upon a basis of 20 per cent disability, if the seeds of weakness in his constitution afterwards cause him to sustain a 50 per cent disability.


John Allister Currie: I did not say that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am not referring to the member for North Simcoe, or to any other gentleman in that regard. Some member of the Government should announce the principle that these men may come back and that their eases will be given further consideration if necessary. Even doctors may not know whether the 20 per cent arrived at as a result of examination is the real extent of the disability from which a man is suffering. Certainly the man himself does not know, and it would be a great act of improvidence to make a settlement upon a basis of 20 per cent and shut the man out from further consideration. Many soldiers who return are not normal; in many cases their judgment is not as strong as it was before the war. Moreover, we must guard the soldier against his own improvidence, if necessary; we must riot, simply in order to expedite: settlement, take advantage of a 
man who is not in normal condition. When a man is injured in a railway accident, the settlement claims agent calls upon him as quickly as possible after the wreck or the accident; the injured man accepts $100, $200, $300, as the case may be. Some have avoided this speedy settlement and subsequently obtained thousands of dollars through a verdict against the company. There must be absolute frankness, absolute openness; there must be tender care on our part to guard against improvidence and to do what this country ought to do for men who have offered themselves as sacrifices in the interests of their country.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: The complaint of the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was, perhaps, justified in the first part of the administration of the pensions. I believe that under the former rule, and according to the recommendation of tne general Committee on Pensions, if a man's disability did not exceed 20 per cent he could be paid off in a lump sum by way of gratuity.
When the matter came before the Returned Soldiers' Committee, the committee was almost unanimously of opinion that the grading should be in tenths and not in fifths, for th'is reason: You might have a man who	was injured nineteen
per cent of the	extent	of total
disability, and he would be paid off with a gratuity of perhaps $100. If he was injured one per cent more, however, he would be paid $8 a month for the balance of his life. In ihy opinion there is too much of a discrepancy between those two disabilities, and if the grading has not been made in tenths, I strongly urge that the grades of disability should be divided into tenths instead of into fifths. There is no reason why a man who is injured to the extent of 19 per cent should be paid off with a lump sum of $100, whereas a man who is disabled to the extent of 20 per cent should receive $8 a month for the rest of his life.
It is said that a man who is not totally incapacitated on account of deafness cannot be given a pension; that he comes under the 20 per cent class. That is to say, he might	be deaf to	the	extent of ninetenths in	both ears,	and	he would	slidbe under	the twenty	per	cent class	anJwould not	be entitled	to a	permanent	pension, but would be given a gratuity. There is no justice in that. If a man is incapacitated to the extent of nine-tenths of his total hearing capacity, he would be useless for many occupations in life.


Frank Oliver: I have had many instances of that.


William Sora Middlebro: He might be useless for the occupation in which he was formerly engaged. Therefore, there should be more provision for a soldier incapacitated to that extent.
There is another question to which I wish to refer, which, while it does not directly affect the question of pensions, affects the total amount that we shall have to pay. I refer to the medical examination in the first instance. The medical examiners in the first instance were, in many cases, not as strict as they should be. At the beginning of the war large numbers were anxious to enlist, and we were all anxious to see them go. But when we are going to raise another
100,000	men, the medical examiners should be men of the highest calibre and of the greatest experience, and they should be appointed permanently. The system of one week appointing a medical board composed of certain men and another week a medical board composed of certain other men who do not get the experience of the first board for the short time they have been working, is a very bad system, and will entail a responsibility for millions of dollars on this country. I would, therefore, suggest that the men who are appointed for the purpose of examining the 100,000 men who are shortly to be enlisted, should be men of the greatest experience. It costs something like $1,500 to equip a man, tram him, -send him overseas and get him ready to go into the trenches. If we pay $1,500 for a medically unfit man who is worse than useless when he goes into the trenches, we are doing an injustice to the country by taking him in the first instance. The men who are enlisted should be men of the highest possible efficiency. In addition to a medically unfit man being worse than useless when he goes into the trenches, when he comes back to Canada, he has a fair claim to a pension from this country, because he has been passed as medically fit. In such a case, how can you conscientiously get over his claim that he offered himself; that he was passed by the medical officers provided by the Government who in effect, said to him: You are a fit man? That being the case, he has a prima facie case for a pension. I cannoit urge too strongly upon this House that the medical [DOT] examiners for those 100,000 men should be thoroughly experienced and efficient.


Mr. NICKLE:: There is a certain misapprehension existing in the minds of hon. members of the committee as to just what the claims for pensions are. With the hon.
member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) I was a member with others of the Pensions Committee of last year, and I am not so carried away with enthusiasm for the work of that committee that I am prepared to say that it was perfect. A good beginning was made, but it is capable of much improvement, and I think, when the next session of Parliament is convened, very radical improvements will be made, if a committee of this House gives the matter further attention. I thoroughly agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) that the committee of last year made a mistake in dividing the pensions only into six classes: five classes and a gratuity. The Great War Veterans'' Association, and the experience of last year has taught those who have given any consideration to the subject tba/t we should have at least eleven classes; ten classes and a gratuity and that it is very unfair to the man who suffers a disability of 19 per cent, that he should be paid off with a gratuity not exceeding $100, whereas a man who has a disability of 21 per cent-I am using arbitrary figures to illustrate my argument-should receive a pension of $8 a month or $96 a year. It is well understood and recognized that it is right that we should have at least ten classes. I think it also can he said that it is recognized that no man should be compelled to accept a gratuity unless ho chooses to do so. If a man has suffered disability and desires recognition on the part of the State for the sacrifice he has made for his country, he should have an opportunity of taking either a pension or a gratuity. If he wants to take a gratuity, he should have a right to take it, but if he prefers to take a pension, then he should have the right to do so.
In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy), if he will be good enough to turn to paragraph 8 of the committee's report of last year, he will see it is distinctly stated in that paragraph that a man is not estopped by the taking of any gratuity or pension at the time the award, is made. Paragraph 8 says:
Each case shall toe subject to review at the end of a year from the time the pension is first granted, except in those cases where the disability is obviously permanent, and then there can he no further review.
In the working out of that provision, it was found that many men had been improperly or prematurely discharged; that there had not been a keen appreciation of the disability the men had suffered. As a result, an Order in Council was passed by which it was provided that, if any man

could show that he had been, improperly or prematurely discharged, :he was entitled again to be admitted to hospital and have his case medically treated, and then when the time came for hie again being discharged his right to a pension was considered as if he had never before been before a court of review. That means that if a man, at any time within a year, reaches the conclusion th at he has not received adequate consideration, he has a right to apply to the board for special consideration, and if fresh complications have set in, and if he can show that those complications are the result of service, he can go hack to hospital and have his case reviewed.


William Sora Middlebro: Is the 20 per cent class retroactive?


William Folger Nickle: No.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO. Will it be retroactive?


William Folger Nickle: I can hardly answer the question of the hon. member, because I do not know what the policy of the next Parliament will foe. It will be within its jurisdiction to say whether or not the new Act shall be retroactive. Answering the question my hon. friend has raised in regard to deafness, the gentleman who brought that matter to his attention must have laboured under a misapprehension, because I see by referring to paragraph 12, class 4, which determines what certain disabilities are, it is provided that total deafness shall be considered a disability of 40 per cent. Total deafness of one ear entitles a man to a gratuity. If a man were totally dealf in one ear and were substantially affected in another, he would come out of the gratuity class and go into class four.


William Sora Middlebro: If a man is nine-tenths deaf in both ears, that is partial deafness in both ears, and he comes under the 20 ner cent class.


William Folger Nickle: 
William Sora Middlebro: I put this question distinctly to the officers who appeared before the. Soldier's Add Commission, and they said that under the wording of the Act a man might be deaf in both ears to any. extent short of complete deafness and

still foe entitled only to a gratuity. Will my hon. friend show me the clause showing that a majn who is partially deaf in both ears is entitled to anything more than a gratuity?


William Folger Nickle: It is impossible for me
to point out the clause, because there is no such clause in the report. In each of the classes a few examples are given as to what constitutes the disability of that class. For instance:
Class '5-Disability 20 per cent and less than 40 per cent-pension 20 per cent of Class 1.
For example-Loss of one thumb. Anchylosis of elbow, knee, shoulder, wrist or ankle.
Anything not covered ,by specific instances in that report is within the discretion of t'he medical officers of the Pensions Board. They must determine the disability. That disability being determined', the pension is awarded in accordance with the schedules set out for the various classes.


Mr. EDWARDS:: There is one encouraging feature about this debate, and that is that members on both sides of the House have shown a sincere desire to deal squarely by the soldier and his dependents. I am very glad indeed that the Pensions Act will not be put through this session, because I think we shall learn a great deal from experience by leaving it over until next session. No^ matter how carefully we might frame this Act, it would not cover all the oases that might be brought to our attention, and, therefore, I think it is a good thing to leave the matter open for a few months.
Personally, I think a mistake was made in ever recognizing the gratuity principle at all. I do not agree with the hon. member for Kingston that a soldier should have the option of choosing between a gratuity or a pension. A Returned 'soldier when he comes back from the front is either 100 per cent fit, or he is not. If his disability is less than 20 per cent, he can accept the gratuity. Now in many cases it would be utterly impossible for any board to say that a 20 per cent defect would be entirely removed in two or three years, or that it would' not have increased in that time to 40 or 50 per cent. Suppose we give the soldier the option of accepting a gratuity or taking a pension. If he accepts the gratuity, you" are through with him; that is the point about it that I do not like. I do not think we should ever be through with the soldier, or that he should ever consider that the State is through with him.


John Allister Currie: The debate has shown that such is not the case. Even if a man gets a gratuity he can come back again.


William Sora Middlebro: Not after one year.


William Cameron Edwards: If the soldier accepts a gratuity, that is the end of the matter so far as he is concerned. Now, if a soldier who has accepted a gratuity developed some disease which could be traced 'back to his service in the war, as he went about the country people would say to him: "You are not looking very well." "No, I developed this trouble through the war, when I served my country." People will naturally ask him: "Are you getting a pension?" "No, they only gave me $25," or $50 or $65, as the case may be. "That is all I get out of it." If one case of that kind can go through the country representing himself as having been finally disposed of by a gratuity of $25 or $50 or $100, and if the man is not as fit to perform his duties as he was before the war, I say it will be a dishonour and a disgrace to this country. I contend that every man who comes back from the front, no matter how slight his disability-I do not see how you can figure it on a 5, 10, 15 or 100 per cent basis-if he can show before a board that he is in the slightest degree less efficient than, he was before he performed his service to -the country, he should receive a pension in consideration of his lessened ability to provide for himself and his family, and he should be allowed to come before a hoard year after year to say either that he is entitled now to more than he used to get, because his disability is increasing, or that the board should declare him to be entirely fit, in which case, of course, he would not ask for a pension. I think the gratuity was a mistake from the start, and I think it continues to be a mistake to pay off a man with $25 or $50 or $100, as the case may be. He is either as efficient as he was before the war, or he is not. If he is as efficient as he was before, he does not want anything. If he is not as efficient, are you going to meet that condition by paying him off with a gratuity of $75 or $100? It strikes me as ridiculous, unreasonable, and illogical.


William Sora Middlebro: Coming back to the point I was discussing before, Class 6 is as follows:-*
Class 6-Disability under 20 per cent, a gratuity not exceeding $100.
For example-Total deafness in one ear. Partial deafness in both.
Partial deafness in both ears means partial deafness in both ears, and I submit
that >a man may be nine-tenths totally deaf and still he in Class 6, and therefore not entitled to anything more than a gratuity of $100. I claim that it is not fair to pay off a man so afflicted with a gratuity of $100.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: I should like to refer to the deductions which have recently been made in pensions. Since the Order in Council of June 30, reductions have been made in the pensions of men permanently injured in the war. Now I think that is absolutely against the provisions of the Order in Council, Section 8 of which is to the effect that each case shall be subject to review at the end of a year from the time the pension is first granted, except in those cases where the disability is obviously permanent, and then there shall be no further review. That is, if a man was receiving $11 a month, he could not at the expiration of a year, if he was permanently injured, have any reduction made in his pension. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that the injury is permanent, my information is that the pension has been reduced by the commission from $11 to $8 a month. It is evident from the provision of the Order in Council that if a man has a permanent injury and receives a pension, the pension remains as -it was originally and must not be decreased. The idea of decreasing the pension is obviously against the meaning and purport of this Order in Council, and of the resolution which was passed in this House last May, and I would like to get the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in regard to it. There are a great number of cases in which those pensions have been reduced without any just cause ot reason; they were reduced in contravention of the wording of this Order in Council.


John Allister Currie: Take the case of a man who comes back from the front, suffering from rheumatism which he has contracted in the trenches, say he is discharged and given a pension of forty per cent disability. Under treatment, he may recover. We all know rheumatism sometimes improves, and the man may be disabled by it- for six months, and then he is all right. I think it would be very unjust if the rule did not apply both ways, because I feel there would be some cases of imposition. Speaking of deafness: it is extremely difficult to establish the degree of deafness from which a man may he suffering. As a matter of fact virtually every gunner and every bomber

at the front 'becomes partially deaf after being there for a while. If you followed the rule you would give a pension to every one at the front. I do not think the boys would want that sort of thing. I know some fellows myself who are partially deaf, but who have not mentioned the fact. They take it as part of the game. In regard to optional gratuity, I know of a case where a man came over from France on duty, and when he arrived here he was in perfect physical condition. He was ordered to go back to the front, and as soon as he received the order he developed a very bad case of rheumatism in the back. If he was boarded once, he was boarded fifteen times, but the doctors could not find anything wrong with, him. The X-ray revealed nothing out of the ordinary. Still he could not move around. He got a gratuity, and inside of three months he was married, and is now carrying on his business just the same as he ever did. It was better to pay that gratuity than keep the man in the hospital for months and months, and then finally discharge him with a pension. The fact that he got a gratuity enabled him to recover and carry on his business the same as he always did. I know of many cases of imposition along these lines.


Angus Alexander McLean: But, that is not the wording of the Order in Council. The Order in Council provides that a man who is permanently injured shall receive a pension, that is, a man who is suffering from an injury which will continue for the rest of his life. The wording of the Order in Council is that such a man is entitled to receive a pension, and that pension shall not be reduced. At the same time, the commissioners have reduced these pensions. Once a man is permanently injured, he comes under the Order in Council and gets his percentage, and that is not to be reduced. In reducing these pensions I believe the commissioners have been contravening the provisions of the Order in Council.


William Folger Nickle: It is quite impossible to answer every specific case without knowing all the facts in reference to it. Dealing with the question of permanent disability

and I am now referring to class 2 of the scale as defined by the committee last year -take the case of a man who had lost both feet, that would be a permanent disability and he would be entitled to eighty per cent pension. Assuming further that at the time he came up for medical examination, in addition to the loss of both feet he was suffering from the results of a bullet wound

through his lung, or was suffering radically from rheumatism, the commission would have put him in the 100 per centclass. Then, a year after, when he was re-examined, it might be found that his rheumatism was entirely better, or that his lung had been healed, in which event he would he put in the 80 per cent class in respect of his permanent injury. I quite understand and I am in accord with what my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. A. A. McLean) has stated: If the disability is permanent, 3uch as the loss of a hand, the loss of both feet, loss of tongue, loss of one foot, and so on, the injured man would get a pension, and the commissioners would have no right to lessen it. But, if in conjunction witii such disability there is some other form of disability which yields to treatment, so that the man only suffers from the permanent disability, then he would fall within the class of which the permanent disability is given as an example.
Referring to the argument of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Middlebro), if I may use the expression without using it offensively it is almost special pleading to say that partial deafness in both ears, no matter how excessive it may be, entitles a man only to a gratuity. When you read the paragraph in relation to class 4, you find it says that tot^l deafness entitles a man to a pension of forty per cent. This, read in oonjuntion with the disability allowed under class 6, clearly means that if a man is suffering from total deafness in both ears he gets a pension of forty per cent. If he is suffering from a trifling partial deafness in both ears, he may get a gratuity. If the deafness is of such character that it falls within the description of "total deafness in both ears" the man would come under class 4. My hon. friend says the word "trifling" does not appear in the report. That is perfectly true, but common sense must be applied to the construction and interpretation of the report, and I should be amazed to find that the pension commissioners had in mind that a man who is hurt, even in the slightest degree, is only entitled to a gratuity. Until a specific instance of the kind is brought to my attention, I shall not be inclined to believe it.
Now, as to whether or not a gratuity should he granted. One of the examples given as entitling a man to a gratuity is the loss of the index or other finger. Supposing a man lost a finger and says "I do not want to be bothered with this pension every three months, or every month; give me $150 down which will enable me to

buy a team of horses, and I can start work." If the individual is all right otherwise, I see no objection to his being given the $150. On the general principle of gratuities, I think the committee of last year made a mistake. I think we erred in saying that if a man suffered less than twenty per cent disability he should receive an amount not exceeding $100. That was not enough, and I think we should frankly admit where we have made mistakes so that we may lay the foundation of better things for the next year. Say a man lost a toe, or the top of his ear, or the tip of his nose, or some comparatively trifling thing which in no way impairs his earning capacity, why should he not be entitled to receive a lump sum if he so- desires? I have given three months of my time to the study of the subject during this session.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Does the hon. gentleman say that if a man has a piece off his nose it is a trifle?


William Folger Nickle: I am only trying to give what I would call instances o.f trifling disability. On the general principle of pensions, you might- discuss them from now until to-morrow morning and then go on and discuss them all day to-morrow and the House would not be very much nearer a conclusion than it is no now. My suggestion would be that the committee should agree to let this item pass on the distinct understanding that when the next Parliament meets a strong committee will, early in the session, take the whole question up, get the best evidence available and try to reach some conclusion which will do justice to all. I think the spirit of the House and the spirit of the country is that justice should be done to these men. We have one object in view and that is to see that everything that is fair and right is done by Parliament.


Mr. WEBSTER:: What is the largest
amount of gratuity paid?


William Folger Nickle: Under the present regulations, which are, in view of the Order in Council, based on the report unanimously adopted by Parliament last year, the greatest gratuity that may now be paid is $100 where a man suffers a disability not ex-eed-ing twenty per cent.


Frank Oliver: I cannot agree that we
should postpone further discussion of this question for the sake of taking it up at a succeeding session. Not having the -advantage of having at my back a military voters' Bill and a franchise Bill, I may not
be here next sesion, and I would like to do what I can on behalf of those who have served the country at the front. It is part of our responsibility to deal with the matter on their behalf, and I would like to discharge my share of that responsibility.


William Folger Nickle: It never occurred to me
that the hon. gentleman would not be here next session.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend, I have no doubt, is so satisfied that he and his friends are thoroughly entrenched that our condition did not enter his mind. I do not think that the point raised by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) was altogether apprehended by the hon. member for Kingston. He spoke of those who had been awarded a gratuity. The reply to that was that if they had been awarded a gratuity on a certain condition of disability, on a change in that condition of disability, that award would -be revised. That was not his pcint. Having been awarded a certain gratuity on a certain disability, he suggested that they might secure a revision of the award even though there was no change in physical condition, his contention being, and I thinik correctly, that in many oases men accepted a gratuity without provident consideration. A man returns from the front, he is glad
5 p.-m. to be free, he is able to resume tihe society o-f his friends, he does not w-ant to be ranked as a kicker or a squealer, he is offered a small gratuity and he accepts it. The point that the hon. member for North Perth had in mind was that all gratuities should be subject to revision -without consideration whether there was a change in the physical condition or not.


William Folger Nickle: In the report -to which ,my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) was a party last year there was a provision that there should be the right of appeal at any time, I think, within a year. A man only gets a pension if he is discharged. If he gets a pension and if at -any time within a year he -desires to appeal he can do so. At any time within a year there is a review if he desires it.


Frank Oliver: I still think that the review within a year was only for the pair-pose of taking into consideration a change in condition.


Angus Alexander McLean: These Orders in
Council provide that:
All pensions awarded to members of the forces shall -be determined by the disability of the applicant without reference to his occupation prior to enlistment.

The eases that I refer to were the cases of two men permanently injured. One lost his heel and another ibad an injury called anchylosis of the shoulder. They received 111 a month. The injuries to these men were obviously permanent. In the month of June these men were reduced from 111 to |8 a month. I had the certificates of independent medical men to whom these men went and who certified that their injuries were permanent. I claim that under clause 8 of the Order in Council they could not reduce the pensions of these men. It is true that if a man contracts rheumatism it would not be proper to continue his pension because that would not be a permanent injury. But these were injuries to the body, real injuries which will, remain during the lives of these men. Yet the commission reduced the pensions. Once a man gets a pension he gets it for life. One of these men cannot move bis arm beyond a certain height and he cannot engage in the business in which he was employed previous to going	to	the war.	I understandthat	in	England a	man's previousoccupation	is taken	into	consideration	when pensions	are	granted.
But this clause was put in saying that a man's capability to engage in his previous occupation would not he taken into consideration. For that reason clause 8 was enacted to provide that where the disability was permanent there should be no reduction. I would ask the commissioners to take these two cases into consideration. I *think they have read this provision wrongly and that they should not reduce men who are permanently injured as are the two men of whom I speak.


William Folger Nickle: The commissioner explains how this particular case, of which the hon. gentleman (Mr. McLean) has just spoken* arose. Prior to the present regulations becoming law the pensions were divided into four degrees. There was a difference of $11 between each degree. At the end of the year, when the report was made law by Order in Council, all cases were reviewed and some of the degree pensions under the [DOT] $11 clause weTe found to fall within clause 5-that is, the twenty per cent disability *pension-with the result that in some few cases a degree pension of $11 enjoyed under the previous law was reduced to $8 under the law now in force. But the' commissioner tells me there has been no reduction of pensions awarded for permanent disability under the Order in Council.


Angus Alexander McLean: He is wrong in
that case. Tho.^e men were assigned a pension over ia year before the Order in Council was passed.


William Folger Nickle: That is my point.


Angus Alexander McLean: I 'Say that under this Order in Council the board had no power to reduce it.


