1919-11-07

REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Lands sold by the Canadian Pacific railway during the year ending September 30, 1919.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the business of the House, I have pleasure in making the announcement that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has intimated a desire to see Canada's political workshop in operation, and purposes to visit this Chamber a little before one o'clock, when the Speaker will make arrangements for each member of the House to be introduced. It is thought better that after each member is introduced, coming along the aisle and going back in the other direction, he shall resume his seat, and when the ceremony of introduction is over His Royal Highness may be pleased to say a word or two to us while the House is formally assembled.



BOXING GLOVES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. F. N. McCREA (Sherbrooke):: Before the Orders of the Day are called, may I ask
the Government if it is their intention to provide boxing gloves for the members of this House? The members are so fed up with the session that they evidently require some exercise.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Francis N. McCrea: And I thought, perhaps, the Government might provide them with gloves to enable them to engage in some form of exercise.



COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.


[Stage Direction]
'Consideration of the motion of Hon. James Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) for concurrence in the report of the special committee to which was referred Bill No. 10 to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. George William Andrews, resumed from Thursday, November 6.
George Green Foster: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words at this juncture in respect to the matter before the House, and my difficulty is in collecting my thoughts so as to avoid vain repetitions. The subject has been so well put before the House by the committee, with such clearness and in such detail, that really almost all that is necessary to arrive at a proper conclusion is that a member should study that report. But in addition to the report itself, the exhaustive and lucid exposition which was made by the chairman of the committee (Hon. Mr. Calder) renders any remarks thereafter all the less necessary. And when you put on top of that the suggestions that have been made by the various speakers, one comes to the conclusion that pretty nearly all has been said that can be said on this particular phase of the question.
There are one or two general observations I should like to make. Every one finds it a difficult matter in approaching any subject, and particularly a large and important subject, to disassociate himself from his previous point of view and to take as far as possible an all-round view - of the subject. We think along certain lines and our mental attitudes are fairly well set, and we approach the study and discussion of almost any question from that settled angle; and the one who can almost entirely disassociate himself from pre-conceived notions is, other things being equal, apt to get at the broadest conception of the question and come

to the best-based conclusions. There is one point that might be mentioned and that is acceded to by almost every speaker, but yet the principle underlying which is clung very closely to by many hon. gentlemen and probably by many of those outside of the House who are interested. No nation in the world has ever undertaken, and I do not suppose that any nation in the world ever will or ever can undertake, to make compensation for the losses incurred in war, it would be an impossible task. There is no measure of worldly compensation for life that is lost in the service of the nation but partial compensation to the dependents of the dead may be given, nor do I believe that any nation can compensate for even the material losses which accrue to individuals in the course of a long and cruel war. We are all at one on that principle. I can see in the statements made by those who discuss the question, I can see in the claims made by the returned soldiers themselves, that they hold the belief that, having engaged in the splendid achievement of defending the country, somehow or other the country ought to see that they start life again on as favourable a basis and with as favourable surroundings as when they left their civil employment plus if possible compensation for the time that they lost in military life. We will, I think, all agree that it will be impossible practically for us to undertake to put every man in 'the material position in which he was at the time he went to war. Complete restitution and compensation are impossible.
Then there comes this question as to how far we can or will go and that perhaps may be said to be measured by two things: first, the will to do and, second, the ability to perform what the will would impel one to do.
Just here let me remark that, whether inside or outside of this House, the man who would try to create the impression that Canada has not been and is not now sympathetic towards her soldiers is not doing justice and is not helping to the final solution of this question. In proportion as outside or inside grows the impression that sympathy is lacking and that the accordant action that follows sympathy is not present, it is a hindrance to the future amicable and fair solution of the problem.
In coming to the consideration of this subject all our predispositions are in favour of doing everything possible for the men who have defended our country. That is absolutely true. That was shown to be

true during the whole period of enlistment and service. In no country in the world did the people follow with more earnest sympathy, interest, and love the men who went to battle than did the people of Canada. They were their own fathers, 'brothers, husbands, sons; there was a drawing of the heart strings of the men and women who were left behind. All through the war that sympathy showed itself in the prayers of the people, in the comforts that the people contributed, in the great Red Cross movement, in the Patriotic Fund, in those innumerable smaller congregations of women, children and men all through, our country who laboured for, and followed with their prayers the men who went to the front. Can that be denied? There was a great national foundation not only for doing for the soldiers everything that could he done during service in the field, for the wounded, for the fallen, for the disabled, to solace the relatives of those who had fallen and to fittingly honour the memory of the dead.
The man who accuses Canada-leave the Government out entirely-of a lack of sympathy and good-will towards our soldiers, their own flesh and blood, is either arguing from ignorance, or from malice.
Translated into this Parliament were the sympathy and good-will that followed the soldiers during the time of war. And where do the members of the House come from? They come out of the societies and homes of this country, from amongst those who have offered sacrifice in this war. Coming out of that atmosphere they brought with them to this House their sympathy for the Canadian soldier. The committee that was appointed was a selected portion of the men of this House from both sides. It was not necessary to engraft sympathy and good-will into the hearts and minds of that committee. They inherently bore it in them when they approached that investigation, and they came to consider the subject with all that sympathy of heart and mind.
Some one said that the human element does not appear sufficiently in the report. The human element is so interwoven in, and so overwhelms the mind, the sympathy and the feeling of the members of [DOT] this House, of the select committee, and of the people, that it is not necessary to make asseverations of it every hour of the day. That is beyond cavil and doubt, and in that committee all the predispositions were in favour of doing the best that could be done for the soldiers.

I make these preliminary remarks because I think it is well that I should. I come to another point and very briefly I will touch it-and that is as to what Canada has done. I eliminate entirely party names and governmental considerations; I am not saying what the Government has done, I am not saying what the Unionists have done, I am not saying what the Liberals have done; I am saying what Canada has done. And the 'Government, and the members of this Parliament, are presumably the interpreters of Canada's wishes and efforts. What has Canada done? Not in any spirit of vaunting do I speak of it; I speak of it to meet this impression which it has been attempted to create; that Canada has forgotten her soldiers and her duty towards them, and that she is not treating them with the sympathy and with the accordant action that they expect and that they ought to expect.
When a member gets up in this House and says that the requests of the returned soldiers have been greeted with coldness here, not to mention statements stronger than that, he is not, to my mind, stating what is the fact. Every member of this House ought to remember, when he gets upon his feet and speaks here, that he has been translated from the mass, he has been placed in a representative capacity, he stands towards the people outside, more than the man who is not so selected, as one who speaks with authority. His responsibility therefore is all the greater, and his care should be all the greater that he utters no word which creates a false impression,' and especially an impression which hazards and complicates the adjustment and makes the ultimate solution more difficult.
So, for a moment, bear with me while I state very briefly what Canada has done. In the first place, she has stood at the back of her men when they were in service. I just state that-I do not* argue it, I do not labour for evidence to prove it. We have followed the course of our soldiers and we know, and we have followed what the armies of other countries have done. The representatives of other countries, have followed our armies in the field; they know and they have expressed their opinion; and it goes without saying, I do not think it is subject to the least cavil, that in all that long period of warfare no soldiers in the field were better supported by the countries which were responsible for them-as regards equipment, as regards medical care, as regards nursing care, and as regards material comforts of every kind- than was the Canadian army supported by the Canadian people. So much for that. That is the duty of the country, and that duty Canada performed.
The second duty of a country when her men fight and fall-fall without life left or fall wounded and disabled-is to care tenderly for these men, Has Canada done her duty in that respect? Follow the splendid work of our medical, scientific and nursing staffs through that war. Contrast it, if you like, with the similar work performed for the soldier by other combatant nations, and without detracting from what others have done, we are proudly conscious of the fact that our wounded, our suffering, and our disabled did not lack for medical and nursing comforts and care to the fullest possible extent.
Then come two lines in which action may be taken.	Your disabled men come
back. One has lost a leg, another has lost an arm, another has had his brain power impaired-his nerve centres are shocked, and confused, and disturbed. These men are the wrecks of war; they are the survivors who are to put in tnc span.of life that remains to them reaping sorrows and sufferings which the fallen have escaped by a sudden and a speedy death. These disabled, these shocked in nerve and in mind, the country must take care df to the fullest measure within its power. Has Canada done her fair duty in that respect? That is not a subject of controversy; it is a matter in regard to which we have all made up our minds. Granted that you never get the perfection of service and the perfection of aid, no blush should mantle Canada's cheek for the way in which she has treated the disabled who have been put into their different courses of vocational training, and other modes of treatment. We have not done all that Canada means to do. We know that Canadians support any government or any parliament that does for the soldier all that can be done to the very limit of the resources of the country. There is no doubt upon that score.
You now come to the other and the only remaining class: The men who left their homes and fought in service, and1 who were fortunate enough to come out of that service undisabled. Should Canada do nothing for them? I do not say so. Should Canada do as much as she possibly can for them?. I do say so. But I say there is a dividing line, clean, clear, and distinct between the one hundred per cent capa-

bility that is left and the handicapped condition of the wounded1 and the maimed. We make no mistake when we father and mother and nurse those who are impaired in mind and body. It comes to be a matter of utility, of expediency, maybe, to some extent-although I do not like that word-but in the end it comes to be a matter of the reasonable capability of the country as to how far the country shall put itself behind those that have fought in the war and made sacrifices? Why, of course they have made sacrifices and borne the strain of a terrible struggle, the result of which to a greater or lesser degree they will bear the result of so long as they live. But they are so fortunate, as compared with others, that they are in a class distinct by themselves. What has Canada done with reference to that class becomes apparent as one reads the report of this committee and as one follows the work that has been carried on. I am not going to take up your time describing what the country has done, but I do say that Canada has not been unmindful even of those. Let me state one fact by way of suming it up:	$490,500,000 has already been disbursed, or committed for disbursement, by Canada along the lines that I have very briefly traced. That is to isay for the treatment of the first three classes-their vocational training and their care in assuming the cost of transport for dependents and otherwise, and in the payment of gratuities which no other country in the world has surpassed, and which I do not think any other country in the world has equalled. All this stands to the credit of Canada in her treatment of her returned men.
Canada works through her Parliament, Parliament works through its executive, and Parliament and its executive disbursed for Canada this great sum of $491,500,000 which the Canadian people put into their hands. My friend beside me does not dig down in his own pocket and necessarily contribute voluntarily to the $491,500,000, neither does any other man; it is raised from the people of Canada. And, further, the people of Canada voluntarily themselves have raised around $100,000,000 outside of what has been disbursed by their representatives here and by the executive of those representatives1-$100,000,000 for Bed Cross work, for the Patriotic Fund, to help soldiers in the innumerable ways in which they have been helped. You may add that amount, if you please, to the preceding figure, and Canada has then dis-

bursed practically $591,500,000 along those lines. I do not throw that into the teeth of the soldier who returns with his claim, but I simply put that point of view before him and before ourselves, and as widely as possible before the country, in order that well-balanced opinions, and conclusions from those opinions, may be had. All that is a rebuff to the statement so foolishly and sometimes so recklessly made that Canada has done comparatively nothing for her soldiers. She has not done one tithe of what she would have liked to do, she has not done one tithe of what the sacrifice, if we could undertake to make full compensation, has called for; but she has done what she has done with a willing and a sympathetic and a loving spirit, and I want the people of Canada who do not think deeply about these things to bear these points in mind'when we are discussing this question.
Now, that committee has made its report; and its report, I may say right here, in so far as the Government is concerned, is a report with which the Government is entirely in accord and purposes to adopt and to carry out. Do not run away with the idea that the Government of Canada-for the time being this Government, at other times it may be another Government belonging to another party-spends its days and its nights in times like these in riotous living and in an entire disregard of the general or the special interests of the country. Men who have formed governments and have laboured in them and have wrecked themselves in the labour, and have died for the reason that they have so- wrecked themselves, know what I mean when I make that statement. Long before you memJbers of Parliament set your special attention to this particular problem the Government lived with it in the daytime and slept with it in the night-time. It was ever present before them, and present before them with the endeavour to find that solution which should be just on the one hand and reasonably possible to give effect to on the other hand. Our soldiers form-I had almost made the mistake of saying one class of our people, 'but there are other classes and so I would like to modify that-our soldiers, by the .emergency and temporary work which they are called upon to do become to a certain extent specialized, but they are still citizens of Canada. They aTe now civilian citizens of Canada; they have never divorced themselves: from the country and its activities, its energies and its aspirations; they are not so separated now. They

come hack from their temporary work of splendid achievement, and the desire-of all of them I should hope, of most of them I believe-is to incorporate themselves as soon as possible in the activities and energies of the surroundings that they belonged to before they went to the war. The sooner that is accomplished the better. The time taken in keeping the specialized contingents still specialized and distinct in any degree is time lost in the best fulfilment of the ultimate pacifying and readjustment and reconstruction of our country. The sooner we all become civilian citizens, the better it will be and the more successful will be our progress towards the future which we face with confidence.
That committee brings in its report. It does not go 'as far as some people would like. Why did I make the remark that the Government had thought about this matter long and seriously? For this reason, and I will explain that part of the allusion just now: because, in the first place, the Government was forced by its duties and obligations to cheerfully undertake to look into this matter of finance to the very foundation and guide its policy from two considerations: the magnitude of the wants and the reasonable possibilities of what the country could bear. Looking along these lines, face to face with the facts on one side, with the claims on the other, some months ago, the Government came to the conclusion that in so far as the gratuity granting system was .concerned, they could not proceed further along those lines. And they made public, that view- a view oome to not on the spur of the moment, but after the most careful and the most assiduous attention had been given to all sides of the question. They stated their policy openly, and the country knows it. Then we formed a committee, of the House and that committee took up the investigation of these subjects. I am not in the habit of complimenting fulsomely, but I must say that I have seldom if ever in my political career had cognizance of the work of a committee which has been done more carefully and more attentively, and which has been more effectively presented to those who gave the committee the authority to make the investigation. That committee had access to evidence and which is still more important evidence had access to the committee. No doors were closed, no gates were shut, the whole Dominion had its access to that committee. That committee deliberated, got its information, collaborated its work, set down its conclusions, and made its findings.
We may send this report hack if the majority decide so to do, but I cannot see that you can get more out of that committee than you have already got. I cannot see that that committee missed any opportunities for getting at the bottom of this subject during the time that they were considering and cogitating upon the matter. So that it seems to me that it is time lost to send this report back to that committee and ask them, partly by instruction and partly by inference, to give us another and a different report.
My friend and colleague, the chairman of this committee (Hon. Mr. Calder), very pointedly and very effectively stated what would be the result of adopting the proposed amendment. My friend from, the head of the lakes (Mr. Manion), in an address that he made yesterday, very clearly stated the crowning disability involved in carrying out that recommendation and starting the committee off on an entirely new quest, or in an entirely new direction. Time is the essence of the contract in this case; what is wanted is wanted now, before the snow falls, at a time when the need is felt. It is not sufficient that whatever is ground out shall come from the mill six months or more from now.. So that on these two ground's I cannot see that anything is to be gained by sending this report hack to the committee.
Now, during the progress of this debate we have looked for suggestions. The committee, I am sure, has been interested in learning what alternative plans are offered which axe practical and reasonable, if their findings do not coincide with the convictions of hon. members. I am sure that every member of the committee has had that thought in his mind, and it must be a thought which is in the minds of all hon. members of this House of Commons. I have listened to the suggestions and 1 have tried to weigh them, but I cannot find very much of comfort or assistance in them. That is not depreciatory of the gentleman who made the suggestions. But I have noticed two things: That the suggestions have been, in the main, the expression of the wishes and sympathies of those who offered them rather than a venturing upon concrete methods of adding to or substituting for the financial side of the report of the committee in order to raise the amounts suggested, lit surely is not necessary for me to take up the time of the House in going over these. But, with your pencil sharply pointed, just note down what you can get in cold dollar comfort out of these suggestions-what you can get now or within

a reasonably short period, and I am sure that your total at the end will be a mighty small amount. Some have tried to extract sunbeams from cucumbers by saying that it makes the problem easier of solution when a commitment of, say, $700,000,000 is to be expended on capital account. But the trouble is not the expending; the trouble is to get the money to spend. It does not make a pin's difference whether it is expended on capital account or on any other account; you must have the money before you can expend it. So that that suggestion, if it is intended to solve or to clarify, does' not have that effect upon me. Does it have that effect upon any member of this House? You are quite as sensible as I am, and I am sure that my experience is your experience.
Hon. gentlemen say, establish lotteries; but you cannot do that in this country. Tax your bachelors, and you would soon have no bachelors to tax if your tax was heavy enough; even my distinguished friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) would be among the missing. Clap a little additional tax on your theatre seats, and still where are you? Run through all these suggestions, and when you have totalled them all up and subtracted the expense of collection, what a mighty small amount you would have to go against a $400,000,000 expenditure.
Well, then, come to the more ambitious schemes, the land tax and the unearned increment. There is a nice bridge built on the Plaza. You can get on one end of that bridge and in two minutes you can cross over to the other side. Where is your bridge that will take yon to-day, this month or next month, when you want the money, to the place where you can find a settlement of the questions involved in this suggestion: First, whether the unearned increment or land tax is a proper tax; second, the institution of investigations to provide that no one shall escape you; third, the getting of a proper line of agreement and co-operation with municipal and provincial authorities, which also have that power of taxation; fourth, the institution of the necessary machinery, and fifth, the gathering of the amount. You have all these processes -before you; set them going and you then have no bridge built that will carry you over for one year, two years, may be three years. That is the first class of suggestion, there is comparatively nothing in it.
The second class of suggestion calls for the discussion of methods and of principles

and the adoption by a majority of the House of one or of the other; then come the valuations, the providing of machinery and the collection of the tax. Why, your disabled or other soldiers, in dire need today, would die and pass away before you could build that bridge or cross it to the other side. So that there is not much help for us in that respect.
" Oh, well," another friend says, " Canada is a rich country. She has billions of tons of coal; she has untold resources in nickel; she has mighty forests, great fisheries, and -mines which have not yet been plumbed. True, she has great resources. These resources give us hope, inspire in us confidence that we can bear our burdens and come out on top, confidence that in future years we shall, by the proper development of these resources, be able to meet our obligations, pay -off our liabilities and come out on the high road to unobstructed -progress, but you cannot commute those billions of lignite ore in the West and in the mountains into ready cash for present payment-. These are our resources, but they cannot be converted immediately into money. Processes extending over years have to be carefully thought out and carefully applied before you get the beginning of returns. So we do- -not get much help from the fact that our natural resources are very great, except the hope and confidence it gives that we have a well assured future before us if we use ourselves and onr resources properly.
To make a long story short, we come right down against the actualities oif the -case. We have had two Victory Loans in this country, splendidly launched and more splendidly sustained. We are now in the midst of a third loan, which is going beautifully and will bring us our objective -and more, I am well assured. Now a loan of $500,000,000 or $600,000,000 takes just that much of the moneys of the people out of -certain lines in which it was active before, and applies it to a different purpose; your second- loan adds another $500,000,000, $600,000,000, or $700,000,000 to that, and your third loan, now on, will make another large draft upon the resources of the country. All we need to keep in mind is that within eighteen months we have to raise in round figures between $800,000,000 and $900,000,000 of hard cash to pay our bills and meet obligations already contracted, not a single -item of which the House, after scrutiny, has so far said should be eliminated or -even materially reduced. Our present loan will raise $400,000,000, perhaps $500,000,000,

but t-ha't still leaves another $400,000,000 or $500,000,000 that must be raised within a very short time. These are the if acts that *confront us, and what the Government had to consider when it went into this matter, and what the committee, too, I have no doubt, considered, was the ability of the country to raise and sustain these loans which are absolutely necessary to meet our already undertaken obligations, and follow them by others equally necessary within a few months. Could we fairly with reference to those needs and the capabilities all round incur the further responsibility involved in the propositions placed before the committee and before the Government? Some may -say-I have heard it myself from these benches: You can spend money on the railways; what is the reason you -cannot give 'this to the -soldiers; you can spend money for shipbuilding and transport; what is the reason you cannot give this to the soldiers? Well, as I said before the soldiers are a part of the -Canadian nome and Canadian country, and if the Canadian home and the Canadian country is to be kept functioning, the expenditures I have mentioned are absolutely necessary. I hey are the hands and the fingers, the legs and the feet of the body politic of the nation, and unless you sustain them and put strength and power into them you cannot develop, you cannot produce, you cannot earn, and consequently you cannot continue to function, and the first man who would feel that disability would be the returned soldier himself. All of us would feel it. -So you cannc^J, say that if you are able to spend money to keep the railways going you might surely give $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 to this cause. We must remember that these expenditures are absolutely necessary to our arteries carrying the lifeblood of our country.
The chairman of the committee has been criticised in the House and outside because of his frankness. His frankness went this far: If we were up against little questions, the Government might hide behind the general issues and say nothing, and let people go ahead, but when you are up against what is vital to the country no Government is worth its salt which does not formulate its policy and formulate it upon the very best considerations and the very best investigation it is capable of giving. The Government was up against the problem before the House or the committee was, and it went into it thoroughly, and came to the conclusion that it could not embark on the venture of more cash grants. Was it better
or otherwise, was it dignified or undignified, was it proper or improper, was it constitutional or unconstitutional, that the Government, having come to that conclusion, and feeling its conclusion a conviction, should say to the members on both sides of the House:	That is- the conclusion we have
come to, so when you are discussing this matter, you are discussing it with all the cards on the table. Is not that better for you, for the Government, and for the country? M stand behind my colleague (Hon. Mr. -Calder) in the fair disclosure he made of what is the Government's mind with reference to this matter. Now the House has the whole matter before it, and I do not think there is need for labouring it further. I have stated the position of the Government with reference to this report. I have stated the difficulties confronting us. I could go more into detail, but you are masters of detail yourselves.
I have only one thing more to say. This report of the committee is not one of the most hide-bound, wrapped up, and enveloped reports that I have seen come down to the House. There is an elasticity about it. Read the recommendations and findings of that committee and you will see that in many cases they did not tie themselves down to an absolute fixed minimum. There is an elasticity under the rules and regulations which may be adopted which allows more maybe than is brought down in the estimate that we have put before you, and which does not shut the door, especially to needy and necessitous cases. Neither does it shut the door on the undisabled man who for reasons that we do not know now, but which may become apparent, and may be thoroughly valid, finds himself with his family without employment, notwithstanding all he could do and has honestly done to get employment. The door is open to that case. It is not open to the man. who has settled himself and is getting along in settled civil life as he got along before, but it is open to the man who, unfortunate it may be, or from whatever cause is abso-. lutely in a position of necessity. The committee's report does not shut- the door upon aid of that kind.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said all that I need to S-ay, and I am very much obliged to the House for the kind and careful attention with which i-t has listened to me.


Mr. D. L. REDMAN (Calgary East):: I am sure the whole House has listened with the very greatest interest to the excellent speech which h-as been deliverd- by the Acting

Prime Minister (Sir George Foster). His logic has been very clear, and if in what I say I differ from him in any degree I trust the House will believe me when I say that I do so with the greatest diffidence. However, from my long connection with soldiers generally, I must say that there are some parts of the report which 'in my opinion do not go far enough. Before I proceed further, I may say that I find myself unable to vote for the amendment which has beenJ submitted because that amendment means cash gratuities which the financial condition of the country,, and other urgent and important needs of some of the soldiers, make impossible at the present time. I attended, I think, almost every meeting of the committee at which evidence was taken, and I have carefully studied their report.
I have the greatest respect for the ability of the gentlemen who composed the committee, and I have no doubt whatever of their high motive and the frame of mind in which they approached their work. Still, as I say, with some of the conclusions which they have reached I cannot agree. I admit the need of the benefits which they recommend for soldiers in their report and to that extent I agree that they have done well. But I do not think they have gone far enough. One cannot help being impressed with the evidence that is set forth in regard *to the financial condition of the 'country, nor can one find any difficulty in supporting the contention that the country could not possibly raise at this time sums approximating $300,000,000 or $400,000,000 for cash gratuities. This important question after all resolves itself into a matter of common sense, and we must-be rational in our suggestions as to how far we can go and how much money we ear raise in order to meet the needs of the soldiers. Now, in my opinion, I think we can raise in addition to the amount already recommended in the report about $150,000,000. I do not say that sum could be raised in cash at the present moment to be distributed next month. Under the proposal which I have, that would not be required. 1 do not intend to enter into a discussion as to the exact means by which it might be raised. That amount is not very large compared with our ipresent and past loans, and I think we could carry it along under our present schemes by a readjustment of our finances. For instance, I think there is a sum of $25,000,000 in our present commitments which we might well divert from the purpose to which we have allocated it, namely, 
the soldiers' settlement scheme, for establishing men of Imperial units on land in Canada. My opinion in this respect is that if we have that amount of money to spend we should spend it first in the interests of our Canadian soldiers. Another $25,000,000 has been allocated by the Government to housing, a scheme which has been taken advantage of by only three provinces. The province from which I come has not availed itself of it, and as I intend to advocate a housing scheme it seems to me that the balance of the vote might well be allocated to the purpose I shall mention. I believe that all the money given to soldiers who are not in the disabled or wounded class should be by way of loan, and as we should have under these various schemes very good security we can hope for a return of. a large part of the money so loaned with a certain rate of interest. So that these loans would not involve so serious a question as that of a straight gratuity, nor would it be necessary that the entire amount proposed should be raised immediately. I do not think I need argue that if we could raise a further sum of money for the soldiers there would be no desire or intention on the part of the House that it should not be raised and loaned, provided that every dollar loaned would tend to the re-establishment of the soldiers. It is not necessary, either, that I should endeavour to establish the fact that soldiers who have returned, even if they are physically fit, are not able to enter into competition on an equal basis with those who did not go to the front. ,
Now, a great deal has been said in regard to the word " need," and I think that the proposal put forward by the member for Centre Winnipeg largely hinges upon the interpretation of that word. The needs of the human being are varied, and they include necessaries other than those of a financial character. His financial needs wall vary with the individual, but if we are to discuss the question of need we must approach it from a different viewpoint. We must consider what needs we as a nation are prepared to supply. I think that if the returned, soldiers need housing and assistance in establising themselves in industry, or for education

as they unquestionably do-we as members of Parliament should resolve that to the extent of our financial ability we will attempt to satisfy those needs. Let us first consider the question of housing. I believe that some scheme o-f housing in Canada confined only to returned soldiers would go far towards solving the problem of the returned man, and pos-

sibly a sum of $75,000,000 or $100,000,000 might be raised towards this end. No one will dispute the fact that in. Canada there is a great shortage of housing accommodation as a result of the cessation ini building during the war, when the activities of the people were concentrated in the sole effort of successfully waging the fight. Why could we not allocate same such sum of money towards the building of homes for the soldiers? I do not say that we could build a home for every soldier, but we could survey the needs of the various provinces and allocate, to be spent in them, such proportion as appears necessary after a careful investigation of the situation. Let these houses be built, and we shall then have solved the housing problem and incidentally have helped a great many soldiers. Those soldiers whoi did not have .homes would be benefited under this scheme, with the result that the present utterly unreasonable rents which soldiers and their dependents have to pay would he reduced, and thus practically all the soldiers would derive a benefit, while the *civilian population would incidentally share in the .advantages of the scheme. I am confident that if this were done the housing situation and living conditions in Canada would be improved very materially. A home is an essential part of the equipment of the producer, and in furnishing houses to the soldiers we would help them to become more efficient and place them in a better position to produce to the maximum. The security would in this case be adequate and I think the country could look for the return of a very large part of this amount.
The question of industrial loans is a great deal more difficult. I do not think that any such sums should now, at least, be allocated to that purpose, but if by spending $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 we could help to place on their feet a lot of returned soldiers who wish to get into business of different sorts I think we should do so. Discussion has taken place as to assistance to those who wish to engage in such businesses as .fishermen, blacksmiths, garage men, and barbers, and for the purchase of tools of the different trades. It seems a reasonable proposition that we should help these men by giving them small loans to start in business and get on their feet again. The security, I admit, in that case would not be so good. Still, it would be considerable if all loans were carefully given out. It would add to the producing capacity of this country and would help to actually place some of our soldiers on their feet.
118 [DOT]
I believe, therefore, that we could, with safety, loan money to soldiers for housing and for re-establishing themselves in industry.
Then there is a third way in which I think we could safely assist them and that is by helping them in their educational courses. I believe that the committee should have agreed to the suggestion that aid should be given to university students. I know they were most sympathetic towards it and I know the reason they did not agree to it was that they thought that all other classes, or all other young men in the army . might object. I do not think that theory ia entirely sound. I think it is a fair statement to say that there is no aristocracy of brains, that there is no class, economic or social, from which students are drawn, and the very fact that assistance is needed by them would prove that they did not come from the higher financial stratas in this country. However, I do not see any Teason why we should not go further to the extent of helping those who enlisted before they were twenty-one in getting technical or vocational training. Surely this country needs educated-leaders in the future; surely we cannot afford not to counteract the results of that four or five years during Which the young men of this country were not being educated. There is an hiatus there which will react on this country in years to come. By loaning money to students we will be making a splendid investment for the country, we will be helping to bring forward leaders in industry and thought and I believe that the security or the hope of getting the money back from men who take a university training is excellent.
I have given three ways in which I think money could safely be loaned to soldiers. All these benefits can be substantiated on the ground that they are in the national interests. The land settlement scheme has been substantiated on that basis. The housing scheme is, one might say, the counterpart of the land settlement scheme; it is giving to those who live in cities facilities somewhat on an equality with those given to returned soldiers who are to settle in the country. The question of industrial loans, while they would have to be gone into very carefully and perhaps inaugurated on a small scale, would help to establish our soldiers in industry and education, would make them more efficient in fighting the economic battles of the future. I believe (that any money invested in these three things will help the capacity of the country to pro-



duce while at the same time helping the individual soldier. If the committee felt that they were not justified in accepting any of these suggestions on the basis that if they helped any soldiers others would complain that it was unfair to them-if that is their difficulty-let them do this in the national interest and let them say that "we will extend loans and assistance to soldiers when we are certain that these loans will actually help to re-establish them and will actually add to the ability of the country to carry on its work in the future."
In regard to the housing scheme, if I may revert to it, I believe that already we are loaning to countries in Europe money for the lumber that is going from British Columbia. If it be true that we are loaning this year some $106,000,000 overseas to develop and carry on our industries here, could we not loan money to our soldiers in Canada? Would it not bring the same profit to the producers of these commodities and would we not have additional advantage in the establishment of homes in this country that would be part of the producing plant of Canada? I do think that if the Government, in pursuance of its very necessary policy of keeping industries going and obtaining markets for our products, would try to divert as much trade as possible into these channels and at the same time give assistance to our soldiers, they would be not only achieving the object which they had in mind but they would also be going a great distance towards the re-establishment of our soldiers.
I submit' these ideas to the House in all deference having regard to the opinion that the committee has formed. But I absolutely believe that this country can raise the money. It does not have to be raised this minute or this year but gradually perhaps in the next twelve or eighteen months. I believe that by carrying out the various schemes which I have suggested a great many soldiers would be assisted and that the national interest would be advanced. I do not think that the question is settled, or that the report which has come down will forever close the question of benefits to our soldiers. Nor do I think the committee intended that it should. The Government should very seriously enter into the consideration of some reasonable plan which would go further to re-establish the soldiers. I do believe that the soldiers in fairness can come to the conclusion that everything has not been done that might be done for them.
I cannot support the amendment because it is an amendment on the question of TMr. Redman. 1
cash gratuities. I think that before we pay cash gratuities we will have to deal further with our disabled soldiers and that pensions should be increased by fifty per cent if necessary. Our pensions to-day, while they will enable a person to live, will not allow them to live in some cases even in comfort. If we are going to spend large sums of money and to give it absolutely, our duty in all commonsense would be to turn our surplus first towards further aid to the disabled and pensioners.
What I have advocated to-day is the question of loans, in most cases fairly well secured, and every dollar of which will actually go towards re-estabishment, every dollar of which will do some good to some soldier. I think the difficulty with respect to differentiation as between soldiers can very fairly be overcome, as it was in the case of land settlement, by declaring that these proposals are in the national interest.
At 12.30 p.m. Mr. Speaker declared it one o'clock, that the House might receive His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and the House accordingly took recess.



VISIT OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE OF WALES TO THE COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales entered the Commons Chamber and was presented to the Hon. Edgar N. Rhodes, Speaker, by the Rt-. Hon. Sir George Foster, Acting Prime Minister, and the Hon. Martin Burrell, Secretary of State.
Mr. Speaker extended, on behalf of the House of Commons of Canada, a cordial welcome to His Royal Highness.
On the entry of the Prince of Wales to the Chamber hon. members rose in their places and greeted him with enthusiastic cheers. The hon. members of the House were then each presented to His Royal Highness who stood on the steps of the Speaker's Throne.
His Royal Highness addressing hon. members said:
Gentlemen: Messieurs: I have had such a wonderful time in Canada and have seen so many interesting things that I feel it .would have been a great omission had I not visited the Parliament of Canada. I regard it as'a great privilege to have met you all, and I thank you for your kind welcome.
I look forward to hearing some of your debates when I am next in Canada, which

I hope may be soon, and when I hope you will be more comfortably established in your new Parliament buildings. So I say: Au revoir and not good-bye; Au revoir, Messieurs.
His Royal Highness was then accompanied by Mr. Speaker to the door of the Chamber.
At Three o'clock the House resumed.
Mr. H. C. HOOKEN (Toronto West):: There are a few observations I would like to make upon this question. First, I want to express my sympathy with the members of the committee who had this matter in charge and to say that I believe they performed their duty with as much earnestness, sincerity and sympathy for the soldier as any group of men in Canada could. In their decision, Sir, against granting a cash gratuity, I think they will have behind them the opinion, not only of the country, but of the great mass of the soldiers themselves. Any plan for the indiscriminate granting of a cash gratuity *would, in my judgment, be so full of inequalities that it could not be justified at all; and in many cases a further cash gratuity, such as has been suggested by some of the men who may be classed as agitators, would perhaps be the worst thing that could be done for some of the individual soldiers. II am absolutely against a cash gratuity.
The real problem in regard to these men who have come back to us is not a mass problem, but an individual one. Men have returned from the front who have not lost a week's time; they have gone into their old positions and are just as happy and comfortable now as they were before they went away. In many cases, their training on active service was a physical benefit; and many of these men are better off, both physically and financially, than before they enlisted and went to the front.	*
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, all that our soldiers have done. I am grateful to them, individually and collectively, for the service which they rendered to this country; but I do not think they have any claim to an additional cash payment, and I do not think they are the kind of men who want a cash payment. As a matter of fact, Sir, this country cannot pay our men in cash for the sacrifices they made overseas. What amount of money will pay & man for the loss of both his legs? No money payment will compensate him for that loss. If you gave him $5,000 a year for the rest of his natural life he would prefer to have his
two, legs and for you to keep your money. Sacrifices of all kinds were made that money	cannot pay for; and
we must find some way, if it is possible to find one, by which the country can express its gratitude in fitting terms to the men who have been disabled. This war convulsion imposed upon the people of our country and the allied countries a task that only one class of our nation could perform. Only the young men of Canada could go to the war, it was a job that the older and middle-aged men were physically incapable of performing; and so this duty devolved upon our young men- it was they alone iwho, by reason of their physical fitness, could go to fight for us and save the country. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that each one of the men who went out in the spirit of sacrifice-especially the men who went after St. Julien and Festubert and who knew what they were going into-has a right to be regarded as a hero. They went out from comfortable homes and voluntarily entered into a hell to save this country and to save civilization; and my judgment is, Sir, that they now possess something in the way of a feeling of satisfaction with what they have done that is infinitely more valuable to them, and a greater source of pride to their families, than any cash payment or consideration of any kind that could be given to them.
The leader of the Government has pointed . out most eloquently that our most sacred duty is to the disabled and to the widows and dependents of the men who have fallen. I would :be sorry to think, Sir, that the pensions that have been decided upon are final. I think there is room for a revision of these pensions which may be made from time to time.


George Green Foster: That is really provided for in the findings of the com mittee.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think it is somethin? that ought to be provided for. I think that no man who is disabled-and in particular none of those who were totally disabled-should be allowed to suffer from any lack of the beslt comforts that life can give to a iman; and further, I believe it is the feeling of the House and of the country that no matter how much money may be needed for that purpose it must be obtained. I think I am in the judgment of the House in saying that it is incumbent upon us to make that provision.

Now, Sir, the committee was presented with various plans. Mr. Flynn's plan, 1 think, received just about as much consideration as it deserved. Some other plans also received consideration. But I want to express my disappointment-and this is the criticism that I have to make of the report -that the committee did not go into conference with the members of the Great War Veterans' Association in regard to the plan of that organization. I know that the Great War Veterans' Association plan was submitted to and considered by the committee, but I think it was unfortunate that they did not go further and call the members of the Great War Veterans' committee into conference, sit down with them, and see how far they could go in adopting the plans which they recommended. I (want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in my judgment no group of men have rendered greater service to Canada since the armistice was signed than the men who are carrying on the work of the Great War Veterans' Association. I believe, Sir, that that organization has been a steadying influence, second to none, in the Dominion; we had evidence of that during the comparatively recent occurrences in Winnipeg. They are a body of patriots who are loyal to Canada, not only in time of war but in time of peace, and I think they occupy a position, especially with regard to this particular question, that should have led the committee to see the tactical wisdom of going into conference with them with a view to determining to what extent the proposals that were made by the association could be adopted.


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: Does the hon. gentleman suggest such a conference did not take place? Does he say that the Great War Veterans' Association iwas not in consultation with the committee on that question?	.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I was not a member of the committee, hut I am informed that such conferences as I have in mind were not held. If such conferences were held and the report of the committee indicates the extent to'which they can go towards carrying out the Great War Veterans' plan, then I have made a mistake.
The member for North Bruce (Mr. Hugh Clark) has said that the committee did *hold conferences with leading members of the Great War Veterans' Association, but I have been making inquiries and I find that all the conferences that were held with the representatives of the Great War Veterans' Association were those which were

held during the taking of the evidence at the public meetings. Now, that is not what I meant, Mr. Speaker; I still argue 'that it was of great importance that the approval of the Great War Veterans' Association should he obtained to what the Government and Parliament are doing in this regard and that something more than a mere formal public conference should have been held. It would have been a good thing had the committee had some private, heartrto-heart conferences with the leaders of that Association. Whether or not anything had come out of those conferences, those who are at the head of this organization would have been convinced that we were trying to meet them as far as possible, that we desired to deal justly and generously with them.
I do not think that it is possible to adopt holus bolus the plan submitted by the G.W.V.A. In that respect I do not agree with some hon. members, and I am not arguing for the adoption of that plan. But I still believe that as a result of such an intimate conference as I suggest, certain important modifications could have been made and the committee and the veterans brought together so that when the report did come down it would have had the approval of the veterans. If that had been done there "would not be the unrest and the dissatisfaction in regard to the report that prevails among returned men to-day.
We are in danger of causing this association, which includes hundreds of thousands of men to whom, everybody in the country feels we are obligated, to come under the leadership of men like Mr. Flynn. Those who are now at the head of that organization have shown that they have 'a sense of responsibility. They have done everything that men in their positions could do to have the extremists in their organization kept in check. So far as I can judge from what has been done and from the report which the committee presents, a sufficiently earnest attempt was not made to secure that approval of the leaders of the association which, in my judgment, is so desirable. I think, therefore, that the chairman of the committee would be wise if he would have this report referred back to the committee in order that the matter might again be taken up with the leaders of the Great War Veterans' Association with a view to seeing whether some additional concessions could not be made or some greater generosity shown toward the men, and, perhaps, some more definite plan formulated with regard to the loans that are proposed to be made.

The report mentions the sum of $40,000,000 in connection with taking care of needy cases. That might be increased to $75,000,000. We are told, and the report itself bears this out, that even under the report the amount spent for this purpose could be $75,000,000 or $100,000,000. But the report fixes upon a definite figure of $40,000,000; this amount the men who have framed the report-some of them at least- indicate as likely to be exceeded in payments out in respect of needy cases. But the impression is left upon the minds of the returned men that $40,000,000 is the limit. In my view, it would have been wise to err on the other side and to set a very much larger limit and) if the money were not' expended, why, well and good.
I appreciate the difficulties that the committee had to deal with, and in any criticism which I make of the report I am not at all actuated by any hostile spirit. But if the minister (Hon. Mr. Calder) were in his place, I would ask him to consider the matter of referring the report back and allowing another twenty-four hours for further conferences and further consideration of these matters with the leaders of the Great War Veterans' Association. I do not think that the Government have any reason to object to that suggestion. It does not involve a rejection of their proposal, nor is it in any sense in the nature of a vote of want of confidence. But the following of that course would at least show to the returned men all over Canada that the committee, the Government and Parliament are trying their best to go the full limit in assisting those who need assistance, especially those who need it during the coming winter.
I am not now going to move an amendment along the line of my suggestion; I do not know what I may do at a later stage. In any case, if this report is the best that the committee can do, I propose to support it. It is not entirely satisfactory, but it is better to accept the report than to reject it. I was impressed, and the House must have been impressed, by the remarks of the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) last night, when he pointed out that the rejection of this report, involving a change of Administration, would make it impossible to get any money for these cases until the middle of next summer. At worst, and apparently at best, $40,000,000 will be voted to assist during this winter those who are in need, and I am not going to do anything that will prevent the expenditure of that money on those needy oases; I think that
would be a mistake. The report ought to go through, but I think it ought to be improved and a conference with the Great War Veterans' Association would result, I am sure, in some improvement. I repeat, because I am strongly impressed with this view, that the adoption of that course might *result in our securing for our action the approval of the men. themselves, and if we could get to that point our difficulties would be largely solved. Like every other member of this House, I want to do the very best. I can for the soldier and I want the soldier to be satisfied. If I were dealing, with the individual soldier, and he could not see my point of view, I would do my level best to see his; I would make concessions to the last minute. I would try to get him back to his normal condition; I would try to put him in a position to be able to carry on as happily as he carried on before the war. I am not arguing that every returned man should be placed in exactly the same financial position that he would have been in had he remained at home; that cannot be done. But at least we should show an exceedingly generous and sympathetic spirit.
I ask the minister, therefore, to consider my suggestion that this report be referred back to the committee with a view to the holding of such a conference, in the hope that the report will come back to us changed in some particulars, having the effect of being more generous, perhaps, but in such form as to enable it to receive the support of every hon. member of the House, jand at the same time in such form as to be satisfactory to the members of the Great War Veterans' Association.


Mr. A. T. LEGER (Kent, N.B.):: M-.
Speaker, before the vote is taken.on this question, I desire to say a few words with regard to the report which has been submitted by the Special Committee, and with regard also to the amendment proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Andrews).
In my opinion there might be a compromise in this matter. The report recommends only slight assistances for the soldiers. On the other hand, the amendment goes, perhaps, a little too far. Why not try and reach a compromise between the two? I appreciate the very fair manner in which the subject was put before the House by the Minister of Immigration and'Colonization (Mr. Calder). A great deal can be said, and has been said, against the report of the committee. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has explained to us the financial situation of the country, that it is almost

impossible for the Government to give any further grants to the soldiers. I could not help thinking that if he had spoken in a similar way when the Grand Trunk legislation was before the House that Bill would now be in the wastepaper basket. As it is, it commits us to obligations amounting to about $500,000,000 or $800,000,000. The minister made no complaint of the scarcity of money then, and I ami surprised to hear hon. gentlemen opposite to-day, after voting for the Grand Trunk Bill, say that the country has no money to give to the soldiers When the question of the re-establishment of the soldiers came before the country some months ago, it reminded us all of the noble service rendered by the soldiers for their King and country. They fought for our freedom and liberty, so we can truly say nothing is too good for the soldiers who so nobly defended us. I urge the Government to give a more reasonable recognition to the splendid services our soldiers have rendered. Let us try to effect a compromise on the amount to be granted, and make it understood that this will be the last grant. If it cannot all be paid this year it could be spread over this year and next. I think every member of the House will agree with me that we should do all we can to assist our soldiers in reestablishing themselves. We should give them as much as the country can stand without laying too heavy a burden on the people. It is common knowledge that most of our soldiers have returned home without any money. How could they save anything on $1.10 a day? It was impossible. Take the case of a man twenty-five years of age who enlisted at the outbreak of the war and stayed overseas five years. He had to give up all his plans for a home and a career, and now he comes back and has to start again at the bottom of the ladder, while those who stayed at home have been working themselves up to a better position in life. Many of the young men who fought the battles of the country and risked their lives are back in this country and unable to get employment. Some of them were gassed or wounded. I know one young -man who lost an arm. He has returned -home and has been trying to get work that he can do with only one arm, but he has not succeeded yet. All he gets from the Government is $7.50 a month. How can any man live on that? It is practically starving a man to death. The men who fought our battles must be looked after, and they must be looked after by the Government.
IMr. Leger.]
That was -my reason for suggesting in the beginning of my remarks that some compromise might be made in regard to the amount of the cash grant so that we might settle the matter satisfactorily. Now, IMr. Speaker, during the debates on the Grand Trunk Bill some one went so far as to allege that there was a nigger .in the woodpile, and naturally there was some speculation as to who the colored individual was. I do not know.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member is quite in order in making a reference to the fact that money is called for under the Grand Trunk Bill, but he is not in order in discussing the merits of that Bill.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and regret the transgression. I thought that in view Of the tremendous obligation which wre shall assume by reason of that legislation I might possibly be in order in referring to the allegation that was made. However, I abide by your decision. In conclusion, Sir, I would appeal to the Government and to the country to do the very utmost on behalf of the soldiers of Canada who represented this nation so splendidly in the terrible war.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Did I understand the hon. member to say that a soldier who had lost his arm got only $7.50 a month?


Auguste Théophile Léger: A soldier wrote me stating that he was getting $7.50 a month.
Mr. 'MIDDLEBRO:	For the loss of an
arm?


Auguste Théophile Léger: He had lost the use of his arm, and he informed me that he was still suffering from the effects of gas.


William Sora Middlebro: Did he lose the use of his-arm entirely?


Auguste Théophile Léger: I may say that I communicated with the department in connection with the matter last week and have not yet received any reply. Doubtless they will investigate the matter. I do not absolutely vouch for the accuracy of the statement, I have just given to the House the information I have received, but I have every reason to believe that it is true.


William Sora Middlebro: I understood the hon. member to say that the man in question lost his arm entirely and was receiving only $7.50 a month. If he lost the use of the arm altogether he would receive $36 a month.


Auguste Théophile Léger: He lost the use of his arm; that is the way in which he put it.


William Sora Middlebro: If he lost the absolute use of his arm, that would be the same as if his arm were amputated, and he would get $36.
iMr. EEGER: Why doesn't he get it?