William Folger Nickle: That is exactly my point. Under the old law there were four degree pensions', each one varying from the one below it by $11. When this Order in Council No. 1334 was passed, it divided the pensions into six classes. Some of those in degree 4, drawing $11, fell into class 5, where their disability was 20 per cent, and that entitled them only to $8. In other words, nnder their degree of disability, their pension was $11, because there were but four classes, but under order 1334, when there were six classes, they were just over 20 per cent, and under 40 per cent, *and they, therefore, received $8, being a reduction of $3, but there have been no cases of reduction under 1334 where the disability was permanent and without other complications. It was only a reduction in the degree of the pension.


William Sora Middlebro: This has the effect
of reducing the permanent pension of these men, although they were put on a permanent basis under the old law. I think when the law was passed the effect of it was not understood, and I think an exception should be made in the case of those two men.
Mr. NESBITT. As a member of the committee that adopted the present pension scheme, I may say I think we did remarkably well, considering our experience. This pension Order in Council is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. It can be rectified, if we find it is not a proper measure. So far as I have listened to the argument and statements of the different members this afternoon as to their troubles,
I confess I think that these men should have allowed a review as to the gratuities.
I am not in accord with the statement that gratuities 'Should not be allowed in every case. Somebody has mentioned that we should have divided it into tenths, instead of fifths, because some people are on the borderland between two classes. If we divided it into twentieths, they would still be on the borderline between two classes, so that I do not think that would get over the trouble. It' is quite possible we should have reduced this

io a tenth of disablement. We discussed that a>t the time, if 1 am not mistaken, but we thought after 20 per cent a gratuity would fill the bill. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Kingston that we made a mistake in fixing the maximum amount of gratuities at $100. I think all cases should be subject to review where there is complaint that an injustice has been done. I think the commissioner should be allowed to review downward, as well as upward, as far as that is concerned. There might have been too high a pension granted, in the first place, for something that was alleged to be permanent which was not really permanent. That is why I think review should be allowed in all oases. So far as my experience has gone, there has not been much complaint. No doubt there has been some complaint. I have several times brought instances to the notice of the commissioners, and, so far as I know, they have given prompt and diligent attention to the cases. Some one has said this afternoon that a good deal depended upon the local board. There is no doubt iabo"t that, and I do not see how it could be Otherwise. Let all these men be sent before the commission, and let the commission review their cases, or let the commission go fo these men and make a review. I have no doubt the Board of Commissioners will gain a great deal erf wisdom as to the kind of Bill to be passed, when the Government makes up its mind to bring in a permanent Bill. In the meantime I think the commissioners should be open, at all times, to representations by reliable people as to the condition of any particular soldier, and if they were not satisfied with the finding of the local board, they should have that man appear before them. One of the commissioners might visit different points, instead of sitting in Ottawa all the time. If I am not mistaken, one of the commissioners went to Hamilton at one time, to look into some cases where there had been dissatisfaction, I understood from him that everything was made satisfactory before he left Hamilton. In such oases, perhaps, the commissioners might find it convenient to make investigations themselves. It is' a vexed question, and I think the commissioners should maintain an open mind. Under the present Act, and as far as the present Order in Council is concerned, at the time we compiled it we did the very best we could in the interest of the men who have gone overseas, and I am sure in most cases the Act worked exceedingly well,
I know me case where a man had his leg cut off very near the hip, and he asked to have his case reviewed. I do not know whether the case was reviewed or not, but if it was not it should have been, because his leg was cut off so close to the hip that it was a very exceptional case and he could not wear an artificial limb.
I knew of another man who had pains in his head, and he did not know what caused ' them, but maintained that it was the result of service at the front. I think that case was reviewed. Cases of that kind will arise, and we will have to leave them very largely to the judgment of the commissioners.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am at the disadvantage of not being a member of this board.
I presume the hon. gentlemen who compose it used the best judgment they could bring to bear upon this very important and intricate question. As in every other line of business, they should follow precedents. For instance, in the legal profession it will not do for a man to start to hew out a course for himself, and ignore all the cases that have been decided in the courts for generations. He must bring himself into line with precedent and practice, and that remark applies to the medical profession. Men have followed precedents in the treatment of cases as they have been dealt with by men in the profession for years, and it will not do for a medical man to ignore the experience of others and the effects of certain treatment.
The Government has the advantage of precedents established by other countries in dealing with cases of this kind. I should like to bring to the attention of the Pensions Board one or two considerations connected with the application of the word "disability." There are so many kinds of employment in the world that disability in one case would not be so great as disability in another, even though the injury might be the same. For instance, if a medical doctor lost a finger or sustained serious injury to one of his hands, his usefulness in his profession would be practically gone. On the other hand, if the same thing happened to a lawyer, the disability would not be so great, particularly .if the right hand was not injured. But if the lawyer's hearing or eyesight is affected, the disability which he thereby suffers in the practice of his profession cannot very well be compensated. In the case of men engaged in mining occupations, of whom there are many in my part of the country, the use of every faculty is essential. These

men have to go down hundreds, sometimes thousands of feet under the ground; they have to walk miles underneath the surface of the earth before they get to their work; they have to handle explosives and tear down the face of the coal in the mines. If a man of that class is deprived of any one of his senses, he becomes at once useless to himself and, if he works in the mine, a great menace to those who work with him. No manager of a mine would care to have in his employ a man who suffered any disability. Accordingly, the board would have to exercise judgment in dealing with such cases as distinguished from cases of men engaged in other occupations-merchants, lawyers, engineers, persons following any other calling which is not a dangerous one. That which applies to miners applies also, in some degree, to fishermen and lumbermen. I should like to know from the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) who has taken a great interest in this work, how the classifications of disability are arrived at? Is the class into which a man is put decided by a medical expert? In a matter of such far-reaching importance we cannot move too cautiously in attempting to arrive at a definite rule as to how these men shall be dealt with. Further, I suppose, assuming that the physical disabilities are the same, that a man with a family will receive different consideration from that accorded to a man who has no dependents.


William Folger Nickle: In regard to the first
question, the table of disabilities was arrived at by the Pension Commissioners, gathering together the best information that they could get throughout the world, from workmen's compensation boards and other like bodies, as to how far any specific disability impaired a man's usefulness. Having collaborated these tables, they got a hoard of three of the most experienced men that they could find in Canada, together with a representative from the Workmen's Compensation Board, and prepared a table of disabilities covering practically every specific disability of which one could think. After the actual physical impairment of the man is determined, reference is made to the disability table, which defines the percentage of disability that the theoretic individual suffers; then the practical and the theoretical are brought together, with the result that the class into which the man would fall is decided.
As to my hon. friend's second question, if he will return to the report of last year he will see that the pensions scheme as 
originally worked out makes a specific allowance of so many dollars, according to rank and class, to a married man. There is a further provision that so much shall be allowed for each child in the family. I read from paragraph 14:
That the disabled member of such force, up to and including- the rank of lieutenant, entitled to a pension in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd class, in addition to his personal pension, be entitled to draw $6 a month for each child ; of the rank of captain, $7 a month for each child, etc.
The larger the family, the larger the monthly allowance in respect of the children.


George William Kyte: I should like to draw the attention of .the committee to this item which I see in this evening's Journal:
It is understood that the new pensions for soldiers which are to be created .by Order in Council will show not less than a 25 per cent increase. Lack of time prevented a measure being introduced in the House to grant increased pensions; therefore it will be done by Order in Council soon after Parliament prorogues.
I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether any such Order in Council has been passed?
Sir ROBERT BORDEN; No. All these conjectures in the press as to what the increase-is to be are entirely without foundation, for the simple reason that the Government have-not had opportunity to consider the matter. My -hon. friend will realize that, during a very -busy session of Parliament such as this, with the great demands upon our time and energies which are entailed in the prosecution of the war, we really have not had an opportunity to give matured consideration to the subject up to the present time. It is our hope and our intention,, shortly after the prorogation of Parliament, to take the matter up and come to a conclusion about it. We shall then have the advantage of all that has been said in this House on the subject, the advantage, also,, of knowing the views which have been communicated to us from time to time by those members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who have returned to Canada and who have studied the subject with a good, deal of thoroughness.


George William Kyte: I did net 'bring the matter up for the purpose of finding any fault.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that.


George William Kyte: I wished to have a statement from the Prime Minister. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country as a result of discrimination in the rates
. SEPTEMBER 19, 1917
of pensions allowed to irrivates as compared with the rates allowed to officers. A very-strong argument has been made this afternoon in this committee on behalf o>f granting as generous pensions as possible to returned soldiers on account of the increased cost of living and the difficulties they will have in making ends meet in their domestic arrangements. As a rule an officer is a man who occupies in the business world a position which is very much better than that of a private. Generally speaking, the men who are given commissions in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces are professional men, men who are engaged in business and largely those who are in the enjoyment of incomes apart altogether from [DOT]their military income. The private is usually a man who depends entirely upon his dally labour ,for the support of his family, and when he gives up his ordinary avocation and joins the forces every source of income he formerly enjoyed is cut off. The necessity of adequately providing for the family of the private is just as great as the necessity of adequately providing for the family of the officer. Under those circumstances, I do not quite appreciate the reason for such a great difference in the scale of pensions 'between those two ranks. There may be very good reason for the distinction, and for the moment I am not criticising the Pensions Board or whoever it is that is responsible for drawing up the scale. But if there is any possible way by which the difference might be narrowed down so that the private could get a larger pension than he is now getting in comparison with the pension paid to the officer, it is very desirable that some such readjustment or recasting of the scale of pensions should be undertaken.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is, of course, aware that the scale of pensions as now in force was fixed upon the unanimous report of a committee of this House at the last session. That scale was brought into force by an Order in Council, failing legislation which it was not possible to pass at the last session. There is a good deal in the view which my hon. friend has put forward, but I do not know that I ca.n follow him absolutely in all that he has suggested, because I myself know of a great many men, in the enjoyment of very good incomes, whether from business or professional work, who have enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force as privates. I know some of them have been subsequently promoted, first to the rank of noncommissioned officer, and afterwards, on the field, to a commission. I do not, therefore, feel that there is any absolute rule which could be laid down precisely along that line. At the same time it is to be observed that the pensions were fixed, in the first instance, upon the basis of considerations which have more relevance to a permanent fores rather than to a force of the character which is doing battle now for Canada and the Empire. It is not in contemplation, so far as I am aware, to increase the pensions of the officers. The increase which was spoken of is to be confined to the pensions of privates, and probably of non-commissioned officers, so in that way it is hoped that the purpose which my hon. friend has in view will, to some extent, be attained.


Frank Oliver: I want to refer to the remarks of the Minister of Customs in regard to the attitude of the Board of Pensions Commissioners. I do not wish to suggest that that board have prejudicial or ulterior motives against the claimants for pensions, but, in my judgment, they misapprehend their proper duties. From the instances I have seen, my conclusion is that the Board of Pensions Commissioners look upon themselves rather as the watch-dogs of the treasury than as a board appointed to see that the justice which the people of Canda want to give to those who have served them well, shall be given. They appear to me to be on the defensive all the time instead of being on the aggressive. Their attitude is rather that of men who are defending the treasury against raid's by the returned soldiers than the attitude, which I conceive to be the proper one, of men whose business is to see that the returned soldier gets what is coming to him according to the wishes of the Canadian people. During the course of this discussion and during previous discussions, it has been held out that the Board of Pensions Commisionens are ready to consider and to reconsider claims that may be made to them. That is all very well. I wish to put this view before the committee as urgently and emphatically as I can, that, if that is the attitude of the Board of Pensions Commissioners, namely, that they will consider the cases that come before them, that is not an attitude in consonance with what I consider to be their duty. I take it that the obligation of the country to the soldier arises out of the service ithe soldier has rendered, and out of the consequences which he has suffered in the rendering of that service,


William Folger Nickle: The sincerity of the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) is my only excuse for rising. The practice is this-: Before a man can, be discharged a medical hoard determines whether or not he has suffered a disability. If they report that he has suffered a disability on account of the war, a report of his condition goes to the Pension Commissioners, who determine what pension the man is to have. By an Order in Council passed on the 24th of February, 1917, it is. provided that no man can be discharged who is suffering from a disability, until his pension has been determined. The Pension Commissioners notify the hospital where the man is that his pension has been determined, and he is as a rule discharged at the end of the next month, and his cheque for the first month's pension is awaiting him at his home. This procedure was necessitated by unfortunate circumstances that arose in the early pension administration, under which men were

discharged before their pensions *was determined. Sometimes a month or so would elapse before a discharged soldier would get his first cheque, and there were unr doubtedly eases of hardship in that way. Since attention was directed to that fact, the Order in Council has been passed, and the result now is that no disabled man is discharged until the Peifsion Commissioners say that they haye determined his pension. When that has been done, he is discharged on the last day of the month or the first of the next and his cheque is awaiting him when he gets home.


George William Kyte: There has been a good deal of complaint from returned soldiers in the county of Cape Breton. I have in mind the case of a man who wrote me two weeks ago, who returned from the front four months ago. He received no military pay and no pension, and in order to support his family he had to go back and work in the mines under conditions that were extremely onerous; the work was very difficult indeed for him to perform. I should like to know what is the procedure with regard to soldiers who have returned disabled. Do they go to Halifax to be examined by a medical board, or are they examined locally, to determine whether they are entitled to a pension?


William Folger Nickle: When a man lands in Canada he is examined at Quebec or Halifax, arid sent to the military district from which he enlisted, where, assuming he requires treatment, he goes under the care of the Military Hospitals Commission. The procedure from that time on is, as I have outlined to the hon. member for Edmonton.


Frank Oliver: I wish to draw attention to certain further memoranda forwarded to me by the Citizens Committee of Edmonton. I have already read the memorandum in which they make the assertion that the present pensions of dependents of deceased soldiers are too low, and in which they mention a particular case. They also bring forward two other classes of cases which are a little out of the ordinary but which should, I think, be brought to the attention of the committee. They are cases in which no pension has been granted under the strict interpretation of the Pensions Regulations. In reference to the case of George Lennox Buchanan, they say:
This is the orphan son of a soldier who was undergoing a term of imprisonment, and who had Shown such good conduct that his term was shortened. Upon release he enlisted, went overseas and was killed on active service. His wife is also dead. The child referred to was
adopted under the provincial regulations governing the Department of Neglected Children of Alberta. This was a real act of charity on the part of George Buchanan and his wife, who adopted the child. They have no children of their own and are an old couple. At present the boy has a splendid home, hut they have no resources and at their deaths could leave no estate. The foster father feels that this child should receive pension, and is willing to execute any trust whereby any pension or sum of money granted on behalf of the child should be kept for his sole use and benefit in order that he may receive a proper education.	[DOT]
The point is, the orphan son of a deceased soldier was adopted by an old couple, who are able to provide for the child while they live, but who are certain not to live very long, and before the child would be able to earn his own livelihood he would be left destitute.


Robert Laird Borden: Was the adoption before the father enlisted?


Frank Oliver: No, it was after the death of the father, on the death of the mother.


William Folger Nickle: As I understand it, it was on the death of the mother, buit before the father enlisted.


Frank Oliver: I could not say definitely as to that. The only information I have is what is contained in the memorandum.


William Folger Nickle: The commissioner tells me he remembers the case quite distinctly. The child^was regularly and legally adopted by this couple when the father was in prison. When the father was released, he went to the war and was killed. The commissioners took the position that as under the law the *father was released from any obligation to the child, the parental responsibility having been assumed 'by the couple adopting the child, no pension was paid in respect of the death of the father.


Frank Oliver: I have no personal knowledge of this case. The memorandum was sent to me through the mail, and I present it just as it came to me. The explanation given by the hon. member from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) is an explanation which does not, to use a slang expression, "listen good" to the ordinary people of the country. The father of this child, whatever he was, gave his life for the country, and the country owes something to the child, at least that is the way the ordinary man looks at it. I want to assure the committee that the gentlemen who sent these representations are a committee of the prominent citizens of Edmonton, who have gathered together for the purpose of looking after such cases. It is not a partisan committee in any sense

of the word, and it has nothing to do with politics. They also mention the case of Mary L. Richmond, to which they refer as follows:
Oliver C. Richmond, the son of this woman, enlisted and went overseas, serving some time at the front, and was then invalided home and died some time after his return. It seems there is some difficulty in getting the pension for this mother, claiming that the hoy had a pre-disposition to tuberculosis, and that if he had not gone to the front he would not have died. The facts are, he went, came home and is dead, and there seems to be some finesse on the part of the doctors as to whether he really died because of exposure at the front or not. One doctor stated that there were latent conditions, which, to quote his own words, "were lit up by the strain of the soldier's service at the front." There is no doubt that this woman is entitled to a mother's pension for her son, who at the time of his enlistment was proceeding to his examinations in law and would have been a great support and help to her in years to come.
I have no doubt the Board of Pension Commissioners found reasons under the law for not granting the pension in this case, but assuming the facts to be as stated, and I have no reason to think otherwise, their action does not appeal to me-and I do not think it appeals to citizens generally- as a case of keeping faith with those who have rendered the most praiseworthy service to the country.


William Folger Nickle: That is one of the classes of cases to which I alluded earlier in the afternoon when I said I thought the committee, with the limited knowledge they had at their disposal last year, overlooked a very serious situation which is going to' arise in a great many instances. By our report, we make provision only for the case of those who are solely or mainly dependent on the deceased soldiers. The committee did not take into account at all the question of prospective dependents, such, for instance, as the case of a widow who was educating her son and spending possibly the savings of her husband's lifetime, or his insurance money, in order to give the boy the advantage of a proper education. In the drafting of this report the committee laid down as a condition precedent to the granting of a pension to a dependent, as distinguished from a pension to a wife who receives pension as of right, that it was only granted where the mother or other dependent was wholly or mainly dependent on the deceased soldier. If the legislation had conie to the House this year, that is one of the aspects of the question which would have required very careful consideration,

and iir my judgment the House would have had to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to this prospective dependency. It is a most serious question, and it comes back to the point raised by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) in regard to insurance, as to whether or not it was advisable that something should be done by which a compulsory insurance might be put into effect so that there would be something available for those who were left in the event of the man being killed. In my judgment, the committee failed to make provision for just the class of oases to which my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has directed attention, and which in many instances have resulted in great hardship throughout the country.


Frank Oliver: It seems there is some difficulty in getting a' pension for this woman, because her son had a predisposition to tuberculosis. Supposing that under the literal interpretation of the recommendations of the committee last year, this woman would not he entitled to compensation I sill think that the business of a judge is to render justice and not merely to interpret the law. His interpretation. I still think that the business of a ing justice, and I think, much more than in the case of the judge, the business of the commission is to render justice and not merely to interpret the law. However, I wish to say that without prejudice. I am merely taking a position which I think is in accord with the general view of the people of the country.
There is another point that this committee raises that will have a serious hearing, particularly when compulsory service is instituted. It is a very serious matter. We have found serious cases under the voluntary system, and they will be very much more serious, I am afraid, under the compulsory .system. These are cases where people have financial obligations, and they have no means of carrying them when they have no resources other than the pension. I will give a few instances. I am quite aware that they are outside of the ordinary matter of pensions. We have never considered these cases as being entitled to pen, sions, but in Great Britain, under the Compulsory Service Act, they are taking into account .such cases as these. Under our proposed Compulsory Service Act we will also be warranted in taking note of such cases as the following:

Hannah Lord.-This woman's pension is $32 per month. Previous to the enlistment of her husband, they purchased a lot for $600 upon which $400 has been paid. Interest and taxes for two years are still unpaid.
Amy Bloomer.-This woman's pension is $34 per month. Previous to the enlistment of the soldier they purchased a lot for $2,400, upon which they erected a store and bam for $2,600. There is a mortgage against this property for $2,000, interest overdue $95, taxes about $94. There is no income from this property at present, nor will there be any until times "piclo up" in this city. The total income of this widow is $50,'including the pension. The $16 per month will be reduced as years go by. The widow stated to our committee that unless some help could be obtained until times get good again, she will lose her equity in this property.
Mary E. Marsden.-This woman's pension is $56 per month. She owns a house and lot valued at $5,000 against which there is a mortgage of $1,200. The widow states that she can just live on the pension she receives, and can pay the taxes after severe sacrifices, 'but cannot see how it is possible to redeem the property before foreclosure.


Robert Laird Borden: What has been urged by my hon. friend will be taken into consideration by the -Government. It seems rather particularly relevant to the cases of men who enlist under compulsory service. My hon. friend says that the question has been taken up and. dealt with in England under their Oompuls-ory Service Act.


Frank Oliver: I understand so.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall have an examination made as to what has been done in Great Britain in that Tegard for the purpose of assisting us in arriving -at a reasonable and fair conclusion as to what could be done along the same lines in this country.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: For the purpose of calling attention to the matters that were brought forward by the Citizens' Committee at Edmonton, I will read a statement of the classes into which these oases are divided.
Class "A"-Cases where the soldier's widow has property encumbered or mortgaged and is unaible to discharge the indebtedness from savings from Pension Fund allowance.
Class "B"-Cases where pension is insufficient at the present time with regard to the high cost of living.
Class "C"-Cases where no pension has been granted owing to strict interpretation of the pension regulations.
These are the three classes of cases which I have already placed before the House,
-and in regard to which there has been some measure of discussion. I wish to instance another case which came under my notice, not in regard 'to pensions, but in connection with the administration of the Patriotic Fund-and I .allude to it merely to establish the fact .that a very serious situation may arise in regard .to the equities in encumbered property when the Military Service Bill is put into force. The case I refer to is that of a woman whose husband volunteered early in the war. They had a house and lot assessed at $6,000 upon which there was a mortgage of $2,500 The mortgage matured, subsequent to the man's enlistment. The mortgagees foreclosed and claimed possession of the property. The soldier's wife contested the action and retained possession by occupation. The matter came to. my attention through the fact that the woman was a claimant on the Patriotic Fund, and her Patriotic Fund allowance was withheld, to either be diverted or to compel her to pay rental to the mortgagees. I bring that instance before the committee, not to discuss the administration of the Fund, but to show how -such cases may arise-where a man not only suffers the ordinary disabilities incidental to serving his country instead of serving himself, but is penalized in large amounts. This case is not one of pension at the present time. But if the man had been killed the woman would have lost not only her support but her property because of the patriotic service rendered by her husband.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: The case my hon. friend mentions is one that is not peculiar to his own community. There has been a considerable number of these cases in the West, and my little investigation -at a distance by correspondence leads me to believe there is in these cases no greater hardship-outside of casualties in the field- than that endured by those who remain at home, owing to conditions following upon real estate in western Canada having assumed its present aspect. I should like to know to what conclusion my hon. friend's investigation leads him.