Hugh Clark: The ground has been so well
covered, particularly by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) that I do not intend to detain the House at any great length. But a few points have arisen during the course of the debate to which I should like to refer briefly though as fully as I possibly can. I desire to refer especially to the criticism that has been levelled at the minister on his alleged threat that the Government would resign unless the report of the committee were adopted. What the minister stated was that the Government had already announced a definite policy in reference to this question, and that if this amendment were supported by a majority of the House the Government would necessarily under our constitution have to resign as a result of its defeat on this motion. But the minister did not make that a fact by merely stating it. It was a fact before he stated it, and would be a fact if he had never stated it. To say that his statement was a threat is tantamount to haying that a barometer makes a threat when it indicates a storm. The storm would come even if the barometer were out of working order and did not indicate the atmospheric changes, and I venture to say that some of those who are criticising the minister in this respect would, if the Government were defeated on this motion, be the first to ask when it was going to resign in view of the fact that it did not command a majority in the House.
Now, with reference to gratuities, I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) advocate that gratuities should be given at once to clean the whole thing up and wipe off the slate. Do these hon. gentlemen think for one moment that by granting this gratuity they are going to wipe off the slate? May I ask to what extent the demand for this gratuity has been modified or qualified or restrained by the fact that we have already given a gratuity? We only started paying gratuity No. 1 at the 'beginning of this year, and before the year is over there is a demand for gratuity No. 2. Who can say that the granting of gratuity No. 2 may not lead to a demand for gratuity No. 3? Hon. gentlemen are oblivious
to the events that are taking place around them if they think for one moment that they will wipe off the slate by granting gratuity No. 2. But suppose that it would achieve that result. Suppose we raised the money and paid this gratuity and it did wipe off the slate, and suppose that the men never came back for more, what about the disabled soldiers? Are you going to wipe off the slate and discharge your obligation to them by giving them a gratuity? Never. As regards the men who are disabled by reason of the war, or whose disability was aggravated by the war, this country has committed itself to give them free medical treatment with pay and allowances so long as they live. For that purpose we must maintain a large number of hospitals in the country, with good equipment and a large staff of nurses and doctors, for fifty years to come. Do hon. gentlemen know what that will cost? How shall we discharge that obligation if we exhaust our resources by one indiscriminate gratuity paid to all ex-members of the forces to-day? It cannot be done. Hon. gentlemen must realize that you cannot possibly discharge the obligation to these men this year or next year, or for ten, twenty or fifty years to come. So long as the youngest man among them lives, that obligation will rest upon the Dominion of Canada. Have you any idea what that will cost? To-day we have 7,000 disabled men taking treatment in our sanatoria. All the time they are there we give them free medical treatment as well as pay and allowances, and hon. gentlemen can calculate for themselves what the cost will be. I believe that when the returned men have these things presented to them fairly and properly, when they realize the effect that this proposal will have upon Canada's treatment of the disabled soldiers in the years to come, they will not insist upon the gratuity. I am positive that the Canadian-born soldier is not going to do it.


Mr. ANDREWS:: May I ask my hon.
friend what he means by that?


Hugh Clark: So far as I have
met the native born Canadian I have not found him worrying a great deal over the question of gratuities.


George William Andrews: May I ask my hon.
friend to explain himself a little further?


Hugh Clark: My statement stands exactly as I made it.


George William Andrews: To what other class
does the hon. gentleman refer? To what

other class can he possibly refer except the British-born?


Hugh Clark: No; not necessarily the British-born. We have a man named Flynn from the United States who asked for a billion dollars. He not only asked for a billion dollars but he came down and told us point blank that he was organizing in this country a lot of men who were going to dictate platforms and policies to all the parties in this country; who were going to make and unmake governments and who were going to turn out the government that would not do what they wanted and put in some other government that would. That man came to Canada and enlisted two weeks before the United States went into the war. He comes back before the war is over and draws his share of the $420 Canadian gratuity from the Government of Canada; whereas, if he had stayed two weeks 'longer in the United States and joined when the United States came into the war, he would have got just $60 from the United States. That is the gentleman who is at the head of an organization that is going to dictate the platform of the different parties' in this country and make and unmake governments.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: Do you believe that Flynn has the ability to carry out the threat that he has made, and that he is pursuing it?


Hugh Clark: He apparently is
receiving considerable support in some quarters.
Mr. H. A. MACKIE; Why does not the hon. gentleman apply the criminal law to him as a conspirator against the Government ?


Hugh Clark: I was rather
astonished to hear the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt) say that the committee appeared to be more concerned about finding out why we could not do a thing than about our duty to the soldiers. We took it for granted that the House, and all who read the report, would assume that we recognized our duty to the soldiers. We might have padded that report with platitudes, but if we had it would simply have been nauseating to the members of the House and to the ex-members of the forces who read it. The soldiers want concrete action and they are getting it in so far as this country can give it to them at the present time, having in view the fact that we are not discharging our obligation in

full now because we will have to look after these disabled soldiers for fifty years to come. Isay: Millions of dollars for the disabled man, for his dependents and the dependents of those who were killed in the war, millions of dollars to prevent distress and unemployment among the soldiers during the coming winter but not one cent in the way of a general gratuity.
As to how the money is going to be raised for these extended cash grants, I did not hear any person except one suggest any scheme that would produce any considerable sum of money and that exception has reference to a land tax-a tax on unimproved land values which, at a ten mill rate, was estimated to raise something like $80,000,000. I understand that some council of agriculture approved of that but if they succeed in the next general election, come down with a large enough number of supporters to be able to form a government for themselves, and they enact that into legislation, I would suggest to them, as a more or less experienced politican, that they go to the country before the tax collector gets there. All the other suggestions that were made would provide only a few million dollars and would not begin to meet the demands that we would have to meet on account of these gratuities.
My hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) spoke last night rather disparagingly of the report of the committee, of which he himself was a member. He referred to the part of the report which recommends that a uniform scale of pay be given to disabled men who are in our Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment hospitals undergoing treatment instead of the pay and allowances which to-day they receive and which are according to rank. We recommended a uniform scale of pay so that a lieutenant-colonel should not receive any more than a private soldier. The representations that have since been made were not made to us at the time, and, as a matter of fact, the recommendation was made on the suggestion of the Great War Veterans' Association themselves. If you will turn to page 451 of the evidence, you will find that Mr. MacNeil, secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association asks Mr. Robinson, Deputy Minister of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, this question:
Q. With regard to those men on the strength of your Department for treatment, do you giv9 them pay and allowances according to the rank held in the C.E.F.?-A. Yes. .
Q. Why is that?-A. The reason is this: When the Military Hospitals Commission was in commission, all men were military patients;

that is they were in uniform when they were !n the hospital and under military discipline. It did not matter whether they were men who suffered from a recurrence of a war disability after being discharged here, or whether they were men who had come right back from England directly invalided home and were undergoing further treatment. The Government considered that as all these men were being treated in the same hospital, it would be far better that they all receive the same rate of allowance, and that is carried on at the present time.
At page 454 Mr. MacNeil asks this question :
Q. Is there any possibility of removing the complaint of the men receiving medical treatment that they feel there should be no discrimination based on rank in the Canadian Expeditionary Force? The colonel gets a higher rate of pay than the man in the same institution who is a private?-A. If this Committee recommends that the rate of pay and allowances in that respect set by the Government should be changed and the Government decides to act on that recommendation, we will be only too pleased to carry out the instructions we receive.
I know this is going to work a hardship in some cases and I know that in some cases it will be looked upon as a breach of faith. It is a breach of faith to a certain extent. These men who were removed from the military hospitals where they were getting the pay of their rank, and removed perhaps for the convenience of the department or the Government, to Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment hospitals, continued to receive pay according to rank. If we change that it will be to the disadvantage of those who did not stay in the military hospitals as others did. But I will say that for all cases of recurrence a uniform rate of pay should be given to these men whether they are colonels or privates. Most of us will admit that we made a mistake when we discriminated as to rank in the payment of pension and we do not want to continue that mistake for the next fifty years in treating our disabled men.
The pay that is given to-day, for instance, to a private in our military hospitals is $1.10 per diem, plus the amount that he would receive if he were in military uniform and had dependents. I would suggest to the Government that when they are acting upon this recommendation that the pay and allowances to those men in the hospitals be made uniform as it has been in our other institutions. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) last night took his usual fling at the deputy minister of that department because he does not happen to be a returned man. The evidence will show that it is the misfortune o'f Mr. Robinson, rather than his fault, that he is not in that category. He was rejected after
having several times applied for enlistment; but members of the committee who saw something of the work that he had done were in pretty fair agreement that he lacked nothing in efficiency and that the work of the department has been pretty efficiently carried out.
That brings me to the question of vocational training and the expenditures of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. I have heard a great deal of criticism, in the House and out of it, about the large expenditures in this department. Members of the committee themselves were prejudiced against the department simply because they did not have any idea, as they confessed in their report, of the ramifications of the work. Over 7,000 men have already been graduated after taking vocational -courses of training, and when the committee was taking evidence, I think on September 27th, it was stated that the number at present taking that training was a little over 17,000 men. Now these men are all receiving pay and allowances on a scale that is not approached by any other country in the world except the United States, and our payments are on a larger scale even than those in the adjoining Republic. Sixty dollars per month is the minimum and it runs up, according to the number of dependents, to $150 a month. The evidence to which I have referred was taken over a month ago. Now let me give you the increase that has taken place in the number of students that have entered these vocational schools since that time. In the following week the net increase was 1,149; in the week of October 11th, 512; in the week of October 19th, 360, and in the week of October 25th, 772. Last week the increase was 1,364, so that to-day we have 19,290 men on- the strength of our department taking vocational training and drawing pay and allowances. Do you marvel at the cost of that department? The departmental estimate of the cost of training one man for the average length of the course is $800. Multiply 19,290, the number of men we have under training at the present time, by $800, and it makes the total cost of that training, $15,432,000, and the end is not yet. In the next few months the men will be coming in at a faster rate than 'they ever did before. Last -session I stated that the peak [DOT]of the load would probably not be reached until next February. I think it probably will be reached then, and after that there will be a sharp decline. -Some hon. gentlemen who have criticised the department

on the ground of extravagance have never stopped to think that although the war is over and demobilization practically completed, we have still in Canada an army of 19,290 men being trained not in the arts of war but in the arts of peace at a cost for the classes that are now undergoing training of $15,432,000, not to speak of those who have been graduated and those who are yet to come in. So that hon. gentlemen who are willing to exhaust the resources of our country in one grand effort to make a cash grant to our returned soldiers should pause to consider that we are not by any means at the end of our expenditures in connection with the treat-men^ and training of disabled men-that we will not be through with our vocational courses for some little time yet, and not through with our medical courses for some fifty years to come. I do not know whether or not our critics would say that we have too large a staff. We have a very large staff and they consist mainly of doctors and nurses that have to be fairly well paid. The doctors themselves do not think they are very well paid; I am just as positive as I can be that in private practice a good many of them would earn considerably more than they are being paid to-day. As to our vocational instructors, Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Council, came before the committee and made the statement that we are not paying them anything like the remuneration they ought to receive. The expenditures of the department are very large. I want to tell hon. gentlemen that they are going to be larger still-they are going to be a great deal higher before they will be very much lower.'
I wish it had been possible for all the members of this House to have attended the sittings of the committee and heard the evidence given there by some of these vocational instructors and medical officers.
A brighter lot of men-such clear-cut, active, earnest types-you' could never find anywhere. Colonel Davis, Director of Medical Service; Mr. Parkinson, Director of Vocational Training, and the vocational instructors, from Montreal and Toronto, all returned men, came before the committee, and I think that every hon. gentleman who was present was impressed, as the *hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) said last night he was impressed, by the evidence which they gave. They did not boast about the work done; but they described in a plain and simple way what they were endeavouring to do and the re-IMr. Htieh Clark. 1
suits they were seeking to accomplish. Of boastfulness there was not a particle in their statements. It was pathetic to hear some of them admit that they did not know what to do when they were confronted with certain of these problem cases. One of them declared that he did not know what to do about such problem cases-they baffled him. Apparently there was nothing physically wrong with the men. It was impossible to find where the trouble lay, and he could not arrive at a diagnosis of it. Not being able to reach a diagnosis he could not prescribe the remedy. This particular officer said1 that the only way he could describe such a problem^ case was that the man was "burnt out." Well, there are a large number of burnt out " men in this country. They are the men who are covered by this recommendation with respect to neurological and problem eases, which cases will have to be dealt with by this Government for a good many years to come. The men in charge, as I have said, are all returned men themselves, sympathizing with returned men, doing the very best they can, working night and day on the problem, and absolutely sympathetic with the patients that come before them,-not boasting, but desiring to do the very best they can for those patients, and sometimes desparing because they cannot do enough.
Now, in connection with this particular matter of vocational training, my own impression is that Canada is doing a very big work. I do not wish to make comparisons, although I could, with what is being done in other countries, but Canada's work along that line is worth while. I think the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean) tried to make it appear that we had promised certain things to our soldiers and had broken faith with them. I do not think that such a statement is quite fair to the Dominion. The leader of the House (Sir George Foster) has already dealt with one phase of the question, but I want to deal with concrete cases. What man enlisted in this country under the expectation that when he came back he would get a gratuity up to $420 or $600, depending on whether he was unmarried or married and length of service. It was never promised him, and he never expected it. What man was ever promised that if he was disabled so he could not go back to his former occupation, he would not only get a pension, but would be trained for a period averaging seven months and draw pay and allowances during that time? What man was promised or ever expected that

for a year after the war, whether he was disabled in active service, or whether his sickness was caused or aggravated by service conditions, he would get one year's free medical treatment?
And in that connection I would bring to the attention of the House another matter of expenditure. We are to-day giving free medical treatment to 11,000 men who were not disabled or whose sickness was not caused or aggravated by war service, and we are continuing that treatment for one year after discharge.
But I am breaking away from the point. What man among them was led to expect, for instance,-although it is only a small item,-that he would get a clothing allowance of $35, when he came back? Some returned men made complaints before the committee that that sum was not sufficient. Well, it does not go very far in the way of providing clothing these days; but it is $35 more than they were led to expect they would get. So it is not fair to say; that Canada made certain promises to her soldiers and did not 'live up to them. Canada at least did more than Canada promised to do. There are a great many more things that Canada will have to do to properly look after our disabled men, and perhaps look after our "undisabled" men, but it is not fair to say to-day that Canada has been unmindful of the soldiers [DOT]after they came back.
I was going to say tha't the work is being done in the way of vocationally training our disabled men who cannot get back to their former employment, and also in training those who enlisted before they were eighteen years of age, is a work of great value to Canada. Those men are taught some line of business that they have expressed a preference for after consultation with the medical and other representatives of the Disabled Soldiers' Training Board as to whether or not it would be a suitable occupation for them to follow. A great many of these men-I could give you the figures

are vocationally trained in such large works as, for instance, the Angus shops of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway shops, and in other establishments throughout the country. A large number of the men are absorbed in the institutions where they get their training, and many of those who have been trained in other institutions have already received employment elsewhere and are making good. It is possible that if we had not provided such training for those men a great many of them would
not have gone back to work at all, and we would have the same situation in Canada as prevailed in the United States for a long time after the Civil War,-disabled soldiers living in old soldiers' homes; and probably we would have had the same complaint made here as was made in England a few years ago when it was discovered that men who had been in the charge of the Light Brigade had been compelled to seek refuge in the work-house, which deplorable state of affairs was pointedly referred to by Kipling in a poem ending:
" And they left to the streets and the work-house The charge of the Light Brigade."
These men will not be content to live on their pensions, for they have been trained in employments in which they are making fairly good money; in fact, the committee were informed 'by the managers of several institutions that the men were given the union scale of wages after they were graduated. I venture to say that by reason of the vocational training that we are giving to these men Canada is going to emerge with the minimum of impairment from the wreck and welter of this war.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I would like to ask a question of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Calder) if I may be allowed. My mind is not quite clear about this motion, and I would like to get an explanation. The motion reads:
That the report he received, and that the expenditure recommended therein, or which would be required for carrying out the recommendations therein, he commended to the consideration of the Government.
Que le rapport du comitfe special soit regu, et que les depenses qui y sont recommandges, ou qui seront requises pour l'accomplissement des recommandations qui y sont contenues, soient sournises & la consideration du gouvernement.
I would like to know if a vote taken on this motion will mean the approval or disapproval of the findings of the committee. It does not seem to me to be that way, but I would like to have an explanation.


Mr. OALDER:: As pointed out by the hon, gentleman, the motion is to the effect that the report be received, and that the expenditures indicated in the findings be recommended to the Government for their consideration. As I understand the rules of the House, the committee itself could not ask the House to approve of expenditures; that would be contrary to the procedure. All that can be done is to recommend that these expenditures be taken into consideration by the Government, and that

if the Government approve them, then the necessary resolutions must be brought down to the House approved by the Crown. That has been done in the Estimates which have been brought down this session. I am not absolutely clear myself as to what is the effect of the term "received." The motion is to the effect, that the report be received. Whether the mere reception of the report by the House carries with it the approval of all the recommendations contained therein, I must confess that T am not absolutely certain, but I do not think so.


Joseph Archambault: I would not think so either.


James Alexander Calder: If I may proceed just a little, Mr. Speaker, my own view is that it does not. The report contains certain recommendations. Those recommendations all carry with them expenditures. The Government must commit itself to those expenditures and bring down the necessary votes for them. That has been done, and as was stated by the Acting Prime Minister this morning, the Government as a government approves of the findings of the committee and stands prepared to ask the House to provide the necessary Estimates in order to carry out those recommendations.


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, there is no
. doubt about the fact that the Government needs money to carry on the ordinary affairs of the country. Our mines need development; our harbours have to be looked after; we need much money to meet our railway deficits. Where are we going to get that money? We have been raising millions of dollars by means of domestic loans. We had such a loan last fall and another is being floated at this moment. The man who went across the seas and lost his life in the war gave up everything for his country, and it is the duty of the State to care for those who have been made widows and orphans on account of the war. The men who remained at home and who made a fortune out of the manufacture oi munitions owe a debt to this country, and it is up to the Government to have that consideration in mind when they are considering the means of raising money to take care of our soldiers.
We need to look after our disabled soldiers better than we have looked after them in the past. The returned man who is unable to make a living at his old job should receive recognition from the Government. Our soldiers, therefore, need to be

looked after; but where are we going to get the money? I have a suggestion as to where we can get the money. Let us confiscate part of the fortunes made by those who remained at home during the war and made millions. The money of a man who made two millions during the war does not belong to him; it belongs to the soldiers, to the widows and the orphans. Let the Government do as is actually being done in England; let them confiscate twenty-five per cent-or, if that is not enough, fifty per cent or more-of these immense fortunes. A few days ago the Government found itself in need of money. They seemed not to be embarrassed as to where to get it. They have put through the House a railway scheme which will require more money. Now there is another question before the House in connection with which money is needed; where are we going to get that money? The loan which is now being floated will be needed to pay back debts and to take care of the ordinary affairs of the country. Let us go at this thing in the right way. As I have said, let us confiscate a part of the money of these people who made huge earnings and profits at home during the war at the expense of our soldiers. That money belongs to our soldiers; let it be returned to them.


Mr. J. F. REID (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, there seems to.be an impression that the soldiers themselves do not- want further help. I wish to read a portion of a letter which I have received from a man who was a lieutenant in the army, and with whose views I agree. He says:
I am of the opinion that if the Government will provide equal assistance for men desirous of Indulging- in other occupations or professions other than the occupation of farming as they have granted to these returned men of the farming occupation under the Soldier Settlement Board scheme, such majority of the veterans will be satisfied. The Government may be able to substantiate the statement that the country could not bear the burden of a further cash bonus, but I do not think it will be able to substantiate to the satisfaction of the soldiers the discrimination regarding loan assistance to farmers only. It would appear that the same measure should be promulgated whereby the Government will grant loans on proper security to those wishing to engage in other occupations and professions and that a board similar to the Soldier Settlement Board would have control of the making of the advances and the inquiring into from time to time of the method of the disposition thereof and the securing of the protection of the Government on the advances.
I am of the opinion that the Government should arrange for such loans, and the soldiers who obtain the benefit of them-ought to be made, in a measure, responsible

for the carrying out of the conditions of those loans.
I do not go quite as far as the amendment which has been proposed. There seems to be some misunderstanding with regard to that amendment. I quote from the report, page 33, paragraph 3, appendix No. 1, where the plan of the Great War Veterans' Association is set out:
The plan does not provide for an indiscriminate " hand-out " but it does provide for true re-establishment always under the administrative control of the Government as regards every individual case. In addition, every applicant for financial aid under this plan will be required to demonstrate that State assistance in re-establishment is a real necessity for the welfare and future security of himself and his dependents.
I am convinced that a loan arrangement would be satisfactory, and that if such an arrangement were made a gratuity would not be asked for. I would like to see this report referred back to the Committee. I agree with the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) that if the Committee would spend twenty-four hours in a further effort to solve this problem and to bring in a supplemental report, making such provision for loans as I have suggested, our soldiers would be satisfied. I agree "with the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. L. Thomson) that the money is in Canada, and it is up to the Government to find a way of getting hold of it. I think I make a fair estimate of myself when I say that I am an average taxpayer of this country, and as such I would he perfectly willing to pay my share of a tax which will have the purpose of further establishing our returned soldiers.
It is the duty of the State to provide for students whose educational careers were broken into by the war. We know how readily they enlisted from our collegiates, high schools and universities; now they come back and their finances are gone. Canada will need these professional men of the future and it is up to us to give them such financial assistance as will enable them to complete their education.
I have on a previous occasion stated my opinion that it is the duty of the Government to provide a life insurance scheme fo.r those men who did not carry insurance before they went to the front and who to-day,, because of their disabilities, cannot be insured by any okMine company except at a very exorbitant rate. I believe that in these advanced times, when public ownership is gaining in popularity, the Government should establish a life insurance bureau especially for the benefit of the returned soldier.
I wish to say just a word about the work of the medical boards. A case was brought to my notice a short time ago of a young man who appeared before the medical board and was granted a pension, if I remember correctly, of $8 a month. He was told by the board to take it easy for a few months. Now, how in the name of common sense can a man sit down and take it easy on $8 a month?
As to the different methods of raising the money, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) suggested that we start a wheel of fortune, or some lottery scheme. In the first place, I think that would be against the law. Then I do not think our soldiers would care about trying the wheel of fortune any more; they had too much of that at the front. Some better scheme should be suggested. Before sitting down I wish to say that if the minister in charge of the Bill will state to the House that the Bill will be amended and this loan made available for returned soldiers I shall support the recommendations of the committee. Otherwise, I must vote for the amendment.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: I am reluctant to give a silent vote on this important question, and yet I do not feel it necessary to occupy the attention of the House for any length of time. If there ever was a question engaging the attention of the House on which it was desirable we should endeavour to reach something approaching unanimity it is this question which we are now discussing. I suppose the main question,, after all, is the payment of the cash gratuity. A dozen other questions arise but the main question seems to be the cash gratuity. At the very first stage of the discussion, not on the present motion, but at an earlier stage of the session, at the very first opportunity of speaking on this question I frankly stated that I was against the proposals made by the Great War Veterans' Association for a large and indiscriminate distribution of cash gratuities. I desired, however, they should have the opportunity of presenting their case. A step had been taken by the Government; I am not complaining of it, but in the exercise of their wisdom they had practically told the War Veterans that the matter was settled. Even after an intimation was given that the matter might be further considered on a Bill which was to he submitted to a committee, I remember the Minister of Justice said that the question of gratuities could not then be considered because the Bill would not relate to