Frank Oliver: Before six o'clock 1
read the recommendation of the Edmonton .Citizens' Committee, forwarded by the Hon. A. C. Rutherford, and 1 made the suggestion, of which the Prime Minister approved, that the same condition is found to exist in England under the Compulsory Military Service Act and that they are taking some means to minimize the hardship. I do not know what means



they are taking, or how far they are carrying it. I think the proposition is that the Government shall assume ithe responsibility up to a certain limited amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are cases
of compulsory service.


Frank Oliver: I was alluding to ithis on account of the 'Military Service Act coming into force. I think that we as a country should not give less consideration, tout if possible even imore consideration, to those who are called up than to those who volunteered freely, it is hard to make such a statement, but I think that proposition is fair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They would pToto-aibly, having regard to the terms of the regulation he exempt here when they would not in England.


Frank Oliver: That may be. I thought it was only right to draiw attention to this fact, and /to urge, as Ithe committee at Edmonton has urged', that the cases that have already occurred /under voluntary service should receive such consideration /as is within the scope and possibilities of the Government. There is another resolution of this committee that I desire to place before the House. It reads:
That the pension of a widowed mother be the same as that of a wife, provided her son or sons who has or have been killed in action or died on active service were at the time of enlistment or subsequently thereto her sole support.	[DOT]
I do not know how far this goes beyond the present regulation, tout I have read it for the purpose of putting it before the Government.


George Perry Graham: The question of pensions is a very important one, and no matter what policy Parliament 'adopts that policy will not toe easily carried out. There must of necessity toe cases of injustice at some points. /It ought to toe, and I 'believe it is, the policy of Parliament and of the Government to render these cases just as few and far between as possible. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) and the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), I think, made some reference this afternoon to insurance.
If I am rightly informed, the men who are to he called upon under the Military Service Act will not be in as good a position as the men overseas have been in the matter of protecting themselves by insurance.
1 was informed yesterday that several of the leading life insurance companies had

instructed their agents to solicit no more insurance on single men, or widowers with families, who were between the ages of the first class to be called. In other words, the insurance companies do not propose to take any risks upon the first 100,000 men who will he called up. It is quite probable that if the required number of men is not secured by the first call, the same attitude will be taken by the insurance companies in reference to the men liable to service in the next draft. This may have something to do with the question of pensions, because the men drafted will not be in as good a position to protect those whom they are leaving behind, no matter what means they have, as were those who have already gone over. Previously, policyholders were at liberty after the expiration of three years, to go wherever they liked; their taking part in the war had no effect upon the amount of their premium. Those who enlisted later had to pay a larger premium or have their policies cancelled. The fact that the insurance companies have asked their agents not to accept any more applications from men between the ages-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not universal, is it?


George Perry Graham: I do not know; this information came to me yesterday. This condition- will make it all the harder for those who go to protect those whom they leave behind, and it will impose upon the State a greater burden and a greater responsibility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are endeavouring to select for military service unmarried men in preference to married men.


George Perry Graham: I am speaking of unmarried men liable to call under the first class, and widowers without families, between the ages of 20 and 34. I wish the member for Kingston to answer two questions. First, when a man reverts in rank, will his family, if the occasion arises, receive pension on the basis of the rank that he held when he left Canada, or on the basis of the lower rank subsequently assumed? Second, what is the position of men, so far as pension is concerned, who, having enlisted with -the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, subsequently became attached to the British forces? .Will they have to rely upon the British Act in the matter of pensions?


William Folger Nickle: The British Act.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Frank Oliver: I would not wish to delay the committee longer on the -subject, -and I quite appreciate the -spirit in which the minister [DOT](*Mr. Reid) has spoken. As he says, we are all desirous of -seeing that -these men receive -their rights according to the wishes of the people of Canada. At the present time, however, we are not working under an Act of Parliament; we are working under an Order in Council that is oap-able of amendment at the discretion- and on the responsibility of the Government. So, if we consider the enactment not to be final, we are in a better position to-day to meet new -and unforeseen circumstances by amending the Order in Council, than we would be if we were working under an Act of Parliament. I would respectfully suggest that that fact might be taken into consideration, and that where there is found to be a class of cases- not provided for under -the present Order in Council, an amendment might be made to it in order that justice might be done. I would not, for one moment, wish that the Board of Pension Commissioners should not look into every case very carefully. I fully appreciate the fact that they have a responsibility to discharge towards the country in protecting the public moneys, but my complaint wasr-and I am going to take the liberty of repeating i-t-that their -attitude is that they are rather the guardians of the treasury than the champions of the disabled soldiers. My point is that their m-ain duty is the championship of the rights of

the soldiers. The protection of the treasury is part of their duty, but it is rather the second than the first duty. The Board of Pension Commisioners should create a sympathetic .atmosphere in and through their administration, so that the disabled soldier and his ftiends would feel (that, instead of his having to go up against opposition, he was appealing to friends who were making it their business to see that he got justice. I know it is not possible to please every one. I know there are people who make improper claims. I quite appreciate the difficulties that any Board of Pension Commissioners must encounter. But I make the straight and plain criticism that I do not think there has been created that atmosphere of sympathy with the soldier that would lead to more satisfactory administration, and that in the end would work out very much better for the country.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am sorry I did not have the opportunity of being in the House earlier in the afternoon when this matter was under consideration. I had the honour of being a member of the committee which considered the question of pensions last year, and I recall that the feeling of the committee was that in regard to a great many question we were necessarily working in the dark, and that it was necessary that there should be a revision during the present session of Parliament of the recommendations which we made. I notice that the Minister of Finance has had on the Order Paper since June 11 a resolution which apparently he intended to move, to provide for the revision which we expected last year would take place. A great many questions came before the committee on which it was felt that we could not pronounce with any finality. We felt that a year's experience in working out the problems that arose, together with the experience of the members in regard to their constituents, would help in perfecting an Act this year.
I also desire to recall that it was unanimously agreed by the committee that the men who were to compose the Pensions Board should be chosen after consultation with the leader of the Opposition. That understanding was embodied in the first report presented to the House. But at the request of the Chairman of the Committee, the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), it was agreed that as the terms of the report were to form part of an Order in Council, that recommendation should not be made, it being understood, however, that in accordance with the wishes of the committee the idea would be carried out. I regret to say that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) did not carry it out, though I personally called his attention to the matter in a letter I addressed to him, and although the fact of this understanding having been arrived at was stated in the House when the matter was under discussion on the very

day 'the House adjourned last session. I think it would have been very much better if the Prime Minister had carried out the idea. The Pension Board ought to be composed of men, and administered under conditions entirely free from political influence. The suggestion 'that there would be any politics in connection with the administration of the pensions regulations would only be an injury to the Government responsible for carrying them out. I have no hesitation in saying that I regard the Prime Minister as not having carried out Iws word on this subject. As I have already said, the statement that this understanding had been arrived at was made in his presence at end of last session; and where a thing of that 'kind is done by common consent all parties should .show good faith in the matter.
I have no fault to find with the personnel of the commission. I think that the gentlemen who compose it have approached the consideration of the problems before them with the highest possible ideals, .and with a v desire .to render the best public service. But I cannot help regarding it as most regrettable that the intention of the committee, as expressed, was not carried out, and that the commission, which might have been composed practically as it is no.w, was not appointed in accordance with that understanding. My hon. friends who were members of that committee will recall that what il am stating in that particular is absolutely correct.
I think it is unfortunate that the Government did not submit the pensions regulations for revision at this session of Parliament. I charge the Government with being negligent in their duty in permitting this motion to stand dn the Order Paper for over three months without calling in the aid of the Pensions Board and the services of the committee which sat last year, or some other committee of Parliament which had given some study to the question.


Mr. ROSS:: The Canadian Northern was more important.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My bon. friend says the Canadian Northern was more important. I do not think it was. I think that the proper regulation of pension matters is of the very greatest importance to the people of this country. I think that tlie whole terms of the Order in Council and the report of the committee that was made last year could well have been revised in the light of the experience we have all had in the meantime. The thousand complexities which human nature presents in the ordinary affairs of life do not begin to indicate the tremendous problems with which I have come in contact in my experience with the men of my own constituency who have gone to the front, .and in regard to their friends at home who have been bereaved. Problems have arisen which I had no conception of when, as a member of the committee, I studied this question last year.
This whole question of pensions is wrapped up with the question of the treatment of the men who have gone overseas, and theii conditions of service. I think Canada is paying the hoys at the front entirely too little money; I think wc should pay them .more. I think the Government should have taken up long ago the question of insuring the men who go to the front. That problem ought to be taken into consideration in working out the details of any pension scheme. Apparently, in regard to both these problems the Government is prepared to let matters remain as they are. In comparison with the United States, which has organized in a splendid way in every department that is necessary to maintain their position in the war, this Government shows in a very poor light, in whatever branch of the war you care to mention. The policy of this Government has been haphazard from the beginning. "Anything for the moment," has been its policy.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: That is a real scold.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend need not worry. He is one of those seraphic beings who could not say anything no matter what the Government did. I would point out that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who have criticised the Government in the matter of pensions are simply carrying out the suggestion which the minister made a short time ago, when he said that this Government would not know what to do unless they had some criticism in order to help them along the right path. I am, therefore, performing a duty in the interests of the Government. I say that it is a scandal that this whole question of pensions should have been allowed to stand as it is. My hon. friend intimates that there is going to be an Order in Council to increase the pensions. That should have been a matter for consideration by hon. members of this House, and for a committee of this House, entirely apart from any question of party.
There is another matter. With reference to the rules incorporated in the Order in

Counoil, I think we should have given, and should give now, to the Pensions Board, wider discretion in regard to the numerous cases which are liable to arise and which will prove exceptions to the general rules we laid down. I have in mind one or two instances. A father whose boy has been killed at the front, or has died as the result of injuries received or disease contracted or aggravated while on active service, is entitled to a pension .in class 3.
I have in mind the case of a poor old workingman in my county. Two of his elder sons were married. One of the younger boys upon whom he largely depended for getting along worked in one of the industries nearby. This boy went to the front and was killed. The man's wife died in the meantime. His second son volunteered and went to the front, and the younger boy did not give his father half of his pay. The result is, the old man is practically destitute. Under the conditions and rules which have been laid down, the Pension Board cannot see its way clear to give him anything. This is an instance in which the pension commissioners ought to have wider discretion, and if the opportunity had been afforded us to deal in review with the regulations which were laid down last year, I would have urged, if I had been on the committee, ithat wider discretionary power should be given to the commission to deal with such cases. Another case is that of a widowed mother, one of whose boys went to the front and was killed. Her husband died in the meantime. She has another son, sixteen years old, who is not much good. She is in receipt of a pension under the regulations, which will cease the moment that boy reaches the age of .seventeen or eighteen, and he will probably turn out to be no good whatever. This poor woman is bereft of the one who might have been able to help her, and under the regulations she is cut off from receiving any pension. If wider discretion were left with the board to deal with cases of this kind, undoubtedly she would be looked after. Let me give still, another case. A man who had been through the South African war volunteered for service overseas. While training in Halifax he was thrown and broke his kneecap. Of course it was impossible for him to go overseas. He was allowed a pension and he still walks lame, and will be lame for the rest of his life. Before he enlisted he was a coal miner, and of course it is impossible for him to engage in coal mining again.


William Folger Nickle: Was he injured on this side of the Atlantic?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, but he was in the overseas forces, .and he would have been entitled to a pension, so that the case comes within the purport *of these regulations. While the shell manufacturing was going on he got .some work in that industry, but this is now stopped. I received a letter from him the other day in which he tells me that on the principle of bad luck never coming singly, he has received word from the Pension Board to the effect that, basing themselves upon some medical report, he is not to receive any more pension. I have no do.ubt .the Pension Board is dealing with this case in accordance with the regulations. I intend to call upon the board for the purpose of giving this man's name, and the full particulars. The net result of the whole thing is that he is lame for life and cannot engage in his usual occupation, and his pension is being cut off because, I apprehend, the .board is tied down by the letter of the law as incorporated in the Order in Council. The Government are taking full responsibility for this law; they have not consulted Parliament in regard to the matter and apparently have decided that they would not do so. They propose to deal with the question by Order in Council. With all the complexity of the problems that must come before any Parliament in this country, we have allowed a year ,to go by without any revision of those pension regulations. I regard this as very unfortunate. The difficulty will not be met by simply increasing the amount of the pensions. There must be a total revision of these regulations along certain lines, and the Government, with an election upon them and with .all the problems to be dealt with in the next six months, will not be able to give this question the consideration to which it is entitled. I believe the Pension Board is determined to do what is right, and I believe we may safely trust them. At the same time, I regard it as most unfortunate that the Government has allowed a year to elapse without dealing with the problem, and that we are now coming to the end of this Parliament with a law which is practically a year and a half old, without the benefit of the changes suggested by the experience which has been gathered in the time intervening, and that we cannot look for any immediate improvement or change in the law upon a permanent basis or upon such lines that calm deliberation and intelligence and care ap-

plied to the framing of a law would produce.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Miaedonald) first complains that in the appointment of this commission he understood the committee had suggested


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not understand it; I knew it.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend says he knew the committee had recommended that the leader of the Opposition should be consulted in the appointment of this commission. This is the first time I have heard of it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let me say to my hon. friend that it was stated in Parliament on a motion to adopt the report of the committee. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries moved the adoption of the report last year, and I seconded. If my hon. friend will look at Hansard he will see that my statement is correct.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not doubt my hon. friend's statement at all. He also told us he had written a letter to the Prime Minister. This is the first I have heard of it. Probably I was not in the House when the discussion took place. If the Prime Minister Wad that understanding I am quite satisfied he must have overlooked it, and that he had no intention whatever of not fully carrying out any understanding which may have been arrived at. In any event, even if 'a mistake were made so far 'as the understanding is concerned, my hon. friend agrees that the three commissioners who were appointed were men in whom the people of Canada had every confidence. I think that in making the selection the Prime Minister dhose men whom no person would criticise a<s being unfair in the administration of those pension regulations. So far as concerns the submission of the Bill at this session, I may say that the notice on the Order Paper referred to by my hon. friend was simply a notice of a Bill authorizing the appointment of the Board of Commissioners, not of a Bill to establish the rate of pensions. The reason no Bill was submitted this session is that we have not had an opportunity of submitting one. I think every member of this House will agree that we have had most important legislation from the time the Prime Minister came back in May down to the present moment, legislation that had to go through, legislation that could not wait. The financial Bills and the other Bills had to go through; there can be no
doubt about that. Even the Canadian Northern Railway Bill, to which my hon. friend refers, was a Bill which had to go through, otherwise there would be a financial crisis in the country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is going to make one anyway.


John Dowsley Reid: No, it will not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It will make a worse crisis than if nothing at all had been done.


John Dowsley Reid: No. That Bill had to go through, and the other Bills had to go through, and this session has been kept busy. I believe that in the twenty-six years that I have been here there never has been as much important legislation passed as during the present session.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There never was so much bad legislation.


John Dowsley Reid: It is all good legislation. The present pension law is administered in the same way as if it had been a law passed by Parliament. Anything that is necessary to meet the situation or to provide amendments can be done by Order in Council, and the Prime Minister stated that some matters that were brought to his attention to-day, and other matters, were being considered by the Government. Hon. gentlemen will admit that with this House continuously in session, and ministers busy here all day and up to late at night, it was impossible to take many things that were urgent.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You are the only
minister who does any work.


John Dowsley Reid: No. they have all been working very hard. This question will be taken up and dealt with and we will carry the matter along until Parliament meets again. The hon. gentleman speaks of what the United States have done in the short time since they have been at war. He knows that when this war came on there was no preparation. We had to initiate everything and get the organization started. The United States knew this war was going on and they were getting ready for the war that they would eventually get into. They have had the advantage of our experience and of that of other nations. I believe that the Government and people of this country have done more in this war than the Government and people of any other country in the world. I do not take second place to any country or government. The people and Government of Canada have done

everything possible to further their participation in the war. The question of an increase in the pensions is being considered ai d an increase will be given. The present rate of pensions was unanimously agreed to bv the members of this House and now all agree that the question of the rate of pensions should again be considered. The Government are considering the matter and will come to a conclusion as to an increase in the pension. When we meet again the House will be in a position to reconsider and readjust the whole matter. A matter of this kind is very important to the men at the front, to those whom they have left behind and to the people of the country as a whole. Criticism with regard to it is good. While the criticism of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is very severe, we are still glad to have it. This criticism will result in good and we will consider the different suggestions which have been made.
I was surprised to hear my hon.
9pm friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) say that there was a possibility that he might not return. We all like to have him here.


Frank Oliver: I presume that is why
my hon. friend insists on putting through the Military Voters' Bill and the War-Time Elections Bill.


John Howard Sinclair: I am in thorough sympathy with this vote and I do not wish for a moment to delay its passage. But the minister slid over one or two questions that I did think he ought to have dealt with. On two or three occasions the question of insuring the lives of soldiers was brought up by speakers, and I do not think that the minister has given any answer on that question. It is a matter of the very greatest importance, .and if it is true that the insurance companies have refused altogether to accept risks on the men who are liable to be called out, then ilt is a question upon which the Government ought to take some action. I recollect that at the time of the South African war, the late Right Hon. Sir Charles Tupper proposed a scheme by which the lives of the soldiers were to be protected by life insurance. I do not think his scheme was ever carried out, but I remember that he advocated it. I have seen in the press that in the United States the premium1 of insurance on, a soldier is very low. Something like $3.50 or $4 a month for $5,000 is what is being paid by soldiers who have been recruited under the new Military Service Bill of the United

States. I have no doubt that soime arrangements have been made by the Government of the United States with the insurance companies by which they are protected financially. Why is it that our Government have not done something? Is it not of the greatest importance that the men who can afford to pay life insurance should have an opportunity of insuring their lives before they are drafted? I join with my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) in condemning the Govfernment for having allowed this question of pensions to lie over since the 11th of June, without having dealt with it. Why did they not deal with it? Surely they have had time enough to take this question up since the 11th of June. Look at the resolution placed on the Order Paper by the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). I think the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) was a little astray in what he told us to-night. He explained that this proposal was simply for the purpose of appointing a commission and of making certain regulations governing the commission, but that it did not give them any power to deal with the question of pensions. If he looks at the- proposal on the Order Paper he will find that he is altogether mistaken in regard to the effect of it. This is the proposal:
Resolved, that it is expedient to establish a Commission to be known as "The Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada," consisting of three Commissioners, and to provide for salaries and expenses in connection therewith, and to empower the Board to award pensions, allowances, and gratuities to any persons who nave served in the military or naval expeditionary forces of Canada during the present war and have been disabled on such service, and to their children; and to the widows, children and dependents of such persons when death occurs during or was due to such service; the said pensions, allowances and gratuities to be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.
You will see that the resolution deals not only with the appointment of a pension commission, but with the whole question of pensions. There is no doubt that the Government deserves to he condemned for neglecting this important matter all through last summer. It should have been dealt with. There are a number of other things in connection with the military affairs of this country on which the Government has fallen, down and with which it has not dealt. It has fallen down on the question of national service; on the question of recruiting; on the question of raising the soldiers'	paywhich has been brought up in the

House a number of times-on the question of pensions, and has devoted all its time for the last (few months to schemes of a very low order, tampering rwith the franchise, as any one can see by the measure now being forced through the Senate. The Government has had plenty of time to attend to questions of that kind, but apparently not time to attend to important questions in relation to our military forces, which should have been attended to. What has the minister to say about the insurance policies?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for Edmonton raised the insurance question this afternoon. He referred to the fact that it had been brought to the attention of the Government and the Prime Minister informed him that the whole matter would be taken into consideration.


Mr. COPP:: It seems to me a regrettable fact that great hardships have arisen, and will arise in the future, in regard to pensions, unless the Government takes steps to put the law on a better basis. I have at this moment received an answer to an application for a pension from a widow in my county. The case seems to me a very hard one indeed. As the hon. member for Piotou was speaking I was reading the letter I received from the Board of Pension Commissioners refusing the application for the pension. The situation is this: Some fifteen years ago this woman was left a widow with six young children. She had a small farm and kept her family together until they grew up. One married, and two sons were left at home. One enlisted and went to the front, returned and was discharged. After he recovered his health he re-enlisted and went overseas the second time. He had been there only a few" months when he was killed. The eldest son is at home working the farm, but he may leave at any time and get married, or anything may happen to him, and if anything happens, this widow will be absolutely alone. The board refused the pension, and they were probably right according to law. I have no fault to find with the Board of Pension Commissioners, I have had occasion to go to the board during the last two or three years and have been treated with the greatest courtesy, and I think they would do the best they could under the circumstances. The answer I have received from them to-night is that the law reads " wholly or mainly dependent upon;" and, they cannot get around that point. They practically .admit, although they do not say it in so many words, that it is a hardship. Reading between the lines, I would say they -consider the case one in which relief should be given. 'This woman is ipoor. Her son has given his life in defence of his country. And now, because of some words in the la/w, the com- . missioners are debarred from considering the question of granting the pension which she deserves, and which I am suro the commissioners think she deserves. If such is the law-and I presume it is-it is very unfortunate that Parliament is to be prorogued without placing upon the statute-book a law giving greater latitude to the commissioners, permitting them to investigate each particular case, and -deal with each case on -its merits. This case, I am sure, deserves the greatest consideration. I understand the Minister of Customs, who has charge of these estimates, to state that while no law is being passed this year to amend the Pensions Act, these cases will be provided for by Order in Council. I sincerely trust such an Order may be passed as will give relief in this and other cases on the same footing.
Pensions payable to militiamen and on active service as follows:	Northwest Rebellion, 1S85,
$14,000 ; general, $30,000.


John Dowsley Reid: The -hon. member for Edmonton wanted a list of those receiving pensions under the item " Northwest Rebellion, 1885."


Frank Oliver: No, I did not wish for that. All I wanted was to know how it came that we were voting this particular sum of money for the Northwest rebellion.


John Dowsley Reid: We pay it every year to the Northwest Rebellion veterans.


Frank Oliver: Is- it- not different from the item last year?


John Dowsley Reid: No, it is the old item. We have it every year. The whole list is in the Auditor General's Report. The question was as to the militia pensions generally.


Frank Oliver: I understood the minister to say that part of this .money was for the Home Defence, or Home Guard Service. I desire a fuller explanation in regard to that. Besides, there is an increase of $24,000 since last year. That is what particularly claimed my attention.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman will remember the letter I read from the Militia Department, in which it was said that the increase was on account of men. on the

Home Defence. There is one general 'pension account as it were. On account of the large number of men serving in the Home Defence force, the pension list is increasing. For instance, a member of the Home Defence force, while guarding one of the locks, was killed through no fault of nis own. His case would come under the Militia Act.


Frank Oliver: The item shows an increase of $24,000, which, I assume, is entirely in respect of pensions on account of disability during service in the home defence force. The size or extent of the home defence force, the circumstances under which it is maintained, and the kind of service it renders, are things which are not generally known." What are the circumstances that call for this extra payment of pensions? Is the scale of pensions in this case the same as that provided in the case of overseas service, or is it the old scale that prevailed some years ago?


William Folger Nickle: The old scale.


John Dowsley Reid: Militia pensions generally are for all those in the militia engaged in active service, but not overseas. A great number of men' have been employed in guarding canals, elevators, railways, bridges, public buildings, and so on. Accidents are bound to occur among these men, and the pension list accordingly increases. These pensions are dealt with as they have been for some years, by the Militia Council on the old scale. I think that a return was brought down giving the information asked for by my hon. friend up to a certain date. The only information that it would be necessary for me to furnish in response to his request is that covering the period since the bringing down of that return.


Frank Oliver: I do not insist upon that. Rut what I find strange is that in this home defence force there should be an increase in one year of $24,000 for pensions. The war has been going on for three years, and it is rather unaccountable that there should be a fourfold increase during the year.


John Dowsley Reid: That is information that the hon. gentleman should have. The letter that I read this afternoon from the Paymaster General gave the estimate of the amount required during the fiscal year. Of course, the whole of the amount may not be used, but it is necessary to provide an amount to cover all possible requirements.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend told us this afternoon that this vote was for pensioners under the Militia Act. The pensioners we have under the Militia Act are officers.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Very largely. I know some officers at headquarters who have been pensioned under the Militia Act.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is wrong when he .says that only officers are pensioned under the Militia Act. Under the Pay and Allowance regulations which took effect September 1, 1914, it was provided as follows:
The following rates of pensions will he granted militiamen wounded or disabled on active service, during drill or training, or on other military duty, provided the disability was not due to his own fault or negligence.
These regulations provide for pensions to men of the first, second, third and fourth degrees, of the following ranks: rank and file; sergeant; .squad, battery or company or sergeant-major; squad, battery, or company quartermaster-sergeant; colour sergeant; staff sergeant; regimental sergeant-major; master gunner; regimental quartermaster-sergeant; warrant officer-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Those are members
of the permanent force?


John Dowsley Reid: No, those are all on active service, and as I have stated, there are many men on home service in this country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How many?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know, but the return, up to a certain date, has been brought down. I have not the later information. If my hon. friend desires it, I will write to the department for the information.


Frank Oliver: All we want to know is
how this very remarkable increase in the estimates, in regard to this particular item, comes about. We really ought to have that information because the increase is a very startling one. While I would not wish to be too suspicious, when we see the figures of the estimates performing such startling gymnastics, we necessarily become suspicious.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member, of course, knows the way in which these pensions to men on active service are dealt with. Every claim for a pension by a militiaman must come before the Militia Council and be passed by them. The Militia Council make a recommandation to Council. The matter then goes before the Treasury Board which

must examine and pass upon the pension, and then it goes before Council in which the matter is taken up. The hon. member, therefore, from his own experience in regard to these matters, will, I think, agree with me that there is not much opportunity for money being improperly expended. I feel, of course, as the Paymaster' General has stated, that he has put in an amount that he would be sure would cover any amount that would be required for any one injured on actiwe service. This includes not only the regular active militia, but the extra men who have been put on or enlisted in the active militia for home guard duty.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why does the minister not put the whole of the pensions under the one control? There is no use in having these side pensions administered in-this way. There is no reason why they should not be transferred by Order in Council.


John Dowsley Reid: These pensions are, as I
have stated, administered by the Militia Council, but they are all paid through the Pensions Board.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why should they not be altogether under the Pensions Board?


John Dowsley Reid: That matter will probably be taken up later on. That Taises the whole question of pensions, and I cannot answer as to the question of policy.


William Folger Nickle: I think I can clear up the matter. The report of the special committee of last year dealt with the question of pensions for members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. The committee recommended, as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) will remember, that a commission be appointed to take charge of and administer that particular branch of the pension work. The militia pensions to which the hon. member refers are -not pensions to officers who have retired after long service, but are pensions paid to members of the militia in Canada, such as the home guard, who suffer disability. The hon. gentleman will remember that, when the documents were referred to the committee of last session, there was in effect a -scheme of pensions by which $264 was -granted to members of the rank and file. That scheme of pensions was not affected by the report of the committee in so far as i-t -affected the members of the Canadian Defence Force, the Home Guard, and -so on. The report of the committee dealt only with the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. As I understand the practice -at the present time,
the Pensions and Claims Board of the Militia Department determine what pensions shall be paid to members of the Canadian militia, and the payment is then made through the Pensions Board. The whole matter as to the centralization under the one commission rests until legislation is introduced in this House. But the pensions to officers are commonly known as the pensions under the Act of 1901, that is, pensions for long service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are those voted
separately, or are they included in the general vote?


William Folger Nickle: They are voted separately,
I understand.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister -arrange to give us to-morrow a list of the parties who are receiving pensions under this vote?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.
Penitentiaries-To provide a further amount necessary in consequence of the error in item No. 414 of the Supplementary Estimates, for a bonus not exceeding $100 each to penitentiary officials and employees whose salary was $1,000 or less on April 1, 1917, $6,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Did not this item
stand for some information?


William Folger Nickle: This item was puit in to
cover an error in the original estimate. ^Provision was- made for the payment of a bonus of $100 to those whose salaries were $1,000 or less. There were in the penitentiaries -about 60 industrial guards who were left out of the count in the -estimate, and this is simply to cover an error in the computation.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does that apply to all the
penitentiaries- in the Dominion?


William Folger Nickle: It is general in fits -application.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not -happen- to be here when the item amounting to $26,500 of which this is a part, was taken up. I am not opposing the increase or bonus of $100 to those guards, although I see no reason why it should be limited to the guards and should not be given to the men on the clerical staff. If you simply regard this matter from the standpoint of the amount of salary paid to the guards in- the penitentiaries, you will not be considering it as it should be considered.
In addition to the -salary of $800 or $900, as the ease may be, every guard receives two -suits o-f clothes, an overcoat, cap, boots, and so on. He is allowed two weeks' holi-

days during the year, -and a gratuity is provided for which is equivalent to -the Government keeping insurance in force, so to speak, to an amount anywhere from $1,200 to $1,800, according -to the length of time the guard has served 'and the salary he has received. For instance, a man drawing $76 a month who had served twenty years would draw on retirement a lump eum of $1,500. Frequently, men have retired and drawn that amount, and then -gone into, some other occupation.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do they pay anything towards it?


William Cameron Edwards: Nothing whatever. I
have in mind the case of a guard who, upon retirement at his own request, drew a gratuity of $1,200 or $1,500-1 forget just which-and was afterwards taken on the staff, although he had been retired. There is really supposed to be only one reason for a man retiring, and that is physical or mental unfitness for .his position. One would naturally suppose, therefore, that if a man retired on account of physical or mental unfitness and drew a gratuity, he would not be replaced on the staff, but there was at least one case where that occurred, and the man ie on the staff at the present time. I do not think -the principle of giving a gratuity to the guard is a right one. I think their salaries ought to be regulated in -some 6uch way as the salaries of civil servants. Giving a gratuity to a man makes him a slave to hie superior officers. Under those conditions a -m-an is afraid to express an opinion lest he incur the displeasure of his superior officer, who might report him in such a way that it would be impossible for him to obtain a gratuity, or perhaps compel him to retire on grounds other than those of ill-health and thereby lose the gratuity which he had earned during his years of service. It does seem to me -that the logical and reasonable thing to- do would be to fix a minimum salary -and then allow a certain amount for good conduct, and let the salary advance to certain maximum. There would then be an incentive to a man to do his best. He would get paid as he went along, -and when he retired -he need receive no gratuity or pension of any kind. When this matter was under discussion before, the Minister of Justice referred to the case of a man who had been employed for a great many years in one of our western, institutions, and who died very suddenly of heart disease. Dying suddenly in that way, without any opportunity of putting in a -claim 
for a gratuity, there was nothing coming to his family, notwithstanding the fact that this man had served for thirty-two years. As the 'Minister of Justice pointed out, that was a case of extreme hardship. The man's family did not have anything to live on, and there was -no gratuity coming to them because the -man had not retired on account of illness. But if twenty-four hours before his death, he bad made up his mind to retire, and had made application accordingly on the ground of ill-health, He would have drawn $1,700 or $1,800. But, being suddenly stricken with heart disease, there was nothing coming to him, unless the government granted a -compassionate allowance. The -case was dealt .with in that way, and very properly, by Parliament. That case seems to me to prove conclusively that the present system is asolutely iPogi-eal and unfair.
I know of a case where a man by the name of Young, who had been a guard for many years, was taken ill. He did not send in his resignation or apply for his retiring allowance because he expected to get better and return to his work. He withheld sending in the necessary papers to Ottawa until (just -a few hours too late. The man died. The papers did not get here in time, and -his family was deprived of an amount which they would (have obtained if the papers had arrived -here a few minutes sooner.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: On what basis are gratuities granted? Is so much counted for every year's service ?


William Cameron Edwards: Supposing a man's
salary during the -past three years had averaged $75 a month, and he had been employed as a guard for twenty years. Upon retiring he would receive one -month's salary for every year he had served; that is, twenty times $75, or $1,500. I think I have stated it correctly.


Mr. DOHERTY:: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But if he dies, his family gets nothing?


William Cameron Edwards: Absolutely nothing,
unless the Government grants a compassionate allowance, as they did in a case -last week. Speaking on that case the Minister of Justice said:	"On inquiry I find that
it is most unlikely that other cases of a similar kind would occur; so that this will not be establishing a precedent." That simply means that the Minister of Justice is under the impression that there will not

be any more guards die of heart disease and thereby be excluded from obtaining the pension they would have received if they had retired in the ordinary way.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You cannot tell that.
Mr. EDM7ARDS: No, I don't think so. However, to return to the matter of the guards and their salaries. In addition to their salaries they get these articles of clothing which I have mentioned, and that is not all. I think I am right in saying that when they are on duty at the prison they have to take some of their meals there. These meals they get at about twelve and a half or thirteen cents each. They also get a great many things from the prison at a much lower price than ordinary people can get them elsewhere. For instance, most excellent bread is made at the prisons, and all the guards have to do is to put in a requisition for whatever bread they want for themselves and their- families, and they get it at several cents a loaf less than the ordinary citizen has to pay. This provision for gratuity is equivalent to a paid-up insurance policy. Taking all these things into consideration, I do not think I am extravagant in saying that you are adding $150 a year to their salaries in the way of these perquisites. The work they perform is not heavy work. True, there is a certain element of danger connected with it, but it is not work which requires very great education, and the salaries of these men are as good as if not better than the salaries of the clerical staff. There are hundreds of employees in the various branches of the public service whose hours are very much longer than those of the penitentiary guards, and whose work is very much more particular, yet they are receiving less salary than those men. It is said this is not an increase in salary, but simply a bonus granted because of the high cost of living at the present time. We may call it a bonus for the time being, but I am satisfied that once they receive this grant it will be very hard to cut it off. The probabilities are that it will never be cut off. I do not wish to be understood as being opposed to the granting of this $100 to them, but I think consideration should also be given to the clerical staff who, in my judgment, are not overpaid.
There are one or two other matters in connection with the penitentiaries to which I would like to call attention. In the first "place there is the lack of suitable prison employments. This was referred to by Mr. Douglas Stewart, Inspector of Penitentiaries, in his reports. He states that this is one of the principal difficulties with which the penitentiary officials have to contend.
I think that difficulty could be largely removed by making use of the services of prisoners to produce many articles which are required in our Government buildings throughout the country, articles of furniture, for instance, and for the manufacture of rural mail boxes, as well as a hundred and one other things that could be mentioned. I know this suggestion will be me: with the old song that we are "competing with free labour." But this is a State institution, maintained at the expense of the State, and the State should have a right to make use of the services of these men to produce such articles as it may require. Some departure has been made from the ordinary routine during the last two or three years. We have made use of prison labour to a certain extent in improving the roads around Kingston. Might I impress upon the minister that I think the convict labour of the Kingston penitentiary might very well be used in rebuilding the piece of road which was taken over by the late Government from Cataraqui bridge up through the military camp. The Government has to maintain this piece of road, and I see no reason why the prisoners could not be employed in maintaining it. There is any amount of material there, but men are scarce. I do not know how this will be received by the minister, but I recommend ;t to his careful consideration.
One of the principal causes of trouble in our penitentiaries at the present time is that the men are not allowed to have tobacco. They get it in an underhand way, and there has been a good deal of difficulty on that account. Guards have been charged with taking money for conveying tobacco to the prisoners. I think one of the best means of putting an end to that trouble would be to allow the convicts a limited supply of tobacco. However, that is a matter upon which opinions may very widelv differ.
*Many years ago Sir John Thompson proposed erecting a penal institution to take care of youthful convicts under twenty years of age. That movement ended with Sir ' John Thompson's death. I think it is a matter that wp might very seriously consider. I notice by the last prison statistics that we have, those for the year ended March 31, 1915, that 187 convicts twenty years of age and under are in our various penal institutions. Some of these might have been serving a second or third term

but I think it very unlikely. I would assume that most of them were in for the first time. I do think that these young men can hardly be expected to leave those institutions any better than when they went in. Suppose they are first offenders, they are brought into contact with old criminals, men who have spent a good part of their lives behind prison walls. I do not think we are giving these young fellows a square deal, a fair show. The object of imprisonment is twofold. A man must be taught that he must expect to be punished if he violates the laws of the land. But surely that is not the sole and only object of sending him to prison. It may be the first thing to consider, fbut we should also consider the possibility of turning that man out at the expiration of his sentence with the prospect of becoming a good and useful citizen. If young lads twenty years of age and under could be sent to a separate institution, located somewhere between Kingston and Montreal, and kept toy themselves, there would toe a better chance of their becoming useful citizens than there is when they are housed with men of all classes as they are at tlhe present time. In that connection, it is very interesting to note that in the Kingston penitentiary 3.7 per cent of the convicts were less than twenty or only 21 out of a total population of 559. At St. Vincent de Paul there were 72 out of a population of 447-over 16 per cent-were under twenty years of age. Dorchester about 141 per cent of the population was under twenty; in Manitoba 121 per cent and in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan between 5 and 6 per cent. I am not going to undertake to give a reason for that; I frankly admit I cannot give a reason. But the figures arrested my attention. I could not help but note .such a large percentage in St. Vincent de Paul and Dorchester pen-itentaries-16 and 14} per cent as compared with 3.7 per cent at Kingston. That is something for which there may be an explanation but it does not occur to me. The percentage of convicts in various institutions who are put down as intemperate is also worth noting. In this connection Alberta has the best record, less than three per cent of its prison population being put down as 10 p.m. intemperate, while at St. Vincent de Paul the number is 48} per cent, Kingston, 37} per cent; Manitoba, 40 per cent, and British Columbia 6-8 per cent.
I am told that since the passing of prohibition in Ontario and in other provinces 
where prohibitory measures have been passed, a very marked effect has been noticeable upon the prison population, that it is much less than formerly. The lessened number of convicts is attributed to a very large extent to the difficulty people have at the present time in getting liquor. I think possibly that is true.
If I might refer again to the matter which is uppermost in my mind in connection with our penal institutions, I would like to impress upon the Minister of Justice and the members of this House the importance of seriously considering the erection of a separate institution for boys under twenty or twenty-one years of age who are first offenders. I honestly believe that such an institution will more than pay for itself, even if you consider only the matter of dollars and cents. But if you estimate its value upon other lines, the possible reclamation of young men who may become useful citizens, it is impossible to state in terms of money its value to the country. We ought to do all that we possibly can as representatives of the people to reclaim any of those fellows where it is possible to reclaim them. I do not think that there is any man entirely so bad that there is no- good in him, and perhaps we might turn that around and say that there is no man so good hut there is some bad in him. I think there is some good in every man, and you will get it out of him if you go the right way about it. I do not think that a boy who is sent to prison for the first time has a fair show to come out of that institution and become a useful member of society, having to mix, as he does, with criminals of all classes. I believe that as men who are interested in our fellow men we ought seriously to consider, as Sir John Thompson did, the erection of such an institution as I have mentioned to take care of the young men who are found in our various penal institutions. That is the main reason why I rose to speak to-night. I sincerely ask the members of this House to give the matter consideration.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I certainly think a great many of my hon. friend's remarks are very timely, and I rise to endorse what he has said in regard to separate institutions, such as the prison farm, where the younger men who are not steeped in crime can. be given employment. The theory of the present day in reference to prisons is that they are just as much for reformation as for punish-' ment. They have made a marked success at Sing Sing along that line, and certainly

nothing could be more successful than the efforts of the Hon. Mr. Hanna in establishing a prison farm at Guelph. He has had wonderful success in reforming a great many men who were sent to prison. My hon. friend's remarks along that line are very much to the point, and I think the minister will give them .serious consideration.
I desire to ask the minister whether the men working at the penitentiary are paid anything? In many institutions they pay the prisoners a certain amount for their work, and when they go <jut into the world they are not entirely destitute. I understand they give them a suit of clothes when they leave the penitentiary. Advocates of prison reform in the United States lay great stress on the advisability of paying the men something so as to give them a start in the world when they are discharged. Is there any system of that kind in Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: At present the convict is not paid anything for his work.


William Folger Nickle: I cannot say whether or not the committee has been particularly impressed with what the hon. member for Frontenac has said with reference to wages paid the guards and employees of the Kingston penitentiary. While certainly he did not criticise these employees in so many words, I do not think I would be outside the mark in saying that he almost damned them with faint praise. With reference to the remuneration paid to a man for services, it makes a great deal of difference from what angle you view the subject, and I am rather inclined to think that the hon. gentleman from Frontenac viewed this matter from the point of view of the man who lives in the country, rather than the point of view of the city man. The ordinary guard in the Kingston penitentiary-and I think, similarly, in other penitentiaries in Canada -receives $800 a year. He has to work 305 days and loses practically part of each Sunday. He gets two suits of clothes, a pair of boots, a hat, and other perquisites, and is allowed to take advantage of the bakery and buy bread at cost. When you consider what it costs to live in Canada today, and what the industrial workers outside are getting, I do not think any member of this committee will contend that a man receiving $900 a year-as that is the remuneration of the guard, with $100 added -is being exorbitantly paid for his services. We must have regard from the point of view of the work these men have to undertake. It is a position of great trust, in which a man,
if he is dishonest, can make a great deal of money by trafficking with the convicts. You expect honesty and efficiency, and you expect the guard to keep himself neat and tidy when off duty. Last autumn or early last spring a delegation of the guards came to my house, and some of them explained to me that, living as they could, they were going behind $4 or $5 a month, without meeting clothing expenses of their family or doctor's expenses. I regret, as well as the hon. member for Frontenac, that the clerical staff has not had an increase. They are doing their work well, and many of them are not paid adequately for their services, but the Government laid down the principle that no man in receipt of more than $1,000 salary should receive the bonus, and those oil the clerical staff, being all paid in excess of $1,000, could not take advantage of the regulation. The vote is not limited strictly to the industrial guards, but it is limited to those whose salary does not exceed $1,000. The hon. member for Frontenac has said in one breath that the gratuity system practically amounted to an insurance policy, and in the next breath admitted that it was not an insurance or superannuation, but a gratuity paid to a man, for years of service, who does not resign, but is relieved from service, the man's conduct having been good. If a man dies in the employ of the penitentiary no superannuation is paid to his wife. If he resigns he gets nothing; he severs his connection with the penitentiary, and gets what is coming to him, and that ends it. If he dies in the ordinary course of human affairs, nothing is paid to his widow. It is not an insurance. The Government simply says to the penitentiary guard: " If you do your duty faithfully and well, and if you live beyond the allotted span of life, and become so worn out in the Government service that you are not fit to continue the performance of your duties, then we will give you a gratuity, something to live on, in your declining days. But this provision cannot be taken advantage of by the wife or family of the guard.
I might say-and I think the hon. member for Frontenac will bear me out-that this year the convicts of the Kingston penitentiary have done more than usual of constructive work. They have built a magnificent roadway in front of the penitentiary proper, and partially in the village that lies to the west of the penitentiary. They have done more farm work than usual, because

the cry tor increased production made available land that did not belong (to the penitentiary, but -which, was placed at the 'Government's disposal by the owners, so that a crop might be raised on it this year. I think I am safe in saying that more work has 'been done this year than in former years. But when it comes to the question of turning the convicts over to work in gangs on general road construction, I think the hon. member for Frontenac and I do not see eye to eye. In my judgment the work for the convict should be work of a constructive character, from the point of view of the upbuilding of the convict, the development of habits in him that would be useful; and he should learn a trade. Then, when he leaves the institution, he could turn his knowledge to advantage. I may not be right in my conclusion, but I think that many men return to the penitentiary after having left it because they are not able to earn a decent living outside. I have always thought that if a man left there instructed in a trade so that he could earn a living, he would not drift back into the penitentiary. But if we are going to make it an industrial drudgery, the man is no better when he leaves than when he went into the institution. My idea is that the great work in whicfy these men should be instructed is agriculture. The cry from one end of tlhe country to the other is for assistance on the farm. If, after the w-aT is over and things are more or less settled, the Minister of Justice could see his way to buy large tracts of land adjacent to the several penitentiaries and give the men instructions in scientific agriculture, I think he would take a long step towards solving our penitentiary problems. Many men, if they were instructed as agricultural labourers, would leave the cities and go into the country. They would be in a new environment; they would be removed from their old haunts and from the temptations to which they had previously been subjected. I sincerely trust that this matter will not escape the attention of the Minister of Justice. With regard to tobacco, some people may say that it is a luxury. I have talked with many inmates of penitentiaries, and I know that many of them get tobacco against the rules. It is sent in to them; there is a certain amount of traffic in it. If the men are going to get it; if they are willing to break the rules to obtain it, it seems to me that it would not be unwise for the Government to make some provision by which the men could get a definite 
allowance of tobacco as a reward for good conduct and faithfulness or service. Some of the men. tell me that the withholding of tobacco from them is a terrible deprivation. The cost of supplying tobacco would not be excessive, and I think the advantage would be great.
When you come to the youthful offender, you are face to face with a mighty problem. Those who profess to speak with confidence on the subject of the criminal say that the youth of the criminal does not always indicate the enormity of the offence; that some of the wijrst men in the penitentiaries are those serving their first terms; that some of these are the most abandoned of the immates of the penitentiaries. I do not believe that you can make your line of segregation on the basis of age. If there is to be segregation, the less hardened of the criminals should be removed to an institution where they will not be subjected to the contaminating influences of what are called hardened criminals. I should like to see something done along the line of education. So many of these young boys that drift into the penitentiaries hardly know how to read or write; some cannot even sign their own names. It does seem almost a crime that young fellows sixteen, seventeen and eighteen years of age are incarcerated for three or four years during the constructive and acquiring period of their lives, and then turned out at the expiration of their term no better than they were when they went in. I agree with the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that the object of our penitentiary^systam should be punitive; but it should be reformative as well. I sincerely trust that when the opportunity arises the Minister of Justice will give his attention to the problems that I know he realizes must be solved, and will endeavour to do something to better the conditions of the criminal population of our country.