gratuities. I ventured to express the hope that notwithstanding that possibly technically accurate point the whole question would be reviewed by the committee which was to be appointed. I am glad to know that that view prevailed, that the committee did open up the whole question. Everybody who had suggestions to present had the opportunity, and the whole question is now before the House. I say without the slightest hesitation I am satisfied the committee gave to this question the utmost care and consideration. They approached it, I am sure, every member of them, with a sincere desire to do the very best they possibly could for the soldiers of the country. I am no more and no less sympathetic with the soldiers than any other member. I believe, however we may differ on some things, that there is an undoubted unanimity among the members of this House in an appreciation of the splendid services rendered by the Canadian soldiers and of a desire to do everything that is fair and reasonable for them.
My own constituency is not a large one. It is not a constituency in which there was much of the military spirit before the war. In the two little counties of Shelburne and Queen's there were hardly any of the militia organizations which sometimes keep alive what might be called the military spirit. My people were too busily engaged in the stern realities of life to spend much time on that which in other portions of the Dominion kept, perhaps, the military spirit alive. Yet when the call to duty came I do not believe any portion of the Dominion responded more loyally and more readily and more promptly. I have not sought statistics; they are not necessary, but I believe it can be shown on examination that in proportion to our not large population these two little counties have contributed their full share. They have sent overseas a great many men. A large number of them did not come back; they are sleeping in Flanders fields. The memory of the men who have departed is as fondly cherished down on that south shore of my province as in any other part of the country. There is no other part of the Dominion where there is greater reverence for the memory of the dead and a greater desire to do honour to those who have returned. The men who have come back to these little villages have everywhere been received with open arms, with high honour. They were acclaimed, as they should be, as heroes who have done great honour to our country. Yet with all that,
	.
I am sure they are fair and reasonable. They like one to be reasonable and just as respects themselves; they like to be reasonable and just as respects their fellow men; and I am inclined to think that the greater part of these men will feel that to press in the largest degree the demands that were made on the Government by the Great War Veterans' Association would not have been just to the mass of the people of this country. The sums called for were very, very large indeed, and I think we have practically reached unanimity of opinion that these sums could not be provided. But we are told that much could be done with less expenditure of money. The original application called, I think, for about $700,000,000 or $800,000,000. We are told to-day that perhaps a less sum, $400,000,000,	$300,000,000 or $200,000,000
might accomplish a great deal. We are so accustomed to talking of millions now that perhaps even $200,000,000 may seem very little; but when we remember that $200,000,000, which is about the most modest sum mentioned in the way of meeting the wishes of the soldiers, is more than half the total net debt of Canada before the war, we will realize that to add this one item of $200,000,000 to our already very large expenditure is a very grave and serious problem.
There are some features of the report which I have seen with a little regret. I find myself very much in sympathy with the remarks made to-day by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Redman). There are some things in respect to which I would have been pleased if the report had gone a little further. I was particularly interested in his statement-the matter had also been engaging my own attention- respecting the claims of the university men, and my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) has just spoken of the same thing. We have no aristocracy of birth in Canada, for which the Lord be praised; we have no aristocracy of wealth to which any of us need bow down, but there is an aristocracy of education that we should all be willing to honour. These young men, the students of our universities, have a particular claim upon the consideration of this House. Four or five years taken out of a young man's life at almost any period of his youth is a grave and serious matter, but it is a particularly grave and serious matter with the young men of the university. It is to these young men we must look in the future for the light and leading which our nation requires. It is to them we

must look for the teachers and the preachers and the statesmen and the men with scientific knowledge who in the fields of industrial life are needed more than ever to-day. We must look to these young men in the universities in a larger degree, as having a great influence on the future of the country. I realize the force of the argument advanced fcy the committee that if we do this for the university student we must do it for the fisherman, the farmer, and for every one else. I cannot argue strongly against that contention, but speaking for myself, and expressing, my personal feeling, I would say that even at the risk of 'being accused of advocating class legislation, I should like to do something for the men of the universities, for undoubtedly they are the hope of the nation. It would therefore have been perfectly agreeable to me if the committee had been able to make some recommendation in that direction. Then we are told that the pension system is not all that it should be. Every one of us, I am sure, can mention cases which have come under his own observation in which the pension system has appeared inadequate. Such cases have been brought to my attention and I have always replied that I was quite sure that whatever was done was the result of sound consideration on the part of the department, and that I thought the department was doing the best it could. But if it is possible for us to do something better in regard to the pension system I should be exceedingly delighted to see it done. I have one particular case in mind, of a widowed mother who receives an inadequate pension because of the fact that her son was not her sole support. I do not wish to enter into details, but I suggest that anything that can be done to improve the pension system, and also to afford more generous treatment to all disabled men, will have my heartiest and warmest sympathy; if the Government could do something better in these directions, even if it does cost us more money, I for one would be quite willing to support them.
Now, Sir, there were differences of sacrifice in the war, but we must always bear in mind this supreme moral fact, that our men did not go to fight for pay. That was not the primary motive that impelled them, and the great mass of our returned soldiers surely would be shocked at the suggestion that these sacrifices should be looked upon merely from a commercial standpoint. Any such consideration is sordid. Our men were not mercenaries, and if we think of these questions only in terms of money
that the men might have earned and of their possible gain or loss, then for heaven's sake let us cease to talk of the glory of Vimy, Passehendaele, and Courcelette, and of every other battle in which our men heroically did their duty. These men would not take any gratuity you could offer them as a substitute for the record they made for themselves, and for the honour they won for their families and for the nation. Therefore, do not let us talk too much about the money aspect of this subject. Wherever it is possible to do anything that is better than what we are doing at present in regard to pensions, the proper care of disabled men and so forth, I am anxious that the Government should be even more generous than it has been. But we must not measure the sacrifice of our men purely in terms of money.
With regard to the suggestion that this matter be referred back to the committee, I ventured to suggest last night to one of the ministers in conversation that this might be done, and it seemed that there were reasons .why it did not appear to be wise to do it. But I did hope that, after the discussion that has taken place,-a discussion which, I rejoice to say, has been absolutely non-partisan in character-some new light might be shed on the subject which would influence the committee to come to a different conclusion. If the committee frankly say that they have made up their minds in the matter and do not think they can go further, I am going to stand by the report, because I do not feel able to support the amendment of my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews). But while I am prepared to stand by the report of the committee if nothing better can be done, I would second the suggestion, made more than once in the course of the debate, that the committee themselves might seriously consider whether they could not properly, without any loss of self-[DOT]respect or any suggestion of resignation on the part of the Government-an element which I am loth to introduce-take the matter back for further study, doing so of their own motion. They might not be able to reach a different conclusion, but at all events they would show to the country that they had a sincere desire to meet the claims of the returned soldiers as far as possible.
In short, Mr. Speaker, to sum up my position, I am unable to support the amendment of my hon. friend from Winnipeg. If the committee adhere to their determination that this report shall be irrevocable, I will support it in preference to the amendment.


George William Andrews: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I will withdraw my amendment right now if the committee will adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding).


James Alexander Calder: Mr. Speaker, I have exhausted my right to speak on the amendment, having spoken yesterday. But if the House approves, there is a statement which I should like to make before the vote is taken on the amendment, and which I think would help to clear up the situation.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is it the unanimous consent of the House that the minister shall have the right to make a statement before the vote is taken on the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Mr. Speaker, there is no vote on the amendment. I understood the mover of the amendment to crave leave to withdraw it.
* Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Georges Henri Boivin: Do I understand that the minister desires to reserve his statement until immediately before the vote is taken, that he prefers to make it at present?
Mr. -CALDER:	A suggestion has been
made, and I think it would be advisable for me to make a brief statement at the present time as to where we stand. I think it would help to clear the situation. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg has just intimated that under certain conditions he is prepared to withdraw his amendment, and that intimation naturally calls for a reply from myself as chairman of the committee. In addition to that, there is a general misunderstanding as to where we actually stand in reference to this question, and I think it is desirable that some one should make a statement to the House before the vote is taken.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is understood
that, by unanimous consent of the. House, the minister is given the right to make a statement which will in no way close the debate, and hon, members who have not spoken will have the right to do so after the minister has concluded.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Calder: I desire to intimate as
clearly as I can to the House just where we stand after all the discussion that we have had. The motion is that the report with all its recommendations be received
fMr. Fielding.]
by the House, and that whatever expenditures are suggested in that report be referred to the -Government for their consideration, w-ith a view' to providing ways and means to meet those expenditures. As I understand the situation, our committee does not ask the House to approve of all the suggestions contained in the report. Those recommendations are made to the Government, and it is for the Government to decide as to which of them, shall not be accepted.


William Stevens Fielding: If the report is adopted, that is practically approving of all its suggestions and it virtually means that the Government will accept them.


James Alexander Calder: I think that is right.
Now, so far as the findings oLthe report are concerned, the Acting Prime Minister this morning stated very clearly and definitely. that the Government accepted those findings and wras prepared to carry them out. On the question of policy involved there has been only one specific and definite statement made, namely, that the Government was not prepared to accept the prin-cple of a further general distribution of cash grants or gratuities. That is all and nothing more. Some hon. gentlemen have suggested time and again that some provision should be made for loans. As the Acting Prime Minister said this morning, the door is not shut; it is not at all jammed. No conclusions have been -reached in that respect by the Government. The committee have reported to the House that so far as they could see it would not be advisable [DOT]to make provision for a general scheme of loans along the lines indicated. But that door is not closed by any means. As many members of the House have said, this problem of re-establishment is going to continue with us for some time. It is bound to. I am sure that this general discussion which we have had, and which has embraced the whole problem of the reestablishment of the soldier, has been exceedingly helpful -not only to the members of the Government but to all the members of t-he House, to the returned soldiers themselves and to the public generally. I am -sure that we all view it in a somewhat different light from what we did a week ago. It is only by the discussion of a problem of this nature that the air can be cleared in order that we can more readily understand the problem in all its aspects. It seems to me that the propeT thing to do is for the Government itself to take into consideration all that has been said during the course of this discussion during which

suggestions have been thrown out as to the desirability of undertaking re-establishment work along certain lines.
Take the last suggestion referred to by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I am sure there is not a member of this House who is not thoroughly sympathetic with the university student, the young man who jumped out of college, went across there and spent three or four years of his life-the years when he should have been preparing himself for his life's work. That young man is back and he has nothing to start in with. We know where many of these young men come from in this country of ours; they do not come from the aristocracy of the land. I suppose we can say that sixty per cent of these young men were working to put themselves through college as has many a member of this House. They have come back from the war and if they have anything at all it will only be the money that they would have earned during the war itself. We can all realize that in many cases these young men, not having anything assured ahead of them, would not have much of a desire to save. When they came back many, if not most, of them had absolutely nothing. What were they to do? In order to save up enough money to resume their course they must first go and earn it, spend another six or eight months at work and lose another college year. There is not a member of this House who does not sympathize with the idea that some provision should be made by. the State to enable these young men to complete their courses. But, as has been pointed out time and again, our difficulty in the committee was this: We found it a most difficult thing to draw the line between one grade of soldiers and another. Even while we had the matter under discussion, as I said the other day, we received a telegram conveying a protest. A report appeared in the press of the country that we were going to make provision for university students and no sooner had that appeared in the press than we received a telegram from one of the branches of the Great War Veterans' Association protesting vigorously that we could not make any provision of that kind without providing for other classes of soldiers as well. The House will realize the nature and the difficulty of the problem we had before us.
Just before the House met this afternoon, some of the members came to me and said: " Now, Mr. Calder, can you not make provision whereby loans may be provided for men who wish to establish themselves in business provided these men can get backing, or some person will guarantee them?" I said:	"It might be done." But if
you are going to provide for a man who wants to establish himself in business, what are you going to do with the young man who came back from the war with a wife that he did not have when he left and two children, and who has no home for himself and his family? There are thousands of that class. Can you provide for the man who wants to establish himself in business and not provide for the man who wants to make a home for himself? He has no home, he wants to get a home and he wants to furnish it. That shows the problem that the committee had to deal with. Again, you have another case in which a man, when he went away, left debts and a mortgage on his house. In the meantime the interest has accumulated. If you provide for the man who wants to start in business and for the man who wants to establish his home, what are you going to do in the case of a man who wishes to lift that debt? Then, I mentioned the case the other day of the fisherman down by the sea, the man who left his boat and tackle on the seashore. If you are going to provide for the other classes, you must provide for him also.
That is the very crux of the whole problem. 'Can we in a country such as ours distinguish between all these different classes? Some hon. gentlemen may think so. Our committee, after considering that problem for hours and days, came to the conclusions that it could not be done. The amount of money required to carry on reestablishment along these lines would approximate anywhere from $250,000,000 to $500,000,000. Then, where are we? We are right back at the point at which we started. You ask that we send this report back to the committee. For what purpose? How are we going to settle that problem? This House can settle that problem as well as the committee can. You have the matter before you now. You know exactly what the problem is. Instead of giving a cash grant is the State going to provide means whereby we can loan money for the purpose 6f reestablishing all these various classes, a sum of money aggregating anywhere from $300,000,000 to $500,000,000?
This need is urgent. All the representations made to us were to the effect that this must be done at once-immediately-[DOT] that it would not admit of delay. The money ought to be got at once, and the machinery put in motion now. This is not



a question to be taken hold of six months or a year from now; it is urgent, it is pressing, it is upon us now. If things are to be done they must be done at once. These were the views expressed before the committee by the soldiers themselves. The problem of reconstruction is up to us right at the present moment. I have endeavoured to put the problem we had to deal with before this House. The members of this House are just as capable of dealing with it as are the committee.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: This House is tied
down by procedure. The committee could get much farther in an hour than this House could in half a day.


James Alexander Calder: I think we could very quickly brush away the procedure in a matter of this kind if the House has any serious wish to tackle the problem. [DOT] We can very readily get rid of all the red tape that surrounds Parliament and get at the question.
I have been very close to this whole problem from the time that the armistice was signed and I want to say as a member of the Administration that I am exceedingly glad this discussion has taken place on the floor of the House. It has been helpful to every member of the Government and of Parliament. I say again that the door is not closed. It will be our duty as a government to sit down and consider everything that has grown out of this discussion. If we find that there are claims-proper claims-and if there are suggestions thrown out whereby we can assist in this work of re-establishment, then we will consider it the duty of the Government to advise those policies and carry them out and I am sure that the House will support the Government in any reasonable steps it takes in that direction.
Personally, I do not consider it is necessary to send this report back to the Committee. I think, in view of the discussion that has taken place here and the sentiments that have been expressed during that discussion,that the matter can very well be left to the Administration itself. I do not think there is any doubt as to what the real sentiment of this House is. The real sense of the House, after .all the discussion we have had, is that if any means can be found to assist the returned men in this question of re-establishment, the Government should find it and put it into operation.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Do I understand the minister to say that at any time in

the future further representations may be made by the Great War Veterans, or anybody who may be interested in a particular case, and. that the Government will take those representations into consideration?


James Alexander Calder: Yes. And I go further than that. I think it w.as the member for West 'oronto (Mr. Hocken) who suggested that we should have a further conference with the Great War Veteran's Association. I may .say that we have had Mr. MacNeil, General Secretary of Great War Veteran's Association, who is a very able, very sincere, .and very energetic young man at our meetings right along. Mr. MacNeil is one of my own constituents, whom I know well and he is a very capable officer. He has been in touch with this matter con-tinously and'he has done valuable work here in connection with the returned soldiers' organization. I simply wish to throw out the idea-so far as the Government is concerned I have no opportunity of discussing the matter with them -that after all the discussion we have had every member will agree that further conference should be held with the members of the organization referred to. These questions cannot be settled in a day; they are most diffcult, most complex problems. Send them back to the Committee with the idea of trying to work out some satisfactory scheme and where will you get to? Parliament will be in session another week, or ten days, or two weeks-we cannot tell how long. I would simply throw out the suggestion that the House leave this problem with the Government, outside of the question of cash grant or gratuity. After all, the responsibility .after what has taken place in the House rests largely with the Government. If I understand the situation at all, it is that the House would support any reasonable measure taken by the Government in connection with this problem of re-establishment. I have said nothing that is binding. I am not making any definite promises at all as to what .can be done, because I am not in a position to make those promises. At the same time, I do assert that the question does not end here in so far as other features of re-estab-. lishment work are concerned, and that it will be the duty of the Government to take into consideration all that has been said and all the suggestions that have been thrown out-to take the real sentiment of the House into its consideration, with a view to seeing what else can be done in

order to assist in the re-establishment of the returned men in the civil life of this country.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, while not desirous of taking up any more time than is necessary, I am anxious that my position shall not go unrecorded in this matter. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) has, I think, stated the view which is held, not only on this side, but, I believe, by the House generally; he has certainly expressed very clearly .the feeling which I have in this matter. I am somewhat surprised at the way in which my hon. friend's remarks have been received by the minister. The minister has urged two reasons why the report cannot be referred back to the committee, and they are the only two which I heard him advance. One was that we might as well fight the matter out here. I confess, Sir, that when the House is sitting in formal session I see great difficulties in the way of considering any suggestions in the careful and full manner in which they should be considered. A good many interesting and valuable suggestions have been presented in the course of this debate, and no inconsiderable number have come from hon. gentlemen supporting the Government. The minister said he wished that all the members of the House could have been present at the sittings of the committee and heard the proceedings. No doubt most of us would have liked to have been present but we were obliged' to be here in this chamber attending to other matters which were under discussion. If there is one thing that has been stated over and over again in the House it is the great injustice that is done members by the rushing through of legislation at the pace at which the Government has rushed it during this particular session. We have had no time to consider these great problems with the care with which they should be considered. The Grand Trunk railway measure, the most important financial transaction which this country has ever had to consider, was jammed along here day after day. From one stage to another, the Government pressed that measure without the opportunity for any mature deliberation; and *those of us who were trying to protect the interests of the country and following that measure closely, were unable to snatch time even to read the proceedings of the committee, let alone attends its meetings. The report of the committee was laid on the table of the House, I think on Friday night last,
119}
when we were discussing the legislation referred to. At the time I drew attention to the undue haste with which we were proceeding and urged that the Government give us a little more time for the discussion of these important matters. Well, Sir, I think in the face of that, hon. members have a right to s'ay to the Government that not having been ,in a position to attend the sittings of the committee, but having given thought to this subject, and having openly and frankly expressed their views here, they ought to be permitted to have those views go . before the committee for further consideration. Now it seems to me the minister answered that very fair and reasonable request simply by saying: The House is a better place than the committee in which to give this report further consideration. He had also another reason-


James Alexander Calder: I said to discuss the principle, not the details.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The other
reason which the minister mentioned was that we might be here for another week or ten days. Let me say in regard to that observation of the minister, that if it is going to help the returned soldier to get justice, gentlemen on this side are prepared to stay here until after Christmas. We are prepared to stay here just as long as hon. gentlemen opposite are ready to stay with us and help debate this question.


James Alexander Calder: If the hon. gentleman will allow me. I did not wish to intimate that in so far as the committee was concerned, or in -so far as I was concerned, that I was not prepared to stay here just as long as he is-that was not my intention at 'all. I simply wished to throw out the idea that although we might get the committee to deal with the question of principle and spend two weeks and more in doing so that when their report came back we would be in practically the same position that we are in now. Let us decide the principle right in this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the remarks of the minister were perfectly plain at the time they were made. I do not think I have misunderstood or misinterpreted them, and I would like to be allowed to continue without interruption.


James Alexander Calder: I do not think it is fair that the hon. gentleman should impute to me a motive and in order to do so credit me with remarks that I did not utter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to impute any motive to the hon. gen-

'tleman, and if my remarks are capable of such construction I will withdraw entirely * any that are in the nature of an imputation. All I wish to say is that one of two arguments which the minister presented as to why the suggestion made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's should not be accepted, was that it might keep*us here for a week or ten days. My answer to that is that we are ready to stay here until the New Year is ushered in if it is going to help the settlement of this question in a manner that will he satisfactory to the returned soldiers in this country.
That being the position, and inasmuch as the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) has indicated his willingness to withdraw his amendment, should that suggestion be carried out I should like to move, Mr. Speaker, as a sub-amendment to the motion and the amendment already before the House:
That the said motion or amendment be not concurred in, but that the said report now under consideration toe sent back to the said committee lor further consideration.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct your attention as to whether the last amendment is not included in the first.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. leader of the Opposition I think would have his purpose met by so revising his sub-amendment as to strike out from the amendment the specific instructions. Otherwise it appears to me that his sub-amendment is comprised in the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre (Mr. Andrews). That amendment is broader, it is true, but it nevertheless comprises what is proposed to be done by the hon. member of Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I would suggest therefore that the hon. member revise his amendment in the manner I have indicated.


George William Andrews: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to state that I accept the statement of the hon. minister, the chairman of the committee, and withdraw my amendment?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman should have leave to withdraw his amendment-?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Amendment withdrawn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I would move as an amendment:

That the said report now under consideration be sent back to the said committee for further consideration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE (Simcoe North):: I do not think I have exhausted my right to speak further on this matter, Mr. Speaker, before the amendment is put. I have listened with a great deal of attention to a statement made by tie hon. minister, the chairman of the committee, and I would like, before voting on this amendment, to ask him whether he has withdrawn from the position he took in regard to clause C. at. page 48 of the report, which is in this form:
In reference to the question of making further provision for cash grants, gratuities or other financial assistance to be distributed generally on any basis to all ex-members of the C.E.F., your Committee desire there should he no misunderstanding as to their views.
Your Committee having fully discussed and considered the financial position of Canada including the further large sums of money that must be borrowed to carry out the work to which the country is committed cannot see their way clear to recommend to Parliament any proposal that would provide for a further general distribution of grants or gratuities either in cash or credits.
While the minister did not state so directly, he led the House to believe that the Government would recede from the position it took in respect to that clause.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Allister Currie: If this report is endorsed by the House as it stands now, and we accept that recommendation of the committee, without any doubt that settles the matter, and all the kicking and arguing that has taken place in favour of granting gratuities or loans to soldiers will have been in vain; the House will have thrown that question aside and approved of the report.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Allister Currie: There is no doubt about that. I want to know exactly what we are voting for. I have been too long a member of this House to be led astray by statements that are not definite.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Allister Currie: I want to know distinctly whether the Government recedes from that position, that they will make no

further distribution of grants or gratuities either in cash or credits. If the Government does not recede, I intend to support the motion of the hon. leader of the Opposition to send back this report to the committee again, to have them strike out that clause. Then the question will be clearly before the House, and the House and the Government can at any future time take it up again. But if we accept the report, and later again bring the question before the House, we will be met by the statement that once having voted not to give any further credits or gratuities the matter is settled. Let me assure every member here that he will have to meet that position in the country. However, if the minister is prepared to say that the Government does not intend to follow out that recommendation, but is going to leave the door open, then of course it has receded from the position taken from the beginning, and the War Veterans can continue their fight. The hon. gentleman said something about credits. I understand the English language very well, and I can assure him that he will have to state distinctly now, before the vote is taken, that the clause in the report to which I have referred is not going to be binding on the members of this House or on the Government. He has his opportun-, ity to make that statement now. If the vote is to be binding, then I say there is nothing left for those of us who want to see fair play for the soldiers but to vote for the amendment of the hon. leader of the Opposition. That is the question fair and square, and I want an answer from the minister Yes or No. I am waiting for the minister to answer.
Mr. SPEAKER.: It must be understood that the hon. member has concluded his speech.


John Allister Currie: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker; I am just asking a question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member having the floor is not entitled to interrogate hon. members in their seats.


John Allister Currie: I am quite willing, Mr. Speaker, to take a categorical answer from the minister and not a long appeal to his followers to support his views. I want a straight Yes or No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The minister is entitled to speak on the new amendment, and can do so after the hon. member has taken his seat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James Alexander Calder: Mr. Speaker, the answer is a very brief one. During the course of this debate the Government has repeatedly stated very distinctly what its policy is on this question of a general distribution of cash grants or gratuities. Nothing I said in my previous remarks would indicate in the slightest degree that the Government had changed its position on that question.


John Allister Currie: All right.


James Alexander Calder: Have I answered the hon. gentleman's question?


John Allister Currie: We know which way to vote now. That settles it.