William Cameron Edwards: I repeat that I am not opposed to the granting of this bonus to the guards. I pointed out, however, that their pay, generally speaking, was better than the pay of many men in other 'branches of the service who had longer hours and greater responsibility. To that statement, which has a bearing upon the question of salary, or bonus to these men, the member for Kingston did not take any exception, although he came to the conclusion that I was opposed to the granting of an increase

to the guards of the institution. That, of course, will go on record, and I trust that it will bring to him the reward that he expects it will. Of course I am not responsible for what the hon. gentleman thought; Hansard will show what I said.
In the matter of gratuities, I should have thought that a gentleman so well posted in these matters as the member for Kingston would have been more familiar with the subject wilth which he was dealing. He said that this gratuity was given not to those who voluntarily resigned their positions, but only to those who resigned on account of illness, who had reached old age in the service, or whose condition of health compelled them to retire. My hon, friend is entirely in error in that, because gratuities have been' given in more than one case to guards who resigned not on account of ill-health. The Minister of Justice will bear me out in that assertion.


William Folger Nickle: Of course, I did not profess to cover' every class. I understand that gratuities are at times granted when guards are permitted to resign to promote efficiency.


William Cameron Edwards: My hon. friend is now giving us a supplement to his former statement. Of course, I can only take his remarks as he gave them. My point is that his former statement is entirely incorrect


William Folger Nickle: Partially.


William Cameron Edwards: No, entirely incorrect. He said that this gratuity was not given to guards who voluntarily resigned their positions.


William Folger Nickle: I say that yet.


William Cameron Edwards: I am in a position to state that that is incorrect. During the present year guards who have resigned not because of ill health or decrepitude have applied for gratuity and' have received it.
I can give the names if necessary. I am more than pleased that the member for Kingston, who has given this matter a great deal of study, has agreed with one or two of the assertions that I made. It is a satisfaction and an encouragement to me that he agrees with me in the matter of supplying tobacco to the convicts. I was sorry that he did not see fit to express a definite opinion in regard to the employment of convicts in work for the State, in the making of furniture and other things in general use in various departments of the Government. There is nothing in the breaking of stone to improve the mental,
moral or physical condition of the convict. That has been going on as far back as I can remember; the practice still prevails in all these institutions. I do not agree that it would be wise to get agricultural employment for all the convicts, because many of them are unsuited to agricultural work. Many of them are mechanically inclined. There is a farm connected with each of these institutions which I think, will give employment to most of those among the convicts who are suited to that kind of work and who can be benefited by engaging in it. Hundreds of convicts could be employed in learning trades, making furniture, manufacturing things which the State must buy in large quantities, such as rural mail boxes, and the like. It is only necessary to visit one of these institutions and observe the difference between the convicts employed on the stone piles and those employed at making brooms or some other kind of work to realize the great benefit that is to be derived from utilizing the convicts in some constructive employment. Work on roads is very useful; it is work in the open; the convict has something to show for his labour and something to look forward to. Various penal institutions on the other side of the line recognize the benefit of engaging these men to work on the roads. I understand that the convicts are often taken many miles from the gates of the prison in order	that
they may be employed in this way. I mentioned that piece of road near Barrie-field camp because it is a government road. It is ,a road which has been taken over by the Dominion Government and which has to be maintained by the Dominion Government, and when prison labour could easily be employed it is reasonable that it should be employed in maintaining a piece of property owned by this Government.
To the other and main point to which I referred, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Niokle) did not give his attention, that is, the building of an institution for the care of boys of 21 years of age who are first offenders, and I would like to have an expression of opinion on that point from the Minister of Justice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Different matters have been touched upon, and perhaps I might say just a word or two with Tegard to them. I shall be very glad to express to the committee the opinion I hold with regard to providing means whereby certain institu-



tions cmight be created for different classes of offenders, and I shall deal with that after I 'have said a few words about other matters that have been mentioned. With regard to the question of gratuities and its bearing upon the particular case in which a compassionate allowance was granted, I would like to point out that in no department of the Civil Service is there provision made for compensation to surviving relatives of employees'. In some of the departments, with regard to older civil servants, who were in the employment of the Government when the superannuation! system was in force, there is provision for superannuation, but that does not survive the recipient of it. The penitentiaries, therefore, are not in a different position with regard to the granting of compensation to the surviving relatives of servants who have died in their employ from the other departments of IGovern-ment. The committee will realize that it would be a large proposition, which would call for careful consideration by this Government, to undertake to make provision for surviving relatives of its employees. Much might be said in favour of that plan, but I do not see that anything special might be said in favour of it so far as tbe employees of penitentiaries are concerned. The gratuity is intended as an allowance for a man who serves either for a lengthy period until he is broken down, or whose employment in the penitentiary is terminated otherwise than by fault of his own. There are cases in which men resign because they become incapacitated, and it is usual in such cases to grant a gratuity. There are also cases in which it is considered that it tends to promote the efficiency of the institution that a man should be retired or allowed to resign, and in such cases the gratuity is paid to him. But so far as there is any connection between the granting of the compassionate allowance, granted1 to Mrs. Mackenzie in the supplementary estimates, and the question of gratuities, I have only to point out that to make any grant to the surviving dependents, we have to depart from the rule that prevails throughout the Civil Service. The special circumstances to which I referred when I said that I thought there was reason to believe that there would not be many absolutely similar cases was not an expression of opinion as to the liability of other men dying from heart disease. Mr. Mackenzie had a record of service that was absolutely exceptional in its length, as I am informed by the officers of the peniten-
tiary, and there was in the second place this fact that played a large part in leading to the conclusion that the case should be treated as exceptional, that is to say, that his widow, with a large family of very small children', was left in absolutely destitute circumstances. 1 am also told that the case stood out rather as an exception, in that combination of conditions, with regard to what ordinarily happens in the case of a penitentiary vote. With regard to this particular allowance which is the matter properly before the committee, I have only to say that, in fixing the amount of it and the limit with regard to salaries to those who should be recipients of it, we have followed what has been done in the great number of departments of this Government, in view of the high cost of living. Some observations have been made with regard to the remuneration which those men already receive. That remuneration w.as fixed by Statute some years ago, Parliament ,at that time thinking it a proper remuneration fur the services. If Parliament was right in that regard, then there must exist for those employees the same reason resting upon the increased cost of living that applies in the case of the employees of the Government generally. As to the limitation of $1,000, that, as I s.ay, is following the rule. Tt has been pointed out that, ini the supplementary estimates with regard to the post office, provision has been made for this allowance with regard to men of ,a certain class of employment who receive .a salary up to $1,600. When we come to deal with that item, I think I shall be in a position to explain the reason of that particular disposition with regard to that particular department.
Something has been said with regard to the utilization of prison labour. I quite *sympathise with the idea that we should utilize our prison labour to turn out a product that might be used by the Government and that might afford for the men in the penitentiaries more suitable occupation than sometimes we are able to put them to. It should, however, be remembered that it does not depend upon the Department of Justice to furnish things to people who do not want to take them from it. Before we can find our way to furnish those things, we shall have to find our market with the other departments of Government. It does not belong to me to criticise nor do I intend to do so, but we cannot supply that for which there is no demand. I have at different times, since I have had charge of the

administration of the penitentiaries, sought to find an outlet for penitentiary labour in furnishing the requirements of other departments. I regret to say I have not been successful. I do not want to criticise the reasons that were given. They were, in the judgment of those .administering those departments, sufficient reasons, and I think at that particular time they were not open to criticism. .
In that connection, referring to what the hon. member for North Oxford has said with regard to pay, iif we were put in a position where the product of the labour of the convict could be disposed of to other departments of the Government, or in other directions that would not bring us into unfair competition with free labour, I myself would believe that it would be a perfectly proper thing that these things should be paid for by whomsoever they were acquired, and that out of those moneys there should be paid something to the convict to represent wages. In talking of wages or pay it has to be remembered that a convict is supported and clothed, but I think it would be most desirable, provided the moneys so paid to him for his labour were not necessary for the maintenance of those depending upon him while he was in the penitentiary-which is the first purpose .to which it should be devoted-that when he went out he should have some savings to his credit. I certainly would *welcome the day when it would be possible to bring about that condition of affairs. But it does not depend upon those responsible for the penitentiaries whether this is to be done or not. We cannot sell our product and get money for it until there are people ready to buy our product and pay for it. There have been certain periods, at the outbreak of this war for instance, when there was a serious lack of employment in the ordinary industries of the country, and apprehension of a greater lack of employment. At that time, at all events, it would hardly have seemed desirable to press for the initiation of a system of utilization of penitentiary labour. But we have done something towards the utilization of that labour in connection with the farming industry, and although I am not in a position to give details at the present moment, I may say that we have also utilized prison labour to a certain extent in the direction of providing things necessary in connection with the interned alien prisoners. I shall be glad, if it should become possible for us to find an outlet for the product of our labour, not only to give consideration to,
but if the matter be in my hands, to endeavour to bring into practical operation, a system whereby more useful work may be done and whereby we may obtain the very desirable thing suggested by the hon. member for North Oxford. With regard to the separation of prisoners, I quite agree that it would be highly desirable to have a separation of the prisoners' according to classes. I am not absolutely clear that it would have to be according to age, though I dare say you would find a larger proportion amongst the younger criminals who ought to be classified as among the less hardened criminals, than you would perhaps find among older men. I would rather classify with regard to the character of the criminal you are dealing with than absolutely on the line of age. I may say that before the outbreak of this war, in the year of 1914, I had given very considerable thought to this matter, and the plan that I had conceived, though not absolutely the plan suggested by the hon. member for Frontenac, was somewhat along the same line. My impression was, and still is, that the hardened criminal is in the minority, and my conception of what would be desirable to do, and what I should be glad to do if it should become possible and I have the opportunity, would be to provide say, two institutions in which the more hardened class of criminals should be confined, leaving the present institutions for what I believe to be the majority of the criminals we handle, that is, those who would not be described as hardened criminals. I think there would be advantage in preserving thajse Hess, hardened from the injurious influence of association with those who are more hardened. In the second place, there would be to my mind this great advantage, that if you divide the institutions in that way it -would make it possible to adopt what might be described as a milder rule for the institutions generally, reserving the more severe features of the rules as they are deemed necessary, for those institutions where the hardened criminals would be confined. Plans of that kind, of course, involve the starting out in new enterprise in the way of public works, and the expenditure of public money, and it was not considered desirable that we should embark upon new enterprises of that kind at that time to which I have referred. I do hope, however, that under better and more favourable circumstances we shall be able to obtain the result of a separation on the lines 1 have indicated, and I do hope that when we come to more normal times and condi-

tions it may be possible to persuade those who might properly be the customers of the penitentiary of the advisability of giving their custom to the penitentiary. When that time comes I shall certainly be glad to do what depends upon me, if I should be responsible for the administration of the institutions, to avail ourselves of that opportunity of giving a more varied employment.
Something has been said about road-making as a desirable form of employment. 1 think the hon. member will admit that we have done some little road-making during the past summer. As to the advantage ot disadvantage, I may say that those who are experienced in the administration of pen-itentaries-I am not now expressing my own opinion-do not look uipon it as desirable that the men should be called .away to work at distances from the institution. While they sympathize with the desire for giving more suitable work, these experienced people do not seem to be of the opinion that road-making, outside of the immediate surroundings of the penitentiary would be a desirable thing.
Both hon. gentlemen have said something about tobacco, and I must admit that they touch what ought to he a very responsive chord in my own heart. The matter has been discussed from time to time with those responsible for 'the administration of the penitentiaries. What is said with regard to it -and I must say it has not quite convinced me that we ought not to allow tobacco- is that if you permit the use of tobacco for smoking purposes, that, of course involves tlie possession of matches and the possible danger of fire, which is an institution of that kind, no matter what you do to make it fireproof, is not ito be overlooked. Such a thing in such an institution would be a disaster. Then, of course, it leaves open the practices of allowing tobacco to be chewed. Now it has been urged upon me that if we allow the use of tobacco it will be availed of, of course, by those who had contracted the habit before they went into the penitentiary, and in all probability by those who had not acquired the habit when they entered the penitentiary. It has been pressed upon me-I do not say it is a conclusive argument- that it would 'be a very undesirable thing if, among other habits, a young convict might acquire in a stay of two or three years in a penitentiary, would be the habit of chewing tobacco.
I do not want to say that personally I am specially scandalized by the suggestion, but there are people whose opinions are

certainly entitled to very great respect, who would look upon that as a most objectionable thing. However, with regard to the question of tobacco, as I say, I am not convinced that it would not be desirable to permit its use, and I am not saying my last word upon the subject, if we can find a means which will satisfy those responsible for the administration that we are not creating inconveniences which would more than counterbalance the privation to which the men are now subject, and the more serious evil which is occasioned 'by the prohibition of tobacco, that is the trafficking between guards and prisoners.


Frank Oliver: How is the tobacco which is thus trafficked in used? Is it smoked or chewed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have cases where men have been punished for smoking. We also have cases where men are found using tobacco for chewing purposes. Without pretending to speak with absolute certainty, my impression would be that it is used more for chewing than for smoking. One obvious reason is that the violation of the rule is lass perfectly manifest if the tobacco is used for chewing. The convict has a better opportunity to avoid detection in the use of tobacco for chewing purposes.


Frank Oliver: If I understood 'the hon. member for Frontenae correctly, he is under the impression that this gratuity is an optional gratuity, that is, it is paid provided the authorities see fit, and withheld if the -authorities do not see fit to pay it. Is that correct?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It may be withheld if the man's course of conduct is considered to lbe such as would not entitle him to it. I may say, however, that, generally speaking, unless a man's connection with the penitentiary terminates either of his*own perfect volition, when he is able to remain on, and when there is no reason to part with him, unless he has been guilty of conduct which is really reprehensible, it is usual to grant the gratuity. The man, however, may forfeit it by bad conduct.


Frank Oliver: I am speaking of the $100.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is an allowance to all the employees who have salaries of $1,000 and less. It is not optional.


Mr OLIVER:: It is simply a temporary increase of salary without any option.


Mr DOHERTY:: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I understand the argument of my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) to be that being optional it placed the officer more dependent upon the favour of his superior than upon good service, whereas if he gets it as a straight increase in salary, of course he is still independent.


William Cameron Edwards: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was not referring to this $100 at all. I was referring to the gratuity which is given to a man when he retires after serving, say, ten, or fifteen, or twenty years.


Frank Oliver: further amount required, $1,800 ; to provide an amount for the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons in lieu of apartments, for the year ending 31st March, 1918, at the rate of $5 per diem-further amount required, $600 ; annuity to Dr. Thomas Barnard Flint, upon his retirement from the Clerkship of the House of Commons through physical disability, $2,500- $59,900.


John Dowsley Reid: This item of $55,000 is put in to cover the extra fifteen day's allowance to members. It also provides an amount of $2,500 to Dr. Beland and makes provision for lose on account of death. This is to take the place of the item we had in the previous estimates.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The other items will not be used?


John Dowsley Reid: It will not be used. The
amounts of $1,800 and $600 are necessary to cover the allowance to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on account of the session being so much longer than was expected. Then we have an item of $2,500 for an annuity to Dr. Flint upon his retirement from the clerkship of the House of Commons. I may say in reference to this item that we all know that Dr. Flint's health has not been very good and that he wishes to retire. I have been in the House all the time that Dr. Flint has occupied the position he now has; in fact I was here while Dr. Flint was ,a member of the House. We all feel sorry that his health is such that it is necessary for him to retire. He has been a splendid official, liked by every member of the House and it is a matter of regret to us that we are about to lose him. Still, these things must come and it is at his own request that he retires. The amount of $2,500 allowed as an annuity, Dr. Flint himself feels is fair and reasonable and he is quite satisfied with it. Therefore, I hope the House will allow this item to go through.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I have not been in the House nearly so long as my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) but I have been here for ten years -and I have had occasion to form a critical judgment of the devotion which Dr. Flint has shown, to his duties. He has given entire satisfaction, I think, to all the members of the House. One thing which I think it is proper to re* fer to is the fact that he has displayed very great industry in editing the work of Dr. Bourinot. He has added many most valuable notes and citations which are of very great assistance to members. His book will certainly remain as a monument to his very great industry and ability. I feel sure that my hon. friend expresses the

feelings of all the members of this House when he says that it is with the deepest regret that we learn of the -infirmity which makes it necessary for Dr. Flint to retire. I am also convinced that the recognition which the 'Government has asked the House to give him in -the way of a retiring /allowance will be very cheerfully approved of by the House.


George William Kyte: I desire to add to the
observations made by my -hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) and my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) by expressing my regret that Dr Flint finds it necessary, owing to the unsatisfactory condition of his health, to retire from the very honourable and respected position of Clerk of this House. He has served many years in a public capacity and he has attained to the highest official position that could be occupied by any man in this House. It so happened when Dr Flint retired from the office of Clerk Assistant of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia in 1891 I succeeded him. Since that time the relations existing between Dr Flint and myself have been of the most cordial and agreeable character. I could not say anything that would add to the esteem that Dr Flint has won for himself among the members of this House in both political parties. I speak of him both as a member of the House of Commons and an official of the House for several years. Before he assumed the position of clerk, he was representative of the county of Yarmouth in Nova Scotia for several years, and as the representative of that county he won the respect and good feeling of all his associates in the House of Commons. I can only express the wish that Dr Flint may be long spared -and that the condition of his health will permit him to continue to render useful service if not to the Dominion of Canada, to the province of Nova Scotia, for many years to come.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think it would be hardly fitting that this item should go through without my saying a word along the line of the observations of those who have preceded me. It has been my privilege and pleasure to be more or less intimately associated with Dr Flint more particularly during the past two years. I can bear tribute to his unfailing courtesy and consideration to me, sometimes under somewhat trying circumstances. I know that only one desire animated Dr Flint in his public service, whether as a member or as Clerk of this House, and that was to serve to the very best of his ability. No one regrets more than the clerk himself the

infirmity which makes it absolutely necessary that this vote should appear in the estimates. I only hope that the House may be fortunate enough to have a successor in the office who will carry out the traditions as creditably as Dr Flint has.


Mr. MURPHY:: In this item, No. 512,
there are four amounts the first of which is $55,000. I understood the minister to say that it was in substitution
11 p.m. for .the item, of $22,010 which appeared in the first supplementary estimates, page 5. If that .be the case, it strikes me the phraseology of the preceding grant of $55,000 is not apt.


John Dowsley Reid: This item is changed. Item 416 reads:
To provide payment of the full sesional indemnity of members of the House of Commons 

days lost through absence caused by illness, public business, being engaged in necessary farming operations, or on account of death, during the present session, including an amount of $2,500 to Hon. H. S. BSland, a prisoner of war in Germany, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes, an Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons or any amendments thereto-payment to be made as the Treasury Board may direct, $22,010.
This item is changed for this reason. The session has been about twice as long as the ordinary session, and it was arranged that fifteen days over and above the fifteen days that are allowed under the statute should be allowed to the members for absence, and the item had to be remodelled to cover that arrangement. I thought the item covered the senators' absence also, but I do not know whether it can be interpreted in that way. However, as we have it now I think it is quite satisfactory to all parties.


Charles Murphy: Is it in substitution for the other item, or in addition?


John Dowsley Reid: It is in substitution. The other item would not allow the extra fifteen days, so that we just substitute this item for the other.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I understand that item 416, just referred) to by the hon. minister and the hon. member for Russell, is not to be concurred in, or not to be used in any event.


John Dowsley Reid: It is- all in item 416. We will concur in that, but it will not be used. This item now takes the place of 416. There are a great many items in 416, and we are just putting in this item to take the place of item 416.


William Pugsley: Should not the other be stricken out?	.


John Dowsley Reid: We can strike it out, but it is not necessary. I thought it would not make much difference.


William Pugsley: It is not good practice to vote two amounts for the one purpose. When the Speaker is in the Chair, by unanimous consent it can be stricken out.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not gone into it, but t-herS is nothing in that item, as far as 1 can see, that is different from the other, but if the House will let it go through as it is, the money will not be used.