William Stevens Fielding: I wish respectfully
to urge my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) to accept the motion made by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Mackenzie King). We have heard too much in this discussion of "Government" and "Opposition". May I point out that there is no Government measure before the House? The Government, as a Government, at this moment are not called upon to do anything. We have before us not a report of the Government, but the report of a Committee composed of gentlemen from both sides. That Committee has made certain recommendations. I am not asking the Chairman of the Committee, the Committee itself or the Government-much less the Government, because they are not in the matter as yet; they will come in at a later stage- to recede from anything. I am not asking them to strike out any 'passage of the report. I simply ask the Committee to say, in the light of all that has occurred, in the light of the hundred and one suggestions, good, bad and indifferent, that have been offered: We are not going to be obstinate in this matter; we have expressed our views to the best of our judgment, but if the House wishes us again to talk the matter over, why should we not do it?" The mere suggestion that the report be sent back to the Committee for further consideration reflects on no one; it simply expresses the desire that if any new light has come to us, it be heeded and considered. I hope that the Minister of Immigration will see the matter in that light.


Mr. LAFORTUNE (Jacques Cartier) (translation):: Mr. Speaker, I could not let this motion pass without expressing my views concerning its merits.
In the county which I have the honour of representing-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I appeal to hon. members to indulge in less conversation in their seats.


David Arthur Lafortune: We shall give the hon. gentlemen time to get out.
In the county which I have the honour of representing, there are a great many returned soldiers and I should not be doing justice to my electors did I not address the House upon such an important matter.
No doubt, the hon. members who took part in the proceedings of this committee have fairly dealt with, considered and pondered over the matter and its different aspects before coming to conclusions and submitting the report which is now before us. Neither have I any doubt that the hon. gentlemen who were members of that committee were actuated by their sympathies and devotedness towards the soldiers. Unfortunately, nobody can thrive upon sympathy; debts are not paid with that coin. According to my humble opinion, what they offer to soldiers is what at home we call the crumbs, in common parlance. I deem it insufficient and I agree with the hon. member from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) and say that our soldiers deserve a greater measure of help.
I have listened with pleasure to the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce; he thoroughly understands financial matters. A former Minister of Finance, he is well posted on such subjects and when he deals with them he speaks knowingly. However, I was surprised, I must admit, when I heard him talking about the bad financial situation of this country. Lately, when it was my privilege to address the House and when I was asking hon. members on the other side:	"Why are you a party to that
transaction for the taking over of the Grand Trunk, a transaction which is certainly going to destroy the credit of the country, they said: Never mind, let us make the deal and those who can shall pay."
Mr. Speaker, when the welfare of the soldiers is at stake, hon. gentlemen look further ahead, they cautiously inquire about the state of our finances and express fear at the outcome.
What was well yesterday is equally well today. If yesterday the financial affairs of the country could stand the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk deals they can stand today our helping the Canadian soldiers and our protecting them in a more efficient manner.

The hon. ministers assert that Canada is in dire financial distress and they admit they cannot meet the commitments of the country. Such a confession vindicates your humble servant; it corroborates upon every point what I was saying in this House the other day when I dealt with the question of the acquisition of the Grand Trunk.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear!


David Arthur Lafortune: Mr. Speaker, it is -not a wise policy to have two weights and two measures, one for today .and .another for to-morrow; one ought not to do today what one cannot do tomorrow.


An hon. MEMBER :: Hear, hear !


David Arthur Lafortune: The
ho.n. gentlemen opposite say that they are at a loss as to how they can ever bridge over the chasm towards which we ,are being led by the present Administration. Let me repeat what I said the other day: "Give the farmers what is necessary; give them the protection they ask for, and this country will shortly be in a position to pay the national debt, however large it may he. Give the farmers the means to increase production, give them all that which they have been demanding for years and years, and never mind the national debt. It is only by giving agriculture the necessary protection and encouragement that our great Dominion will finally be able to pay off its debt, whether it be up in the millions or billions of dollars.
It is clamed, Mr. iSpeaker, that the sum requested by the soldiers is an enormous one. But we must not forget that they are not asking assistance for themselves, but for the heads of family who have made the .supreme .sacrifice; they are requesting it in behalf of the widows and orphans and pay off debts which have accumulated during the war. The amount asked for is substantial, it is true, but I say that we shall never be able to repay the great debt of gratitude we owe those heroes who have given up their lives for the defence of Canada. I know that our country is not in such a flourishing state as it was under the old Administration; I know that while under the old regime we used to close our yearly accounts with millions to our credit, this Government can do no better than close its yearly records with deficits amounting _ to millions of dollars, and the cause of this is that we no longer have the guiding hand of the old leader at the helm.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Hear, hear!


David Arthur Lafortune: The hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Clark) says that the Government may be compelled to resign. Such a resignation can never come too soon-we would have had it long ago. He says so because such legislation as that brought down to this House would never be supported by the followers of the Government. He thinks he is going to scare us by hints at resignation; let me tell him, Mr. Speaker, that he is wrong, because we are not afraid to go before our electors; we have no qualms of conscience, for we have done our duty, and we do not fear to account for our conduct before those from whom we hold our mandate. Yet, I could not say as much about our hon. friends opposite, and a great many of them are not ready indeed to receive absolution from their electors. As far as I am concerned, I do not care whether their resignation is tendered today or tomorrow; I shall stand before my electors and show them that in every way I have discharged tmy duty, and if these right-thinking people judge that I can no longer represent them in this House, I am ready to abide by their verdict; I shall retire into private life with the full knowledge that I have acted in their behalf according to the dictates of my conscience and th-at I have told the present Administration what I thought of them whenever the interests of my electors were at stake.
The hon. member for North Bruce stated the other day that he did not know in what way he could provide for our disabled soldiers, for the cripples, the lame and the blind. I agree with him in that; but, when one is in a financial difficulty, one need not borrow trouble. If the gentlemen opposite were in such financial difficulties when they brought down the Grand Trunk deal, why not say to their shareholders: '"Gentlemen we should be pleased to be able to help you, but we have a sacred obligation to discharge which stands foremost, and that is the protection we owe to our disabled soldiers; and as to you, gentlemen shareholders of the Grand Trunk, we shall take care of your interests when we shall have provided for the men who have left all for the defence of their country." They had forgotten all about our disabled Canadian heroes, but I notice with pleasure that the hon. gentlemen have sought advice of their pillow.
Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the Government had said: "We are unable to live up to all our obligations and we have decided
to carry out a policy of economy; we will spend only what is most necessary and accordingly we do not intend to take up any other enterprise.
In that ease I would concur in their opinion, but instead of practising strict economy in order to readjust the finances of the country they keep on deepening the. abyss by ruinous transactions. Last night, at one o'clock, I was listening to the hon. members of the Senate, the friends of the present Administration. They very seriouly disapproved this proposition of buying the Grand Trunk. I said to myself that I was not the only one to think the way I did, and a number of Conservatives have stated in the Senate what I did state myself, here on the floor of this House. Hon. ministers admit: "It is true that the speech from the Throne had no reference at all to those matters and you were given no time to talk them over with your electors, but how can we help it, the matter is pressing, it must be settled?" Such is the truth of what I am now saying, Mr. Speaker, that no later than Friday last,
I was packing my trunk to go back home, when I was told-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has a perfect right to say that the Government are plunging into the Grand Trunk proposal, but he is not within his right in proceeding to argue the merits of that proposal; nor should he refer to the proceedings in the Senate.


David Arthur Lafortune: I quite understand your ruling and I bow to it, willingly. I shall take care not to give you the trouble of calling me again to order. Mr. Speaker, what would you think of a business man whose financial condition being not satisfactory because he had suffered losses, would say to the members of his family:	On account of losses incurred,
we shall have to cut down our expenses and to practice economy", and would, at the same time, buy silk gowns for his wife and daughters, pianos, gramophones and things of that kind? Would you not think, and would not the members of his family think, too, and rightly so, that such prodigality was out of place? Well, now I say to the Government that they were not acting in accordance with the principles of econo,my, when they tried to force the acquisition of the Grand Trunk upon us. I do not believe them when they say that the country is not in a position to protect our soldiers in a more efficient manner,

Why, Sir, the Government just told us that they cannot give our soldiers more substantial help, because they have no money, and yet what do we see? barge sums of money are being sqandered every day for hunting up and arresting the defaulters, and bringing them to trial, though they be brothers of the soldiers who fell on the battlefield; those young men are thrown within the four walls of a penitentiary or of a jail because they had the misfortune or the imprudence of doing otherwise than they were bid, in order to remain on the farms and help their old father and mother while the elder brothers were gone to the front. In a word, large sums of money are being expended without advantage to the State, and deficits are being piled up to that extent. Instead of sending the farmers' sons to jail as is now the .case, why should we not pass a law granting them amnesty? This would bring back a great number of young men who went away, fearing that they might be imprisoned. In other countries the defaulters have been pardoned. Canada, a colony of the British crown, and ruled by the fair play Government, is the [DOT]'only country where


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: , If as I understand, the hon. member is discussing the policy of the Government respecting military defaulters, he is certainly speaking far .beside the question.


David Arthur Lafortune: I wonder if I have made myself understood. It is because the people's .money is spent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would be quite proper to say that money should not be advanced for that purpose, but it is not proper to enter into a discussion of the prosecution of defaulters.
Mr. LAFORTUNE. (translation): I am of the same opinion as the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) who would like the report to be submitted to .the committee and .more carefully considered. I fully approve the statement made by the hon. member, because if this report were again referred to the committee, we would have time to go to our respective constituencies, we would be at leisure to hold .public meetings, to discuss the question with our electors, and we might find , out what stand they are desirous -that we should take with respect to the returned soldiers.
How can you expect us to decide this matter with a thorough knowledge of it, when
t Mr. Lafortune. ]
it was submitted at the last moment? We have had no time to consult anybody, and the electors have a right to be consulted. Were this request granted, we should come back to the House, next session, with an opinion moulded into better shape, more prepared to discuss the question, and in a position to follow the course which would have been pointed out to us by our electors.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I concur in the request made by my hon. friend from Queens and Shelburne that this report should stand. Why, I may perhaps come back here next session ready to approve this report, if my electors wish me to do so. But it is impossible for us to proceed in this manner, just at present.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this session had no other object than the ratification of a peace treaty; the speech from the Throne which was submitted to us did not foreshadow the measures which were recently submitted for our consideration. In view of those facts, why take the members of this House unawares with such an important proposal as this one?
The hon. minister (Mr. Calder) who introduced this Bill told us that we need have no fear, that they would inquire into the matter and see to it that the soldiers be given a square deal. The profuse promises held out to the members of this House, and to the electors whom we represent, have remained unfulfilled, and that is the reason why we feel somewhat diffident as to what we are now told with respect to this Bill.
Hon. members on the other side suggest that we resort to a wheel of fortune in order to pay off our national debt. We, on this side of the House, have that wheel of fortune, which is represented by our cows, our sheep, our swine, and by all the farm products ; but if we want it to be efficient, we must be protected by the proper authorities. If the Administration yielded to our request and concluded with the United States such an arrangement as would allow us to get American corn duty free to feed to our cows, our swine, our hens, our turkeys and our ducks, you would see wheels of fortune on every farm throughout the country. In fact we now have to pay $75 a ton for com meal, $65 .a ton for middlings, $60 for bran, $4 a bushel for wheat and $4 a bushel for buckwheat. We are unable to give our farm animals the feed necessary to make them yield large profits. It would be otherwise if we had the corn which is sold in the United States at 50 cents a bushel; it would then be easy to import the

necessary supplies, and so there would be wheels of fortune on all the farms of Canada to help paying off our national debt.
I agree Nvith the hon. member who has preceded me, that the young university students represent the future of our country, but we must bear in mind that if those students have a right to our help there is also another class of young men who should be taken care of, I mean the young farmers. However, they are far from being protected; they are being rounded up, arrested and imprisoned. Now, I ask the hon. gentlemen what are they instilling into the minds of those young men, if not spite, hatred, anger, vindictiveness a yearning for revenge.
Mr. Speaker, every state the world over rests on four pillars: The throne of the sovereign whom you now represent, the altar of the priest, the bench of the judge, and the connubial chamber. Now, the farmer's family is of all the most prolific. You want the nation to produce, but to realize this aim you must not hamper the future of our country, and the young farmers of to-day will succeed only in proportion to the protection they get from the Government. Then, and then only shall the nation prosper and happiness toe found in the country, which is after all the cradle of prosperity, because the majority of our people live there.
Mr. Speaker, a good deal has been said about sympathy. The hon. minister is most sympathetic, tout as nobody can live on sympathy any more than on love, we must have something else in addition.
Our soldiers should toe provided with adequate means of sustenance, in order to become good citizens, and procure all that is essential to the solid foundation of a "home", quite appropriate for themselves and their dependents.
It is alleged that the soldiers are pressing the Government, that they insist on their demands being complied with .at once. Yes, gentlemen, our action should be prompt, lest they become exasperated; they may do regrettable things, and when we make up our minds to tender assistance, it may be too late.
The hon. minister says that the door is not yet closed. No, it is not, but it is juet about to be, and when it is closed, it will be no use talking, for, as was said by an ex-minister, once the door is closed it will be padlocked, riveted and bolted forever.
The hon. minister stated a moment ago- and the hon. leader of the Opposition so understood him-that it might be necessary for us to remain here another week or two. Well, what of the soldiers who left for the front? Did they inquire how long a time they would be under the menace of the German bayonets or of the German machine guns? Did they haggle about the time? They went beyond the seas and remained there until victory was achieved. Even if the hon. minister remained here another week or two, his work would not be a tittle of what the soldiers have accomplished for him and for us.
As was so well said by the hon. leader of the Opposition, you are not doing justice to hon. members who are away. In fact, many of them have left because they relied on the statement purporting that the session was over, and that is why they are not at their seats to represent their constituents. To pass such important legislation in their absence is doing them a great injustice. For all those reasons, I am opposed to the motion asking that this report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the proposal *made by the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne, that his report be referred back to the committee for further investigation, the result of which would be submitted to us at a later date, so that we might take communication of the findings and talk them over with our electors, and then come back to this House in a better position to do them justice.



VISIT OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

George Green Foster: Mr. Speaker, with the consent
of the House I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Mackenzie King):
That the gracious visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the House of Commons be recorded in the Journals of this House and form part of the permanent record of Parliament, and that the Address delivered by His Royal Highness be inserted in Hansard.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
House in Committee on Bill No. 10, to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act; Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-section 5 of the Act repealed ; and new section 5 substituted- Power to make regulations:
James Alexander Calder: There is one clause in the Bill as it came down from the committee that should be struck out. That is subsection 3 of new section 5, reading as follows:
In the event of the appropriation made for this work for the fiscal year 1919-20 not being sufficient for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act, the Governor in Council may order that any further moneys required, not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of fifteen mi'lion dollars, shall be paid out of the appropriation for demobilization purposes.
Since the committee made its report, estimates have been brought down to the House providing for a sum of $40,000,000 for

whatever expenditures are required to carry out the recommendations of the committee. Consequently, this clause is not necessary. I would therefore move that subsection 3 of section 5 be struck from the Bill.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Do I understand that this should be moved before we consider clause 5a?


James Alexander Calder: No; we can do it when
we come to subsection 3.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Mr. Chairman, I wish to get some information on this subject.. The report, at page 53, says this:
Regarding their proposals generally, apart from the financial considerations involved, your committee cannot see their way clear to recommend any form of financial assistance for any particular class or group of ex-members of the forces who were not disabled. Your committee are convinced that the great majority of the men themselves would be the first to resent any such distinction.
I skip over to page 54, second paragraph, which goes on as follows:
While the special claims of university students were pressed in the strongest possible way, your committee, after the fullest consideration of the problem' as a whole, finally reached the conclusion that the State could not justly and equitably provide for them without making equal provision for the mechanic, the fisherman, the miner, the business man, the industrial worker, and all others who through war service suffered serious loss or hardship in reference to their training, occupation, business, property, equipment, or homes.
This afternoon I, as a supporter of the amendment, agreed tacitly to its withdrawal on the undertaking of this House that in the event of representations being made to the .Government affecting any number of men who might constitute a class the Government would entertain these representations and hear those who were making the same. I do not believe that the undertaking was in exactly the same verbiage as I am using at the present time but the statement which I have made is substantially the same thing. Now, the Bill says this:
The minister shall have the management and control of all such matters as are assigned to him from time to time by the Governor In Council, relating in any way to the re-establishment in civil life of all persons who, since August 1, 1914, served in the Naval or Military Forces of His Majesty or any of His Majesty's Allies, and to the care of the dependents of such persons.
The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) presented an amendment ' which was covered by the declaration made in this House by the minister himself and I feel, like all others, that we should have confidence in our ministers, until such
time as we are absolutely convinced that their word of honour in the House of Parliament means nothing. To give consideration to what will be needed to re-establish in civil life of all returned soldiers is going to involve a great deal of work and time, and the minister in control of these matters is going to be overtaxed. If it is true that certain representations are to be made, we will say, by the mechanics, all over the Dominion, by the medical students, and by the law students-because the Government has decided not to enter into the general proposition of granting	gratuitiesit is utterly impossible for the minister to give consideration to every one of the representations that may be made to him. Therefore, I have an amendment to suggest. I would like this clause to be amended in such a way as to make provision for the appointment of a commission consisting of returned soldiers, members of Parliament, and a member of the Government, to receive and hear all these various complaints which may be made, to determine as to the necessity which exists in each and every case, and to provide for cases that may be passed upon as necessitous or actually deserving of consideration. I submit if the minister in charge of the department is to make that department a success he has already sufficient duties that require his best attention. If he should also be called upon to meet the wants and needs of the various people throughout the Dominion who may wish to present their several cases, his task will be rendered altogether too great. The report of the Special Committee gives, under the title of "Vocational Training," an illustration of the large number of classes who may apply. Is the minister going to be the sole person interested in this matter? I take it from the observations that were made here this afternoon that the Government will be held responsible, and that all sorts of recommendations and suggestions may be made to them to be adopted or rejected, as the case may be. Furthermore, I gather the impression from the statement made by the minister (Air. Calder) this afternoon that it was the intention of the Government to consider every scheme that may be submitted.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Stick to the question.


Henry Arthur Mackie: If the hon. gentleman and his friends would not interrupt malapropos I would adhere to the question; but inasmuch as they choose to interject matter which is not relevant to the question

I feel that I am not bound to be a target for them.
I submit frankly and candidly that the Bill should be amended in such a way as to afford the proper redress to the men in this 'Country who are affected. As the clause now stands it is entirely too limited in its scope to secure that consideration which should be given to the men as a whole throughout the Dominion. Therefore, I move to add the following -as subclause (2):
2. The Governor in Council shall appoint a commission consisting' of two members of Parliament, two returned soldiers and a minister of the Crown for the purpose of making a thorough investigation of the returned soldiers' needs and devising a plan whereunder all the soldiers who have taken part in the war would be given all the assistance they may require.
Amendment (Mr. Mackie) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On paragraph (b)-Minister authorized to engage technical and special temporary staff, notwithstanding Civil Service Act:
William Stevens Fielding: This paragraph
certainly requires an explanation. We have passed amendments to the Civil Service Act requiring that appointments to the public service shall be made by the Commission, and here we are deliberately proposing to set that law aside. There may be good reasons for doing this-I know the matter is referred to in the Committee's report'-but I should like to have an explanation as to why the Civil Service Act is to be ignored in this instance -and not in the ease of the other departments.
Mr. iOALDER:	In reference to this proposed amendment, which was not in the Bill as origin-ally introduced, after we had taken evidence, and during the course of that evidence, every member of the Committee was impressed, I think, with the necessity of enabling this department to get its expert and technical staff just as
quickly as	it -could	get	it.	Underthe ordinary routine	in	the	CivilService it	takes, we	will	say,	froma month	to six weeeks,	and	sometimes more, to have an appointment made. At the present time, as was explained by an hon. member this afternoon, this work is increasing very rapidly, peak loads, it is expected, will be reached sometime in February, and some of the men employed in this department-and there is a very large number of them-knowing that sections of the work will cease within a year or two, whenever they get an opportunity for per-
manent employment in the outside world take advantage of it. As a consequence the department feels that it should be placed in a position to get this technical expert staff quickly. There is another factor, and a very important one, which came out repeatedly in the evidence. It was represented, and,
I think, -correctly, that, in addition to the work being largely of a temporary character -that is, these men are not appointed per-mently, for large sections of this work will cease in a year or two-there is an element in the work of this department that does not appear in the work of other departments, the human element. The department has to take into consideration the character of these experts, their attitude towards the work, and whether or not they will be sympathetic in their relationship with the returned men, because these experts are dealing with men who require special care and treatment. For that rason the department is anxious that.it shall be allowed to take into consideration, not only the ability of a man to pass certain examinations, that is only one feature of it, but also the question whether he posseses those traits of character which -are necessary in order to carry on this work successfully. Therefore the department wishes to be in a position either to promote suitable men already in the service, or to be able to get men of the right type just as soon as possible, more especially because the work has been increasing very rapidly and the conditions are such that there should not be any delay. You cannot delay where you are dealing with disabled men, you cannot afford to take time to look around and choose men in the ordinary way as in the other departments of the service. That was the viewpoint presented to our committee, and after fully discussing the matter every member of the committee came to the conclusion that this exception should he made in so far as this department is concerned, particularly in view of the fact that as regards a large number of these appointments they will not be permanent. Let me illustrate.
If I remenber the figures, there are now about 13,000 men undergoing vocational training. The average length of the course is eight months, -and as soon as those men complete their training it is estimated that another batch of 8,000 or 10,000 men will succeed them to go through the same course. But when that training is completed the experts remain no longer in the public [DOT] service. So that this department in that respect is not on all fours with the other departments of the service, and I think the

recommendation here is one that will commend itself to the good judgment of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: What other classes of technical service are contemplated by this section? For instance, medical service is technical.


James Alexander Calder: Yes. I think that would be included.


William Stevens Fielding: The Civil Service Act
has its disadvantages, one of which is delay, and delay is no more agreeable in other departments than it is in the department in which my hon. friend presides. I tried to live loyally up to the Civil Service Act, but one of the misfortunes of working under it is the long time it takes to do anything, so that people become impatient. The departments try to get over that by making temporary appointments, and although it is embarrassing, it results in the Civil Service Commission eventually making the appointments. This does not contemplate temporary appointments to be confirmed later by the Civil Service Commission. Although the hon. gentleman tells us they are not meant to be permanent employees, I,am inclined to think that under the wording of the section they would be. Our experience has been that wherever any loophole is left efforts will be made to push some person into the Civil Service. What my hon. friend says about the need of appointments being made promptly would be said by the minister of any other department, and I am a little afraid that after all our boasting about the Civil Service Act, our boasting that a member of Parliament above every one else in the world must not have anything to do with appointments, the ministers are trying to hav* something to do with them in this particular matter.


James Alexander Calder: I think in so far as the department itself and the Government are concerned, if the committee considers it advisable that the appointment of these officers should be left in the ordinary course to the Civil Service Commission, it will accept that view. But after hearing all the evidence and arguments, insofar as this department is concerned, personally I am convinced, and I think I voice the opinion of every member of the committee on both sides of the House, that where you have a department dealing with disabled men, with men who are sick, you cannot afford to have delay in appointing technical experts to take care of them. When those sick men need attention they must get it, and
the work cannot be blocked, there must not be any cessation of it. What the hon. gentleman says with reference to the necessity of having appointments made in the other departments is true; but all these appointments are practically temporary, and the wording of the section itself indicates that. Paragraph (b), subsection 2, new section 5, provides for the employment "of such technical and special temporary staff"-not permanent staff. These men are all regarded as being [DOT] taken on temporarily, because large sections of this work will not continue beyond a certain period.


William Stevens Fielding: Temporary service may mean quite a period.


James Alexander Calder: Yes, twelve or eighteen months.


William Stevens Fielding: In any other department you could not make an appointment of that character without the Civil Service Commission intervening. In all departments where there is urgency I would give the minister power to make a temporary appointment, but with the condition that the Civil Service Commission should get busy immediately and the appointment should be confirmed in the regular way. There is nothing in which we are more likely to get into trouble after passing the Civil Service Act than by making loopholes in this form or in the form of a vote in the Estimates whereby men may be appointed without complying with the Civil Service conditions.