Georges Henri Boivin: There is an additional
amount provided by this item, because this amount is larger than the other item.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understood the Finance Minister, it took the place of the other, and they have added a sufficient amount to cover the absences. Possibly there may be some difference.


William Pugsley: If the other item is included in this, then it would be very easy, by unanimous consent of the House, to strike it out.


John Dowsley Reid: I am going to propose concurrence after we put these items through, and if there is any objection, I will strike it out.


Georges Henri Boivin: Another point in connection with this vote is that it appears to me that the Government, by the phraseology of the vote, is placing a premium upon absence -in this House, encouraging the members who stay away, and punishing those who remain. According to this vote as it stands at the present time, the member who has been away thirty days or more will receive a bonus, or a re-vote of $225.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman states that the Government is paying a premium on absence. This matter was arranged by the whips on both sides of the House. If there is any misunderstanding, I am not assuming any responsibility in the matter. I understand both whips agreed that, on account of the length of the session, the extra fifteen days should be allowed. If I am wrong, I should like the whips to say so.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am perfectly willing to withdraw the remark that the Government was placing a premium on absence because I do not think it was done intentionally. I do not dispute the fact that the whips may have come to such an agreement, but I think every member of this House has the right to give his own opinion concern-

ing the votes brought before the House, and I am sure the few words which I am going to utter will meet with the approval, I will not say of the majority of members but of a large number. The item, as it stands at present, amounts to this: that a member who has been absent for thirty days or more during this session is receiving $225 more than he would receive if this vote had not been put through. A member who has been absent say 18 days is receiving $45 more than he would receive if this vote were not put through, but the member who has attended to his parliamentary duties from the beginning of the session is receiving absolutely not one cent more than he would receive if the vote had not been put through. In this way those who. were absent 30 days or more are receiving a reward for their absence. Those who have been absent less than 30 days, but more than 15 days, are receiving a reward, but a less reward than the man who has been, away longer. Those who have remained here during the entire [DOT]session, or wlm have lost less than 15 days, receive no reward at all. I spoke about it to the Speaker a few moments ago, and he explained to me that it would, of course, be impossible to change this vote at the present time without a new authorization from the Governor General and a new estimate, hut I thought it only right to bring this point to the attention of the House. The member who has been away -from this House attending to his private business, who has not -been obliged to pay his living expenses in Ottawa for the time he was away, and who was undoubtedly making money in his own private affairs while absent from the House, is receiving a reward of $225. It appears to me to be illogical, and I think it would be a great deal fairer if the Government would consider the matter before the close of the session and introduce an item to add to the sessional indemnity of the other members the sum of $225, which you are giving to the members who- were absent 30 days. In that way those who have been absent more than 30 days would, be getting absolutely what they are getting under this vote, and the member who has, been present during the entire session or absent less than 15 days, would be rewarded accordingly for his attendance here. Every one knows the session has been a lengthy one. That a large number of members have been unavoidably absent, I am willing to admit. On the other .hand, there are others who certainly would have absented themselves to 
attend to their private business if they had known this vote was to be put through at the last moment.
I do not think that an hon. member should be punished for remaining in this House. Western members, .for instance, who have been here the whole session, should not b.; punished for having remained in attendance. I admit that I have missed more than the fifteen days; therefore, the vote does not affect me as much as it affects members who have remained in the Honse. But as a matter of justice to every one, the Government should give this .matter serious consideration. It should be possible tomorrow to bring in an estimate or to change the phraseology of this item with a view to providing that all members shall be treated alike. It has been pointed out that if this were done the amount of the vote would necessarily be increased. Well, there are 180 members in this House, and to give the allowance of $225 to each member would mean a vote of only $40,500. The amount of the vote ais it appears in the estimates now is $55,000; moreover, those who have been absent more than 15 days would not receive as much as $225, and a certain amount would not be used. I think that that is a fair proposal, and would do justice to all members. If I used the expression that the Government was placing a premium upon absence, I did not mean to s.ay that they were doing so intentionally. That was, perhaps, an impolite expression of what I had in my mind-that the absent member was being rewarded while the man who remained here was being punished for hie attendance.


William Sora Middlebro: I hope that nobody will go away with the impression that under the proposed resolution any member of the House is going to get more than his sessional indemnity, $2,500. As this session has been practically double the length of an ordinary session, it was thought that the exemption should be for double the usual period. Under the law as it stands at present some men are absent only two days, five days, during the session, while others take their full fifteen days and get their full indemnity. In this ease we have applied exactly the same principle, so far as I can see, as that which has hitherto prevailed. On the basis that there should be fifteen days' exemption for a four months' session, we are providing for an exemption of thirty days for an eight months' session. This is the only method we could adopt without passing a special

Act increasing the indemnity, and I am sure that none of the members are in favour of doing that.


William Pugsley: Would it not be advisable to add to the end of this item the words "payment to be made as the Treasury Board may direct"? These words are usually placed at the end of such items as this.


John Dowsley Reid: I think that that can he done.
I move that after "1906" at the end of item 512 the words "payment to be made as the Treasury Board may direct" be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Oliver: I wish to say a word in connection with this allowance for days of absence. I do not propose to make any motion on the subject, but it is only fair that there should be an understanding as to the different positions of members of the House coming from different sections of the country. Those of us who come from a considerable distance-from west of Lake Superior, from the Maritime Provinces, and from some constituencies in the more remote portions of Ontario and Quebec-are unable to carry on our private business while attending to the public business of the session. It appears that the members who are situated within a night's or an afternoon's railroad run of the city of Ottawa are in a position to carry on their private business while ostensibly attending to their duties in Parliament. Those of us who are not so fortunately situated have nJo right to find fault with tiho-se who-are, provided the exercise "of their liberties does not reflect upon us and do us substantial injury. As a matter of fact, the business of this House is and has been delayed session after session by the fact that such a large proportion of members live within a comparatively short distance of the capital and make it a matter of business to be absent from the House the latter end of the week and the beginning cf the week thereafter. So that during the greater part of the session, instead of doing business five days in the week, we are doing business three days in the week, and sometimes hardly that. That has the effect of lengthening the session unduly; it compels the men who reside at a distance to remain 'here weeks and months longer than they would be required to remain if everybody stayed here and attended to business during the five or six days of the week. The penalty of a fine of $15 for each day's absence was imposed for the purpose of holding members to their work. We relieved them of that fine to the extent
of fifteen days-and it is this fifteen days that has done the damage so far. Now we propose to make that fifteen days thirty days. On the one hand we declare that the interests of the country and the treasury shall be protected by a fine of $15 against each member who is absent from a day's sitting, and then we provide that the fine shall not be paid in respect of fifteen days. Now we provide that the fine -shall not he paid in respect of thirty days. The position is entirely illogical. While it would, perhaps, be ineffective to make any determined opposition to this- vote, I take the responsibility, following the remarks of the member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), of placing before the House the serious disadvantage to which a large proportion of the members are subjected by reason of the undue exercise on the part of other members of the privilege and advantage of attending to their private business while the session is in progress.


Mr. VERVILLE:: My hon. friend stated a moment ago that according to the law it was impossible to increase the sessional indemnity. What would prevent the Government from calling it a certain amount for expenses on account of the session being iSO m-uch longer than usual? The word " expenses " is used in -this item, and the same amount could he given to every hon. member to allow for expenses which have increased on account of the length of the session. It is well known that the cost of living in Canada has increased tremendously, and Ottawa is no exception. I think my suggestion would cover the objection of my hon. friend who stated a moment ago that, according to -the law of the land, we could not increase the indemnity. It would not be increasing the indemnity if we called it an 'appropriation for extraordinary expenses on account of the length of the session. M-any of us are obliged to remain here during the whole sess'sion, and I do -not w-an-t to be penalized -I do not use the word offensively-because we are just as much entitled to that a-moumt of money -as are others who have been away.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. -member, from his parliamentary experience, of course, knows that it is impossible to change this item -as- it is now in the estimates. As this is a money -Bill, the assent of His Excellency the Governor General must be Obtained, and the appropriation is inserted this session in -almost exactly the same way as it has been inserted in other years, with the

exception that fifteen days extra have heen allowed. I understood froim the Chief Whips of both sides that hon. members thought that this was a fair and reasonable thing to do. There are many members who have been here practically the whole session who have lost thirty days. *1 know one member in this House who, in order to attend his business, leaves on Friday afternoon for his home-and he has to go a long distance-and gets back here on Tuesday. Yet he is here Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday until probably 4 p.m. On a session like this he would lose fifteen days, and yet he has done as much work as many others who have been here, because probably he may have taken an active part. There are, therefore, cases in which it would be hardly fair not to make a	little	extra	allowance on
account of the session lasting eight months.	There is no way in which
I can change this vote, and as it was understood to be agreeable to members on both sides, the Government asked His Excellency for permission to insert this item just as has been done in other years on account of days lost through absence caused by illness, public business, or on account of death, with the exception that fifteen extra days have been added.


William Pugsley: I do not understand that the hon. gentlemen who have spoken have objected to the additional allowance of fifteen days.


John Dowsley Reid: They wanted .a change.


William Pugsley: The suggestion is that, in order, to do complete justice, some further provision should be made. There is a strange anomaly in this vote, in that it provides that a member of the House of Commons should be allowed only an extra fifteen days on account of absence through illness and so on, but in respect to our good friends in the Senate, they may be allowed a full sessional indemnity if they happen to be ill in a hospital more than ten miles from Ottawa. The result of that is that a senator who happens to be ill at his home and goes to a hospital for attendance receives his full sessional' indemnity provided that his illness lasts during the whole session, while a member of the House of Commons, being equally ill and requiring medical treatment in a hospital, is allowed only an extra fifteen days' indemnity. I think the vote should be changed to make it applicable equally to members of the Senate and members of the House of Com-

mons. It occurs to me that a fair additional vote to bring down, in, order to do even a small measure of justice to members from the West who come here from a long distance, would be to .make .a special provision which would be particularly applicable to this session. As the minister knows, there is an allowance for expenses in coming to the opening of Parliament and in returning home after prorogation. During the present session Parliament adjourned in February and re-assembled in April, but the expenses of going home and returning, which were equally as great as those in coming to the opening of Parliament and in returning after prorogation, are not allowed for, and the members are obliged to pay their own expenses both in coming and going. It would be a small measure of justice to members who come from a long distance to give them those expenses. It would not affect me very much because my expenses in coming here are comparatively sma?and I am, therefore, free to speak about the [DOT] matter. I am also thankful to say that I am not affected by the fifteen days' provision-, because I have not lost fifteen days during this session. While the item as to the fifteen days is right, it ought to be made uniform with regard to the Senate and the House of Commons. The minister may have put it in in this way in order to please the Senate. He is elever at framing legislation to pass both Houses.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot change the item as
iifc appears in. (the estimates, .and I think we shall have to let it go through.


William Pugsley: There is plenty of time. Parliament does not .prorogue to-night. If the minister wants to do a thing in a hurry, he can do it.


John Dowsley Reid: There is not any opportunity for aniy further (estimate 'being brought down. I would like to have these put through and concurred in, I understand the only matter that is left and that might delay prorogation is the War-time Elections Act, which has to come back from the Senate.


William Pugsley: That cannot get through for two days yet.


John Dowsley Reid: It has passed the Senate and will be here to-morrow.


William Pugsley: It has to be put on the Order Paper, and it could not be taken up to-morrow.


John Dowsley Reid: 
William Pugsley: I am sure the minister will find that there will be a desire on the part of hon. members to discuss fully any amendments that may havie been made to that Bill. If, therefore, the minister approves my suggestion, there will be ample time toi bring down a supplementary estimate.


John Dowsley Reid: I am. willing to bring my
hon. friend's suggestion to the attention of the Government, hut we would like to have that Bill proceeded with to-morrow, and then we could take the necessary time to discuss it. We do not want it to be pressed through the House faster than is necessary. I think every one of us is anxious to get away, and we should all be ready to facilitate matters as much as possible. I should like to get this item through.


William Pugsley: This would be a very little matter to dispose of to-morrow, if the suggestion meets with my hon. friend's approval. If we are only waiting for the Franchise Bill, in the ordinary course if it does not come down until to-morrow it will not get on the Order Paper until Saturday, and we shall be kicking our heels around here all day to-morrow. Perhaps we could not be better employed than in doing justice to our western friends.
Lighthouse and coast service *- Further amount required to pay pensions to retired pilots, viz.: O. Noel, F. X. Desmeules, and Adjutor Baillargeon, $800.


William Pugsley: This relates to the
ughthouse and coast service. I want to call the attention of the minister to the ,act that early in the session a question was put to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as to whether it was proposed to' give Lhe lighthouse keepers an increase in salary. There have been a great many increases given by Parliament upon the invitation of the Government during this session, most of which were pretty strenuously opposed on this side of the House. In answer to that question, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries said that he could not hold out any hope of an increase. It is within my knowledge that there are a great many lighthouse keepers who are getting a salary, some of them, of only $300 a year. The average salary is from $300 to $400, I am informed. These men are leading a lonely life in a lighthouse upon a
rock, and in the winter especially their life is surrounded with great hardships; and to expect men to continue to perform those arduous duties and undergo the hardships they are compelled to undergo for the small salary of $300 is to my mind not at all creditable to a country like Canada. I regret very much that the minister was not able to give some assurance that the representations which have been made to him would be favourably entertained, and I would ask the minister now whether ho could see his way clear to bringing down before the close of this session .an item,	providing	for	an
increase of even $100 a year for these men. They are affected by the high cost of living just as other people are, and the salaries which they receive may truly be called starvation salaries. They cannot live upon them. In some cases lighthouse keepers can make some money out of fishing, but those cases are the exceptions. The great majority have nothing but their salaries, which are entirely inadequate for them to live upon and to bring up their families.


John Dowsley Reid: I will bring the matter before the members of Council to-morrow and see whether anything can be done.
To complete special allowance to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to cover travelling and other expenses in connection with his services while acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, $2,500.


William Cameron Edwards: I should like a little explanation of this item. I am informed that the salary of the Chief Justice of Canada is $10,000 a year. Is that correct?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: I am also informed that he receives an allowance of $2,500 for travelling expenses when he goes overseas to attend the meetings of the Privy Council. Is that right?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, he is a member of the Privy Council.


William Cameron Edwards: I presume he has not attended many sittings during the last three years. As I understand it, he now receives $2,500 for signing his name for the Governor-General. We propose here to add another $2,500, making $5,000 which the Chief Justice will receive to cover travelling and other expenses in connection with his services while acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor-General. I am informed that the Chief Justice lives in Ottawa. Is that right?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: If he is within the city limits, his travelling expenses ought not to be very heavy. I do not believe this increase of $2,500 is warranted. I do not believe there is a man in this House who believes it is warranted, and I am going to test the feeling of the committee by moving that the item be struck out.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is correct in stating that the salary of the Chief Justice is $10,000. The Chief Justice has also been receiving $5,000 per annum to cover travelling and other expenses in connection with his services while acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General. It is true the Chief Justice lives in Ottawa, but there are times when he may be a considerable distance away and has to return to the city. We had $5,000 in itihe estimates last year for this purpose, but through some error, the .amount was put in at $2,500 this year, and we are simply asking that the item be restored to the usual amount. It is not an increase at all. The other item of $2,500 in the main estimates is to cover the expenses of the Chief Justice when attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I hardly think it would be fair to reduce the item by $2,500. I am sorry this mistake w.as made in preparing the estimates, and I would ask the House to agree to the $2,500 being restored.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not want to be unreasonable, but $5,000 for signing one's name a few times does .seem to nre to be piling it on pretty thick. Ten thousand dollars as Chief Justice, and five thousand dollars as Deputy to the Governor General makes fifteen thousand a year. I do not think the time and work of the Chief Justice can begin to be compared with the time and work of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition.
It seems to me to be entirely unreasonable that a gentleman living right here in Ottawa should receive. $5,000 for occasionally signing his name. If we want to increase the salary of the Chief Justice of Canada, let us put it in as increase in salary. Personally, I think this item might very well be cut out altogether. I think the Chief Justice of Canada or some other "justice living here in Ottawa could, without receiving any pay for it, sign his name a few times, if the Governor General happens to he away on his holidays. In regard to those trips, overseas, I do not know whether I am right or not, but I have heard it stated that the Chief Justice has drawn the $2,500

for travelling and other expenses in connection with attending the Privy Council in England, when, as a matter of fact, he never left Canada, but still drew the amount, taking it as part of his salary. Hon. gentlemen spoke here a while ago to the effect that the minister might bring in a little item which would hand- a couple of hundred dollars to various, members of this House who had been regular in their attendance, in order to even things up, that is, that a 'small amount might be granted; the western members and those from the extreme East, in consideration of the extra expense they were put to on account of the break in the session. This is something which would have to receive very earnest, and careful, and prayerful consideration, before it could be put through, but a matter of $5,000 to the Chief Justice of Canada for simply scribbling hi6 name a few times is dead easy.	.


John Dowsley Reid: The salary of the Chief Justice is $10,000. Merely expressing my own personal opinion, and not referring to the present Chief Justice or any one else in particular, I would say the naan who is fit to occupy the position of Chief Justice of Canada is a man who could earn perhaps twice as much as $10,000. So far as the salary of the Prime Minister is concerned, there is no doubt in nay mind that the Prime Minister could earn three times as much as he does were he to relinquish the position he occupies, and go back to the practice of his profession. I say the same of the leader of the Opposition were he a young man. I do not think the Prime Minister or the leader of the Opposition is paid the amount to which they are severally entitled.


George Perry Graham: 
John Dowsley Reid: I will not discuss that. It has always been the custom to pay this amount to. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the 'Government feel that as he has been receiving $5,000 for the position, it is hardly fair to reduce it. While I have no objection to the hon. member from Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) expressing his opinion, I would like the House to concur in this item.


William Pugsley: The item is put in to cover " travelling and other expenses." I quite agree with my hon. friend from Fron-tenae (Mr. Edwards) that $5,000 seems a large item for " travelling and other ex-

penses." I think it would he ibetter to make an allowance to the Chief Justice as deputy Governor General, toy reason of the very high ,and honourable position he holds and by reason of the fact that he does discharge the duties of deputy Governor General. I think it would be better to put it on that distinct ground. To my mind it would not be proper to strike out the item, because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada has always acted as deputy Governor General, and has always received an allowance. I do not knorw whether it was $5,000 per year. It certainly would seem rather ungracious to discriminate against the present occupant of that high position and refuse to treat him in the same way as his predecessors have been treated. I agree with the minister, that the salary of the Chief Justice of Canada is not by any means a large one. I think we pay the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners $15,000 a year, $5,000 a year more than the salary of the Chief Justice of Canada. The other day a vote was passed to pay the Chairman of the Bureau of Research $10,000 per annum. As has been stated, a lawyer in good practice in Canada can earn twice or three times as much as the salary of (the Chief Justice, and a gentleman oif the eminence of the Chief Justice could easily earn at the Bar from $25,000 to $50,000 per annum in the larger cities. I do not object to voting the amount. What I object to is the language of the vote and the way it is put, as " travelling and other expenses."
Post Office-Outside Service.
To increase the minimum salary of railway mail clerks from $500 to $600, and to raise the annual statutory increases of railway mail clerks from $50 to $100 in cases where the salary is over $800, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or the Post Office Act; also to provide for the payment of provisional allowance of $100 each to Civil Service employees of the Outside Service of the Post Office Department whose salaries are $1,600 and under, and also to provide for the establishment of inspectorate at North Rattleford,_ Sask., $608,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I would like to direct
the attention of the Government to the Question of staff and non-staff post offices. For some reason best known to the Post Office Department, the man who is in a staff post office is a member of the Civil Service, is entitled to a pension, and his salary is increased from year to year under the Civil Service Act, whereas a man in another place, which may he just as large as some of the staff post offices but which is a non-staff post office, is not entitled to be a member of the Civil Service, is not
entitled to any pension, and his salary is not automatically increased under the Civil Service Act. Formerly, in those non-staff post offices, the postmaster got a percentage of the revenue, and he paid the clerks out of that percentage.
Later, that percentage was taken away from the postmaster, he was put on a fixed salary, and the clerks were also put upon fixed salaries. If the Acting Postmaster General will look into the matter he will find that clerks have been sixteen or eighteen years in the service and that they have never had one dollar of an increase during that period whilst the revenue of these offices has gone up tremendously. That is simply unjust. Why the hard and fast rule should be made by the department that one should be a staff office and that the other should not be a staff office, and that because there is this difference the employees in one office should have the right to belong to the Civil Service, to be entitled to pensions and to increases of salary, whereas the others are deprived of every one of these benefits, is something that 1 cannot understand. This is the most unjustifiable treatment that could be accorded to any class of men who are working for the State. In my own town there is a man who has been in the post office for eleven years. He has not received a dollar of increase in that time, and his hours are from seven in the morning until half-past eight at night. Other clerks are in the same position. There are men who have been employed for varying terms, some for as long as twenty years, and not a dollar of increase has been given. While I absolutely approve of the increase in the salaries of mail clerks, a recognition which they are very much entitled to, I do not see why the Government cannot take into consideration those men who belong to those non-staff post offices and who are receiving the same salaries as they have received for years while it costs fifty per cent more to live. Taking into consideration their terms of service, an increase in their salaries would be a simple act of justice on the part of the department, and that increase ought to be proportionately the same increase as is granted to the mail clerks by this vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have a very considerable sympathy with what the hon. member has just said. I am transiently and quite newly in charge of this department. I had my attention called to the system of semistaff post offices, and I have been somewhat puzzled as to what was the advantage

in maintaining that separate and distinct system. I understand the distinction is that in the first place you have a post office where the postmaster has a percentage of the revenue and he provides his own help. These offices are in certain cases converted into what are called semi staff offices, the Government taking the entire revenue and paying the salaries of the postmaster and clerks out of the revenue. I have had it in my mind to look into the whole reason for the existence of the system. But apart from that, this class of clebks is not dealt with in the present vote, because, if an 12 m. addition were to be paid to them it would he paid out of the revenue of the post office. I cannot say more than that I purpose to look into it to ascertain the reason for the differentiation, and if there be an apparent injustice I will endeavour to remedy it.


Mr.   MTJBPHY@: The provision of the item is to raise the annual statutory increase from $50 to $100 in cases where the salary is over $800. It would seem to me that the increase is more needed where the salary is 'below $800. There may be a reason for this, and if so, I would like my hon. friend to inform the committee regarding it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the item the minimum salary is being raised from $500 to $600. In. the past the lower salaries have been increased at the rate of $50 per annum and not at the rate of $100. A line was drawn 'between those who increased by $50 and those who increased by $100, and that, I understand, has been at $1,000. It is proposed to extend the increase of $100 to those having a salary of $800. There is a very limited class below that which is not dealt with.


Charles Murphy: Why not give it to the lower class?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The prayer of the petition that was put before me was to extend it so that clerks receiving salaries of over $800 should get the benefit. I am not clear -why there should be a distinction between those above and those below, but the grievance that was complained of was that while those getting over $1,000 got this annual in->. crease of $100 those below $1,000 did not. Therefore, those below $1,000 and above $800 had a grievance. That is why the distinction was .made. Frankly, I am not in a position to state why it was not extended to those receiving less than $800.


Charles Murphy: I see, also, that the vote is:
To provide for the payment of provisional allowance of $100 each to Civil Service employees of the Outside Service of the Post Office Department, whose salaries are $1,600 and under.
What is the effect of the words "provisional allowance?" Does that differentiate it from an annual increase? Is that a flat amount, given generally?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a flat amount of $100. In the supplementary estimates there was an item to provide an allowance of $100 to employees of the Civil Service receiving under $1,000. That increase has been given, I think, in practically all the departments this year, to put the lower salaried men in a better position to meet the increased demands upon them by reason of the high cost of living. It has been done by way of an allowance without an increase of salary. This also is an allowance, hut the difference here is that in regard to post office clerks and certain classes of railway mail clerks it has been extended to those getting up to $1,600. While we are doing this under the guise of a temporary allowance the classes of clerks that are covered have in reality a very substantial ground of complaint of inequality between their position, from the point of view of salary, and that of Civil Service employees of a similar grade generally. I will give one instance. In 1914 legislation was passed by this House providing that the increase to the railway mail clerks should be at the rate of $100 per annum instead of $50 per annum, as it previously had been.
Both this House and the Senate concurred in the view that that was a proper provision, but, unfortunately for the railway mail clerks, they were not dealt with by the Bill applicable to the employees of the post offices generally, which was enacted at the same time, or shortly before. A provision for making their increase $100 a year, instead of $50, was contained in the Bill, which also contained certain provisions with regard to the charges, made to the newspapers for carrying the mail. The Senate, while it approved of what was done for the class of mail clerks, refused to assent to the provision with regard to the carriage of the newspapers. The Bill came back to this House, and the Postmaster General at the time refused to accept the amendment of the Senate in regard to the newspapers, and it was not found possible to bring the two Houses to an agreement upon that subject, and by reason of that disagreement,

for the last three years this class of clerks nave been getting an increase of $50 a year, whereas the other employees drawing similax salaries were receiving an increase of $100 a year. These clerks pressed -unfortunately at a late period of the session-for a re-enactment of the legislation of 1914, and further pressed that it should be made, as seems to me only fair, to count from the time it was origin-ally passed, so that they might be on a footing of equality with their fellow employees. When this matter was brought to my attention, and the attention of the Government generally, it was too late to deal with It by legislation during the present session, and after an interview with the gentlemen, in which they put their case strongly, they acquiesced in the view that it was too late to do anything, and expressed their readiness to accept, as compensation, at all events for the past, this allowance of $100 for this year. We look forward in the future to rectify the injustice done to then. For the time being we are giving something less than they would have received if that legislation had been passed at the time, by way of compensation, for what I really think they have been unfairly deprived of by the accident which happened in regard to the Bill.


Charles Murphy: This refers to Civil Service employees of the Outside Service. What does that mean?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand it would cover every class of employee in the Post Office Department of the Outside Service. We are not making a distinction between the different classes. We have letter carriers and clerks and they are subdivided mto different classes. There are railway mail clerks, clerks in the Service, in the post office, letter carriers, and a large number of different denominations of employees, and we use the word "employees" to make it cover everybody.
Mr. McKENZIE .[DOT] I desire to bring to the notice of the House a question which I think deserves consideration. We have a certain body of officials around this building called messengers. I do not know that their employment comes under any department. Perhaps the Speaker's jurisdiction, covers this class more than any other juris-tion. I was asked by some of those very useful gentlemen who are employed around the building to bring their case to the notice of the Government, and I would just as soon bring it to the notice of the Minister of Justice as of any other person.
They say their pay is very small. I understand they are getting $3.25 a day and the minister will readily understand that is very small remuneration under present conditions. They have to live in the city of Ottawa. They come from distances. They must live in respectable places and $3.25 a day has not much purchasing power at the present time. No doubt these messengers have people dependent upon them, families to support. They have been coming here for years, and they have been invited to come. I think the country should provide decently for their services, and see that they are not losing their time, and that they have something to the good when they go home for the support of those dependent upon them. I, therefoie, appeal to all the ministers here that they take the messengers' case into consideration, and out. of some vote give them such an increase in their pay as may be considered proper. Peihaps the Speaker has more to do with this class of employees than the head of any other department. The Speaker might look over the list, see what they have been receiving, and make a fair allowance to them. I happened to be addressed by some of those men, and I shall be very proud if I can be of any service to them in bringing this, matter to the notice of the House,


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I desire to draw the attention of the acting Postmaster General and the Minister of Customs to an article which appeared in to-day's papers regarding the appointment of the postmaster at fvew Hamburg.


George Perry Graham: What riding is that in?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Waterloo, I think. We
have heard a great deal from the opposite side of the House regarding the treatment of returned soldiers, and I well recollect, as do other members of this committee, the vehement declaration of the Minister of Customs that returned soldiers should always be taken care of, and that they should have the first call on positions which they could fill. This appears to me to be a very striking case. A young man named Lasch-inger, who lived in New Hamburg, is about to return from the front wounded. One of his legs had to be amputated, and the index finger of his right hand is gone. His father, the postmaster at New Hamburg, died very recently and the young man, through his friends, applied for the position. It is said that 90 per cent of the inhabitants of New Hamburg signed a petition asking that this young chap be ap-

pointed. I believe he has a mother and some other members of the family -who will be practically dependent upon him. The position has not been given back to him. Instead a young man named Eau has been appointed.


An hon. MEMBER:: A raw deal.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: A raw deal and a raw
man, a wealthy man living in New Hamburg. He is very well off, and runs a local brewery, a very prosperous citizen who does not need the appointment for the purpose of a livelihood one bit. We on this side of the House have heard, without end, and without any possible end until after this election, declarations of what the Conservative party would do for the soldiers-protestations of their loyalty and so on. It has been stated. that these men would be taken care of, and that the Government party was the only people who could take care of them. Almost the first instance that happens is the case of a boy whose father had the office before him, whose family were dependent upon the revenue of that office for a livelihood, and where 90 per cent of the people of the town, including Liberals and Conservatives, signed a petition in order to have him appointed in his father's place, and we find the Government, instead of appointing that soldier boy, took the recommendation of the Conservative committee in New Hamburg and appointed a man who has always been a stalwart Conservative, who does not need the office for a livelihood and who was given that office purely on account of his party allegiance.
It would be well,"therefore, if we should hear fewer protestations of loyalty to our soldiers on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, who seem to think that they are the only persons justified in uttering them. " By their fruits ye shall know them,"- The instance that I have quoted is a very striking one.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member has insinuated that that is the policy which is being carried out in my department.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I did not say anything of the kind.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the inference that I draw from his remarks. I defy the hon. gentleman to name one instance in which I have filled a position in the Customs Department by the appointment of a person other than a returned soldier.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend admits
that the policy adopted by the Post Office Department is wrong.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member should
not put words in my mouth. I am stating the policy that I have followed in the Customs Department. So far as I know, that policy has been followed in other departments in all cases where returned soldiers have been available. The member for West Lambton has referred to the case at New Hamburg. I know nothing about it; I do not know whether or not the acting Postmaster General (Mr. Doherty) knows anything about it. My only reason for rising is to take issue with any hon. gentleman in this House who says that in the Department of 'Customs returned soldiers have not been appointed to fill vacancies. I have tried to follow out the principle of giving these positions to returned soldiers, where-ever that was possible.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Then when my hon.
friend made the declaration that returned *soldiers would be appointed, he was making it not for the Government, but simply for himself.


John Dowsley Reid: I stated to the hon. member that the Order in Council had been passed and that we were acting upon it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You never observed it.


John Dowsley Reid: I have observed it all along; that policy has been followed out in almost every case, in accordance with the Order in Council.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When it came to the appointment of a postmaster in the town of Stellarton, the man who held the patronage was consulted, returned soldier or no returned soldier. The postmaster was dismissed, and, far from taking a returned soldier, they appointed to the position the president of the Conservative Association of that town. Further than that, they rented his store at $600 a year-a store for which no one else would pay more than $200 a year-and all this while a dozen returned soldiers were walking around the streets. The Minister of Customs is a good bluffer; he gets up and tells us what he does, and defies hon. gentlemen on the other side to do this or to do that. He is a very good fellow, but he cannot get away with that kind of thing. As to the Post Office Department, they do not pretend to observe the principle of appointing returned soldiers.


George Perry Graham: The trouble is that the hon. gentleman who is at the head of the Post Office Department is not in the House -he may be busy; I am not saying anything about that. Every week the Post Office Department violates the policy of appointing returned soldiers. The member for West Lambton mentioned a case that occurred in New Hamburg; I have in mind another case in an adjoining county. I brought it to the attention of the House some weeks ago, and a discussion thereupon arose in reference to positions in Montreal, in the course of which the Minister of Customs made certain statements. In the case to which I refer the same thing happened; the people of both political	parties	asked for
the appointment of a returned soldier who was fit for the	position, but the
recommendation of the member for the district was acted upon and .the position was given to a politician, just as if no policy had been adopted of appointing returned soldiers. Moreover, that action was contrary to the wishes of the people.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When and where did
that happen?


George Perry Graham: I will look it up in
Hansard. It was in a western Ontario constituency; the member for the district was in the House when I made the statement, and he offered no contradiction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When was it?


George Perry Graham: About two weeks ago; I cannot tell the exact date. We had a general discussion then about the appointment of returned soldiers, which, I think, led up to the announcement that was made by the Minister of Customs.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend will admit that that information is somewhat vague. If positive statements are made and I am held responsible, 1 should be informed when and where the instances have occurred.
Mr. GRAiHAM:	I will look up the details and let my hon. friend know. It is in Hansard; I thought that after the discussion that took place every one would be familiar with the circumstances of the case. If the hon. gentleman was not. in the House, I should have thought that he would be informed by other ministers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Unfortunately, things
go on Hansard that are the result of misinformation on the part of gentlemen who may make statements in good faith. As a matter of fairness, when we are told that
these things are being done every week, we should be informed also when and where they have occurred.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about the
Stellarton case?


Charles Joseph Doherty: When did the Stellarton case occur?	-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: About four months ago. I brought the matter up twice; my hon. friend ought to have looked into it before now.


George Perry Graham: Pleading ignorance is a poor excuse.


Charles Joseph Doherty: A question was put about a building that had been rented for the Stellarton post office. I certainly have no recollection of the hon. gentleman's making any statement, when I was present, concerning the matter to which he refers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I put another question on the Order Paper in regard to the dismissal of the postmaster and the appointment of another person to the position. Possibly my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) was not acting minister at that time. Anyway, the answer was put on Hansard. I can cite another instance, the case of the vacancy in the postmastership at Charlottetown. The people in the city were pressing for the appointment of a very prominent returned soldier, but their representations were disregarded; the recommendation of the members for the county was accepted and another man appointed.


George William Kyte: Another case came to my
attention some time ago. A young man who had been employed as a messenger in this House returned from the front with one of his arms disabled as a result of injuries received in the firing line. He told me that he had been recommended for a position in the Department of Naval Affairs at a salary of $90 a month. After working there for some two weeks, he was dismissed and a young lady was given his position. He was then given employment as a messenger in this building-he is not here at present, so anything that I may say will not prejudice him in any employment that he would receive from a department of the Government. I think it is wed that we should do what we can to remove the masks which hon. gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches are wearing so smugly in this matter. Only a few months ago it was stated in the Toronto papers that a returned soldier who applied for a position was told to go to the chairman of the Conservative Patronage Committee. There



has been no denial of that. Hon. gentlemen who are interested may profess great indignation, but everybody knows throughout the country that the only use the Government has for returned soldiers is the use that they make of them at election time. In my constituency there are a number of returned soldiers. Two positions have been vacant during the last four years-preventive officer of Customs and collector of Customs. These vacancies are not filled because the dispenser of political patronage in my constituency has promised the position to so many that he dare not fill it until the election is over- and then it will be too late. Why are returned soldiers in my constituency not appointed to those positions? Because, as I say, the political patronage managers insist that these appointments shall go not to men who have won glory and performed service on the battlefield, but to men who are performing service for the Conservative party in the constituency in which they reside.


Mr. ROBB:: I understood the Minister of Customs to say that by Order in Council the Government had determined upon a policy of giving preference to returned soldiers. As forewarned is forearmed, I want to draw the attention of the acting Postmaster General ito the fact that tenders are being asked for a mail route running out of Hem-mingford. One of the tenderers is a returned soldier who was wounded. I met him yesterday at a local fair. He told me he had put in his tender, and had attached to his tender the certificate from the doctor certifying to his injury. Will the minister now say, that, all conditions being equal, he will give the preference to this returned soldier?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If all conditions are equal I certainly would carry out the provision of the Order in Council. Hon. gentlemen have spoken very loudly and violently and have told us about what "everybody" knew. They have been very vague-in particular the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte). They have covered a very wide field. I do not quite see that that is a fair method to prove a charge. If the policy has been departed from in the Post Office Department it is most assuredly not within my knowledge. It is not quite conclusive to say: There is a position; there is a returned soldier; the returned soldier, and the position do not come in contact; therefore, you are departing from your system. Hon. gentlemen, I suppose, will admit there

are certain classes of men with certain qualifications suited to fill certain positions, and I do not suppose that the suggestion is that the mere fact of a man being a returned soldier, and the mere fact of there existing a vacant position without regard to the qualifications of the returned soldier on the one side and the requirements of the position on the other, should cause the position at once to he filled by the returned soldier. The hon. gentleman puts to me the question in a perfectly fair way. Other things being equal, the provision of the Order in Council would call for preference being given to the returned soldier. I do not think hon. gentlemen will show that, in my personal action, that being the condition, the Order in Council has not been acted upon.


George William Kyte: I will recall to the Acting Postmaster General a case in which, perhaps, he will admit that the returned soldier was qualified. Take the case of the post office in the city of Charlottetown, P.E.I. A vacancy occurred there some time ago. A returned soldier, who was a university graduate, was an applicant for the position. He was recommended by most of the responsible people in the city of Charlottetown, hut he did not receive the appointment. Political considerations again intervened, and the position went to the man who had the recommendation of the patronage committee. There is clearly a ease in which the applicant, a returned soldier, came in contact with the position, and had all the qualifications necessary, but he did not receive the appointment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is the hon. gentleman's position that every university graduate is the best man to be appointed to fill a position in a post office in any particular place?


George William Kyte: I should think, if a university graduate is available for the position of postmaster in Charlottetown, the acting Postmaster General would have to furnish pretty good evidence to the contrary before he could convince anybody that that man was not competent to take charge of it. I do not wish to hold the acting Postmaster General responsible for this. I am speaking generally in regard to the Government. The policy the Government has laid down in Orders in Council, which have been, flaunted frequently before the faces of hon. members on this side of the House, is being violated every day, and the acting Postmaster General, as a member of the Government, must take his full share of responsibility in the matter.


John Howard Sinclair: If the statements made by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) are true, what does the minister purpose doing about the Charlottetown case? Will he give the position to the university graduate who is a wounded soldier and who has returned?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will make inquiry as to the qualifications of the respective candidates. I have the honour to be a university graduate myself, and I am prepared to concede that there are hundreds of men who are not university graduates who are more competent to fill the position of postmaster almost anywhere than I should be. I cannot accept the test of being a university graduate as a proof of competence to fill the position.


George William Kyte: There is only one test-the political test.


George Perry Graham: You ought to call in the Civil Service Act.


William Pugsley: The Government ought to admit that all these appointments are made on the recommendation of the patronage committee. Those patronage committees are just as active in all the constituencies throughout the country as they were before the war broke out. Patronage is everywhere. The other day a gentleman in Montreal to whom a young lady, a nurse, applied for a recommendation, saying she wanted to serve her country, said to her: "I shall be very glad to come to Ottawa and see what I can do for you." This is the statement of a man of the very highest character. When he came to Ottawa he was asked what this young lady's father - was in politics.


Arthur Meighen: By whom?


William Pugsley: By somebody in Ottawa to whom he went.


Arthur Meighen: Somebody!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: A gentleman to whom he thought he ought to go in order to get the position for this lady. I know of another case in which a medical man in charge of an ambulance corps was urged' by a prominent member of the patronage committee to take on some nurses. He declined because he did not want them. He was called up again and asked if he was not going to play the game fairly. He declined again. It was not long before, I am told, a peremptory order came from Ottawa to take on one of those nurses at once, although there was
3S3i
absolutely no reason in the world why she should be taken on, because her services were not required. In the city of St. John, from which I come, it is known by everybody that since the war began the patronage committee is the Government so far as that constituency is concerned. I believe that is the case also throughout the country. You may speak about the affairs of Canada being administered from Ottawa, they are not; they are administered by the patronage committees in the different constituencies. The patronage committees form a part of the machinery of this Government. Not long ago, there was a proposition to form a Union Government, and it was suggested that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) should be the Prime Minister of this country. At a caucus of my hon. friends opposite, they stated they would not have the Minister of Trade and Commerce as Prime Minister. They knew that he had declared in this House that he was opposed to patronage, and they considered that if he became Prime Minister patronage would be done away with. Tnere-fore they refused to entertain the suggestion that he should become Prime Minister. The party machine must still continue, as under Union Government the Conservative party machine would continue to administer the affairs of this Dominion from coast to coast.
With regard to my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), who spoke of the very great hardship to this boy and his family by reason of his not being allowed to have the position for which he was recommended and which his father had previously filled, I suppose he has been informed that his female relatives are to be allowed to vote in the next election. Why, then, should they complain? Surely that ought to be a compensation for any financial distress which they may suffer. Has my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel) written to them that they are to be allowed to vote in the coming election, and therefore they must not complain that their brother is ill-treated in respect to the position?
In Military District No. 6, in the Maritime Provinces, to-day there are 257 gentlemen bolding positions in the Militia Department, only ten of whom have been overseas, while there are in the Great War Veterans' Association of St. John, I think about 350 members, who could easily be placed in those positions, running from small salaries up to the enormous sum of

$6,200 per year. Let ime read the resolution which the Great War Veterans' Association have sent me, and I do it because it shows that it is all a holloiw pretense to say that this Government is prepared to do everything it can for the returned soldier. The resolution, which was passed at a general meeting at St. John on September 12, 1917, is as follows:
Resolved, that the attention of the Premier and Minister of Militia and Defence be drawn to the state of affairs existing in the Militia Department, District No. 6. In a recent list of officers employed in Military District No. 6, there was shown to he 257 holding positions, of whom only 10 had seen service at the front, and these were all holding minor positions, while the better positions were held by officers who had never seen service overseas or had made no attempt to do so.
Therefore, resolved that these officers should be made to go overseas or revert to civil life and take their chance with conscripts when called, and their places taken by returned officers who have done their duty for the Umpire.
Also that ail men employed in safety-first jobs who have not been overseas be sent immediately to the front and their places taken with returned men wounded for their country.
Further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to Hon. J. D. Hazen and Hon. Dr. Pugsley as minister and members of St. John, and they be asked to take a definite stand in this matter and report same and advise the Intention of the Government in this matter.
Tours respectfully,
(Sgd.) E. J. Puddy, Secretary, The Great War Veterans' Association, St. John.
I bring this before the House and, through Hansard, before the people of this country. I say that these returned soldiers are realizing to-day that they are not receiving fair treatment at the hands of this Government, and it is necessary the Government should be aroused to a sense of its duty in . respect of positions which returned soldiers could fill. They are now walking the streets, waiting for recognition, feeling that their services demand recognition, hut as I	have	said,	all	the	recognitionwhich	they	.are	to	get	from this
Government practically is that their female relatives are to he allowed 'to vote. Why should they not complain at this treatment? Is the mere privilege of voting to be regarded by this Government as being a fair and reasonable recognition of the services which these men have performed for their country?


Arthur Meighen: I suppose hon. gentlemen opposite consider it a fitting opportunity to make vague charges of insincerity against the Government with respect to returned soldiers now, just as the session is to close, and when in all probability no

individual case, if the hon. member has courage enough to mention any case, can be investigated closely and replied to fully. We are charged with extreme partisanship, running the country by patronage committees-charged by hon. gentlemen opposite who, throughout this session, have displayed a partisanship that should make them historic and immortal. This session has witnessed an effort on the part of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, concurred in by the whole party, to bury partisanship so far as the war is concerned, and to share the Government of Canada with all who are in favour of this war-an offer declined by hon. gentlemen opposite who raised the flag of party, fought under the flag of party, and persisted in fighting under the flag of party to the end.
A case was mentioned by the hon. member for West Lambtom (Mr. Pardee) as taking place in the town of New Hamburg, I know the town of New Hamburg, but I never heard of this case. The member for the county is absent to-day, but I know that he intends to contest that constituency at the next election, and I know he would not make any mistake in the town of New Hamburg in regard to returned soldiers. I think he may be able to speak to the case to-morrow, and I hope he will be able to do so. The facts are not all brought out with regard to that case yet. To say that 90 per cent of the town of New Hamburg supported this returned soldier for postmaster and that he was refused the appointment is not a full statement of the case, even if it is correct so far as it goes, and I question very much if the information of the hon. member for West Lambton is correct. To lay down the proposition that because a man is a university graduate, all other considerations as to qualifications must be laid aside, and that that fact alone establishes that he should have the appointment, is a very strange proposition for a member of this Parliament to lay down. Do hon. gentlemen not know university graduates who are about the least well qualified people they could think of for the position of postmaster? I know nothing of the case in the city of Charlottetown, but the city of Charlottetown will pass on that case when it comes to the contest at the polls. I venture to say that when charges are made in the city of Charlottetown about returned soldiers being treated unjustly the charges will have reference to the western coast. It will be a case of the hon. member for St. John over again: somebody told somebody else in some far-off city that somebody could not get a position unless her father

voted so and so, or some one told some one else in the city of Toronto that he had to go to the Patronage Committee to get the position. These *will be the charges levelled in Charlottetown, instead of bringing up an individual case in that city where the facts would be well known. I think it is altogether unlikely that an injustice would be done in that city any more than anywhere else.
I am engaged at the present time in correspondence with a returned soldier from the western provinces. He is a man with a family, but he left his family and went overseas. He left a Government job, not under a Conservative Government, but under a Liberal Government, and he is still pleading to get the job back which he left.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Under what Government?