Mr. MOWAT:: I quite agree in a general way with what my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) has said. But my experience in regard to appointments for soldiers' civil reestablishment is that we are only looking to young surgeons and vocational officers who do not intend to take up the Civil Service as a profession. It is really war work continued, and the delay in making appointments which must occur under the Civil Service Act would be almost fatal to the director of the department getting the best men quickly and making special arrangements with them so that they could remain for a certain time.


William Stevens Fielding: How long?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I do not know. But some of them would be willing to stay away from their professions for six months, special arrangements being made with them. You could not do that through the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Com-

mission has a great deal to do at the present time in licking the Act into shape and making it workable, and it seems to me it would be far better if the minister would stick to the Bill and not, as I understood him, accept any suggestion that these appointments should come under the Civil Service Commission. We all know the sacrifices that have been made by the medical profession, by expert instructors and mechanics in the other branches,of vocational training, in order to carry on this patriotic work. I should not think it wise to bring these officers under the technical and rigid rules of the Civil Service Commission in the matter of appointments. They are here one month and there the next; being professional men, they can do their work under a temporary tenure. I think it would be far better to let the clause stand as it is.


Mr. P. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: I hope
the minister will allow the clause to stand as it is. The first thing to be regarded here is efficiency. The Civil Service Commission cannot be a judge of everything, much less can it be a judge in the matter of the appointment of scientific men and of officers to carry on this work of technical education. I am strongly of opinion that to get the best men you must put the responsibility upon the head of the department and give him the power to build up a staff which will be efficient. The whole thing comes back, as I have said on previous occasions in the House, to the impossibility of having three- men run the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific; of having three men be the final authority and judgment upon everything. The thing is absurd, it is preposterous; and I do not think the country will stand for it.


William Stevens Fielding: I admit the difliculty
in the matter, but any argument my hon. Friend (Mr. McGibbon) has used would apply also to the employment of technical officers in any other branch of the service; yet in every other branch of the service the Civil Service Act must be complied with.


Peter McGibbon: I would extend the same principle to all.


William Stevens Fielding: That is another question.


Mr. EDWARDS:: In certain cases a departure has been made from the rule or regulation that the Civil Service Commission shall make all appointments. For-instance, when experts were required by

the Finance Department in connection with the Victory Loans and the income tax, work not of a 'permanent character, the appointees were selected not by the Civil Service Commission, but through the head of the department, the Minister of Finance. The same thing has' been done before in the case' of work of a temporary nature, for just the reason that is stated here.


Mr. COWAN:: For another reason I think that we should stick to the recommendation 'that has been made by the Committee. If we g,a back to the Civil Service Act, delay will be involved in the appointments, and that will necessarily result in delay to the returned soldiers themselves. If there is one thing that has irritated and annoyed returned men in connection with the work of this department it is the numerous delays which have occurred, delays which were unavoidable simply because the necessary technical assistance could not be properly obtained to put into working order the particular branch of the department in question. If we add to that delay we shall .simply add to the irritation of these men. I want to see that source of irritation removed, consequently I want to see these appointments made as quickly as possible so that the work may be carried out promptly and efficiently.


William Stevens Fielding: It is another form of repealing the Civil Service Act.


Mr. DAVIS:: Can it not be said that the whole staff of the department is, in a sense, temporary? Another thing: although I have read this report with considerable care I do not find that the committee went into the question of the administration of the department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment. I have heard that there is considerable abuse in that department in the matter of moving the soildiers from place to place. I cannot give the details, but that has been suggested to me from different quarters. If, then, the whole staff is temporary, why not say frankly that the technical staff shall he appointed by the minister?
Mr. MeKENZIE:	What is meant by
"technical and special officers"?


Hugh Clark: The officials of the department are employed temporarily, because the department itself is a temporary one. The vocational training staff are employed on the understanding that they may be retired on a month's notice. Applications for vocational training must all

be in by February 1 of next year. Courses commencing on that date will Last from seven to ten months, so that by the end of next year the department itself will go out of business so far as vocational training is concerned. Suppose a man is required as an instructor in the vocational school at Vancouver. If the usual procedure is had through the Civil Service Commission, weeks and months elapse before an appointment can be made. I quoted figures this afternoon to show that over four thousand extra men came in during the last month to take vocational training. As the member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) said, it is necessary that these appointments be made promptly. Returned soldiers, particularly disabled soldiers, are naturally impatient, and if there is delay we are apt to get into considerable trouble.
Mr. MoMASTER: Is there not in the Civil Service Act a provision for temporary employment by ministers?


Hugh Clark: I think there is.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Why does that not meet
the case, then?


William Stevens Fielding: There is a provision in respect of temporary employees, but it covers only cases of employment for a short period.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend has not answered my question. Vocational training covers .a great variety of subjects. The training of men to be carpenters, shoemakers, automobile mechanics, and followers of many other trades is called "vocational training," but you would not call the instructors in some of these trades technical men. I do not want to disparage any trade, but I never heard of a shoemaker being called a technical man; he would not come under the high-sounding designation of a man who would get into the service under the old section 21, which was so famous in the history of the Civil Service. What I was asking was: Who gets in under this phrase "technical and special?"


Hugh Clark: The Government is empowered under the recomendations of the committee to take all necessary steps to deal with what we call "problem cases." Neurological experts will be required, medical experts and psychiatrists will be required. These would come under the head, I take it, of technical men.


James Alexander Calder: I quite see the point of the leader of the Opposition. The term "technical and special expert" would not apply
to the clerical staff. Vocational training is divided into two branches, as it were. The men are first trained in educational institutions, and in connection with that work there must be instructors.
In our technical schools, for example, which the ordinary high-school boy attends, there are instructors in carpentry, blacksmithing, and so on, and they are all experts in the trade they are teaching. That is one side of the work. After the men have taken a few weeks or months instruction in some trade, during which time they are gaining a knowledge of its underlying principles, they pass out into the industrial world and go into the shops. There are no instructors there except their fellow-workers. I think the term would apply to all instructors used -by the department in connection with the educational side of their work. It would also apply, I would think, to the men classed as inspectors, follow-up men, and industrial survey men. In Toronto or Montreal, for instance, the department has a number of men who are constantly going over the different industries for the purpose of finding opportunities for employment. This fitting in of the proper man for the job is a very interesting and very delicate piece of work, and requires, perhaps I should not say a technical man, but certainly one of considerable experience and' with a knowledge of human nature. Then, as regards the medical institutions, hospitals and sanitoria of different kinds, practically every man employed outside of the clerical staff might very well be regarded as a technical man in the sense in which that word is used in the Bill.


Walter Davy Cowan: There is another feature on which I should like enlightenment. In connection with the hospitals there is a medical service and there is a dental service, and a great many of the medical men and dentists work only part time with the Government, attending to their practice in the other part of the day. Would it be possible under the Civil Service Act to take these men into the Government service if they are only giving part time to the Government? I do not think there is any clause in the Act which would enable us to do that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I understand the minister's answer, every single person the department requires could come in without any examination.


James Alexander Calder: Oh, no; the clerical staff could not, for instance, and it is an enormous staff.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Take the case of a man who is working in a store and has a sufficient knowledge of book-keeping to act as an instructor. Suppose, besides acting as a salesman in the store, he undertakes to teach single entry book-keeping to a man taking vocational training, would not he at once become a technical man? I think he could be hired under this provision. Or suppose a man is going to try an examination for mining engineer or mine manager and requires coaching in mathematics. We will suppose that a man in a certain store is a good mathematician, and besides doing his ordinary work around the store takes a soldier under his wing under the advice of the department, to coach him in mathematics for the examination. The moment he becomes an instructor in mathematics he will be a technical man under this section. So the section has the widest possible seope. Certainly a doctor or a lawyer or the highest class of engineer would be considered technical men, and under this section you could go down the list and include almost any kind of worker; a blacksmith, for instance, who undertakes to teach a man horseshoeing, which I regard as one of the highest arts in life, could be included under this provision. I do not see where you are going to stop, and we might as well say that anybody can be employed by this department notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act. It has that wide scope whether the minister intends it or not.


William Stevens Fielding: In the Canada Gazette we have some examples of how the technical service is dealt with in other departments. Here are some men who are wanted and who are required to make application to the Civil Service Commision and comply with the Civil Service Act: an Instructor in Physics, salary $1,000 per annum; an assistant to the Dominion Poultry Husbandman, Department of Agriculture, salary $1,800-that is certainly a technical position; Plant Pathologist, Department of Agriculture, salary $2,160; a District Seed Inspector, Department of Agriculture,-also a technical position; Assistant to Superintendent, Experimental Farm at Ros-thern, $1,320; Assistant to Superintendent of Experimental Farm at Charlottown; Assistant to Superintendent Experimental Farm, at Kapuskasing. These are all technical officers for the various departments, and they all have to go through the Civil Service mill. But if any one desires to appoint a friend to a position in the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment 
Department he does not have to comply with the Civil Service regulations.


Hugh Clark: In the cases mentioned by the hon. gentleman there does not exist the same necessity for haste in the appointments.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The persons referred to by the hon. gentleman in his citation from the Canada Gazette are men who are making up their minds to enter upon a Civil Service career. They take a small initial salary, with a maximum in view. I gather from my hon. friend's remarks that he is of the opinion that patronage will play a part in the work of the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. He must see, however, that this is a special department and there is no opportunity for patronage. The department has to go out and persuade surgeons to come in and help for a short period, which i3 the reverse of patronage. You could not get these gentlemen to come in at small salaries. They must be paid at the proper rate for professional services. They are all looking forward to professional careers and any time they spend in the department will be simply time given to the department and the country, as it were war work in a special service. In addition to that, it is almost certain that nearly all of them will be returned men who have acquired experience at the front. The idea of patronage does not therefore enter into the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has
not as large an experience as I have in the appointment of officials. From my observation, it is ordinarily an easy matter to get a man into the public service-at any rate, it will be so in this department-but it is not so easy to get him out again, no matter in what branch he may be.


James Alexander Calder: What the hon. gentleman says is quite true. It is one of the curses of the Civil Service that once a man gets in he is there for life. At least everyone thinks he is. I want to emphasize one important feature, and that is the human element. We must have had before us in the neighbourhood of fifteen or twenty of the officers in charge of this work, and one thing that struck us forcibly in our inquiry was the type of man that is doing that work. Their character was apparent in the evidence they gave before the Committee. Their mentality and their relationships with their comrades fit them especially for their work. How in the world is the Civil Service Commission, by any method it may employ, going to be able to secure the type

of man that is wanted? That can be done only by those directly connected with the work and possessing the necessary qualifications in order to carry on the department. It is not like putting men in the Finance Department or the Department of Immigration and Colonization. The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is dealing with the human element, and it is most essential that when they require men there should be no delay in getting them. It is also highly important that the right type of men with the proper qualities should be selected. It was largely for that reason that the Committee favourably viewed the suggestion that the selection of these men should be left with those who are directly connected with the work. Personally, I am firmly of the opinion that that should be done.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If any latitude is necessary to obtain speedy appointments it should be given to the Civil Service Commission, who are in touch with the whole of Canada, and know where officials are obtainable. They have long lists of men who have passed civil service examinations, and they are certainly more in touch with the country at large than any single department could be. If a technical man were required in this department the Civil Service Commission could obtain him as speedily as the department could, and there would still be centralization in the matter of appointments. I do not think you should spread this power of appointment all over creation. There is some responsibility on the shoulders of the Civil Service Commission, and they are sensible of it. I repeat that that Commission should secure these men instead of leaving this work to the hundred and one departments that we have. If a deputy minister wants a man he telephones to the Commission and they can secure him much more expeditiously than can any individual in a department.


William Cameron Edwards: Suppose a man were required at short notice for some particular work in Vancouver, what would be the procedure of the Civil Service Commission to obtain him? Would they not have to advertise or have some one acquafinated with the place make inquiries in order to obtain that man? In my opinion it would be an easier matter for this department to get the 'man they needed than to leave that work to the Civil Service Commission.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I may mention something that came under my observation the



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
other day in regard to that very province. In some department in British Columbia a man was required and they wired to the chairman of the Commission who looked up his list. I had a conversation with the head of the department himself; I had nothing to do with the appointment. The chairman of the Commission looked up his list, and found the very man that was required, and immediately wired back. The man had passed an examination and was qualified to take the place and he was immediately appointed. A department would not have any information as to who had passed examinations. If the appointment is left to the deputy minister in any department he will not know who have and who have not passed the necessary examinations, and he may take any man whom he thinks fit. Some other man may have passed the examination after long preparation, and might feel a cause for grievance if he were not given an opportunity of appointment. I repeat that the Commission, having a wider knowledge of the country and knowing those who are qualified, is best fitted to find employees, and can do so as quickly as can a department, if not more quickly.
Mr. COOPER:: The hon. gentleman suggests that the Civil Service Commission with its lists can select the men. Does he suggest that the men who are on the lists are going to remain incessantly out of employment until they are employed by the Civil Service Commission? I think it is hardly likely.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not saying so,
but there are many cases in which men may be otherwise employed in the meantime. A man may be working in a store; he has passed the examination for a higher position; he is not waiting but he is ready. He is working at something else. When the time comes, he is qualified and when he is called he steps in. He is not idling about the street.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) to an aspect of the case which perhaps he is not aware of. Last summer I saw two carloads of men-lunatics and men who had been shell shocked-being taken to an institution. They were in charge of some six or eight men from this department. One of these lunatics insisted, whenever he moved at all, on riding on the back of one of these attendants. I observed that every time he wanted to move anywhere for any useful purpose or for no purpose at all, this attendant was called up;



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
he came, the man got on his back and he carried him around. These attendants were supplied by this department by reason of the powers which they have, or have had. or have exercised, of selecting on the spot the men that are required for a particular job. I cannot understand how the Civil Service Commission could, upon short notice, supply half a dozen men for positions of that sort. The department has men in its employ and is constantly training men for this service. It is desired to give employment to men who are trained, men who have sympathy and understanding, and I think it would be a very great mistake if the hands of the department were tied so that they could not immediately avail themselves of the services of such men as they required for that particular work which calls for the exercise of that sympathy and understanding which exists between soldiers who have served together and are usually to be found in the immediate neighbourhood of these institutions.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the hon. gentleman say that a man of this class would be a technical man?
Mr. GRIEiSBACH: He would be special, he would be temporary, and he might even be technical if he developed himself along those lines.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: The problem that is
before us is apparently not unsolvable. Hard cases make bad law, and where you find a difficult case the tendency is away from good law. I can understand the desire of the minister not to hamper the men who are in charge of a hospital. A doctor in charge of a hospital for subnormal cases wishes to have the power to pick his own staff. There may be practising in the neighbourhood some young doctor of sympathetic mind and heart who has made a study of insanity or subnormal cases. The man in charge of the hospital would like to get such a man as that and, of course, would like to have more or less of a free hand in the choice of such a man. I think it is desirable that that should be allowed in the selection of the technical members of the staff. Neither the minister nor the deputy can make the choice personally. This choice that is confided to the minister under the Bill will be exercised at perhaps a score of different places throughout Canada. How would it do, in order to prevent abuse, to give the right of appointment subject to confirmation within a certain time by the Civil Service Commission? There is a great deal to be said for giving

the person in'charge of a department a free hand, but against that the people in their wisdom have come to the conclusion that there (should be a controlling force, and that force the Civil Service Commission. My suggestion would be that, if the power under the Civil Service Act to make a temporary appointment is not wide enough to cover .such a case as I have spoken about, wider power might be taken by the minister, but it should always be subject to confirmation by the Civil Service Commission within a reasonable time.


William Antrobus Griesbach: How long a time?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I would say perhaps
nine months. I think that under the ordinary law the minister has six months. That is not sufficient and I would give a longer time. But if the minister is allowed to have a free hand in connection with this department it will constitute an exceedingly unwholesome precedent if other ministers come forward and ask the same power in connection with their departments. There should be some control of a power of this sort, that is as far as technical men are concerned. As far as the special temporary staff is concerned, I think the case I have made out in regard to technical assistants is still stronger here. If it is necessary to have a special temporary staff-and I can quite understand that when you are dealing with sick people you cannot wait-The minister must have the power, (I think the minister now has the power under the Civil Service Act) to obtain what he requires immediately. I would not have these people appointed without reference sooner or later to the Civil Service Commission, in order to prevent the creeping in of abuses. Let me give an instance. In the part of the country I have the honour to represent there has been a farm offered for sale for years for $2,200. Recently the department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment bought that farm for $4,000 and some poor, unfortunate soldier is being put upon it and is undertaking to pay back in a term of years the price of $4,000.


Hugh Clark: That is the Land Settlement Board.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: The Land Settlement Board. I do not know whether the minister responsible for the Land Settlement Board is here or not.	.


Hugh Clark: No.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Well then the minister, will bring this striking instance to his attention in order that he may have an opportunity of correcting this fault, because it is a fault. Land is being purchased at far more than its market value and men being put on this land with an obligation to ,pay for it within a term of years; but the fact that it has been purchased at far more than its market value is something that, I fear, will make it impossible. I suppose the man who valued that farm for the Board did not make a proper valuation. These are the reasons why I would urge the minister to consider the inadvisability of getting away altogether from the Civil Service Commission.


James Alexander Calder: Personally I am inclined to accept the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. McMaster). As a matter of fact the committee had that in mind when they inserted in the Act that this authority was to be given to the minister subject to rules and regulations to be approved by the Governor in Council. The committee had it in mind that the rules and the regulations would call for the eventual ratification by the Civil Service Commission. If the committee think that the clause itself should set that forth clearly we can amend it in that respect. One of the members of the committee has called to my mind the discussion that we had. We clearly had in mind at the time the idea that this power should not be exercised except under rules to be made by the Governor in 'Council and that these rules should embody the idea that the commissio'n should finally approve of them.


William Stevens Fielding: It does not say so because it distinctly declares that you shall not be interfered with under the Civil Service Act.


James Alexander Calder: If the committee agree
with the idea, we will have an amendment prepared and the clause modified. Probably if we have that understanding and we get through with the rest of the Bill this evening, we might let it go and have the amendment made in the Senate because, they are anxious that we should get through with the Bill so that it could go to the Senate in the morning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) asked how in the event of an appointment being made in British Columbia the Civil Service Commission could act. May I ask how the minister would propose to act 120J '
under this clause in a case of that sort? How would he make an appointment in British Columbia?


James Alexander Calder: In Vancouver they have certain technical officers now on the job probably handling about 1,500 men in that city. They have the best officers that can be got for that work. I think that, beyond question, when a vacancy occurs the minister would give the district vocational officer full power to select a qualified man for that vacancy. He makes the selection on the spot and forwards the recommendation to Ottawa.
Mr. MACKENZIE KlTNG: Would the minister think of communicating with the member for the constituency before making the appointment?


James Alexander Calder: In connection with this work? I do not think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to make sure on that point. As I read the clause it seems to leave the door open to that possibility.


James Alexander Calder: The evidence that was given to us, and I think it is correct, is that the department has the greatest difficulty in getting men and holding them, because the work is looked upon as temporary; there is no future in connection with it. There is, therefore, not very much opportunity for what you might call political patronage in connection with the work of the department. Furthermore, the great majority of the men in the employ of the department are returned men. Even the technical officers are practically all returned men and many of them are making very considerable sacrifices to stay with this work. I have spoken to them, and one told me he would like to get back to his practice just as quick as he possibly could. He is an expert, but is giving up his time to this work and is sacrificing a great deal. Men of that class are found all through this department, so that there is not very much opportunity for the exercise of ordinary political patronage.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: One of my difficulties is that I cannot quite understand the class of men the minister has in mind. Would the minister give us an illustration of the class of men he is employing and that he has to provide substitutes for when they leave? What class of men are they and what are they doing?


James Alexander Calder: Take the medical men who are in charge of sanatoria and hospitals. They are medical practitioners and most of

them have served in the war. Many of them are back and are carrying on this work. But they know it is not going to be permanent and they are anxious to get back to their practice. That is one class. Then take the technical instructors who are established throughout the country. There is one in Ottawa, several in Toronto, and others in Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver. They possess technical qualifications and are carrying on technical education. The return men come in and are given a short course, according to the class of work they take. They are given, say, two or three months' instruction in these schools and the instructors would probably have five, six, seven, or eight departments in these various schools, handling anywhere from 100 to 200 men daily in those departments. The men who give that instruction are all technical men. Then, take the men who take charge of the industrial service. They go into all the industries in our largest cities and keep in touch with them all the time with a view to finding places for all returned men who are being temporarily trained. I would call a man of that class a highly technical man, as far as this work is concerned. Then we have men who follow up the returned men after they get positions and keep in touch with them. Once a man gets into an industry they go to see that man once a week. They keep in touch with the employer as well as with the man and see how the latter is getting along; they get a report from the man himself, and from his employer, or from the shopman. That work is going along all the time and there is a fairly large staff of men of that class. There is another staff of men called "aftercare" or "follow up" men. That is, after a man is trained, has completed his course, and is certified to, we have a certain type of man that follows the disabled soldier who has been retrained for a period of three, four, five months, or more, to make certain that he has been really established and that he has got back into civil life. The man who is looking after that work must have peculiar qualifications in order to carry out the duties that are cast upon him. I have forgotten how many employees there are but there are many hundreds in various parts of Canada carrying on this work. There is no doubt at all that these men know there is no future for them in that work, but they are making, as I say, real sacrifices in staying with it and assisting in the training and placing of these disabled men.	I


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not going to complain any further, but I am more convinced than ever that these men are not at all a technical class.


James Alexander Calder: They are not, in the ordinary sense.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister is speaking oif the man who is an employment agent.


James Alexander Calder: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He is an employment agent, that is all he is. He looks around for places for the men who are trained in the vocational schools. He does not require to have* a previous, training of any kind; he is a man of good deportment, and good manners, and can talk civilly to people, and he goes around and looks for a position for some man whom he has in mind. He gets a position for him and he places him. Therefore, what is he but an employment agent? The man who has a little office in connection with some of the big industries of this country and who employs men on the spot is not a technical man by any possibility. He is a man who is necessary and must be a good man, but he is not in the ordinary sense a technical man. My hon. friend the minister might as well strike out. the word "technical" because if he is going to be at all strict in applying the provision he will not find that word very much to his advantage.


James Alexander Calder: Would you call a doctor a technical man?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly.


James Alexander Calder: Very well then, we must leave the word in.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He is a professional man.


James Alexander Calder: The word "special" is in the paragraph as well.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But the men to whom reference has been made are not technical men.


James Alexander Calder: We will give to that class the title of "special."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Technical men are
those who have received a high professional training or a scientific training of some kind. A special training of that kind is needed before one can he designated a technical man. The fellow who goes around to the boss of an industrial establishment and asks him how the returned soldier employee is doing cannot by any means be regarded as a technical man.


Mr. CAHILL:: I would like to ask the minister how many employees, speaking generally, there are in the department?


Hugh Clark: I have not the information at hand, but I will secure it for the hon. gentleman in a moment.
On paragraph (d):
(d)	For the disposal of any moneys payable by the Crown to the estates of deceased or insane officers, soldiers or other persons, or any properties or moneys in the possession or control of the department belonging to such officers, soldiers or other persons, or otherwise;


Fred Langdon Davis: Is not this a duplication of the powers that are now exercised by the Estates Branch of the Militia Department?


James Alexander Calder: If while a man is a soldier he should die, his estate has to be dealt with, and then I imagine the Militia Department would be the branch to deal with it. The Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment only take hold of men after they have been discharged from the army, and consequently they must have a branch to look after the estates of such men.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: But this clause deals
with the disposal of any moneys payable by the Crown to the estates of deceased or insane officers, soldiers or other persons, or any properties or moneys in the possession or control of the department belonging to such officers, soldiers, or other person, or otherwise. I remember having in my office within the last few months a soldier's estate to wind up, and it was the Department of Militia that sent us a cheque.


Fred Langdon Davis: The wording of the paragraph makes it plain that the matter is within the Militia Department.


James Alexander Calder: It says here that this department is only to have the disposition of any property that happens to be in the possession or control of the department. I do not know how it would get there.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: The beginning of the
clause redds " for the disposal of any moneys payable by the Crown to the estates of deceased or insane officers," " Estates " there means that the heirs-at-law or legatees under the will of a deceased soldier may have a claim for sums of money, deferred pay, or other claims of the deceased soldier against the Government, in which case under the present practice, certainly up to within a few months ago, you applied to the Department of Militia and Defence, which had a special branch for looking after the matter, and you got your money from that branch.
Mr. 'DAVIS: I would suggest to the minister that that clause should be more thoroughly examined, because it is sure to lead to conflict as it stands.
Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON': Is it not true that neither an officer nor a soldier can enter the Department of Soliders' Civil Reestablishment until he is discharged from, the. Militia Department?
Mr. McKENiZIE: Whatever the practice' may be now, this is no w.ay of disposing of estates. I have had a good deal of experience with the Militia Department, and they always insist upon guardians being appointed for youngsters under age, or letters of administration being obtained if there is no will. The practice in our province is to probate wills in the regular way, and if there is no 'will we comply with the law of the province, .and the Department of Militia recognizes that proceeding. I think it would complicate matters very much if two distinct authorities were established.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall paragraph (d) carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, Mr. Chairman. It seems an extraordinary thing to create a [DOT]court which is virtually a court of probate to deal with estates in conflict with the laws of the different provinces. Hitherto the course has been for the department at Ottawa to communicate with the representatives of the estate, .and for these representatives to put themselves in a position under the law of the province by getting letters of administration or letters of guardianship, or whatever else was necessary, to obtain payment of the money owing to *the estate. Now we are doing away with that practice and creating regulations of the department. It is always better that the local authorities should deal with these matters, because they have personal knowledge of the heirs and can see that the law is observed.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I think the hon. gentleman gives too wide an interpretation 'to the subsection. It is not .a matter of enacting new laws, but of making regulations for the disposal of any moneys payable by the Crown to. the estates of deceased or insane officers, soldiers or other persons. What moneys .are payable by the Crown, or what are the rights of the persons to whom those moneys are payable, are matters which are determined by law. This paragraph is only for the purpose of making regulations prescribing the man-

ner in which the officials of this particular department shall handle oases of that kind. I do not think there is any reason to apprehend that in virtue of that paragraph the department will undertake to make new laws to govern the transmission of estates or the creation of rights in estates.


Fred Langdon Davis: What has been the practice in this respect in the past? Has there been a branch of the Civil Re-establishment Department dealing with these matters, or have they been referred to the Militia Department for disposal?


James Alexander Calder: I understand from one of the officers of the department that this work has been handled by a branch of the Militia Department, but as there are only a few soldiers now to be demobilized, and the Militia Department intend to do away with that branch, some other department must take on this work. As practically all the men will be out of the army very shortly we must have some branch to carry on this work.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (e):
(e)	For prescribing the payments, grants or allowances, if any, to be made to persons or their dependents whenever such persons are being cared for under the provisions of this Act, .either by medical treatment, training or otherwise;
Frank S. Cahill: I think the minister now has the information which he promised me a short time ago.


Hugh Clark: The number of employees on the 31st of July-'this is the last record I have here-was 5,609.


Frank S. Cahill: Would that be about the average number of employees?


Hugh Clark: I 'think it is large enough.


Pius Michaud: What is the number employed in the city of Ottawa?


Hugh Clark: I have not the information here. I did not expect it would be asked for.


Georges Henri Boivin: These questions concerning the number of employees are certainly not in order when considering the different clauses of this Bill, for discussion must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. T would point out 'to hon. members that certain Estimates are now before the House, some of which concern this department, and when those are being dealt with these questions will be perfectly in order.
[Hr. Doherty,]


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (f):
(f)	With respect to reciprocal or other arrangements with the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the Government of any British Dominion or the Government of any of His Majesty's Allies in the said War, or the Government of the United States of America, for the treatment, care and training and the issue of payments, grants or allowances to persons who have served in the Forces of any such Government when cared for under the provisions of this Act, either by medical treatment, training or otherwise, or to their dependents;
William Stevens Fielding: Is the United States not counted as an ally? I observe a distinction is drawn between the Allies of His Majesty's Government and the United States. There may be a reason for that distinction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the United States was always described as an associated power, not an allied power. I do not know why that distinction was made.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.'
On paragraph (h):
(h) For imposing penalties recoverable upon summary conviction for the violation of any provision of any such regulation.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is provided that a number of regulations may be made by the Governor in Council. Would it not be well to add to the section, that copies of these regulations should be presented to Parliament, within, say the second week ol the opening of each session?


James Alexander Calder: There is no objection to that. This is only section 5 of the Act. It is possible that the Act may provide for that. However, if riot, I would suggest that we have that amendment inserted.


William Stevens Fielding: To a layman the paragraph imposing penalties seems rather broad. Is the nature and the character oi the penalties prescribed by some other statute?


James Alexander Calder: I think not. This Bill provides that subject to the approval of the Governor in Council the minister may make such regulations from time to time as he may deem necessary and advisable for all these various purposes. If regulations are to be made it will be necessary to provide the penalties to be imposed if those regulations are infringed, and that is the purpose of this sub-clause (h).


William Stevens Fielding: Is it deemed wise to give the Governor in Council unlimited power to impose penalties? Should the Governor in

Council have power to provide that some of us should be hanged if we happen to differ from the minister?


Hugh Clark: That clause has special reference to clause (c) in the Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In view of the nature of the regulations we might perhaps restrict the possible penalty to be imposed to a *fine of, say, $200 or imprisonment for six months.


William Stevens Fielding: My only idea was that there should be some limitation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Shall I report the Bill?


James Alexander Calder: Before the Bill is reported, in order that the work of the House may be expedited, I suggest that we have amendments made in the Senate to cover two or three suggestions which have been made. The first is to make provision that the Civil Service Commission shall ratify these temporary appointments. The second is thrt there shall be a limitation in the penalties imposed under this law; and the third that any regulations made under this Act shall be submitted to Parliament within a certain number of days after the opening of the next following session.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not understand the alterations suggested by the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster); perhaps he would explain them?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I suggested that if the period of six months provided under the Civil Service Act for cases in which appointees to temporary positions might be named by the minister was quite sufficient-


James Alexander Calder: I think six months is quite sufficient.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Then there is no need for the minister to take power to employ for a longer period. If the minister says that six months is sufficient, so much the better.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How so.on after the appointment is made will the approval of the Civil Service Commission be obtained? There is no use in getting that approval nine months after the appointment is made and after the employee has left the service.


James Alexander Calder: I am thoroughly in accord with the idea that in the working out of these provisions the Civil Service Act should be complied with as far as possible. I think
we can make provision under which the Civil Service Commission shall within thirty days at the outside, approve of these temporary appointments as covering certain periods. I think we have the judgment of the House on this matter; we shall endeavour to work it out.


William Stevens Fielding: Did I understand my hon. friend to suggest that these amendments were to be made in the Senate?


James Alexander Calder: Only to save time.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the great hurry? We are not exceptionally busy here, but the Senate is very busy. Why can we not do our own amending?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the Senate have passed the Railway Bill, and possibly they have no work to do.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the date of prorogation fixed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
Mr. II. A. MACKIE (East Edmonton): I think under the rules the Bill should be printed with the amendments, so that we may have an opportunity of seeing it. I do not see any reason for haste for giving the Bill its third reading now.


Georges Henri Boivin: I might point out to the House that the amendments add nothing whatever to the Bill, but simply consist in the striking out of sub-clause 3. When it was proposed to read the Bill a third time now there was no objection taken. The House consented to the third reading and I do not think any hon. member would be in order in raising an objection after having consented that the third reading take place.


Henry Arthur Mackie: We haven't had a chance to understand what was said in the House.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House returned to the order, Introduction of Bills:
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 40, to amend The Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41, to amend The Railway Act, 1919.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Explain,


Charles Joseph Doherty: The whole purpose of this Bill is to repeal subsection (c) of section 6 of the Railway Act as passed at the last session of the House. That section provides, in effect, that any railway which is controlled or operated by a railway which is under the legislative authority of Parliament, and any railway which controls or operates a railway which is under the legislative authority of Parliament, shall be under the legislative authority of Parliament, and all such railways are in general terms declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. It has been found by experience that the clause overshot the mark at which it was aimed, and that it has produced the result that in certain instances tramways running in cities have come within the wide terms of that article, and have consequently been declared to be work for the general advantage of 'Canada, with the result that the fixing of their fares becomes a matter for the Railway Commission, and they are withdrawn from the control of provincial utilities boards and so forth, and in a large measure from municipal control. A special instance that brought attention to this was the case of the British Columbia Electric Railway Company, which has been running a tramway in the cities of Vancouver and Victoria. The particular nature of the contract is not material, but the company does control and operate two very short roads, one of which was originally constructed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the other under a Dominion charter. That state of facts brings the tramways under the legislative authority of this Parliament, and declares them to be works for the general advantage of Canada. There has been very strenuous objection on the part of the provincial authorities as well as on the part of the municipal authorities of these cities. I think it is fairly obvious that it is undesirable that by an omnibus clause of that kind we should get tramways running in particular cities declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada and subject to the control of the Railway Commission. Perhaps the wiser way, and probably even the only legal way, to make works which are purely local in their nature works for the general advantage of Canada, would be by specific declaration
TMr. A. K. Maclean.]
with regard to each work, although I do not want to commit myself absolutely on that proposition at the present time. This Bill is to repeal that section because it is considered that it was not contemplated to produce the results which it has produced. and which are open to serious objection.


William Stevens Fielding: Was the section referred [DOT] to a new one in the recent revision, or an old one?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was a new one in
the revision of 1919. If my information is correct, what was principally in the mind of those who introduced it was the case of a regular steam railway in the province of Quebec which had come to be operated in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which it was considered highly desirable, and I think probably correctly so, to bring under the legislative authority of the Dominion and declared it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. iBut, instead of proceeding by dealing with a particular railway, the method was taken of defining the whole class of railways as being for the general advantage of Canada, and subject to the legislative authority of Canada, with the result that in the net that was thrown out there were caught a good many fishes for which the fisherman was not looking at all.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: The net for railways has been pretty broad.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



PACIFIC COAST PILOTAGE.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House went into committee on the following resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
That it is expedient to amend Section 477 ol the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, hy adding a provision that ships registered in Canada, employed in voyages between any port or ports in the province of British Columbia and the Port of San Francisco, or any port of the United States of America on the Pacific, north of San Francisco, shall he exempted from the payment of pilotage dues.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I desire to amend the resolution by inserting after the wtord "San Francisco" in the second last line, the following words, "and between any port in the province of British Columbia and any port in Alaska." The purpose of this amendment is to extend the privilege to vessels sailing between British Columbia and Alaska.


Mr. ROBB:: Will the minister explain the purpose of the resolution?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Its purpose is to extend to the province of British Columbia a privilege -which has for many years been accorded to the eastern provinces, namely, to exempt Canadian shipping -from pilotage within its own waters. Legislation of this nature in the first place was applicable to the Maritime Provinces and afterwards extended to Quebec.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not familiar with such a law affecting the harbour of North Sydney. I am not aware that a ship built in Nova Scotia and registered anywhere in Canada is exempt from pilotage dues, coming into the port of Halifax or any other port in that province. If there is such a law I am not at all familiar with it, but the minister mentions it as one reason for this proposed legislation. In the county of Cape Breton for many years there was a large fleet of steamers owned by the Dominion Coal Company, carrying coal from Sydney to Montreal. It was regarded as a hardship that every time they entered the harbour they should pay pilotage dues, and a regulation was passed whereby the Dominion Coal Company paid a lump sum annually and carried what was known as the " white flag ", by which pilots would know they were not to go out to the ship. That is the only regulation I ever heard of in connection with shipping in Nova Scotia in which any exemption was made. This seems to be largely a question affecting the pilotage authorities in British Columbia, but I think it would be desirable to know whether the pilots in that province have agreed to this legislation, Which no doubt, affects them materially. They are, no doubt, paid by dues.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, they are paid by salary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Still, it would be well to know if they are consenting to this.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The amendments proposed by the resolution originated from the report of a commission which was appointed some years ago to investigate certain matters of this nature in regard to which they made certain recommendations. In reference to the first point spoken of by my hon. friend, the Pilotage Act was passed in 1873 by which ships propelled wholly or in part by steam were exempt from payment of pilotage dues, if trading or employed on voyages beginning in any port in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick and
ending at the port of New York. Vessels engaged in that trade are exempt to-day. Later, vessels engaged in trading between Canadian ports and Newfoundland were exempted. Then, at another date, vessels trading between Quebec and any American port as far south as New York were exempted. The purpose of the present measure is to give to British Columbia the right to exempt from pilotage dues any Canadian registered vessels engaged in trade between +hat province and .points on the American Pacific coast as far as San Francisco. I am not aware of any opposition to the Bill from the pilots.


John Allister Currie: Are the motor boats that ply for trade subject to pilotage dues in British Columbia? I ask this question because I believe hon. members have been bombarded with letters from motor boat owners on the Pacific Coast complaining of a regulation that is being enforced there. The letters are couched in very strong language and.make certain charges against the inspectors of the department, and I wondered whether the pilotage dues formed the basis of their complaint. Why are those men being put out of business
Air. A. K. A1ACLEAN:	I really cannot
answer that question, but this Bill has no relation to the matter mentioned by the hon. gentleman. The gasolene boats are not subject to pilotage dues. I understand that the agitation in connection with the particular matter to which my hon. friend refers has relation to a regulation to insure safety in the operation of gasolene boats. Some one in British Columbia is a very strong and persistent correspondent on this subject, and every one in the House, so far as I know, has received a letter, although I do not recollect having received one myself.


Mr. F. J. PELLETIER:: The minister
says that he is not aware of any opposition from the pilots in regard to this legislation. During last session I called upon the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballan-tyne), accompanied by two of my friends, the hon. member for Belleohasse (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Fafard), together with representatives of the Quebec and Montreal pilots.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was not talking of all the pilots in the world. I was speaking of the pilots in British Columbia.


François Jean Pelletier: It was understood at the time, between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and ourselves, that nothing

would be done in the matter at this session, but that the question would be taken up at the session of 1920. I fail to see why it should be taken up now. Why the rush? The navigation season is about over now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not in British Columbia. This merely refers to ships plying in Pacific coast waters as far south as San Francisco and as far north as Alaska. It has nothing to do with the Quebec pilotage district.


François Jean Pelletier: The understanding
with the Minister of Marine was that the pilots from all over the Dominion were to. send delegates or representatives to meet the minister and take up this question of pilotage, after which the minister would draw up a Bill to amend the Shipping Act. It seems to me it would he just as well to postpone this proposal and let the word of the Minister of Marine be respected. That was a fair understanding. He told me himself, sitting in his seat, that he would not do anything at this session, that it would only be done at the coming session. If he intends to hear representatives of the pilots from all over the Dominion, the Bill should not be taken up until he has heard them.


John Allister Currie: Referring to the British Columbia matter, while it is not exactly pertinent to the Bill, I may say that the charges contained in those letters were of a very serious character, reflecting on the officers of the Department of Marine to such an extent that anybody reading them must say that they were libellous. 'I think the Government should have an investigation to try and clear the department and see if there is anything wrong in the case of the inspectors, who are charged with having taken money for the purpose of putting some of these men out of business. I think the Government would be well advised to send some eastern man out there to straighten this matter out, because it is a great scandal on the coast and all over Canada.
Mr. A. Iv. MACLEAN: I shall direct the attention of the officers of the department to the remarks of the hon. gentleman.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We might perhaps show a little more care and scientific thought if we said "within Canadian waters," or "Canadian ports." This might -Cause some criticism or ridicule on the part of the authorities in'San Francisco and other American ports who might allege that this would be saying that a ship would not pay any 
pilotage anywhere on thhse voyages. We have no business to say that she shall not pay pilotage when going into the harbour of San Francisco.


Mr. A. E. MACLEAN:: That is not the intention.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would it not be well to say "while in Canadian waters?"


William Stevens Fielding: Does the exemption apply only to foreign trade or does it apply, for example, to a vessel going from Vancouver to Prince Rupert? What would be the effect?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would not apply.


William Stevens Fielding: Read it through carefully and see. I do not suppose that it is intended but the expression is: "between any port or ports in the province of British Columbia." Prince Rupert and Vancouver are both ports "within the province of British Columbia. I think the intention is to apply it to foreign trade only but it is capable "of another meaning.
Mr. A. Iv. MACLEAN: Do you mean that the words " or ports " should be struck out?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not suggesting what should be done; I am merely drawing attention to it.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: As the resolution is drafted it would appear to me that the exemption from payment of the pilotage dues only applies to ships registered in Canada and on a voyage between any port or ports in the province of British Columbia and the port of San Francisco.


William Stevens Fielding: To foreign trade.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: A ship may start at Prince Rupert, call at Vancouver and go on to San Francisco. That ship would not pay any pilotage dues. But I do not think it is quite clear that if the voyage ended at Vancouver the boat which started at Prince Rupert and came to Vancouver and stayed there would not be exempt from pilotage.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We do not intend to cover cases of that kind.
Resolution reported.
Hon. A. Iv. Maclean moved for leave to introduce Bill No 42 to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Pilotage).
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918-POSTMASTERS AND ASSISTANT POSTMASTERS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 31 to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, with respect to the salaries of certain postr masters and assistant postmasters-Hon. A. K. Maclean.
On section 1-revenue from war stamps not to be included in postage collections when determining salaries, of city and assistant city postmasters:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think I should call the attention of the minister to the fact that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) is not here and that the Bill was held over the other night because the minister was not here. The minister is here now but I do not see the hon. mem) er for New Westminster and I thought it would be well to try to have a combination of the two in the House at the same time before we passed this Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I can assure my hon. friend that I am not- guilty of the absence of the hon. member for New West-aninster.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Neither was the member for New Westminster guilty of the absence of the minister the other night.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon, member for New Westminster informed me that he did no| intend to take any further part in the discussion of this Bill, that he was not going to oppose it. In any event I do not think his opposition was well founded.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



THE OPIUM DRUG ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 34, to amend the Opium and Drug Act.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill has been reported with an amendment made by the Senate, which amendment consists simply in adding to it the provision that the Act shall come into force on ,a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council. It does not appear to me that there can [DOT]be any objection to accepting that amendment, and I beg therefore to move:
That the House do concur in the amendment made by the Senate.
Motion .agreed to, and amendment concurred in.



PATENTS OF INVENTION BILL,

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 25, respecting patents of invention.-Sir George Foster.
Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill has been reported by the Senate with two amendments. The first is an amendment to section 3. That section was by its terms made applicable to certain orders made by the minister under the authority of the "last preceding section." It certainly was an error to have inserted the "last preceding section," because there are two preceding sections, both of which provide for orders to be made by the minister which are on the same footing and should be subject to the provisions of section 3.
The Senate has amended it by striking out the adjective " last " and substituting "sections" for "section." The second amendment, consists in striking out a word in line 23 and adding a word in line 24 in order to make abundantly dear what I think the section previously was intended to convey-and I think did convey-that the provisions of the section apply as well to orders made by the minister heretofore as to those that may be made hereafter. Both amendments carry out what was really the intention of the Bill when it was passed, and I beg to move that they he concurred in.
Motion agreed to and amendments concurred in.	[DOT]



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of a message received from the Senate insisting upon their amendment to Bill No. 11, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Hon. A. L. SIFTON (Minister of Public Works):: This Bill was for the purpose of making an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act of Canada. The Senate amendment lessens the effect of the measure by making it apply only to part of Canada. I regret the fact, but I feel unable to concur in the amendment.
TREATY BETWEEN FRANCE AND CANADA.	.
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution:
Whereas the French Government has denounced the Convention respecting Commercial Relations between Canada and France dated the nineteenth day of September, 1907, and the Supplementary Convention respecting Commercial Relations between Canada and France dated

the twenty-third day of January, 1909, the notice of such denunciation running from the tenth day of September, 1918 ; and whereas the French Government proposes that the said Convention and Supplementary Convention should, notwithstanding such denunciation, continue in force subject to termination upon three months' notice on either side.
Be it therefore resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that the Convention respecting Commercial Relations between Canada and France dated the nineteenth day of 'September, 1907, and the Supplementary Convention respecting Commercial Relations between Canada and France dated the twenty-third day of January, 1909, shall as from the tenth day of September, 1919, be deemed to have continued in force, and shall continue to bo binding, until the expiry of three months from the day on which either of the two parties shall have denounced them, and the provisions of The French Convention Act, 1908, chapter twenty-eight of the statutes of 1908, shall apply, extend and relate to the said Conventions as continued in force by the Act to be based upon this resolution.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill is really in the hands of the acting Prime Minister,, but I am making the motion now so as to permit of the measure being introduced. Any discussion which may be desired can take place when the Bill itself is under consideration, because I am not, perhaps, sufficiently familiar with the subject to be able to explain it. In any event it would be desirable that the acting Prime Minister should have the opportunity of dealing with the matter. The passage of the resolution now will make it possible to proceed with the Bill to-morrow, if that will be convenient. If there is any objection I will not press the motion.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not imagine there will be any objection. The resolution which amounts to this: the French Government, I believe, gave notice to Canada of their intention to denounce the Treaty, but they asked that the Treaty be allowed to stand so that it shall continue in effect subject to the general provision that it may be terminated later on after due notice. The object of the resolution is practically to continue the Obn-ventkm with France and, as I say, I do not imagine there will be any objection to it.
Resolution reported.
Hon. Mr. DOHERTY thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 43,, respecting a certain Convention between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic, dated the nineteenth day of September,
1907,	and the Convention supplementary thereto, and the French Convention Act,
1908.

Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time. [DOT]



PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 36, to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act. He said: This Bill has been prepared- by the Board of Civil Service Commissioners and is introduced at the instance of that board for the purpose of carrying into effect certain recommendations made by the committee which has examined into the working of the Printing Bureau and the Stationery Department of the Government. As the House is aware, a special committee was appointed some time ago to investigate that branch, and that committee has made an elaborate report containing some radical recommendations, one to reduce the staff by some 402 employees, which recommendation will be dealt with in an estimate to be submitted to the House, I believe, to-morrow. The other recommendation is in regard to the purchasing power now invested in the Printing Bureau and in the Stationery Branch. Under the present Act, which is chapter 80 of the Revised Statutes- of Canada, by section 19 there is authorized the appointment of a superintendent of printing, who is empowered:
-with the approval of the minister to purchase such material required for printing, electrotyping, stereotyping, lithographing and binding and other work of a like nature, -except paper.
Then by section 22 the appointment is authorized of a superintendent of stationery who:
-shall, under the direction of the minister, have charge of the purchase and supply of all printing and other paper and of all other articles of stationery required for the use of members and employees of the two Houses of Parliament and of the several departments of the Govern-men of Canada.
It seems that a system has grown up whereby another official in that department has been in the habit of making extensive purchases both of print paper and of other stationery. He holds the position of superintendent of outside printing. That position was never authorized by the Act, but it has been in existence for a number of years. Therefore there are really three purchasing branches in that department, and three officials with power to purchase; the superintendent of printing, the superintendent of stationery and the superintendent of outside printing. Under the recommenda-

tion of the reclassification committee it is proposed to appoint one officer who shall be known as superintendent of supplies.
William Stevens Fielding: A new appointment?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The position will be new and all purchasing power in that department will be vested in the Superintendent of Supplies. I am instructed by the Civil Service Commissioners that that does not involve any new appointment; it is merely a re-arrangement of the present offices and the duties pertaining thereto. The purchasing power now vested in the Superintendent of Printing, the Superintendent of Stationery and the Superintendent of Outside Printing will, when this Bill passes, be vested only in a Superintendent of Supplies.