Arthur Meighen: The Government of
Manitoba.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They are for union Government.


Arthur Meighen: Not being able to get h's job back, he appeals to the Government of Canada to provide something for him.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What was his name and position?


Arthur Meighen: I will not give his name.


William Pugsley: It is you who are now making vague charges.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it Doctor Simpson?


Arthur Meighen: When I have a charge to make against hon. gentlemen opposite, I will name the man. I do not want to do an injustice to him, or to prejudice his chances of getting that position. It would be unjust to him to mention his name; the hon. gentleman knows that. But those are the facts just the same. I do not say that there is no reason why he should not get his position back. There may be a reason I know nothing of, but if there is such, I know not what it is. It just shows that one needs to know all the facts of a case before making charges against any one. There are returned soldiers in every province. There are perhaps returned soldiers who have not Government positions, but for the most part, they have all some sort of position out in the province from whicu I come. Not only in cases where tne merits are about even, but where they are anything like even, the position in all cases I ever heard of, goes to the returned soldier. Many and many a position in the province
of Manitoba has gone to a returned soldier, and nobody has ever complained about a Patronage Committee that I ever heard of. For that matter, I have no Patronage Committee.
I know not in the province of Manitoba of a single complaint that any returned soldier has been done an injustice. There are positions that all returned soldiers cannot fill. There are very few positions that all returned soliders can fill. And it does not do a returned soldier any good to put him in a position he is not qualified to fill. A returned soldier cannot fill many a staff position and you give hi,m no advantage by placing him in a position he is unfitted for. Instead of doing him a benefit, you do him an injury. I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite to point to an individual case, and if they can establish it against us then they have gone a lot further than they have gone to-night. Wherever that case is it will be under review in the constituency when we come to the polls, and I have no doubt whatever how the returned soldiers of this country are going to vote, and the result.


William Pugsley: Would you like to bet
on it?


Arthur Meighen: That is always the answer of the man who has no other answer " would you like to bet?"
Mr. PUiGSLEY: Don't foe too confident.


Arthur Meighen: Let hon. gentlemen
bring up the treatment of returned soldiers, not in constituencies a thousand miles away on the word of somebody, or nobody, or everybody, but let them bring it up in the very constituency itself, and thresh it out on its merits, and the people will give their verdict, and we have no fear of if.


John Howard Sinclair: It is not altogether fair for the Secretary of State to charge hon. members on this side of the House with being indefinite in-their criticism. I think they have been very definite. My hon. friend from West Lamfoton (Mr. Pardee) has given him a specific case, which he has not been able to answer. My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has given him another specific case, well known in eastern Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. He has made no reply. My hon. friend from Pictou (M;. Macdonald) has mentioned another case ;n the town of Stellarton. The Secretary of State has not been able to answer any of these. If he wants another case, I will give him a fourth.


Arthur Meighen: The case in Stellarton was four months ago, when the acting minister was not in charge of the office. Why did not the hon. memtber put a question on the Order Paper and bring the matter up then?


George Perry Graham: The question was on the Order Paper long ago.


John Howard Sinclair: The case I have in mind is that of a returned nurse. Recently the Government established a hospital in the city of Sydney, called the Moxham Hospital for convalescent soldiers. It was necessary to engage a matron to take charge of the hospital. A very competent young lady, who had seen service at the front, made application for the position. Every one said she was well qualified and should have been appointed. Her name is Miss Black, and the Secretary of State can make investigation about this and see if the facts as I present them are correct.


Arthur Meighen: Is that the military hospital?
Mr. SINCLAIR- Yes. This young lady was not acceptable to the patronage committee of South Cape Breton.


Arthur Meighen: Is it under the Military Hospitals Commission?


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose so. In any event, she was not acceptable to the patronage committee of South Cape Breton, and her application was rejected, the position being given to a young lady who had no experience at all, but who had simply completed her training as ia nurse, but her father was a friend of the party in power. This case is well known in the county of Cape Breton. I think we should have no trouble in giving my hon. friend a great many other cases of a similar nature. My experience in regard to the cases of any of the nurses I have been acquainted with is that they got on the force only through the recommendation of some Conservative politician, and I can give the minister specific instances of nurses making application to be put on the service whose applications lay for months in the military head office here, and there was nothing doing until they secured the recommendation of some prominent Tory supporter . That has been the system of the appointment of nurses all through the service. I do not want to bother the Secretary of State by giving him too many specific cases, but it is not fair for him to say that members on this side of the House are making general charges only, when, as

a matter of fact, we have been giving him specific cases which he has not been able to explain.


Arthur Meighen: I have had the explanation of one of the cases already. Perhaps it is as well to give it to the committee. I have not had time to communicate it to the acting Postmaster General. The hon. member for Prince Edward Island (Mr. McLean) tells me that what the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) says as to Charlottetown is quite wrong, that there has been no appointment made at all to the position of postmaster at Charlottetown, that the inspector who was inspector before is doing the work along with his own work, and saving the country $2,000 a year.


George Perry Graham: He will be in the estimates for extra work done. This condition of affairs will only last until after the election.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
William Pugsley: I do not think it necessary to read ,all these items, but I would like to speak of one matter. There is an item for improvement work in St. John harbour, and I wish to call the attention of the Acting Minister of Public., Works to what I think is a very serious state of affairs in connection with this work. There was a contract given for a large amount of work there, including the building of a dry dock. When I was minister, I exacted a security of half a million dollars. I am told that the Government has reduced the security to $250,000, and that drawbacks accumulated, and that the contractors were at work and had a large plant on the spot, worth $300,000 or $400,000, in respect of which the department would have a lien for the purpose of the work. There was also about $700,000 of cash on hand including the deposit. I understand the Government has returned to the contractors the whole $700,000, and that the contractors are now trying to get the plant released. If that is done, it will he handing over to defaulting contractors, who were under obligation to perform this work, nearly $1,000,000 which this country had a right to insist should be applied towards the completion of the work. I do not think my hon. friend is responsible, but the Government is responsible, and I would ask him to exercise the right of lien which the Government has on that plant to keep it

there until matters can be arranged for the completion of the work.
I am not going to criticise to-night anything in connection with the half million dollars; perhaps that can be satisfactorily explained. But I would ask the minister to retain control of the plant until satisfactory arrangements are made for the continuance of the work and the unravelling of all matters connected with the dry dock.


John Dowsley Reid: The amount that was handed to the Government went to pay the creditors. With reference to the plant, I promise my hon. friend that I will take it up in the morning .with the officials of the department, see what the situation is and if it is as the hon. member states we will hold it back.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will look at the contract he will see that the Government has a lien on all plant brought to the work.
Resolution concurred in.


George Perry Graham: I suppose that the Government will see that all these items are right. When we dispense with reading them the Government will have to take the responsibility of seeing that the details are correct.
Resolution concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Reid, the House went into committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Rainville in the chair.
Mr. Reid moved:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenditures of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1918, the sum of $4,721,500 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Reid moved:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on aooount of certain expenditures of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1918, the sum of $46,375,267.75 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Reid moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 135, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1918.
Motion agreed to, Ball read the first and second time, considered in committee, and reported.
On the motion for the third reading of the Bill:
["An Act of this kind was found to be absolutely necessary in England even after a few months of war. The general public were willing to give generously, but they were very susceptible, the result being that they were easily exploited. We had the same experience in Canada. One of the things that must be conserved in this war, quite as much as provisions or money, is the generous impulse of our people. We must not allow them to be exploited, because there is only a certain amount of voluntary generous impulse in the country. If that is drawn off and misused, there is so much less for legitimate enterprise. I can give to this House any number of instances that have come within the experience of the Canadian Patriotic Fund, in which we have seen the well-intentioned generosity of the Canadian people deliberately diverted and wasted on war funds. This Bill has a double purpose. First of all, it purposes protecting the public against fraudulent, unwise, injudicious collection of money for so-called war charities, and, secondly, we want it very much in order to protect the legitimate funds, to make it possible for the legitimate funds to defend themselves.\nThe National Canadian Patriotic Fund will be one of the first to ask to be registered. It will !be the easiest thing in the world for that fund to conform with all the regulations that are required. They have to prove that they are administered by a responsible committee; that they keep regular minutes of their meetings; that they have proper books, and that their income and outgo are properly checked. They have to show that they bank their money, and that they use the authorized forms of the department. The National Canadian Patriotic Fund, the Belgian Fund, and the Red Cross Fund, through their organizations, will come and 'be certificated. Their certificates will apply not only to the national fund, but to all the branches. Each of the branches m its respective locality has, to some extent, the same powers that the parent organization has, and what will happen will be just this: If a city organization undertakes to raise money for the Patriotic Fund they will have to Obtain permission from the local branch in order to do so. The local branch can say to those people: That is not the proper way in which to go to work for the Patriotic Fund; a large percentage of the amount\n\ncollected will foe wasted. We had in Vancouver a case in which they got up a large contribution contrary to the desire of the local branch of the Patriotic Fund. They raised $1,500 and paid out $1,400 in expenses. That, was a pure waste of benevolent efforT. The various funds of this country are entitled to protect themselves against misdirected effort.\nBill as amended reported, amendments read the first and second time and concurred in, and Bill read the third time and passed.\nOn the motion of Hon. Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 1.40 a.m. Thursday.\nThursday, September 20, 1917."]
George Perry Graham: Unless there is some special reason that the Government can give us why this Bill should be read a third time to-night, it should not be read a third time. I do not want to take any objection, but to go through the first, second and third reading without taking a breath is rushing matters somewhat unless there is some special reason for it.


John Dowsley Reid: We would like to pass it tonight to get it over to the Senate. I understand the Senate is practically through. They have passed the War-time Elections Bill and it will be here to-night.
We would like to send over to the Senate what we have on the Order Paper, so that they may have some business to-morrow. When we get through with the Bill which is coming over, we will have nothing more to do. We would like to take it up, discuss it, and be ready for prorogation to-morrow. If, by any chance, we cannot get through with the discussion, prorogation will take place the next day, but we would like to get our Bills over there in order to finish up the business.


George Perry Graham: Of course, there will be some discussion on the other Bill I imagine, but before I consent to the third reading I would ask if the War-time Elections Act is back from the Senate and is to be dealt with to-night. It cannot be discussed tomorrow, unless steps are taken to-night so that it will appear on the Order Paper. Otherwise, the discussion will take place the day after to-morrow.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill I refer to has
passed the Senate, and, as I understand, was sent over here, and will be ready for-to-morrow. At all events, we would like to finish up the other business and be prepared to discuss the War-time Elections Act to-morrow. I understand that the Senate came to some arrangement by which the Bill passed there without further discussion. I admit there will be some discussion here. I have no doubt the Bill will be ready for discussion to-morrow.


George Perry Graham: If I might be permitted, under the rules the Bill cannot be here for discussion at the next sitting, unless it goes through the proper stages, and is sent over

to us to-night. If it is presented to the House to-night, it will he on the Order Paper to be discussed to-morrow.


John Dowsley Reid: I have information that the Bill will be here inside of ten minutes, so it will be on the Order Paper to-morrow; that will be arranged.


John Howard Sinclair: Might I suggest that
the amendments should be printed, as they refer to my province. They are very intricate, and I would like to see them.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, they will be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 66 to amend the Judges' Act.
George Perry Graham: I suggest that this debate be under closure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understood that this stood over, in order that the formal motion might properly be submitted to the House.
I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House disagrees to their amendment to Bill No. 66 an Act to amend the Judges' Act, for the following reasons:
Because the amendment is not relevant to the Bill, which is only to provide the salaries for two additional fudges, to restrict in certain cases the travelling expenses of judges and to extend certain provisions of the Act now applying to County Court judges to the Circuit Court of the district of Montreal;
Because, though it may be advisable to modify the pensions at present provided with respect to future appointments, it is not in the public interests that the remuneration or pensions of judges now on the Bench should be changed to their prejudice;
Because, the amendment forbids the judges to perform any duties outside their judicial duties, and that, while it may be an advantage to make more precise and definite the prohibitions at present existing, there are duties that every one is bound to perform, that so wide a prohibition is impossible for the judges to observe, and that, in any case, it is not in the public interest to enforce so unlimited a restriction.
Because there are in connection with said amendment questions of grave importance touching the independence of the judiciary, which call for the careful consideration of the House of Commons, consideration which cannot adequately be given at the present session, and because these questions can be more advantageously dealt with upon a Bill submitted for that purpose, and at a time when they can be deliberately considered.


George Perry Graham: What will be the result if this motion is adopted? Where does the Bill go then?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will be returned to the Senate. While I have no official information on the .subject, I believe there is very good reason: to believe that they will .acquiesce in the soundness of these reasons, which only look to defer consideration of the important questions which arise on their amendment, which is entirely foreign to anything in the Bill.


George Perry Graham: The Bill will get through? Mr. DOHERTY: Yes.


WAR CHARITIES ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 130, relating to war charities, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
George Perry Graham: Is that the Act to provide for the supervision of the collection of war charges?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Arthur Meighen: The 'Minister of Finance is confined to his room. Consequently, I made as good a study of the measure this afternoon as I could, and I read the whole debate that took place on the measure when it was in committee before. I think my hon. friend is wrong when he says there was information to come. I cannot reeol-leot that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He held it over for some reason.


Arthur Meighen: I know the reason; it was not for information. There were certain suggested amendments. It was suggested that it should be amended in three ways. First objection was taken to the title. The hon. member for Piotou (Mr. Macdonald) thought the title should be "The War Contributions Act." Secondly, the hon. member for Pictou thought it should be widened to include such contributions as machine gun contributions and the like of that, that it should he extended beyond the mere domain of benevolence. Thirdly, it was contended by the hon. member for Middlesex, and several hon. gentlemen opposite, that churches should be exempted from the operation of the Act.
I do not know of any other amendment that was suggested. That was why it was

held over, and consideration was promised to those suggestions. I would prefer to see the title stay as it is. The title "War Contributions" would not definitely indicate the nature of the Bill. It is a Bill to prevent people appealing to the public for money for an unauthorized fund, or a fund which it is not in the public interest that appeals should be made for. It does not cover the whole scope of war contribution. It covers only benevolent or alleged benovelent contributions, or charitable contributions, because there is really nothing distasteful in the word "charity."
The title to be given to this Act is the same as that which has been given to the British Act; their War Charities Act is in line with this legislation. They have had their legislation since the war began; in my judgment, we should have had this sooner. The member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) suggested long ago that some such legislation as this should be provided. We are following in line with Britain in that regard; besides, the title "War Charities" is appropriate. As to the other idea that the Bill should cover a wider sphere, it may be that we ought to do that in separate legislation, but anything done in that regard should not be done in connection with this measure. The things we want to aim at now are appeals to the charity of the public and to the benevolence of the public for the relieving of suffering and distress. The other various schemes that were worked- some of them very laudable indeed in themselves-are now pretty much in the past;
1	do not think that we need look for them much more. The suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite that churches should be excepted, is a good one. I move that section
2	be amended by adding after the word " association " in the second line the words "other than a church or the Salvation Army."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. GEASS:: There was a discussion as
to the desirability of exempting an organization of a national character, such as the Daughters of the Empire. Possibly, however, if you started on one you would have to introduce quite a number of exemptions of this kind.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see any need of exemptions. I do not take quite the same view of the operation of the Act as that taken by the 'Minister of Finance. He seemed to proceed on the assumption that any institutions that were obviously
and by general acceptance right and proper and already recognized by law should be exempted. My idea is that they should be immediately registered. The Secretary of State has power to register them at once, and my first step would be to register the Daughters of the Empire, the Patriotic Fund, the Red Cross, the Belgian Relief Fund, and the like. These organizations will lead in the matter of registration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that this Bill enables the minister to frant licenses for the holding of entertainments at which moneys -will be collected for patriotic purposes, and that if such licenses are not issued, those responsible for the entertainment will be acting in violation of the law. I do not think that we have any jurisdiction to grant licenses for entertainments held in any of the provinces.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that my hon. friend has in his mind quite the right idea of the nature of the Bill. In the first place, we do not grant licenses. We register the fund, which is the institution that embodies the purpose of the appeal. For example, we register the Patriotic Fund; that does not mean that we license a church or a society in the country to hold a concert on behalf of the Patriotic Fund. Contributions to that fund by way of concert or entertainment are all right provided the Patriotic Fund themselves say that they are prepared to accept the contribution and that the concert or entertainment has their sanction. But we want to stop the carrying out of schemes, even in respect of the Patriotic Fund, the purpose of which is ostensibly to obtain money for the Patriotic Fund, but really to get money which goes largely to the promoters of the schemes or their friends, the Patriotic Fund getting only a negligible residue.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No form of criminal ingenuity could be practised in connection with getting funds that is not a violation of the provisions of the Criminal Code. If it is stated that money received or collected will be given to one purpose and it is deliberately given to another, money is received on false pretenses. If funds are misappropriated, the persons responsible are guilty of conversion and of theft. I do not see that anything a man or woman could do in exploiting schemes of this kind in a criminal way is not covered by the provisions of the criminal law. I think that this proposed1 Act is an absolutely unnecessary provision.


Arthur Meighen: The criminal law does not cover the cases dealt with here, so far as they have been presented to me. For example, it was advertised that at a race meeting the proceeds of the first day should go to the Patriotic Fund. As a consequence patriotically inclined people went on the first day in preference to the other days, and many who went, instead of asking for change, left their five dollars with the gatekeeper. They thought that it was all going to the Patrigtic Fund; that was all they cared about it. As a consequence some $6,000 or $7,000 were taken in that day. Some difficulty ensued in getting the money; much time was taken up, and finally about $350 reached the Patriotic Fund. The rest was applied towards the expenses of the meeting, salaries and allowances to those who gave their time to it, and so on. That would not come under the Criminal Code, but no such scheme of making money for the Patriotic Fund-it was really not for the fund at all-should be allowed. It is such things as that that we want to regulate by this Bill. The secretary of the Patriotic Fund can give my hon. friend some very illuminating instances.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Suppose it was advertised that the funds were to be applied to the Patriotic Fund and that the people in the light of that advertisement, went and contributed their money. That money would have been received illegally, under false pretenses, if it was not afterwards handed over to the Patriotic Fund.


Arthur Meighen: The proceeds were applied to the Patriotic Fund all right, but the promoters took care that the proceeds did not amount to very much.


Samuel Francis Glass: I remember the argument of the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) on that point when this matter was before the House on a previous occasion. I believe that even if the Criminal Code does provide punishment for fraudulent collection of funds of this kind, yet in these times it is a great deterrent and discouragement to funds supported by voluntary contribution if those frauds are allowed to go to a point at which action has to be taken which may ultimately result in a prosecution. The old 'adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure very fitly applies to a matter of this kind, and it ought to he checked by prevention rather than by punishment after frauds have been perpetrated. For that reason I can conceive that an Act along the lines of the one before the House will more effectively meet

the case than by resorting to punishment after the wrong has been done.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: An Act of this kind was found to be absolutely necessary in England even after a few months of war. The general public were willing to give generously, but they were very susceptible, the result being that they were easily exploited. We had the same experience in Canada. One of the things that must be conserved in this war, quite as much as provisions or money, is the generous impulse of our people. We must not allow them to be exploited, because there is only a certain amount of voluntary generous impulse in the country. If that is drawn off and misused, there is so much less for legitimate enterprise. I can give to this House any number of instances that have come within the experience of the Canadian Patriotic Fund, in which we have seen the well-intentioned generosity of the Canadian people deliberately diverted and wasted on war funds. This Bill has a double purpose. First of all, it purposes protecting the public against fraudulent, unwise, injudicious collection of money for so-called war charities, and, secondly, we want it very much in order to protect the legitimate funds, to make it possible for the legitimate funds to defend themselves.
The National Canadian Patriotic Fund will be one of the first to ask to be registered. It will !be the easiest thing in the world for that fund to conform with all the regulations that are required. They have to prove that they are administered by a responsible committee; that they keep regular minutes of their meetings; that they have proper books, and that their income and outgo are properly checked. They have to show that they bank their money, and that they use the authorized forms of the department. The National Canadian Patriotic Fund, the Belgian Fund, and the Red Cross Fund, through their organizations, will come and 'be certificated. Their certificates will apply not only to the national fund, but to all the branches. Each of the branches m its respective locality has, to some extent, the same powers that the parent organization has, and what will happen will be just this: If a city organization undertakes to raise money for the Patriotic Fund they will have to Obtain permission from the local branch in order to do so. The local branch can say to those people: That is not the proper way in which to go to work for the Patriotic Fund; a large percentage of the amount

collected will foe wasted. We had in Vancouver a case in which they got up a large contribution contrary to the desire of the local branch of the Patriotic Fund. They raised $1,500 and paid out $1,400 in expenses. That, was a pure waste of benevolent efforT. The various funds of this country are entitled to protect themselves against misdirected effort.
Bill as amended reported, amendments read the first and second time and concurred in, and Bill read the third time and passed.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 1.40 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, September 20, 1917.