William Stevens Fielding: What will become of the other two officials?


Hugh Guthrie: They have their duties
as described in this Bill and in the Act. They will be custodians of the supplies and will have the disposal of them, but the purchasing power is taken away from them.
The other clauses in the Bill are merely by way of amendment to the present Act in order that the provisions of this new Act may be made properly applicable. In the printing of the Bill two subsections were omitted which should be inserted. The Bill provides that section 24 shall be repealed. Section 24 should be re-enacted to provide for the introduction of the name of the new official that I have mentioned. In the committee stage I shall move to add two new subsections to 31A.
Motion (Mr. Guthrie) agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3-Superintendent of Supplies to have charge of custody and supply of stationery.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What becomes of this
Outside purchasing agent? Does he take this new position, or does he go out of office?


Hugh Guthrie: He continues in his position as Superintendent of Outside Printing, but he is deprived of any power of purchase.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the meaning of "Superintendent, of Outside Printing"? I understand it to have reference to the supervision of Government printing done outside the Bureau-in Winnipeg, for instance, or Halifax. Is that his work?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, that is the work he does now and will continue to do. But as I have said, he has been in the habit of making purchases. Under this Bill the purchasing power will be placed in the hands of a single official; the Superintendent of Stationery will lose any power to purchase which the former Act gave him, as will the Superintendent of Printing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-section relating to requisitions repealed.
Mr. GUTHRIE Section 24 of the present Act reads: "All purchases made by the Superintendent of Stationery." As the power to purchase has been taken away from the Superintendent of Stationery, section 24 should be re-enacted as section 30a, subsection 2, and in its new .form will read: "All purchases made by the Superintendent of Supplies."
James Alexander Robb: At the last session we voted the money that the Government considered necessary to carry on the business of the Printing Bureau. This session we are to be asked to. vote 1276,000. In view of the proposed changes, the minister should make a full explanation of what is involved in this proposed expenditure.


Hugh Guthrie: The item that appears in the Estimates is for the reorganization of the Printing Bureau to carry out the recommendations of a special committee which made an investigation into the conditions prevailing in that department. The committee has reported that the services of 402 persons employed in the Bureau may be dispensed with and an annual saving of approximately half a million dollars, thus effected. The question arises what to do with the 402 employees. The scheme which the committee has reported involves an expenditure of $276,000, the amount which appears in the Estimates. The proposal is to superannuate these men for a period of five years. The employees are divided into several classes. Those who are under 45 years of age and who have worked in the Bureau for three years are entitled -I am speaking from memory-to a month's notice and a month's pay. Those between the ages of 45 and 55 are more liberally dealt with; and those between the ages of 55 and 65 more liberally still. Those over 65 who have been in the Bureau over ten years are entitled to a pension, equal, I believe, to half their wage or salary. To release these 402 employees involves the expend-

iture of the amount mentioned in the Estimates. Basing the figures on an actuarial table, the committee estimates that at the end of five years the total amount which the country will have had to pay is $276,000, the amount to be spent in the coming year being about $80,000. The saving effected will be half a million a year, and more when these payments cease. But this is a matter which can better be discussed when this item in the Estimates is taken up.


William Stevens Fielding: The scheme is not before us and we cannot really discuss it now, but when we reach it I am afraid the chief objection will be that we are going to create a -superannuation system for one branch of the Government service while neglecting all the other branches. With regard to the puchase of supplies, may I inquire whether it is contemplated that the Superintendent- of Supplies shall buy printing machinery?


Hugh Guthrie: I should think it would include presses, electrotyping machinery, and the like. Section 24, which is to be re-enacted, sets forth in what way the purchases are to be made.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: The section says:
"All materials and supplies required for printing, binding" and so on. I would say that that does not include machinery.


Hugh Guthrie: Presses and type would be required for printing.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Yes, but they are not supplies or materials required for printing. When you are dealing with an industrial exploitation you have the matter of machinery, supplies and materials to consider; each would be in a separate category.


William Stevens Fielding: Why not insert the
word "machinery" if that is the intention?


Hugh Guthrie: I really cannot say
definitely whether the idea of the Commissioners was that this agent should have the power to buy machinery. I am advised by one of my colleagues that that was not their idea; I thought it was. However, I would rather not change the language of the Bill; it is just as it was drawn by the Commission.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Superintendent of Supplies to purchase stationery, etc. and be responsible for outside work.
Hugh Guthrie: I move that the word
"one" in line twenty-one be struck out,

so that the sentence will read, "after section thirty thereof", and that "30A" be substituted for "31A" in line 22.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move to add two subsections, 2 and 3, to 30A. Subsection 2 is a re-enactment of section 24 of the Act embodying the appropriate changes of language. It will read:
(2)	All purchases made by the Superintendent of .Supplies shall be so made upon requisition approved by the minister or as he directs, and, in the case of printing paper for parliamentary printing-, the Canada Gazette, and departmental reports, in accordance with contracts entered into with the like approval after tenders have been called for.
Subsection 3 will be:
(3)	All such purchases made on the authority of requisitions duly approved by the minister or as he directs shall be paid after audit by the accountant.
There has heretofore been no provision-for the auditing of the Printing Branch. While the Auditor General audited the Stationery Branch, he did not audit the Printing Branch, holding that he had no authority to do so. Subsection (3) is to provide that the Auditotr (General shall audit both the Printing Branch and the Stationery Branch.


William Stevens Fielding: The section my hon.
friend has read makes it clear that tenders must he called for in the matter of printing paper but in nothing else.


Hugh Guthrie: YTes, that is it.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it wise to have
reform in the matter of printing paper, but go on in the old way with everything else?


Hugh Guthrie: Printing paper is the
largest item. Other articles are purchased in very much smaller quantities and do not involve anything like the amount involved in the purchase of printing paper. There is also a general law in regard to purchases.


William Stevens Fielding: Then we do not need
this.


Hugh Guthrie: I am informed it is only a departmental law.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is right in saying printing paper is a large item, but pretty nearly all items are large these days. Ink, for instance, is a large item. Suppose we take my hon. friend's -assumption is right, and that this covers machinery. The purchase of a new printing press might run into a very large sum of

money, higfier than the cost of printing paper. The purchase of type and type material and a lot of other things well known to those who are familiar with the newspaper business also involves a considerable expenditure. Printing paper is a large item, but there are several others, and I can see no reason for the system of tender and contract for printing paper and not for anything else.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why not extend the
system of tender and contract to all supplies of the departments? Would that be embarrassing?


Hugh Guthrie: I think there should be some limitation. You would not ask for tenders, for instance, in a small purchase of lead pencils or mucilage.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest that
the minister advance the Bill as far as possible but leave it in committee, so that he may discuss the matter with his experts. Certainly I think there ought to be some limitation to buying other things than printing paper without tender and contract.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a regulation now in force, which affects all departments, requiring the minister's sanction where the purchase is in excess of $500. That may have been by Order in Council. Then in the case of public works in excess of $5,000 tenders, must be asked for. I do not know whether it refers to materials or not.


William Stevens Fielding: If there is a general rule covering everything there is no need for this provision, and if we are going to deal with printing paper we should deal with other items at the same time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister will understand that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned our opinion is that the general rule should be tender and contract. Of course, we do not want tenders called for in case of a small purchase of lead pencils or anything of that sort.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) Bill No. 38, to amend the Immigration Act was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-free transportation of Immigration officers:
William Stevens Fielding: Has there been an explanation of this Bill? It might be called a deadhead Bill.


James Alexander Calder: No, it is a live one. The explanation is this: Our immigration offcers board the trains crossing the border in order to see that the provisions of the Immigration Act are carried out. Under the law, if we chose we could stop every train at the border until that work was done, but by agreement with the railway companies our officers board the trains and travel for a certain distance in order to avoid delaying, the train. When our Immigration Act was amended last session, the section providing for the transportation of these officers was cut out, or it was cut out of the Railway Act. The result is that we must pay for the transportation of our officers when they travel on these trains, and that will mean a very great expense. If we do not provide for free transportation, the only thing left for us to do will be to stop the trains at the border.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the term "transportation" defined by the Railway Act or some other act?


James Alexander Calder: It is defined in the Immigration Act.


William Stevens Fielding: It refers to railway transportation only?


James Alexander Calder: I think it covers steamboats.


William Stevens Fielding: There might be some reason for this legislation in the case of trains crossing the boundary, but there is no limit to this. All immigration officers can deadhead all over Canada under this provision.


James Alexander Calder: That is not the intention.


William Stevens Fielding: The intention of all statutes is gathered from the documents themselves, as my hon. friend's legal advisers will tell him. The course covered by this measure does not seem to me a very dignified proceeding. I think it is one of those things that might better be done by arrangement in a friendly way than by legal enactment, if the Minister says it is very important. We have gone a long way when we make the railway companies deadhead members of Parliament, and to make them deadhead a lot of our officials strikes me as not a very dignified proceeding.


James Alexander Calder: The Act passed last session precludes any friendly arrangement.


William Stevens Fielding: Another case of defeating our own laws.


James Alexander Calder: In the Railway Act last
session provision was made for free transportation to certain persons, and the section did not include immigration officers. This is intended to apply only to immigration officers who are working along the border and have to travel back and forth.


William Stevens Fielding: Could you not define
that in the Bill? The clause is very ugly as it is.


James Alexander Calder: It reads, " in connection with their official duties."
Mr. MdMASTER: Though I suppose we could not ask a company to carry a Canadian citizen over an American railway line, still, as far as Highwater on the Boston and Maine, I imagine he could be carried free of charge. I agree with the hon. member, (Mr. Fielding), that it does not look well for us to state that, as a matter of law, transportation companies shall have the right to carry Canadian officials free of charge.


James Alexander Calder: We might stipulate "in
connection with their official duties along the international boundary line."


William Stevens Fielding: Some such provision would do.
Mr. A. K. MA'CLEAN: What about entering ports?


James Alexander Calder: The only places where
this is necessary are along our rivers where ferries run internationally and trains cross the border.
Mr. McMAS'TER: A man might get on at Highwater on the Boston and Maine and stay on perhaps until he reached Cowans-ville twenty or thirty miles further up the line, and your amendment would have to be sufficiently wide to cover the transportation.
Mr. CALDER. In the case of ships on the iSt. Lawrence, our officers very often go down stream a considerable distance. They used to get on at Rimouski and go to Quebec. On the Pacific coast, some of our officers go to Victoria and then cross to Vancouver. It seems to me that the matter would be a little difficult to cover. It is not the intention to apply this to inland travelling. So far as the other departments are concerned it has been eliminated. I do not think the railway companies should

be required to transport Government officials on Government business free of charge, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that that is not the intention in this case.


William Stevens Fielding: I accept the ministers's statement in regard to the intention, but a stranger reading our Act would consider this a strange provision.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In travelling on the
Grand Trunk would a Government official, say a Customs officer, have to pay Ms way between Montreal and Windsor, for instance, after the railway becomes our own?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: On our own railway? That is strange.


William Stevens Fielding: Is there anything to show that this applies to local border traffic?


James Alexander Calder: I am not sure of that.


John Allister Currie: Do American officials who travel on our road on the border pay their fares?


James Alexander Calder: They all have transportation, which is a great convenience to the railway companies. The American officers have the right to stop a train crossing the border, but instead of doing that an arrangement is made with the railway companies on both sides whereby the officers travel on the trains and do their business.
Mr. 'CURRIE: Do our officers travel on American trains?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is in the interests of the transportation companies that everything should be done to facilitate the work of the customs and immigration officers, and on that principle this provision is necessary.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite agree with that, but I had hoped that a friendly arrangement could be arrived at. The minister, however, says that owing to the strictness of the Railway Act of last year we practically prohibit such an arrangement. If that is the case I think he has to amend the present law.


James Alexander Calder: Perhaps this provision
might be made: " Transportation companies shall furnish immigration officers such free transportation as may be required in connection with the examination by them of persons entering Canada."


Mr. McKBNZIE:: I think it is better as it is.


Mr. KAY:: This would apply to American officers coming to Canada on their official business?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: If in another Act there is a definite prohibition to the granting of free transportation to all persons except certain classes mentioned, should not you say in this Act: "Notwithstanding anything contained in "-such and such an Act?


James Alexander Calder: This is the more recent legislation and overrides the other.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: On that principle it is not necessary. But is it not expedient, in order to show that it is not a mere contradiction, but that in drafting this provision the legislature had clearly in mind a certain enactment in spite of what had been previously enacted?


James Alexander Calder: If the committee desires it, that addition might be made.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: On that point I would put myself in the hands of the Minister of Justice. .


Charles Joseph Doherty: The effect would be absolutely the same. By putting in " Notwithstanding " you would get the advantage of directing public attention to the fact that this Parliament knew what it was doing and wanted to tell every one that it knew what it was doing. But if you left it just as it is the legal effect would be absolutely the same, and perhaps the public would assume that we knew what we were doing when we did it, and were in effect repealing or modifying the provisions of a preceding law. I think there is more occasion for the " notwithstanding " when you are making some special provision that runs counter to some other provisions of the same Act with which you are concerned. But every provision of law that modifies pre-existing legislation takes effect, " notwithstanding."
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called :
House in Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the resolution in respect to the acquisition by His Majesty of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada be amended by adding thereto the following proposed resolution :-
" 12. That the Government may make, out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, any expenditure necessary in the preparation for, and conduct of, the arbitration proceeding herein provided for."-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move, Mr. Speaker, that Order No. 10 be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Georges Henri Boivin: 'I have the honour to inform t'he House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill No. 33, an Act respecting the acquisition by His Majesty of the Grand Trunk Railway system, with amendments. It is not customary to read the amendments, but to meet the wishes of certain hon. members and with the unanimous consent of the House, I shall do so. The amendments are as follows:
1.	In clause 6, page 3, line 19.-After " Canada " insert the following:

" The value, if any, so determined shall not be greater than an amount on which the annual dividend at four per cent per annum on the aggregate face value of the present guaranteed stock and the new guaranteed stock taken together would exceed (5,000,000. The fixing of this limit shall not be taken by the arbitrators as any admission or indication that the value to be determined is the amount so fixed, or any other amount."
2.	In clause 10, page 4, line 46.-For "stocks" substitute " stock."
3.	Page 5. After clause 11.-Insert the following as clause 12 :-
" 12. For the purpose of the valuation provided in this Act, the obligations of the Grand Trunk as guarantors of any indebtedness of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or of the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company or otherwise and the claims of the Government of the Dominion of Canada against either of the above mentioned companies or against any company forming part of the Grand Trunk Railway System shall not be treated as extinguished or affected by anything contained in this Act."



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 9 to amend the House ol Commons Act, and to provide that polling days at elections shall be public holidays-Mr. Jacobs-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: This Bill has already been considered in committee as amended by the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and as further amended by the committee of the whole House.



On section 1, paragraph 11a,-on vacancy occurring writ to issue within six months:


William Stevens Fielding: Could this Bill not be reprinted in its amended form?


Georges Henri Boivin: The entire Bill as
amended may be found in Hansard, page 1433, unrevised edition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If my memory serves
me, the Bill had been dealt with in its entirety by the committee but was held for consideration of the suggestion that paragraph 11a as amended by the Privileges and Elections Committee should be amended by striking out the words which limit the application of the clause to vacancies occurring by reason of the death of any member, or by reason of his accepting any office. Then the clause will be applicable in the case of a vacancy however occurring. We have considered that suggestion, but as the Bill is not a Government measure I do not desire myself to move the amendment. This is the Bill presented by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), who is presently represented, I understand, by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master). As far as the Government is concerned it is quite prepared to abide by the decision of the committee as to whether that amendment should or should not be made.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: In the absence of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) I would ask the committee to consent to this amendment mentioned by the Minister of Justice. It would appear to me to be wise that this provision, ordering a by-election to take place within a certain time, should operate no matter how the vacancy occurred. I would therefore move that the words " by reason of the death of any member or by reason of his accepting any office " should be stricken out.


John Allister Currie: Excepting any office under the Crown.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: It says "any office." The clause would then read:
In the event of a vacancy occurring a writ shall he issued within six months after the receipt by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery of the warrant for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member of the House of Commons.
No matter how the vacancy occurred the writ for the new election must be issued within six months after the vacancy occurs.


William Stevens Fielding: Is that quite clear?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I think so. It may be possibly necessary or advisable to put in after the words " in the event of a vacancy occurring " the words " in the membership of the House ". I would think that as we are amending the House of Commons Act, when we say " in the event of a vacancy occurring " it would be taken to mean that it was a vacancy in the membership of the House.	.


William Stevens Fielding: Six months after what?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Six months after the receipt by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery of the warrant for the issue of a new writ.


William Stevens Fielding: It does not say six months after the vacancy occurs but it says six months after

?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: After the receipt by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery-


William Stevens Fielding: Of what?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Of the warrant for the issue of a new writ. Just as soon as the member dies, or resigns, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery issues his writ. But his writ is not acted upon until the Order in Council for the new election is passed by the Cabinet. As I understand it, the purport of the law as amended is that within six months after the issue of the warrant ordering a new election the issue of the writ shall take place.


William Stevens Fielding: It says nothing whatever about the issuing of.the warrant; it says within six months of the time that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery receives something. What does he receive?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He gets the Speaker's warrant. I have sent for the Elections Act. This clause is to be inserted in the Elections Act, and I think if we had the Act here and read this as following immediately after what precedes it in the Election Act, it would become perfectly clear that the vacancy referred to is a vacancy in the membership of the House of Commons. We would also find there a provision as to the Speaker's issuing his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.


William Stevens Fielding: If the amendment is
worded properly and the six months dates from that, I can understand it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it will be so
found, but I have sent for the Act to be certain. The last time I had it, it seemed to read clearly.


William Stevens Fielding: I am content if the
Minister says it is all right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to be
too positive but to me it seemed to be clear.


William Stevens Fielding: If it is dear that the
Speaker's warrant is referred to, that is all right.
M,r. CURRIE:	I would suggest that as
the whole Elections Act is to be revised within two or three months there is no use in cutting chunks out of it now and wasting the time of the House. As soon as the war is over the Wartime Elections Act expires and it is possible that within a few months the whole Elections Act will have to be overhauled and amended.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might point out to
the hon. gentleman that we are not now dealing with the Elections Act or any amendments to it. What we are considering is an amendment to the House of Commons Act.
THE CHAIRMAN: Clause 2 of the Bill has been struck out entirely.
tMir. McMASTER:	I think paragraph 11
(b) has yet to be dealt with.


Georges Henri Boivin: That was adopted
when the Bill was before the iCommittee on a previous occasion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We adopted it the
other evening. The Bill merely stood in Committee so that the point in doubt might be cleared up. I might perhaps say that if it should be found that the language is not perfectly clear, although my impression is that it is, I will see that such wording is made in the Bill in the Senate as will remove all doubt. But I will be surprised if my opinion is not correct on that subject.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps the Senate
may have a little hesitation in undertaking to amend the House of Commons Act, although the Upper House does remarkable things now.
Bill as amended reported.


Georges Henri Boivin: When shall
the said Bill be read a third time?


John Allister Currie: If there is a possibility of changes in the wording of the Bill being made by the Law Officers of the House, I would suggest that the third reading go over to another day. It would certainly be irregular to make any changes in the Bill after it' has been read a third time.
121i


Georges Henri Boivin: I had understood that if changes were to be made they would be made in the Senate, but if the hon. member insists' the motion for the third reading must stand.


John Allister Currie: I think that will be preferable.
Mr. Mc'MASTER: May I address you on that point, Mr. Speaker. With all due modesty and deference I suggest that the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is wrong if he maintains that the third reading cannot be had at the same sitting of the House at which a Bill has been discussed in Committee. It is true that such procedure is not usual, and it is discouraged by writers on constitutional and parliamentary law, but it is not, as a matter of fact, illegal or unconstitutional.


John Allister Currie: I have no desire to discuss the point at all, but what I am arguing is that we shall adhere to what has always been the custom of the House. The point I raise is this: If we permit the Law Officers of the House, or any other person, to make an amendment to a Bill after it has been read the third time, we are going to open the door to very many abuses. That is the only reason I have for holding the Bill up. That is .a bad practice to start here, and I do not-think the Government should permit-it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I must correct the hon. gentleman on one point. I did not suggest that the Law Officers, or anybody connected with this House should make any alterations in the Bill after the motion for the third reading had been adopted. What I did suggest was this: That if it should be found that the wording of the Bill is not perfectly clear, then in the Senate that wording should be placed beyond all doubt. That would not involve a change by the officers of the House. Furthermore, if the Senate did amend the Bill that amendment would have to come back here and we would then have an opportunity to consider it. The hon. gentleman, as I understand it, is within his right if he thinks there is any good purpose to be served by preventing the expediting of business to the extent proposed; but if he rests his case simply upon his apprehension that any alteration wouild be made in the Bill by any officer of the House, I might assure him that it is not contemplated at all and certainly will not be done.


John Allister Currie: With your permission,
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the

proper procedure in respect of all House of Commons Bills is that they should be amended in this House. Before they are finally passed they are supposed- to be reviewed by the Law Officer of the House to see that the language is proper and that there is nothing of a wrongful character in the Bill. An officer is employed specially for that purpose and he reports on all these Bills. Of late years the practice has grown up of introducing Bills to correct some error in other Bills-1 think we have had one or two of that character this session. Now, I think it is well to adhere to the procedure that has prevailed for many years past, and that is for the Law Officer of the House to pass upon all Bills between the second and third reading and if any verbal errors are discovered they should be corrected. Our legislation should go to the Senate in proper form and not have the Upper House sending Bills back here in order to have verbal amendments made to them. That is my object in the .stand I am taking. I have no desire to hold up legislation, but I think my suggestion is a proper one and is in accord with the usages of this. House. If the minister is satisfied that the Bill is correct I am quite willing to let it go,, but the Senate is constantly making changes in our Bills on the ground that they are not worded in good English or that they contain errors, I therefore thought it right to make sure that this Bill was correctly worded and was in proper form before sending it to the Senate.


William Stevens Fielding: I believe it is a well
understood rule that unless very grave urgency exists the third reading of a Bill ought not to be proceeded with at the same sitting as the committee state. I think there is no great urgency in this matter. The world will wag on even if we have to wait for the third reading of this Bill until tomorrow.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Even if there is no
urgency, some of us would 'like to wag away so soon as we conveniently might without any detriment to the public business. However, if the hon. gentleman insists upon his objection, I do not want to press the matter.


Georges Henri Boivin: When shall the said Bill be read a third time?


William Stevens Fielding: At the next sitting of the House. Then the Minister of Justice can have a chance to look into the point which is in doubt.

On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty for the adjournment of the House:


Peter H. McKenzie: May I ask what business will be taken up to-morrow?


Charles Joseph Doherty: All that now remains on the Order Paper are two Bills that are connected with prohibition. The Bills which were read a first time to-day will also be taken up to-morrow. They will be on the Order Paper for second reading. We have perhaps no assurance, but we would like to entertain the hope, that we will be able to dispose of all of these measures tenmorrow.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then the Minister of Justice is really going on with the Temperance Bills to-morrow?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, I think I can say we are really going on with those Bills tomorrow as we have always really intended they should be gone on with.


William Stevens Fielding: May we expect that the Grand Trunk Bill will be reprinted with amendments so that we will have them before us to-morrow?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the amendments will be printed in the Votes and Proceedings to-morrow. They will also appear in Hansard.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.26 p.m.
Saturday, November 8, 1919.